2013-12-31
2013-12-27
You Coexist
"A woman with the message “I AM GOD” painted on her body jumped up on the altar and screamed in the middle of a Mass on Christmas at Cologne Cathedral." [link to article]
2013-12-26
Derision Is Not Discourse
While commenting about the pleasures of cigars, Jonah made the following comment:
Resisting big government necessarily means resisting the temptation to have government perform some incontrovertibly noble efforts such as feeding the poor. But preferring that government not be the primary purveyor of charity does not therefore mean that conservatives are opposed to all charity or even all government sponsored charity as some would have you believe – a safety net is part of everyone's thinking. Mostly, the discussion tends to circle around the size and scope of the safety net.
An atheist might oppose religious symbolism associated with government. This does not therefore mean that that atheist is opposed to morality. There is no need to transmogrify his opposition to the display of religious symbols on government property into hatred of moral people or ethics. But that is often how those who support limited government are treated:
Although it is easier and politically expedient to just dismiss opponents as moral inferiors, uneducated dunces and cave dwellers, it is anything but intelligent, compassionate, respectful, decent, fair, responsible or kind. It could be that those who hold opposing views are decent people who are very interested in those affected by smaller government. It could be that they have significant moral and ethical struggles when considering the trade-offs inherent in life and politics. They may even have the best interests of others in mind when considering policies.
Each side strives for ideological conformity and none so willingly and gleefully makes use of derogatory language as the left. Those interested in power and the imposition of their values understand that it’s quicker and more effective to silence those with whom they disagree than to debate. It is just easier to liken successful women to whores and crudely titter about hate-f***ing them (it is hard to think of a more sexist/misogynistic notion), assume bad motives on behalf of those with wealth (it is hard to think of a more classist notion), compare the inquisitive to Holocaust deniers (it is hard to think of a more irrational/unscientific notion) and attack the racial bona fides (it is hard to think of a more racist notion) of those with a different opinion than to thoughtfully consider and address anything they might have to say.
So how about let's all do our best to avoid character assassination by slur as the replacement for discussion. Rather, let's rely on thoughtful deliberation for the defense of our values.
Derision is not discourse. Ridicule is not refutation.
I am a conservative in large part because I believe that politics should intrude on life as little as possible. Conservatives surely believe that there are times when the government should meddle in the daily affairs of the people, but they normally reserve those times for large questions of right and wrong, good and evil. Most conservatives, for instance, may want to restrict abortion on grounds rooted in the Decalogue, but few want the government to stop you from drinking raw milk.Both the left and the right likely share basic understandings about ethical issues such as feeding the poor, loving your neighbor as yourself, forgiveness, compassion, envy, lying, etc. More often than not, the major differences are bound up in their notions about the issue that Jonah touched on – the purpose, scope, size and role of government. As he notes, conservatives seek to limit the role of government. They do this for various reasons, not least of which is an effort to combat the loss of liberty that comes with a statist social order. But they do not seek to eliminate government. The general agreement among conservatives is that less government is better government. They are not anarchists.
Resisting big government necessarily means resisting the temptation to have government perform some incontrovertibly noble efforts such as feeding the poor. But preferring that government not be the primary purveyor of charity does not therefore mean that conservatives are opposed to all charity or even all government sponsored charity as some would have you believe – a safety net is part of everyone's thinking. Mostly, the discussion tends to circle around the size and scope of the safety net.
An atheist might oppose religious symbolism associated with government. This does not therefore mean that that atheist is opposed to morality. There is no need to transmogrify his opposition to the display of religious symbols on government property into hatred of moral people or ethics. But that is often how those who support limited government are treated:
- To support lower tax rates rather than higher rates is not hatred of the poor;
- To see negative societal ramifications with and to question the continued usefulness of affirmative action programs a half century on from their inception is not hatred of blacks;
- To support controlled and lawful immigration is not hatred of Mexicans;
- To make note of perceived societal benefits that customary marriage affords, especially to women and children, is not hatred of gays;
- To ponder and debate the meaning of epochs of temperature data is not science denial;
- To debate how to fund birth control or to oppose partial birth abortion is not warring against, hatred of or denying healthcare to women nor is it misogynistic;
- To support choice in school is not hatred of teachers, minorities or the poor;
- To support gun ownership is not hatred of children or supporting murder;
- To disagree with the policy prescriptions of the current occupant of the White House is not racist.
Although it is easier and politically expedient to just dismiss opponents as moral inferiors, uneducated dunces and cave dwellers, it is anything but intelligent, compassionate, respectful, decent, fair, responsible or kind. It could be that those who hold opposing views are decent people who are very interested in those affected by smaller government. It could be that they have significant moral and ethical struggles when considering the trade-offs inherent in life and politics. They may even have the best interests of others in mind when considering policies.
Each side strives for ideological conformity and none so willingly and gleefully makes use of derogatory language as the left. Those interested in power and the imposition of their values understand that it’s quicker and more effective to silence those with whom they disagree than to debate. It is just easier to liken successful women to whores and crudely titter about hate-f***ing them (it is hard to think of a more sexist/misogynistic notion), assume bad motives on behalf of those with wealth (it is hard to think of a more classist notion), compare the inquisitive to Holocaust deniers (it is hard to think of a more irrational/unscientific notion) and attack the racial bona fides (it is hard to think of a more racist notion) of those with a different opinion than to thoughtfully consider and address anything they might have to say.
So how about let's all do our best to avoid character assassination by slur as the replacement for discussion. Rather, let's rely on thoughtful deliberation for the defense of our values.
Derision is not discourse. Ridicule is not refutation.
2013-10-12
Obama Then and Now - Debt Ceiling
[The Ouroboros is an ancient symbol depicting a serpent or dragon eating its own tail.]
 |
| Obama Then and Now - Debt Ceiling |
[The Ouroboros is an ancient symbol depicting a serpent or dragon eating its own tail.]
Obama Then and Now - Gay Marriage
[The Ouroboros is an ancient symbol depicting a serpent or dragon eating its own tail.]
 |
| Obama Then and Now - Gay Marriage |
[The Ouroboros is an ancient symbol depicting a serpent or dragon eating its own tail.]
2013-10-11
Obama Then and Now - Debt Ceiling
 |
| Obama Then and Now - Debt Ceiling |
The first quote would be cause for celebration if raising the debt limit hadn't been followed by the largest one-day bump in history back in 2011.
And why shouldn't we believe that this too is a political stunt?
[The Ouroboros is an ancient symbol depicting a serpent or dragon eating its own tail.]
2013-10-05
Re-import Prescription Drugs?
Buying prescription drugs in other countries and reimportation seems to be mostly a tricky sleight of hand that only benefits the end user. Do we really believe that putting drugs in a shipping container, shipping them off to some other country and then bringing them back somehow magically reduce its cost? Many foreign markets threaten to confiscate the drug company's patents as extortion to force the companies to sell at lower prices. The company has patents to protect their investment in research and development. If a generic company can 'steal' the patented formula because another country invalidates a patent, then the generic company can produce and sell a drug for dirt cheap while avoiding the cost of R&D. And since many of the world's governments have gone the socialized medicine route, the US is one of the lonely protectors of patent protection that fuels private investment into R&D.
And then there is the question of safety. Are those cheap-o knock offs whipped up in outer Slobovia going to be up to the FDA standards? Are concerns about purity and safety legitimate? BTW, do all those protections enforced by the FDA drive up costs in the US?
What about all the hand wringing over outsourcing? Where is all the concern for American jobs and a 'living wage' from the let's-buy-foreign-drugs crowd? Keeping these jobs here and charging high prices certainly must help the 'living wage' situation, right? But apparently that's not so great for low prices. There is no free lunch.
And as one of the richest countries on the planet, shouldn't we feel good that we, the global 1%'ers, are carrying the load and helping out our global brothers and sisters? Isn't the world justified in pointing their finger of judgment towards us and telling us we are not paying our fair share? Is this just a global tax of our obscene wealth? Aren't higher prices for us just a progressive payment structure that allows those less fortunate than us to share in the pharmaceutical bounty? Just spreading the wealth around a bit? Can we say that those who are trying to get out of their prescription drug fair share hate the world's poor?
The same crowd that condemns Walmart's evil importation offshore goods in order to lower costs seems to have no problem with the Walmart-ization of medicine. Providing goods at lower costs that allows the poor to enjoy a much higher cost of living is moral outrage when Walmart does it, but when the reimport drugs crowd proposes a similar model for prescription drugs, in order to do an end run around pharmaceutical companies and their high domestic costs, it is a moral necessity.
I guess it all depends on who's wallet is being gored. Or whose vote you are looking for.
And then there is the question of safety. Are those cheap-o knock offs whipped up in outer Slobovia going to be up to the FDA standards? Are concerns about purity and safety legitimate? BTW, do all those protections enforced by the FDA drive up costs in the US?
What about all the hand wringing over outsourcing? Where is all the concern for American jobs and a 'living wage' from the let's-buy-foreign-drugs crowd? Keeping these jobs here and charging high prices certainly must help the 'living wage' situation, right? But apparently that's not so great for low prices. There is no free lunch.
And as one of the richest countries on the planet, shouldn't we feel good that we, the global 1%'ers, are carrying the load and helping out our global brothers and sisters? Isn't the world justified in pointing their finger of judgment towards us and telling us we are not paying our fair share? Is this just a global tax of our obscene wealth? Aren't higher prices for us just a progressive payment structure that allows those less fortunate than us to share in the pharmaceutical bounty? Just spreading the wealth around a bit? Can we say that those who are trying to get out of their prescription drug fair share hate the world's poor?
The same crowd that condemns Walmart's evil importation offshore goods in order to lower costs seems to have no problem with the Walmart-ization of medicine. Providing goods at lower costs that allows the poor to enjoy a much higher cost of living is moral outrage when Walmart does it, but when the reimport drugs crowd proposes a similar model for prescription drugs, in order to do an end run around pharmaceutical companies and their high domestic costs, it is a moral necessity.
I guess it all depends on who's wallet is being gored. Or whose vote you are looking for.
2013-10-03
The Washington Monument Gambit
 |
| Washington Monument Gambit |
2013-09-24
2013-09-05
Bypass
It should be something more than a mere curiosity that on matters foreign the President reluctantly defers to Congress in order to share the wealth of blame while he brags about bypassing Congress, and therefore the Constitution, on matters domestic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)