Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
I got schooled over on WizBangBlog by this insightful commenter…he presumes I’m recommending the Republican campaign be confined to economic issues, when what I’m really recommending is more like these issues should take the lead. But I figure that’s my fault, since as the writer I never really made this distinction.
Regardless, these are good, well-thought-out comments:
It’s about far more than the economy -freedom, the constituion [sic], the right to keep and practice your faith, innocent life, no more Kelo, no laws created by handfuls of robed masters in courts, no more lifetime leaders, no more abuse of the public treasury by the ruling class to entrench themselves and their friends, no more support for mind altering educational games, no more eco-worship -just eco-sense, no more coddling and encouraging radical enemies -preparation for our own reverse jihad makes perfect sense etc.
It’s in regard to this post over here, which was picked up by blogger friend Rick.
So to summarize, we have — economic autonomy. And then we have sovereignty of the individual. The first has to do with business transactions; if I value your money more than some possession I have, and you value my possession more than that quantity of money, is it a done deal? Can we just conduct the transaction without a pastiche of government regulations and special taxes? And coupled in with that, are the consequences of thinking otherwise. Simply put, the job market sucks right now. The whole economy sucks. “Could be better” just completely fails to capture the depth and magnitude of misery that shrouds us…needlessly, might I add.
Here’s a better explanation, than most, of how this cause-and-effect is coupled up:
And then the second one, captured by the WizBang commenter, has to do with human dignity. The relationship we people have with our government. Up until the Heller decision, I would have said gun control was the most brilliant beacon of an example-issue representing this broader concern. Now that that’s more-or-less a dead issue, and the right side won, I’d say it’s health care. Across the board, the thing being argued about is an Archimedean lever-that-moves-Earth.
Can we position such levers properly, and then entrust them to these super-smart people whom we elect, and more super-smart people whom those elected people then appoint — to manage our private affairs just so, more beneficially than we would? That’s another debate that has been dragging on for a good long time, and likely won’t be permanently resolved one way or another. I have the impression we are arguing about how people have chosen to manage their personal lives: Through individual responsibility, or through surrender to some other party who will then decide all the hard stuff. People aren’t going to change the fabric that makes them up, so we’re going to just keep arguing about this.
This second issue is summarized by Ronald Reagan, when he said something like “if none of us can adequately manage our own affairs, then who among us has what it takes to manage everybody else’s?”
But these two issues — let go of the economy so it can thrive, and let go of the people so that they can decide things personally and responsibly — in my mind, are linked. And yes, that includes the right to be born. The whole argument of “until you cross this finish line, you legally don’t exist” is frightening, because if that applies to this class of person over here, then where else can such a rule be applied? And is such an argument really based on respect for the rule of law? I see many who insist on this vaginal-finish-line litmus test, completely flip-flop on their outlook on the complex issues when the subject turns to illegal immigration; suddenly they become “world without borders” people, and if the law says you’re in the country illegally, well then gol’ darn it, that law must be wrong. Hello? Now, how is the unborn baby not a person, again?
What underlies all this is the notion of “rights” and what they are. If you have a right and everybody agrees you have it, but they only agree because they happen to be pleased with it, then it could be said you don’t have the right at all. Rights don’t really count for much unless you can hang on to them even when it irritates the ever luvin’ fecal matter out of the many…or the powerful. And here is the problem with the centralized authority, with the so-called “rights” being adjudicated over-broadly by the “robed masters in courts.” Because then, the rights become conditional; something about non-interference with “The Common Good” or some such. Which means, in the final analysis, the rights no longer exist in any way at all. You only get to keep them when someone powerful decides it’s relatively costless to “let” you have them.
So yes, that’s what the election of 2012 should be about.
But I don’t necessarily see all these things as separate issues. In my mind, they are all inextricably intertwined.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.