The key point of the Kobayashi Maru, as I understand it, was not the impossibility of winning, but Captain Kirk's going outside the system to cheat for a win.
This magical thinking on the part of the left, repeats like a chant from the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (sp?)"They just didn't do it right. We will do it right."
This is religious in nature AND it is being established in government - now who is violating the Establishment Clause?
There is not a bit of rationality in this ongoing desire to plunge headlong into socialism.
It has failed everywhere it is tried. It has removed liberty and actively repressed the citizens who live under it. It starves them, reduces the promised services and drives whatever real economy there is underground.
The idea of man as perfect being is a religious idea, which is not supported by observable reality.
Those of my persuasion (Christian) would say, but of course, man is fallen - it is his natural state and that faith is involved in the limited fix which can be put in place in this life. I have no illusions that there will be times in my life when I manage to be an a--. Difference I know this and that it is unavoidable. It cannot be eliminated only reduced.
One of the founding fathers said something to the effect that men band together to protect each other and their property.
Socialism attempts to perfect man by taking his property. In the end there is no property left, only a polluted East Germany and starving people devoid of hope.
When we step into the arena of ideas to discuss the nature of man, it quickly becomes essentially a religious discussion. Only history is in any way instructive - the rest is gobbledegook. History tells us that free people are the most productive and that production is the best way to provide for said free people. History is very clear that socialism produces nothing - not freedom and not food/clothing/housing...
The Kobayashi Maru is an attempt to "cheat" by going outside the system. Getting metaphysical about the nature of man as a solution to the problem of production - is a fools game.
I haven't bought Goldberg's book yet, but from discussions on the National Review site, it seems he's formalized a view I've had for a long time.
For a Socialist/Communist government to survive it requires the suppresion of individual rights and the supremacy of the state. This ideology has been responsible for the deaths of millions of people killed by their own governments.
For a Facist/NAZI government to survive it requires the suppresion of individual rights and the supremacy of the state. This ideology has been responsible for the deaths of millions of people killed by their own governments.
Hence, there is no practical difference between the 2 for the individual citizen. The differences between Socialism and Facism are mere theological debating points, of interest only to Academics and other adherents to these secular religions.
Except for the fact that the NAZIs and Facists tend to have neater looking uniforms. It may be an ugly style, but at least they have a style compared to the drab grayness of the Communists.
I've recently finished Mr. Goldberg's book. It's quite good, although at times, Mr. Goldberg tends to beat a dead horse. That being said, of all the examples in history that Mr. Goldberg uses, I kept thinking of Kevin's phrase "do it again, only this time do it harder!".
One of the things that worries me in all of this is the penchant for the fallen human being to want to be on the side that wins (or looks to be winning at the moment). This helps explain why so many Germans went along with the Nazi government... add that part of it all to the national socialist vision, and to the cultlike mentality BHO's campaign has fostered and embraced, and we end up with the most serious threat to our life and liberty in the entire history of the Republic. Voting for McCain is not going to be the "Katie bar the door" answer that many on the conservative side think it will be either. As you have so ably pointed out in your post, Bush is not a Lockean, nor is McCain. He'd burn the Constitution to further his own vision of what's right for America just as quickly as BHO would burn it for his.
The last 16 or 20 years is a story of continual compromise, but instead of being a win-win with everyone getting a piece, we're left with but a piece of what we started with. Oh sure, we still have a piece... and by golly, there's that nice man again promising me he can give me a better government and a better life, if I just give him another part of the piece I have left. And he'll fix my, and America's, broken soul.
The audacity of hope? Nah. The audacity of bullcrap. And as Wal-Mart proves every day, Americans will line up in flocks to buy cheap foreign crap every day of the week. Doesn't even matter if it comes in a red box or a blue box.
No, I don't. There is only so much one man can do. It's really up to us in the end. His job is to defend the Constitution, which has had a bic lighter being flicked it by Cheney the last seven years.
I am working on a piece on my blog that will address this in more detail.
"His job is to defend the Constitution, which has had a bic lighter being flicked it by Cheney the last seven years."
Anyone who has listened to anything Obama has ever said and who thinks he is going to do anything that even remotely resembles defending the Constitution is simply delusional.
He will keep everything passed by the current administration and add more of his own. He will then turn in inwards in ways that Bush could never get away with, and get nothing but applause for it. Same goes for Hillary and the Manchurian Candidate. There is simply no way to impliment and administer their socialist program without it.
If you honestly think that Obama is going to be another one of these guys
Another point goes whistling over Mark's head.
The point isn't that Obama would be like them, it was a refutation of you saying "one man can only do so much". In this case, by pointing to several examples of men who had done a great deal [of evil] by virtue of their charismatic leadership.
You see Mark, you would argue for Bush/Cheney in that list - then turn around and say "but my guy is pure of heart and soul and will not use that power for evil".
You shouldn't even be teaching dogs, much less children.
So far, my view is that it confirms and extends my own research into the matter.
If anything, it's filling in some blanks, and explaining some mysteries.
I, for one, was a little complacent in accepting the whitewash of Woodrow Wilson's presidency, and underestimating the effect that's had on our history.
In the past, I normally traced constitutional degeneracy back to FDR, but it was Wilson, "The Sage of New Jersey", (of course...) who made the radical break from classical liberalism's restrained government, and who prepped the stage for FDR.
It will be interesting, I think, for me to revisit that essay after I'm done with the Liberal Fascism book.
As for people who any Rousseaunian is willing or capable of understanding or defending the Constitution as written and intended, and who believe that constitutional degeneracy begins w/ Bush & Cheney well, I can get y'all a great deal on a bridge in Brooklyn...
I wonder how many on the left will note that this little nugget -- We get change because folks from the grass roots up decide they are sick and tired of other people telling them how their lives will be -- was, I'm assuming, said without any sense of irony at all.
As in the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms?
Without those arms, the "grassroots" can descide they are sick and tired all they want. They will be powerless to do anything about it.
Or do you think that your vote means anything without the Bill of Rights (ALL of it) to protect you.
The Constitution and the Amendments carry only as much weight as the people give it. You are worried about the Veep flicking his Bic in too close a proximity to the Constitution? Try holding the swiss cheese which the courts have made of the Constitution up as a shield and see how well it stops the whips, bludgeons and bullets of a government out of control under an ideological extremist like Obama.
The last 16 or 20 years is a story of continual compromise
This is what worries me the most I think. We've seen the erosion of freedom in this country gradually, inch by inch. Had there been some kind of violent revolution instead... well, I think it would have been easier to defeat the anti-freedom movement had they revolted or rioted or something. This slow erosion is hard to fight because each inch we give way doesn't seem like much. And then we look back and see the miles we've lost from giving away each inch so very often. It's got to stop before we've lost everything.
"kevin, thinkers and writers like you (and your correspondents) go a long way toward encouraging real thought and discourse in this age of the sheep, and that is the scariest thing there is to the obama mob mentality that is sweeping our beloved America."
that was a statement i made in a response to one of your earlier posts, mark...this excellent post and its responses make it ring true.
are you getting it yet, markadelphia?
you are scared, arent' you?
the charismatic's reign will be short, and freedom, and the Constitution, and America, will survive...jtc
Mark, you somewhat misunderstood the point I was trying to make. (Stalin, etc.) Obama shares the ideology of Hitler, Stalin and company. Socialism. The only question is, is he a pragmatist like Hitler and company or is he still just in the idealistic stage of socialism. If he chooses to remain nothing more than an idealistic socialist the worst he can probably do is ruin our economy. That's probably bad enough but chances are none of us will end up in the gulag. If however he becomes a pragmatic socialist, heads will roll because he will have to do away with the competition. So, am I willing to bet which type of socialist Obama will turn ou to be? Maybe you want to roll the dice but not me!
"my guy is pure of heart and soul and will not use that power for evil"
Well, he won't. The question, juris, is if you are going to admit that he hasn't or if you are going to invent things to spin him as evil, which has been the conservative play book re: Karl Rove.
He will, however, make mistakes. At least he will have the sack to admit when he is wrong and take responsibility for it, which is more than I can say for most people of the right thinking ilk.
Dennis, got an idea for you. This goes for everyone, since we all like the science angle so much. Currently we have an hypothesis that Barack Obama shares the ideology of socialism (Hitler, Stalin,and company). Now, isn't it true that, with any good hypothesis, you must examine the negative, if not prove it to truly test whether or not it is a sound theory?
So, go out and show me how Obama is NOT a socialist...like Hitler or Stalin. Show me the ways he is farthest from that, based on his writings, his words, his actions, and his plans. Then we'll see how sound this hypothesis is...
Don't worry about it too much. Mark got caught by that rhetorical device several times - he doesn't really understand it, as LabRat has noted, he's cargoculting, but that's why he's flailing now.
(He also refused to answer the points put to him by that device, and left those points alone.)
Mark: You're in a serious hole here, and I'd tell you to stop digging, but hell, you're closer to the other side of the earth now than the surface you started from, so, keep going bro. Obama would be proud that you kept going.
Honest to gawd, I have encountered some clueless people in my time, but Mark-boy, you take the cake.
The question, juris, is if you are going to admit that he hasn't or if you are going to invent things to spin him as evil,
Up your ass chump. You can't even understand the plain language I put before you.
The funny thing is the discussion I had over lunch with a Democratic (Hillary-supporting) friend of mine. I was commenting on how much Obama was emulating Reagan - campaign-wise obviously. I'm not particularly worried about Obama as President because he won't accomplish much - Congress will see to that.
And the frustrated cluetards of the left will have to stew in their juices - just as the social cons did during the Reagan years.
At least he will have the sack to admit when he is wrong and take responsibility for it, which is more than I can say for most people of the right thinking ilk.
Well goddam boy, that's more then you can say for YOURSELF! And to be perfectly frank, since you are so bad at this, I withhold judging Obama's ability based on your say-so.
Lessee here...
How is Obama not like Hitler/Stalin/Mao?
hmmm..
English is his native tongue.
He was born in America.
He is black.
He is graduate of a US university.
In terms of his paper thin policies?
Everything I have seen including his absolutely loony 5 mile radius gun store exclusion zone for middle and high schools (Not grade schools? You have to take your chances until you hit the 6/7th grade?). With the density of schools this is an underhanded method of gun control, by making it darned near impossible to locate a store anywhere near customers. Obama clearly does not get the "shall not be infringed" bit.
All of the above needed/desired/got an unarmed and vulnerable populace to supress/enslave/kill.
If I can interrupt the regularly scheduled Mark-smacking…
There was a point brought up that I think is incredibly important: that fascism fills a deep emotional need in people that Lockean government does not.
This is of a piece with economists focusing on the abstraction of the Rational Man and making positive prescriptions that real people often do not tolerate in practice.
Emotion is not a defect in thinking. It can cause decisions that are not rational, to be sure; but many of these decisions tend to be meta-rational, for example norms of reciprocity and sacrifice for the sake of the group. More importantly, without an emotional component to thought, there would be no impetus for action of any kind. Emotion is the engine of change.
For good government and economic policy to survive in the long run, we're going to have to do better at understanding what motivates people, how they think, and what they want out of life—and then retool our approach to fit.
One thing that I haven't seen you speak of, Kevin, is the importance of tradition and history. That is something that the fascists have always understood (if not a real tradition, then a fabricated one, or else the attraction of making history.)
The truth hurts I know. He sure changed my friend's mind though. He did extensive research. Facts can not be denied. You have to at least read his interview with Salon.com before you can dismiss him. Remember, Liberals are smart and like to read the facts. Right?
I too am about halfway through Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism. It is a temendous accomplishment, and fills in some history I was unaware of. Like the Geekwitha45, I was unaware of some of the Wilsonian stuff, though I had put the turning point at Teddy Roosevelt rather than FDR.
In any case, one of the points Goldberg is making is that we're all fascists now. Whether it is the Left, with its National Universal Health system, or the Right with its Anti-Abortion, most of us view the Government as the tool to solve problems for which the Government is ill suited. Whether or not Lockean philosophy is emotionally satifying, we need to insist, loudly, on more of it if we are ever again to have limited government, personal liberty, and propery rights in this country.
I hope that Markadelphia actually reads Liberal Fascism. As Godberg points out, in the 20s and 30s, before the Holocaust, fascism was viewed very favorably by liberals and leftists. Social Security, the 40 hour work week, child labor laws, and a number of other things we all take for granted now, came out of this movement. The problem with it, however, is the totalitarian temptation to decide that things that seem good to many are good for all. Then having made that leap, to decide that everyone, everywhere, must toe the line-which leads to PC speech codes, the rising number of felony laws, gun control, and other nasty things, all designed to control the individual at every step. And yes, Obama is preaching a very fascist program in a classic charismatic way. I would think that he had studied Mussolini, he is doing it that well.
Well, I would disagree, except on consideration, you're correct if you accept that making decisions based on emotion represents a lack of thinking.
That's why the concept of the rule of law is important, and the Constitution as a document enumerating rights that exist outside of any government dictat, it removes, as much as possible, emotion from the concept of how govvernment ought to run in a free society.
Emotion is usually why "hard cases make bad law", and why I tend to tune out (or at least not take as seriously) folks that start discussions on issues with "I feel" instead of "I think". (in reality there's a gray area there, and I catch myself doing it too sometimes, but I consider it a good general principle).
Tradition is not necessairly based on emotion, although traditions can cause emotional reactions, but are based on "what worked" at some time in the past. The emotional reaction is one reason changing traditions when they no longer work is so hard.
So, maybe emotion isn't a "defect" so much as a human condition that needs to be taken into account and worked around to build a functioning, free society. And recognizing that the rule of law is important in keeping society from being run by emotions (aka Direct Democracy, aka Mob Rule).
"as President because he won't accomplish much - Congress will see to that."
Do you mean the Congress that will be overwhelmingly Democratic, possibly even filibuster proof?
Thanks, Rob, for being the only one to attempt my exercise. Anyone else care to test the negative? I thought we were all rooted in science here, c'mon!
>>So, go out and show me how Obama is NOT a socialist...
NO.
That is NOT how debate works.
If Markadelphia wants to take the position that Obama is not a socialist, Markadelphia must actually declare that he takes that position, and then he must defend it.
Alternately, those who wish to take the position that Obama IS a socialist must also declare and defend that position.
As presented, Markadelphia offers only a means to take a position without either owning up to it or defending it.
Craven, intellectually slothful, and dishonest are all phrases that all consequently come to mind.
---------------------
As for science (which this is NOT, it is a feeble attempt for Markadelphia to cloak his non position with the mantle and gravitas of science), one does not "examine the negative".
At its simplest, one stringently formulates a "null hypothesis", which one can either reject, or fail to reject.
It is done in this way for serious purposes, to prevent certain fundamental errors of logic and science, which aren't relevant here, since Markadelphia's proposition never was about science in the first place.
This is what I'm talking about—the presumption that "emotion" as such is something that detracts from "proper" thought. This is why conservatives often come off as heartless and selfish.
Which is not to say that people don't make bad decisions for emotional reasons. I'm in financial planning, we deal with that all the time :-)
The problem is the Greek dichotomy between reason and emotion—a dichotomy that is badly flawed. The truth is that while reason can help you analyze a situation and even guide you to what you should be doing in that situation, reason will not make you take action. That is the task of emotion.
People who are nearly emotionless (as opposed to people with a tight control over their emotions), such as addicts of one sort or another, are dominated by inertia. They do not take action to change their circumstances or the trajectory of their lives.
On the other hand, people who are highly emotional often make life-changing personal commitments that seem rash to outside observers. (They might change their minds tomorrow, of course.)
Emotions are the source of motivation. Reason, as such, does not motivate people; what does happen is that your reason comes to a particular conclusion, you examine that conclusion, and your emotions translate the conclusion into an impetus for behavior.
The key for a person is to make sure that the logical mind exerts control over the emotional mind, and not the other way around. But this does not mean suppressing your emotions, far from it. It means training your emotions to get excited over the right things.
Or, to put it more pragmatically, Lockeans are as stuck with the humans we've got rather than the humans we'd like to have as Rousseauians are- emotional ones.
"The key for a person is to make sure that the logical mind exerts control over the emotional mind, and not the other way around. But this does not mean suppressing your emotions, far from it. It means training your emotions to get excited over the right things."
... and to not be ruled by them.
Sounds like me.
And a really good thing, methinks, is to enjoy logic and rational thought.
well, rob mentioned a few surface differences, tongue in cheek, but then went on to make his point that in politics and purpose, he is their incarnate...
but he is not...
those individuals were firebrands of their own conjure...their evil, and genius, and flaws, and failures were singular because they were the godheads of their own movements...but not obama...
obama is simply the (current) figurehead, not the godhead, of a minority movement whose goals and motives we can only debate and ponder...these very relative few who suffuse modern American media, entertainment, and "intellectuals" have found their new goldenboy, one gifted with an amazing charisma, oratory, presence, and mesmerizing cultability...and bonus, he's black! what a perfect vehicle!
and what serendipity that these traits and abilities come on the scene at the right place, at the right time, and with the right "competition"...and he's a clean slate! there is no baggage, there is no record, there are no skeletons, because he is new, and fresh, and young, and so wonderfully malleable!
it is no wonder that the old figurehead, the former darling of this godhead movement, finds his/her self cast upon the heap like yesterday's pat'e...inconvenient reminders of prior, disgraced efforts to inflict its shadowy will and unknown purpose on what's left of free will and the free world...you can see the shock and hurt in the face(s) of bill/hill, hear it in their voices, as they realize the money, the power, and the adoration that was theirs, has been taken away like spoiled bourgeoisie royalty whose reign has been deposed by the real power behind the throne, their aristocratic patrons.
the further glaring way that this movement is unlike those despots of the past is that they must find a way to herd and dazzle the simple majority into overcoming the inconvenient formality of popular election...and obama is "the way"
even mainstream media, albeit inadvertently, has recognized the mindless, entranced nature of the throngs that trek by the tens of thousands to obama's "revivals", terming them pilgrimages, and that they are in every sense of the word...they are promised salvation, and healing, and free riches, in exchange for just their faith (vote).
and they will give it, and the figurehead will succeed, and the movement will have its chance, once again, to inflict it purposes and control on the world...
but they will fail, once again, because though they will control the majority for now, their godhead is small, and inherently evil, and cowardly...
and there is this...the opposition may be the minority, and temporarily disjointed, and without real leadership, but we outnumber the godhead of their majority, and we see through their transparent figurehead, and into the dark soul of who and what they are...
we are Americans, we are free, and we will relinquish that freedom when they, God forbid, pry our cold, dead fist from its embrace.
and so i have embraced your convoluted challenge, markadelphia, for obama, thy name is not hitler, nor lenin, nor mao...
obama, thy name is shill...godhead, come out from the shadows, let us see you, and hear you...and by the Grace of God, your true purpose will be exposed, and it will be defeated...again.
Great response jtc. I agree to the extent that the 'movement' is evil. It is what spawned Hitler, Stalin, etc. The soil from which they sprang was contaminated which in turn led to the disastrous harvest of blood. Unfortunately for us, Obama is rising from the same contaminated soil.
do markadelphia a favor and click on his blog link above; it's mighty lonely over there...
i recopied my puffy little treatise above as a response and asked him if he had the "sack" (his term) to leave it.
what's funny, though, is how sadly lacking in substance his long post on his own site is.
he actually outright lied about obama's wife's "proud to be an American" quote, and made a direct comparison of obama and Jesus Christ!
Pretty much confirms my characterization of obama's followers as blindly faithful disciples.
and good grief, is this doofus really an "educator"? his own piece and the little blurbs above are marginally literate! and me? been married, raising a family, and working fulltime to support them since leaving school at age 17...
JTC, well it is kinda lonely over there. I don't get 1000 hits a day....only about 200 and around 50 of those are returning visitors. I admit I am jealous of Kevin's hit count...
Doofus, huh? Well, I must have touched a nerve.....ah well....
Kevin, one of his main guys is Scott Gration, retired Major General. Let's see...seven rows of ribbons during a 32 year Air Force career, 274 missions over Iraq in the first Gulf War and after, extensive experience in Africa...he is helping to shape Obama's foreign policy.
And he isn't the only one from the military that is backing Obama.....
"seven rows of ribbons during a 32 year Air Force career"
Doesn't mean squat unless you know WHAT the ribbons are. Hell, I had 3 rows + a couple, most of them "Here I was" types. (The AF is notorious among the services for that)and I only had 10 years as an Intel puke.
Patton, Macarthur and LeMay had chests full of medals too, and I somehow doubt you'd want them formulating foreign policy Mark.
I'm not trying to denigrate Gen. Gration's service, simply pointing out that the statement about numbers of ribbons is not a relevant measurement of credibility in and of itself.
"274 missions over Iraq in the first Gulf War"
OK, THAT builds some credibility, about military air operations at least. Foreign policy? Ummmmmmm....
Haven't dug into his record, but I'd be more interested in what he's saying these days, and how much Obama is listening to him.
A lot of Flag officers turn political as the get up there and some have turned REALLY stupid after they left active duty (Clark, McPeak and Carroll call your offices). I'm not buying something stupid just because a general is saying it.
"And he isn't the only one from the military that is backing Obama"
Which only proves that the US Military is a cross section of the US population. I served with folks that supported Carter, Mondale and Dukakis too. Talk about voting "against your class interests". :-)
OK, Just FYI, I did a look at his awards, and of all the pretty ribbons he has, the ones that I consider No Shit really mean something more than surviving a staff tour or "there I was" are:
Bronze Star Medal
Purple Heart
Air Medal with two silver oak leaf clusters
Aerial Achievement Medal with silver and two bronze oak leaf clusters
Air Force Commendation Medal with “V” device.
Now let's see how that all translates in foreign policy advice.
Just to be a bastard, but of all the services, I would put the least stock in what an AF general has to say. Even about air power. But I'm just a bit pissed off at the Air Farce of late.
I thought Markadelphia was going to trot out the Z man -- Zbigniew Brezhinsky. I just love when someone with Trilateral ties brings all the wing-nuts out of the woodwork. But that would've been WAAAAY too f'n deep for Mark - I should've known better.
Samantha Power indisputably is a close adviser to Barack Obama on foreign policy. ... The strongly anti-Israel nature of these views has become a problem for the Obama campaign, so Power is using a book promotion tour to engage in damage control. Thus, she appears to have spent much of her interview by Shmuel Rosner of the Haaretz attempting to convince Rosner that most of the things written about her in connection with the Obama campaign are “misleading.”
But the examples cited by the sympathetic Rosner serve only to undermine Power’s claim. For example, Noah Pollack has shown that, in a 2002 interview, Power advocated investing billions of dollars to create a Palestinian state. That investment would include “external intervention” involving “a mammoth protection force, not of the old Rwanda kind, but a meaningful military presence."
What does Power have to say about her proposal to invade Israel and the surrounding territories? She says it “makes no sense” to her and she describes it as “so weird.” Even under the special rules that apply to the Obama campaign, that’s not much of a defense.
"I'm not buying something stupid just because a general is saying it."
I'll ditto that. A general is a political animal, so it is no surprise that some of them would want to muck around in civilian politics. As far as generals supporting Socialist politicians? It doesn't surprise me in the least. The military is a top down hierarchy like the Socialists want to create and it should surprise no one that some military types are enamored with that model.
re. McPeak. He was an asshole when he was on active duty. The man was Clinton's bitch and his stupid uniform policies were a disgrace: Let's give everyone special ops patches and make officers look like airline pilots.
You know what's funny? Another lib (who Mark and I both know personally) said this on Marks blog...
"McCain is a genuine hero whose service to his country, in another
ridiculously misguided war, should be acknowledged for his personal gallantry and courage. That does not mean he is qualified to be, or should be, the next POTUS".
But having a military man as an advisor...you can't touch those qualifications so you slack-jawed critics better know your role and step aside!!!
Mark, if you are going to give weight to the words of former military men you should give weight to all of the men, not just those you agree with. There are plenty of former military folks backing McCain but because politics is your religion I guess some words mean more than others (see the above quote).
Still wondering if someone, anyone will ever mention Obamas voting record in the US Senate. Mark has avoided it big time thus far. Hell now I know more about Gen. Grations record courtesy of Randy than I know about Obamas voting record.
I mentioned the generals because I am wondering why men who have dedicated their life to service defending this country would back a "communist." It shows how ridiculous your hypothesis is...
Hmm...didn't you guys hop all over moveon.org for saying some of the same things about Patraeus? (sniff sniff) Yeah, I thought I smelled McCarthy in here..
Some more names to add to the list of who is supporting Obama...
Richard D Hearney, Marine Corps; Susan Ahn Cuddy (look up her bio, really cool!), Navy, Ricard Danzig, Navy, James Smith, Joint Warfare, F Whitten Peters, Air Force....there are plenty more if anyone would like them...
Last, why don't we wait and see what military men want to line up behind Bush and McCain and which ones line up behind Obama? That is going to be fun to watch....
Also, I believe Kevin put up a link about Obama's voting record in a recent thread. And you point is...?
Hey, thanks Kevin for putting up those links. Check out the civil liberties section...hmm..interesting numbers there....followed by the conservative index.
He gets an 18 from John Birch? Wow. I thought it would've been 0. That's it, I'm not voting for him!!! :)
45 on Republican Liberty Caucus? Wouldn't a communist rank a zero?
Wait...I'm reading something....eyes can't believe what I am seeing....poison gas....can't breathe..
"Senator Obama supported the interests of the Gun Owners of America 100 percent in 2006."
and yet....
"Senator Obama supported the interests of the Gun Owners of America 0 percent in 2005...in 2004, the National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund assigned Senator Obama a grade of F."
"The center tallied money from donors who list the Air Force, Army, Marines, Navy and National Guard as an employer. Overall, these donations are miniscule: Obama got 44 contributions worth about $27,000 and Paul 23 for about $19,300. Republican John McCain, an Iraq war supporter and Vietnam prisoner of war, was third with about $18,500 from 32 donors.
"In 2004, military personnel contributed $1.2 million to presidential and congressional candidates, the center said. This year, those donations are about $200,000."
It would appear that military personnel don't much care for ANY of the front-runners. - Ed.)
I thought that Mark might have been interested in the theme I brought up—that small-government conservatism, in its current form, is incompatible with how people's minds work. That way, we might have actually had a worthwhile discussion of some importance.
Instead, he continues to sidetrack the thread into ridiculous "gotcha" moments about which overheated partisan made what tenuous claim about Obama.
It shouldn't surprise me that the Charismatic Man gets him more excited than ideas do. Even ideas that one might suppose he would find congenial.
I brought up the emotion thing because it's important to the future of conservatism, not because I like to hear myself talk. (Well, that too…)
I mentioned the generals because I am wondering why men who have dedicated their life to service defending this country would back a "communist." It shows how ridiculous your hypothesis is...
Yep. So ridiculous. Wait.
Then how do you explain Benedict Arnold?
Seems your hypothesis might have a slight obvious problem.
Just because they've devoted their life to military service doesn't by itself mean they're smart, dedicated, or even trustworthy.
One of the dumbest, least trustworthy men I've ever met was a retired 3-star General in the AF.
But why would he back Obama? Could there be any possibility of personal gain? Like, say, Benedict Arnold, who but for some personal jealousy, would have likely been a President, and a hero today?
Are we sure this scale is accurate?
Yep. It's an honest measurement. In 2006, Obama started dodging all gun control issues, and started burying his anti-gun background. Gee, wonder why anybody would do that? Instead of faking the numbers, GoA reported them honestly. Presuming of course that anybody reading them would be able to do the minor bit of data analysis required.
"didn't you guys hop all over moveon.org for saying some of the same things about Patraeus?"
This is not even close to the same thing (at least not the comments here).
The Patraeus ad questioned his integrity and honor, and implied he was betraying his Oath as an officer.
I am not questioning the integrity or honor of any of the Officers I mentioned, only their judgement.
As military officer, especially as an Intel officer involved with war planning, questioning the judgement of senior officers was part of my job description.
I am quite familiar with Tony McPeak's record. I was on CINPAC Staff when he was PACAF and we had some nice "discussions" with his staff when we refused to go along with some of his pet projects.
As AF CoS the man was way too caught up in his pet projects (his Airline uniform, Total Quality Management (TQM), AKA To Quote McPeak, changed to Airforce Quality Management, AKA Assholes Quoting McPeak)at a time of major force reductions and restructuring.
It was quite clear that if you didn't have pilot wings, you weren't shit in his universe, and the rest of the force took excessive cuts to make up for the ones that the rated force didn't have to face. Yes we need pilots, but staff officers that will never see a cockpit again? Lieutenants waiting 2-3 years from commissioning to go to pilot training because there were too many of them? Of course in Tony's world, having "radiator wings" made you an expert on all things military and being a "good stick" over rode any other criteria.
I respect his accomplishments, but have disagreed with many of his ideas (both during and after active duty)on both a personal and a professional level, and can think of a 1/2 dozen Generals I know from personal experience, MANY more by reputation, I'd rather follow into combat, or trust the judgement of, than him.
"Just because they've devoted their life to military service doesn't by itself mean they're smart, dedicated, or even trustworthy."
2 military men who post on Marks blog regularly have said the exact same thing. When politics is your religion, serving in the military makes you qualified to endorse Obama but doesn't make you qualified to be POTUS because you don't agree with the blessed platform.
Notice Mark didn't offer up his opinion on Obamas sudden shift on gun rights, he just pointed out the fact that the shift happened. Many times he will offer up his opinion on the "conservative reaction" of an event rather than offering up his own opinion of the event itself.
Remember folks, Patreaus is out to betray us but the military folks who endorse Obama are all vastly intelligent straight shooters.
Lastly, I could care less how many military men line up behind which candidate. I'm just pointing out the vast inconsistency with which you libtards view military service.
Please note, the following is not meant to denigrate any of the following people, they may be fine, knowledgeable folks, I'm simply addressing marks "military people that support Obama" comment:
Susan Ahn Cuddy: Neat lady, but 4 years of active duty in the 40's and apparently leaving government service in 1959 hardly qualifies her as a "military person", and does nothing to establish her credentials for present.
Richard Danzig: Is a lawyer with no military service I can find. Being a political appointee as SecNav is NOT the same as military experience.
James Smith is too common a name for me to spend time searching, but WTF is "joint warfare"? It sure as hell ain't a US military service.
F Whitten Peters was a Naval officer not Air Force, and then only for 3 years (69-72, but may have been in the reserves). Other than that he's been a lawyer. His AF connection was being political appointee as SECAF. Which again, by definition, is a Civilian, not a military position.
Richard D Hearney, Gen, USMC, former Asst Commadant of the Corps. I'll give you that one. That's 1 out of...?
In all honesty, I don't think Mark is trying to be dishonest, I think he's just too ignorant about the military to understand what he's reading in the Bios and what he's saying in some of these posts.
How does his list of decorations invalidate what I said about McPeak? I served in his Air Force, Mark. I know exactly what he did. I went to the TQM training that stipulated that the Air Force no longer needed QA(Quality Assurance) and that green Airman would be solely responsible for the maintenance they did on aircraft. Airmen right out of technical training. With little to no experience. I respect McPeak's achievements that earned him the right to wear those medals and you will not find anywhere where I denigrate those achievements. But, as Air Force CoS, the man sucked. But don't listen to people who actually served under the man, google away and find the truth.
I'm considering writing in John Rambo for president. The amount of open casket funerals to be had in Burma following John Rambo's vacation there can be counted on one badly bandaged landmine leg stump. I hereby officially support a constitutional amendment where we judge the patriotism of every American citizen based on their reaction to this film, and execute all subsequent traitors with a rusty machete.
Oh, great LiL, that's all we need - to encourage the Grunting Wonder to think he has a future in politics. How about you try him out as governor in your fair state first?
"I hate actors" -- Raul Julia as Roberto Straussman in Moon over Parador.
I'd sooner pay some of my hard earned money to watch a Jane Fonda flick.
Now the Coen brothers brand of ass kicking, well that's another story.
As for cartoons, I just had a conversation with a friend where we lamented that with multiple cable 'toon channels - you still can't see classics like Bugs or Bullwinkle. What's up with THAT?
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2008/02/human-reconstruction-healing-of-souls.html (75 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
"we've come to the Kobayashi Maru election scenario."
No, I believe we have suffered through that for the last seven years. It has pretty much been lose-lose all around.
Yes, but you now BELIEVE! that Obama will lead us all to the Promised Land!
On top of that Markadelphia goes with the Myth of the Rightful Ruler. After Scar is deposed by Simba, the land turns green again and...
Markadelphia,
The key point of the Kobayashi Maru, as I understand it, was not the impossibility of winning, but Captain Kirk's going outside the system to cheat for a win.
This magical thinking on the part of the left, repeats like a chant from the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (sp?)"They just didn't do it right. We will do it right."
This is religious in nature AND it is being established in government - now who is violating the Establishment Clause?
There is not a bit of rationality in this ongoing desire to plunge headlong into socialism.
It has failed everywhere it is tried. It has removed liberty and actively repressed the citizens who live under it. It starves them, reduces the promised services and drives whatever real economy there is underground.
The idea of man as perfect being is a religious idea, which is not supported by observable reality.
Those of my persuasion (Christian) would say, but of course, man is fallen - it is his natural state and that faith is involved in the limited fix which can be put in place in this life. I have no illusions that there will be times in my life when I manage to be an a--. Difference I know this and that it is unavoidable. It cannot be eliminated only reduced.
One of the founding fathers said something to the effect that men band together to protect each other and their property.
Socialism attempts to perfect man by taking his property. In the end there is no property left, only a polluted East Germany and starving people devoid of hope.
When we step into the arena of ideas to discuss the nature of man, it quickly becomes essentially a religious discussion. Only history is in any way instructive - the rest is gobbledegook. History tells us that free people are the most productive and that production is the best way to provide for said free people. History is very clear that socialism produces nothing - not freedom and not food/clothing/housing...
The Kobayashi Maru is an attempt to "cheat" by going outside the system. Getting metaphysical about the nature of man as a solution to the problem of production - is a fools game.
How did Scar obtain power? Essentially subterfuge.
How did Simba depose Scar? Honest battle. He beat Scar.
I'll side with Simba on this one.
Meanwhile the Obamasciples are leading the Obamites in yet another meaningless chant:
Change Hope Future Change Hope Future
Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare
Hare Rama...
I haven't bought Goldberg's book yet, but from discussions on the National Review site, it seems he's formalized a view I've had for a long time.
For a Socialist/Communist government to survive it requires the suppresion of individual rights and the supremacy of the state. This ideology has been responsible for the deaths of millions of people killed by their own governments.
For a Facist/NAZI government to survive it requires the suppresion of individual rights and the supremacy of the state. This ideology has been responsible for the deaths of millions of people killed by their own governments.
Hence, there is no practical difference between the 2 for the individual citizen. The differences between Socialism and Facism are mere theological debating points, of interest only to Academics and other adherents to these secular religions.
Except for the fact that the NAZIs and Facists tend to have neater looking uniforms. It may be an ugly style, but at least they have a style compared to the drab grayness of the Communists.
I've recently finished Mr. Goldberg's book. It's quite good, although at times, Mr. Goldberg tends to beat a dead horse. That being said, of all the examples in history that Mr. Goldberg uses, I kept thinking of Kevin's phrase "do it again, only this time do it harder!".
One of the things that worries me in all of this is the penchant for the fallen human being to want to be on the side that wins (or looks to be winning at the moment). This helps explain why so many Germans went along with the Nazi government... add that part of it all to the national socialist vision, and to the cultlike mentality BHO's campaign has fostered and embraced, and we end up with the most serious threat to our life and liberty in the entire history of the Republic. Voting for McCain is not going to be the "Katie bar the door" answer that many on the conservative side think it will be either. As you have so ably pointed out in your post, Bush is not a Lockean, nor is McCain. He'd burn the Constitution to further his own vision of what's right for America just as quickly as BHO would burn it for his.
The last 16 or 20 years is a story of continual compromise, but instead of being a win-win with everyone getting a piece, we're left with but a piece of what we started with. Oh sure, we still have a piece... and by golly, there's that nice man again promising me he can give me a better government and a better life, if I just give him another part of the piece I have left. And he'll fix my, and America's, broken soul.
The audacity of hope? Nah. The audacity of bullcrap. And as Wal-Mart proves every day, Americans will line up in flocks to buy cheap foreign crap every day of the week. Doesn't even matter if it comes in a red box or a blue box.
"Obama will lead us all to the Promised Land"
"the land turns green again.."
No, I don't. There is only so much one man can do. It's really up to us in the end. His job is to defend the Constitution, which has had a bic lighter being flicked it by Cheney the last seven years.
I am working on a piece on my blog that will address this in more detail.
No, I don't. There is only so much one man can do.
Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Castro, etc. etc.
Dennis, it's not up to Obama what people do or don't do. It's up to us as individuals.
If you honestly think that Obama is going to be another one of these guys, I feel very, very sorry for you.
"His job is to defend the Constitution, which has had a bic lighter being flicked it by Cheney the last seven years."
Anyone who has listened to anything Obama has ever said and who thinks he is going to do anything that even remotely resembles defending the Constitution is simply delusional.
He will keep everything passed by the current administration and add more of his own. He will then turn in inwards in ways that Bush could never get away with, and get nothing but applause for it. Same goes for Hillary and the Manchurian Candidate. There is simply no way to impliment and administer their socialist program without it.
If you honestly think that Obama is going to be another one of these guys
Another point goes whistling over Mark's head.
The point isn't that Obama would be like them, it was a refutation of you saying "one man can only do so much". In this case, by pointing to several examples of men who had done a great deal [of evil] by virtue of their charismatic leadership.
You see Mark, you would argue for Bush/Cheney in that list - then turn around and say "but my guy is pure of heart and soul and will not use that power for evil".
You shouldn't even be teaching dogs, much less children.
I'm about halfway through Liberal Fascism.
So far, my view is that it confirms and extends my own research into the matter.
If anything, it's filling in some blanks, and explaining some mysteries.
I, for one, was a little complacent in accepting the whitewash of Woodrow Wilson's presidency, and underestimating the effect that's had on our history.
In the past, I normally traced constitutional degeneracy back to FDR, but it was Wilson, "The Sage of New Jersey", (of course...) who made the radical break from classical liberalism's restrained government, and who prepped the stage for FDR.
Reading continues.
As for Locke v Rousseau...
http://geekwitha45.blogspot.com/2006_11_01_archive.html#116288095791191566
It will be interesting, I think, for me to revisit that essay after I'm done with the Liberal Fascism book.
As for people who any Rousseaunian is willing or capable of understanding or defending the Constitution as written and intended, and who believe that constitutional degeneracy begins w/ Bush & Cheney well, I can get y'all a great deal on a bridge in Brooklyn...
Nice piece, Kevin.
I wonder how many on the left will note that this little nugget -- We get change because folks from the grass roots up decide they are sick and tired of other people telling them how their lives will be -- was, I'm assuming, said without any sense of irony at all.
Nope. She said it with a straight face, and (worse) no one laughed.
"..It's up to us as individuals."
As in the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms?
Without those arms, the "grassroots" can descide they are sick and tired all they want. They will be powerless to do anything about it.
Or do you think that your vote means anything without the Bill of Rights (ALL of it) to protect you.
The Constitution and the Amendments carry only as much weight as the people give it. You are worried about the Veep flicking his Bic in too close a proximity to the Constitution? Try holding the swiss cheese which the courts have made of the Constitution up as a shield and see how well it stops the whips, bludgeons and bullets of a government out of control under an ideological extremist like Obama.
The last 16 or 20 years is a story of continual compromise
This is what worries me the most I think. We've seen the erosion of freedom in this country gradually, inch by inch. Had there been some kind of violent revolution instead... well, I think it would have been easier to defeat the anti-freedom movement had they revolted or rioted or something. This slow erosion is hard to fight because each inch we give way doesn't seem like much. And then we look back and see the miles we've lost from giving away each inch so very often. It's got to stop before we've lost everything.
"kevin, thinkers and writers like you (and your correspondents) go a long way toward encouraging real thought and discourse in this age of the sheep, and that is the scariest thing there is to the obama mob mentality that is sweeping our beloved America."
that was a statement i made in a response to one of your earlier posts, mark...this excellent post and its responses make it ring true.
are you getting it yet, markadelphia?
you are scared, arent' you?
the charismatic's reign will be short, and freedom, and the Constitution, and America, will survive...jtc
good Lord, kevin, i headed that last quote "mark" and of course i meant "kevin", so sorry for the insult...jtc
kevin, can you fix it for me? very embarrassed...jtc
(fixed. - ed.)
Mark, you somewhat misunderstood the point I was trying to make. (Stalin, etc.) Obama shares the ideology of Hitler, Stalin and company. Socialism. The only question is, is he a pragmatist like Hitler and company or is he still just in the idealistic stage of socialism. If he chooses to remain nothing more than an idealistic socialist the worst he can probably do is ruin our economy. That's probably bad enough but chances are none of us will end up in the gulag. If however he becomes a pragmatic socialist, heads will roll because he will have to do away with the competition. So, am I willing to bet which type of socialist Obama will turn ou to be? Maybe you want to roll the dice but not me!
"my guy is pure of heart and soul and will not use that power for evil"
Well, he won't. The question, juris, is if you are going to admit that he hasn't or if you are going to invent things to spin him as evil, which has been the conservative play book re: Karl Rove.
He will, however, make mistakes. At least he will have the sack to admit when he is wrong and take responsibility for it, which is more than I can say for most people of the right thinking ilk.
Dennis, got an idea for you. This goes for everyone, since we all like the science angle so much. Currently we have an hypothesis that Barack Obama shares the ideology of socialism (Hitler, Stalin,and company). Now, isn't it true that, with any good hypothesis, you must examine the negative, if not prove it to truly test whether or not it is a sound theory?
So, go out and show me how Obama is NOT a socialist...like Hitler or Stalin. Show me the ways he is farthest from that, based on his writings, his words, his actions, and his plans. Then we'll see how sound this hypothesis is...
You ought to know that you can't prove a negative.
Dennis:
Don't worry about it too much. Mark got caught by that rhetorical device several times - he doesn't really understand it, as LabRat has noted, he's cargoculting, but that's why he's flailing now.
(He also refused to answer the points put to him by that device, and left those points alone.)
Mark: You're in a serious hole here, and I'd tell you to stop digging, but hell, you're closer to the other side of the earth now than the surface you started from, so, keep going bro. Obama would be proud that you kept going.
Well, he won't.
Honest to gawd, I have encountered some clueless people in my time, but Mark-boy, you take the cake.
The question, juris, is if you are going to admit that he hasn't or if you are going to invent things to spin him as evil,
Up your ass chump. You can't even understand the plain language I put before you.
The funny thing is the discussion I had over lunch with a Democratic (Hillary-supporting) friend of mine. I was commenting on how much Obama was emulating Reagan - campaign-wise obviously. I'm not particularly worried about Obama as President because he won't accomplish much - Congress will see to that.
And the frustrated cluetards of the left will have to stew in their juices - just as the social cons did during the Reagan years.
At least he will have the sack to admit when he is wrong and take responsibility for it, which is more than I can say for most people of the right thinking ilk.
Well goddam boy, that's more then you can say for YOURSELF! And to be perfectly frank, since you are so bad at this, I withhold judging Obama's ability based on your say-so.
Lessee here...
How is Obama not like Hitler/Stalin/Mao?
hmmm..
English is his native tongue.
He was born in America.
He is black.
He is graduate of a US university.
In terms of his paper thin policies?
Everything I have seen including his absolutely loony 5 mile radius gun store exclusion zone for middle and high schools (Not grade schools? You have to take your chances until you hit the 6/7th grade?). With the density of schools this is an underhanded method of gun control, by making it darned near impossible to locate a store anywhere near customers. Obama clearly does not get the "shall not be infringed" bit.
All of the above needed/desired/got an unarmed and vulnerable populace to supress/enslave/kill.
On paper, more alike than different IMHO.
If I can interrupt the regularly scheduled Mark-smacking…
There was a point brought up that I think is incredibly important: that fascism fills a deep emotional need in people that Lockean government does not.
This is of a piece with economists focusing on the abstraction of the Rational Man and making positive prescriptions that real people often do not tolerate in practice.
Emotion is not a defect in thinking. It can cause decisions that are not rational, to be sure; but many of these decisions tend to be meta-rational, for example norms of reciprocity and sacrifice for the sake of the group. More importantly, without an emotional component to thought, there would be no impetus for action of any kind. Emotion is the engine of change.
For good government and economic policy to survive in the long run, we're going to have to do better at understanding what motivates people, how they think, and what they want out of life—and then retool our approach to fit.
One thing that I haven't seen you speak of, Kevin, is the importance of tradition and history. That is something that the fascists have always understood (if not a real tradition, then a fabricated one, or else the attraction of making history.)
The truth hurts I know. He sure changed my friend's mind though. He did extensive research. Facts can not be denied. You have to at least read his interview with Salon.com before you can dismiss him. Remember, Liberals are smart and like to read the facts. Right?
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/01/11/goldberg/index.html
.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe thinks
the Right is always wrong
and the Left is always right
and facts don't matter at all
.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
keep poor people poor
ALWAYS vote Democrat
only good intentions count
.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe thinks
profit is evil
punish efficient business
steal money for government
.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
destroy all corporations
put people out of work
make world a better place
.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
politics is religion
feeling is most important
thinking is not required
.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
claim to care for people
call yourself progressive
your policies hurt poor folk
http://absurdthoughtsaboutgod.blogspot.com/
:)
.
Kevin,
I too am about halfway through Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism. It is a temendous accomplishment, and fills in some history I was unaware of. Like the Geekwitha45, I was unaware of some of the Wilsonian stuff, though I had put the turning point at Teddy Roosevelt rather than FDR.
In any case, one of the points Goldberg is making is that we're all fascists now. Whether it is the Left, with its National Universal Health system, or the Right with its Anti-Abortion, most of us view the Government as the tool to solve problems for which the Government is ill suited. Whether or not Lockean philosophy is emotionally satifying, we need to insist, loudly, on more of it if we are ever again to have limited government, personal liberty, and propery rights in this country.
I hope that Markadelphia actually reads Liberal Fascism. As Godberg points out, in the 20s and 30s, before the Holocaust, fascism was viewed very favorably by liberals and leftists. Social Security, the 40 hour work week, child labor laws, and a number of other things we all take for granted now, came out of this movement. The problem with it, however, is the totalitarian temptation to decide that things that seem good to many are good for all. Then having made that leap, to decide that everyone, everywhere, must toe the line-which leads to PC speech codes, the rising number of felony laws, gun control, and other nasty things, all designed to control the individual at every step. And yes, Obama is preaching a very fascist program in a classic charismatic way. I would think that he had studied Mussolini, he is doing it that well.
PolyKahr
"Emotion is not a defect in thinking"
Well, I would disagree, except on consideration, you're correct if you accept that making decisions based on emotion represents a lack of thinking.
That's why the concept of the rule of law is important, and the Constitution as a document enumerating rights that exist outside of any government dictat, it removes, as much as possible, emotion from the concept of how govvernment ought to run in a free society.
Emotion is usually why "hard cases make bad law", and why I tend to tune out (or at least not take as seriously) folks that start discussions on issues with "I feel" instead of "I think". (in reality there's a gray area there, and I catch myself doing it too sometimes, but I consider it a good general principle).
Tradition is not necessairly based on emotion, although traditions can cause emotional reactions, but are based on "what worked" at some time in the past. The emotional reaction is one reason changing traditions when they no longer work is so hard.
So, maybe emotion isn't a "defect" so much as a human condition that needs to be taken into account and worked around to build a functioning, free society. And recognizing that the rule of law is important in keeping society from being run by emotions (aka Direct Democracy, aka Mob Rule).
"as President because he won't accomplish much - Congress will see to that."
Do you mean the Congress that will be overwhelmingly Democratic, possibly even filibuster proof?
Thanks, Rob, for being the only one to attempt my exercise. Anyone else care to test the negative? I thought we were all rooted in science here, c'mon!
>>So, go out and show me how Obama is NOT a socialist...
NO.
That is NOT how debate works.
If Markadelphia wants to take the position that Obama is not a socialist, Markadelphia must actually declare that he takes that position, and then he must defend it.
Alternately, those who wish to take the position that Obama IS a socialist must also declare and defend that position.
As presented, Markadelphia offers only a means to take a position without either owning up to it or defending it.
Craven, intellectually slothful, and dishonest are all phrases that all consequently come to mind.
---------------------
As for science (which this is NOT, it is a feeble attempt for Markadelphia to cloak his non position with the mantle and gravitas of science), one does not "examine the negative".
At its simplest, one stringently formulates a "null hypothesis", which one can either reject, or fail to reject.
It is done in this way for serious purposes, to prevent certain fundamental errors of logic and science, which aren't relevant here, since Markadelphia's proposition never was about science in the first place.
Randy,
This is what I'm talking about—the presumption that "emotion" as such is something that detracts from "proper" thought. This is why conservatives often come off as heartless and selfish.
Which is not to say that people don't make bad decisions for emotional reasons. I'm in financial planning, we deal with that all the time :-)
The problem is the Greek dichotomy between reason and emotion—a dichotomy that is badly flawed. The truth is that while reason can help you analyze a situation and even guide you to what you should be doing in that situation, reason will not make you take action. That is the task of emotion.
People who are nearly emotionless (as opposed to people with a tight control over their emotions), such as addicts of one sort or another, are dominated by inertia. They do not take action to change their circumstances or the trajectory of their lives.
On the other hand, people who are highly emotional often make life-changing personal commitments that seem rash to outside observers. (They might change their minds tomorrow, of course.)
Emotions are the source of motivation. Reason, as such, does not motivate people; what does happen is that your reason comes to a particular conclusion, you examine that conclusion, and your emotions translate the conclusion into an impetus for behavior.
The key for a person is to make sure that the logical mind exerts control over the emotional mind, and not the other way around. But this does not mean suppressing your emotions, far from it. It means training your emotions to get excited over the right things.
Or, to put it more pragmatically, Lockeans are as stuck with the humans we've got rather than the humans we'd like to have as Rousseauians are- emotional ones.
"The key for a person is to make sure that the logical mind exerts control over the emotional mind, and not the other way around. But this does not mean suppressing your emotions, far from it. It means training your emotions to get excited over the right things."
... and to not be ruled by them.
Sounds like me.
And a really good thing, methinks, is to enjoy logic and rational thought.
how is obama not like hitler/stalin/mao?
well, rob mentioned a few surface differences, tongue in cheek, but then went on to make his point that in politics and purpose, he is their incarnate...
but he is not...
those individuals were firebrands of their own conjure...their evil, and genius, and flaws, and failures were singular because they were the godheads of their own movements...but not obama...
obama is simply the (current) figurehead, not the godhead, of a minority movement whose goals and motives we can only debate and ponder...these very relative few who suffuse modern American media, entertainment, and "intellectuals" have found their new goldenboy, one gifted with an amazing charisma, oratory, presence, and mesmerizing cultability...and bonus, he's black! what a perfect vehicle!
and what serendipity that these traits and abilities come on the scene at the right place, at the right time, and with the right "competition"...and he's a clean slate! there is no baggage, there is no record, there are no skeletons, because he is new, and fresh, and young, and so wonderfully malleable!
it is no wonder that the old figurehead, the former darling of this godhead movement, finds his/her self cast upon the heap like yesterday's pat'e...inconvenient reminders of prior, disgraced efforts to inflict its shadowy will and unknown purpose on what's left of free will and the free world...you can see the shock and hurt in the face(s) of bill/hill, hear it in their voices, as they realize the money, the power, and the adoration that was theirs, has been taken away like spoiled bourgeoisie royalty whose reign has been deposed by the real power behind the throne, their aristocratic patrons.
the further glaring way that this movement is unlike those despots of the past is that they must find a way to herd and dazzle the simple majority into overcoming the inconvenient formality of popular election...and obama is "the way"
even mainstream media, albeit inadvertently, has recognized the mindless, entranced nature of the throngs that trek by the tens of thousands to obama's "revivals", terming them pilgrimages, and that they are in every sense of the word...they are promised salvation, and healing, and free riches, in exchange for just their faith (vote).
and they will give it, and the figurehead will succeed, and the movement will have its chance, once again, to inflict it purposes and control on the world...
but they will fail, once again, because though they will control the majority for now, their godhead is small, and inherently evil, and cowardly...
and there is this...the opposition may be the minority, and temporarily disjointed, and without real leadership, but we outnumber the godhead of their majority, and we see through their transparent figurehead, and into the dark soul of who and what they are...
we are Americans, we are free, and we will relinquish that freedom when they, God forbid, pry our cold, dead fist from its embrace.
and so i have embraced your convoluted challenge, markadelphia, for obama, thy name is not hitler, nor lenin, nor mao...
obama, thy name is shill...godhead, come out from the shadows, let us see you, and hear you...and by the Grace of God, your true purpose will be exposed, and it will be defeated...again.
jtc
Wow.
Don't hold back, tell us how what you really believe!
uhh, 30 years at my gun and pawn counter; i was exposed to quite a few "theorists"...i guess some of it "took"
plus, they redflagged the damn nascar race...:0)
jtc
Great response jtc. I agree to the extent that the 'movement' is evil. It is what spawned Hitler, Stalin, etc. The soil from which they sprang was contaminated which in turn led to the disastrous harvest of blood. Unfortunately for us, Obama is rising from the same contaminated soil.
Kevin, I have answered your question regarding how Obama will heal our souls on my blog.
http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/2008/02/language-of-hope-and-healing.html
Coincidently this also responds to these last few comments.
Oh, and one more thing...anyone know who one of the people in charge of shaping Obama's foreign policy?
Let me guess...
Colin Powell?
kevin and his correspondents:
do markadelphia a favor and click on his blog link above; it's mighty lonely over there...
i recopied my puffy little treatise above as a response and asked him if he had the "sack" (his term) to leave it.
what's funny, though, is how sadly lacking in substance his long post on his own site is.
he actually outright lied about obama's wife's "proud to be an American" quote, and made a direct comparison of obama and Jesus Christ!
Pretty much confirms my characterization of obama's followers as blindly faithful disciples.
and good grief, is this doofus really an "educator"? his own piece and the little blurbs above are marginally literate! and me? been married, raising a family, and working fulltime to support them since leaving school at age 17...
jtc
Read your piece.
Barack Obama is not the messiah. He will not heal our souls.
There's going to be a lot of severely disappointed people, then.
Perhaps he ought to ask Yvonne S. Thornton, MD to be his advisor in charge of shaping his education policy.
JTC, well it is kinda lonely over there. I don't get 1000 hits a day....only about 200 and around 50 of those are returning visitors. I admit I am jealous of Kevin's hit count...
Doofus, huh? Well, I must have touched a nerve.....ah well....
Kevin, one of his main guys is Scott Gration, retired Major General. Let's see...seven rows of ribbons during a 32 year Air Force career, 274 missions over Iraq in the first Gulf War and after, extensive experience in Africa...he is helping to shape Obama's foreign policy.
And he isn't the only one from the military that is backing Obama.....
"seven rows of ribbons during a 32 year Air Force career"
Doesn't mean squat unless you know WHAT the ribbons are. Hell, I had 3 rows + a couple, most of them "Here I was" types. (The AF is notorious among the services for that)and I only had 10 years as an Intel puke.
Patton, Macarthur and LeMay had chests full of medals too, and I somehow doubt you'd want them formulating foreign policy Mark.
I'm not trying to denigrate Gen. Gration's service, simply pointing out that the statement about numbers of ribbons is not a relevant measurement of credibility in and of itself.
"274 missions over Iraq in the first Gulf War"
OK, THAT builds some credibility, about military air operations at least. Foreign policy? Ummmmmmm....
Haven't dug into his record, but I'd be more interested in what he's saying these days, and how much Obama is listening to him.
A lot of Flag officers turn political as the get up there and some have turned REALLY stupid after they left active duty (Clark, McPeak and Carroll call your offices). I'm not buying something stupid just because a general is saying it.
"And he isn't the only one from the military that is backing Obama"
Which only proves that the US Military is a cross section of the US population. I served with folks that supported Carter, Mondale and Dukakis too. Talk about voting "against your class interests". :-)
OK, Just FYI, I did a look at his awards, and of all the pretty ribbons he has, the ones that I consider No Shit really mean something more than surviving a staff tour or "there I was" are:
Bronze Star Medal
Purple Heart
Air Medal with two silver oak leaf clusters
Aerial Achievement Medal with silver and two bronze oak leaf clusters
Air Force Commendation Medal with “V” device.
Now let's see how that all translates in foreign policy advice.
Just to be a bastard, but of all the services, I would put the least stock in what an AF general has to say. Even about air power. But I'm just a bit pissed off at the Air Farce of late.
I thought Markadelphia was going to trot out the Z man -- Zbigniew Brezhinsky. I just love when someone with Trilateral ties brings all the wing-nuts out of the woodwork. But that would've been WAAAAY too f'n deep for Mark - I should've known better.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/02/019885.php
Hrm.
Samantha Power indisputably is a close adviser to Barack Obama on foreign policy. ... The strongly anti-Israel nature of these views has become a problem for the Obama campaign, so Power is using a book promotion tour to engage in damage control. Thus, she appears to have spent much of her interview by Shmuel Rosner of the Haaretz attempting to convince Rosner that most of the things written about her in connection with the Obama campaign are “misleading.”
But the examples cited by the sympathetic Rosner serve only to undermine Power’s claim. For example, Noah Pollack has shown that, in a 2002 interview, Power advocated investing billions of dollars to create a Palestinian state. That investment would include “external intervention” involving “a mammoth protection force, not of the old Rwanda kind, but a meaningful military presence."
What does Power have to say about her proposal to invade Israel and the surrounding territories? She says it “makes no sense” to her and she describes it as “so weird.” Even under the special rules that apply to the Obama campaign, that’s not much of a defense.
No, it's not.
"I'm not buying something stupid just because a general is saying it."
I'll ditto that. A general is a political animal, so it is no surprise that some of them would want to muck around in civilian politics. As far as generals supporting Socialist politicians? It doesn't surprise me in the least. The military is a top down hierarchy like the Socialists want to create and it should surprise no one that some military types are enamored with that model.
re. McPeak. He was an asshole when he was on active duty. The man was Clinton's bitch and his stupid uniform policies were a disgrace: Let's give everyone special ops patches and make officers look like airline pilots.
You know what's funny? Another lib (who Mark and I both know personally) said this on Marks blog...
"McCain is a genuine hero whose service to his country, in another
ridiculously misguided war, should be acknowledged for his personal gallantry and courage. That does not mean he is qualified to be, or should be, the next POTUS".
But having a military man as an advisor...you can't touch those qualifications so you slack-jawed critics better know your role and step aside!!!
Mark, if you are going to give weight to the words of former military men you should give weight to all of the men, not just those you agree with. There are plenty of former military folks backing McCain but because politics is your religion I guess some words mean more than others (see the above quote).
Still wondering if someone, anyone will ever mention Obamas voting record in the US Senate. Mark has avoided it big time thus far. Hell now I know more about Gen. Grations record courtesy of Randy than I know about Obamas voting record.
Well, here's his record without context.
He refused to answer VoteSmart's Political Courage questionnaire.
Lobbyist groups ratings are given here.
Conclusion: uber-liberal.
I mentioned the generals because I am wondering why men who have dedicated their life to service defending this country would back a "communist." It shows how ridiculous your hypothesis is...
Yosemite, uh...McPeak?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrill_A._McPeak#Military_Decorations
Hmm...didn't you guys hop all over moveon.org for saying some of the same things about Patraeus? (sniff sniff) Yeah, I thought I smelled McCarthy in here..
Some more names to add to the list of who is supporting Obama...
Richard D Hearney, Marine Corps; Susan Ahn Cuddy (look up her bio, really cool!), Navy, Ricard Danzig, Navy, James Smith, Joint Warfare, F Whitten Peters, Air Force....there are plenty more if anyone would like them...
Last, why don't we wait and see what military men want to line up behind Bush and McCain and which ones line up behind Obama? That is going to be fun to watch....
Also, I believe Kevin put up a link about Obama's voting record in a recent thread. And you point is...?
Hey, thanks Kevin for putting up those links. Check out the civil liberties section...hmm..interesting numbers there....followed by the conservative index.
He gets an 18 from John Birch? Wow. I thought it would've been 0. That's it, I'm not voting for him!!! :)
45 on Republican Liberty Caucus? Wouldn't a communist rank a zero?
Wait...I'm reading something....eyes can't believe what I am seeing....poison gas....can't breathe..
"Senator Obama supported the interests of the Gun Owners of America 100 percent in 2006."
and yet....
"Senator Obama supported the interests of the Gun Owners of America 0 percent in 2005...in 2004, the National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund assigned Senator Obama a grade of F."
Huh? Are we sure this scale is accurate?
And one last one before I'm off...
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3601542&page=1
Where are the Ronulans? I miss you....!
(Uh, Mark? From your link:
"The center tallied money from donors who list the Air Force, Army, Marines, Navy and National Guard as an employer. Overall, these donations are miniscule: Obama got 44 contributions worth about $27,000 and Paul 23 for about $19,300. Republican John McCain, an Iraq war supporter and Vietnam prisoner of war, was third with about $18,500 from 32 donors.
"In 2004, military personnel contributed $1.2 million to presidential and congressional candidates, the center said. This year, those donations are about $200,000."
It would appear that military personnel don't much care for ANY of the front-runners. - Ed.)
Edited By Siteowner
I thought that Mark might have been interested in the theme I brought up—that small-government conservatism, in its current form, is incompatible with how people's minds work. That way, we might have actually had a worthwhile discussion of some importance.
Instead, he continues to sidetrack the thread into ridiculous "gotcha" moments about which overheated partisan made what tenuous claim about Obama.
It shouldn't surprise me that the Charismatic Man gets him more excited than ideas do. Even ideas that one might suppose he would find congenial.
I brought up the emotion thing because it's important to the future of conservatism, not because I like to hear myself talk. (Well, that too…)
I mentioned the generals because I am wondering why men who have dedicated their life to service defending this country would back a "communist." It shows how ridiculous your hypothesis is...
Yep. So ridiculous. Wait.
Then how do you explain Benedict Arnold?
Seems your hypothesis might have a slight obvious problem.
Just because they've devoted their life to military service doesn't by itself mean they're smart, dedicated, or even trustworthy.
One of the dumbest, least trustworthy men I've ever met was a retired 3-star General in the AF.
But why would he back Obama? Could there be any possibility of personal gain? Like, say, Benedict Arnold, who but for some personal jealousy, would have likely been a President, and a hero today?
Are we sure this scale is accurate?
Yep. It's an honest measurement. In 2006, Obama started dodging all gun control issues, and started burying his anti-gun background. Gee, wonder why anybody would do that? Instead of faking the numbers, GoA reported them honestly. Presuming of course that anybody reading them would be able to do the minor bit of data analysis required.
Truely, you have a dizzying intellect.
"didn't you guys hop all over moveon.org for saying some of the same things about Patraeus?"
This is not even close to the same thing (at least not the comments here).
The Patraeus ad questioned his integrity and honor, and implied he was betraying his Oath as an officer.
I am not questioning the integrity or honor of any of the Officers I mentioned, only their judgement.
As military officer, especially as an Intel officer involved with war planning, questioning the judgement of senior officers was part of my job description.
I am quite familiar with Tony McPeak's record. I was on CINPAC Staff when he was PACAF and we had some nice "discussions" with his staff when we refused to go along with some of his pet projects.
As AF CoS the man was way too caught up in his pet projects (his Airline uniform, Total Quality Management (TQM), AKA To Quote McPeak, changed to Airforce Quality Management, AKA Assholes Quoting McPeak)at a time of major force reductions and restructuring.
It was quite clear that if you didn't have pilot wings, you weren't shit in his universe, and the rest of the force took excessive cuts to make up for the ones that the rated force didn't have to face. Yes we need pilots, but staff officers that will never see a cockpit again? Lieutenants waiting 2-3 years from commissioning to go to pilot training because there were too many of them? Of course in Tony's world, having "radiator wings" made you an expert on all things military and being a "good stick" over rode any other criteria.
I respect his accomplishments, but have disagreed with many of his ideas (both during and after active duty)on both a personal and a professional level, and can think of a 1/2 dozen Generals I know from personal experience, MANY more by reputation, I'd rather follow into combat, or trust the judgement of, than him.
"Just because they've devoted their life to military service doesn't by itself mean they're smart, dedicated, or even trustworthy."
2 military men who post on Marks blog regularly have said the exact same thing. When politics is your religion, serving in the military makes you qualified to endorse Obama but doesn't make you qualified to be POTUS because you don't agree with the blessed platform.
Notice Mark didn't offer up his opinion on Obamas sudden shift on gun rights, he just pointed out the fact that the shift happened. Many times he will offer up his opinion on the "conservative reaction" of an event rather than offering up his own opinion of the event itself.
Remember folks, Patreaus is out to betray us but the military folks who endorse Obama are all vastly intelligent straight shooters.
Lastly, I could care less how many military men line up behind which candidate. I'm just pointing out the vast inconsistency with which you libtards view military service.
Hindsight is not wisdom.
Please note, the following is not meant to denigrate any of the following people, they may be fine, knowledgeable folks, I'm simply addressing marks "military people that support Obama" comment:
Susan Ahn Cuddy: Neat lady, but 4 years of active duty in the 40's and apparently leaving government service in 1959 hardly qualifies her as a "military person", and does nothing to establish her credentials for present.
Richard Danzig: Is a lawyer with no military service I can find. Being a political appointee as SecNav is NOT the same as military experience.
James Smith is too common a name for me to spend time searching, but WTF is "joint warfare"? It sure as hell ain't a US military service.
F Whitten Peters was a Naval officer not Air Force, and then only for 3 years (69-72, but may have been in the reserves). Other than that he's been a lawyer. His AF connection was being political appointee as SECAF. Which again, by definition, is a Civilian, not a military position.
Richard D Hearney, Gen, USMC, former Asst Commadant of the Corps. I'll give you that one. That's 1 out of...?
In all honesty, I don't think Mark is trying to be dishonest, I think he's just too ignorant about the military to understand what he's reading in the Bios and what he's saying in some of these posts.
Randy, you are my hero.
"Yosemite, uh...McPeak?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Mer...ary_Decorations"
How does his list of decorations invalidate what I said about McPeak? I served in his Air Force, Mark. I know exactly what he did. I went to the TQM training that stipulated that the Air Force no longer needed QA(Quality Assurance) and that green Airman would be solely responsible for the maintenance they did on aircraft. Airmen right out of technical training. With little to no experience. I respect McPeak's achievements that earned him the right to wear those medals and you will not find anywhere where I denigrate those achievements. But, as Air Force CoS, the man sucked. But don't listen to people who actually served under the man, google away and find the truth.
I'm considering writing in John Rambo for president. The amount of open casket funerals to be had in Burma following John Rambo's vacation there can be counted on one badly bandaged landmine leg stump. I hereby officially support a constitutional amendment where we judge the patriotism of every American citizen based on their reaction to this film, and execute all subsequent traitors with a rusty machete.
Oh, great LiL, that's all we need - to encourage the Grunting Wonder to think he has a future in politics. How about you try him out as governor in your fair state first?
"I hate actors" -- Raul Julia as Roberto Straussman in Moon over Parador.
Uh, Juris? He doesn't want Stallone, he wants RAMBO.
Personally, if we're going to have a cartoon character as President, I think Bugs Bunny would be a good choice.
My only question is, which nation would be Elmer Fudd, and which one would be Daffy Duck?
"Duck Season!"
"Rabbit Season!"
Kevin gets it. The new Rambo movie kicks so much ass they're going to have to import colons from China to meet the demand.
If we are going with Looney Tunes characters, I'll go with Marvin the Martian with Foghorn Leghorn as veep.
"Oh I'm going to blow up the earth".
"You're making me very angry. Very angry indeed".
"Doo Dah! Doo Dah!"
Well, we DO possess the Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator in quantity.
However, the dry ice bath embrittled the steel container wall, which split while it was being maneuvered onto a dolly, instantaneously releasing 907 kg (2,000 lb) of cold ClF3 liquid onto the building floor. The ClF3 dissolved the 30 cm (12 inch) thick concrete floor and another 90 cm (36 inches) of gravel underneath the spill. The fumes that were generated (chlorine trifluoride, hydrogen fluoride, chlorine, hydrogen chloride, etc.) severely corroded everything that was exposed. One eyewitness described the incident by stating, “The concrete was on fire!"
Later comment:
I remember some discussion of some 5-nitrogen molecule being synthesized in small quantities and being explored as a high explosive, which then destroyed the scale when they attempted to weigh the small amount they'd created.
I think that's pretty close to the Q-36, no?
But what happened to the earth-shattering kaboom? There was supposed to be an earth-shattering kaboom!
The new Rambo movie kicks so much ass
I'd sooner pay some of my hard earned money to watch a Jane Fonda flick.
Now the Coen brothers brand of ass kicking, well that's another story.
As for cartoons, I just had a conversation with a friend where we lamented that with multiple cable 'toon channels - you still can't see classics like Bugs or Bullwinkle. What's up with THAT?
juris...
bugs bunny cartoons?...dude, there's way too much gun violence...
and bullwinkle? we can't be portraying our rrrussian friends as villains, now can we?
jtc
Here you go - rampage with a 50 caliber.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MddI9r7Mc9E&feature=related
This movie is so manly I bet the script doesn't even have periods!
No, but lots of bleeding!
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>