House of Eratosthenes

The job of the American voter, is to reject socialism. If we do that, all the pieces fall into place; if we don’t do that, all is lost.

There are four “bright shiny objects” that distract us from this goal of rejecting socialism:

1. Making sure pregnant women can butcher their own babies whenever they want;
2. Proving you’re not a racist, even when there’s no reason for a rational person to think you might be one;
3. Gay marriage;
4. Proving you have compassion for poor people, again, when there’s no evidence to suggest you [don]’t.

Within the last fifty years, all four of these “bright shiny objects” have been leveraged to get us to accept socialism. They’ve been hauled out and used this way, because they work. But they shouldn’t, because not a one of ’em has anything to do with the real issue. We are AMERICANS. Whoever wants socialism can go plenty of other places to get it, enjoy it, live in it…choke on it. It doesn’t belong here.

I’m also heaping some mild scolding upon Neal Boortz — which I’m sure will absolutely devastate him — for this thing he jotted down that Rick Santorum needs to go away. Boortz might or might not write that headline all over again; I don’t really give a fig. Actually, I agree with Boortz in his distaste for Santorum’s comments, I just disagree with how far he took it. The “So-and-so needs to go away” thing has been way, way over done this year.

If we’re in the mode of seeing each and every candidate as a blight, one that needs to be removed and sent home, just because the candidate said something we don’t like — then we deserve another four years of Obama.

There is a mindset at work, along with a whole bunch of snotty, condescending pre-canned lectures by which it makes itself known, that Mitt Romney alone enjoys the defense provided by the thought in the above paragraph. We all need to be ready to fall in line behind Mittster, and put aside our differences with him, so we can dig up a contender to go up against Obama who is “electable.”

My observation here is that the people dishing out this pre-canned lecturing need to do a better job of sticking to their own knitting. And maybe they cannot do that, because they’re absolutely insincere in what they’ve been saying. Santorum, too, has been saying and doing some things with which sensible conservatives and freedom-minded libertarians might not agree. And that, too, is okay.

I grow quite weary of watching every politician who might reverse or halt our descent into a socialist shithole, getting ritually drawn into this death-by-reproductive-freedom debate, like a bug into a zapper. I am tired of the Tyranny of the Uterus. I am fatigued from a lifetime of living in a country devoted, by heritage, to freedom…read that as, the ability of individuals to make choices, about themselves, as individuals…and contemporarily, only caring about freedom when it has something to do with sex.

The spectacle — that is what it was, a spectacle — of a debate “moderator,” having held a senior position in an extremely polarizing recent democrat administration, asking questions to the Republican candidates about contraceptives, when contraceptives had, at the time, absolutely nothing to do with anything that was going on in the news.

I’m tired of the men, insisting men shouldn’t have any opinion about any of it, and then going on to fester with these passionate and intractible opinions that men shouldn’t have opinions about it. And then those men become “privileged” to watch as their children become the first generation in living memory to lose economic freedom…to enjoy fewer financial options than their parents…wonder how those men like that. Hey, those daughters of yours (your wives thought you should go ahead and have ’em) are getting hooked up & married & divorced four times before they’re thirty because they can’t find anyone to stick around and support these whelps that are your grandchildren, good thing they can abort the whelps!

The notion that nobody male has anything to say about the future, absolutely sickens me, and I don’t think God is too pleased with it either.

But to me, it’s all about freedom. And I recognize Santorum is not entirely in lock-step with that…so yeah, I disagree with Santorum in what he said. I don’t want government involved in this issue, in any way. But that’s quite alright…because we’re just not doing a good job safeguarding our freedoms, the way we’ve been goin’. Seriously. Barack Obama, after all, is the living culmination of this desire to have a government entirely separated from matters having to do with contraceptives. So we can contracept freely…and worship freely…hey, how’s that all working out? Mega-fail. Politics 101: When you’re giving up one thing to gain or secure another thing, and you end up with both of those things either missing entirely or put in serious jeopardy, it’s time to three-point-turn and get out of that cul de sac. Because you just got suckered.

Sooner you admit it, the less damage gets done.

The case against Santorum.

So in 2008 we got stuck with McCain and-apparently- we’re down to Romney or Santorum this time. Really? I must have shat on the Pope’s shoes or something in a past life.
- Physics Geek | 02/14/2012 @ 10:29
I fall down on Boortz’s side on this one. I’m not one to bandy labels about but “theocrat” pretty much fits where Santorum is concerned. There’s NOTHING in this life that scares me more than someone obsessing about “family values,” not one fucking thing. Well, mebbe Islamists, which is the flip side o’ the coin.

And then there’s the Santorum quote about small-“L” liberatarians. To quote yer man:

For me libertarianism is pretty simple. The government should not make any action a crime unless that action interferes with another person’s right to their life, their liberty or their property through either force or fraud. That definition reveals a requirement for government. Some entity must exist, after all, to step in to prevent one person from denying another those rights.

Yup.

I’d be sorely tempted to vote for a third party candidate this year if it weren’t for the fact that would hand the election over to Obama. The GOP ain’t got nuthin’, as far as I can see.
- bpenni | 02/14/2012 @ 10:43
That definition reveals a requirement for government. Some entity must exist, after all, to step in to prevent one person from denying another those rights.

Uh…waitaminnit, I thought you were going to come up with something like PG did, something a good law-and-order type would find to be crossing a line somewhere, or else, something to do with marijuana. I’m surprised it’s the mere legitimization of an enforcement mechanism that’s a deal-breaker. Santorum doesn’t even specify that he’s talking about the federal government (in which case, depending on the situation, I’d be on your side here). You part company with him here? I don’t see how that works; it looks to me like real anarchy is the only viable alternative. Something straight out of Team America, “We will become very angry with you [if you don’t shape up], and we will write a letter to you, telling you how angry we are.”

Back to my original point: ABO, and get over the rest. If the rule works for Mitty, it works for Ricky.
- mkfreeberg | 02/14/2012 @ 10:59
Some entity must exist, after all, to step in to prevent one person from denying another those rights.

What libertarian — what conservative — what rational person doesn’t agree with that?

That’s the most basic thing governments are required to do if they are to be considered governments at all — protect life, liberty, property; ensure domestic tranquility; provide for the common defense; that sort of thing (I could swear I’ve heard those phrases before). The only alternatives are fantasias: Bakuninite anarchy (left) or “pure” libertarianism (right), which seems to imagine an entire society run like World of Warcraft, with voluntary guilds voluntarily enforcing contracts…..

“Pure” libertarianism is as full of abstract hogwash as “pure” Marxism. Both invented a seductive language in which to couch some very unlovely impulses; both had their dour, humorless Russian prophets; both are appealing largely to college kids who want to slack off and smoke pot all day but somehow still be considered deep thinkers.

As for Santorum’s “theocon” stuff, I say: GOOD. Let’s get it all out there in one big gotterdammerung. If abortion, contraception, family values, gay marriage, and all of that happy crappy really are the drivers of the American electorate, let’s find out once and for all. If an electorally-significant number of people really would choose the certainty of me-too socialism over the possibility that some teenage girl somewhere might get a Gardasil shot, let’s get that out in the open. Fuck it — we’re gonna lose anyway; we might as well find out just how addled our fellow countrymen really are.

[Either that, or we’ll roll effortlessly to victory, because the libs were right and Middle America really can’t wait to elect a sweater-vested ayatollah who wants to chain women to the oven when they’re not in the nursery. Isn’t that what we’ve been hearing for at least the past 40 years now? Only one way to find out, comrades….]
- Severian | 02/14/2012 @ 17:05
First of all, Boortz raised a straw man with his definition of social conservative. I find this tiresome on the part of libertarians in general. There follows a tendency on their part to blame social conservatives for any electoral reverses.

There is no looming theocracy. The President of the United States cannot outlaw abortion. He cannot ban gay marriage. He cannot institute Christian prayer in public schools. These are all legislative functions. No matter how strongly held their beliefs, social conservatives cannot force these things on their fellow Americans unless their fellow Americans agree with them and want them. It seems, at least in the case of gay marriage, that their fellow Americans do not want that, because every time it is democratically decided, it loses.

In other words, the opprobrium that social conservatives receive from libertarians is mostly bullshit. They make a convenient scapegoat for the failure of the libertarian message to appeal to a majority of Americans. I myself have a strong libertarian streak, but I am also a social conservative. Just because I view abortion as tantamount to murder does not mean that I am ready to go to the mattresses over it. I believe that the country as a whole would be far better off if abortion were rare, but there you have it. Under the current laws it is legal and only nominally restricted. If you feel the need to abort an unborn baby, have at it.

Go ahead, focus on the bright shiny object.
- chunt31854 | 02/15/2012 @ 07:23
I am fatigued from a lifetime of living in a country devoted, by heritage, to freedom…read that as, the ability of individuals to make choices, about themselves, as individuals…and contemporarily, only caring about freedom when it has something to do with sex.

Funny you should say this, Morgan…because I had much the same thought myself a couple days back. Or more precisely, someone over at one of my favorite gun-related forums said this. It went, ‎”You might be a liberal…if you feel consenting adults can engage freely in every activity except capitalism.” I went on to explain that the Left wants total freedom and privacy in the bedroom….which really is fine with me. (Really, show me anyone who isn’t fine with that, even the most battle-scarred social cons.) I just wish they felt the same way about the marketplace – that what goes on there between buyer and seller is nobody else’s damn business. Especially government, which seems to think it is entitled to a cut of the action every time money changes hands.

You’re right. They want freedom to abort, freedom for state-recognized sodomy, freedom to use birth control….but to buy, carry, and (gasp) use a gun? To send your kids to the school of your choice? To buy insurance from the carrier of your choice, to pay taxes based on what you consume rather than what you earn or own….fuhgetabboutit.
- cylarz | 02/16/2012 @ 23:38

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Santorum’s Plenty Good EnoughTuesday, February 14th, 2012

Santorum’s Plenty Good Enough
Tuesday, February 14th, 2012