Conservative "liberty"
Feds Want A Wiretap Backdoor In All Net Hardware and Software
Think the federal government is too intrusive? You ain't seen nothing yet. An FCC mandate will require that all hardware and software have a wiretap backdoor that allows the government to tap into all your communications.Yes, leave it to our republican corporatocracy to look out for our interests. And if that is not enough:
The final problem is that if all hardware and software has a backdoor, it's an open invitation to hackers. So we may be faced with a double-whammy: The feds and hackers working their way into our systems.A note to the republican-controlled government and those who support them: Gee, thanks for all your "less government" bullshit, you f***ing conservative hypocrites.
posted by SheaNC at 1:40 AM
45 Comments:
The fact that Republicans still think of themselves as the party of conservatives, or the fact that conservatives still vote Republican, is appalling to me.
I think in the very near future we'll see the concepts of small government and fiscal responsibility become the battle cry of the Democrats. The Reps have dropped the ball soooo bad on those it's not even funny.
Indeed; it wasn't too long ago that the dems and the repukes stood for the complete opposite of many of their current ideals - for example, republicans claim Linoln as their own, yet he was opposed to their platform of state vs federal power ("states rights"). And, while the dems were once the party of southern racists, republicans took that title decades ago. Now they're little more than the political arm of a white-collar crime syndicate. And the only way they can further their agenda is to strip away as many citizens' rights as possible.
Okay, I have to add one more thing: I am sick and tired of conservatives trying to make excuses for the vile shit the republicans do by claiming that those republicans are "rinos" or that they are "not conservative." BULLSHIT. Conservatives have gleefully, deliberately embraced crime, corruption, and hypocrisy for decades now; it is what they do and it is who they are and they might as well stop trying to deny the truth becuse they're not fooling anyone (except the pathetic fucking morons who vote for them). The republican party is the party of conservatism; that's what conservatives have long maintained, that is what they campaign on, and that is what their supporters had better face up to. Conservatism in America has come to mean nothing but hypocrisy and corruption, period.
I see what you're saying Shea, and I agree. I sometimes use the word "conservative" to refer to some of my ideals, but I use it in a very academic/"Jack Mercer's political model" sense. Anyone who votes Republican and uses that term uses it incorrectly, in my book.
You are absolutely right that those who have proudly considered themselves conservatives, yet supported Republicans should be called out for what they are: hypocritical at best, corrupt criminals at worst.
Hi Shea and Smorg!
Just a few quick observations.
Shea, I think the "Republican vs. Democrat" model we fall back on is a bit simplistic. We essentially have one party in Washington whose goals are the same. There is just a bit of a struggle between individuals who want a bigger piece of the pie. So your last sentence about "conservative" is a bit inaccuarte. Yes, Republicans are a little more conservative than Democrats, but in all reality there is little difference.
Second point is the reason that many of conservatives have tried to continue supporting the Republicans is for the same reason that many liberals continue to try to support the Democrats. Viewing it 100% honestly, do you think that Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid or any of the rest of those clowns care less about the environment, the working man, the black man, homosexuals, etc, etc.? And yet liberals continue to vote for these self-servers in the hopes that they will do more than lip service. That is the reason that conservatives still vote for Republicans is that they hope that they will do more than lip service, and sadly both liberals and conservatives have been sorely betrayed by the self-interest of our politicians. In other words, liberals, conservatives--consider yourself exploited.
Now some specifics to your post.
We have had such long before the "Republican-controlled" government. Not sure if you are familiar with Eschelon or not, but you should be:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eschelon
Shea, we can direct all of our angst against a particular party, but until we as citizens wake up and realize that we are being bent over by both parties we will never see change.
Also, in regards to your comment, I don't believe you still know what a true conservative is. (They are few and far between, Shea)
But, guys, the same could be said about people who vote for Democrats. They are just as guilty of graft, corruption and power-mongering. Are you hypocrits and corrupt criminals?
-Jack
I didnt know what an actual conservative was until I "met" Jack. Youre right Jack, your kind is few and far between and its unfortunate- because youre rational. I was always under the impression that conservatives were close-minded assholes, then I realized there is nothing conservative about the modern day party-line toeing Republican and that conservatives really arent close-minded in any sense of the word. Or assholes! I mean, I consider myself more conservative than many Republican friends/family that I have. Ive just come to appreciate and understand the Constitution more this past year or so. And how it seems we constantly overlook the bill of rights, especially the 10th amendment. How sad. Wolnosc where the hell have you been, good commentary, I could learn something from you if you showed up here more often.
Hi WSC!
The following contains GENERALIZATIONS :) Please look beyond them in a macro sense.
At this point I always point out one of Plato's teachings and also one attributed to Tytler. First Plato indicated subsequent to the decline of an empire we see the base in society rise to the top to be its rulers. (Most empires--whether we agree with them or not--come about by high moral or ethical ideals within the society, an appeal to the work ethic, and an appreciation for law, order, personal initiative and responsibility.) We noticed that when the spoiled children of Rome inherited the empire that had been build by blood, sweat and tears they squandered it--bringing about its demise. Such is the case with the United States. It rose to greatness on the backs of hard working, sacrificial and heavily ethical/moral individuals, but since has fallen into the hands of their spoiled children. We will see the decline of the American empire in our lifetime I am afraid. It is the natural cycle of such.
Another favorite is a quote creditted to Alexander Tytler, and its truths are deep:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilization has been 200 years.
Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage."
This is evidenced in America by a lot of the policy that the left has pushed for decades contributing towards its decline in self-sufficiency. Think on this--
We were established on a spiritual awakening--dedicated to the ideal that all should be free to forge one's destiny. We called it a God-given inalienable right. (Modern American Leftists--hereinafter referred to as MAL's--have pushed secularism placing man and his government as the highest authority thereby placing ideals such as freedom and democracy at the whim of whoever is in charge)
Great courage led us to throw off the yoke of a monarchy to establish the closest thing to a true democracy this world has ever known. Believe it or not, a lot of our laws and structures back then and now were based on Roman law, and Romans--even though under a Caesar--had many freedoms and privileges that many cultures forbade. (MALs often advocate a policy of appeasement, playing upon and giving into fears--choosing safety and security above freedom)
Liberty was bought through blood--the highest price one can pay for anything. (MALs have resisted and villified every military action taken by the United States in the last century. Liberty has to be purchased with a downpayment, but also has a mortgage attached--preservation of liberty has its costs--something MALs seem reluctant to pay. Am not saying all military action is necessary--but I'm sure that some are)
Abundence is what we have now. Our poorest are wealthier than many nation's richest. I know this having lived all over the world. We are so wealthy in this nation that we speak of poverty in terms of relativity the rest of the world cannot identify with. I read not too long ago that one of the biggest health threats to our "poor" in the United States is obesity. We throw away volumes more than most nations our size produce. (MALs have looked at this abundance and even while embracing it and taking advantage of it view it as inherently evil. To assuage their own guilt they initiate redistributions among the populations of people because they feel that everyone should have the same thing. Not willing to give away all of their own excess in order for another to share a more equal existence they empower those in charge to take away from some to give to others--vote for themselves and their constituents largesse from the ever ravenous coffers of the public purse.)
So the selfish begin to fragment society breaking into two classes. You begin to see those who do not want to share--do not want to abide by the high ideals of charity, and, you have those who out of selfishness begin to see what they can do to get everything they can out of others. (MALs at this point become the champions of those on the bottom, thinking that it is their moral duty to rob from the rich and give to the poor--like Robin Hood, building themselves a power base on the selfishness of those they represent. Instead of empowering the selfish toward self-sufficiency so that they can move from the bottom to the top, they devote their time to ways to redistribute from the top to the bottom.)
The selfish at the top and bottom become complacent. This is the pinacle of power within the socialist model. (MALs at this point have enjoyed a sense of moral superiority up to this point but begin to recoil at the results of their work. They have created a generation of people of entitlement who think that they are owed a paycheck, a meal, healthcare, retirement, etc.)
The apathetic are now dependent--dependent upon the top, the rulers, the government. Dependence is bondage. (MAL's at this point are outraged because the direction the empire has gone is one that is against their nature. The empire has once again become a facist society just like any monarchy. Their shortsightedness does not let them see that the welfare programs that they were so adamant about having have not helped, but enslaved the ones they wanted to help. They do not realize that the collectivism that they voted for is now what controls every aspect of their lives.)
There is a reason for this, WSC--I am currently writing an article about the MAL and will alert you when its done. Keep in mind that I am in no way trying to insult anyone's sensibilities--I just want to point out the obvious.
Look forward to your thoughts--if you can ever get through this book.
-Jack
Oh, this said too, with the full understanding that many of my friends here at NL's may not be as liberal as the think :)
Hmm...Could it be that Neo Libs are the same as Neo Cons? We know Neo Cons aren't conservative, could it be that Neo Libs are...no...couldn't be!!
:)
-Jack
I have a question for you, Jack. I see where you're coming from with the comment - it's your typical style: philosophical and gently chiding (not a good or bad thing). I tend to be philosophical too, but lately I've been fed up with myself. I've talked a good game, but what have I done to evoke positive change?
So my question to you is what can the American people do to avoid the fate you eloquently describe here? What realistic measures can be taken to prolong our empire? If we're doomed no matter what (which is what most people think) why don't we just eat hamburgers and act like Robin Hood??
Appreciate your thoughts.
Smorg, WSC, hang with me--I started a reply on another computer, but will have to finish it and post it Sunday. Just a quick note though- Smorg, I don't think I am chiding so much as trying to help us all sort out what we really think, what we really believe, what we really stand for. I constantly do this to myself as a means of self evaluation, prioritizing, etc. (Not that its done ME any good-ha!)
Anyhow, I have a definitive answer for both you and WSC concerning what I think should be done.
Will be back!
-Jack
Lots of ground to cover, to here are my rebuttals to Jack Mercer's Crap-O-Rama:
Smorgasbord:
I see what you're saying Shea, and I agree. I sometimes use the word "conservative" to refer to some of my ideals, but I use it in a very academic/"Jack Mercer's political model" sense.
Thanks, but I urge all to look beyond Jack’s “political model” - it is only his opinion, and it is not a good source for defining conservatism. Jack knows I have said this before: he redefines political ideologies to fit his mold, and rejects the actual definition of it doesn’t suit him, and frankly, he knows that I consider a lot of his political opinions to be hogwash because of that practice. There are other political models out there, which I pointed out to him in my rebuttal to his weird piece about liberalism leading to fascism (I know you’re reading too, Jack, so I’m not opening any new wounds here).
Jack Mercer:
Shea, I think the "Republican vs. Democrat" model we fall back on is a bit simplistic.
I wasn’t doing a "Republican vs. Democrat" piece… I didn’t say anything about the democrats in the post. If you want my opinion of them you can go here, and as you can see, I chastise them, too, albeit for other reasons. This piece was directed at republicans specifically.
...so your last sentence about "conservative" is a bit inaccurate.
Nope, that last sentence is dead-on accurate 8^)
Second point is…[etc]
See, Jack, it is you who wants to turn this into a republican vs democrat competition, not me. That’s because the repukes’ actions are indefensible, so the only thing left is to redirect the subject to the democrats. It’s that tried and true “Look over there!” republican mainstay.
We have had such long before the "Republican-controlled" government.
I think we all already know that and agree, but my post is written to address the here and now.
Shea, we can direct all of our angst against a particular party, but until we as citizens wake up and realize that we are being bent over by both parties we will never see change.
Jack, I am not pitting the two parties against each other in this post. I am not writing as a proponent of the democratic party, I am writing a post criticising the party in dominant power right now.
Also, in regards to your comment, I don't believe you still know what a true conservative is.
Okay, now you've thrown down the gauntlet! You have the nerve to insult my intelligence after I have demonstrated so often that it is you who refuses to accept the definitions of conservatism, liberalism, etc.! So you know more than me and everyone else, do you? Fine. You may have seduced a few people with your eloquence, Jack, but we both know I am not fooled by your predilection to redefine political definitions to suit your lesson plan.
…the same could be said about people who vote for Democrats. They are just as guilty of graft, corruption and power-mongering.
Not just as guilty. The democrats are guilty of those things, but the republicans are many times worse than the democrats, and have successfully bested them in every area of corruption and hypocrisy. The repukes are by far worse than the democrats. And the democrats are too corrupt for me.
wolnosc: After seeing today's roll call on the extension of the Patriot Act I have to agree with Jack's comments.
I don’t think that proves Jack’s point, it only proves that the democratic party today is a bunch of pathetic wannabe repukes. Remember, the dems might jump on the repuke bandwagon, but the repukes are the ones who created the patriot act in the first place.
chickenhawk:
I didnt know what an actual conservative was until I "met" Jack.
For crying out loud, don't be seduced by Jack's well-spoken but wrong opinions. Just because he says "conservatism is.." doesn't mean he's right. Again, he just changes the definition of conservatism to fit his needs. Deep down he is another Limbaugh-esque purveyor of the philosphy that everything good in the world is conservative and everything bad is liberal, and anything bad about conservatism actually doesn’t exist. Don’t use Jack as a political barometer. Study political science from a broad palette of sources,
You're right Jack, your kind is few and far between and its unfortunate- because youre rational. I was always under the impression that conservatives were close-minded assholes, then I realized there is nothing conservative about the modern day party-line toeing Republican and that conservatives really arent close-minded in any sense of the word.
Sorry, Chickhawk, but you are absolutely wrong about that one. You’ve been poisoned by Jack’s ability to present the wrong ideas in an attractive package, and to pass off his opinions as fact. It’s not too late to save yourself, man!
Jack Mercer:
Modern American Leftists--hereinafter referred to as MAL's--have pushed secularism placing man and his government as the highest authority thereby placing ideals such as freedom and democracy at the whim of whoever is in charge
Wrong, Jack. Unlike you slaves to ancient myth, we secularists believe that freedom and democracy are inalienable rights, intrinsic to the human condition. Your type, on the other hand, believes that morality only exists as bestowed by some magical supernatural being, and that without your magic and myth, humanity is intrinsicly immoral. We have faith in the strength of morality as an objective truth, while you consider morality to be something that humans are incapable of conceiving on their own. You religoids have a lower opinion of human beings that do secularists.
MALs often advocate a policy of appeasement, playing upon and giving into fears--choosing safety and security above freedom.
Oh, please, you've just summed up conservative foreign policy in a nutshell.
MALs have resisted and villified every military action taken by the United States in the last century.
Thanks for not blaming liberals for Pearl Harbor, Hiroshima, the Korean conflict, Vietnam, Bosnia...
Liberty has to be purchased with a downpayment, but also has a mortgage attached--preservation of liberty has its costs--something MALs seem reluctant to pay.
Again, bullshit. We who oppose military aggression are willing to defend our country. We just don't believe that our freedom's cost involves invading and overthrowing other countries that posed no threat to us.
I read not too long ago that one of the biggest health threats to our "poor" in the United States is obesity.
First of all, I question your source. Second, "the poor" is a term lumping together many types of people in different circumstances. The health problems of the homeless are different from, say, impoverished members of certain native american tribes. Dig deeper and you'll find out that the least expensive available foods in the U.S. are non-nutritive junk food, which contributes mightily to the problem.
MALs have looked at this abundance and even while embracing it and taking advantage of it view it as inherently evil.
Wrong again. MALs are not opposed to abundance, they are opposed to greed. There is a BIG difference.
Instead of empowering the selfish toward self-sufficiency so that they can move from the bottom to the top, they devote their time to ways to redistribute from the top to the bottom.
First of all, it is an insult to accuse people at "the bottom" of being selfish just because they want to improve their lives. Second, assisting with healthcare, education, childhood nutrition, job training and assistance in finding employment, are all things that give to society, including your beloved, selfless, always-righteous members at "the top".
MALs... have created a generation of people of entitlement who think that they are owed a paycheck, a meal, healthcare, retirement, etc.
No, they have created a generation of people who believe that they have a right to fair employment instead of sweatshop exploitation, a right to basic nutrition instead of starvation in this land of abundance, and that taking care of each other's healthcare needs and caring for the elderly are the moral and ethical thing to do, especially when, as you point out, we are such a rich country.
The apathetic are now dependent--dependent upon the top, the rulers, the government. Dependence is bondage. (MAL's at this point are outraged because the direction the empire has gone is one that is against their nature. The empire has once again become a facist society just like any monarchy. Their shortsightedness does not let them see that the welfare programs that they were so adamant about having have not helped, but enslaved the ones they wanted to help. They do not realize that the collectivism that they voted for is now what controls every aspect of their lives.)
That's a bullshit genralization, Jack. You want to paint all those who have utilized social services at some time in their lives as a bunch of leeches, while you ignore the necessary services provided to those who need them and who have no other resources, including the charities which were not and are not up to the task. So we're fascist because we want to provide some little measure of food, shelter and healthcare for a guy who is developmentally disabled, has cerebral palsy, can't work, and has no one to care for him? Where will he live? With you? The day that you and your conservative friends bring home clients from group homes for the developmentally disabled to live at your house where you will feed, clothe, bath, diaper, and medicate them, they maybe you'll have room to talk about being "enslaved by entitlements" (and that's just one example). Until then, you're just another Rush O'Hannity disciple with sour grapes about being asked to contribute to a society to help the less fortunate who have legitimate needs. Oh, forbid it should take a few pennies away from your need to bomb the living hell out of innocent civilians in some third-world country somewhere.
wolnosc:
Jack,
What a truly great commentary!... [etc., tons-o-praise for Prince Jack]
I can't believe you guys are buying what he's selling. Honestly.
Jack Mercer
I don't think I am chiding so much as trying to help us all sort out what we really think, what we really believe, what we really stand for.
If anyone is so unsure of their own values that they need Jack's help to sort out what they really believe, then they are in serious trouble.
See the democrat and republican thing goes back so far. I see your point Shea, and today's Republicans do win the corruption battle I dont doubt that. And when I look at Jack's model, I look at one of the better attempts to define politics- I dont take it as gospel. And just as I dont identify Jack with our modern redefined conservative, I dont identify you with our modern redefined liberal. All of these generalizations get thrown around, and I find that we try to see through the fog of it all here. I still maintain that Jack is one of the few conservatives I actually know. Yeah I disagree with what he would say from time to time, but I wouldnt ever identify him with Rush Limbaugh- those guys arent thinkers and blatant liars. I see more devils advocacy out of Jack over here usually. When I say that I didnt know a conservative until I met Jack, I mean that our political ideologies have been redefined by buffoons in Congress and the media- especially in my brief lifetime, and I still maintain that he is one of the only conservatives I know. I dont think Jack defines conservatism to fit his needs. I wouldnt pass off any opinion as fact, I pass it off as an idea to better society. The primary being that the constitution has been messed with and abused for so long now. I alway see that as Jack's primary concern (a little too much blame on the left yes). That liberals are the ones responsible for that is asinine- I mean look at the GOPs beloved Patriot Act, theyre actually proud of that shit.
I dont really appreciate you saying that I am being poisoned because I respect another man's opinion and listen to it. Should I shun it because its not leftist and you dont like it?
But youre right, we dont have less government from the party that preaches it. But damn, why so angry? I didnt agree with everything in Jack's post, but its a great commentary. Instead of commenting on that though Ive had to waste my time this morning defending us against your angry rant. I dont think Jack was insulting your intelligence as much as stating a point that his kind are few and far between- and arent they? And Jack and Wolnosc essentially agreed we have a one-party system, Wolnosc's opinion a result of the extension of the Patriot Act. Where that becomes a Democrat-Republican argument I dont know. You may not agree with Jack, and thats fine, I dont always agree with him- but I value his opinion coming over to a liberal sight and chiming in. Do you want a limited perspective? Thats why we call it a discussion. So now youve flipped out and because people respect an opinion from an otherwise good man, even if you dont agree with him, we're poisoned into taking his opinion as fact? And why am I wrong in stating that Jack is rational, all the man did was attempt to have a discussion with us. I dont think you represent the MAL he refers to. Believe me, the modern conservative contributes as much negativity I dont doubt that. And as much as you might disagree with him and as much as you get offended, he is the last one to ever get so emotional here. Even in my young age, I know thats what will poison me. Im not going to get insulted and all pissed off because someone gives a perspective I dont agree with. This is America, a land of freedom. Among those freedoms, the freedom of thought. Dont get so huffy-puffy, youre better than that. Discuss it with him and dont ever tell me Im poisoned bc I appreciate what someone has to offer. Im more of a listener here if anything. I listen to you all the time and most of the time agree with you. Not here though, I really think youre missing the point of why we come here. Its not a contest to brainwash or poison anyone. Again that I dont agree with everything someone says doesnt make me brainwashed. Ive always seen eye to eye with your anti war posts and the war profiteering that goes on. Am I brainwashed for not reading up on more military history for agreeing with you? Im kind of pissed off now. Your statement seems to indicate I only study Jack Mercer and thats it. I mean, youre always accusing Jack of this holier than thou attitude, what is that then? God its as if you know me better than I do.
Shea, this really could be the most insulting thing Ive ever read. Youve decided to call out people who you always have great discussion with and pretty much insulted them bc they seek to find a common ground with someone. Am I overreacting?
I mean, do you see the very paradoxical nature of your insult to me?
Sorry, Chickhawk, but you are absolutely wrong about that one. You’ve been poisoned by Jack’s ability to present the wrong ideas in an attractive package, and to pass off his opinions as fact. It’s not too late to save yourself, man!
What the fucking hell does that mean?
Do I detect a little penis envy, Shea? :)
-Jack
Chickenhawk, I wasn't angry or flipping out, although whenever I try to make a point emphatically, I get accused of ranting. So be it, but that's not the intent.
My "poisoned mind" comment refers to my contention that if you buy Jack's line of BS, then, with all due respect, you've been duped.
Listen, my experience with Jack Mercer goes way back to the Original Jack Mercer, the one who appeared here and stomped off in anger after I rebutted his comments and then returned as Mr. Nice Guy. The Jack Mercer who unleashed insult upon insult, not only at me, but at whole segments of the population. I have gone around and around over things with Jack before and I don't make the "Limbaugh-esque" charge lightly. I base it on the experience of many debates with him where he took that Rush O'Hannity position and defended it, and punctuated it with personal insults against me, and he knows it. He thinks that anything good is "conservative" and anything bad is "liberal". It's twenty years of talk radio in a nutshell, the Limbaugh-esque rededinition of terms to suit the right-wing agenda. Well, I got fed up with that tripe years ago.
Chickenhawk, and Jack, I also learned long ago not to get sucked into Jack's pattern of coming off all obsequious trying to appear "fair and balanced" when I have been drenched in the spew of right-wing-extremism time and again (and no, Jack or whoever asks, I'm not going to post all the links to those debates). See, I don't fall for Jack's line, "Gee, you're a good guy, but everything you believe in and stand for is evil/fascist, but oh, I don't mean you, you're actually a nice guy, you're just totally ignorant about politics, history, society, psychology, and culture." (See, Jack? I know your gameplan all too well).
And Jack, don't flatter yourself (Do I detect a little penis envy, Shea?") If you make comments, I can reference them. If they're horsepoop, I'm more likely to do so. If you con people into thinking you're "fair and balanced", I'll make sure you know that I don't fall for it.
Ok, you got yourself a deal. I still love you Shea.
Hi All,
I do have to correct, Shea on one issue. I discontinued reading NL's previously because I was insulted and the recipient of profuse profanity. I never leave somewhere because my ideas are "rebutted".
I'll just leave this post on this note. There are some rational, logical and open minds that visit this site. Judge the comments and the posts on the content.
That is all,
-Jack
One more thing, I don't remember insulting you, Shea. I do remember disagreeing with you, Shea, but as you went on above, any time I said something you disagreed with you took it personally. Can you fill me in on the insults?
-Jack
If I may chime in for a second, I feel as though these comments have strayed far away from the original point. I think some good stuff was said here; on topic stuff, by both Jack and Shea. People were offended, clearly, but I think we can move past that, can't we? Let's just pick up the conversation again where we left off, shall we?
Jack, you were going to comment about my request for specific "action items". Can you still make that happen?
Thanks
Hi Smorg,
Nah, I'm not offended by Shea. I just wanted to set the record straight.
I do have a missive written on my work computer that I wanted to finish and get to you. I feel that it is based in common sense. I don't believe I will make it into work this afternoon, so I will try to get it to you tomorrow if that's ok.
-(evil poisoining)Jack (ha!)
Jack:
"...any time I said something you disagreed with you took it personally."
Wrong. When you disagreed with my subject I did not take it personally. When you said I was ignorant or that my opnion was not valid or whatever, that's personal.
Can you fill me in on the insults?
Jack, I said above I didn't want to post the links; that's because I don't want to take the time to slog back through the archives of this blog, and my own, and probably yours, to do so, but if I have to do that I will, and I can give you a list. I hate to bore everyone by producing my verification; that is why I am going to let people take it or leave it or look through the archives themselves. You and I know it happened, even though you might choose to remember it as an honest attempt to play the devil's advocate, you knew what you were doing at the time.
Everyone: Remember, I am the first to admit that my style is volitile, I usually write about things I care about passionately enough to defend with vigor (when it's not a humor post), and my whole purpose in geting into blogging was to provide a venue to voice my contempt for the insidious neocon empire of depravity. So, if I ever become so offensive that you want me outta here, feel free to give me the boot. I'm always prepared for the consequences of stepping over the line.
Shea, I don't think anyone wants to see you and your volatility leave. Least of all me. I am different from you in that I refuse to think with my emotions. You do--and before you get offended by that, read back over your last paragraph. Emotions are not always wrong, but they are sometimes. When I was younger I was full of piss and vinegar and I allowed my anger to rule my head. After many years I found that it accomplished nothing, and was more often a vehicle that destroyed others before building them. Passion is a fickle thing and more often betrays the owner than anything. The older one gets the cooler the fire burns. I once reacted the way you do to issues, with righteous indignation, everything concrete/black and white and defined. I was a crusader of righteousness out to change the world, but saw passion often destroy more than create.
Anyhow, Shea, I don't believe that I ever referred to you as "ignorant or that [your] opinion was not valid", any more than I was "insulting" you above. Of course, if you have convinced yourself of such, then there is little I can do to help change that.
Shea, I'm also too old to "throw down gauntlets" --that is something for young men whose manhood, honor, or whatever needs to be proven. I come here to discuss and pass along a little of the knowledge I have acquired over my lifetime--I'm not some member of the "vast right wing conspiracy" who is interested in spying on your home computer.
Regards,
-Jack
Shea, dont go. I remember a post back in the day that we agreed on how great the band Foreigner was. Foreigner man. I mean, I wish I could cite some lyrics that are applicable to what is going on in this post, but "I wanna know what love is" might just be too gay.
This is really likeable to the gangsta rap feuds that we see going on today.
ha! CH, you always have a way of making me laugh, man!
Seriously, though, Shea and I have had our differences before--this is just another. Not a big deal at all. I have never based my fellowship or friendships on agreement. This is no exception.
-Jack
Foreigner? I thought I was supposed to be channeling Zappa today. Oops. Nevermind.
I've got to add two things:
1. Jack, you take things personally, too, even though you might deny it. As one example, observe how, when I attacked conservatism in my post, you chose not to defend conservatism, but chose instead to attack liberalism. It's the intellectual equivalent of saying, "Oh yeah? Well, take this!"
2. Jack, you're constantly saying "liberals do this" and "liberals do that", saying all kinds of untrue things about liberals. Now, if I am a liberal, then you are talking about me, personally and directly. That's what I referred to above when I described how you make those claims, then offer a disclaimer that the liberal you're speaking to is exempt from condemnation, then you proceed to continue with the false accusations.
So, you can't come off as above the fray when you 1) take things personally yourself, and 2) make personal accusations about someone and then expect them not to take it personally.
Hey its been educational and it always is. I wrote this off as an insulting rant from Shea, but we are learning from one another here. I think we all know each other well enough that we can get personal like this, for the sake of bettering our discourse. Let us keep on keepin on.
Holy shit, 31 comments. I'll have to take take a week off and read this.
Shea, I guess then I am a "fucking conservative corrupt criminal" then, huh? I didn't realize I was to take this personally until you pointed out that I should. Shea, if we cannot use generalizations when posting without people taking offense then we are in trouble.
And no, I have to correct you once again. I do not take it personally, I offer counterpoint. I point out inconsistencies. I point out additional information for one to consider. I constantly did and do this for my students when teaching as a means of getting them to think through what they were saying. Not saying that you are my student; but if we are not here to teach and learn from each other then you need to eliminate you comments section and just engage in monologue. Shea, I wish I was like you at middle age having already figured it all out. Unfortunately, at my ripe old age I am still muddling through it.
If generalizations offend you, Shea, then please skip my comments or band me from the 'blog. It won't be the first liberal blog I have been blocked from.
-Jack
Jack, you will never be banned from this blog. You have contributed way too much for that to even cross my mind.
Hi Mochi,
I know that--I was just making a point to my friend, Shea. Kind of an indirect point :)
-Jack
Speaking of which, I DO think this may be a high comment record for NL's. Shea's usually get the conversation going!
-Jack
Not, stopping, going for the record:
Jack, I'm not necessarily saying you should take things personally, just that you do so as much as I.
I understand you're trying to offer counterpoint, although I question your method, where you choose to use that "Look over there!" strategy. It muddies the issue, rather than clarifying it.
Let me illustrate it with this analogy:
You say, "SheaNC, you have an ugly nose." I am immediately presented with two possible replies. One is to reply, "No, I do not have an ugly nose." The other is to reply, "No, you are the one with an ugly nose." You see? The first reply is a direct rebuttal to the actual subject addressed. The second reply is a deflection intended to redirect the conversation away from the original subject towards something else, in order to throw the opponent off-track. It's digression, and clouds the issue instead of clarifying. That's why I so often call you on it when you employ that strategy.
By the way, out of curiosity, I wonder of blogger has a way to find out which post has generated the most responses?
I know I amped up a few when I posted about 9/11 being an inside job!
I have nothing to add to this right now, I just wanted to be the 40th comment.
Shea,
I hate to sound like a broken record, but I promise (pretty please with icing on top!) that I don't take things personally said to me on a 'blog. Shea, even though I know you guys fairly well, we've never met, you know little about me--we exchange ideas and chat. Now if you were to know me, know my family and say, "Jack, you're daughter is butt ugly" (which she isn't) then we may start getting on to the personal level. Otherwise, there is nothing said in a blog that can particularly offend me. I do have a dispersion to profanity and things like that which have to do mainly with my up-bringing, but I overlook that in favor of content, etc. So, PLEASE, pretty please, don't think I take what you say personally (even if sometimes you intend it so :)
Another reason I use the arguments you point out, is that so many of the posts I read promote the idea that whatever is being brought up is something new, Bush's fault or the GOP's fault, etc. etc. If that is the way they are presented, and it is not something indigenous to the accused, then I usually want to note that this is not something new, but rather endemic to government in general, etc. To not do so allows you to deal in bias--Bush bashing, GOP bashing, conservative bashing, etc. That's what separates the article from being objective from just some political hack's opinion. Weed out the bias, and you may have something, but as many of the articles stand alone, they are far from presenting anything objective or useable. That is the reason for DISCUSSION--if you already have it figured out and have omnicience, then write your own infallible Bible and be done with it. For example, under the Clinton Administration millions of people were wiretapped. Did we ever hear about it? Was there outrage? Was the media worried about it? Clinton tapped completely for economic reasons, whereas we have the Bush Administration tapping a few thousand suspected terrorist phones and all of the sudden we are outraged, "ooo, our rights are being trampled! this has NEVER happened before in the lily white history of our nation! blah, blah, blah". For that reason there is a credibility issue at hand.
Most bloggers go completely off on an issue (gut) before they have the facts in hand or have thought the whole issue through. We have MEN like CH, who several posts ago indicated that what he posted may not be entirely accurate or the right gut feeling to begin with. It TAKES a man to admit that he may have been mistaken, or may not have thought it through. Infallibility is the realm of fundamental thinkers, and fundamental thinkers need an audience, not a discussion group. If one is not open to criticism, counterpoint, discussion, then one needs to start another whacked out conspiracy site like the millions that are already out there and offer news feeds along with tinfoil hats and duct tape for subscribing members. Blogger.com allows the comment section to be turned off, so if one just wants to be heard, then they can do that. However, if one wants to discuss then they need to be open to opposing ideas, additional information, perspective--whatever comes at them. It doesn't "muddy" the issue--maybe for someone with concrete thinking it may--but rather adds to or presents perspective.
Shea, do you think you will learn anything on your blog if everyone that comes to it simply agrees with you? I personally have learned more from people disagreeing with me, than from affirmation.
So call me on it, Shea, but expect me to call you on an issue when you indict a single party or blame a single individual when there are more variables at play.
Smorg, WSC, I almost have your answer finished...
Having fun as always,
-Jack
Smorg & WSC,
Here is your answer:
Augusto Pinochet said that "Sometimes democracy must be bathed in blood.". I think his point being that democracy has heretofore always been purchased with it, and its preservation requires it.
Not that I am advocating revolution--conditions in this nation are far from the conditions requiring it. Also, comparatively speaking, we are still much more the democracy than the rest of the civilized world. But you both ask what can one be doing short of launching a full-scale revolution?
I offer two solutions, but only advocate one:
The first one's answer is obvious: When asking oneself the question of how to stop the machine or slow it one either has to change it, slow it, or destroy it. A machine the size of ours is beyond change. I think all of us understand this--thus our frustration. Slowing the machine can take place at three places - input, output and within the machine. The ability to slow the machine requires a high level of sophistication and resources. Opportunities at the input level have been effectively eradicated by Congress itself. Incumbency is the name of the game, and wishing for a change there is unrealistic, (because of things like the McCain-Feingold Bill and when Senators started being elected and not appointed around 1910). The common man does not have the ability or resources, and the money is controlled by the machine. This has been accomplished by our "beloved" leaders by their viewing the Constitution as an "organic" document that they can change at whim (or as they like to put it - update with the times). The machine is too corrupt to change internally. I get a chuckle listening to Democrat vs. Republican debates anymore, because essentially there is no vs. George W. Bush is a rubber stamp of Bill Clinton who continued George H. Bush's policies. Basically all we have is a good ol' boy system in Washington punctuated by petty and childish squabbles from America's spoiled children. No change there. Output can possibly be changed through huge quantities of civil unrest and disobedience. We won't see that in our lifetime except from some of the lunatic fringe, and they have no clue about what they are protesting about. So the only option is destroying the machine-- which we cannot do without revolution. Of course how can one launch a revolution when the peasants are disarmed(Second Amendment).
So option number one is prepare oneself for the coming (if it ever happens) revolution and hope to survive it one day. This is the option I do not advocate as I feel that it ultimately is a waste of time and resources.
Option number 2 is more pragmatic, and more realistic. Actually I can't really take the credit for thinking of it, as it was seeded through sage advice from my best friend concerning a situation with my daughter. Like most parents I was close to a drill sergeant concerning my daughter and her "need to succeed". I pushed her hard academically, and socially. One day in a conversation with my friend we were speaking about the cyclical nature of things and how the nation had reached its zenith and was in decline. This being the case, what could we do to prepare our children for what they certainly faced in the future. Plato's observation about the "base" in society rising to the top bothered me to the extent that I mentioned to my friend that I really didn't want to place my daughter in a situation one day where she would be rubbing shoulders with "the base"--that to do so would be dangerous, and cause her harm. It made me reflect on how I was rearing my child, and ultimately come to the conclusion that I may have been on the wrong track. Short of revolution nothing has been able to stem the tide of tyranny, and if this is what we ultimately face I must think of my child within that structure.
The first question I asked myself was where in the social strata did I want to see my child? If the middle class disappears (which it certainly does the further we progress through socialism to communism then to fascism), then where in society did I want to see my child. My initial reaction was at the top, but anyone in their right mind wouldn't want to see their child involved with, involved in, or a part of the "base in society". The other alternative is the the lower class, but we all know that this has its own set of problems. That got me to thinking that while I was concerned with her socio-economic position, I was missing the whole point. I recalled a bio I had read about Viktor Frankl, a survivor of the Nazi concentration camps, and realized that my job as a parent was to teach my child not to aspire to any particular level, but to prepare her mind to deal with whatever circumstances life placed her in. I narrowed it down to several concepts (pardon the Biblical references):
1. Philippians 4:11 Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, [therewith] to be content.
Most of our Western philosophy breaks down when society does. We are trained from birth never to be content, always strive, always reach for the top, "be all you can be", etc. All of these mantras work in a free society where opportunity exists, but what happens when that is gone? Like Victor Frankl, who was beaten on a daily basis, tortured, deprived, humiliated, we need to teach our children the strength of the mind and character--mind over matter , intellect over circumstance, etc. (Now before I start sounding like some whacked existential psychoanalyst, I want you to realize that this is something given serious consideration.)
This lead me to believe fully what is said in 1Timothy 6:6 "But godliness with contentment is great gain."
So I felt that I should teach my child to be (at the core of her being) a good person and that no matter what circumstances she found herself in to rise above them.
Frankl said:
"Don't aim at success - the more you aim at it and make it a target, the more you are going to miss it. For success, like happiness, cannot be pursued; it must ensue, and it only does so as the unintended side effect of one's personal dedication to a cause greater than oneself or as the by-product of one's surrender to a person other than oneself. Happiness must happen, and the same holds for success: you have to let it happen by not caring about it. I want you to listen to what your conscience commands you to do and go on to carry it out to the best of your knowledge. Then you will live to see that in the long-run - in the long-run, I say! - success will follow you precisely because you had forgotten to think about it."
So essentially if one were to adopt the two elements in the verse in Timothy above: "Godliness" which is the golden rule (Matthew 22:39) and contentment, then no matter what state a person is in they are personally insulated against the ills of the world, but also great contributors to others in time of trial. (Most of us do not have the forum or the ability to change others on a massive scale--but, by changing ourselves we increase our circle of influence affecting the lives of others around us. )
So the summary of the second course of action, (that I think is more pragmatic), is to teach ourselves to be consistent with our principles (make sure they are the correct ones though) and be content no matter what our circumstances. (Keeping in mind that I am not speaking of complacency, etc.)
Even if you are not a religious person these rules hold true. Hope this makes sense.
-Jack
P.S. Of course Shea will consider this a bunch of BS too...ha!
And another comment hits the post...
Jack, I like your pragmatic philosophy. It is pretty much how my wife and I have chosen to live our lives, and what we "strive for" in our daily routines.
I'm not sure how much of an answer it is, however. It seem to me that you're saying "we're all screwed, so get ready to deal with it," which makes sense (unfortunately) but it doesn't "stop the machine," or slow it, or change it. It simply prepares you mentally for when the machine crushes you. While certainly pragmatic, this is ultimately a defeatist position, isn't it? Correct me if I'm wrong...
If feel I need to add a little more. I think we all agree that our government is getting more and more tyrannical. That's the problem that needs addressing. Your philosophy, Jack, is exactly that - a philosophy. It's one I AGREE with, but I don't think it will stop our government from becoming more and more tyrannical.
Hi Smorg,
I know it sounds like one in the short term, but not in the long term. For centuries man remained in the dark ages while there were those who prepared themselves for the awakening. When it came they gave it impetus, and were able to lead men from bondage to freedom.
Basically right now, Smorg, all you have is a vote and a voice. Your vote is one among millions and your voice is a small one in a cacophany of chaotic chatter. You are struggling to make ends meet because the government takes over half of what you make each year, leaving you exhausted in your struggle just to live, thereby unable to cause it much problem. (If one looks at past monarchies one wills see parallels--the king owned the land, left just enough for the peasants to survive on, kept them disarmed, made them slaves to the monarchy, rewarded his aristocracy for keeping the peace, etc., etc.)
Defeatist? Yes, I believe you are right--we have already lost this one. We are FAR down the road of tyranny in these United States and in this world. Short of taking up arms - which you will quickly be killed to the dismay of your lovely family - there is nothing you can do. I am and never have been a pessimist, but I am a realist, and I conduct myself as such.
What I advocate is preparing oneself so one WON'T be crushed by the machine. Also so that one can teach, influence and prepare both present and future generations.
My father used to say that if you change the heart of a person you change their actions. Trying to change one's actions is a short term solution, whilst changing the heart is permanent. Most of the activism we engage in is to influence behaviors--not perspectives (one's heart). That's the reason our attempts are simply inneffective feints. Our government burned the Constitution long ago--with help from ideologues. The Constitution was our hope, our document of freedom. It has been shredded by our activist courts, it has been ignored by our legislature--nothing stands between We The People and those who would have power over us any longer.
Do you have alternative suggestions, Smorg? Anyone at NL's have any thoughts?
I will pose a question. Let's say that the Republicans lose control of Congress, the courts and the Executive Branch. (Liberals/Democrats already control the admininstrative branches of government). What realistically do you think will happen in this country?
WSC,
Don't like to sound pessimistic --although I know I sound that way. But I think that revolution will be the burden of coming generations rather than ours. We are too complacent, to apathetic and just plain fat (and in my case--too old). :)
-Jack
Are we going to try to make this one 50?
-Jack
Hooray! 50! As a liberal, that measn I get to keep 40 comments, while 10 of them are withheld for commenters who are unable to provide comments of their own.
Or, I cound take the conservative route and keep all 50 comments, plus borrow 150 more comments that I never have to pay back, and pass the debt for those on to the next blogger, who not only has to pay off the debt for my comments, but who I will criticize for being a "gloom and doom nay-sayer" if they complain about it! Being conservative is fun!
Holy shit, 31 comments. I'll have to take take a week off and read this.
I did take a week off, coming back to find this post and all these comments. Damn if reading them didn't take forever.
Regarding the original post, this is ridiculous. I'm an advocate of better security and the need to monitor certain communications, but come on, this is a bit egregious.
Shea, as for your various comments regarding conservatives, RINO's, and whatnot. I have to disagree. A true conservative really does believe in smaller government, more independence of the citizens, less reliance on government handouts. Yes, a safety net is necessary, but it should be a true safety net and not passkey to an entitlement lifestyle.
As for the decline and fall of the United States of America, I think the next revolution is already underway. Who's fighting it? Just look around. Those involved in the expression and communication of ideas, pointing out the Emperor has no clothes (or at least has a very bad fashion sense), are leading a revolution of ideas.
Don't kid yourselves. As long as we have a volunteer military that truly believes they are fighting to maintain the freedoms guaranteed in our Constitution, no politician is ever going to be able to burn that document. Yes, it has been beaten up pretty badly, but not so much that we can't recover it. The Information Age doesn't allow politicians to get away with nearly as much as they used to.
I think we're in a pretty good spot to guarantee our freedoms and ensure that this empire doesn't implode. It won't be easy, but it is possible. And right now, bloggers are among those on the front lines stemming the creeping tide of fascism that is inherent in any government by constantly challenging the government, educating the population (those that read the blogs, anyway), and influencing those in power.
Don't give up hope.
That's my favorite comment Sean has ever posted!
Post a Comment
<< Home