I get worked up over politics like most people do over a Super Bowl with their home team in it, or their favorite franchise in the NBA Finals. As admitted earlier, politics IS my spectator sport. I have a home team, and I get madder about a perceived referee problem than I do over a loss. If I lose fair and square I’m disgusted, but when I feel the refs blew the game for me, or the other team played too dirty, then I get simply outraged.
So I fear losing, but I fear losing more when it’s not because I lost fair and square, it’s when someone didn’t play within the ‘established rules’ or used some bias or bozo ref against me. I can understand why people are so outraged against PRESIDENT George W. Bush. They feel that’s exactly what happened. I think that’s why tempers are so hot.
Analogy: The finals are narrowing down. It looks like this year’s Super Bowl is going to be a re-match between the Dallas Cowboys and the Washington Redskins (don’t tell me if that combo isn’t possible, just flow with me here).
Last year, the game was won by a single point on a play that ran as time expired. The Cowboys’ quarterback threw a pass to the end zone (is that the right term? I’m a hockey fan but hockey seemed too obscure for a general analogy) and the Redskins claim the receiver (who had just been drafted from the Gators) did not get both feet down in bounds (that’s the rule, right?) To make matters worse, not fifteen seconds before the ball was snapped on that final play, an NBC (who had the rights to the game) color commentator claimed that with only two seconds left and almost exactly half the field to cross, the Cowboys couldn’t win, the game was going to the Redskins.
The refs watched the replay, taking their time as a tense crowd began to throw beer and pizza at each other, as people around the nation paced and screamed in front of the TVs where they could see the replays themselves and all held opinions that backed their favorite teams.
Finally, the refs called in favor of keeping the touchdown. The Cowboys won. The tape was analyzed, digitized, zoomed, altered, tested, distributed, debunked, framed in gold, and flushed down several toilets. In every instance, it sure looked like toes BARELY bent blades of green grass before scraping across white chalk. But still, the outrage continued.
Adding fuel to the fire for this year, the Cowboys have had a spectacular season. They’re undefeated despite several close games, a few scandalous stories, and a few interesting player trades. One most incredible story is that the Cowboys’ quarterback was doing a charity event for local school children when the fire alarm went off at the school. Some nut had blown up the bathroom, killing a few children and a janitor. Administrators from the local school Principle to the national Secretary of Education pointed fingers and blamed each other because apparently the bomber had left a bomb-scare message at the office that went without action. This was supposed to be impossible, but it turns out through several funding mishaps, the secretaries were so under-staffed that the only one on duty (instead of three) had been sitting on her coffee for five hours and needed to go to the bathroom – so the bomber got an answering machine. This didn’t daunt the quarterback who charged into the flames, rescued five children and a badly burned teacher, and was still able to start the season without injuries.
The only real benefit was that the Cowboys’ popularity around the nation soared for some time so they sold out every stadium the visited, though by the playoffs, public opinion had drained right back into the trenches it always occupied.
Now, hot to prove that they were beaten by a technicality, the Redskins are on the warpath. Dismayed that none of THEIR players was lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time to save children and public workers, they’ve gone on a smear campaign to discredit as many of the Cowboys’ players as possible. The Cowboys, on the other hand, have launched salvoes right back, touting their higher points-per-game average, better completed pass record, better points-against total, and higher ticket sales. Whether this was due to playing in larger markets against weaker teams with a quarterback who is “in the zone” (everything seems to go right at the same time or wrong at the same time, right?) or because they are really superior is what’s on the line.
Whoops, almost put up my next post as a tirade developed from this one. Bad blogger. Bad blogger. Upcoming: my personal demon-army, bias media that portrays itself as unbias.
Wednesday, June 30, 2004
Tuesday, June 29, 2004
Positive Reinforcement I
Perhaps to some this may now seem “behind the times”, but I think it remains timely. This is an e-mail I received through channels from someone “on the ground” in Iraq. This was delivered to me before we officially handed power over to the Iraqis.
It is my fervent hope that we will finally HEAR some of this stuff on the mainstream media. Though, the more I study the so-called mainstream media, the more it is clear they’re not only less and less mainstream, they’re less and less watched. Perhaps we ARE hearing this stuff, because we are a more effective media than the methods that have become “traditional”.
As far as I can tell, there isn’t a honest, decent person in the world who should NOT be happy and excited when reading the following.
I have implied permission to post this information (we were asked to spread the word).
--==<< >>==--
Hey Everyone,
I just wanted to give you all another update as the hand-over of power is around the corner. We've been pretty busy getting ready. The negative press you hear about everyday is less than half of what is really going on.
The transfer of sovereignty is all about giving the Iraqis complete control of their country. It's been somewhat difficult to teach the local municipalities how to act in a democracy. Instead of simply taking whatever the government happens to give them, they're learning how to make the government work for them.
So, we are taking a step back and handing off the reins to them. In reality this has been happening for the past few months. >From the Civil Affairs standpoint it means that instead of us directly helping the Iraqis, we are helping them to help themselves.
The Iraqis we've been dealing with are more than capable of taking control. We'll still be around assisting with the growing pains of the new government, but it's all through Iraqi channels now. The insurgent attacks you see in the news are the utterly desperate attempts of the enemy to derail this whole process one last time.
I've read articles in the press that describe the anti-Coalition/anti-Iraqi forces as 'freedom fighters' and 'revolutionaries.' Anyone who tries to kill Marines and soldiers who deliver medical supplies, or Iraqi women who wash laundry for the Americans, or Iraqi police officers is not interested in 'freedom.' The only thing they are fighting for is a destabilization of the area, and that will not happen. They know this, which is why they are getting so desperate right now.
It seems to me there are some members of the domestic and international media who are actively attempting to distort the truth for their own means. I've said it before, but this is a fight happening on two simultaneous fronts. There is the physical fight and the war of perception and ideas. We are all involved in the second front, and in reality that is where we will win in the end.
So, I'm asking you all to stay vigilant. It's a tough battle, but we are bringing liberty to this part of the world. This is the way it has always been. Liberty has not seen an easy introduction anywhere. But that is why we are here in Iraq. By bringing liberty to a land that has never known her, we are helping to secure our own liberty for the future.
There is much good going on over here. The towns we're responsible for now have a higher standard of living than at any time under Saddam. The Iraqis will not soon forget all the help we have given.
President Reagan correctly called America "the city set on a hill." Let us never forget who we really are and our true place in the world. We set the highest example of justice, liberty and freedom in the world. So, we are counting on you to continue the good fight at home, spreading truth wherever you are. Keep your spirits up. Don't give in to pessimism, apathy or despair. Together we will be successful and America will again prove that it is "the city set on a hill."
I thank you for all your support and I hope to hear from you soon.
God Bless and Semper Fidelis.
Love, Rob
Lt. Robert Nofsinger, USMC
Ramadi, Iraq
It is my fervent hope that we will finally HEAR some of this stuff on the mainstream media. Though, the more I study the so-called mainstream media, the more it is clear they’re not only less and less mainstream, they’re less and less watched. Perhaps we ARE hearing this stuff, because we are a more effective media than the methods that have become “traditional”.
As far as I can tell, there isn’t a honest, decent person in the world who should NOT be happy and excited when reading the following.
I have implied permission to post this information (we were asked to spread the word).
--==<< >>==--
Hey Everyone,
I just wanted to give you all another update as the hand-over of power is around the corner. We've been pretty busy getting ready. The negative press you hear about everyday is less than half of what is really going on.
The transfer of sovereignty is all about giving the Iraqis complete control of their country. It's been somewhat difficult to teach the local municipalities how to act in a democracy. Instead of simply taking whatever the government happens to give them, they're learning how to make the government work for them.
So, we are taking a step back and handing off the reins to them. In reality this has been happening for the past few months. >From the Civil Affairs standpoint it means that instead of us directly helping the Iraqis, we are helping them to help themselves.
The Iraqis we've been dealing with are more than capable of taking control. We'll still be around assisting with the growing pains of the new government, but it's all through Iraqi channels now. The insurgent attacks you see in the news are the utterly desperate attempts of the enemy to derail this whole process one last time.
I've read articles in the press that describe the anti-Coalition/anti-Iraqi forces as 'freedom fighters' and 'revolutionaries.' Anyone who tries to kill Marines and soldiers who deliver medical supplies, or Iraqi women who wash laundry for the Americans, or Iraqi police officers is not interested in 'freedom.' The only thing they are fighting for is a destabilization of the area, and that will not happen. They know this, which is why they are getting so desperate right now.
It seems to me there are some members of the domestic and international media who are actively attempting to distort the truth for their own means. I've said it before, but this is a fight happening on two simultaneous fronts. There is the physical fight and the war of perception and ideas. We are all involved in the second front, and in reality that is where we will win in the end.
So, I'm asking you all to stay vigilant. It's a tough battle, but we are bringing liberty to this part of the world. This is the way it has always been. Liberty has not seen an easy introduction anywhere. But that is why we are here in Iraq. By bringing liberty to a land that has never known her, we are helping to secure our own liberty for the future.
There is much good going on over here. The towns we're responsible for now have a higher standard of living than at any time under Saddam. The Iraqis will not soon forget all the help we have given.
President Reagan correctly called America "the city set on a hill." Let us never forget who we really are and our true place in the world. We set the highest example of justice, liberty and freedom in the world. So, we are counting on you to continue the good fight at home, spreading truth wherever you are. Keep your spirits up. Don't give in to pessimism, apathy or despair. Together we will be successful and America will again prove that it is "the city set on a hill."
I thank you for all your support and I hope to hear from you soon.
God Bless and Semper Fidelis.
Love, Rob
Lt. Robert Nofsinger, USMC
Ramadi, Iraq
Monday, June 28, 2004
Moore Hype
Ok. I admit it. Michael Moore is my anti-Christ. There are other arch-devils out there, but this guy has to top the list. I can respect guys like Ralph Nader (though he’s also made a career of trashing other people and things, often unjustly but with great hype). But it’s interesting, there’s something Moore has in common with Soros. They’re both in it for money. Michael Moore has written as much poisonous garbage about the previous president (42) as he has about President George W. Bush. It just didn’t stick with our crowd because we’re not actually the “hate mongers” the left tries to say we are. It sticks just fine with the “bleeding heart” side. What does that say about them? What it says about Moore is that he also "follows the money". Even those that hate what he does admit he's a genious at promotion. He's picked a fireball, controversy genre in which to sell, and plays it to the hilt, looking for every trick he can to find more buyers. He hits first at his target audience's righteous fury, then at other people's curiosity.
I was all in a tizzy because of how “well” Michael Moore’s movie is doing in the theaters this weekend. I got depressed. I was thinking “geez, is THIS the country we live in?”
Then I did some arithmetic, and some further looking (and I got an amazing e-mail from someone in Iraq I may post in this blog verbatim because it’s so impressive).
Point one, which is part of the “setup” for my punch line. Look at the prison abuse “scandal” in Iraq. The military came forward LAST NOVEMBER with this story, announcing what was going on and that they were putting it to an end. They put out press releases about it EVERY WEEK for the next four months. It wasn’t until pictures came out that it became international news. So what’s the point? Pictures are supposed to say more than words. Nobody pays attention to words, they like pictures better.
Point two, part of the arithmetic. Let’s be “conservative” and say that a movie ticket in this country averages $6. I know, most of you are laughing. You’d LOVE to find a theater that sold tickets consistently at $6. Well, I don’t go to the movies very often (maybe once a year) so forgive my underestimation. I'm trying to help Moore out my making the numbers look like even more people than there were.
Point three, F-9/11 supposedly grossed $21.6 million this weekend. It broke the documentary record for one weekend sales. Bowling for Columbine (which has already been debunked as fiction instead of documentary due to several filming techniques that “fabricated” scenes for dramatic impact - and there are several groups I am watching who claim they can prove F-9/11 is similarly dramatic fiction) was the previous record holder. At $21.3 million. Anyone notice anything there? Can we guess that, in the last three years, the average price of a ticket has gone up thirty cents? If it has gone up more than that, FEWER people actually saw this movie than his last. Let’s just say things have stayed the same. At $6/ticket, that’s 50,000 more people than last time. This is where my panic started to subside. Again, I think I’m actually over-stating in Moore’s favor here.
Point four, which is an obvious extrapolation from Point three. Let’s bump it up to $22 million in ticket sales (and I don’t want to suggest any of these theaters has actually over-estimated their sales for dramatic impact, that would be... ridiculous... wouldn’t it?) that’s 3.67 million people. Now before I get outraged that 3.67 million people across this country went to see this self-declared propaganda (let’s further assume that not only did all those tickets sell in reality, but each one went to a unique person). There are 288 million people in the country (That’s 0.01%). If the movie grosses $200 million over it’s entire run and each person that went was unique (nobody saw it twice) that would make 11.5%. Political analysts have gauged hard-core liberals against hard-core conservatives and found that at the absolute worst time to oppose war (when everyone is “for” it) 12% of the people still say it’s a bad idea. 12% will always answer on EVERY poll that war is NEVER the answer. 33%, on the other hand, was the lowest support any war in American history ever got. These numbers are supported in other areas of contention, most notably taxes and abortion. So, perhaps an extrapolation here, but I think it would be a stretch that the 12% of our population who, under my most generous estimates, went to see this film, were people who were going to vote for President Bush’s re-election in the first place, but then also changed their minds and decided to vote for Senator Kerry.
Ok. Now I’m breathing a little easier. But then, consider this. Here comes the punch line.
Rush Limbaugh’s DAILY audience is 12 million people. His WEEKLY audience is 20 million people. His venue is WORDS not PICTURES. He does this EVERY WEEK and is growing instead of subsiding. In other words, F-9/11, or at least ONE of Michael Moore’s messages, would have to sell $72 million EVERY WEEK DAY, or if we accept that he lets “repeat viewers” to his movies in FREE, $120 EVERY WEEK to match Limbaugh. Not one week, not one month, but every week. From now on. Oh, and from only 600 theaters, not 898. Rush is only on 600 radio stations.
And by the way... Passion of the Christ? $500 million and growing.
I actually slept pretty well last night.
I was all in a tizzy because of how “well” Michael Moore’s movie is doing in the theaters this weekend. I got depressed. I was thinking “geez, is THIS the country we live in?”
Then I did some arithmetic, and some further looking (and I got an amazing e-mail from someone in Iraq I may post in this blog verbatim because it’s so impressive).
Point one, which is part of the “setup” for my punch line. Look at the prison abuse “scandal” in Iraq. The military came forward LAST NOVEMBER with this story, announcing what was going on and that they were putting it to an end. They put out press releases about it EVERY WEEK for the next four months. It wasn’t until pictures came out that it became international news. So what’s the point? Pictures are supposed to say more than words. Nobody pays attention to words, they like pictures better.
Point two, part of the arithmetic. Let’s be “conservative” and say that a movie ticket in this country averages $6. I know, most of you are laughing. You’d LOVE to find a theater that sold tickets consistently at $6. Well, I don’t go to the movies very often (maybe once a year) so forgive my underestimation. I'm trying to help Moore out my making the numbers look like even more people than there were.
Point three, F-9/11 supposedly grossed $21.6 million this weekend. It broke the documentary record for one weekend sales. Bowling for Columbine (which has already been debunked as fiction instead of documentary due to several filming techniques that “fabricated” scenes for dramatic impact - and there are several groups I am watching who claim they can prove F-9/11 is similarly dramatic fiction) was the previous record holder. At $21.3 million. Anyone notice anything there? Can we guess that, in the last three years, the average price of a ticket has gone up thirty cents? If it has gone up more than that, FEWER people actually saw this movie than his last. Let’s just say things have stayed the same. At $6/ticket, that’s 50,000 more people than last time. This is where my panic started to subside. Again, I think I’m actually over-stating in Moore’s favor here.
Point four, which is an obvious extrapolation from Point three. Let’s bump it up to $22 million in ticket sales (and I don’t want to suggest any of these theaters has actually over-estimated their sales for dramatic impact, that would be... ridiculous... wouldn’t it?) that’s 3.67 million people. Now before I get outraged that 3.67 million people across this country went to see this self-declared propaganda (let’s further assume that not only did all those tickets sell in reality, but each one went to a unique person). There are 288 million people in the country (That’s 0.01%). If the movie grosses $200 million over it’s entire run and each person that went was unique (nobody saw it twice) that would make 11.5%. Political analysts have gauged hard-core liberals against hard-core conservatives and found that at the absolute worst time to oppose war (when everyone is “for” it) 12% of the people still say it’s a bad idea. 12% will always answer on EVERY poll that war is NEVER the answer. 33%, on the other hand, was the lowest support any war in American history ever got. These numbers are supported in other areas of contention, most notably taxes and abortion. So, perhaps an extrapolation here, but I think it would be a stretch that the 12% of our population who, under my most generous estimates, went to see this film, were people who were going to vote for President Bush’s re-election in the first place, but then also changed their minds and decided to vote for Senator Kerry.
Ok. Now I’m breathing a little easier. But then, consider this. Here comes the punch line.
Rush Limbaugh’s DAILY audience is 12 million people. His WEEKLY audience is 20 million people. His venue is WORDS not PICTURES. He does this EVERY WEEK and is growing instead of subsiding. In other words, F-9/11, or at least ONE of Michael Moore’s messages, would have to sell $72 million EVERY WEEK DAY, or if we accept that he lets “repeat viewers” to his movies in FREE, $120 EVERY WEEK to match Limbaugh. Not one week, not one month, but every week. From now on. Oh, and from only 600 theaters, not 898. Rush is only on 600 radio stations.
And by the way... Passion of the Christ? $500 million and growing.
I actually slept pretty well last night.
Sunday, June 27, 2004
Soros Sore Spot
Ok. This is it. This is why I decided to do the blog thing.
I was doing some research on George Soros. I didn’t want to just be one of the crowd that is outraged because he’s going to try to influence the election with his big money. A lot of people do that, and if he was on “my side” I would probably be thrilled. But who was this guy? I didn’t want to jump to conclusions.
So I did a web search and read about two dozen articles about him (that’s almost all I could find). Some of them were duplicates, or one person quoting another about their opinion of Mr. Soros. However, there were articles from both “sides” so I think I got a pretty good size-up.
Here are two examples, but you can find many. This first one
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a93634.htm
is a rather dry and fact-heavy article that can be interpreted many ways though the writer is clearly a conservative highlighting the not-so-good mysteries about Soros.
This second one
http://www.mindfully.org/WTO/2003/George-Soros-Statesman2jun03.htm
is a strong supporter of Soros now that he has decided to take on Bush.
I found them both very telling. But what really brought me to a conclusion about Soros was actually the second article. In it, the writer (whom I do not know) basically says (about six paragraphs down) that Soros is pissed off not because Bush is (as the writer puts it) imperialistic and forcing western culture down the world’s throat, but that he’s doing it in a “blundering” way. That Soros’ way is much better- using a few billion bucks he influences a nation’s politics and gets candidates he likes into office, then he buys all the school textbooks for that country so they learn what he wants them to learn. This is obviously a distillation, but if you can handle the Bush-bashing in the second article, you’ll see that even people who are pleased Soros is going to take Bush on find they can’t support the guy’s personal goals and complete lack of ethics. He ends up with more power than he gives the people in his “open societies”.
And then it hit me. As I eluded in my first post, I think most people on most sides of an issue are frustrated that the “other sides” don’t understand them and that the “other sides” are inconsistent.
Well, here’s how I see conservatives as mostly consistent. Our FIRST concern isn’t politics or money (though they are concerns). Our FIRST concern is morals/ethics. You ask how we can support Rudi or Arnold (didn’t want to tackle spelling their last names there) but we can’t support Clinton. With Rudi and Arnold you got an honest admission of what they had done, regret, and reform. With Clinton you got denial and a pattern.
How does this relate to Soros? His own admission that he does not need morals or ethics is troubling. When you allow that you will sacrifice those (such as he does to make billions of dollars at the expense of the average British taxpayer) where does the sacrifice stop? He’s also the self-and-generally-proclaimed “King of Eastern Europe”. What seeds has he left in those countries? What does he control? What freedoms do the people really enjoy? Why does he advocate the legalization of all drugs because, as he put it, it’s the fastest escape from feeling miserable? Is he planning for misery in these places? Why would you need to escape misery if your situation actually improved? Why does he similarly advocate gun control? Do you know WHY we have the second amendment? It is specifically so the GOVERNMENT can’t turn on the PEOPLE. If only the government had weapons...
Anyway, my analysis is far from done, but for a guy who sure acts like he is a solid supporter of capitalism, free trade, and democracy, one who firmly believes socialism is NOT the answer, why is he supporting a socialist style candidate? I am still confused, but it has helped me to do some research. Anyone know more facts about this guy? I’m not so much interested in Bush-bashing on this site (especially since I’m an “unabashed” supporter of our current President) but I am interested in why this guy does what he does.
So, why did this make me want to blog? To come to some peace over the concept that a multi-billionaire who has already hurt many nations (and been of questionable value to others) has set his sites on my country I felt I needed to pray. For those of you who know my religion, prayer for me is not sitting on my knees exhorting God to change things, it is active. You be a good person. You spread love, truth, principle. You don’t back down from the call when it is clear you’ve been asked to spread love, truth, principle. This is part of that action.
I don’t know who will read this blog. I don’t know if they’ll be exultant, outraged, or asleep. But it’s here. I have not only helped myself by organizing my thoughts better (and seeing where more work is needed) but who knows. Someone may end up here who needs to read what I’ve said. I may never know one way or the other, but that’s the same with my position in my church.
I am somewhere between a “minister” and a “lay reader”. My church calls it a First Reader. Once a week I put together a sermon (we have a world-wide sermon on Sundays, but a more local sermon Wednesday evenings). I never know if what I found and want to share helps ANYONE else, but I read it anyway. A few people have mentioned they found something very specific to help them. Who knows. Maybe something in here will eventually help someone else.
Dude. Your snoring is shaking the screen, and it’s a terrible blow to my ego.
I was doing some research on George Soros. I didn’t want to just be one of the crowd that is outraged because he’s going to try to influence the election with his big money. A lot of people do that, and if he was on “my side” I would probably be thrilled. But who was this guy? I didn’t want to jump to conclusions.
So I did a web search and read about two dozen articles about him (that’s almost all I could find). Some of them were duplicates, or one person quoting another about their opinion of Mr. Soros. However, there were articles from both “sides” so I think I got a pretty good size-up.
Here are two examples, but you can find many. This first one
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a93634.htm
is a rather dry and fact-heavy article that can be interpreted many ways though the writer is clearly a conservative highlighting the not-so-good mysteries about Soros.
This second one
http://www.mindfully.org/WTO/2003/George-Soros-Statesman2jun03.htm
is a strong supporter of Soros now that he has decided to take on Bush.
I found them both very telling. But what really brought me to a conclusion about Soros was actually the second article. In it, the writer (whom I do not know) basically says (about six paragraphs down) that Soros is pissed off not because Bush is (as the writer puts it) imperialistic and forcing western culture down the world’s throat, but that he’s doing it in a “blundering” way. That Soros’ way is much better- using a few billion bucks he influences a nation’s politics and gets candidates he likes into office, then he buys all the school textbooks for that country so they learn what he wants them to learn. This is obviously a distillation, but if you can handle the Bush-bashing in the second article, you’ll see that even people who are pleased Soros is going to take Bush on find they can’t support the guy’s personal goals and complete lack of ethics. He ends up with more power than he gives the people in his “open societies”.
And then it hit me. As I eluded in my first post, I think most people on most sides of an issue are frustrated that the “other sides” don’t understand them and that the “other sides” are inconsistent.
Well, here’s how I see conservatives as mostly consistent. Our FIRST concern isn’t politics or money (though they are concerns). Our FIRST concern is morals/ethics. You ask how we can support Rudi or Arnold (didn’t want to tackle spelling their last names there) but we can’t support Clinton. With Rudi and Arnold you got an honest admission of what they had done, regret, and reform. With Clinton you got denial and a pattern.
How does this relate to Soros? His own admission that he does not need morals or ethics is troubling. When you allow that you will sacrifice those (such as he does to make billions of dollars at the expense of the average British taxpayer) where does the sacrifice stop? He’s also the self-and-generally-proclaimed “King of Eastern Europe”. What seeds has he left in those countries? What does he control? What freedoms do the people really enjoy? Why does he advocate the legalization of all drugs because, as he put it, it’s the fastest escape from feeling miserable? Is he planning for misery in these places? Why would you need to escape misery if your situation actually improved? Why does he similarly advocate gun control? Do you know WHY we have the second amendment? It is specifically so the GOVERNMENT can’t turn on the PEOPLE. If only the government had weapons...
Anyway, my analysis is far from done, but for a guy who sure acts like he is a solid supporter of capitalism, free trade, and democracy, one who firmly believes socialism is NOT the answer, why is he supporting a socialist style candidate? I am still confused, but it has helped me to do some research. Anyone know more facts about this guy? I’m not so much interested in Bush-bashing on this site (especially since I’m an “unabashed” supporter of our current President) but I am interested in why this guy does what he does.
So, why did this make me want to blog? To come to some peace over the concept that a multi-billionaire who has already hurt many nations (and been of questionable value to others) has set his sites on my country I felt I needed to pray. For those of you who know my religion, prayer for me is not sitting on my knees exhorting God to change things, it is active. You be a good person. You spread love, truth, principle. You don’t back down from the call when it is clear you’ve been asked to spread love, truth, principle. This is part of that action.
I don’t know who will read this blog. I don’t know if they’ll be exultant, outraged, or asleep. But it’s here. I have not only helped myself by organizing my thoughts better (and seeing where more work is needed) but who knows. Someone may end up here who needs to read what I’ve said. I may never know one way or the other, but that’s the same with my position in my church.
I am somewhere between a “minister” and a “lay reader”. My church calls it a First Reader. Once a week I put together a sermon (we have a world-wide sermon on Sundays, but a more local sermon Wednesday evenings). I never know if what I found and want to share helps ANYONE else, but I read it anyway. A few people have mentioned they found something very specific to help them. Who knows. Maybe something in here will eventually help someone else.
Dude. Your snoring is shaking the screen, and it’s a terrible blow to my ego.
What to Expect
You know, I need to define this as much for me as for anyone else. My expectations are that nobody actually reads this stuff. Even your friends, they get into it for a little bit, but they read one or two posts and that’s pretty much it. A few fellow bloggers, perhaps – people “trading off” reading my stuff for theirs.
I am not sure this is going to be a journal. I already keep one of those. You see, I like to write, whether it is tip-tapped into a keyboard or scratching lead across wood pulp. But there are ideas I feel I do want to share that, while they are personal, they are less personal than my journal.
What do I mean? I suppose that my journal is for people who miss me to read after I’m gone. This blog is more for people to understand what I’m thinking now.
Disclaimers, provisos, quid pro quos, etc.:
I am a conservative. I would call myself the “essence” of a conservative, but I’m not sure every (or any other, for that matter) conservative would agree with me. So I don’t know exactly what you’d call me. I will explain it in a moment, and probably from the optimistic, positive perspective I place on my philosophy my liberal friends will call me a liberal, my libertarians a libertarian, my conservatives will nod, because when it comes down to it we all want to see the good parts of our philosophy and not the bad things that happen when someone tries to apply our philosophy to the real world.
I will begin by my most simplistic (and probably antagonistic) definition of my view of a conservative and anyone who is “opposition” to that movement.
To me, a conservative is an optimistic pragmatist. A “liberal” for want of a better “group term” is a pessimistic idealist. Blanket? Yeah. Fair? That’s up to you. This blog is not to make me popular. It’s to explain my thoughts and perspective.
The bottom line is damage control. No simple philosophy, when applied to the world around us, works exactly the way it’s supposed to. Almost all of them have the same flaw. They all rely on pure application – that is to say that nobody is going to try to take advantage of them for gains that actually run counter to the philosophy in the first place. In the real world, however, most people “not” of your philosophy will immediately attempt to take advantage of what you’re pushing through to make themselves more powerful. Power taking the form of money, fame, political clout, whatever.
Does this make me a pessimist? Wouldn’t that make me a liberal by my own definition? No. For two reasons.
First, because I firmly believe MOST people, if left to their own devices, even in a pure “working” libertarian environment (which I do not believe is possible, by the way, part of the pragmatist that keeps me from being a libertarian) would be honest, decent, and respectful.
Second, because I also believe that a near-perfect world environment IS attainable. I don’t think it can happen overnight. I think a lot of struggle has to happen along the way. I believe “world peace” is possible. I think coexisting with everyone is possible. I believe doing it without wrecking the environment is possible. I believe we will populate other planets. I believe we will become, for lack of a better example, “the best Star Fleet has to offer”, a society of people who work for the common good, defend those in need, strive for what is better, and attempt to make peace with our neighbors (whoever they turn out to be). I just happen to believe you can’t expect people to accept the same vision the same way all at once. You need to take practical steps to get there. Let your children be your teachers, and if you don’t have children, please consider having them. How you deal with your own children, what your goals for them are, and how they turn out, are true life lessons in “optimistic pragmatism”.
Let’s see how this blog turns out, if anyone ever reads more than one post, and if anyone likes or will speak to me after that.
- Chameleon
P.S. one of these posts is sure to explain why I use that name for those who don’t already know.
I am not sure this is going to be a journal. I already keep one of those. You see, I like to write, whether it is tip-tapped into a keyboard or scratching lead across wood pulp. But there are ideas I feel I do want to share that, while they are personal, they are less personal than my journal.
What do I mean? I suppose that my journal is for people who miss me to read after I’m gone. This blog is more for people to understand what I’m thinking now.
Disclaimers, provisos, quid pro quos, etc.:
I am a conservative. I would call myself the “essence” of a conservative, but I’m not sure every (or any other, for that matter) conservative would agree with me. So I don’t know exactly what you’d call me. I will explain it in a moment, and probably from the optimistic, positive perspective I place on my philosophy my liberal friends will call me a liberal, my libertarians a libertarian, my conservatives will nod, because when it comes down to it we all want to see the good parts of our philosophy and not the bad things that happen when someone tries to apply our philosophy to the real world.
I will begin by my most simplistic (and probably antagonistic) definition of my view of a conservative and anyone who is “opposition” to that movement.
To me, a conservative is an optimistic pragmatist. A “liberal” for want of a better “group term” is a pessimistic idealist. Blanket? Yeah. Fair? That’s up to you. This blog is not to make me popular. It’s to explain my thoughts and perspective.
The bottom line is damage control. No simple philosophy, when applied to the world around us, works exactly the way it’s supposed to. Almost all of them have the same flaw. They all rely on pure application – that is to say that nobody is going to try to take advantage of them for gains that actually run counter to the philosophy in the first place. In the real world, however, most people “not” of your philosophy will immediately attempt to take advantage of what you’re pushing through to make themselves more powerful. Power taking the form of money, fame, political clout, whatever.
Does this make me a pessimist? Wouldn’t that make me a liberal by my own definition? No. For two reasons.
First, because I firmly believe MOST people, if left to their own devices, even in a pure “working” libertarian environment (which I do not believe is possible, by the way, part of the pragmatist that keeps me from being a libertarian) would be honest, decent, and respectful.
Second, because I also believe that a near-perfect world environment IS attainable. I don’t think it can happen overnight. I think a lot of struggle has to happen along the way. I believe “world peace” is possible. I think coexisting with everyone is possible. I believe doing it without wrecking the environment is possible. I believe we will populate other planets. I believe we will become, for lack of a better example, “the best Star Fleet has to offer”, a society of people who work for the common good, defend those in need, strive for what is better, and attempt to make peace with our neighbors (whoever they turn out to be). I just happen to believe you can’t expect people to accept the same vision the same way all at once. You need to take practical steps to get there. Let your children be your teachers, and if you don’t have children, please consider having them. How you deal with your own children, what your goals for them are, and how they turn out, are true life lessons in “optimistic pragmatism”.
Let’s see how this blog turns out, if anyone ever reads more than one post, and if anyone likes or will speak to me after that.
- Chameleon
P.S. one of these posts is sure to explain why I use that name for those who don’t already know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)