A thought...

And yes, it's a bit snarky.  But I mean it in all seriousness.

In 2006 the left went ballistic that President Bush wanted to track phone numbers of suspected terrorists.  They said it destroyed the Fourth Amendment, and some politicians went so far as to say, "What the heck - do you think millions of Americans are members of al Qaeda?"

Flash forward four years.  If you want to fly, the TSA will scan you (and agents will be able to see completely nude images of you) OR you can submit to a pat-down that, if it occurred anywhere else, would be considered a sexual assault.  Which seems to be just a *tiny* bit more intrusive than say, phone taps overseas.  Moreover, the efficacy - and safety - of such procedures have yet been proven to be reliable.  But no one on the left is complaining about personal privacy and the Fourth Amendment now.  Why?  The arguments are exactly the same.  "What the heck - do you think millions of Americans are members of al Qaeda?"

OK, I know the argument:  Phone taps and airplanes are entirely different things.  How else can you keep airlines safe from terrorist bombs if you don't inspect closely every passenger and crew member?  I get that. But dontcha think that if we knew what the terrorists were doing by listening to their phone conversations we might stop them before they get within 100 miles of an airport anyway?  Besides, I think the terrorists have proven that once they use a tactic and we discover it, they switch to something else.  Cases in point:  Richard Reid, shoe bomber.  We have to take our shoes at the airport now.  Terrorists tried to smuggle liquid explosives in by using water bottles.  No more liquids!  Abdulmutallab tried the exploding underwear theory, and now we get nude scans.  So what will we do when the next guy hides explosives in a body cavity?  

I think it's time to try something new.  Political correctness has gotten so out of hand that we can't do those things that might actually be EFFECTIVE at stopping terrorists.  There have been some good ideas proposed by some smart folks, so I won't bother to recount all those here.  But if we *really* want to keep people safe in the air, and on trains, and in buildings we need to be smarter than the terrorists, and that's not happening right now.

What do I want in my country's leaders?

Honesty. Start out telling the American people what you believe and why. Don't sugarcoat it, or spin it, or try to make it sound better than it is. Then when we see what *all* the candidates really believe, we can make the best choice.

Commitment to the Constitution. Our founding fathers were wise men, and they created a document by which future generations could govern this country wisely. I want leaders who know and understand the Constitution, and are not afraid to defend it vigorously.

Financial Sanity. Most Americans understand what it means to live within a budget. You can't spend what you don't have. So don't ask me to give the government more of my hard-earned money - instead prove to me that you will use what I've already given wisely.

I could go on and on, but I think - at this point - I'll stop. No sense making my blood pressure rise again. ::heh::

Cracking me up (and speaking boldly)

OK, I live in Alabama. And I'm sure y'all have heard the many jokes about Alabama, and its backwardness and redneckness and... well. Yeah. (For example: "Hey, we're Alabama - at least we're not as bad as Mississippi!" and the Application to Live in Alabama)

Well, Alabama's in the news again, and it's not about the Gulf oil spill. Apparently several candidates running for office in the June primaries have caught the attention of some "big names" and bloggers out there. Like Tim James (on Bill O'Reilly). And Rick Barber. And then there's Dale Peterson (interviewed by Glenn Beck, no less). I mean really, who even KNEW that Alabama elects its Agriculture Commissioner? Amazing.

Now, I have friends and family on both sides of the political spectrum, and this isn't meant as a slam on either side. But my goodness, if all our politicians spoke forthrightly about the issues and what they *actually* believe, do you think there would be as much craziness in DC right now? Do you think we'd all still be thinking "will those folks we elected actually look after *our* interests, like they're supposed to?" Would we be wondering "what does that Senator actually believe", and "what does that Congressman actually want for our country"?

So whether or not you vehemently agree (or disagree) with Mr. Peterson or Mr. James or Mr. Barber, at least give them props for speaking boldly and letting us voters know what they *really* think!

"Trifecta" - the coolest thing since liberty!

OK, that may be an exaggeration ::grin:: but it's still Really Awesome Stuff.

There's a group of conservative bloggers (Scott Ott, Bill Whittle, and Steve Green) who get together every week to discuss, debate, enrage the liberals, enlighten the conservatives, and generally talk about what's going on in our nation. The show is called Trifecta, and they call their segments "minisodes" because they're usually short bits of less than 8 minutes. Their topics can range all over the place, but usually they hit the week's hot button issues. It's a little news, a little humor, a little commentary, and a lot of angst. But they have some wise things to say (and I don't just mean the wisecracks).

Scott Ott once ended a segment with these moving words:

Bastiat wrote “a false principle never has been and never will be carried out to the end.” And if you’re like me you might say there is a sovereign God who superintends in the affairs of man to the extent that even the evil and ignorant actions of fallible men can be turned to the ultimate good in the hands of this loving Governor. All that to say, I don’t know whether this health care calamity will get repealed, overturned, or just orphaned when we throw its parents out into the streets. But I do know that oft times before the song “God Bless America” has erupted from the hearts of forlorn patriots as a lyrical prayer, He has heard and answered and as a result we still live in the most God blessed land on earth. Never give up.

And Steve Green (who "drunkblogs" Presidential speeches and is a very, very funny guy) said this in the same segment:

There's a swell in this country - an undercurrent - and it's real and it's powerful and it's the most hopeful thing I've seen in 30 years. You can see it in the polls and in the tea parties, and you're going to see it on election day. But if - and only if - everybody speaks up without apology, that's the most important part, without apology for liberty, we can win it back.

So if you've been wondering why this blog lately has a bit more of a political undercurrent to it, that's why. I'm working on a post about literature and Alisdair MacIntyre, and I have some interesting observations of the local wildlife that I want to share too. But I also value my liberty, and my freedom, and our Constitution. So you'll be seeing stuff about that too. And I make no apologies for it!

Tracking unemployment and Freedom and Free Will, oh my!

I have some randomly assorted tidbits for your perusal today.

Perhaps you've heard, but there's a bit of concern about unemployment in America these days. So the brilliant guy over at Political Math came up with this graphic that tracks unemployment since 1979. HERE. Wow.

An perhaps you've also heard that, well, there was an important vote in the House this past weekend, and there's a large percentage of the population who isn't very crazy about it. I'm one of those, and I offer up a couple of well-written essays for your perusal.

The first comes from Doctor Zero, called What Freedom Demands:

Freedom is not a gift. It is not given to you by the government, in a precise dosage that can be adjusted to match a politician’s diagnosis of what ails the body politic. Your forefathers won an impossible Revolution against an invincible foe to declare the self-evident truth that your rights descend from your Creator.

The second is from Bill Whittle who writes "Eject, Eject, Eject" on Pajamas Media, titled Free Will and Destiny...

But it seems to me that they have ... done nothing less than awoken from its long and deep slumbers the American Giant, who in attempting to sit upright discovers the Lilliputian threads that have been staked into the ground with finishing nails and who looks around, blinking and disoriented, fatter and softer and much, much poorer than he was when he last opened his eyes back in 1941, but possessed now as then with a terrible anger and capable still of mighty exertions.

I didn't post this to get into arguments with folks, so please no flames. I posted this because it's something I feel very strongly about. I think we've been openly mislead by what's in the bill, and that terrifies me.

My final offering is House Minority Leader John Boehner's speech to Congress just before the vote.

We have failed to listen to America. And we have failed to reflect the will of our constituents. And when we fail to reflect that will – we fail ourselves and we fail our country.

What we need is an open, honest, transparent Congress. What we need is a bi-partisan Congress working for the people. That's not what we have now. But that's what America needs, if she is to stay "the land of the free and the home of the brave".

Free Speech?

I'd like to call your attention to two interesting articles posted at American Thinker today. AT is a conservative website, but I think the two articles should be of interest to anyone, especially those who value free speech in our society.

The first is about Tea Parties. It's called Tea Parties: Misunderstood and Vastly Underrated. The philosopher and I went to the Atlanta rally on November 9 - the first protest rally for both of us. We didn't go because of any social justice issues, but because we're worried about big government, higher taxes, and no longer being represented in Congress. We met a lot of really nice folks: grandmas and grandpas, moms and dads (and their kids), college students and teachers, veterans, folks who work for a living and folks who *want* to work for a living. Basically just your ordinary, everyday Americans. We sang some patriotic songs, we listened to speakers encouraging us to pay attention to what was happening and to make wise, thoughtful decisions when we go to the polls. We're just decent people who are not happy. And we're exercising our free speech right to protest in a calm, peaceful, respectful way. But the way we're represented in the media is appalling. We're called "extremists" and distasteful names. If the progressive folks can gather and protest policies, why can't we?

OK, the second article is called Academic Freedom for Thee But Not for Me. It details a problem that gets press over and over - liberal or progressive speakers on campuses are able to exercise their rights to free speech when invited, but conservative speakers are shut down or shut out.

Regardless of whether you "lean left" or "lean right" - don't you see s disparity here? The right to free speech - peaceful free speech - is a right EVERYONE has, not just those to the left of the political spectrum. Michael Douglas had a great line in the movie The American President:

"America is advanced citizenship... You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing at center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours."

You have to be able to hear *both sides* of any argument - to shut down one side of the debate is to go down a terrible road. It's a frightening thought, and I hope and pray that reason and rationality return to this country. We're a diverse nation, but we should always be able to have discussion and free speech about the issues we care about.

And today, I've exercised mine!

Signage, or a sign of the end of the world?

Well, this may be a first. No, I take that back. It IS a first. The philosopher and I may actually be planning to attend a protest rally. (I'll wait until you reclaim your jaw from the floor...) It's not official yet, but it's probable. Atlanta, November 9. The Tea Party Express II.

Now, I know my readers (all three of you) may not agree with my politics, or my preference in cats over dogs, or my decision to wear fluffy pink socks on the weekends. But setting that aside ::grin:: wouldn't you agree that it's our right as American citizens to be able to stand up peaceably and say "I PROTEST"?

Well, I protest. I protest the Republicans and Democrats in Congress who are heck-bent on increasing our taxes. I protest the Republicans and Democrats in Congress who have forgotten that THEY work for US, not the other way around. And I protest the Republicans and Democrats in Congress who have forgotten that we have a Constitution, and that it actually means something.

So, if I attend this protest next month, will I carry a sign? Perhaps. If I do, it will say either "Spread my work ethic, not my wealth!" or simply "We the People". And I will no longer ignore my duty as a citizen to be informed and make wise decisions when I step into the voting booth. Because America is a precious thing, and we who live here are blessed to be part of it.

Duck and cover - it's raining liberals and conservatives!

All right. I'm about to post something inordinately controversial. Not because I'm trying to stir up a hornet's nest, but because I'm honestly trying to understand something about America. With that caveat, please don't harangue me in the comments! ::grin::

Everyone will agree that there are "liberals" and "conservatives" out there. And that often they are completely in opposition to one another on a whole host of issues. So what I'm endeavoring to do is come up with some broad definitions of various types of liberals and conservatives. It won't be comprehensive, but hopefully it will help me see the differences - and similarities - that the differing ideologies hold. I've tried to be fair, as well. Regardless of my own position, I want to be respectful of what others believe even though I may disagree. I added a few citations, but I also referred to Wikipedia a lot for individual designations and to clarify/condense particular positions. So here it goes:

TYPES of CONSERVATIVES

Fiscal Conservative: Advocates a reduction in overall government spending, deficit and national debt reduction, and balancing the federal budget. Free trade, deregulation of the economy, and lower taxes are also key points.

Neoconservative: Focuses on a robust national security, an aggressive foreign policy, stimulating economic growth by lowering taxes, and finding alternative ways to deliver public welfare services.

Paleoconservative: Concerned with preserving the American culture. Also emphasizes a connection with the past, and tend to be family-oriented, religious-minded and opposed to the vulgarity permeating modern culture.

Social Conservative: Adheres strictly to a moral ideology based on family-values and religious traditions. US social conservatives are mostly right-wing and hold firmly to a pro-life, pro-family and pro-religion agenda.

Crunchy Conservative: Tends to focus more on family-oriented, culturally conservative concepts such as being good stewards of the natural world and avoiding materialism in everyday life. Often as mistrustful of big business as they are of big government.

Citations
1. U. S. Conservatives (from About.com)
2. Mark Levin, Liberty and Tyranny


TYPES of LIBERALS

Socio-economic Liberal: Does not believe in the fairness of market outcomes and sees a legitimate government role in promoting efficiency and more equitable wealth distribution. Not concerned about civil issues over much, but are quite interested in government regulation of the economy.

Statist Liberal: Believes in a strong centralized government, which includes a major role in the direction of the economy, both directly through state-owned enterprises and indirectly through the state-directed economic planning of the overall economy. Also sees the Constitution as an evolving contract, and sees the need of government to modulate 'mob rule'.

Minority Rights Liberal: Focuses on the civil issues, ranging from implementing a safety net for the needy to the extreme of a totally managed economy. Seek to assist the poor/minorities through taxation policy, government welfare policies, nationalization of portions of the American economy, and strong government regulations.

Environmentalist Liberal: Focuses on environmental conservation and improvement of the state of the environment. Also seeks to influence the political process by lobbying, activism, and education in order to protect natural resources and ecosystems.

Civil Libertarian Liberal: Believe in the supremacy of individual rights. Believe that the government should not pass laws that restrict, oppress, or selectively fail to protect people in their day-to-day lives, whether the issue is pornography, gay marriage, drug legalization, or prostitution.

Anti-Authoritarian Liberal: Concerned with the moral legitimacy of governance and seek democratic reforms to government and corporations. They applaud appeasement, reparations, and apologies for past injustices. Often they hold the philosophical idea that people are not bound to any non-human authority.

Citations
1. Liberalism and Conservatism
2. Democratic Underground
3. Progressive Policy Institute

Best Comment EVER!

"I really wish these people like [Nancy Pelosi] would make up their minds! First, those who opposed socialized healthcare and Death Panels were Nazis, so I had to buy an armband. Then we were angry members of a mob, so I had to go make a sign. Then we were tools of sinister insurance corporations, so I spent all of one day looking for where I could pick up my tool paycheck. Then after that we were mindless, toothless, uneducated rubes controlled by Rush and Beck, and now we are assassins, so I gotta go take off my seedcorn cap and overalls and see if my Black Ops uniform still fits. Sheesh!"

From here.

Political Spectrum Quiz

OK, since everyone else is doing it... ::snort::

My Political Views
I am a center-right moderate social authoritarian
Right: 2.26, Authoritarian: 1.67

Political Spectrum Quiz


Not surprising at all. I'm a neo-conservative and a cultural conservative. (As probably any of my two readers would've guessed if they read my blog post about Crunchy Cons!)

My Foreign Policy Views
Score: 4.06



My Culture War Stance
Score: 5.75

IRS Taxpayer Advocate

Ok. I apologize in advance. This isn't really a *political* rant. But my first thought on reading this morning's article in Forbes made me think...

[Long, drawn out silence. Crickets chirping.]

Oh, sorry... I was thinking that I didn't even know the IRS had anything remotely resembling some kind of advocacy for taxpayers. So I went to the IRS site. And searched for "Taxpayer Advocate." Sure enough, you can read all the reports they've submitted over the years. I'm again stunned into silence. My bet, of course, is that the IRS doesn't read them, because they certainly haven't taken any of the recommendations to heart. ::snort::

So what does Nina Olson, our taxpayer advocate, have to say? The tax laws are too complicated. People with lots of money hire other people to get them out of paying taxes. People without lots of money overpay because they don't have lots of money to hire someone. There were 500 changes to the tax code in 2008, and most people have no clue what those changes were. There's a Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act, but the form to fill that out isn't available in most software packages. In short, it's 27 pages of how insane the IRS tax code is. Scary, stunning reading.

In closing, she recommends:

"The tax laws should be simple enough so that most taxpayers can prepare their own returns without professional help, simple enough so that taxpayers can compute their tax liabilities on a single form, and simple enough so that IRS telephone assistors can fully and accurately answer taxpayers' questions. The tax system should incorporate a periodic review of the tax code--in short, a sanity check."

IRS and "sanity check". Now THERE'S a contradiction in terms!

I am on a roll...

Three posts in two days. What is the world coming to? Well, I've done one on answered prayer, and a random one on cryptographic history. Now I'm doing something else completely different. I'm posting a political article link. It's by Victor Davis Hanson (writer for NRO and Pajamas Media)

It's probably not a surprise to anyone that I'm pretty conservative politically, and I admit I didn't vote for Obama. But he's our president now, and I pray for him because he won the election fair and square. I want him to do right by our country and keep us the "land of the free and the home of the brave". But I do worry. I worry that the mainstream media gave him a pass during the election and didn't ask the hard questions that deserved to be asked. And I worry - like many, including some of his supporters these days - that there are some uneasy trends evolving based on decisions he is making.

So go read Hanson's post on Pajamas Media. Yes, it is critical. Yes, it points out some serious concerns. But the concern isn't based on ad hominem attacks, it's based on the fact that a potentially weak - even weak in appearances - Commander in Chief could be disasterous for our country. (And I'm not recommending the reader comments about the article, merely the article itself. Anyone who reads comments knows they can get awfully vituperative!)

Hanson writes, "I write here not to score points, but to warn readers that this is all very serious. Obama is our President, and we must hope he does something fast to save his administration from general ridicule that will incur real dangers for all of us abroad." So keep our president in your prayers, even if you don't agree with his policies. Pray that he makes wise decisions. Pray that he surrounds himself with other wise and knowledgable people of integrity. Because for the next four years, this team will be charting America's course through history.