JBG
09-16-2006, 05:36 PM
Not sure if this is the right place to put this.
Telling the Truth
Are the liberals or conservatives better at "saying it like it is"? The one thing that “conservatives” (and I dislike that term for myself) have going for them is that they come closer to telling it like it is about political events these days, whereas liberals mince words. The fact is that certain things are not consistent with society’s values; extreme Islamist belief, gay marriage, encouragement of out-of-wedlock pregnancies and associated juvenile delinquency and welfare dependency. In general and frequently, liberals will say that all of these things are necessary for a pluralist, free society to accept.
They may be acceptable if they did not have deeply pernicious and even dangerous effects on society. But this is not true, and liberals have not been good at publicly acknowledging this. Similarly, the liberals still have a childlike faith in the efficacy fo the United Nations. There was a time when things were quite the opposite, and the liberals had the better of the argument. During the 1950’s and 1960’s it was conservatives who failed to acknowledge the truth that discrimination by race and gender was degrading, sapping of productivity and morally wrong.
Extremist Islamist Activity –
Anyone who was alive on September 11, 2001 knows that Islamists took advantage of the openness of American and European (where they organized their cells) societies to unleash a horrific attack on us. These same people know that there have been other horrific attacks: Lockerbie, the 1972 Olympics, the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the nightclub in Bali, Indonesia and the recent Spanish train attack, to name but a few.
In order to protect ourselves, everyone knows that the now daily ritual of signing into buildings, being inspected by a metal wand when entering courthouses, etc. does little to deter these kinds of attacks. It is the way the politicians can seem to be in charge and doing something. Everyone knows by now that eventually, a full blown confrontation with the Islamic world will be necessary. Was this inevitable? When they began amassing massive petrodollar surpluses that could be used to corrupt political institutions and corporations throughout the world, probably. Examples are the US’s failure to confront Saudi Arabia and therefore the heart and funding of Al Quaeda (United States), Power Corp./Desmairis, and ultimately the sponsorship scandals (Canada), France and Russia’s use of the veto in the UN to seek to frustrate the Iraq operations.
These days, the conservatives understand that there is a need to separately profile, monitor and restrict activity by Middle Eastern people in our hemisphere. Conservative understand, for example, that Arer and Khadr and not Canadians in any generally understood sense. Conservatives understand that there is little to be gained by strip-searching Jewish grandmothers from Queens at airports, and that wheat farmers from Saskatchewan are rarely walking bombs. Liberals have trouble attacking the use of mentally slow 14 year olds to wreak havoc and devastation on civilians, always finding excuses such as “Arab anger”, etc. One question, what decent person sends their own flesh and blood out to become a walking bomb?
Gay Marriage –
Society has given married people a favored status, for a long time, in various endeavors in life. They pay lower taxes as a result of being able to file joint tax returns. They can, in many states and provinces, own real property in ways that creditors cannot levy on that property for satisfaction of debts. They pay lower insurance rates, based on the perception that their life styles are more stable and less prone to risky behavior. Many of these advantages have been granted in order to encourage the creation of procreative family units, and at least an initially stable and settled environment for raising children.
While it is true that gay people may form lifetime attachments to each other, there is little that society gains from such attachments. Thus, there is little policy reason to give gay couples the same financial and other advantages that come from marriage. Liberals also will not tell you what happens when gay couples can file joint returns, and where the government revenues will come from to make up the shortfalls that will arise from the increased number of joint returns. The liberals will say that rich people should be taxed more. But they have always said that and, even when in power, have not succeeded in any long-term increases of taxes from rich people. Rich people have both the ability and incentive to shelter their earnings, and liberals know that. Their assertions to the contrary are false and/or hypocritical.
Welfare dependency –
The liberal programs in the United States, i.e. the “War on Poverty” succeeded only in decreasing the incentives of poor people to remain married and working. Out-of-wedlock births soared during and after this period. During 1982, I worked as a legal assistant ina legal services program for the poor. This shows that I put action behind my words bout helping poor people. I was not being paid. During this time, the painter for one of the contractors engaged to rehabilitate slum housing in Westchester County, New York took a liking to a 13 year old girl in one of the apartments he was painting. Can anyone tell us why the 13 year old girl wasn’t in school, and wound up pregnant by the painter? Is this a worthwhile use of taxpayer and government money?
The even-more-liberal attorney I was working under had, let us say, a very serious difference of opinion with me about this matter. I asked her what the 13 year old girl’s mother did for a living. She said “she’s a mother”. If she was being a full time mother, then, how did her daughter wind up pregnant at the age of 13 by a painter? When liberals became uncomfortable with these questions I began to move to the right somewhat politically. Does anyone thing this is the only time a government program for the poor people has gone seriously awry.
For example the legal service program sponsored organizational meetings for apartments that were seriously run-down. The goal was to obtain an administrator to replace the slumlord who was draining the buildings. My suggestion that the money that was due for rent be pooled so that the administrator, when appointed, would have some money t actually repair the buildings was hooted down derisively. The suggestion also cost me my volunteer position. Not really a loss though. That day, I learned I was passé the Bar, and began practicing law privately as a bankruptcy legal assistant (while awaiting formal admission) in January 1983, and was admitted to practice in February, 1983. And what net gain did those legal services I helped provide give to the poor people? Probably none.
United Nations –
Liberals say the UN imprimatur is needed to give the US effort in Iraq “legitimacy”. Given where the proceeds of the “oil-for-food” program went, is there any doubt on two things:
1) That the world is better off without Saddam Hussein; and
2) That the UN is rotten to the core?
Can the UN really give legitimacy to anything?
Will you hear about any of this from today’s so-called “liberals”? I’m still waiting. And while you’re at it, what makes the people that call themselves “liberal” truly liberal?
This post is my original writing
Telling the Truth
Are the liberals or conservatives better at "saying it like it is"? The one thing that “conservatives” (and I dislike that term for myself) have going for them is that they come closer to telling it like it is about political events these days, whereas liberals mince words. The fact is that certain things are not consistent with society’s values; extreme Islamist belief, gay marriage, encouragement of out-of-wedlock pregnancies and associated juvenile delinquency and welfare dependency. In general and frequently, liberals will say that all of these things are necessary for a pluralist, free society to accept.
They may be acceptable if they did not have deeply pernicious and even dangerous effects on society. But this is not true, and liberals have not been good at publicly acknowledging this. Similarly, the liberals still have a childlike faith in the efficacy fo the United Nations. There was a time when things were quite the opposite, and the liberals had the better of the argument. During the 1950’s and 1960’s it was conservatives who failed to acknowledge the truth that discrimination by race and gender was degrading, sapping of productivity and morally wrong.
Extremist Islamist Activity –
Anyone who was alive on September 11, 2001 knows that Islamists took advantage of the openness of American and European (where they organized their cells) societies to unleash a horrific attack on us. These same people know that there have been other horrific attacks: Lockerbie, the 1972 Olympics, the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the nightclub in Bali, Indonesia and the recent Spanish train attack, to name but a few.
In order to protect ourselves, everyone knows that the now daily ritual of signing into buildings, being inspected by a metal wand when entering courthouses, etc. does little to deter these kinds of attacks. It is the way the politicians can seem to be in charge and doing something. Everyone knows by now that eventually, a full blown confrontation with the Islamic world will be necessary. Was this inevitable? When they began amassing massive petrodollar surpluses that could be used to corrupt political institutions and corporations throughout the world, probably. Examples are the US’s failure to confront Saudi Arabia and therefore the heart and funding of Al Quaeda (United States), Power Corp./Desmairis, and ultimately the sponsorship scandals (Canada), France and Russia’s use of the veto in the UN to seek to frustrate the Iraq operations.
These days, the conservatives understand that there is a need to separately profile, monitor and restrict activity by Middle Eastern people in our hemisphere. Conservative understand, for example, that Arer and Khadr and not Canadians in any generally understood sense. Conservatives understand that there is little to be gained by strip-searching Jewish grandmothers from Queens at airports, and that wheat farmers from Saskatchewan are rarely walking bombs. Liberals have trouble attacking the use of mentally slow 14 year olds to wreak havoc and devastation on civilians, always finding excuses such as “Arab anger”, etc. One question, what decent person sends their own flesh and blood out to become a walking bomb?
Gay Marriage –
Society has given married people a favored status, for a long time, in various endeavors in life. They pay lower taxes as a result of being able to file joint tax returns. They can, in many states and provinces, own real property in ways that creditors cannot levy on that property for satisfaction of debts. They pay lower insurance rates, based on the perception that their life styles are more stable and less prone to risky behavior. Many of these advantages have been granted in order to encourage the creation of procreative family units, and at least an initially stable and settled environment for raising children.
While it is true that gay people may form lifetime attachments to each other, there is little that society gains from such attachments. Thus, there is little policy reason to give gay couples the same financial and other advantages that come from marriage. Liberals also will not tell you what happens when gay couples can file joint returns, and where the government revenues will come from to make up the shortfalls that will arise from the increased number of joint returns. The liberals will say that rich people should be taxed more. But they have always said that and, even when in power, have not succeeded in any long-term increases of taxes from rich people. Rich people have both the ability and incentive to shelter their earnings, and liberals know that. Their assertions to the contrary are false and/or hypocritical.
Welfare dependency –
The liberal programs in the United States, i.e. the “War on Poverty” succeeded only in decreasing the incentives of poor people to remain married and working. Out-of-wedlock births soared during and after this period. During 1982, I worked as a legal assistant ina legal services program for the poor. This shows that I put action behind my words bout helping poor people. I was not being paid. During this time, the painter for one of the contractors engaged to rehabilitate slum housing in Westchester County, New York took a liking to a 13 year old girl in one of the apartments he was painting. Can anyone tell us why the 13 year old girl wasn’t in school, and wound up pregnant by the painter? Is this a worthwhile use of taxpayer and government money?
The even-more-liberal attorney I was working under had, let us say, a very serious difference of opinion with me about this matter. I asked her what the 13 year old girl’s mother did for a living. She said “she’s a mother”. If she was being a full time mother, then, how did her daughter wind up pregnant at the age of 13 by a painter? When liberals became uncomfortable with these questions I began to move to the right somewhat politically. Does anyone thing this is the only time a government program for the poor people has gone seriously awry.
For example the legal service program sponsored organizational meetings for apartments that were seriously run-down. The goal was to obtain an administrator to replace the slumlord who was draining the buildings. My suggestion that the money that was due for rent be pooled so that the administrator, when appointed, would have some money t actually repair the buildings was hooted down derisively. The suggestion also cost me my volunteer position. Not really a loss though. That day, I learned I was passé the Bar, and began practicing law privately as a bankruptcy legal assistant (while awaiting formal admission) in January 1983, and was admitted to practice in February, 1983. And what net gain did those legal services I helped provide give to the poor people? Probably none.
United Nations –
Liberals say the UN imprimatur is needed to give the US effort in Iraq “legitimacy”. Given where the proceeds of the “oil-for-food” program went, is there any doubt on two things:
1) That the world is better off without Saddam Hussein; and
2) That the UN is rotten to the core?
Can the UN really give legitimacy to anything?
Will you hear about any of this from today’s so-called “liberals”? I’m still waiting. And while you’re at it, what makes the people that call themselves “liberal” truly liberal?
This post is my original writing