Moving

This blog is moving to http://commonmanscorner.wordpress.com/

I thought I'd moved all the posts, but I just realized I didn't.  I'll get that done as soon as reasonably convenient.

In the meantime, all posts going forward will be there.

Al

Give Me A Break

When I read it, "give me a break, for crying out loud" was about all I could think.

A day or two ago, a friend showed me a link to an article on a site called “Addicting Truth,” or “Addicting Info,” or something like that.  The link was to a post that was written to supposedly teach Republicans about “real” socialism.  It was as rife with ignorant assumptions about Republicans and conservatives as Free Republic is rife with ignorant assumptions about Democrats and liberals.  The article pointed to fire and police departments as “Democratic Socialism,” and used that as a launching pad to campaign for state paid post-secondary education.  As a “proof,” it pointed to Europe as a shining example of how it ought to be.

The author of the piece described this “Democratic Socialism” as a political system that is fundamentally democratic as to the people’s voice, and is a mix of socialism and capitalism.  The first clue regarding the author’s core intent and beliefs is that socialism forms the basis; it’s just that some capitalism is allowed in.  It is that fundamental position that I take issue with.  Don’t try to pass it off as “it’s just a name, who cares” because that ignores the elemental fact that it illustrates.  That position starts with socialism as its foundation and adds capitalism only if necessary, and thus is aligned with those policies that tend toward the government being the great problem solver, equalizer, sugar daddy, and thence, God.  That line of think is, in my experience, typical of people who call themselves “liberal” or “progressive.”

The author here proposed to teach Republicans that the current application of the system that the Republicans supposedly hate is really pretty sensible.  It ended up, then, attempting to deny the fundamental truth of socialism – that there is no private ownership of anything, because it all must be yielded to the power center (typically the government) to be distributed.  The fact that the current application that the author cites does not go that far does not remove that fundamental truth. 

The author’s argument chided Republicans for recoiling at the thought of taking it all from the rich to give to the poor, claiming that Democratic Socialism does no such thing.  In fact, Democratic Socialism only does no such thing as it is currently applied.  There is no mechanism within that system whatsoever to prevent it from running completely amok.  Well, amok to some, complete fulfillment to others, I must believe.

As the author left it, his/her argument implies that Republicans, if they had their anti-socialism way, would not have fire departments or police departments.  It makes no impact on the author, apparently, that it is a fact that it is intuitively obvious to the most casual observer that this implication is outrageously false.  Well, at least to the most casual observer who is not blinded by hatred or distain for the other party/philosophy.  Then again, I suppose that observer cannot be honestly described as “casual.”

The issue in America today is not actually whether or not to adopt socialism, nor is it whether to adopt capitalism.  At issue is whether America shall return to being a capitalistic system with some necessary socialism applied or shall become a socialistic system with a bit of capitalism applied.  When I was younger (born in the mid-50s), it would have been outrageous, and laughably so, to suggest that our fundamental system in the US was socialistic.  It was capitalistic, and that was known by all.  What kept it so was the idea that we are all individuals, responsible for ourselves, with worth and purpose individually.  We often team up to gain a better effect, to utilize a benefit of coordinated action in this or that scenario, but the fundamental existence of each of us is as a free agent individual. 

Socialism cannot long exist in the presence of insistent individualism.  Socialism requires group existence, and more, it requires group exclusivity regarding value.  It requires that there is no value in individual effort or existence outside the group.  In short, you have to belong to be worth anything; only that which is done for the group matters.  Now, the author of the piece that launched this blog entry does not, today, push socialism that far.  I want to be clear about that.  However, by shifting the basis of our nation’s desired system from capitalism with some socialism as necessary to socialism with some capitalism as necessary, the author achieves more than any argument against Republicans can point to.

The fundamental truth is simple.  If we are indeed individuals, responsible for ourselves, of value of and on our own, with freedom to join or remain apart from any effort and still be honorable people, then our fundamental system is capitalistic in nature, and we may well add socialistic elements as necessary.  Police and fire departments are good examples.  Public schools are also good examples.  If, however, we only have value and can only function as a part of a group, then only a socialistic system can meet our expectations.  I almost said “meet our needs” but socialism, as the philosophy that most understand, exists for the purpose of acquiring and retaining power by meeting far more than the needs of life.

The ignorant assumptions about Republicans (and by logical extension, conservative people) that mentioned at the outset, can be all found in some sub-set or break-out of the idea that Republicans want a system that is purely and totally capitalism, and to do not recognize the need for an appropriate application of socialistic programs.  This assumption is…  well, I don’t have polite words for anyone who willingly believes this.  Perhaps they’d like to buy a bridge I know of.

So what leads someone to want to slip the foundations of America from capitalism (with a little necessary socialism) to socialism (with a little necessary capitalism)?  I think it’s simple, honestly.  They don’t (1) know that they are doing all that, and/or (2) care if they did know they were.  You see, my experience to date tells me that well meaning, intelligent folks get to the place that the author wrote from by trying to do good things for people who need it.  They simply lose sight of the underlying principles that must be preserved when these good things get done, or they think that principles are silly and don’t matter.  Both of these failures arise from looking solely at the end of an effort, and failing to be concerned with how one gets there.  That is, as long as the hungry are fed (for example), who does it and how the money was obtained to fund that is of little concern.  In short, it is a form of the ends justifying the means.

Oddly enough, when one does value the means, a much better solution generally appears.  Welfare, for instance, would then provide for the down and out and for a way up, without becoming the refuge of the willingly lazy.  There aren’t any of those, might one tell me?  Don’t bother, I’ve personally seen way too many, with my own eyes.  If you really believe there aren’t any of those, then you need a reality check, stat.  To get back on the point, there are programs that are socialistic in nature that need to exist for the common good, and ought to be paid for from the common treasury.  They ought not, however, be allowed to threaten the fabric that America was founded on; the sense that individualism is the core and cooperative effort is laudable and voluntary for the most part.  Note, a nation that is fundamentally capitalistic will not have these programs here, there, and everywhere.  They will have to be truly necessary, actually required, and not merely a good idea to get someone elected or to keep someone in power.  That is the other reason why these attitudes are shifting in America.  Socialistic thinking is popular because when the rubber meets the present American road, it boils down to “gimmie, I don’t wanna get my own” as opposed to “I worked for it with my hands, my brain, or both, and honestly earned it.” 

The sad thing to me is that “gimmie” really is so much more popular than “I worked.”  I wish it weren’t true, but I have seen it, little by little for a long time.  I also wish that one of the major two political power centers in America wouldn’t exploit that truth for their own gain, but I have seen that for a long time, too.  Both are observed facts, and both sadden me deeply. 

So, once again, I hide my uniform a little deeper in my closet. 

Al

Thank You, Joe

I got home from church and lunch, and the news feeds tell me Joe Paterno has died.  Such a sad thing, that he should pass with all this turmoil around him, from the realization that it's actually likely that an assistant coach of his was a true pervert to the board of Penn State offering him up as a scapegoat.

To the board:  You don't get any points from me for having the "guts" to fire Joe Paterno.   I am convinced that you did it in order to try to make a statement along the lines of "Look, we fired the great Joe Paterno, if we would do that, we MUST be the good guys."  You are not good guys.  You are knee-jerking jerks.

To Joe, if he were here to read this:  Thank you, sir, for putting honor first as much as you humanly could over that long, long career.  Thank you for not covering up that we are all human, and sometimes fail, and that the right answer to that is to get up and go again.  Thank you for standing for values that most of the world think are too old fashioned to even consider.

To Joe's family:  I hope and pray I speak the same feelings that the overwhelming majority of Americans feel.  Joe Pa was a man among men, who reminded all of us, year after year, that living honorably was the same living today as it was a long time ago; for showing us that honor does not change with public appetites.  We will miss him, and what he stood for, because it is extremely rare to find anyone who will stand as he did, especially in the public eye.  We are sad for you, and I am pretty sure most of us would take some of your sorrow off your shoulders, if such a thing were possible.  Please know that no one who understood the honor that Joe lived thinks that he hid anything. 

To Joe's detractors:  Believe what you wish, but based on years and years and years of demonstrated honor, I believe that Coach Paterno told the highest campus cop (the administrator that is in charge of the campus police).  To believe otherwise is to believe that a man turned against a lifetime of decency, honesty, and honor.  I know it is convenient for many of you to make that argument, because it helps you to break down the barriers that have existed since time immemorial to your desired behavior, but your convenience isn't a speck of dust on the globe of honor built up by the Coach.  So shut up.

-Al
(a 56 year WVU fan, for what that's worth)

Thank God It's Friday

Well, SOPA is done, at least in it's current form.  It's done for the right reason, I think, but that's difficult to figure out for sure.

See, it's generally good thing when Congress reacts to the voice of the people in a real time sense.  One primary question is whether the outcry was the voice of the people or the voice of a few of the people.  The other primary question is whether this was one of those rare cases wherein leadership has to say "no" to those that leadership is responsible for, for the good of those they are responsible for.

Personally, I think the answer to the first question is "not likely" and to the second, "it wasn't."  I'm not sure enough of the people even knew what SOPA really was to call it a bona fide "voice of the people" and that more especially, because I think most of what "the people" knew - and most of what the people who were protesting knew - was second hand, agendized, tailored information.

I've now read the document (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.3261:) and it occurs to me that it was a fair faith effort to protect intellectual property in the US.  That's a Constitutional mandate, by the way, readers.  How they were trying to do it was too much like giving someone a Sherman tank and telling them to hunt squirrels, and trusting them to not burn down the woods.  So, it's good, I think, that it's off the radar in it's current form.

I am somewhat bothered, however, by much of the justification I've seen around the net about why it was a bad idea.  Basically, several of the major players have said things (per news reports) that are essentially "you gotta just let this bad stuff happen."  There's a fundamental problem with that, as anyone should be able to see without much argument or question.

Intellectual property piracy is wrong, no matter how you shake it.  If any of you make a record, ok, a CD now, with you singing your songs, and someone buys one copy, and makes a gazillion copies and distributes them, by sale or by gift, that's stealing, plain and simple.  No matter who does it, no matter where they do it, it's still stealing.  The other forms of piracy are equally theft.  Ignoring that because it's convenient to ignore it is merely a pointer to the most significant problem in our society: right and wrong mean nothing, but convenience means everything.

While it's good that SOPA in its current form has failed, it's willful neglegence to not mention the other issue that showed its head during the debate.   I'll not hold my breath for anyone in power, or anyone I've seen making lots of noise on the net, to take up that banner.

Sad.

Al

SOPA

An internet blackout in protest of SOPA (and it's partner in the Senate, I forget what it's called).

First, I neither support nor oppose SOPA.  I have not read the bill, and I am not about to blithely believe that it contains what someone so desperately wants me to believe it contains.  I have this thing about agendas and whole truth being mutually exclusive way too often.  SOPA is supposed to protect intellectual property, the supporters of it are purported to claim (purported by news services).  SOPA will enable the government to steal the very breath of life, that of free knowledge and the sanctity of free speech, from all of us, claim the opposing voices (way too many places on the net to make citing any source of any value).  Some go on to claim that SOPA will do so, and others talk about how it enables and equips government to do so.

If the bill would indeed do what the opponents say it would do, then I'm all for stopping it.  I don't like equipping a government, even mine (shoot, especially mine, in this day and age), to do something such that only the good will and good intents of the government (or whoever makes the decision for the govvie that day) stand between me and the abridging of a right.  It's a principle I try to follow, as best I can.  So far, so good.  Where this issue appears to affect the inalienable right of free speech, I opposed the same efforts regarding another inalienable right, all the way back to 1968.  Specifically, the Gun Control Act of 1968.

I find it interesting that the overwhelming bulk of people I encounter who oppose SOPA because it enables the government to encroach on an unalienable right even though the government might not do it now are in the same philosophical camp as those who spend a fair amount of time deriding those who oppose gun control for making exactly the same argument about legislation that enables the government to encroach on another unalienable right.

Tends to make me think that such a philosophical camp cares little about rights, and much about swimming in Lake Me.

Al

I See In The News

I see in the news that the Wisconsin Democratic Party has gathered enough signatures to call for a recall election of Governor Walker.  In the article I read, the author, in an effort that can only be responsibly understood as an attempt to bolster the Democratic Party effort, made much of the fact that a whole lot more signatures were gathered than were needed.  Noted.  They'd better do that.  If they need (for instance) 537,359 and they get just that, then disallowing even one of those - and you know somebody signed "Mickey Mouse" - makes the petition invalid.  According to the article, Gov Davis (Cal) got 18% disallowed when he was challenged.  Ergo, a bunch more is merely good political management, not an indicator of any sort of public cohesion.

I expect they will be successful.  Walker took on the unions and won.  That won't be popular.  It will be particularly unpopular during these lean times, when a generation that has been trained that government is Daddy and God both will look to someone to fix it for them.  The sad part is that most of the time, union workers merely trade control centers.  They make the argument that the company will not take good care of them, so they go find a sugar daddy that will.  Enter the union.  In their paradigm, either the union owns them or the company owns them.  What's sad is that they don't wish for an option to not be owned.

A Wisconsin resident remarked to me during the union vs state government fight that Walker was just put up there by the Republican Party to be a union buster.  Setting aside, for now, the point that a party very likely did in fact put him in office, as opposed to the people insisting on being independent enough to have done it themselves, it's as reasonable a bet that he is just that as that he is not that.  Who knows?  It's simply a sad drift away from common sense (see the below blog) that allows the discussion of whether or not a government can manage employees or whether they have to ask the union's permission to twist into whether or not he was sent up there to be a union buster.  It's a dodge, and it was well employed by the Democratic Party.  The term "union buster" is an undeniable perjorative to most Americans, and the Party is not above doing whatever is necessary to gain power.

What will be most interesting to watch will be the response of the professional pundits: Limbaugh, Maddow, et al.  That is, it will be interesting to see if any of them have any sort of new line of bull to throw at the situation, or whether they will simply recycle some version of "the (pick one) Party is inherently stupid and my Party is inherently right."

Al

Let's Try This Again

When I started this blog, I was ready to say what I needed to say, but hadn't bothered to say on so many political message boards.  On all the conservative message boards I could find or knew or, liberals were held to be the stupid spawn of Satan on an anti-American mission.  This makes reasoned discussion of principles impossible.  Either it's an echo chamber, or the person who thinks different is tarred, feathered, laughed at, and ridden off the board on a rail.

Then, on the liberal message boards, all conservative people are Republican (they are treated as synonymous) and therefore are the spawn of Satan.  No, wait, liberals would never believe there is a Satan, that would require having Biblical beliefs, and I have yet to run across anyone who self-identifies as a liberal who does not either discount the Bible out of hand or water it down until it has no influence.  It's more correct, therefore, to say that conservative thinking people are treated as though they were the spawn of the Satan that does not exist and is as much a fable as God is believed to be, but which Satan can be conjured up long enough to condemn someone who is just evil, evil, evil.

Wait, "evil" also presumes the existence of a right and wrong outside human determination, and that's way too close to Bible for them, too, but I think you get the idea.

Oh, and for the record, the tirade against the liberals was so much longer because they make less sense in their opposition to conservatives.  For the conservative boards it's simple: you're liberal, you're gone, end of discussion (of discussion with the liberal person and of all other discussion of value).  Doesn't take much to say that.  Liberals, being creatures of anti-standards - and as a result, near-zero consistency - require much more explanation.

There, that part's done.

We are headed for a bad day, folks.  There have always been extreme partisans, at least in the last 56 years that I've been alive.  However, there was a level of common sense that prevailed.  The extremists had a voice, the huge common sense majority had a laugh, and we all went forward; sometimes in a liberal direction, sometimes in a conservative direction, and sometimes in a direction between them. 

Now, not so much.  Strike that.  Now, basically not at all.  Now, common sense is not only frowned upon, common sense is laughed at, and worse, twisted around and applied with a darning needle, as though it only applied to one tiny little convenient part of an argument.

I have three grandchildren now.  I fear for them.  If they are not liberal, I fear they will be marked as outcasts by society at large.   Yes, that sounds pretty "out there" but it's remarkably possible.  After all, all of white society marked all the blacks in the south for nearly a hundred years, and for the same reason, because black people showed them something about themselves that they did not want to see.  The longer this country goes in the direction of laughing off societal standards and of substituting law for society's self determination, the more and more liberal this society will become, and it's likely to be the brand of liberal we see everywhere today, because both situations are based on each individual doing whatever they want to do, with a premium placed on being the first one to do something that the previous generation would consider abnormal.  Rather than pushing ourselves from within to get better, the liberal mindset would push/enable us by the government to get weirder, then to claim that is also better.

Another sad day.

I've rambled, I know, and much probably needs expanding and explaining.  I'll be back to do that.

Al

Wondering

I wonder if the general poster on internet political message boards represents the thinking of the general majority of the people politically associated with that poster.

I used to spend an inordinate amount of time on political message boards. These days, not so much.  Oh, I go look at them, as a guest, not logged in, but I watch the tunnel visioned mud-slinging without participating anymore.  Two good reasons for that, really.  One, it takes a lot less time out of an already busy day.  Two, I'm tired of wondering when some admin is going to make something up out of thin air, or going to grossly twist and misconstrue something I said, and play stupid "I have power over you nyah nyah nyah" games, like the turtle named admin did on one board a while back.

Still, I do wonder.  Do these who write on these message boards stand for hundreds, thousands, even millions, who share their thoughts?  I hope not.  I have seen some of the weakest reasoning (if it can be called reasoning at all) on these boards.  People who will use the flimsiest references, sites with no reputation, no established credibility outside one narrow socio-political spectrum, and then jump all over someone who doesn't act as though itellitmyway.com is equivalent to the Library of Congress.

One scout claims to be independent, but he rails against everything conservative, and if he doesn't like something from the Democrat side of the house, he condemns it by describing it as though it were on the conservative side of the house.  Independent?  Hardly.

Then there's the pilgrim that knows everything, and everything is that all that is conservative is bad, much that is Democrat is bad, corporations are bad, rich people are bad...  Remember the movies from the 60s where the "beatniks" were portrayed as idealistic kids rambling on and on about the evils of everything they could think of to ramble on about, but you kind of knew that once they entered the real world, they'd figure out reality?  Seems this fellow never left beatnikville.

It gets a little tiring, the gross double standard of "believe me because of my political persuasion" yet "no one should believe you because of your political persuasion."  Sounds kind of silly when it's reduced to it's basic fact, doesn't it, yet that is the root of all their silliness, in the end.

The whites in Mississippi in 1955 took that stand, "I'm right because I say so, and (wink, wink) you know I am, right?  Sure you do."  These self proclaimed saviours of the world would be livid if they realized that they are taking the exact same stand, simply on a different subject.

More later, perhaps.  I just thought I'd mention this junk, in the hope that posters on these politically agendized boards and blogs represent no one but a tiny splinter minority of America.  I sure hope so.  If not, we are in HUGE trouble; not from wrong political leadership, but from a population that cannot or will not recognize leadership.

I'm a little worried, to tell you the truth.

Well, we are closer...

Sorry, not in much of a good mood. I knew the health care bill was going to pass, and for the people who will get medical treatment that would not have had medical treatment if it hadn't passed, well, I'm glad for them because of that. I just wish there had been another way, other than establishing yet another way that the government will do for citizens what the citizens of a generation behind us routinely expected to do for themselves, because it was called "standing on your own two feet."


I know, of course, that there are some who cannot do that, for reasons outside their control, and I have no issue with them getting help. My issue is with the fact that being only 54, I can remember a time when a youngster grew up to leave home and make his/her own way in the world. Now, we are one significant step closer to the place where "growing up to leave home" means switching who takes care of you, from Daddy to Government.

We're not there yet, and opponents of my position will be quick to point out that the bill is now signed and the world didn't stop.

Noted.

No, the world didn't stop, but America got one step closer to laughing at the memory of individual liberty for two reasons: one, the fact that passage of this bill institutionalizes the concept that someone belongs between the citizen and the person providing health care to that citizen and two, the acceptance of the idea that it's a good thing for Government to replace Daddy.

Now, about all that's left is to chink at the armor of liberty long enough to make it ok to admit that in so many words.

If you leave a comment, don't go the "you don't want people to have health care" route.  It's an argument full of baloney.  If opposing this political effort absolutely equals not wanting people to have health care, then the only way it can be equal is if the government is the only place that health care can be provided.

It is not a good day. I look at my USN Chief Petty Officer uniform, hanging in my closet, and I've begun to wonder why I wasted my time.

Simple and True

Happened to hear this on TV yesterday, and modified it a bit to suit my sense of detail:

Politicians are like bananas.  While they are green, they're not much use.  Once they are not green anymore, they are yellow, hang in bunches, and they're all crooked, not a straight one among them.

Well said, whoever you were writing that email to the CNN show.

I believe...

My American Beliefs

I believe the Constitution says what it means and means what it says and it doesn’t take a genius or a law degree to read it and understand it.

I believe that the Constitution can only be properly understood in light of the people who wrote it, whether it is the main body or an amendment.

I believe the Constitution defines what government can do, and that government can’t do anything the Constitution does not give it permission to do.

I believe the Preamble to the Constitution is a description of what the rest of the Constitution puts into place, and cannot be correctly understood to be binding in and of itself.

I believe that changing the “understanding” of a standing portion of the Constitution is changing the Constitution itself, and is therefore anti-Constitutional. Only one method exists for the changing of the Constitution; that method is by amendment. Otherwise, any phrase in the Constitution means today and tomorrow what it meant yesterday and it has the same effect today and tomorrow as it had yesterday, unless it is modified by amendment. That is true for any set of three days since the signing of the Constitution into perpetuity. If a court determines something to be unconstitutional, it is only properly done if the action determined would always have been unconstitutional, as long as the phrase proposed to have been violated was in effect.

I believe that the next order of legislation that should taken up by both federal houses is the disallowance of specifications in legislation that are not materially connected to the stated title and purpose of the legislation. In this vein, all legislation must be required to have a stated title and purpose, and said title and purpose cannot be compound.

I believe that the body politic and the body social are not the same body, even though comprised of the same people. Political solutions do not solve social problems and social solutions do not solve political problems.

I believe that equality before the law can only possibly apply to opportunity. If failing to avail oneself of an opportunity occurs because of a personal decision (whether immediate or historic) or a personal capability (as opposed to a non-personal restriction), the law cannot address these in a free nation. Any attempt to make the law address either of these is attempting to apply a political solution to a social problem and is therefore doomed to failure.

I believe that convenience is no justification for legislation, under any circumstance.

I believe that in our present population, there are at least two generations of Americans who have been taught by precedent that convenience is sufficient to establish need, whether an objectively bona fide need exists or not.

I believe that the moment any elected official takes the oath of office, that their political affiliation should become moot, and I believe that their constituents should hold them accountable for this characteristic first and foremost.

I believe that all constituencies should have the ability of recall of any elected official at any time, when a simple majority of the constituency indicates so by personal signature, or by an equivalent accounting to the method of election when a simple majority is not the method of election to that billet. I believe that this should be the subject of the next amendment to the US Constitution, and to every state constitution, and that this must be undertaken before this nation can recover the concept of government of the people, by the people and for the people, which concept is now lost. In this application, recall should be a separate action from replacement.

I believe that because leadership can be sometimes stern and serious, that actual leadership was rejected in a previous generation in favor of convenience and the sanctioning of ease and irresponsibility; therefore leadership is now unrecognizable by the overwhelming majority of Americans.

That is what I believe.

Liberty for the Brave,

Al

Veterans/Armistice Day

This venerable poem about says it all.  Written at the edge of a battlefield by a Canadian Army doctor who had just buried his friend who was killed in action.  If the deep meaning of these verses escapes you, then thank those who did not let it escape, some of who came home whole, some who gave some, and some who gave all...

In Flanders Fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

To those who served with honor, and who honor the nation founded by the US Constitution today, thank you with all my heart.

The United Sta... uh, U-nannied States of America

[a poster who calls himself rhinodriver gets the credit for the basic idea that resulted in this posting]

Saw this on a message board today, and it's not a bad way to put it.

No, I'm not saying the current efforts are a total sell-out to a total nanny state, but they are a move in that direction, from the political power center that least minds moving in that direction.

So, in what formerly was the United States of America, 50 sovereign states voluntarily giving up some of that sovereignty to the United States, comprised of individually sovereign individuals, who give up some of that sovereignty to the state (both federal and state "states"), we now change "United" to "Unannied" States, 50 far less sovereign states no longer attempting to preserve their sovereignty comprised of members of a collective who are unaware that their forebears had individual sovereignty and who have no desire for it today.  They only have a desire for the Nanny State (or should that be Sugar Daddy State?) to take care of them.

Liberty for the brave (and for those who remember living more like the founders intended)

Al

Healthcare and simple lessons

The discussion regarding health care proposals, and getting everybody in the US covered by some health insurance company, in the multiple threads and places it’s being thumped back and forth on the internet, has come to the place that I don’t think I see anybody actually addressing what the person they are arguing with is saying, nor is the person they are arguing with addressing what they are saying.

Ergo, I’m gonna lay this out as best I can, given the limitations of the written word. We’ll see if anyone can get onboard with this.

I’m 54. I remember a time when NOBODY stayed away from the doctor if they had something home remedies (aspirin, orange juice, rest, etc) couldn’t fix. NOBODY did. Doctors worked it out, patients worked it out, they came together and made it happen, because the doctor was committed to healing people and the patient was committed to paying his own way as much as possible. It’s how normal people used to think.

By the way, that situation is properly called “universal health care.” Nobody went without what was needed. If nobody goes without, that’s universal (as regards the US, which is what this discussion is about).

Not that way now. Why?

The 122 people dying per day on average is probably a decent enough estimation to work with. It ought to make every American sick. Personally, I think it does, whatever side of the aisle they are on. It surely says to anyone “It’s not the way it was, today.” Again, why?

For one thing, health care is not a calling anymore, it’s a business. It transmogrified from decent human beings helping human beings (and having to deal with a business side of getting that done) to the crap we have today, where a decent doctor that puts patient above bottom line shines like a searchlight in a cave. I know. I’m trying to change general practitioners because I just moved. I have 3 people in the family who practice health care, and ALL their suggestions for good Docs are met with “full up and am unable to take new patients, just have no room, very sorry” or some version of it.

The second factor is insurance companies. No, not the way they are run, that’s transitive, short termed, can chance with the winds of fortune. The factor here is the fundamental idea that it’s a good thing for somebody else to pay my way. As soon as insurance companies became the person who paid the doctor, instead of the patient, insurance companies got the power to say what they would and would not pay for.

So now, instead of two players in the game, the patient and the doc, there are three: the patient, the doc, and the payer. The trouble is, the payer is not there for humanitarian reasons, the payer is there for business reasons. If he gets enough money from premiums, he’s betting he can invest that money and make more than he has to pay back out. Nothing wrong with a business, but if anyone forgets that player #3 in the game is not there to make the patient well, but is there to make money, then that could be a fatal mistake, literally.

So, here we are. The mistake that has been made is inserting something not medical (business) into medicine, and the outcome is absence of treatment for people who need it (as well as some other bad stuff that should be the substance of another discussion, not this one).

If I flip a switch, and everything goes bad, I flip the switch back. If I open a valve and things go bad, I shut the valve back. If you do something, and it goes bad, the very best first response is to go back to where things were stable, and THEN figure out IF something else needs to be done.

However, that’s not what’s being proposed. We let medicine stop being medicine and let it become a business, and now, the proposal is to make medicine government. So, I’m supposed to believe that government is a better third player in the game than insurance is? Why? Some proposals leave insurance in the game and insert government, too. To me, that’s even worse. Instead of going back to when it worked, now that it’s been complicated so that it doesn’t work, our “leaders” are trying to go to something else even more complicated. Now, we have to hope that the govvie cares for us just as much as the doc does. We did that before. We said before “no, they wouldn’t make soley business decisions, nobody could be that cold” of the insurance companies. We were wrong.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. There is one and ONLY one solution to people not being able to go to a doctor, and that is going back to the ONLY way we’ve ever seen it work. NOBODY is trying to do that. One group wants to keep their insurance buddies happy, one wants to make political hay while the sun shines, and others want to bridge the two at one place or another. It is stupidity following stupidity. We did this right, once, but we can’t go do it like that again, God forbid. NO, the govvie forbid, because enabling this will simply make the govvie be one step closer to being the god for more Americans yet.

Liberty for the brave, with sadness,

Al

Individualism is bad.... REALLY???

Sometimes, I just get knocked for a loop. Maybe I’m just gullible, but is it really just me and a half dozen hillbillies that think the best and most honorable way to go through life is to do all you are able to do for yourself and your family before you ask for help from someone else? Be responsible for yourself. Seems to me to be a fundamental part of what I was taught by family, school, church, and friends for the last 54 years.

Make that 53 years and 11 months.

No, make it less than that. This is not the first time this has come up in message board conversations with folks who identify themselves as liberals.

The last time, I attributed it to the fact that the person who argued so starkly that there was no such thing as individualism was a strong union supporter. The fundamental basis of union existence is that no one person can change anything, but a large group can. Ergo, the individual loses significance and importance, and only the union has importance. Soon, it gets to the place that the person who decides to represent himself, rather than trade company control of his work for union control of his work, is seen as the bad guy, the wrong guy, the guy not to be trusted. Solely because he wanted to stand on his own two feet, not have the union prop him up.

However, perhaps it’s not that isolated. I’ve just been in a conversation on a message board with a fairly intelligent person, in all other respects. This person (I flipped a coin, I’ll designate as “she” but don’t take it for anything but a flipped coin), is a medical professional, so I’m on fair ground, I think, to estimate that she is intelligent. Throughout this whole conversation, it’s been mostly about how useless and insignificant the individual is and how important and supreme the collective is.

I’ve tried telling her that “individualism” as used by normal everyday people on the street means “I’ll do all I can within my power to provide for me and mine, before I ask for help, and I’ll take responsibility for myself and my family.” At one point, she said she would do the same. At another point, she ridiculed the idea.

Anyway, while thinking about this, wondering what would cause an otherwise intelligent person to oppose the idea of personal responsibility and taking care of oneself as much as possible, it occurred to me that this argument is not really about individuals vs groups.

It’s about absolute right and wrong vs relative right and wrong.

You see, if an individual’s action can be of any value, if it can have any impact, that individual had to have made that decision on his/her own, individually. If it is a good impact, then that individual, by definition, is able to determine right from wrong without the input of the rest of society. There must be, therefore, an objective right and wrong, because the individual determined right without any input from any other human. Perhaps there was input in the past, but that establishes understandings upon which our person of the day makes that decision. If that individual is allowed to be recognized as right, apart from society confirming his/her “rightness” then there must be an absolute right and wrong.

On the other hand, if only groups can have impact or do good things, then only groups can be right, and it becomes much easier to set aside the concept of objective right and wrong in favor of the majority opinion of the group. Ergo, the idea that the collective is always and forever better than an individual is actually a retreat from the concept of objective right and wrong. It is believing that no individual person can determine right, but that a group of individuals can. How on earth can 10 people do what one person cannot do, when the question is a mental one, determining right from wrong? It has to become a physical act to make that come to pass, and that physical act is indicating a preference, and if more than half of the group indicates the same preference, then that preference becomes “right.”

Think about that. Right and wrong. Cardinal concepts upon which all of civilization rises and falls, now determined (supposedly) by a vote of a group. “Wait, wait,” you say, “that is the basis of American voting. We vote and that decides it.” Really? Do we vote on what is right and what is wrong, or do we vote on who we want to go to that office and (hopefully) do right and avoid wrong? This idea that the moral compass can be voted on by a group and the outcome of that vote has more significance than an individual’s conscience is the silliness that replaces what generations have known. Mankind has a conscience, but only on an individual level. When that conscience speaks, wise humans listen, and carnal humans rebel. That is where that argument comes from, I firmly believe. It is the exact same argument as the child that comes to his/her parents and says “but all my friends get to go to this movie” and the child expects that group “power” to have some effect rather than the objective truth of whether or not Mom and Dad consider the movie appropriate for that child.   Now, as you read this, those kids are the adults who make this argument that numbers make right, and they still expect it to have some effect when time-tested, conscience-driven right and wrong is the parent.

Sadly, I think the kids are winning.



Liberty for the Brave.

Al

Why "the view from the street?"

Perhaps I’d better explain something.

I am not a member of academia. I have only a high school education, followed by a significant portion of highly focused Navy training. I do not care if Dr. Whatshisname has written three doctoral thesis and published six books on this subject or that. I think for myself. If my conclusions agree with the Dr, all well and good. If my conclusions do not agree with the Dr, all well and good.

I am not here to discuss what some “expert” said that we are all supposed to think.  I hate that concept; I find nearly NO experts in the world.  I merely believe we are all supposed to THINK.  I think for myself; I expect others to.  If commenters come here with “but Blindangle said…” or “That’s not what a conservative is, Gonfoogle said in 1973 that…” and think that will win the day here, they are wrong.  Go away. Don’t waste your time. Blindangle and Gonfoogle (or whatever their real names might be) are not smarter than you and I. They only have a larger stage than we do. Noted.

So, this is the view from the street, pretty much literally. It’s what common people think, not what academia says we have to think. It’s what average Joes and Jills have on their mind, and how we see it from the perspective of someone who is not one of the uppercrust elite.

Hence, The View From The Street, and if I can ever figure out how to get the title properly capitalized, I will.

(edit:  It seems I have found how to capitalize the title, or at least found a work around for it.)

Liberty for the Brave,

Al

A quick thought from the street 2234, 23 Oct 09

The right road can change. What was smooth can become rocky; or what was rocky, smooth. The straight road can lead to curves, or the curves to a straight road. What CANNOT change is that if it was the right road when you stepped onto it, it is still the right road, all the way to the end.

Getting Started

I suppose I'm not too old to start this. We'll see, as time and blogging go by.

First, despite my internet ID, I do not currently live in West Virginia.  I grew up there, and if I am very blessed, I will go there to grow old and die.  In the meantime, I am "from" WV in that my roots are there, hence my name.

I'm in my mid-50s, a retired US Navy Chief Petty Officer (submarines); still married to my high school sweetheart; two sons; one grandson; the two best daughters-in-law on the planet.

I just looked back at that sentence. My high school english teachers would cringe to see me write that in a serious way. However, if you read me here, get used to it. I do it all the time; I write like I talk.

Primarily, I considered starting this blog to discuss subjects most people will consider political. For the most part, I consider them less about politics and more about living life, but observing politics as a reflection of who we are.

As time goes by, I expect other subjects will slip in. I love to float streams fishing for smallmouth bass: I expect some of that will come up here. I believe the Bible, as inspired, word for word; I expect some of that will come up here. I have been a Redskins fan since 1973, through thick and thin, but not much of that will come up here unless something changes soon.

So, that's me. Oh, political "side." Everybody has to have a political "side," right? How can other people pre-judge whether you are a good person or a bad one, unless they know whether you hail from the left or the right? Well, here's my political side:
1. I believe that every word in the Consitution means today what it meant when it was written, unless amended by the approved amendment process.
.....a. Don't bother with the stupid "oh you still believe in slavery and women not voting" argument. It's stupid, and a waste of whatever skin you wore off on the keys typing it. There are two reasons:
..........i) It should be blatently obvious to the most casual observer that even if I didn't say "unless amended by the approved amendment process" above, that the amendment process and the amendments themselves are still unquestionably valid.
..........ii) When going back to re-acquire some characteristic of living that was cast off in error (and discovered using 20/20 hindsight), there is NO requirement to re-acquire everything surrounding it at the same time. Wishing for the "good old days" means only wishing for the good of the old days, at least it does to reasonable people.

2. I believe in the sovereignty of the individual as the starting place for governance. If the individual is not sovereign over his own existence, then his contribution to governance, whether by vote, by serving, or by working for those who serve, is moot and without validity.

3. I believe that the US is a christian nation.
.....a. That is NOT to say that the government is "christian" as in a religion that is a government or government approved religion. THAT is forbidden by the Constitution for good reason.
.....b. That is also NOT to say that the US is only for christians, or any such other silliness that generally gets trotted out as a supposedly fatal retort when this subject comes up. This nation is for everyone that wishes to come here, be a part of us, bring us what they are, and work together to preserve and extend liberty wherever possible.
....c. That IS to say that the bulk of the principles carried by the founders into the establishment of our government are found in christian belief, and if one would understand the principles of the founders (and every citizen should strive to, without exception), then one would do well to understand the framework of thought and philosophy that created the principles of the founders.
..........i)  Oh, and as an addendum here, don't bother with the "they were deists, not Christians" argument.
...............1) That line of retort is a smoke screen for excluding the God of the Bible from any favorable consideration of the part of those in the discussion.
...............2)  The most famous "deist" (so-called) held up as "proof" of this is Thomas Jefferson.  Read Jefferson.  I recommend the files accumulated by the University of Virginia.  Whether "Diest" or Christian (by label), it is plain that his diety was Christ.  Noted.  That's the same thing as Christian principles.  Putting a different name on it doesn't change it.  Call what he believed "blizflather" if you must, but if/when you read him, you'll find his deity was Christ and he had a healthy disdain for the organization known as religion.  That separation is a good one to remember when one considers a letter Jefferson wrote later on, especially when one wishes to try to use that letter to elucidate the Constitution.

4. I believe in individualism. I believe that responsible people do all they can for themselves, asking for assistance only as absolutely necessary and only as little as absolutely necessary, and when they are able to do for themselves, they do a little extra, in case a fellow citizen needs help. THAT is individualism, not the isolationist silliness I've heard thrust into the name "individualist." When someone has that attitude and that heart, I've seen them get more help, when they need it, than you can imagine, and every dollar that left a pocket for them was a dollar when it got to them, rather than the 55 cents or whatever is left over after a dollar passes through the government grist mills to get to them.

There will be more, I'm sure. That should get us started.

Liberty for the brave,
Al