This is just pure genius: A Modest Proposal, 2009 Edition

Posted by: Sarah at 12:07 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 14 words, total size 1 kb.

I may come off forceful and set-in-my-ways here on the blog, but I assure you that I'm not like that in real life.  I rarely speak my mind, especially not in polite company.  I never reveal my true opinions and values to strangers.  It's part of that dilemma I've been writing about for five years:

Imagine that you enter a big-city taxicab and the moment you get settled in, the driver begins a harangue about the supposed inequities and inferiorities of another ethnic group. Is your best course to keep quiet, bearing in mind that silence conveys assent? Or is it your moral responsibility to argue with him, to express outrage, even to leave the cab -- because you know that every silent assent will encourage him next time, and every vigorous dissent will cause him next time to think twice?

Sagan ends this section with "Figuring out a prudent balance takes wisdom." I just don't know what to think anymore. On the one hand, I think that some people will never see what I see, no matter how articulately I might lay it out, and it's not worth my sanity to try to beat them over the head with Truth. On the other hand, people are going to be voting next month based on bullcrap like this email forward on the draft, and unless we make a serious effort to counter the media and the junk science, we run the risk of losing President Bush.

And I'm starting to wonder if maybe I oughtn't dip my toe into impolite waters.  If maybe I should start speaking my mind in public on occasion.  Because five years hence, I still feel as frustrated and impotent as I used to.  I still walk away incensed and wishing I had spoken truth to premise.

Yesterday I heard two separate diatribes against The Rich.  They were offhanded things, premise things, deemed uncontroversial by their speakers.  Both assumed that their listeners would chime in and agree that the world is economically unfair and somehow the scales need to be righted.  I never chimed in with anything, just tried to ignore both interlocutors and change the subject quickly.  But looking back, I wish I'd replied. 

No, as a point of fact, I do not believe that, since we are all created equal by God, it is a travesty that most of the world's wealth is held by so few.  Nor do I believe that our current economic crisis was solely caused by greedy CEOs.  I also don't believe that your boss should have to give up his Mercedes because you think he doesn't do as much work as you do.  Nor am I horrified at the thought of someone making a "three-digit salary" (It was obvious from context that this person meant "six-digit," which leads me to conclude that, really, you might want to rethink your argument that you deserve more money than your boss.)

Absent actual evidence, I am not inclined to automatically assert that The Rich don't deserve their money.  I will not side with you in thinking that life is unfair and you know how to fix it.  I do not share your delusion that you are a better arbiter of how much money people should make than the free market is.

I think next time I might cautiously speak out and see how that feels, because I remain dissatisfied with my long-standing policy of avoiding controversy and thus having to suffer through others' treatises on How The World Should Work.

What I really ought to start doing is following Sean Hannity's lead and wide-eyedly asking, "So what you're basically saying is 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need' then?"

And point out that you, with your fancy cell phone and comfortable house, better watch out you don't reap what you sow, because I am sure there is someone else in town who thinks you don't deserve your five-digit salary.  Those who fall middle-class should tread lightly on the class envy issue, for they have more riches than the majority of the people on this planet.

I will update the first time I speak truth to premise.  Gulp.

Posted by: Sarah at 07:05 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 734 words, total size 5 kb.

One of my great pleasures of blogging is knowing that there are a few of you out there who read Atlas Shrugged because of me.  For those of you who haven't gotten around to it yet (and there's one in particular, and you know who you are...ahem), may you find your motivation here: Rand’s Atlas Is Shrugging With a Growing Load

The hard-money monologue of Rand’s copper king, Francisco d’Anconia, used to sound weird. Who even thought about gold in the early 1990s? Now, D’Anconia’s lecture on the unreliable dollar sounds like it could have been scripted by Zhou Xiaochuan, or some other furious Chinese central banker:

“Paper is a mortgage on wealth that does not exist, backed by a gun aimed at those who are expected to produce it. Paper is a check drawn by legal looters upon an account which is not theirs: upon the virtue of the victims. Watch for the day when it bounces, marked, ‘Account overdrawn.’”

Posted by: Sarah at 11:30 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 162 words, total size 1 kb.

(via CG)  Megan McArdle wrote A Really Long Post About Abortion and Reasoning By Historical Analogy That is Going to Make Virtually All of My Readers Very Angry At Me.  But she was wrong: not only did it not make me angry, I thought it was the most interesting thing I've read about abortion in a long time.

Posted by: Sarah at 10:51 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 59 words, total size 1 kb.

I am very late in bringing this up, but I still wanted to say it.  During the last episode of 24, they finally catch the bad guy and realize that there is no evidence to charge him with and that he will probably get away with all of his bad deeds.  One FBI agent wants revenge and turns to Jack Bauer for advice.  He says the following, which I think the writers of 24 did a beautiful job with:

Posted by: Sarah at 08:31 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 307 words, total size 2 kb.

Today's must-read on granting the premise from Cassandra:
Staying on Message: Conservatives Should Play Offense, not Defense

(via WifeUnit, who leaned over to me and said I should read this.  I love that I have an in-person hat tip!)

Posted by: Sarah at 03:02 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 41 words, total size 1 kb.

I like when other bloggers write about their grokking process.  Rachel Lucas is never embarrassed to say, "Hey, I finally get this," and I enjoy reading her for that very reason.  She has a new post up about the differences between American and British government.  It's a grokking-type post, and I liked it.  The comments are worth reading too, I think.

Posted by: Sarah at 11:09 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 64 words, total size 1 kb.

I got an email from an old real-life friend about my Done Waffling post.  This friend pointed out that we had a diverse friend group in school, to include Hindus and Muslims, and that exposure to diversity is beneficial for a growing mind.  It's a fair point.

My response to that is that no one from our friend group supported honor killings or jihad or shariah.

Look, you all know me by now.  You know that I am not really a person who "celebrates diversity."  I married someone whose only difference from me is that he likes to sleep.  I want to live in a gulch surrounded by people who all think exactly like I do.  I don't know if that's an appropriate worldview, but that's who I am.  I celebrate homogeny.

But these friends of mine, these other kids who helped make me who I am, they were Americans.  Sure, they had a different religion than most of us and they did funny things like fast during Ramadan or not eat beef, but they weren't fundamentally different in value systems than the rest of us.  Their families were in the US because they wanted to live under the freedoms and opportunities that the US had to offer, not because they were trying to subvert the system from within.

In short, I don't lump old-school American Muslims in with the ominous groups portrayed in that video.

You don't have to be a WASP to be part of my tribe.  But we do have to have common ground: tolerance, respect for the Constitution and institutions of the United States, and an ability to live and let live.  Those are decidedly not mainstream beliefs in the communities from whence Muslim immigrants are flooding Europe.

My goal is not to outbreed American Muslims.  My husband and I are close friends with two Muslim families that are perfectly lovely, normal, non-terrorist people.  My kids could play with their kids any day.  And my hope is that their kids will also act as a counterbalance to the extreme Islamofascists' progeny.  I consider their kids as part of our American birthrate, not the scary Muslim one depicted in the video.

My goal is to fill our gulch with more like-minded people, to pass on a love for our unique country and all she stands for, and to raise children who can recognize the fundamental difference between the cool brown-skinned kids in their class and the scary enemy. 

Posted by: Sarah at 08:45 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 413 words, total size 3 kb.

Lawrence Auster got an email that's too good to not be read in its entirety.  It's another exchange about not granting the premise, but it starts from a point I never thought to explore:

Posted by: Sarah at 07:44 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 115 words, total size 1 kb.

I spent all day yesterday waffling on the baby issue. Deep down, I don't feel that confident about going forward.  I know you all say that babies are better than dogs, but I just don't know how to believe you.  A year ago, I said this:

Posted by: Sarah at 09:04 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 385 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Actually, that (the potential/impending loss of our culture) is one of the main reasons my husband wants us to have at least 4 or 5 kids in the long run.  I think he actually showed me that very same video just last week.  I have always wanted multiple kids so I have no serious objections, but I do have to agree with him that the thought of western civilization just fading and eventually disappearing due to demographic shift really saddens me.

Posted by: Leofwende at May 17, 2009 10:21 AM (28CBm)

2 So... a fundraiser maybe?

Sarah's Uterus Reutilization Fund (SURF)
Sarah and Russ' IVF Fund (SARIF)
Walter's Reproductoin Is Starting Today (WRIST)
Sarah's Big Belly Fund (SBBF)
Sarah and Russ, IVF Now! (SARIN!)
Please Help, Let's Everyone Give Her Maternity (PHLEGHM)
Knocked Up For Our Life As We Know It (KUFOLAWKI)
Put A Bun In Sarah's Oven (PABISO)
Grokking Embryos Today So Our Mother Emerges (GETSOME)
Motherhood Is Life's Flowering, And Sarah's Time Is Come!  (MILFTASTIC!)

Just some ideas...

--Chuck

Posted by: Chuck at May 17, 2009 05:17 PM (meX2d)

3

I'm sorry to do this in a post comment, but I'm looking for a working email address for Neil Prakash. I read all of hsi Armorgeddon Blog and I understand he's been promoted, isn't blogging any longer.

I just want to send him some "fanmail" and I can't, for the life of me, find an up-to-date email address for him.

 

Sorry to be "that guy".

 

T

Posted by: Tyler M at May 17, 2009 10:38 PM (QqVLv)

4 It could be worse financially.  CPAC just declined to move my furniture and car back to the U.S., so I have the pleasure of spending a lot of money AND getting my same old furniture at the end.  Can you say screwed by the system - again?

Posted by: Oda Mae at May 18, 2009 12:57 AM (9CCkr)

5 So I was thinking this fundraiser idea and then along comes Chuck. I sure can't top those acronyms. And I can't decide which is the funniest, but count me in for a little bit. Or helping with the babysitting if it's multiples. We all want to do our part for the culture;D

Posted by: Ruth H at May 18, 2009 11:26 AM (4u82p)

6

you made an excellent point! I was talking with my husband about this thing the other night and he said to just be prepared for when the boys go thru some sort of rebellion stage and instead of peircing something and wearing all black they end up turning ... dare I say it... liberal.

Really. I'm totally not ready for that. And dread the day.

Good luck with your next move making future yous (and your husband)

Posted by: the mrs. at May 18, 2009 02:58 PM (NJQf+)

7 the mrs. just scared the holy heck out of me.

Posted by: airforcewife at May 18, 2009 03:32 PM (NqbuI)

8 I vote for GETSOME or MILFTASTIC!  I can make coozies! 

Posted by: Lane at May 18, 2009 09:24 PM (W+Nqs)

9 I was thinking about this and it's estimated we'll spend what up to $250k on children to raise them through age 18. So although $12k does in isolation seem like a lot of money (because it is), in the grand scheme of how much you'll potentially spend on your child it probably is the greatest part you'll spend on them. It just means you're putting more of an investment into your child at the front end.

For some it just takes a pack of Camels from the local Speedway, peach schnapps and a prom night. For some of us it just takes a biiiiiit more. Plus, you can just have he/she/them work it off by walking Charlie a bunch.

Posted by: BigD78 at May 18, 2009 09:32 PM (g3z97)

10

I normally don't comment, but I just wanted to offer you some encouragement. A woman very close to my heart did IVF as that is the only way she could have children. She now has 3 beautiful daughters. She doesn't even think about the price tag anymore, and if she could do it again, she would. She did it twice. I won't say it wasn't a hellava roller coaster for her, but she doesn't regret it for one second.

You are in my thoughts and prayers.

Posted by: Tressa at May 18, 2009 11:00 PM (yY6P+)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Still the Biggest Missing Story In Politics:

Posted by: Sarah at 09:42 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 143 words, total size 1 kb.

Need more perspective today?

A family came into the store this morning: a father and four pre-teens, probably ranging from age 10-15.  They were there to buy a memorial bouquet to put at their mother's grave.

I barely managed to keep the tears in.

My life is good.

Posted by: Sarah at 04:07 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 50 words, total size 1 kb.

Amritas pointed me towards a Lawrence Auster post that is the perfect explanation of how I too feel:

And when we combine this with the fact that Obama is extremely popular according to opinion polls, with 73 percent saying that he "cares about people like me," meaning that three quarters of Americans feel that this manifest anti-American president represents people like them, I frankly find it hard to get a handle on the situation.

Posted by: Sarah at 10:55 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 310 words, total size 2 kb.

Posted by: Sarah at 07:05 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 125 words, total size 1 kb.

Via David Boxenhorn

Posted by: Sarah at 08:53 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 4 words, total size 1 kb.

[UPDATE: I tried to find a spectrum that I was looking for, but all I could find were circles and 3D representations. And so I settled for a graphic I wasn't entirely happy with because I was too wrapped up in what I was writing to stop and make one myself. So I changed the graphic. The original graphic to which Amritas' comment refers can be found here.]

Wife Unit writes about the role of government too: And My Answer.

I sent the following message to Mare via email the other day:

I also think that there are many issues where things are not black and white for me. I flop back and forth on abortion, for example. I am always willing to have a good debate with people who believe forcefully one way or the other because I am really still not sure what I think. I try to remember WWLD, what would libertarians do? So I unsettledly accept that the government oughtn't tell us what to do with our bodies. And for me, that extends to prostitution and drugs as well. But then, on the flip side, I think people should be able to smoke in public and also eat trans-fats

So yeah, I can debate. But on certain issues -- gun rights and taxes come readily to mind -- I feel pretty strongly about my opinions. But in other realms, I am up for discussion. Like education...I can find common ground with you and CaliValleyGirl, and we could debate the nuts and bolts.

Like Wife Unit, I have views that align me with donkeys and elephants. But that's because I don't define my views on the social scale; I define them on the responsibility scale. Social issues shake out far differently when you judge them based on personal responsibility (vs what is or isn't in the Bible, or what is or isn't traditional).

Part of the answer to Sis B's original question as to why there's a chasm between what her conservative friends believe and the government we've had is because I think the whole system is creeping leftward. However, that doesn't mean what it sounds like: I don't think the complete picture has Republicans and Democrats as the poles, where you have to fall as one or the other, or somewhere in between. Instead, the system is more like this:

And the system keeps incrementally shifting leftward while we sit fixed and wonder how in the hell we've gotten to the point where we are budgeting $3.2 billion towards "New Orleans storm protection" and $15 billion for Pell grants.

What I think it really boils down to is Whittle's Theory of Political Reduction:

I contend that there is a single litmus that does indeed separate the nation and the world into two opposing camps, and that when you examine where people will fall on the countless issues that affect our society, this alone is the indicator that will tell you how they will respond.

The indicator is Responsibility.

To the right of the spectrum is less government involvement / more individual responsibility; to the left is more government involvement / more shared responsibility. That's the It Takes a Village mentality. That's Obama's "be your brother's keeper" idea. That's the side of the spectrum I want to stop creeping towards.

To come full circle, I completely respect people who are pro-life because they believe the baby is already a human being endowed with the inalienable right to life. I also completely respect people who believe that the government has no business telling people what they should do medically or with their own bodies (a point I can also understand when debating euthanasia). I have a hard time figuring out which right I find more valid, to be honest. I struggle to not be a hypocrite and to be consistent in my viewpoints. So what I cannot stand are, say, Democrats who think the government has no right to tell them they can't have an abortion with their own body, but every right to stop other people from smoking because the second-hand smoke might hurt their bodies. I find that remarkably inconsistent and frustrating. I also, personally, find it inconsistent to say that government should decree that only men and women should marry, but that government should butt out of everything else. And I really don't understand when some Democrats claim that they want less government meddling than I do, or that they are in fact the party of "government butting out."

But we are all inconsistent beings. I try very hard to be mindful of when my opinions are conflicting and be honest about the fact that I am still working things out. Trying to grok, if you will. And I self-pigeonhole as a Republican because, as I said before, I am trying to "take the word back." Plus, it's how I vote, because, while they are far from perfect, I believe they are closer to me on the responsibility / government meddling scale than Democrats are.

But like Wife Unit, I don't caricature easily, I don't think.

Posted by: Sarah at 11:19 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 798 words, total size 6 kb.

1 I am puzzled by the graphic. It seems to indicate that anarchism is the bridge between socialism and Communism on the one hand and libertarianism and fascism (which is paired with ... monarchy!?) on the other. Perhaps fascism and monarchy are paired because they appeal to tradition unlike Communist revolutionaries, but that doesn't explain why libertarianism is on the same side as them. Does a super-libertarian become an anarchist before becoming ... a Nazi or a royalist? Does a super-socialist become an anarchist before becoming a Communist? I see political positions in terms of a circle with anarchism joining both ends. Super-libertarians reject government and become anarchists. In an anarchic society, the vacuum of power is quickly filled by thugs ... not unlike Communists and fascists who are variants on a totalitarian theme. More here: Can’t you see past the guff and recognize the essence? One country is dedicated to the proposition that man has no rights, that the collective is all. The individual held as evil, the mass—as God. No motive and no virtue permitted—except that of service to the proletariat. That’s one version [communism]. Here’s another. A country dedicated to the proposition that man has no rights, that the State is all. The individual held as evil, the race—as God. No motive and no virtue permitted—except that of service to the race [fascism]. Am I raving or is this the cold reality of two continents already? Watch the pincer movement. If you’re sick of one version, we push you into the other. We get you coming and going. We’ve closed the doors. We’ve fixed the coin. Heads—collectivism, and tails—collectivism. Fight the doctrine which slaughters the individual with a doctrine which slaughters the individual. Give up your soul to a council—or give it up to a leader. But give it up, give it up, give it up. My technique . . . . Offer poison as food and poison as antidote.

Posted by: Amritas at April 17, 2009 12:46 PM (+nV09)

2 second attempt, darn comments! I think, rather than a scale that goes from left to right (and presumably circles around), the scale more resembles a grid with four quadrants. The truth is that in practice, fascism isn't very different from socialism/communism (I have to pair them, because there's never been true communism, just very strict socialism). The difference lies only in the ideologies that lead there. The Nazis had death camps, work camps, and penalized people who did not follow their ideal. They also had a large amount of social programs and government intrusion into life. And then we have the USSR, with its gulags and government ordered famines - its social programs (that didn't work) and so on. Where's the difference in practice? There really isn't much of one. I'm with you Sarah - I don't understand it when people try to pigeonhole me into something I'm not. I don't even self-identify Republican. I'm ready for DADT to be dropped responsibly. I am very pro-life because I see a baby as a person from the moment it is conceived, but I also think that someone's rights to harm themselves stop when they affect my body - thus my anti-cigarette in enclosed public spaces stance and my legalize some drugs stance. I also, as a practicing Catholic, don't think the government should be dictating the facts of marriage to anyone. I don't think the government's role should go beyond giving a civil union a tax break. If I want to be married, I'll go to church and get married. But that's an entirely separate issue than the government dictating marriage. I think responsibility is the best way to put it. I try not to be a hypocrite, I really do. But I expect the same of others. I actually do think that it takes a village - as much as some people might stone me for that. But the village it takes is a WILLING one, not one that is forced into something by government decree. AFG and I give a larger percentage of our income every year to charity than the Obamas do (although granted it works out to be much less in dollar amounts, still it also makes a bigger dent in our standard of living) because when I see someone that truly needs help I want to help them. That's the thing, though. It needs to be MY CHOICE. There are people I don't want to help, and I resent being forced to. Ditto with my children - I'm all for community responsibility. In fact, one of the notes I most treasure is one from you, Sarah, about how you appreciated that we "co-parent" when we're together. And I was reminded of it two weekends ago when we had the hotel trouble and wifeunit stepped up to help with one of my kids. I love my village. I need my village. But they are my village BY CHOICE. And it is that choice that I think we need to guard so much.

Posted by: airforcewife at April 17, 2009 03:22 PM (Fb2PC)

3 AFW -- I agree with you and I didn't mean to sound like I don't want a WILLING village. I surely do. That's the gulch idea for me. Imagine if we all lived in a neighborhood together and we CHOOSE to entrust each other with our kids and lives. I think that'd be great. What I object to is feeling like I am constantly being told that I have to do things For The Greater Good: I have to pay taxes to make sure that no child is left behind and everyone has health care and "a living wage." I want to use my money to help people I think are worthy of it, who deserve a small leg up when life gets rough...instead of being forced to send money to Washington to get distributed to any old person. But it's a well-established fact that I'm a big meanie

Posted by: Sarah at April 17, 2009 03:52 PM (TWet1)

4 Great work, webmaster, nice design!

Posted by: adipex generic drug at August 01, 2009 08:45 AM (Pq2OR)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I've said before that Carl Sagan's Cosmic Timeline has always helped me find perspective and peace. I am but a blip in time and my problems are too. Yesterday, Amritas sent me a Hudnall link on the same lines: You're Less Than a Speck.

I find such comfort in my cosmic insignificance.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:27 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 54 words, total size 1 kb.

So many people did such a good job of answering Sis B's question. I concur with the fundamentals of what they said (and I would settle for a school voucher system any day as opposed to the soup sandwich we currently have.)

Any discussion of what I think the role of government is would have to include talk of rights. I believe we have inalienable rights to life, liberty, freedom of speech, freedom to assemble, etc. Those are rights to be left alone. To not be meddled with. To live and let live. We need a system of government when our community gets too big to handle as an individual, but the role of government ought ideally to be to protect our right not to be meddled with.

My husband and I love watching the series Deadwood. You can see on this show the evolution of government: Jack McCall kills Wild Bill, and then, aw crap, now we have to have a trial instead of just stringing him up. And then maybe it would be a good idea to have a sheriff and so on. You see these people who moved West to be left alone now being forced to create a government of sorts as the community gets bigger. And they downright resent it. Seth and Saul wanted to move West to open a hardware store, so they bought land, erected a building, and started selling boots and pans. They didn't need a permit, they didn't need a building inspection, they didn't have to belong to a guild or pay union dues; they just set to work filling a need in the camp: hardware. Can you imagine what they'd think if they saw what has to be done to start a business today?

I'm not saying life was better in every way back then, but Deadwood illustrates the gradual relinquishing of complete individuality and the loaning, if you will, of some of your rights to an authority. People entrusted the sheriff with their right to life and their right to justice. In return, the sheriff mediated their disputes (most notably between Hostetler and Steve the Drunk. Which was enough to make you wish you didn't live under the rule of law, so you could choke that hooplehead Steve out and be done with it.)

I liked CaliValleyGirl's analogy of government as a home owner's association. We in the United States have entrusted our government with some of our rights. We are too big to defend ourselves individually, so we entrust them with our national defense. We needed a system of interstate roads, so we entrust our motorways to them. But I personally think that what we now entrust our government to do goes way beyond promoting the general welfare.

Broadly speaking, I think the difference between the left and right is that the left wants to entrust more things to the government. I think they see our country as one big family. In my family, I have a crappy little job where I make about $75 per week. My husband makes more than that in a day. But all our money goes into the same bank account, and I am allowed to spend whatever I think is prudent on clothes or yarn or books. My husband does not restrict my spending to only what I make, because we are a family and we love each other. And sometimes I think that the left sees our country as an extension of a family, where the person who makes $75 per week is entitled to the same equality of result as the person who makes $7500. I think that's illustrated by Lileks' Parable of the Stairs story about his tax refund:

“I think the money should have gone straight to those people instead of trickling down.” Those last two words were said with an edge.

“But then I wouldn’t have hired them,” I said. “I wouldn’t have new steps. And they wouldn’t have done anything to get the money.”

“Well, what did you do?” she snapped.

“What do you mean?”

“Why should the government have given you the money in the first place?”

“They didn’t give it to me. They just took less of my money.”

That was the last straw. Now she was angry. And the truth came out:

“Well, why is it your money? I think it should be their money.”

What I see is that James Lileks made that money and he should be able to use it to build stairs to improve his home. But this Democrat canvasser thought it should've all gone into the collective national bank account and then been doled out based on who needed it.

On the same note, after she wrote this post, CaliValleyGirl elaborated on the theme in an email. She wrote:

I mean, imagine you are walking down the street with my dad and you meet someone who asks you for money. And you say sure, and slip your hand into my fatherÂ’s pocket, take his wallet, take out a $20, give it to the guy, and now you feel good, because you helped that person. But really, YOU didnÂ’t help that person.

This, to echo back to Sis B, is the left-wing mindset that I will never understand. Why should the stair money belong to all of us? Why should anyone be entitled to the fruits of Lileks' labor? And how do people justify taking money out of CaliValleyDad's pocket and giving it away to people who didn't earn it? (A question which, sadly, CaliValleyGirl never seemed to get an answer on.) The United States is not one big collective family with a shared bank account. It was never meant to be that. I don't know why we've drifted towards that; I find it maddening. I don't need to be Deadwood, but I don't want to be what we are right now.

I have heard Sean Hannity do man-on-the-street interviews with young people, asking them what people have the right to. Most of them quite readily agree that people have the right to shelter, food, education, transportation, and health care. I firmly believe that the government should grant none of those things as a right. In order for a penniless person to have any of those things, the government has to take Lileks' stair money and give it away. The role of government should be limited to enforcing the laws that protect our inalienable rights: the laws that prevent someone from coming into Lileks' house to steal his stair money, the laws that ensure that the contractor who builds the stairs will face justice if he doesn't fulfill his contract, and the laws that protect Lileks' right to defend his family should anyone step foot onto that staircase to do them harm. The government's role, in my opinion, has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not Lileks should get to have the stairs in the first place. If he earned the money for them, he gets them; he shouldn't have to relinquish his stair money so that other families can feed their kids or have a house.

Leonard Peikoff says it well in a speech I read back in 2000, a speech that resonated with me instantly and which obviously became a part of my knowing. I didn't realize how closely I'd echoed it nine years later in the beginning of this post until I googled it to quote here:

The term "rights," note, is a moral (not just a political) term; it tells us that a certain course of behavior is right, sanctioned, proper, a prerogative to be respected by others, not interfered with -- and that anyone who violates a man's rights is: wrong, morally wrong, unsanctioned, evil.

Now our only rights, the American viewpoint continues, are the rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. That's all. According to the Founding Fathers, we are not born with a right to a trip to Disneyland, or a meal at Mcdonald's, or a kidney dialysis (nor with the 18th-century equivalent of these things). We have certain specific rights -- and only these.

Why only these? Observe that all legitimate rights have one thing in common: they are rights to action, not to rewards from other people. The American rights impose no obligations on other people, merely the negative obligation to leave you alone. The system guarantees you the chance to work for what you want -- not to be given it without effort by somebody else.

When I talk about Our Gulch, when I reference Fight or Flee, I am talking about my people. My tribe, as Whittle would say. And the people I want in my Gulch, they all have this same definition of rights. Most people I am friends with have this definition; most of the bloggers I read share it too. It seems to me that we are numerous. So to me, the interesting part of Sis B's question is this:

I think that part of what mystifies me about it is the vast chasm between what I hear regular conservatives saying they believe and the type of government that has been established under the guise of conservativism the past 8 years.

I am equally mystified by this. If everyone I know feels like I do about rights and the role of government, why don't we ever have a government that suits us?

I think the answer lies in compromise. My tribe was mad that Pres Bush was soft on immigration and that he signed the prescription drug plan. Many in my tribe were mad about the marriage amendment as well. I also remember vividly in 2004 when Bush won and said he was going to privatize Social Security. I couldn't believe my ears and was thrilled beyond belief. But it didn't pan out. The federal government is one whopping compromise where no one ends up happy with the result.

And it's not just Republicans who embody this chasm. Remember how Pres Clinton fficial&client=firefox-a">was "the best Republican president we've had in a while"? I am sure Obama supporters are mad that he hasn't completely pulled out of Iraq and that closing Gitmo is "complicated." It's the nature of politics that all presidents are going to govern from the center and end up ticking off their constituents.

Which is why I agree with Mrs du Toit and CaliValleyGirl that politics should be local, and that we ought to live in gulches. Another fundamental belief I have about the workings of government is that it should vary by locality. There should be very few federal laws; most things should be left up to the states, and then you could live in the state that you feel best represents your worldview. It would be far easier to get one of 50 states to suit you than it is to get the entire country to. People pay far too much attention to federal elections and lawmaking.

Towards the end, Sis B adds:

But when this election was done and the Republican party had its collective ass handed to it, my first thought was, "I hope that this allows the party to get back to the fundamentals of its beliefs and that they re-emerge in four or eight years with a strong, coherent platform." Seriously. I want the conservatives to get back to their roots and come back strong.

I don't see that happening.

I think I disagree with her. I think four years of President Obama will be plenty to make people in the center lurch rightward. And I hope we see a resurgence of conservative/libertarian principles on the national stage. I want Republicans to stop their pandering and quit trying to be Democrat Lite. I want to be the party of tough love. I want to be the party of individual responsibility. I want to vote for someone who denies the Democrats their premises. But, you'll remember, I was not a McCain supporter from the beginning. I supported Fred Thompson, who was far closer to my ideal politician than what I ended up having to vote for. Not perfect, but as close as it probably gets. (I don't imagine we could ever get away with President Z.)

So, at the risk of sounding like Forrest Gump, I guess that's all I have to say about that. Sis B has now asked her Democrat readers to explain their side. If you are interested in this exchange of ideas, keep your eyes on this post and the comments.

For additional reading about the role of government from people whose brains work far better than mine, check out Mrs du Toit's The Day Liberty Died (via Amritas) and den Beste's Citizen Soldier.

Posted by: Sarah at 11:32 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 2152 words, total size 13 kb.

1 Funny, I would label myself a "liberal" - note the lack of capital letter. This is the best definition I could find as to why that word fits: favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible So I don't feel that Sarah's view of government is all that different from mine. Let folks do what they want to do - don't impose your religion, don't tell me what marriage means, don't go crying to Washington over what happens in your backyard, take care of your own business, etc. Seems to make sense to me. I find it curious that most people who deride liberals seem to believe that all of them want the government to do everything for them - some certainly do, but not all of them. Many people label themselves "liberal" because they want to be left the hell alone by other people. Frankly, I don't see the Dems or the Republicans supporting this ideal at all. Both are pretty far from it. Granted, maybe that's our fault. We make hunger, education, finance and all types of other social/personal issues a political issue and what can a politician do about them short of legislating and making it a Washington problem? Great post - thanks

Posted by: Sarah's Pinko Commie Friend at April 12, 2009 02:55 PM (4bitt)

2 Pinko -- I have seen many bloggers that I consider on "my" side use the small-l liberal designation. Like in a "taking it back" way.

Posted by: Sarah at April 12, 2009 03:10 PM (TWet1)

3 As in, "its cool, I'm taking it back!" ? Nice

Posted by: Sarah's Pinko Commie Friend at April 12, 2009 04:23 PM (4bitt)

4 Pinko -- I just knew you would get my Randal reference... Incidentally, I should've commented about your last paragraph. Excellent point. Why do we focus so much on social issues during the campaign: I don't want the government hand on any of those things. So what I want to know is this: Do you think Obama's "leaving people the hell alone"? I know you favored him over McCain; are you happy about his policies so far? Because to me, taking the reins of the banks and car companies is pretty freaking far from leaving us alone. I think it's a major entwining of government and business. What do you think?

Posted by: Sarah at April 13, 2009 02:44 AM (TWet1)

5 Excellent post Sarah. It's hard to explain each of our individual belief systems but I think you and CVG did an excellent job of it. People seem to forget about states rights and how they were the foundation of everything. If you want to live in state that honors gay marriage then you can move to one that does. However people don't want to be uprooted from their own community, so they just attempt to change their communities collective mind. If the community doesn't like that idea then the person might say well let's make it a national law, so then I don't have to be inconvenienced by moving. I consider myself conservative but have some very socially liberal ideas. I believe in a woman's right to choice to control her own body. I believe that all children in our country have a right (yes, strong word I know) to a decent education and free health care. I don't mind my taxes going to pay for education and health care because in the end it makes our country stronger and more competitive in a global market. Some conservatives don't agree with me and that's ok. I respect their opinions because they are educated on the issues or have strong moral beliefs. Which brings me to a point. One of the reason's I dislike Liberal ideology even though I am slightly liberal myself, is that most of the people I speak with don't seem entirely clear on what they believe. It's just seems to be this blanket idea of everyone should be taken care of. Everyone has a right to everything to make them comfortable in life. This ideology is something that seems to be fostered in the PUBLIC school system. Which is why so many people these days choose to home school. If the liberal side doesn't want prayer in schools because of the 'separation of church and state' (NOT a RIGHT granted in the constitution by the way, but read as an INTENTION by Thomas Jefferson in a letter he wrote) then quit stuffing another ideology down the kids throats. It's an idea of entitlement that bothers me. No one ever said life was going to be fair. The other thing I take issue with is the vitriol that is spewed by both the liberal and conservative sides. Name calling won't help. The original post asked for no name calling, however there was still a jab at the other side when she said that 'But when this election was done and the Republican party had its collective ass handed to it,' I call bullshit on that. Obama received 52.9% and McCain received 45.7% Hardly a landslide sweetheart. I don't think Obama is going to have 8 years of governing. He has shown so far that he does not in fact have the experience needed for the job. He election galvanized many conservative-lite people into becoming more involved in their local governments and say, no more, lets change this.

Posted by: Mare at April 13, 2009 03:55 AM (TWet1)

6 Tomorrow I will be sending out my first quarterly estimated tax payment for this year. I am self-employed, so I self-deduct my taxes, and actually notice how much of my money is being siphoned away. And what struck me was that my federal tax payment was nearly 10x that of my state tax payment. And I thought how wrong that isÂ…it should be the other way around. Why are we sending so much money to Washington, when supposedly WashingtonÂ’s job is to send it back to us? Why donÂ’t we keep it in our states, and send a minimal amount to the federal government? I just donÂ’t get it. Mare, I agree with you on the public education thing, but I would argue that it's not a right. I would say, like you did, it's just a smart thing to do as a nation and makes us stronger. A good education takes care of a lot of problems...problems we still have in this country, so I feel we are failing ourselves in that way, because we aren't giving public school children that good education.

Posted by: CaliValleyGirl at April 13, 2009 05:20 AM (irIko)

7 I know 'right' is a strong word in this case. But my thought process is that the system already exists. We are already paying for it. Ultimately if we want people to take personal responsibility for their own lives and not need the help of the federal gov't then we must give them the tools to succeed. Education is the key to that. And I used the word 'decent' very specifically. It does not have to be perfect. It has to get the job done to prepare kids for either college, the military or a trade. What they do after that is up to them. Then again, education is not a something guarnteed in the Bill of Rights. Just my 2 cents, your mileage may vary

Posted by: Mare at April 13, 2009 06:53 AM (y9A8i)

8 I know 'right' is a strong word in this case. But my thought process is that the system already exists. We are already paying for it. Ultimately if we want people to take personal responsibility for their own lives and not need the help of the federal gov't then we must give them the tools to succeed. Education is the key to that. And I used the word 'decent' very specifically. It does not have to be perfect. It has to get the job done to prepare kids for either college, the military or a trade. What they do after that is up to them. Then again, a right to an education is not something guaranteed in the Bill of Rights nor do I think we need an Amendment to make it so. Just my 2 cents, your mileage may vary

Posted by: Mare at April 13, 2009 06:54 AM (y9A8i)

9 "So what I want to know is this: Do you think Obama's "leaving people the hell alone"? I know you favored him over McCain; are you happy about his policies so far? Because to me, taking the reins of the banks and car companies is pretty freaking far from leaving us alone. I think it's a major entwining of government and business. What do you think?" Well, I don't really know what to think about government intervention in business/economy. As a business owner, I believe pretty strongly that perception is reality in the market. So I sometimes feel (perhaps selfishly) that whatever it takes to turn people's attitudes around makes me happy. Granted, the idea of giving money to failed businesses bugs me a ton. I'm not sure how I feel about him so far. Know this, I don't consider this guy the second coming. I think that most people can agree that he is an "interesting" fellow. I like him (hey, I like McCain too) and I'm interested to see what he does. I like the fact that he hasn't rushed the pull out in Iraq, because I'm not in favor of leaving till the job is done. Granted, I'm not sure that anyone agrees on what "the job" is anymore. But I think he'll temper some of the issues that liberals are wrong about. But I also think he believes he or policy can "fix" everything. I don't believe for a second that the government (or either party) is responsible for the housing industry debacle - I blame the banking industry pure and simple. Now, they didn't cause it, but can they fix it? And if they can, what precedent does that set going forward? I think that most of us want the American Economy to be strong, and I don't have enough economic education to believe that the free market will automagically right itself for the best without interference. So to answer your question, I don't really know. If it works then I'm happy as a business owner. As a felow armchair quarterbacking the oval office I feel more inclined to complain about the intentions but admit that I don't have the expertise to provide a better answer. I still like Obama, I think its interesting to see how he'll deal with his early-term issue. I thought Bush did a great job with 911, even if I thought he botched some other stuff. But 911 was something that could be handled "right" and he was in a position to do something. I'm not sure that the president should be doing something at all, or whether or not the president has a "right" thing in his arsenal at all. I would have been interested to see what McCain would have done with regards to the economy. I'm not regretting my choice of vote yet (with regards to the economy anyway). does that backpedal make any sense?

Posted by: Sarah's Pinko Commie Friend at April 13, 2009 01:28 PM (4bitt)

10 Oh, to actually have a party of tough love and individual responsibility. If we are ever able to make that the entire platform of the republican party, I will be thrilled.

Posted by: Leofwende at April 13, 2009 07:49 PM (28CBm)

11 For examples of just how intrusive government threatens to become in day-to-day life, see my regulating absolutely everything thread...also this. Not to mention the whole CPSIA debacle.

Posted by: david foster at April 14, 2009 03:04 AM (ke+yX)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

UPDATE: Everyone is giving really good answers. Make sure you still go over and read Sis B's comments section. And if Chuck Z can craft an answer without using the word "commie," then you can too! If you answer on your own blog, leave a trackback either at Sis B's or here, so we can read them all. I know Sis B said not to just quote people, but I keep going "Yeah, what she said, and what he said!" However, I did give this lots of thought last night before I read anything here and plan to try to answer on my own...as soon as I get home from making more foam houses at work.

Also, I would like to say that I lurve my imaginary friends. I know that many of you disagree with me on several issues -- AirForceWife, Andi, CaliValleyGirl, Mare, etc have all let me know when they do -- but when we boil it down to the essentials, just the basic framework we work under, we are all so similar. And that's why we read each other: we know we have common ground, and the rest is just details. It's also why we seriously need a gulch.

*****

Anyone want to try to answer Sis B's question?

I know I have a bunch of Republican readers and close friends, but for the life of me I cannot figure out what any of you think about actual issues. It's all hidden behind snark and namecalling and eye rolling and back patting and I seriously, honestly, to my core, want to know what you believe and why. I want to know what you think about how the government is supposed to work. What does a functioning government look like to you? Please, if you care to answer this question, do so without saying words like "libs" or "dems" or hippies, commies, fags, or any derivative thereof. I want to know what, if any, moral authority government should have. What is the government's purpose in relation to the economy? What powers should the government be allowed to have and what should be limited? What is your view of the constitution? What are your beliefs about ALL the amendments within the Bill of Rights, not just the second?

I think that part of what mystifies me about it is the vast chasm between what I hear regular conservatives saying they believe and the type of government that has been established under the guise of conservativism the past 8 years.

I am gonna take a stab at it when I get back home. It seems like a hard task to me, because I will not be able to grant any common ground. To answer this, I will have to start from the beginning and delineate all my premises. Because what's obvious to me is not obvious to a Democrat. Obviously.

On the other hand, it's easy. The government has the authority to do what the Constitution says and nothing more. End of story. (P.S. I completely freaked out a centrist Republican friend here in town in a discussion of education funding by saying that I don't even think there should be a Department of Education. If it's not in the Constitution, I don't want government doing it. That's why Republicans like me have been horrified by many of our own politicians. We see them as Democrat Lite instead of a true alternative.)

I will try to formulate my thoughts on the drive home. Husband, you start thinking too, because this will have to be a collaborative effort in order for it to be done right.

(And, keep in mind that my comments section is plain awful, so if you start a long comment here, for your sanity, please copy to the clipboard before you post it. Because nine times out of ten, it will disappear. I know this. I am working on moving and was going to do it right about the time I went crazy. I will get to it soon, I promise.)

Posted by: Sarah at 05:01 AM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 689 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Thank you and I look forward to the discussion! Normally I would be looking for a debate, but I'm too tired for that these days. I really just want to know what you think. Travel safely!

Posted by: Sis B at April 05, 2009 09:22 AM (GFl+S)

2 I am not a Republican because so many Republicans are, as you put it, "Democrat Lite". Your premise is that the Constitution sets the limits of government. A question for you and those on your side: Does it still make sense to adhere to an 18th century document plus amendments in the 21st century? Can't blind traditionalism be dangerous? (I have my own answers, but I'd like to hear what others have to say.) A question for your opponents: Is the Constitution too constricting? What extra powers does the government need, and why? Or is the Constitution already sufficient? Is the Right misinterpreting it, and if so, how? I've noticed that people on both the Right and Left claim to be the true heirs of the Founding Fathers. This reveals a shared premise: a belief that the Founding Fathers more or less embody the ideal. But one must be careful, as iconic associations can be crutches: e.g., "I am right because I think some famous person would agree with me" or "I am right because I think my beliefs are in accordance with some famous document". Take away those crutches. Forget the glory of the Founding Fathers and their writings. Are your arguments valid for today? Can you convince someone who has never heard of the Founding Fathers or the Constitution that your ideas are the ones America needs? Without relying on the emotional appeal of the past, can you demonstrate that you are objectively correct?

Posted by: Amritas at April 05, 2009 11:42 AM (Wxe3L)

3 BTW, the "you" in my comment above referred to Sarah, not Sis B. Thanks to Sis B for asking good questions! We may have answered these before, but they are always worth re-answering, as our answers can change over time. Mine certainly have ...

Posted by: Amritas at April 05, 2009 11:46 AM (Wxe3L)

4 BTW, the "you" in my comment above referred to Sarah, not Sis B. Thanks to Sis B for asking good questions! We may have answered these before, but they are always worth re-answering, as our answers can change over time. Mine certainly have.

Posted by: Amritas at April 05, 2009 11:46 AM (Wxe3L)

5 Absolutely looking forward to this...

Posted by: Sarah's Pinko Commie Friend at April 05, 2009 12:09 PM (4bitt)

6 I don't know . My ultra conservative friends seem to know exactly how to "fix" things as do my liberal friends, but I just don't know anymore. Sorry I can't be of help.

Posted by: Judy at April 05, 2009 01:36 PM (uguBi)

7 Darn, I was all set to use the word hippie-commie. I am a reformed Republican who can't bear to be a Democrat, so that leaves me as an Independent. I believe the government should do as little as possible. They should listen to what the people want, not what they think is best for us. (Can you say 90% NO votes as far as public input on the original TARP funds, yet they still voted it through) Politicians are in it for themselves and their buddies. The little people will continue to take a screwing until we stand up and vote out the people who do not do as their constituents want. But I'm not holding my breath.

Posted by: meadowlark at April 05, 2009 02:39 PM (+7zhB)

8 The Constitution itself is a doctrine that is vague. What powers the government have largely depend on your interpretation of the constitution. The two extreme views are: 1) Broad scope of powers that marginally relate to commerce and the general welfare. 2) Minimalistic view that creates a mere truism of the elastic cause, and limits the commerce power to only a narrow view of interstate commerce (just the journey for example). Anything in between would lead to a debate over the elastic clause, or the degree to which Congress can regulate interstate commerce. A conservative, economically speaking, and this is my opinion, would look to the free market as a base, and only intervene in instances where either positive or negative externalities need addressing. Education +, pollution -. I'll give you more if you find this insightful. You could make the argument that although the constitution gives our government power we shouldn't exercise it because it would lead to a bad outcome, i.e. not pareto optimal (or any other example of what you could argue is not a good outcome).

Posted by: John Limberakis aka Econotics at April 05, 2009 05:34 PM (xoTm3)

9 On the founding fathers debate: This is relevant if you are an orginalist... but even then you had two competing camps: 1 - Hamilton and broad powers (banks, bonds, programs etc) and 2 - anti-federalists, better known as Jeffersonians who favored extremely limited federal government. They passed the Constitution as well thinking it would be used for their concept of limited government. The federalist papers are also a mixed bag. In analyzing public policy I tend not to care about factors such as these - whether or not our founders knew what was best is a mildly amusing premise - after all it was our founding fathers who compromised on "universal suffrage" and found it in their wisdom to judge slaves and freed slaves as 3/5th people. I base my opinions on principles like GDP growth, economic soundness, and freedom. I suppose the most important power the founders gave us is to govern, in a democratic-republican fashion, how we see fit.

Posted by: John Limberakis aka Econotics at April 05, 2009 06:11 PM (xoTm3)

10 To Sis B: Conservative is a blurred term now-a-days. If you base your definition of what is conservative on Bush, or a Southern Republican, you are socially conservative (not favoring social freedoms - forget abortion here temporarily) and economically a mixed bag. Southern Republicans favored big government from 2000-2006 when they lost power. They are a coalition of the religious right, the dwindling number of Reagan Democrats, and businesses. The coalition is falling apart... Many conservatives did not approve of the expansion of big government during 2000-2006 but were complacent in it. I think the new, not neo, conservative is like me, a Western Republican. Socially libertarian (Except perhaps for abortion) and economically responsibly libertarian. I'd love to post later on my beliefs but I wanted to get those three posts on the table first. Frame the perspective if you will...

Posted by: John Limberakis aka Econotics at April 05, 2009 06:37 PM (xoTm3)

11 I think that this has to be answered on two levels. The unemotional intellectual level is all well and good - and I want to hear it! - but in my opinion, reverence for the Constitution is the only thing standing between America and European (or Hawaiian) style socialism. If you want to see what America looks like without this reverence, look at what's happening in America's universities: http://www.rishon-rishon.com/archives/071696.php The natural inclination of most people is that when there is a problem, government should DO SOMETHING, or at least TRY. Nobody respects the importance of Organic Systems http://www.rishon-rishon.com/archives/031769.php They magically "just work" and nobody gets any credit. When people live with them, as they do with capitalism, to the extent that we have it, they just take for granted all the good stuff and want to "fix" the stuff they don't like. At the most abstract level, government should be in charge of the laws which create the right kind of organic system. I am not a "real" libertarian because I don't think that the absence of government means capitalism. The absence of government means Somalia. Capitalism, like socialism, is a government creation - just a different kind of creation, one created by laws, not bureaucracy. In addition to setting up the capitalistic system, I would add to government responsibility functions that capitalism doesn't solve well (or at all): Defense, the courts, roads, the electricity grid, etc. Even in these cases, government should be kept to a minimum by contracting out parts of these services that can be effectively provided by the free market. This is the area where things get blurry, and I am willing to investigate and debate where, exactly, the line should be drawn. I am also in favor of the government getting involved with social welfare. I am not willing (at least in rich countries) to let people die in the streets because they made bad choices, or because of circumstances beyond their control. I think that these services can usually be provided by the free market, with government getting involved in the form of vouchers. Finally, I do think that the government should subsidize education. This, too, should be provided in the form of vouchers, to let the free market provide it in the most efficient way, and provide parents with as many choices as possible. Having said all that, the US Constitution deals with very few of these issues. Mostly, what it deals with is the division of power. The US has three levels of government: local (not provided for by the constitution), state, federal; and three branches of government: executive, legislature, and judiciary. When the US Constitution was written, democracy was not at all taken for granted, and the most important question to the founders was how to keep a dictator (or monarch) from taking power. Their solution was to disperse power as widely as possible. I don't think that there's anything in the Constitution which prevents European-style socialism in America.

Posted by: David Boxenhorn at April 05, 2009 09:55 PM (Yw3OE)

12 I have lots to say about this (you know I do), but I'm still exhausted from this weekend. And I'm sorry, Sarah. I just can't agree with you on Rambo. I can't. I'm glad you're willing to look past that and remain friends on our common ground.

Posted by: airforcewife at April 06, 2009 04:27 AM (Fb2PC)

13 I just wanted to say that in my answer there was a typo...I said something like in the best of all situations you would live in another country...I meant county...(see in my best of all worlds it would be even more regional than state). I was talking to the hubs about it last night, and he said he thinks there shouldn't be public schools either, but there should be public funding for education, it should just all go through the voucher system...I liked that idea.

Posted by: CaliValleyGirl at April 06, 2009 04:30 AM (irIko)

14 Got my response up. Just in case the trackback didn't work here it is... http://www.unliberaledwoman.com/?p=1278

Posted by: BigD78 at April 06, 2009 12:53 PM (W3XUk)

15 Seriously, do you have any idea how hard that was to write without using "commies, fags, and libtards?"

Posted by: Chuck at April 06, 2009 05:54 PM (meX2d)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Rush Limbaugh challenged Pres Obama to a debate. Oh, if only this could happen.

I would rather have an intelligent, open discussion with you where you lay out your philosophy and policies and I lay out mine -- and we can question each other, in a real debate. Any time here at the EIB Network studios. If you're too busy partying or flying around giving speeches and so forth, then send Vice President Biden. I'm sure he would be very capable of articulating your vision for America -- and if he won't work, send Geithner, and we can talk about the tax code. And if that won't work, go get Bob Rubin. I don't care. Send whoever you want if you can't make it. You don't need to be leaking stories to Politico like this thing that's published today. You don't need to have your allies writing op-eds and all the rest. If you can win at this, then come here and beat me at my own game, and get rid of me once and for all, and show all the people of America that I am wrong.

Rush would crush Obama to smithereens.

In other challenge news, Greg Mankiw tells Paul Krugman to put his money where his mouth is.

How big of a dork does it make me to say that I would pay real money to see these two smackdowns go down?

It's like a blogger nerd's SuperBowl.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:18 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 243 words, total size 1 kb.

1 You know, I don't think that Rush and Obama having a debate would do much. I mean, you are assuming that Obama answers the questions asked, and doesn't somehow go into another answer a la: "Well, I need more than chocolate, and for that matter I need more than vanilla. I believe that we need freedom. And choice when it comes to our ice-cream, and that Joey Naylor, that is the defintion of liberty." That debate would most likely be a win for both according to their respective supporters. And Obama would keep his cool, and Rush might get all frustrated because Obama wasn't answering the questions, and so some people who didn't understand what was going on would assume that because Rush was frustrated, he must be losing the debate...nah, I don't see anything good coming from it. I mean, according to me, all the debates before the election were a waste of time. All spin.

Posted by: CaliValleyGirl at March 05, 2009 04:14 AM (irIko)

2 OMG - CVG totally nailed how the President answers without giving answers! That was awesome!

Posted by: airforcewife at March 05, 2009 05:28 AM (Fb2PC)

3 I would watch this too, with popcorn. Heck, I would probably *pay* to see this! However, I think CVG is partially right, in that if the debates were held like the presidential debates, it might not be as effective as we'd hope it would be. I would rather see questions posed by supporters of either side to each of them – a liberal to Rush, a conservative to Obama – or that they each got to write their own questions, or have more time to rebut each other. I do think that Rush would smash Obama, rhetorically. He would out-argue and out-articulate him. But Obama's followers would only see it as Rush beating up their beloved president, and act accordingly. In a truly fair world, this debate would be FREAKIN' AWESOME. In OUR world, this debate could never, ever occur. The media would never allow it to be equitable, no matter who won.

Posted by: Deltasierra at March 05, 2009 08:43 AM (fPHZv)

4 Boring.... Rush would steamroller the President so badly his supporters would cry and whine worse than when Bush became president over Gore. That is why Obama was elected in the first place complete hissy fit anger. Surprise! now he's a liberal? Not a surprise.

Posted by: Ruth H at March 05, 2009 08:57 AM (hBAQy)

5 CVG, I agree completely. But I don't think Sarah is saying "a debate would do much." I think she just wants to see what Rush will say and how Obama will respond. She didn't say anything about the debate persuading anyone. Wanting to see a debate does not necessarily entail the American public actually listening to it and suddenly realizing, OMG, Rush is right, what were we thinking!? That will never happen, though I constantly hear conservatives say, oh, if only our message got out. It is out (remember Joe the Plumber?) and millions still don't care, because ... We Will Never be Popular for Doing What’s Right. Well, maybe not never. But it is a fundamental fact that the Left is basically the party of the superficially good, and is therefore destined not only to be popular, but make the people who espouse its ideas popular. Everything they say makes sense – at first. It sure sounds good to be nice to everybody, give away the store, to flatter everyone, to believe our enemies are nice people and everyone’s values are OK. Conservative policies for this country are largely a matter of tough love. They do work, but tough love is seldom requited at the time.

Posted by: Amritas at March 05, 2009 09:22 AM (+nV09)

6 I have to admit that I stole the quote from "Thank you for smoking." It's a scene where Nick Naylor, spokesperson for Big Tabacco, is explaining to his son how things work in his job. Joey Naylor: ...so what happens when you're wrong? Nick Naylor: Whoa, Joey I'm never wrong. Joey Naylor: But you can't always be right... Nick Naylor: Well, if it's your job to be right, then you're never wrong. Joey Naylor: But what if you are wrong? Nick Naylor: OK, let's say that you're defending chocolate, and I'm defending vanilla. Now if I were to say to you: 'Vanilla is the best flavour ice-cream', you'd say... Joey Naylor: No, chocolate is. Nick Naylor: Exactly, but you can't win that argument... so, I'll ask you: so you think chocolate is the end all and the all of ice-cream, do you? Joey Naylor: It's the best ice-cream, I wouldn't order any other. Nick Naylor: Oh! So it's all chocolate for you is it? Joey Naylor: Yes, chocolate is all I need. Nick Naylor: Well, I need more than chocolate, and for that matter I need more than vanilla. I believe that we need freedom. And choice when it comes to our ice-cream, and that Joey Naylor, that is the defintion of liberty. Joey Naylor: But that's not what we're talking about Nick Naylor: Ah! But that's what I'm talking about. Joey Naylor: ...but you didn't prove that vanilla was the best... Nick Naylor: I didn't have to. I proved that you're wrong, and if you're wrong I'm right. Joey Naylor: But you still didn't convince me Nick Naylor: It's that I'm not after you. I'm after them.

Posted by: CaliValleyGirl at March 05, 2009 10:04 AM (irIko)

7 CVG, I was wondering what you were referring to. Thanks for providing not only the source, but the context! I like the last line: It's that I'm not after you. I'm after them. Obama would not be after Rush; he'd be after his suppOrters. cOnvincing them is the key to victOry. Defeating Rush is beside the point.

Posted by: Amritas at March 05, 2009 10:28 AM (+nV09)

8 Oh I loved that movie, CVG!

Posted by: airforcewife at March 05, 2009 11:45 AM (Fb2PC)

9 Oh, that might be worth getting cable TV for! Sign me up for a popcorn party in the parallel universe where it happens, LOL - it would be TOO. FUN. And WAAAY good call, CaliValleyGirl. :-)

Posted by: kannie at March 05, 2009 02:38 PM (iT8dn)

10 oh I'd be all over that, I'd even pay and I redefine cheap. while we're at it I'd pay to watch al gore debate actual scientist, you know people who actual know about climate change. btw. i have the hardest time leaving you comments. I always get a message saying too much spam and commenting is down. Am I the only one? Is the computer on to the fact that I tend to have little to add to the conversation.

Posted by: the mrs. at March 06, 2009 09:29 AM (NJQf+)

Hide Comments | Add Comment