A conservative now seems to be anyone who calls anyone who disagrees with him or her a “liberal”.
How to tell who is a “liberal”? I don’t know. There are so ,many varieties.
In the current political climate. Abraham Lincoln and Dwight Eisenhower would be considered “liberals”. Probably even Mr. Republican, Robert Taft!!
It also seems that the “conservatives” are being very “liberal” with their interpretation of the Constitution: corporations are people and the Second Amendment means the people have no right to regulate a militia of one person. I would imagine that the conservatives that wrote these documents would be appalled at these interpretations.
Showing posts with label liberal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label liberal. Show all posts
Friday, March 29, 2019
Tuesday, August 21, 2018
I had a dream
My apologies to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. for using a variation of the title of one of his major speeches.
My dream early this morning was about a similar nemesis: those whose only interest is ruling with a false idea of conservatism and a misuse of religion.
The false idea of conservatism is holding on to power, irregardless of how it affects the vast majority of the citizens. This conservatism puts the interests of some large corporations over the interests of large segments of the population. The misuse of religion is to claim to have the truth even as it acts contrary to the teachings of its greatest prophet.
My dream was that teams of journalists met all over the country to unite against the attacks by false conservatives on the journalists integrity and professionalism. Interestingly, many of these journalists being attacked are real conservatives, like George Will and Jennifer Rubin.
What is a real conservative? We can start by naming a few: Adam Smith, Edmund Burke, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Dwight Eisenhower. All of these have given warning about the order of men that is not to be trusted.
Adam Smith warned about those who live by profit. Edmund Burke warned about the folly of not allowing the colonies to govern themselves. George Washington warned about factions and about foreign entanglements (letting both friends and enemies control our judgment). Abraham Lincoln stated that we had to think anew with new circumstances. Dwight Eisenhower warned about the military-industrial complex.
The best way to counter these false conservatives is to vote in each and every election. These false conservatives do all they can to dissuade people from voting from gerrymandering to false statements about their opponents.
Until such time as real conservatives appear on the scene, I’ll just have to keep voting for Democrats. I don’t support many of the issues of the Democrats, but these issues are not so destructive of our country as the issues proclaimed by false conservatives.
My dream early this morning was about a similar nemesis: those whose only interest is ruling with a false idea of conservatism and a misuse of religion.
The false idea of conservatism is holding on to power, irregardless of how it affects the vast majority of the citizens. This conservatism puts the interests of some large corporations over the interests of large segments of the population. The misuse of religion is to claim to have the truth even as it acts contrary to the teachings of its greatest prophet.
My dream was that teams of journalists met all over the country to unite against the attacks by false conservatives on the journalists integrity and professionalism. Interestingly, many of these journalists being attacked are real conservatives, like George Will and Jennifer Rubin.
What is a real conservative? We can start by naming a few: Adam Smith, Edmund Burke, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Dwight Eisenhower. All of these have given warning about the order of men that is not to be trusted.
Adam Smith warned about those who live by profit. Edmund Burke warned about the folly of not allowing the colonies to govern themselves. George Washington warned about factions and about foreign entanglements (letting both friends and enemies control our judgment). Abraham Lincoln stated that we had to think anew with new circumstances. Dwight Eisenhower warned about the military-industrial complex.
The best way to counter these false conservatives is to vote in each and every election. These false conservatives do all they can to dissuade people from voting from gerrymandering to false statements about their opponents.
Until such time as real conservatives appear on the scene, I’ll just have to keep voting for Democrats. I don’t support many of the issues of the Democrats, but these issues are not so destructive of our country as the issues proclaimed by false conservatives.
Monday, January 01, 2018
Edmund Burke and Sarah Palin thinking alike?
“The occupation of an hair-dresser, or of a working tallow chandler, cannot be a matter of honor to any person–to say nothing of a number of other more servile employments. Such description of men ought no to suffer oppression from the state; but the state suffers oppression, if such as they, either individually or collectively, are permitted to rule.”
Quoted in The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Sarah Palin, Corey Robin
I can’t see how he can equate a thinker like Edmund Burke to a clueless person like Sarah Palin.
The above quote is taken very much out of context. Burke was commenting on the French Revolution where everything was torn down to start anew. Burke's comments were often directed at Thomas Paine who thought each generation should start governance from scratch. Burke was very much for change in the context of continuity. People should keep what works and fix what is no longer working. To do so, you can't just take people off the street and expect them to understand what changes should be made and how.
I gave up reading The Reactionary Mind after that quote.
I do recommend Edmund Burke: The First Conservative by Jesse Norman and The Great Debate: Edmund Burke, Thomas Paine, and the Birth of Left and Right by Yuval Levin. Both have a more nuanced understanding of "conservatives" and "liberals". Although Levin describes himself as a conservative, he gives fair hearing to both Burke and Paine.
Ironically, both Paine and Burke favored the American Revolution. However, the United States was founded on a Burkean conservatism. The French revolutionaries imprisoned Paine for about a year and the French Revolution fell to a military government under Napoleon Bonaparte.
Unfortunately, I don't think there are any Burkean conservatives in the U.S. government, unless they are Democrats. The only thing conservative about Republicans is conserving their own power and that of large corporations.
Ironically, our first conservative wrote a well-thought treatise on how to govern and what dangers to watch out for. Current "conservatives" not only ignore the lessons in George Washington's Farewell Address, but they don't even attend its annual reading in the Senate!!
Quoted in The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Sarah Palin, Corey Robin
I can’t see how he can equate a thinker like Edmund Burke to a clueless person like Sarah Palin.
The above quote is taken very much out of context. Burke was commenting on the French Revolution where everything was torn down to start anew. Burke's comments were often directed at Thomas Paine who thought each generation should start governance from scratch. Burke was very much for change in the context of continuity. People should keep what works and fix what is no longer working. To do so, you can't just take people off the street and expect them to understand what changes should be made and how.
I gave up reading The Reactionary Mind after that quote.
I do recommend Edmund Burke: The First Conservative by Jesse Norman and The Great Debate: Edmund Burke, Thomas Paine, and the Birth of Left and Right by Yuval Levin. Both have a more nuanced understanding of "conservatives" and "liberals". Although Levin describes himself as a conservative, he gives fair hearing to both Burke and Paine.
Ironically, both Paine and Burke favored the American Revolution. However, the United States was founded on a Burkean conservatism. The French revolutionaries imprisoned Paine for about a year and the French Revolution fell to a military government under Napoleon Bonaparte.
Unfortunately, I don't think there are any Burkean conservatives in the U.S. government, unless they are Democrats. The only thing conservative about Republicans is conserving their own power and that of large corporations.
Ironically, our first conservative wrote a well-thought treatise on how to govern and what dangers to watch out for. Current "conservatives" not only ignore the lessons in George Washington's Farewell Address, but they don't even attend its annual reading in the Senate!!
Tuesday, December 12, 2017
Edmund Burke asks that people stop calling him a "conservative".
“I’ve heard there is a grave in England that is smoking. It is the grave of Edmund Burke, "The First Conservative", spinning in his grave. I am reading Jesse Norman's book on Burke, and what Burke believed is not what any current Republican believes (or if they believe like Burke, they are keeping very, very quiet).
“Among other things, he believed in a separation of powers so that they could be a check on one another. By contrast, Donald Trump believes that Congress and the Supreme Court should be subservient to his wishes.”
Comment to Jennifer Rubin’s “Be wary of what you wish for in Alabama”.
“Among other things, he believed in a separation of powers so that they could be a check on one another. By contrast, Donald Trump believes that Congress and the Supreme Court should be subservient to his wishes.”
Comment to Jennifer Rubin’s “Be wary of what you wish for in Alabama”.
Sunday, December 10, 2017
Right on about voting
Sadly, so-called "conservatives" show up to vote for "flawed" candidates, but so-called "liberals" stay home if they perceive a "liberal" candidate as "flawed".
Supporting two commenters from Arizona who support Tuscon's police chief, Chris Magnus, in his even-handed law enforcement.
Supporting two commenters from Arizona who support Tuscon's police chief, Chris Magnus, in his even-handed law enforcement.
Sunday, March 26, 2017
The false masters of words
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – – that’s all.”
Alice in Wonderland, Lewis Carroll
We seem to have lots of Humpty Dumptys in politics, their words mean what they choose, not what most people think they mean.
Take the “Freedom Caucus”. What do they mean? It certainly doesn’t mean freedom to govern ourselves according to generally accepted rules. To them it means freedom to do what they damn well please, to hell with whoever else's freedom they tromp on.
Just what are “conservatives” conserving. It certainly isn’t resources. It certainly isn’t careful consideration before making any changes. To too many “conservatives” it means either conserving the power of large corporations or conserving a very narrow view of religion. ironically, the latter don’t hold the former to “you cannot serve both God and Mammon.” - Matthew 6:24.
As I’ve written more times than some of my readers would like, “free market” means, according to the Humpty Dumptys is again, free for the sellers to do as they please. To them the free market is not providing buyers with all the information they need and is not avoiding externalities such as pollution and worker safety. These to them are impediments to “free markets”.
“Liberals” misuse words also, but their goals tend to be more friendly to the general populace. But sometimes their “liberality” works counter to the general welfare or unnecessarily creates opposition to certain desirable goals: like letting people lead the lives they choose.
I think “gay marriage” has lost a lot of otherwise “liberal” votes because many supporters have a different view of marriage. I’ve always thought this problem should be dealt with by a “granny rule”. If two grandmothers choose to live together, is it our business whether they sleep in the same bed or in different rooms? It is “our business” if one of them dies. Does the survivor have to sell the house to pay the inheritance of the deceased’s children and grandchildren? To avoid this situation, any group of people who choose to live together should be able to have a civil contract that protects the interests of each member of the group.
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – – that’s all.”
Alice in Wonderland, Lewis Carroll
We seem to have lots of Humpty Dumptys in politics, their words mean what they choose, not what most people think they mean.
Take the “Freedom Caucus”. What do they mean? It certainly doesn’t mean freedom to govern ourselves according to generally accepted rules. To them it means freedom to do what they damn well please, to hell with whoever else's freedom they tromp on.
Just what are “conservatives” conserving. It certainly isn’t resources. It certainly isn’t careful consideration before making any changes. To too many “conservatives” it means either conserving the power of large corporations or conserving a very narrow view of religion. ironically, the latter don’t hold the former to “you cannot serve both God and Mammon.” - Matthew 6:24.
As I’ve written more times than some of my readers would like, “free market” means, according to the Humpty Dumptys is again, free for the sellers to do as they please. To them the free market is not providing buyers with all the information they need and is not avoiding externalities such as pollution and worker safety. These to them are impediments to “free markets”.
“Liberals” misuse words also, but their goals tend to be more friendly to the general populace. But sometimes their “liberality” works counter to the general welfare or unnecessarily creates opposition to certain desirable goals: like letting people lead the lives they choose.
I think “gay marriage” has lost a lot of otherwise “liberal” votes because many supporters have a different view of marriage. I’ve always thought this problem should be dealt with by a “granny rule”. If two grandmothers choose to live together, is it our business whether they sleep in the same bed or in different rooms? It is “our business” if one of them dies. Does the survivor have to sell the house to pay the inheritance of the deceased’s children and grandchildren? To avoid this situation, any group of people who choose to live together should be able to have a civil contract that protects the interests of each member of the group.
Saturday, March 04, 2017
Quote of the dayl: Donald Trump and Constitution
"What Trump knows about history (or for that matter the Constitution) would not fill a Post-it note."
Roger Cohen, New York Times, 2017-02-28.
One could say the same about many members of Congress and the Supreme Court.
What I don't understand is that some of these judges are "originalists" and then put a different meaning into the text. Or all those in Congress who call themselves "conservatives" but are quite liberal with their reading of the Constitution.
Roger Cohen, New York Times, 2017-02-28.
One could say the same about many members of Congress and the Supreme Court.
What I don't understand is that some of these judges are "originalists" and then put a different meaning into the text. Or all those in Congress who call themselves "conservatives" but are quite liberal with their reading of the Constitution.
Thursday, January 12, 2017
Political labels = political misdirection?
I would distrust any political labels, whether applied to fellow travelers or political opposition.
“Liberal” is flung about as if “liberals” were irresponsible. However, those flinging this epithet without thought are rather liberal with giving power to corporations.
And those who call themselves “conservative” are more conserving power for corporations than being thoughtful about change. I haven’t studied Edmund Burke, but I wonder if he would approve of the actions of those who call themselves conservative today.
Maybe we should call them CONservatives because so many of them are con-men. “Con” being short for “confidence”, that is the con-man gains the confidence of his mark as he takes the mark's money (or in too many cases both money and votes)
See “The Betrayal of Fiscal Conservatism”, David Leonhard, New York Times, 2017-01-09.
“Liberal” is flung about as if “liberals” were irresponsible. However, those flinging this epithet without thought are rather liberal with giving power to corporations.
And those who call themselves “conservative” are more conserving power for corporations than being thoughtful about change. I haven’t studied Edmund Burke, but I wonder if he would approve of the actions of those who call themselves conservative today.
Maybe we should call them CONservatives because so many of them are con-men. “Con” being short for “confidence”, that is the con-man gains the confidence of his mark as he takes the mark's money (or in too many cases both money and votes)
See “The Betrayal of Fiscal Conservatism”, David Leonhard, New York Times, 2017-01-09.
Wednesday, December 21, 2016
Liberal/conservative misnaming
Ross Douthat gave a long selection of books for “liberals” to read given that Donald Trump “won” the election.
Boy! Did readers take him on, including the false dichotomy of liberal vs. conservative, or even it the labels are accurate.
My own contribution was:
The problem is not the division between "liberalism" and "conservatism". They are both misleading labels. For example, "liberals" can be very conservative about reigning in corporate power and "conservatives" can be very liberal about increasing corporate power. The real problem is the disinterest of too many people in voting at all. Lost in all the hoopla of Trump's "victory" is that he came in third to a de facto "none of the above”.
See http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/21/opinion/books-for-the-trump-era.html?comments&_r=0#permid=20874252.
Boy! Did readers take him on, including the false dichotomy of liberal vs. conservative, or even it the labels are accurate.
My own contribution was:
The problem is not the division between "liberalism" and "conservatism". They are both misleading labels. For example, "liberals" can be very conservative about reigning in corporate power and "conservatives" can be very liberal about increasing corporate power. The real problem is the disinterest of too many people in voting at all. Lost in all the hoopla of Trump's "victory" is that he came in third to a de facto "none of the above”.
See http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/21/opinion/books-for-the-trump-era.html?comments&_r=0#permid=20874252.
Whatever happened to real Republicans?
Once upon a time we were active Republican Party members at the precinct level. Then Reagan won the nomination instead of John Anderson, and Republicans became more rigid in their beliefs. It was about this time that the term RINO was coined: Republican In Name Only. And the Republicans stopped being a big tent party. This rigidity should not be mistaken for conservatism, a thoughtful consideration of change.
There have been a few bright spots like Bill Frenzel, Representative of 3rd Minnesota district, and Arne Carlson, Gov. of Minnesota after the Republican candidate imploded because of inappropriate behavior with teen-age girls. So much for the "moral" party. BTW Carlson still writes a blog: http://govarnecarlson.blogspot.com/
Since then, there have been more and more rigid stances, including eight years of obstruction of a Democratic President. Bi-partisan legislation happens too infrequently.
I would say the only thing "conservative" is to "conserve our world view" despite plentiful evidence to the contrary.
Comment to New York Times article "On Where the Republican Party Went Wrong", Charlie Sykes, 2016-12-15
There have been a few bright spots like Bill Frenzel, Representative of 3rd Minnesota district, and Arne Carlson, Gov. of Minnesota after the Republican candidate imploded because of inappropriate behavior with teen-age girls. So much for the "moral" party. BTW Carlson still writes a blog: http://govarnecarlson.blogspot.com/
Since then, there have been more and more rigid stances, including eight years of obstruction of a Democratic President. Bi-partisan legislation happens too infrequently.
I would say the only thing "conservative" is to "conserve our world view" despite plentiful evidence to the contrary.
Comment to New York Times article "On Where the Republican Party Went Wrong", Charlie Sykes, 2016-12-15
Sunday, November 06, 2016
Gun rights vs. property rights, a conundrum for "conservatives"
'Tis hunting season in Minnesota. Right now it is deer season and we can hear gunshots now and then. I hope they were all on federal land to the south of us.
Technically, we are supposed to post "No Hunting" signs all around our property, but it is a real pain to post signs around 80 acres (half-mile along the road and a quarter-mile deep). Besides, there always seem to be some jerks that will go right by a "No hunting/no trespassing sign.
Given that in St. Louis County, one can access the Online Land Explorer to find out ownership of every parcel of land, and so there is no excuse for trespassing. In some other counties one can buy land maps. Given all the other costs of hunting, I would think the maps are small change.
Now the conundrum, if a gun owner in a residential area is entitled to shoot and kill a "trespasser", should not a rural resident be entitled to shoot a trespassing hunter?
Case in point, several years ago a bird hunter shot down our driveway with a red pickup clearly visible in the driveway. Would I have been entitled to shoot and kill that hunter in self-defense?
This particular hunter had a "right" to have a shot gun, but I have a right to my property without worrying about an irresponsible gun owner.
I have many friends who are responsible hunters, but shouldn't there be some restrictions on irresponsible people even owning guns.
Technically, we are supposed to post "No Hunting" signs all around our property, but it is a real pain to post signs around 80 acres (half-mile along the road and a quarter-mile deep). Besides, there always seem to be some jerks that will go right by a "No hunting/no trespassing sign.
Given that in St. Louis County, one can access the Online Land Explorer to find out ownership of every parcel of land, and so there is no excuse for trespassing. In some other counties one can buy land maps. Given all the other costs of hunting, I would think the maps are small change.
Now the conundrum, if a gun owner in a residential area is entitled to shoot and kill a "trespasser", should not a rural resident be entitled to shoot a trespassing hunter?
Case in point, several years ago a bird hunter shot down our driveway with a red pickup clearly visible in the driveway. Would I have been entitled to shoot and kill that hunter in self-defense?
This particular hunter had a "right" to have a shot gun, but I have a right to my property without worrying about an irresponsible gun owner.
I have many friends who are responsible hunters, but shouldn't there be some restrictions on irresponsible people even owning guns.
Thursday, October 20, 2016
Trump and the rule of personality, not of law
"Donald Trump is the personification of the distortion of a constitution by men who hate the constitution with such passion that they are willing to swear complete fealty as they destroy everything it stands for.” - Montreal Moe in response to Ross Douthat’s “The Trump Afterlife”, New York Times, 2016-10-19.
Douthat, being a true conservative, doesn’t care much for Trump’s anti-constitutional remarks.
To Montreal Moe’s comment I added:
Hear! Hear! I find it ironic that so-called conservatives rant about activist judges. So-called conservative Supreme Court Judges have defined corporations as persons and defined "people" in the Second Amendment to be "persons". Changes like these are certainly not "conservative”.
See http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/19/opinion/campaign-stops/the-trump-afterlife.html?comments#permid=20183212:20184925.
Louis the XIV famously proclaimed “L’état, c’est moi!”. "The state, it is me!" Is Trump planning on being Donald the I? Hm, in Trump’s case does “I” mean “me” or the first or both? Trump’s remarks certainly sound monarchical (rule by one) rather than democratic (rule by many).
Douthat, being a true conservative, doesn’t care much for Trump’s anti-constitutional remarks.
To Montreal Moe’s comment I added:
Hear! Hear! I find it ironic that so-called conservatives rant about activist judges. So-called conservative Supreme Court Judges have defined corporations as persons and defined "people" in the Second Amendment to be "persons". Changes like these are certainly not "conservative”.
See http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/19/opinion/campaign-stops/the-trump-afterlife.html?comments#permid=20183212:20184925.
Louis the XIV famously proclaimed “L’état, c’est moi!”. "The state, it is me!" Is Trump planning on being Donald the I? Hm, in Trump’s case does “I” mean “me” or the first or both? Trump’s remarks certainly sound monarchical (rule by one) rather than democratic (rule by many).
Thursday, October 13, 2016
Robert Reich predicted the likes of Donald Trump
"[People] think if the big guys cheat in big ways, they might as well begin cheating in small ways. And when they think the game is rigged, they're easy prey for political demagogues with fast tongues and dumb ideas.
- Robert Reich, Beyond Outrage, 2012
In Beyond Outrage Reich also pointed out that "Conservatives" don't conserve much. He wrote they are regressives who want to return to a time when very few were very, very well-off and most had to struggle to make a living, often in dangerous, unhealthy conditions.
He didn't spell it out in detail but "conservatives" sure don't want to conserve resources, clean air, or even a well-functioning government. "Conservatives" are certainly "liberal" in interpreting the Constitution to their ends, "liberal" at "throwing money" at the military, and "liberal" in awarding generous compensation to those at the top of large corporations, even those who really screw up the company.
- Robert Reich, Beyond Outrage, 2012
In Beyond Outrage Reich also pointed out that "Conservatives" don't conserve much. He wrote they are regressives who want to return to a time when very few were very, very well-off and most had to struggle to make a living, often in dangerous, unhealthy conditions.
He didn't spell it out in detail but "conservatives" sure don't want to conserve resources, clean air, or even a well-functioning government. "Conservatives" are certainly "liberal" in interpreting the Constitution to their ends, "liberal" at "throwing money" at the military, and "liberal" in awarding generous compensation to those at the top of large corporations, even those who really screw up the company.
Wednesday, August 24, 2016
“Left” can also make distortions
The Huffington Post had an article entitled “Bill Nye Rips CNN For Having 'Climate Change Denier Meteorologist’”.
The headline readers are going to repeat that. However, some of the meteorologist’s tweets are quoted near the end of the article:
“Moved to climate change in 2009,” he wrote in one tweet.
“A scientist can be swayed by data and I was,” he added in another.
The headline readers are going to repeat that. However, some of the meteorologist’s tweets are quoted near the end of the article:
“Moved to climate change in 2009,” he wrote in one tweet.
“A scientist can be swayed by data and I was,” he added in another.
Monday, July 04, 2016
What true patriotism is
I’m sitting at my computer listening to all the fireworks, both public at the Bayfront Festival Park and private. We can see some of the Bayfront fireworks if we look out our front upstairs window at the right angle. But is enjoying fireworks patriotism? People all over the world enjoy fireworks.
Is patriotism pledging allegiance to the flag or singing the Star-Spangled Banner. Anybody can do these as a rote exercise. In fact, it seems that the more flags behind a political candidate, the more “patriotic” they are.
Is patriotism “supporting our troops” wherever they are fighting at the behest of our politicians? Many of those wars have led to further wars.
Maybe patriotism is saying that a war is immoral and unwinnable. Remember also that those on the other side think they are being patriotic to their country or cause.
True patriotism is obeying the laws, paying taxes, voting, and speaking your mind about how government is acting. Given these guidelines anybody can be a patriot whether they are Republican or Democrat, “conservative” or “liberal”, or none of the above.
Is patriotism pledging allegiance to the flag or singing the Star-Spangled Banner. Anybody can do these as a rote exercise. In fact, it seems that the more flags behind a political candidate, the more “patriotic” they are.
Is patriotism “supporting our troops” wherever they are fighting at the behest of our politicians? Many of those wars have led to further wars.
Maybe patriotism is saying that a war is immoral and unwinnable. Remember also that those on the other side think they are being patriotic to their country or cause.
True patriotism is obeying the laws, paying taxes, voting, and speaking your mind about how government is acting. Given these guidelines anybody can be a patriot whether they are Republican or Democrat, “conservative” or “liberal”, or none of the above.
Saturday, July 02, 2016
What do conservatives conserve?
It seems to me that they only want to conserve two things; their view of the world and the power of large corporations.
They don’t want to conserve resources including clean air and water, the right of people to have needed information, and good, free education for all.
Once upon a time conservatives were those who carefully considered any change but didn’t stand in the way of change. And there were many flavors of conservatism.
Now, “conservatives” must be in lock step on all issues and cannot question any of the official stances.
Ironically, these “conservatives” are liberal with funds for the military and are liberal with sending people to fight all over the world without any understanding of the countries they are sent to. A real conservative would be cautious about military engagement and strive to know what the risks are.
They don’t want to conserve resources including clean air and water, the right of people to have needed information, and good, free education for all.
Once upon a time conservatives were those who carefully considered any change but didn’t stand in the way of change. And there were many flavors of conservatism.
Now, “conservatives” must be in lock step on all issues and cannot question any of the official stances.
Ironically, these “conservatives” are liberal with funds for the military and are liberal with sending people to fight all over the world without any understanding of the countries they are sent to. A real conservative would be cautious about military engagement and strive to know what the risks are.
Wednesday, May 25, 2016
It makes no sense?
Some weeks ago I was in a coffee shop when one of those who has to talk to the whole room was holding forth. He repeatedly exclaimed “It makes no sense” with regard to gas prices rising after haven fallen so low.
Rather than going over to his table and joining the conversation, I just stayed where I was and kept quiet.
However, in the true free market sense, it does make perfect sense for more than one reason.
First, the number of producers of oil was way up. When a commodity becomes plentiful the price goes down. But when the price becomes too low for some to make money, they drop out. The number of producers drops and the price starts to climb.
Two, traditionally the price of gasoline rises in spring and fall as refiners switch the blends to match the season.
Three, as the price dropped, more people drove more. As they drove more, the demand for gasoline increased. As demand increases so does price. That’s the “free market”.
I don’t know whether this exclaimer was a “liberal” or a “conservative”, but this is the kind of view that some who call themselves “conservative" hold. These “conservatives” are ready to blame anybody but themselves for almost any problem.
Ironically, these up and down gasoline price movements are one of the few really free markets we have in our “free market” economy.
There are many buyers and sellers. Many sellers if we limit sellers to those extracting the oil. It is not so with refiners where we have relative few; one refinery can be producing gasoline for an entire region.
Both buyers and sellers are free to enter and leave the market. Many drivers can change their driving habits: make fewer trips or use other transportation. Drillers do turn their rigs off and on and explore more or less.
Both buyers and sellers have all the information they need to make a decision. For the most part, gasoline is a price-driven commodity. Despite what the oil companies say, the product is the same from station to station. For the station, it’s mostly is the credit card good.
All costs are covered by the transaction. This is where gasoline fails miserably. We don’t pay for the pollution and global warming caused by our “freedom” to drive when, where, and how much we drive.
I wish more of what happens made as much sense as the ups and downs of the price of gasoline.
Rather than going over to his table and joining the conversation, I just stayed where I was and kept quiet.
However, in the true free market sense, it does make perfect sense for more than one reason.
First, the number of producers of oil was way up. When a commodity becomes plentiful the price goes down. But when the price becomes too low for some to make money, they drop out. The number of producers drops and the price starts to climb.
Two, traditionally the price of gasoline rises in spring and fall as refiners switch the blends to match the season.
Three, as the price dropped, more people drove more. As they drove more, the demand for gasoline increased. As demand increases so does price. That’s the “free market”.
I don’t know whether this exclaimer was a “liberal” or a “conservative”, but this is the kind of view that some who call themselves “conservative" hold. These “conservatives” are ready to blame anybody but themselves for almost any problem.
Ironically, these up and down gasoline price movements are one of the few really free markets we have in our “free market” economy.
There are many buyers and sellers. Many sellers if we limit sellers to those extracting the oil. It is not so with refiners where we have relative few; one refinery can be producing gasoline for an entire region.
Both buyers and sellers are free to enter and leave the market. Many drivers can change their driving habits: make fewer trips or use other transportation. Drillers do turn their rigs off and on and explore more or less.
Both buyers and sellers have all the information they need to make a decision. For the most part, gasoline is a price-driven commodity. Despite what the oil companies say, the product is the same from station to station. For the station, it’s mostly is the credit card good.
All costs are covered by the transaction. This is where gasoline fails miserably. We don’t pay for the pollution and global warming caused by our “freedom” to drive when, where, and how much we drive.
I wish more of what happens made as much sense as the ups and downs of the price of gasoline.
Sunday, May 15, 2016
Problem of conservative/liberal labeling
We see too much about liberal bias against conservatives and conservative bias against liberals. But do we even know what a conservative or liberal is?
Are those who think billionaires should be free to run their companies without any government interference liberals or conservatives? They are certainly "liberal" in their interpretation of the Constitution. The true conservatives are those who believe the Constitution's power to the Congress to "regulate commerce among the states".
Are those who think the Constitution starts with "We the People" means persons as a collective liberal or conservative? It seems that so-called conservatives are rather liberal in interpreting the opening clause as "We the Corporations".
Nicholas Kristof wrote a column about liberals and conservatives in academia. For some of the letters in response see http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/15/opinion/sunday/politics-and-academia.html.
If "conservatives" have a problem being accepted into academia it may be because they are not open to change. A true academic is a liberal-conservative: liberal in open to new views and conservative in evaluating evidence.
Are those who think billionaires should be free to run their companies without any government interference liberals or conservatives? They are certainly "liberal" in their interpretation of the Constitution. The true conservatives are those who believe the Constitution's power to the Congress to "regulate commerce among the states".
Are those who think the Constitution starts with "We the People" means persons as a collective liberal or conservative? It seems that so-called conservatives are rather liberal in interpreting the opening clause as "We the Corporations".
Nicholas Kristof wrote a column about liberals and conservatives in academia. For some of the letters in response see http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/15/opinion/sunday/politics-and-academia.html.
If "conservatives" have a problem being accepted into academia it may be because they are not open to change. A true academic is a liberal-conservative: liberal in open to new views and conservative in evaluating evidence.
Thursday, April 14, 2016
Thought of the day; 2016 election turnout
See”Trump or Cruz? Why It Doesn’t Matter Anymore for the GOP, Fiscal Times, 2016-04-14,
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-cruz-why-doesn-t-174800466.html.
Now the trick is that those who would vote Democratic don’t stay away because they don’t like Sanders or Clinton. In fact, a huge Democratic turnout and a huge Republican stay-away are needed to give support to Sanders or Clinton.
Remember my mantra: If you stay away you throw your vote away!
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-cruz-why-doesn-t-174800466.html.
Now the trick is that those who would vote Democratic don’t stay away because they don’t like Sanders or Clinton. In fact, a huge Democratic turnout and a huge Republican stay-away are needed to give support to Sanders or Clinton.
Remember my mantra: If you stay away you throw your vote away!
Thursday, February 18, 2016
“Conservative vs. Liberal” is a misleading view of politics
I saw “Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires behind the Rise of the Radical Right” by Jane Mayer reviewed in the New York Times and decided to buy it. Once I started reading it, I found it very depressing. It just has too much about how the Koch brothers have inserted their pseudo-conservatism into our state and local governments. Even the inside cover is depressing – hundreds of thousands and even millions given to dozens of organizations that support the Koch brothers views.
You can find a review at “Inside the List” by Gregory Cowles, New York Times, 2016-01-29, “Attack the Messenger”.
Every time I blow my nose or dry my hands at Essentia Health, I think how the Koch brothers benefit from the thousands and thousands of tentacles with which they have gripped our society. Every box of tissue and every towel dispenser is labeled Georgia Pacific, a Koch brothers company.
I can’t help but wonder if the Koch brothers have the Benedictine values of Essentia Health. Essentia Health’s mission is “We are called to make a healthy difference in people’s lives.” Its values are quality, hospitality, respect, justice, stewardship, and teamwork.
You decide.
“Conservative” and “right” are very misleading terms. Some who call themselves “conservatives” are rather “liberal” with the idea of conservative. For example, how can anyone who extracts resources without any consideration for the consequences be called “conservative”? These extractors are being rather “liberal” with the resources.
Some who call themselves “liberal” are quite conservative in use of resources. Except when they fly all over the world or drive hundreds of miles to attend conferences on being more “conservative” with resources.
Some who call themselves “conservatives” because they oppose abortion as murder of innocents seem to be quite “liberal” in supporting those who would wage war, which is almost always murder of innocents.
Some who call themselves “liberal” can be quite “conservative” with whom they will allow to speak in public ceremonies. A real liberal would allow the invitee to speak and either stay away or sit quietly without applauding.
Sometimes I think the last great conservative was Edmund Burke (1729-1797), a British politician and author. “He was a great political thinker. Viewing English policies with something of the detachment of an alien [Burke was Irish], he was able to diagnose the situation with an imaginative insight beyond the range of those immersed in the business of the day and bound by traditional habits of mind.” The Age of Revolution, Winston Churchill.
Burke’s enemies accused him of being Catholic, a pejorative that presumed he was unfit for office. Have we heard another religious “pejorative” used in our times? Burke correctly predicted that the French Revolution with its chaos would lead to a military dictatorship. He also supported the grievances of the American Colonies: “Again and again, revert to your old principles—seek peace and ensue it; leave America, if she has taxable matter in her, to tax herself.”
The whole idea of “right vs. left” is one-dimensional. I submit that political thought is four-dimensional. Besides Conservative vs. Liberal, we also have Generous vs. Greedy, Rigid vs. Flexible, and Simplistic vs. Thoughtful.
Generous vs. Greedy
One can be generous by being willing to pay the taxes necessary for a civilized society. That includes having enough food and shelter.
One can be greedy by working to get legislation that puts themselves at an advantage regardless of the cost to others.
Rigid vs. Flexible
We are seeing a lot of rigidity lately in that several candidates are trying to outdo one another in showing how well they promote “Conservative” orthodoxy, even at the cost of depriving others. They also must regularly recite the Pledge of Allegiance and then work to deprive others of “liberty and justice”.
We don’t see much of flexible in politics nowadays. It seems that so much political literature and writing contains “demand”. No matter the party, it seems it wants us to demand something that is in their party orthodoxy. One of the ironies is that the Coffee Party, which was founded as a civil alternative to the demands of the Tea Party, often demands some action.
Simplistic vs. Thoughtful
Simplistic always reminds me of the Tea Party member who said she could understand the Constitution by reading it. The original Constitution is about 30 pages in an iBook version; the Federalist Papers to explain it are over 900 pages; and I don’t know how many thousands of pages Supreme Court Justices have written to interpret it. Furthermore, the Supreme Court rarely has unanimous decisions, and what one Court rules could be overturned by a different Court.
As I thought about this article, I remember that years ago the Utne Reader had published a political map that had four axes: Liberal-Conservative, Freedom-Order, Decentralization-Centralization, and Equality-Liberty. It was devised by Eric Selbin and Ron Steiner. It has eighteen groups around the edges with representative literature, music, food, and personalities for each. It was included in the November/December 1991 Utne Reader. I was able to find an online copy at “Exploring the Dynamics of Polarization” by Tom Atlee at www.tomatleeblog.com/archives/175327148. If you would rather see the map in color, try the Duluth Public Library (or your own local library).
Also published in the Reader Weekly of Duluth, 2016-02-18 at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2016/02/18/6746_conservative_vs_liberal_is_a_misleading_view_of.
You can find a review at “Inside the List” by Gregory Cowles, New York Times, 2016-01-29, “Attack the Messenger”.
Every time I blow my nose or dry my hands at Essentia Health, I think how the Koch brothers benefit from the thousands and thousands of tentacles with which they have gripped our society. Every box of tissue and every towel dispenser is labeled Georgia Pacific, a Koch brothers company.
I can’t help but wonder if the Koch brothers have the Benedictine values of Essentia Health. Essentia Health’s mission is “We are called to make a healthy difference in people’s lives.” Its values are quality, hospitality, respect, justice, stewardship, and teamwork.
You decide.
“Conservative” and “right” are very misleading terms. Some who call themselves “conservatives” are rather “liberal” with the idea of conservative. For example, how can anyone who extracts resources without any consideration for the consequences be called “conservative”? These extractors are being rather “liberal” with the resources.
Some who call themselves “liberal” are quite conservative in use of resources. Except when they fly all over the world or drive hundreds of miles to attend conferences on being more “conservative” with resources.
Some who call themselves “conservatives” because they oppose abortion as murder of innocents seem to be quite “liberal” in supporting those who would wage war, which is almost always murder of innocents.
Some who call themselves “liberal” can be quite “conservative” with whom they will allow to speak in public ceremonies. A real liberal would allow the invitee to speak and either stay away or sit quietly without applauding.
Sometimes I think the last great conservative was Edmund Burke (1729-1797), a British politician and author. “He was a great political thinker. Viewing English policies with something of the detachment of an alien [Burke was Irish], he was able to diagnose the situation with an imaginative insight beyond the range of those immersed in the business of the day and bound by traditional habits of mind.” The Age of Revolution, Winston Churchill.
Burke’s enemies accused him of being Catholic, a pejorative that presumed he was unfit for office. Have we heard another religious “pejorative” used in our times? Burke correctly predicted that the French Revolution with its chaos would lead to a military dictatorship. He also supported the grievances of the American Colonies: “Again and again, revert to your old principles—seek peace and ensue it; leave America, if she has taxable matter in her, to tax herself.”
The whole idea of “right vs. left” is one-dimensional. I submit that political thought is four-dimensional. Besides Conservative vs. Liberal, we also have Generous vs. Greedy, Rigid vs. Flexible, and Simplistic vs. Thoughtful.
Generous vs. Greedy
One can be generous by being willing to pay the taxes necessary for a civilized society. That includes having enough food and shelter.
One can be greedy by working to get legislation that puts themselves at an advantage regardless of the cost to others.
Rigid vs. Flexible
We are seeing a lot of rigidity lately in that several candidates are trying to outdo one another in showing how well they promote “Conservative” orthodoxy, even at the cost of depriving others. They also must regularly recite the Pledge of Allegiance and then work to deprive others of “liberty and justice”.
We don’t see much of flexible in politics nowadays. It seems that so much political literature and writing contains “demand”. No matter the party, it seems it wants us to demand something that is in their party orthodoxy. One of the ironies is that the Coffee Party, which was founded as a civil alternative to the demands of the Tea Party, often demands some action.
Simplistic vs. Thoughtful
Simplistic always reminds me of the Tea Party member who said she could understand the Constitution by reading it. The original Constitution is about 30 pages in an iBook version; the Federalist Papers to explain it are over 900 pages; and I don’t know how many thousands of pages Supreme Court Justices have written to interpret it. Furthermore, the Supreme Court rarely has unanimous decisions, and what one Court rules could be overturned by a different Court.
As I thought about this article, I remember that years ago the Utne Reader had published a political map that had four axes: Liberal-Conservative, Freedom-Order, Decentralization-Centralization, and Equality-Liberty. It was devised by Eric Selbin and Ron Steiner. It has eighteen groups around the edges with representative literature, music, food, and personalities for each. It was included in the November/December 1991 Utne Reader. I was able to find an online copy at “Exploring the Dynamics of Polarization” by Tom Atlee at www.tomatleeblog.com/archives/175327148. If you would rather see the map in color, try the Duluth Public Library (or your own local library).
Also published in the Reader Weekly of Duluth, 2016-02-18 at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2016/02/18/6746_conservative_vs_liberal_is_a_misleading_view_of.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)