Liberalism

We are living it now folks. We are up to our collective necks in liberalism and it wasn’t just a result of the last 5 years under Obama, of course he opened the throttle quite a bit, but this is a slow, festering symptom that started with Republican Theodore Roosevelt, picked up steam with Woodrow Wilson, accelerated with FDR, and reached overdrive with LBJ. And now we find ourselves mired in a mediocre stew of progressive feel good policies that have only served to bring the strongest, most economically robust, most individually free country to its collective knees. Ironically, the policies that progressives champion, hoping to “level the playing field”, do anything but and were strictly designed and marketed by a ruling class to win elections. There is zero intent by the leaders of the current Democratic Party, or the ruling class which includes many Republicans, to actually resolve the issues they promise to fix primarily because, to do so would render themselves useless. Their sole intent is to continue to amass money and power and doing so, requires a loyal, fever pitched base convinced that they need their benevolence and protection. For those conservatives who fear the onset of a socialist state, that ship has sailed – we are already there. The myriad of welfare programs, Medicaid, Medicare, SS and now Obamacare has America firmly planted in socialism.

What other current issues can we attribute to liberalism you may wonder? Take Benghazi – here is a ME outpost that sits in a chaotic country void of any leadership, specifically because of the recent actions of our military, and one that is rife with rogue and radical elements. The current liberal brain trust, which included Ambassador Stevens, thought that reinforced security measures were not important, and would send the wrong message, primarily because liberalism believes that the US military is part of what’s wrong with this world, not what is right. Therefore, their cavalier attitude towards radical elements resulted in four American deaths, and their attempt to obfuscate that fact has resulted in the recent scandal.

The IRS – liberalism believes that any opposition towards their high-minded policies is tantamount to malicious obstructionism and borderline treason (see Michael Moore), therefore, the intense scrutiny the IRS applied towards groups opposed to the administration was in line with the culture that liberalism creates.

The debt – Every dollar taxed and sent to Washington DC, is another dollar stripped from the private market, rendering it less powerful and more dependent on the government. It’s really that simple. By creating crisis’s that require additional spending and running up the debt, the Federal Government can convince their loyal base that taxes need to increase and the problems they face are not because of any actions of their own or the government, but because those with the money refuse to pay their “fair share”. Take for example Oklahoma – the Democrats are claming that they need to borrow more money to pay for the storm, are demonizing conservatives for wanting off sets, and not reminding anyone of the fact that Obama just sent $200 million to Syrian refugees that could have been used for the storm, or that there is $11 billion currently in the FEMA account. They are simply exploiting a crisis to rile up their base, demonize an opponent, and take more money away from the private sector.

These are just a few examples of what the disease of progressivism has wrought, and if we continue down this path, these and other problems will only persist and expand. As David Axlerod recently admitted, the Federal Government is too vast, our debt is too big, our problems are too pronounced, and our labor force is too small, but our country is too important. We currently have a President that does nothing, and knows nothing so it is incumbent upon us to be diligent and engaged if we are to ever repeal the progressive efforts, policies and mindsets that brought us to this point.

UPDATE, by Mark Noonan.  Axelrod tweeted that he hopes the bridge collapse will induce us mean, evil Republicans to pass more spending for infrastructure.  This is the kind of nonsense I think all of us on the right are sick of.  Axelrod’s President has been in office for more than four years; trillions of extra money has been spent since Obama took office, a great deal of it justified as money to rebuild infrastructure and here’s comes one of the dunces who put Obama in office to demand that we GOPers agree to spend even more money!  Tell you what, Axelrod, maybe if you and your buddy Barry hadn’t use the last pile of money just to keep your union buddies employed then that bridge would have been fixed!  I hold Obama and Axelrod personally responsible for this – they didn’t do their jobs and a bridge collapsed.  They’ve had more than four years to ensure that all bridges are inspected and necessary repairs done.  That is more than enough time – though I guess what with all the vacations, golf outings and neglect of embassy security, fixing bridges escaped our President’s notice.

Advertisements

118 thoughts on “Liberalism

  1. neocon01 May 23, 2013 / 5:22 pm

    the big turn to the left came in the late 1960’s….mostly from chicago……(imagine that) Today we are reaping what we collectively sow’d by not smashing and imprisoning the likes of ayers, klintons, kerrys, and old what ever his name was back then….

    we had political hacks like jimmah karter issuing amnesty and forgiveness to traitors, terrorists, who in George Washington’s day would have been hung.
    We ignored radical feminism which has led to 55 million American citizens slaughtered in our own neighborhoods.
    We ignored radical homosexuality which has led to world wide holocaust of AIDS spread by modern typhoid marys.
    We ignored leftist (communists) and those who were sounding the alarm while they infiltrated our schools, unions, and one major political party.
    We ignored radical islam which has brought more wars, murder mayhem and misery to the world than the evil communist system.
    We whistled while they worked and now we want to open our eyes and ask how did this happen?? NOW we must oppose them……HUH??

    • Cluster May 23, 2013 / 5:42 pm

      Neo,

      I am speaking more to the deliberate growth of the federal government, where the left and the ruling class, which again includes Republicans, centralizes power and control. The mindset of liberalism spawns radical elements because of the fact that liberalism constantly is in search of an opponent to demonize and blame for problems.

      In regards to gays, feminists, and muslims – not everyone associated with those groups are evil leftist infiltrators. Just saying.

      • neocon01 May 23, 2013 / 6:12 pm

        not everyone associated with those groups are evil leftist infiltrators. Just saying.

        You and I depart there, I think all leftism is an outgrowth of marxist communism, and alinsky simply re packaged and re named…..

        I believe I addressed your assessment by defining them as RADICAL GROUPS, not individual people who were not out in the streets pushing them selves on us.

        Because I believe that radical black groups including the nation of islam , new black panthers, and NAACP does not mean I believe all blacks are radical or members of those hate groups….just saying

        However I have seen dozens of US citys burned and looted by radicals and lived in three of them when it happened.

      • Cluster May 23, 2013 / 6:19 pm

        Radical GROUPS – I agree with. Those groups aren’t pushing for the cause of their constituents. They are pushing for the cause of progressivism.

        As conservatives, we need to reach out to the feminists and gays that are not radicalized and get them on board.

      • neocon01 May 23, 2013 / 6:31 pm

        on board of what?
        so we can be like them for votes?
        a cold day in hell.
        I answer to a higher power and he has spoken on such matters.

      • Amazona May 23, 2013 / 8:34 pm

        Get ready, lads—Amazona is dragging out her soapbox again.

        We will never appeal to groups which identify themselves in terms that have been defined for them as the opposite of “conservatism”—at least not until WE define the term, a few hundred thousand times, and never let a single one of the false impressions go unchallenged.

        And we will never appeal to these groups as long as we, ourselves, allow ourselves to be sucked into the death trap of “issues”.

        When we allow ourselves to be suckered into mixing up politics with “values” and “issues” we start to build barriers between ourselves and people who are not going to take the time to sort it all out.

        I am a feminist—a REAL feminist, one who simply believes that women must be given the same rights and respect that are given to men. I reject, completely and wholeheartedly, the new Leftist definition of “feminist” as they have hijacked this word, too, and stuck it onto a really ugly radicalism that is anti-family, pro-abortion, and anti-man.

        I own and operate heavy equipment, I can paint and plow and clean barns and bale hay and I demand respect for what I do. That, to me, is feminism. I run businesses, I make decisions, I take responsibility for my decisions and actions. That is feminism. And I really like men, and I am getting back to being a little more girly now that I am closer to some cities and working in an office where red fingernails and a little perfume are more compatible with what I do–though a couple of days ago I was wearing my hard hat and reflective vest on a job site. (And damn it–wouldn’t you know, I broke a nail.)

        If a man is attracted to men, that has nothing to do with how he thinks the nation should be governed, but we allow ourselves to get suckered into a pissing match about “issues” and contribute to the falsehood that gay people can’t be politically conservative.

        I suggest that one of the first things we do is reject and abandon nomenclature, and stop buying into classification of people based on their gender, their sexual orientation, their color or ethnicity, etc. and start hammering home the reality that politics is about governance, and how the nation is governed will affect every single person no matter what superficial group he or she may also be in.

      • Cluster May 23, 2013 / 10:22 pm

        I suggest that one of the first things we do is reject and abandon nomenclature, and stop buying into classification of people based on their gender, their sexual orientation, their color or ethnicity, etc. and start hammering home the reality that politics is about governance, and how the nation is governed will affect every single person no matter what superficial group he or she may also be in.

        Thank you.

        Neocon, don’t be so myopic to think we can just ignore gay folks. My business partners wife has a cousin who is gay, is a great guy and is conservative. We need his support.

    • neocon01 May 23, 2013 / 6:54 pm

      Progressivism – the face lift of Communism
      CFP Writer
      By Dr. Laurie Roth (Bio and Archives) Thursday, September 15, 2011

      What do you think happened to all the ‘big Government’ addicts of control? Did they just enfold themselves and their money into freedom for the masses? Sadly, not.

      In fact, they have only gotten more funded, more organized, sneakier and changed their name many times while you weren’t looking. In fact, the term Communism has the ring now of a ‘a fossil’ a museum piece. You almost sound paranoid and fringe to even talk about the dangers of communism. Certainly to talk about the dangers of Islamic fundamentalism renders you mentally ill. You are an Islamaphobe for noticing the unending, international murders and push for a caliphate.

      Progressivism is the name now that represents big Government, societal, business and personal controls, It is communism and thinks ‘the people’ are stupid and must be controlled. Progressivism sounds so ‘forward thinking’ and open to progress and people, doesn’t it? The truth is, when going back and unfolding its cancerous core you see it everywhere and backed by big name people in our history and currently in the White House.

      http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/articles-cars/40386

  2. tiredoflibbs May 23, 2013 / 6:06 pm

    Actually, I believe that we are up to our ears in PROGRESSIVISM. The “progressives” have taken and capture the term “liberal” and it has been bastardized to remake themselves.

    If we look at the origins of the classic definition of liberal: a political philosophy and ideology that emerged as a response to the Industrial Revolution and urbanization in the 19th century in Europe and the United States. It shares a number of beliefs with other belief systems belonging to liberalism, advocating civil liberties and political freedom, LIMITED government, RULE OF LAW, and belief in FREE market.

    The present “LIBERALS” do not reflect these traits. At every turn, they want to EXPAND government and control the FREE MARKET. The RULE OF LAW is another belief that is not followed. Look at obAMATEUR’s directive at not enforcing current immigration law and allowing de facto amnesty. It is also reflected in their misguided belief as the Constitution is a living document where the meaning automatically changes with the times and forget the amendment process because it doesn’t work to suit them.

    • Cluster May 23, 2013 / 6:23 pm

      You are correct – PROGRESSIVISM is the better nomenclature.

      Did you hear today that Obama now wants to close Gitmo! AGAIN. Going back to the beginning. Time to fire up the base again.

      • neocon01 May 23, 2013 / 6:39 pm

        Brown: Is Progressivism the new Communism?

        “It’s a good question,” West responded, “I believe there’s [sic] about 78 to 81 members of the Democrat Party who are members of the Communist Party. (Long pause) “They don’t actually hide. It’s called the Congressional Progressive Caucus.” The left became unhinged.
        sic
        While there may not be large numbers of card-carrying communists lining the halls of Congress, there is a clear tie between the Democratic Party’s Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), Communist Party USA (CPUSA), and the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA).

        It really boils down to marketing. In marketing, many times the same product is given a different name or label in order to increase its appeal to certain groups. Names are sometimes changed due to the product’s connection to other products, or the public’s association to a prior name.

        Although Progressive share much in common with CPUSA and DSA, they are shrewd enough to understand the terms “communist” or “socialist” are unpalatable for most Americans. Hence, the word “Progressive” was injected into American political verbiage. While the words are not interchangeable, one thing is for sure: The CPC is doing its part to further the goals of modern Communists and Socialists who have found a voice in the Democratic Party.

        full article

        http://www.nj.com/hudson/voices/index.ssf/2012/04/brown_is_progressivism_the_new.html

    • neocon01 May 23, 2013 / 6:29 pm

      Maybe it is just me….But I believe these men

      Vladimir Lenin (in the early 1920s):

      “First we will take Eastern Europe, then the masses of Asia. We will encircle the last bastion of capitalism, the United States of America. We will not need to fight. It will fall as a ripe fruit into our hands.”

      And, “We must practice coexistence with other nations, until we are strong enough to take over by means of world revolution…. We are not pacifists. Conflict is inevitable. Great political questions can be solved only through violence…. It is inconceivable that Communism and capitalism can exist side by side. Inevitably one must perish.”
      ——————————————————————————————

      Khrushchev:

      “We cannot expect Americans to jump from capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving Americans doses of socialism until they suddenly awake to find out they have Communism.”
      ——————————————————————————————

      MIKHAIL GORBACHEV’s speech at the 70th anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution (1987):

      “… In October 1917, we parted with the old world, rejecting it once and for all. We are moving toward a new world, a world of Communism. We shall never turn off that road.”

      And from his speech to the Soviet Politburo, November 1987:
      “Gentlemen, comrades, do not be concerned about all you hear about Glasnost and Perestroika and democracy in the coming years. These are primarily for outward consumption. There will be no significant internal changes in the Soviet Union, other than for cosmetic purposes. Our purpose is to disarm the Americans and let them fall asleep. We want to accomplish three things: One, we want the Americans to withdraw conventional forces from Europe. Two, we want them to withdraw nuclear forces from Europe. Three, we want the Americans to stop proceeding with Strategic Defense Initiative.”
      ——————————————————————————————

      NORMAN THOMAS, for many years the U.S. Socialist Presidential candidate proclaimed:

      “The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of ‘liberalism’ they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.”

      • Amazona May 23, 2013 / 8:19 pm

        “…without knowing how it happened…”

        Or even knowing that it HAS happened.

        Just this week we had a Lib poster here object to being identified as a Lefty, and denying that he is, and then a day or so later defending socialism.

        This is why I keep harping on the need to go back to basics and talk about pure politics, and stop getting sucked into the “issues” game.

        We need to talk about one political model being about infinitely expansive central government, and relate that to what we are seeing now, with the IRS intrusions and efforts to dictate who is in charge in the country by use of intimidation and federal power. We need to talk about the Constitutional model of a federal government which is severely restricted as to size, scope and power. We need to teach political reality and its vocabulary to people who, even into their sixth decade, simply do not know the definitions of words we use.

        What good does it to do talk about “Leftism” or “socialism” when the words are meaningless to people, when they think they are tossed around only as insults and who have absolutely no concept of the fact that they are objective descriptions of political philosophy.

      • neocon01 May 23, 2013 / 11:19 pm

        Neocon, don’t be so myopic to think we can just ignore gay folks. My business partners wife has a cousin who is gay, is a great guy and is conservative. We need his support.

        then WHY identify one’s self as gay?? Why not just be a single person who is conservative?
        How can I be politically allied to a self identified homosexual ( or add what ever you want) then attend a board of education meeting and be conservative allies with some one who is for teaching those values while I am 100% opposed to those teachings?
        The same with the military? church?
        Lets not focus solely on homosexuality, abortion? pornography? swingers? nazis?
        Hey ya gotta get that nazi vote, they are really great guys, and soo conservative…we will just ignore those swastika tattoos and the hate Jews literature they are handing out at school as long as they vote for ole anthony weiner….(sarcasm) sorry I cant buy into that program.
        If I am the lone stand out in the parking lot holding on to my personal values so be it.
        If I am wrong nothing will come of it. If I am correct I will stand before God on judgement day and not have to answer for it. (heaven knows there will be a shopping list as it is)
        🙂

      • M. Noonan May 24, 2013 / 12:41 am

        Neocon,

        It is an important point, and it does need clarification on the right – but I think our best approach is to step away from particular issues (such as, for instance, gay marriage) and look at the larger picture. Come what may, if I am in any way, shape or form to be an honorable man I must be allowed to assert what I believe is true. The fundamental problem with gay marriage right now is not whether it shall be or not be but whether or not I will be forced to lie about it.

        People are, at the end of the day, free to do pretty much whatever they want – and if a majority of my fellow Americans want a certain thing, they will almost certainly get it (even if the don’t like it, once they have it). As long as I am not forced to lie or forced to keep silence lest telling the truth land me in trouble, then I am fundamentally unconcerned with whatever fool things my fellow Americans do. As long as I can say everywhere and anywhere (home, work, street corner, what have you) “same sex unions are not marriage” and “homosexual acts are inherently disordered” without let or hindrance from anyone, then all is well. But that is not what the left wants – not in this area, or any other.

        The left not only wants to lie, they want to force us to lie with them. In fact, our refusal to lie right along with them is what really makes them furious with us. And with good reason – the more of us standing around speaking the truth, the more likely is that eventually a majority will support the truth…and the left can’t tolerate that because it means the end of the left.

        I think our better course of action is to just keep speaking the truth without getting in to those semantic weeds where the left tries to prove that a horse chestnut is a chestnut horse. Don’t get tangled in their fights – proclaim the truth boldly and merely insist upon your right to speak. The rest will come along just fine.

      • neocon01 May 24, 2013 / 7:49 am

        Mark

        I am dismayed this has become a focus about homosexuality only.
        we have MANY battles to fight against these proggys. . I could give a flying crap what people do in their own homes behind closed doors.
        I do care when THIS BECOMES LAW and If I as a Christian refuse to hire someone because they are self professed (whatever) in my school, Church, daycare, construction co, etc. then it damn well becomes MY BUSINESS because they can shut me down or arrest me for my beliefs and standards.
        We have many battles and can not ignore one over the other. The problem we have been letting THEM define the verbiage. the battle and the solution. To this I say NUTS!!

        I am OLD SCHOOL and it is very hard to teach an old dog new tricks….and for society maybe that isnt such a bad thing.

      • Cluster May 24, 2013 / 8:00 am

        Neo,

        I am reminded of the expression – love the sinner, hate the sin. I too wonder why many gays feel the need to let every everyone know of their sexual preference, but this gentleman is not of the many. I have only met him a couple of times, and he is funny, articulate, doesn’t feel the need to let people know, or apologize for who he is, but after spending a few moments with him, you realize that he is undeniably gay.

        Re: education curriculum. There is no place for any sexual education in say grades K thru 6. Let kids be kids. In the latter grades, the education should be one of information, not one of celebration or endorsement.

      • neocon01 May 24, 2013 / 8:30 am

        Cluster

        well I guess this thread is going to focus on homosexuality so be it.

        I know and do work FOR many gays, If they they like you, you do not rip them off and give them value for their dollar they and ALL their friends will do business with you, they tend to be a tight knit community.
        I like 99% of the gay people I have met, I actually had two male gay friends in our circle of friends but both died from AIDS. We also have two older women who we invite to our parties, sit with when we are out and see them and count them as friends.

        I am not against one living our lives as we wish = FREEDOM. I am against any AGENDA that passes LAWS FORCING ME to say, do, be something I am not.
        If I refuse to hire a man because he is 300 lbs and can not fit into an attic I am a criminal? Or I have a restaurant and I have to spend tens of thousands of dollars because ONE person MAY be in a wheel chair one day and cant come in and use a handicapped bathroom??
        Or the private organization of the boy scouts HAS to admit openly homosexual members and scout leaders??
        I say to hell with that, however every day LAWS are being written for every loud, outspoken “minority” group with an alleged grievance to restrict MY freedoms, choices, beliefs, and standards….who is fighting for US?? I say this is TYRANNY NOT FREEDOM.
        You bet we have to stand and fight against EVERY thing they throw or we will lose it all while screaming for smaller govt as the big govt rolls us into the camps.
        The BIG picture is of course for smaller centralized government but I doubt any of us will see that in our lifetimes.

      • Cluster May 24, 2013 / 9:08 am

        well I guess this thread is going to focus on homosexuality so be it.

        NO, it’s not. We are now falling into the trap of liberalism and that is speaking of a group of people as a monolithic group. The gay agenda is not about gay people. It is designed to polarize people, and give the advantage to a particular party. Lets focus on the individual not the group.

      • neocon01 May 24, 2013 / 12:16 pm

        Cluster

        Ok obviously it is in my presentation………
        I am a cold war era, warrior, I live work, dwell in a mans dominated world (ama would fit in well LOL)…..A former Marine, heavy construction worker/businessman, alpha male, with three sons and four grandsons (and a new little princess ). I ride a Harley (weekend warrior) and hang mostly with former veterans, cops and firemen. ….Whew!!

        I know I am a major bull in a china shop when out of my circle, but I am no redneck loud mouth lout either. Just someone who you would look to if the S#!t hit the fan and we were close together knowing I had the where withal to take action and not be hiding in the corner somewhere.

        I tend to be goal orientated, in the construction world things have to be very structured, planned, and implemented. Much like the military. I see what is happening in our country and federal government as a series of battles being waged by dozens of self serving groups many who have their roots out of the civil rights era.

        These groups (unions included) are radicalized, organized, funded, and are donation blunders, and lobbyists.
        THEY have grown our government to the extreme Goliath that it is by ever pushing for more and more legislation.
        We didnt fight the war against Germany and Japan by simply bombing Berlin and Tokyo. NO we fought them on every front, every island, every desert, every city until we totally defeated them.

        I see it this way until we form similar but opposite grass root organizations to fight and counter every left wing similar organization at that level WHILE we also fight on a national level we will never win this.

        AGW? organized by left, us? NOTHING
        gay “rights”? organized by left. us? NOTHING
        racial equality “rights? organized by left, us? NOTHING
        animal “rights? left organized. us? NOTHING
        feminist rights (abortion)? left organized. us? NOTHING

        TEA party? ONE segment of the fight only.

        TODAY ONE more domino falls due to organized pressure from radical leftist groups….the boy scouts.Where were the conservative voices? lobby? protestors? MIA thats where.

        Ok
        Im done ranting (for now) 🙂

      • M. Noonan May 24, 2013 / 3:00 pm

        Neocon,

        The left’s insistence upon lies has, of course, already greatly diminished our freedom. I work for a large, American corporation – at this corporation, I can state a lie any time I want:

        “I believe that same-sex marriage is just the same as traditional marriage”

        If I were to say that, not only would I not get in trouble, I’d probably be lauded for my commitment to “diversity”. I can’t state the truth:

        “Homosexual sex is inherently disordered”

        If I were to say that, at the very least I would be reprimanded for creating a “hostile workplace environment” – and I might even be terminated, under certain circumstances.

        The first statement is just a bit of illogical nonsense – even if someone is in favor of same-sex marriage, they can’t make that statement without being false. No matter how you slice it, what happens in a same-sex union IS NOT THE SAME as what happens in a traditional union. The second statement is not only true, but anyone who is Catholic who utters it – ie, if I utter it – then I am merely exercising two rights: my right to free exercise of religion and my right to free speech. But a hammer would fall on me if I dared to make that statement at work. You can say, “well, religion is not appropriate at work” and/or “you don’t have full free speech rights at work” and there is something to that – but why does this always, these days, work against the rights of Christians and conservatives and never against the rights of liberals? If a person could be reprimanded for making either statement, then that would be fair and just – it would indicate a desire on the part of the employer to keep all such controversies out of the workplace…but that isn’t the case. The employer wants to engage in propaganda – and insists that everyone at work agree with the propaganda or keep silent.

  3. M. Noonan May 23, 2013 / 11:08 pm

    Its good that you note Teddy Roosevelt in the parade of progressivism. On the other side of the pond, we must also remember that Winston Churchill (hero of liberty that he’ll always be) was instrumental along with Lloyd George in constructing the Welfare State in that country. For a lot of people, the progressive ideal just seems so wonderful – rich people, guilt ridden, will minister to the needs of the poor…and if the poor buck, they’ll be brought to heel, because it is for their own good, after all. Chesterton wrote of this often – and the best exposition of it was in What’s Wrong With the World?. Here’s the conclusion:

    Here, it may be said, my book ends just where it ought to begin. I have said that the strong centers of modern English property must swiftly or slowly be broken up, if even the idea of property is to remain among Englishmen. There are two ways in which it could be done, a cold administration by quite detached officials, which is called Collectivism, or a personal distribution, so as to produce what is called Peasant Proprietorship. I think the latter solution the finer and more fully human, because it makes each man as somebody blamed somebody for saying of the Pope, a sort of small god. A man on his own turf tastes eternity or, in other words, will give ten minutes more work than is required. But I believe I am justified in shutting the door on this vista of argument, instead of opening it. For this book is not designed to prove the case for Peasant Proprietorship, but to prove the case against modern sages who turn reform to a routine. The whole of this book has been a rambling and elaborate urging of one purely ethical fact. And if by any chance it should happen that there are still some who do not quite see what that point is, I will end with one plain parable, which is none the worse for being also a fact.

    A little while ago certain doctors and other persons permitted by modern law to dictate to their shabbier fellow-citizens, sent out an order that all little girls should have their hair cut short. I mean, of course, all little girls whose parents were poor. Many very unhealthy habits are common among rich little girls, but it will be long before any doctors interfere forcibly with them. Now, the case for this particular interference was this, that the poor are pressed down from above into such stinking and suffocating underworlds of squalor, that poor people must not be allowed to have hair, because in their case it must mean lice in the hair. Therefore, the doctors propose to abolish the hair. It never seems to have occurred to them to abolish the lice. Yet it could be done. As is common in most modern discussions the unmentionable thing is the pivot of the whole discussion. It is obvious to any Christian man (that is, to any man with a free soul) that any coercion applied to a cabman’s daughter ought, if possible, to be applied to a Cabinet Minister’s daughter. I will not ask why the doctors do not, as a matter of fact apply their rule to a Cabinet Minister’s daughter. I will not ask, because I know. They do not because they dare not. But what is the excuse they would urge, what is the plausible argument they would use, for thus cutting and clipping poor children and not rich? Their argument would be that the disease is more likely to be in the hair of poor people than of rich. And why? Because the poor children are forced (against all the instincts of the highly domestic working classes) to crowd together in close rooms under a wildly inefficient system of public instruction; and because in one out of the forty children there may be offense. And why? Because the poor man is so ground down by the great rents of the great ground landlords that his wife often has to work as well as he. Therefore she has no time to look after the children, therefore one in forty of them is dirty. Because the workingman has these two persons on top of him, the landlord sitting (literally) on his stomach, and the schoolmaster sitting (literally) on his head, the workingman must allow his little girl’s hair, first to be neglected from poverty, next to be poisoned by promiscuity, and, lastly, to be abolished by hygiene. He, perhaps, was proud of his little girl’s hair. But he does not count.

    Upon this simple principle (or rather precedent) the sociological doctor drives gayly ahead. When a crapulous tyranny crushes men down into the dirt, so that their very hair is dirty, the scientific course is clear. It would be long and laborious to cut off the heads of the tyrants; it is easier to cut off the hair of the slaves. In the same way, if it should ever happen that poor children, screaming with toothache, disturbed any schoolmaster or artistic gentleman, it would be easy to pull out all the teeth of the poor; if their nails were disgustingly dirty, their nails could be plucked out; if their noses were indecently blown, their noses could be cut off. The appearance of our humbler fellow-citizen could be quite strikingly simplified before we had done with him. But all this is not a bit wilder than the brute fact that a doctor can walk into the house of a free man, whose daughter’s hair may be as clean as spring flowers, and order him to cut it off. It never seems to strike these people that the lesson of lice in the slums is the wrongness of slums, not the wrongness of hair. Hair is, to say the least of it, a rooted thing. Its enemy (like the other insects and oriental armies of whom we have spoken) sweep upon us but seldom. In truth, it is only by eternal institutions like hair that we can test passing institutions like empires. If a house is so built as to knock a man’s head off when he enters it, it is built wrong.

    The mob can never rebel unless it is conservative, at least enough to have conserved some reasons for rebelling. It is the most awful thought in all our anarchy, that most of the ancient blows struck for freedom would not be struck at all to-day, because of the obscuration of the clean, popular customs from which they came. The insult that brought down the hammer of Wat Tyler might now be called a medical examination. That which Virginius loathed and avenged as foul slavery might now be praised as free love. The cruel taunt of Foulon, “Let them eat grass,” might now be represented as the dying cry of an idealistic vegetarian. Those great scissors of science that would snip off the curls of the poor little school children are ceaselessly snapping closer and closer to cut off all the corners and fringes of the arts and honors of the poor. Soon they will be twisting necks to suit clean collars, and hacking feet to fit new boots. It never seems to strike them that the body is more than raiment; that the Sabbath was made for man; that all institutions shall be judged and damned by whether they have fitted the normal flesh and spirit. It is the test of political sanity to keep your head. It is the test of artistic sanity to keep your hair on.

    Now the whole parable and purpose of these last pages, and indeed of all these pages, is this: to assert that we must instantly begin all over again, and begin at the other end. I begin with a little girl’s hair. That I know is a good thing at any rate. Whatever else is evil, the pride of a good mother in the beauty of her daughter is good. It is one of those adamantine tendernesses which are the touchstones of every age and race. If other things are against it, other things must go down. If landlords and laws and sciences are against it, landlords and laws and sciences must go down. With the red hair of one she-urchin in the gutter I will set fire to all modern civilization. Because a girl should have long hair, she should have clean hair; because she should have clean hair, she should not have an unclean home: because she should not have an unclean home, she should have a free and leisured mother; because she should have a free mother, she should not have an usurious landlord; because there should not be an usurious landlord, there should be a redistribution of property; because there should be a redistribution of property, there shall be a revolution. That little urchin with the gold-red hair, whom I have just watched toddling past my house, she shall not be lopped and lamed and altered; her hair shall not be cut short like a convict’s; no, all the kingdoms of the earth shall be hacked about and mutilated to suit her. She is the human and sacred image; all around her the social fabric shall sway and split and fall; the pillars of society shall be shaken, and the roofs of ages come rushing down, and not one hair of her head shall be harmed.

    Damn them all, these progressives. Preaching to me that I am greedy, while they sit there with more piled up wealth than kings of old had – and the wealth of these progressives almost invariably built up by either making useless crap, or manipulating a financial system (when not just stolen via taxation) crafted by Ruling Class to ensure the people don’t have property. I, too, want to set fire to the world – and I take as my measure, Man. If it helps a man and a woman live decently and raise their children to be good citizens, then it must be – if it in any way, even in theory, harms this, then it has to go.

    • Jeremiah May 24, 2013 / 1:55 am

      Mark,

      Chesterton was a knight in his own right when it came to philosophy. If only people would read more of him and C.S. Lewis.

      • Amazona May 24, 2013 / 2:45 pm

        I’ve never been a fan of Chesterson but have read and re-read C.S. Lewis. When my husband died I was very traumatized and I made the decision to avoid many things to give myself a chance to heal. I drank no alcohol or caffeine, and I didn’t read anything violent or highly emotional, or watch it on TV. Because I love to listen to audio books, I bought the entire Narnia series, and I found it amazingly healing and uplifting.

        One thing that Lewis said (and I am paraphrasing here because I don’t have the book in front of me…) was in an exchange with a man, in the afterlife, who was surprised to be included in the Saved because he had worshiped the wrong god. He was told that no one can do good except for God, and no one can do evil except for Satan, no matter what he may call his belief.

        I think of this profound statement, as poorly as I have referenced it, when I read statements from those who consider themselves Christian but who insist that the only road to God is their road. I believe, as did this great theologian, that when you do good you do it for God, no matter what brand of religion you may claim, and when you do evil you do it for Satan even if you claim it is in the name of God.

      • M. Noonan May 24, 2013 / 3:17 pm

        Amazona,

        I went from Lewis to Chesterton (and eventually all the way to Belloc). Lewis was heavily influenced by Chesterton – and the more Lewis and Chesterton one reads, the more clearly the influence is seen. Though Lewis never left his Church of England, I think this was more a factor of Lewis’ view that you shouldn’t just up and leave a denomination unless you firmly see that it is necessary – and as the CofE (back then, at least) was still sacramental and theologically pretty sound, Lewis never saw the need to become Catholic…Chesterton, however, didn’t come from a CofE background and thus Catholicism became, in a sense, the logical place for him to go once the truth dawned on him.

        To me, the grand thing in my life is that I’ve been able to read “The Great Divorce” by Lewis, “The Ball and the Cross” by Chesteron and “The Great Heresies” by Belloc.

    • Amazona May 24, 2013 / 2:50 pm

      Winston Churchill was not Prime Minister of a nation governed by our Constitution, or our history. His was a nation fairly freshly out of a true monarchy, and one which had a cultural heritage of some level of dependence on and interference from the government.

      We can’t apply the definition of the 21st Century American Conservative, which is based on allegiance to the Constitution of the United States, to a19th and 20th Century man dealing with a cultural heritage of monarchism.

  4. dbschmidt May 24, 2013 / 12:23 am

    I really do not have the time or energy to get into this matter this evening; however, this has been an issue since the founding and really got started with the Fabians trying to destroy this country since the foundation. Today, one needs to look no further than elected officials like Sen. McCain (R)ino who said ““The senator from Utah keeps talking about back-room, closed-door deals…That’s what we’ve been doing for a couple hundred years.” to illustrate the point. This country needs a complete “reset” and I am hoping it will be peaceful but I am also getting ready in case it is not.

    • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) May 24, 2013 / 12:07 pm

      db,
      I have to disagree here, Fabians notwithstanding, McCain (and it irks me to write this) is correct; back room dealing is exactly how our government was always intended to work. A mixture of high-minded speechifying and cigar-smoke filled cloakrooms with men (and women) buttonholing one another with offers of “I’ll support yours if you’ll introduce mine.”

      This works well as long as the people in the cloakroom are interested only in doing what’s best for the country and her people.

      I had a saying when I was writing Policy & Procedure for a large company a few years back; we have a process and that process works, if the process no longer works we change the people and keep the process.

      • neocon01 May 24, 2013 / 12:48 pm

        Count

        if the process no longer works we change the people and keep the process.
        BINGO!!

        I worked for a mediun size branch of a 40 BILLION $$ fortune 5 corp, my branch was bleeding red ink for several years They changed branch managers like underwear but to no avail.

        Being in field related management I was asked my opinion on how to correct the problem, my answer was to fire all but 2 or 3 field mechanics and technicians and the whole office staff.
        The upper mgt sat there stunned…..one asked does that include you? I answered if you feel that is necessary to achieve the goals do it.
        We had a massive turnover the in the next two months,( I was not included in that) and the following year we had OVER a 500K PROFIT for our branch.
        I won the companies highest award, a trip to Palm Springs for a week with the princess and other award winners. Got to hang with the CEO, President, and general managers not only of my division but corporate. Schweeeet!!
        I retired from there 5 years ago and still do subcontracting work for them.

        I am 1000% for TERM LIMITS!!!!!

      • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) May 24, 2013 / 1:09 pm

        Very good neo, well played!

        The only condition is that the process is proven to work.

        Changing people because the boss had a stupid idea that could never work (and I know we’ve both seen this happen) is as bad, or worse than keeping people that don’t try to make the process work or actively work to defeat the process.

        I disagree on term limits on a constitutional basis; the only way I see (without a Constitutional Amendment) is to prevent an otherwise qualified candidate for Congress from appearing on the ballot. Even stupid people can qualify for the ballot, there’s no condition in the Constitution that prevents the people from electing a complete dip-wad.

        It is always my fervent hope that citizens recognize a corrupt politician and replace him/her.

        I know, hope Springs eternal.

      • neocon01 May 24, 2013 / 1:36 pm

        count

        It is always my fervent hope that citizens recognize a corrupt politician and replace him/her.

        gerrymandering, and the entire CBC for starters……low information voters voting for dumb as dog s#!t politicians.

        CAREFUL THERE………Guam might capsize!

      • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) May 24, 2013 / 1:49 pm

        I understand neo.

        I just think the solution to dumb as bricks politicians is not taking away the right of American citizen to vote for whomever they wish to represent them.

        Even if their votes are a national embarrassment. Just look at Minnesota; who says voters don’t have a sense of humor? I mean, Walter Mondale? Jesse Ventura? Stuart Smalley????

        Coolidge ran for office on a promise of a Return to Normalcy. maybe we can find a candidate that will take us on a journey to a Return to Sanity.

      • neocon01 May 24, 2013 / 4:40 pm

        count

        lets not forget al franken-stein, or the muslim.

  5. Jeremiah May 24, 2013 / 1:09 am

    Very true, Cluster. Obama will send money to the Muslims, like the Fort Hood shooter who is still getting paid his salary, while people in New Jersey and other places have waited all winter to receive aid for rebuilding their homes and communities that were destroyed during Hurricane Sandy. And most likely Obama won’t help the people of Moore, Oklahoma rebuild their community. Or the millions that are spent on trials that could have been used to help a family who lost everything.

    Just like the woman who lost her son who was part of Seal Team 6 said, “They don’t care!”
    I could not agree more with her statement. The administration cares more about themselves than the American people, and as the recent scandals that have been exposed as of late have shown, advancing their liberal agenda, as well as a deliberate attempt to defy and destroy our Constitution.

    Not to pay unnecessary attention to personalities of the administration, but this is the type of people that are in charge of our nation, and they are, to put it succinctly – no less than criminals.

    Kind of odd, isn’t it? That we have criminals in charge of our government?

    We as American can do better as a nation – if people only had a better perspective on what it means to govern properly, as well as putting people in charge of government that do the job of governing according to principles supported by a moral and ethical foundation. Everything outlined in the Constitution and Bill of rights.

    We have to remember that all laws created by or within our government are a result of someone’s morality, the morality of those in positions of power with the clout to create those laws. And we see the effect of those laws in our society. Few examples include Roe vs. Wade, overturning obscenity laws, overturning death penalty laws, overturning laws that protect marriage, creating laws that benefit other nations (NAFTA), laws that benefit illegally entering the country (amnesty), on and on. These are the effect of liberalism, and they affect our economic policies, as well as social stability to one degree or another. We can only see the effect these policies have created when combined with laws and/or policies that sow a welfare state. What does it do? It makes these problems grow.

    Americans have fallen into a river of liberalism, and are being sucked under by an undertow of media, and journalistic outlets that support the communists in charge. Drowning only because they thought it “safe” to believe the lies they’ve been spoon-fed, and many of which are now over their heads.

    I’m very concerned for the direction our nation is heading, and can only say that we badly need leadership in the White House and Senate. We need leaders that will rewind everything in place now, and govern according to the way our forebears’ intended our nation to be governed like.

    • neocon01 May 24, 2013 / 8:00 am

      Jer

      we have a permanent underclass in our country. In my opinion this was an insidiously crafted tactic to collect votes for a single party to remain in power.
      Power corrupts and total power totally corrupts as we see today in DC. The amnesty fight (AGAIN) is not about amnesty….it is about making peasants who broke our laws for freebies VOTERS and replacements for the plantation to continue the scam of cradle to death flow of OPM and the democrat flow of new useful idiots.

      There will be a reset and believe me they are getting ready with our NEW FEDERAL POLICE DEPT……who has just bought billions of rounds, tanks, APC’s AR15’s and heavy body armor …..FOR WHAT??

      • J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) May 24, 2013 / 11:19 am

        our NEW FEDERAL POLICE DEPT……who has just bought billions of rounds, tanks, APC’s AR15′s and heavy body armor …..FOR WHAT??

        I think you know “FOR WHAT” my friend.

      • neocon01 May 24, 2013 / 12:34 pm

        JR
        BINGO!!

      • Jeremiah May 24, 2013 / 7:13 pm

        FOR WHAT??

        What it is, is the administration wants to bring Americans under bondage. They want a dictatorship. The thought police, by force.

  6. Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) May 24, 2013 / 12:36 pm

    I don’t want to spend an inordinate amount of time on the historic significance of the Progressive movement, but (whenever I hear “but” I think “everything I said up to this point is now meaningless) during the period before and during the turn of the previous century, the progressive ideals were as intoxicating as Plato’s Utopian ideal. Politicians from all sides were attempting to out-progressive one another. Many, if not all viewed progress as the natural evolution of society. TR wasn’t the only rugged individualist that espoused society’s responsibility to care for all and encourage a communal responsibility.

    To advocate that we care for one another, and we all behave in a manner that demonstrates that is what we all believe should be the way of society; as a group we expect that we should love our neighbor, care when he’s in need and expect the same from him. He’ll keep his garden free of weeds, and I’ll keep mine. I won’t tell him how to wear his hair, but (there it is again) if he decides to tie his hair into a noose and dangle baby-dolls from it, well, that’s not an acceptable thing in a modern enlightened society, so we’ll just have to find a way to pressure him into conformity.

    Just as we, 21st Century Americans have difficulty when we attempt to judge 19th Century slave-holders by today’s standards we have difficulty understanding how early 20th Century politicians could not have seen the logical consequence of Progressivism.

    Some of the staunchest defenders of conservative thought and governance were seduced into believing these mores could be achieved through legislation. TR, Harding, Coolidge and Hoover were all once the governmental polar opposites of Progressives. Eventually, Harding and Coolidge (and most of the rest of the voting public) realized the danger and unintended consequences of Progressivism. Harding and especially Coolidge always believed in the ideals that society can improve itself if the desire is there and the standards are higher than we’ve yet achieved. They just eventually understood that it wasn’t something our government should be trusted to establish or enforce. Likewise Churchill.

    We have posted here many times that a hallmark of the American Conservative movement is that we can recognize when an idea or an ideal becomes unworkable and needs to be altered, modified or discarded. We pride ourselves on not following slavishly some high-minded sounding platform from which the best of intentions are launched only to have them crash and burn each and every time; we don’t follow what William F. Buckley wrote down simply because it makes us feel as though we are strict adherents to our conservative philosophy. Some things work, we repeat them. Some things don’t-understand why they didn’t, reapply our principles, see if we are still in sync with them and try again, only this time with something different.

    This, among many other reasons is why a redistribution of assets is and always was a very bad idea.

    To vilify the wealthy because they have and you don’t is to vilify human nature in all its faults and glory. A challenging of the wealth of others based solely on a perspective that what they produce you don’t want or need would make Marx/Engels proud and validate their idea that every person on earth has the same value, the same worth, makes the same contribution and takes the same reward. Even Plato recognized the folly in this.

    To vilify the Ruling Class on the basis that you didn’t vote for them, or you didn’t buy their “worthless crap” is symptomatic of an internally driven ideology that preaches that the spoils of labor are only deserved if that labor is directed in a manner of which YOU ALONE approve. A luxury automobile may be worthless crap to you, but it is a want/desire to me, causes me to work harder, save more and consider carefully my purchasing decisions. Making money by running a financial institution that sells insurance may be manipulating the financial system to you, but the insurance companies were the ones providing the capital to the entrepreneurs that designed the device that saved the life of my friend yesterday.

    Disincentives to wealth accumulation are disincentives to progress. Take that which was not earned by you, no matter how noble-sounding the motives, is theft. Destroy all civilization because it impedes one family from raising children in a manner which only they are allowed to decide is worthwhile is barbaric.

      • Amazona May 24, 2013 / 10:48 pm

        Well, I do have my degree from the Department of Redundancy Department.

        And I do post on a blog where at least one of my goals (until I realized the futility of the exercise) was to get through to Libs.

        But I have been cowed by the volume of verbiage of a couple of the Lefties who once infested this blog.

    • M. Noonan May 24, 2013 / 3:12 pm

      Count,

      I see your point – but I do, these days, vilify the rich and the Ruling Class – because these days, especially, the rich and the Ruling Class are out to get me. The have been ever since Big Government Progressives partnered up with Big Corporation Progressives in order to make a political and economic system which is designed to prevent the great mass of the people from owning sufficient property to support themselves.

      They say the family farm – whereon more than half of us worked just 100 years ago – died because they grew too much food; as if having a lot of food would make life miserable. I say it died because of the financial system created stress which made it increasingly difficult for people to work their own land and support themselves, so they were shoved in to the cities to work in either factories or corporate offices…and their children were not educated to be mechanics or plumbers (who could at least support themselves, if no longer by farming) but as “liberal arts” majors who’s only possible employment was in the corporate or government bureaucracies…where they can live in their suburban, mortgaged and property-taxed home (which works out to having two usurious landlords – the government and the bank) and, these days, get a reverse-mortgage in old age which ensures that even that pathetic, property-taxed house doesn’t go to their kids.

      I’m Distributist – and thus both anti-Capitalist and anti-Socialist…and doubly thus anti-Ruling Class – because I want the majority, at least, of my fellow Americans to be in a situation where they can support themselves without let or hindrance from Big Corporation or Big Government. I want more than half of us, that is, to be farmers, ranchers, miners, manufacturers, small retailers, independent contractors, etc. Only by having it so will we remain free – we keep going along like this and we’ll just find more and more of us either chained to desks in a call center or living on welfare while the super rich remain just that – super rich (and completely in charge). A complete revolution is required – Goldman Sachs and the Federal Reserve have to go…and if this means that George Soros and Warren Buffet are despoiled because their fake-money, usurious investments are rated as worthless as we return to gold-backed currency, then that is just what will have to be.

      • pelirrojito May 25, 2013 / 12:09 am

        Mark, I’ve always been curious about this concept of yours. From what I understand you want us to return to an age where the majority would effectively be blue collar workers again (based on previous posts, ie you seem to think programmers produce nothing).

        And I’m curious, would you want to see doctors, teachers, university professors, researchers (basic science and private), engineers (not laboureres, engineers that design things like electrical systems, buildings), lawyers, marketers, salesmen etc devalued? Would your system consider these people as worth less (in market terms, not in terms of people) as say a farmer or a builder?

        If so how would this improve the quality of life for the average person?

      • Amazona May 25, 2013 / 9:46 am

        Red, the “majority” already ARE “blue-collar workers”.

        Who do you think pays the doctors, lawyers, professors, etc?

        This is a problem with the Left—the lack of understanding of economics. Money does not flow down from government, or from the white collar element of the nation. Rather, money flows up to these areas from what you dismiss as mere “blue-collar workers”.

        Take food, for example. Until you get to the higher administrative levels of large supermarkets, your food is exclusively the province of the blue collar worker—-the farm owner, the laborer who plants and tends the crop, the laborer who harvests the crop and sends it to the processor, the laborer who works where it is processed, the packager, the transporter, the workers who have made the boxes the food is shipped in and the equipment used to plant, harvest and process it, the people who unpack it and stock the shelves, and the people who take your money when you buy it. The same kind of chain exists for meat products.

        The same kind of chain exists for everything you use—your house, your car, your clothing, your electronics, even your entertainment.

        And the wages of all these little people you never see and obviously never think about is what pays those highly educated white collar workers you fret about.

      • pelirrojito May 26, 2013 / 12:24 am

        Amazona, seems you’re correct although only just (seems the average is about 40% white collar)

        http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/blue-and-white-collar-workers/

        Of course the hope of most sane people is that we will develop technology that will make production more efficent, and thus require less people to work on farms etc. For instance self check outs now mean that we dont need as many people working in a supermarket. My point to mark, which I tried to get at a while back when I asked why life was better in the 1600’s, was that while he may see some points that are better in a world where everyone lives on the family farm its actually not better. Shorter lifespans, longer hours, harder work.

        Another aspect that would worry me is that if the majority had family farms, then we would return to a world where children would be working on the farm at 10 instead of going to school.

        And please don’t make assumptions about people. You don’t know me. For instance you don’t know i spent 5 years working in a packing plant for 50 – 60 hours a week. And no these people don’t “pay the wages of the others”, anyone with a job pays the wages of those they buy from.

        If you’re going to address me again do not make any assumptions about my personal life, about what i think unless I have written it, and write it in a manner in which you would write to a peer. Otherwise you are not worth responding to.

      • M. Noonan May 26, 2013 / 1:12 am

        Pel,

        Let me think about this – what would I prefer? A kid working on a farm at 10, or learning that Heather has two mommies and the Founders were racists? I’ll ponder that a bit and get back to you with my answer.

        It wasn’t 1600 when we last had a Distributist society – it was 1925. Less than 100 years ago. You might be thinking that since we have atomic bombs and Ipads these days that there has been vast changes since 1925 – but I point out that there hasn’t been much technological change since then. That, indeed, the rapid drying up of technological advance over the past 100 years is directly traceable to the end of a society in which most people worked at least somewhat for themselves. Everything you can name today was either existing in 1925 or on the drawing boards – including atomic bombs and computers. We’ve refined and added a few cool aps, but we haven’t advanced…and we will continue to decline in vitality unless and until we return to a Distributist way of living. For crying out loud, it was 40 years ago when we could fly to the Moon – now, we can’t; heck, we don’t even have a manned space flight (and all of the ways and means of going to the Moon were worked out in theory by 1950; 63 years ago…when about 40% of us were still in Distributism). We went from a rickety kite with an engine to super-sonic jets over a 45 year period…and we’ve gone from super-sonic jets to…super-sonic jets in the subsequent 65 years…

        You seem to be thinking that we can’t have advancement except in the sort of society we have today – I assert that you aren’t advancing; that you are barely treading water at the moment and are on the cusp of starting to slide back in to a new Dark Age. Societies of free men and women who look after themselves advance…servile societies stagnate and start to die. If you think having Angry Birds on your smart phone is as big a change as advancing from Sail to Steam over a 30 year period then I don’t know what to make of you.

      • pelirrojito May 26, 2013 / 2:01 am

        Mark,

        You seem to have this backwards. I don’t consider cool little toys to be advancement. To me and most of the scientific community advancements come in very small increments. A study here, an experiment there, with the occasional big advancement. And advancements are not always applicable at the time of discovery. More importantly no we could not make many advancements in what you describe. We need very large organizations in order to do so. For example, in order to develop new processors we need companies as large as Intel (by the way sorry if most of my examples come from the computing field, but it is my field). We need super computers in order to do a lot of simulation, which obviously cost a huge amount. We need large labs in order to do experiments and most importantly, we need large universities in order to do research. That last one may not seem obvious but each professor has their own little niche field that they work in and as a general rule work with others when they do research. That and the fact that masters and phd students do a lot of leg work when it comes to research.

        I do want to comment on the examples you mentioned though. But mostly on computers. To you they’re the same thing as they always have been. To me, they have increased the number of transistors that they can fit into the same region by millions upon millions. With current processors having over 1 billion transistors and having multiple cores. This is no trivial thing, its not something a small company could do and by no means is it something someone in their garage could ever achieve.

        We have also cured god knows how many diseases, we are well on our way to having GE food (that’s a good thing), and we are developing the technology to go to Mars (which will become important as the population explodes).

        As for education, you’re taking small examples that are obviously bad and not looking at the overall effect of education. I will be shocking here and agree with you. Some education is pointless. On the other hand, explain this situation to me. Lets assume that we have a family of 10 living on their 100 acres. I will assume (correct me if I’m wrong) that you would be ok with the kids working as they used to. Now one of the kids discovers maths somehow (not algebra, real maths). Now this kid decides that he would like to study maths, and perhaps do research in maths someday as a career. How would this happen?

      • J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) May 26, 2013 / 8:16 am

        If you’re going to address me again do not make any assumptions about my personal life, about what i think unless I have written it, and write it in a manner in which you would write to a peer. Otherwise you are not worth responding to.

        A little thin-skinned there aren’t you, Pel. Amazona made no assumptions about you whatsoever, other than the last sentence:

        And the wages of all these little people you never see and obviously never think about is what pays those highly educated white collar workers you fret about.

        And given the questions you asked in your original post, hers was not an unreasonable assumption.

      • Amazona May 26, 2013 / 10:20 am

        Really, red, take a breath and calm yourself. You seem intent on taking umbrage at whatever you can nit-pick out of a civil response.

        You are either not American or are one of those poseurs who love to try to give the impression they are not, putting a “u” in words like “labor” and an “s” on “math”, so I don’t know if you are familiar with the “If it walks like a duck…” theory. That is, if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, there’s a pretty good chance it’s a duck.

        So, given what you yourself say in your very own posts, it is no stretch to believe you are a Leftist. Even in your latest, you spout Leftist hysteria about “exploding” population.

        So put a cool cloth on your forehead, do some deep breathing, and follow along while I agree with much of what you say to Mark.

        Mark, I do understand the attraction of the kind of life you promote as the salvation of the United States. It’s just that I don’t agree, for far too many reasons to go into here. One is that your vision is highly romanticized. One is that it is simply not possible.

        You refer to being “self sustaining” but this, in today’s world, would be quite difficult if not impossible, unless the family in question happened to be pretty wealthy going into the process. I wonder how far you have taken your analysis.

        Let’s say that you would not expect this newly rural family to also go back to plowing and harvesting with horses and oxen instead of modern machinery. Leaving aside the fact that an awful lot of people would have to work for others to manufacture that machinery, or to process the materials needed to make that machinery, or to provide the fuel for that machinery, there is the cost of the machinery to the end user—your rural family. I think you will be surprised at the cost of going into farming or ranching. Equipment to cut and bale hay will run you about $200,000 to half a million, easy. Cows are about $1000 each, and you would need a lot of cows and a LOT of land to graze those cows and also raise enough hay to feed them through a winter.

        Maybe you are thinking of farming, growing food and having a milk cow and butchering a couple of steers and pigs and maybe a sheep or two to feed this family you envision. This can be done. My cousins did this, when I was young, and I spent summers with them as unpaid labor, gathering eggs and picking vegetables for canning. We also grew sugar beets for sale, sold eggs and milk, and they got by.

        Barely. But gas was a few cents a gallon, diesel was cheaper, they had an antenna on the roof for TV, they drove old beat-up cars, and they were not exactly the Waltons.

        Much of this forest land you envision parceling out to new farmers and ranchers is high altitude, rugged land, not suitable for farming and—-and this is quite important—-not even habitable during the winter.

        The idea of a group of people voluntarily working together in harmony to protect the environment reminds me of other social engineers with lofty dreams of the joys and benefits of agricultural life. If I remember correctly, this was part of the USSR and even the Pol Pot regime, getting people “back on the land”.

        Get 100 people each owning 1000 acres of what was previously high mountain forest and sit back and watch the squabbling, as some sell off small parcels for summer homes, some clear-cut without a thought to the future growth necessary for good management, some refuse to cut and expose their neighbors to increased fire and parasite danger, etc.

        Not to mention the ecological disruption of populating areas now home to so much wildlife, or the destruction or at least alteration of vital watersheds.

        But to me the biggest flaw in your utopia is that the rest of the world would have to go along with it and adopt the same way of living, or we would be increasingly vulnerable to more and more technological advances in warfare from even backwater nations like North Korea while we are playing Little House On The Prairie.

        I am also a little concerned about your comment that the reason some would not WANT to live this way is because they are weak or cowardly—that they lack “grit”.

        You also posit only one reason for people leaving the farm, but there are many, including the desire to get away from the grind of something like having to milk cows every single morning and every single night no matter how sick you are, how cold it is, or how badly you need a day off. You need to understand—farming is hard, dangerous, and demanding. There are no days off. Some people just don’t like farming. Some people actually prefer city life.

        And that is what freedom is—the ability to choose what kind of life we want to live. I do think that many would farm if they could, which is why I would alter the tax structure to make it less desirable for the very wealthy to collect large numbers of acres for tax purposes and keep that land out of the market for the small farmer, and why I would protect family farms from things like the death tax.

        I see freedom as allowing people to do what they want, not telling them what they should want.

      • pelirrojito May 26, 2013 / 11:21 am

        Amazona, oddly I agree with most of what you just wrote, and is the point I’ve been trying to get across. Though I’ve been trying to do it by getting Mark to explain what exactly was better back when the world was as he seems to want it.

        As for where I’m from, I’m from New Zealand and if Mark feels that means I shouldn’t comment here then he’s welcome to ask me not to and I wont.

        As for my spelling, we use british spelling and I don’t even consider it twice. In the same way you would never see me using imperial measurements.

        My problem with your posts is that you do, intentionally or not, make assumptions about people. The last time you replied to one of my posts you made the assumption chavez was my hero, after I had said several times that he wasn’t.

      • pelirrojito May 26, 2013 / 11:23 am

        Oh and yes, I am heavily to the left. I don’t deny that and it most likely comes from coming from a country that you might call socialist.

      • pelirrojito May 26, 2013 / 11:34 am

        Amazona, I actually see an additional 2 problems with Marks plan.

        The first is in the case that it actually produces more food than we currently produce (I doubt that as small farms generally don’t work, largeish organizations are more efficent). Food would drop in price yes, but people will not consume more simply because more is produced. Thus we have wasted labour.

        The second is a solution and a curse to the first and one that I see in my own country. What do you do once you have too much produce? you find a new market which means exporting. Exported food tends to be worth a lot more than it is on the domestic market. This results in 2 problems. First companies are willing to throw away good food because it doesn’t reach the standard demanded by those that you are exporting to (I’ve seen this first hand). The other problem is that eventually those exporting the food will demand the export prices for the domestic market, which ends up driving up prices.

      • Amazona May 26, 2013 / 2:32 pm

        Red, you say “Oh and yes, I am heavily to the left. I don’t deny that and it most likely comes from coming from a country that you might call socialist.”

        Thank you for your candid reply. I appreciate your honesty.

        I am not familiar with New Zealand politics. I know what the definition of “left” is but don’t know what you know about our Constitution, or the definition of “right” as it applies to 21st Century American Conservatism.

        Most simply, it is that our nation, the United States, is best governed by our Constitution, which was carefully crafted to impose severe restrictions upon the size, scope and power of our federal government, leaving most government to the states or local entities.

        This is in contrast to the Leftist approach of large and powerful central government which can, and does, play a significant role in every aspect of life in the country, and which involves redistribution of wealth.

        As you have been honest here, will you please explain why you feel that the Leftist model is the best way to govern New Zealand and if you feel that it would be the best model for governing the United States, and why.

        I don’t know how far to the Left New Zealand is, but I have studied other nations which have implemented Leftist political and economic models and which have never, so far as I have seen, been successful when these models were fully implemented. I compare these with the wildly successful American model, which in a little more than a century produced a nation which leapfrogged over every established civilization in the world to lead in science, industry, economics, standard of living, and personal liberty.

        My position as a Constitutional Conservative in the United States is based upon analysis of the opposite of our Constitutional model, that of expansive central control and redistribution of wealth, and I am comfortable defending it. I have yet to see a Liberal define or defend his or her Leftist preference from a POLITICAL, not “issues”, perspective, and I am hoping you will be the first.

      • Amazona May 26, 2013 / 2:50 pm

        Red, of course you use your native spelling,etc. It’s just that we have been infested,at times, with dishonest people who for some reason seemed to think that posting as foreigners would give them credibility, and I was curious about you.

        I used to spend time in the UK and still use, without thinking, Briticisms. The other day in a meeting I referred to a confusing and convoluted document as a “dog’s dinner” which took people by surprise, and other British sayings pop into my vocabulary—not to try to impress anyone, or to be misleading, but because they got lodged in my brain and that’s what comes out.

        I doubt that any farm of 100 acres or less, which is what Mark is advocating, will ever produce more than it will need, unless it produces a lot of only one kind of crop which is then sold or traded to others with different crops.

        In a free market system, as inventory goes up, prices go down, and then capitalists have the freedom to continue production at a lower profit margin or change to something that is less available and therefore more expensive, with a higher profit. In other words, without government subsidies to keep prices artificially high, when there is a surplus of a crop the prices go down, and then a farmer evaluates why there is a surplus—-more people producing that crop, unusually favorable growing conditions that are not likely to occur again, etc—and makes the decision to stay with that crop or change to one with less competition in the marketplace.

        It is this constant fluctuation in profit that makes some people unsuited for farming, in addition to the labor, the hours, the dangers, etc. But usually an ongoing surplus can be traced back to government intervention in the market.

      • Retired Spook May 26, 2013 / 7:18 pm

        Oh and yes, I am heavily to the left. I don’t deny that and it most likely comes from coming from a country that you might call socialist.

        Red, back in the mid to late 80’s New Zealand instituted some
        pretty significant reforms. From what you say, it sounds like the pendulum has shifted back the other way. Can you explain why?

      • pelirrojito May 26, 2013 / 8:02 pm

        Amazona,

        The reason no one has answered your question is because its impossible. You haven’t really answered your own question. You give a 3 line answer and claim its complete. But in order to develop a political model you first have to consider what end results you want, and what the practical ways of getting there are. Thats exactly what Mark has done, and his vision is interesting, wrong but interesting.

        I guess I need to explain a little about my country. We are heavily based on farming for the moment, although thats slowly changing. As a result a good majority (moreso in the south) work in factories, packhouses, meat processing etc. We are also a highly athiest country. And we have a mindset that no one should go without the basic things that they need. For example here its common to go on an unemployment benefit when you are unemployed, as well as for students to do the same and no one feels ashamed to do so unless of course they’ve been doing so for year after year. We have a very different kind of healthcare system to the US. Here the government owns most of the hospitals, and we don’t usually have any kind of insurance. To us thats completely normal and anyone that tries to attack such a system will never get anywhere in politics. I guess another major factor is the size of the country. Our population is 4 million over a large stretch of land. And we find it easier to hold our government accountable for its actions.

        Something else is that we don’t have a consitution. We’re still not a republic. The only reason being is that it would cost millions, possibly over a billion, and theres no practical reason to do so at the moment since the british don’t have a lot to do with us anymore.

        Now the reason that I say this system works well is that I have never seen anyone begging on the streets. There are of course homeless people though usually through drugs etc. By age 30 most people here have bought their first house and are supporting a family. While we all have horror stories of our healthcare system, its on par with most other countries. And our education system is ranked one of the highest. We also have all the freedom anyone could ask for.

        As far as farms of 100 acres or less, thats something we agree on. Its simply not possible to produce enough. I see it on a regular basis. Here the average farmer has 400 acres (more if its rough terrian, sometimes as much as 1000) and they only produce enough to get by. This is fine until a heavy snowfall hits and they suddenly need money for hay which they did not have the land to grow in surplus for themselves. And I stand by my statement that large organizations are far more efficentant than small. Of course you can get too large to manage, but there is an optimal size.

      • pelirrojito May 26, 2013 / 8:26 pm

        Spook, its shifting lately yes, but it wont last.

        We have this weird habit of saying “we need change!” for the sake of saying it. And after 9 years of having labour in power (they reduced student loan interest to 0%, they legalized civil unions, and now we have gay marriage, etc) people decided to go with national. They’re now learning that was a mistake and hopefully labour will be back.

        The reforms in the article are mostly practical issues that are always needed. Cut the fat, make sure the money goes to where its needed. We also have a habit of taxing people based on what the money is needed for. For example you pay your road taxes in your petrol and smokers pay taxes on tobacoo because of the increased healthcosts. Subsidies is something that I hate and want to see them removed from farms. Every 2 or 3 years I hear farmers crying that they need money to save their lambs. Well I’m sorry but its a business, you either manage or you don’t. (additionally I would charge them with animal cruelty if they dont have shelter for them and leave them to die in the cold).

        From what I understand about how schools are funded, the article is correct. They get money directly based on how large the school is. And of course we don’t limit what schools students can go to. Personally i went to a school about 5km from my house rather than the one 1km away. That said they have to do as the government says with the money they get, for example they can’t teach creationism in schools or decide they’re not going to teach some area of maths. You will also notice it says that students don’t run to the private schools. Simply because the public schools are on par with the private. You might want to look up our performance rate.

        Another issue it discusses is regulations. Our country is full of reglulations. some of which make almost no sense to an outsider. For example you can’t cut down a rimu tree on your own property (due to them taking a few hundread years to grow), we are heavily limited in how much fish we can take, safety inspections are a fairly common occurance in the workplace.

        As for selling off telecommuniations they are wrong. Same applies to the power companies. They should never have been sold. Power companies now increase the price yearly, claiming they need the additional income to repair the national grid while they ask the government for the money to do so. Our telecommunications is one of the worst in the world. From the way I understand it, all other phone companies have to rent their lines off telecom and infact a couple of years ago the government had to step in to try to break the monopoly a little.

      • Amazona May 26, 2013 / 9:02 pm

        Red, there IS an answer, and mine does make sense. The problem here is one of context. You simply lack the context of our Constitution on which to base a response, because all you have ever known is an infinitely expansive central government which sees its role as one of taking care of its citizens. With this as a background, you can’t possibly understand the choice Americans are supposed to be making.

        We are a nation founded for the express purpose of avoiding large, powerful, centralized government. Our Founders were quite clear in this. We rebelled, quite dramatically, against the kind of monarchal government New Zealand found acceptable, so of course you can’t understand the foundational philosophy of the United States.

        You give the same answer that all the Lefties do—-that first you must decide what you want government to accomplish and then you can pick and choose among myriad governmental choices. I suggest that this is not the correct view.

        In this country, at least, our choices boil down to (1) the Constitutional model of a federal government severely restricted as to size, scope and power by the 17 enumerated duties delegated to the federal government and the 10th Amendment which says that if something is not delegated to the feds, it is forbidden to the feds, and (2) a federal government unrestricted regarding growth and expansion of power and authority. This is the framework within which we are supposed to work. It is not complicated.

        We can have intrusive government, but it has to be at the state or local level. We can make laws regarding gay unions, abortion, welfare and other things which are not already covered in our Constitution or its Amendments—as long as those remain in the arena of state or local governments.

        That is, if we follow our Constitution.

        What has happened here is that the Left, in its constant search for power and authority over others, has been quite successful in convincing many people that the purpose of our government—no matter what the Constitution says, no matter how detailed the supporting contemporaneous writings of the Founders make clear what it means—is to function as mommy, daddy, nanny and nursemaid, to discern and solve the problems people face.

        So here, in 21st Century American politics, the choice CAN be narrowed down to three lines, or even less. It is between the Constitutional model and the Leftist model. It is between restricted federal power and authority and infinitely expanding federal power and authority. That is the choice that has to be made before getting bogged down in this issue or that agenda. It is the foundation of our government, and what you are talking about is the color of the paint and the pattern of the curtains.

        Another problem is that the Left does not want to amend the Constitution, but merely to ignore it.

        You say “But in order to develop a political model you first have to consider what end results you want, and what the practical ways of getting there are.”

        That might be true if one were trying, as you say, to DEVELOP a political model. But that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about understanding and analyzing two very well-developed, existing, political models and then choosing between them, hopefully based on objective analysis of their histories of success and/or failure. And your comment is based upon the unquestioned belief that a government should have the power and authority to achieve whatever goal is set (“… the practical ways of getting there…”) while the Constitutional model simply provides a basic umbrella of protection BY the government, as outlined in its enumerated duties, and FROM the government as laid out in the Bill of Rights, after which people can choose whatever they want to do.

        You point out ” Thats exactly what Mark has done, and his vision is interesting, wrong but interesting.” What you are missing is that underneath Mark’s vision lies one of the two opposing models I am talking about—–the one that says the government has the right to determine what is “best” for the people and then pushing them in that direction through the use of government power and authority. That, sadly, is the antithesis of the Constitutional model.

        .

      • Amazona May 26, 2013 / 9:15 pm

        Red, instead of a sweeping and generic statement that “They’re now learning that was a mistake and hopefully labour will be back…. ” regarding the shift away from the Labour Party, I would be interested to see what you think of what the linked article actually says. It is very specific, so it should be easy to address its points.

        I will say, regarding its comments on sheep farming, I never liked New Zealand lamb and mutton, but now I love it. I never knew why it had changed, but this speech quoted in the link explains it. It also contradicts your statement about sheep subsidies.

      • M. Noonan May 26, 2013 / 10:20 pm

        If the only way I’m wrong is because what I propose is difficult, then I figure I’ve won – and so far the only objections I’ve heard are that its difficult.

        But, come what may, a Distributist society will come – either we’ll voluntarily do it, or the collapse of our civilization will require it. I win, no matter what.

      • Retired Spook May 27, 2013 / 7:48 am

        We have this weird habit of saying “we need change!” for the sake of saying it.

        Boy does that sound familiar. American Progressives call it “progress”, but, most of the time it’s just new generation of people thinking they can make something work that has never worked before because they’re (fill in the blank — smarter, better, more altruistic., etc.) And, unfortunately, they keep trying over and over and over and over………

        Bottom line, though, I doubt that what works for a diverse population of 320 million would necessarily work for an isolated country with a homogenous population half the size of NCY. And, of course, that assumes that what we’re doing is working, and there is significant debate over that.

      • tiredoflibbs May 28, 2013 / 11:57 am

        “we’re on the verge of a big advancement out of sheer necessity.”
        Reminds of the saying: “Necessity is the mother of all invention”.
        Out of necessity and not government mandate steered by ideology or agenda – CAFE standards and 0bAMATEUR’s “green energy” fiasco.

      • pelirrojito May 28, 2013 / 12:12 pm

        Tiredoflibbs, thats not really true. Remember where the first computer came from? (hint, government).

        Mark, lets try defining some terms. What is advancement to you? is it something impressive that you can see? ie bigger planes, faster planes, etc or is it increasing our knowledge?

        From the examples you give I could imagine you in a world where we had a ship that could travel at the speed of light and 100 years later youd ask “well why havent we gotten any faster ships yet?”

        As was just pointed out computers have hit their limits, and the only advances we’ve made in recent times are more cores. But that said soonish we will hopefully have the first large scale quantum computers. Of course to you they will look like big (and expensive) toys.

        And could you provide some kind of evidence that computers were on the drawing board in 1925? From my memory turing came up with the turing machine, which was much later.

        Now lets pretend there havent been any advances in say 50 years. And lets take space flight as a prime example. How would people in your ideal world develop the technology faster than we currently do?

        Also no one has said that they don’t like your world because its too hard. We’re saying its not possible and wouldn’t improve life for the great majority. If you have any evidence at all that it would, please present it.

      • M. Noonan May 28, 2013 / 12:40 pm

        Pel,

        With computers all you’re really talking of is making a faster calculator. Computers can only do what we tell them to do – and if we’re not telling them anything new, then nothing new will be done by them. For goodness sakes, just think of 2001: A Space Odyssey – that came out in 1968 and there was nothing in it which was beyond the realm of easy accomplishment by 2001. All that was shown in that film was doable – but we didn’t do it. Still haven’t done it. Have no plans to actually do it. Its 2013 and we’re thinking that maybe we might take a Mars trip in 10 or 20 years. We had advanced so fast – from that rickety kite with a motor to Moon-capable space ships that 2001 was “well, yeah, of course”…but now its rapidly receding to the realm of the impossible. You need to see things as they are and not get distracted just because your computer adds faster and has more memory than it did before…that doesn’t do anything. We went to the Moon with very slow computers and slide-rules…because the human mind was still advancing…now you’ve got much better computers, and the human mind is not advancing, at all.

        To advance your first requirement is to adhere to truth. Secondly, to be willing to do the hard, difficult work of advancement. If you’re living in a world where there is no absolute truth and where hard work is something illegal immigrants do why you fuss around with worthless, new aps for your latest bit of I-crap, then you’re not getting anywhere.

      • pelirrojito May 28, 2013 / 1:07 pm

        mark, you still haven’t answered my questions and this conversation can’t really go anywhere until you do.

        How do you define advancement? This is important to define.
        And can you point to any evidence that things like computers (in particular, im curious what you’re refering to since I have a feeling i know what) were on the drawing board in 1925?

        And no, nothing in that movie was possible in 2001. And not possible today, theres still several problems to solve. For one we need to recycle everything we consume. And yes, we got to the moon, a very easy task. Getting to Mars is much much harder.

      • M. Noonan May 28, 2013 / 1:55 pm

        Pel,

        No, we don’t go to the Moon. We don’t have the craft; low Earth orbit is the best any nation on earth can achieve, and we don’t even have that capability at the moment in a manned program. My point is that if we were advancing, then what as Sci-Fi in 1968 would have been reality in 2001 – it was already all doable; all we had to do is develope the technology to make it happen. We haven’t done it. Remember – rickety kite with motor to supersonic jet in 45 years. 45 years ago it was 1968…in that time, don’t you think we should have gone from Moon craft to Mars and beyond, by now? Rickety kite to supersonic…Moon craft to…nothing.

        And that is just one example. I could go through hundreds. At best, we’re just treading water and re-covering ground already explored. Not just in space flight, but in all sorts of things. Why don’t we have a network of high speed trains? For you liberals, its because the government hasn’t built them – for rational people, its because there is no need to move things across the United States at high speed…because we’re not making, mining and growing the things the world needs – we’re not even making, mining and growing the things we need. No need for great speed if all we’re doing is moving cheap, Chinese garbage consumer goods so that fools can buy them with credit cards…that can take a few weeks. But if we were making high quality goods that we and the world need, then we’d want to get them to market very, very fast…and there would be an economic rationale for building ever faster transportation systems. Now, all we’ve got is California planning on building a high speed rail from Los Angeles to Sacramento so that government bureaucrats can, if they don’t want to fly, take a train between home and capital city. Worthless. Regressive. A step backwards.

        Ships – most of the world’s goods still travel by ship. Between 1941 and 1945 the United States built 2,710 Liberty Ships. Do you think we could build that many ships in four years these days? We’ve only got 348 US registered merchant ships. China has 1,806. There are more than 30,000 merchant ships plying the ocean trade routes – why is the nation which once upon a time 2,700 ships in four years so poorly represented on the high seas? If we were advancing – as we were going in to WWII – then we would have taken our skill and capacity in 1945 and continued to expand on it – building ships that were larger, faster, more fuel efficient than anyone else and maintaining absolute dominance in ocean-going trade with all of its follow-on effects on jobs and wealth creation in the United States. We didn’t. We declined.

        And so it goes over and over and over again…you liberals think you’re on the cusp of a Brave, New World when you’re on the brink of a new Dark Age.

      • tiredoflibbs May 28, 2013 / 6:21 pm

        “Tiredoflibbs, thats not really true. Remember where the first computer came from? (hint, government).”

        Uh, obviously you do not. (Hint: private individuals).

      • pelirrojito May 29, 2013 / 1:34 am

        tiredoflibbs, want to prove that with something?

      • tiredoflibbs May 29, 2013 / 12:17 pm

        peli: “tiredoflibbs, want to prove that with something?”

        Uh, you didn’t with your pathetic rebuttal. I am not going to hold your hand and do a oh so simple search for you. That is the problem with you lefties. Either you are too lazy to do the work yourselves or you are scared of the truth.

    • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) May 24, 2013 / 4:41 pm

      Mark,
      As my Ethic teacher used to say, I hear what you’re saying. I’ve followed your argument close enough these past few years to know you are committed to this idea and would not attempt to talk you out or even convince you of its (imo0 folly. Therefore, the texts on both of our posts are for consumption by other readers, ce n’est pas?

      The difficulty in your distributist is its incompatibility with the Constitution, and the moral objection to confiscation of wealth under any circumstances. When you write “big corporations” you immediately bring to the discussion, how big is too big? Many companies are bigger than corporations, and many partnerships are bigger still. If your argument becomes “big business as opposed to corporations, again the question is how big and who decides?

      The answer is to withdraw into communal or a subsidiarity entity. But how to decide the limits? How big a business is permitted to grow, and what or how much service it then is allowed to provide. This requires a commitiat (комитет) of apparatchiks which would, by definition put a larger more centralized government in charge of controlling the size and scope of each entity; a self-defeating philosophy. No person or group can be charged with deciding how small a business shall be to ensure sufficient competition to allow for a greater number of equally small businesses to operate. I’d like that job, btw, I could become rich with all the corruption and kick-backs that are sure to follow.

      The “fake money” investors would also have to be subject to the very constrained control of the apparatchiks to whom wisdom is granted to determine what investment is worthwhile and what is nefarious, or is antipathy to the Supreme Soviet and is counter-revolutionary. The assumption here is that any investment is allowable by the autonomous collective. Assuming you set up an anarcho-syndicalist commune, in which you take it in turns to be a sort of executive officer for the week, but all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs but by a two thirds majority in the case of …

      King Arthur: Be QUIET, I ORDER you to be quiet!

      In any event; I’ll not give up what I’ve earned to be redistributed to some desk-bound hotel reservations clerk dreaming of being a gentleman farmer and can’t imagine anyone who would.

      • neocon01 May 24, 2013 / 4:53 pm

        me neither

      • M. Noonan May 24, 2013 / 6:19 pm

        Count,

        It wouldn’t require confiscation – and you’ll certainly never get me agreeing to have someone decide what property is to be confiscated and how it is to be distributed. But if we do the following:

        1. Return to sound money.

        2. Abolish the Federal Reserve.

        3. Sell off all Federal lands which are not in national parks. There are 2.27 billion acres of federal lands – probably nearly 2 billion of these acres are not in national parks and probably a billion of them can be used for housing, farming, ranching, mining, etc – that works out to about 3 acres per man, woman and child in the United States…or, enough land to turn at least half of us in to landowners in short order.

        4. Prohibit, by Amendment, the licensing of businesses by States and localities (ie, you want to go in to business? You go. No one can tell you “no”, nor can they make you jump through expensive hoops).

        5. Prohibit, by Amendment, the taxation of property which is either a primary residence or an individually or family owned for-profit enterprise.

        6. Prohibit the application of federal regulations to any business employing less than 500 people.

        Do that, and you clear the field for people to be sure their money won’t lose value so that long-term investments become the norm; make it so that the Federal Reserve is not able to keep alive “zombie banks” on the taxpayer’s dime; make property owners of many, many millions of Americans who currently own no property; make it so that the enterprising can start business as they see fit; ensure that individuals and families own their property once and for all and thus never have to worry about losing it to government; ensure that these new, individually and family owned businesses are never burdened with regulations designed mostly by social engineers in connivance with large corporations to limit the activities of small businesses.

        That, in a nutshell, is the Distributist State – the widest possible distribution of property in the hands of the people which both ensures conservatism (small property owners are ALWAYS conservative politically) and the wealth and happiness of the people (small property owners may have to work very hard, but they are always happier than people drudging away in bureaucracies or living on the dole).

        Now, what stands in the way of this? The Ruling Class – a set of rich, privileged elites who infest our corporations and bureaucracies and who steadily work to ensure that things stay as they are…that fake money and debt rule the economy while wealth creation is hamstrung at 10,000 different points, lest regular folks create wealth and thus slip out of the control of the Ruling Class. It all has to go – but it will go naturally, if we rise up and insist upon the few reforms I’ve suggested…and if we don’t rise up and do these reforms, we’ll find ourselves increasingly servile to the Ruling Class…the future 100 years from now has our descendents living in government-owned apartment complexes, on the dole and assigned to work at the Ruling Class decrees…while they live in gated, guarded communities.

      • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) May 24, 2013 / 7:16 pm

        A quick answer, not that I didn’t think this through but I’m heading out of town for my 3-day soon.

        You may not think your distributist nirvana is just another communist/socialist/societal engineering/utopian collectivist state of being, but to me it is.

        That said,

        #1 Agreed!

        #2 Agreed!

        #3 Not so much. Federal lands within the States must have a justification, a Constitutional justification otherwise they’re returned to the States for their disposal. In any event, previously confiscated property to be sold to the highest bidder is a recipe for disaster. To whom do the ill-gotten gains revert?

        #4 I don’t agree at all. To regulate a thing is to control its behavior and influence. Localities have the right and the responsibility to determine what enterprises operate and what latitude those enterprises have within the community. Strip clubs, pharmacies, pet hospitals, private airports, nail salons and carwashes are all examples of businesses that need local control. A system of licensing and permitting at the state and local level insures that community standards are met, public safety is adhered and consumers are protected. Additionally, if businesses want to operate within a geographic area, then the locality has a right to decide how much that business should pay to that locality for that privilege.

        #5 I don’t agree at all; simply putting a bed and a kitchenette in my Porn Shop shouldn’t qualify it as a tax-free zone.

        #6 I don’t agree at all; why 500? Why not 5? Or 5,000 or 500,000? Who decided that 499 is Laissez-faire and 501 is corporate fascism?

        Some prefer to live their life of quiet desperation as a drone of the State. Why, I myself enjoy my place in the giant machine of military-industrial complex. While my wife hates her life as a legal functionary she wouldn’t trade her role as a functionary for all the opportunity to be a gentleman farmer or tradesman or welder your communal society might have to offer. You’ll never convince me that dividing up the resources of this great nation among the great unwashed is a system desirable. I don’t see my betters as preventing me from creating wealth, only as expecting me to produce something of value to someone before I join their elite society. But the ruling Class actually wants me to join the, they’re not trying to prevent my successes, they’re encouraging them.

        And they let me in their gated communities anytime I ask, and bring offerings like that peasant soup i made last weekend.

        They wanted real peasants in the recipe next time.

        Gotta run now; we’ll continue this another time.

        Thanks, and thanks for getting rid of the vermin that would have derailed this conversation before we could actually have it.

      • M. Noonan May 24, 2013 / 11:18 pm

        Count,

        Have a great weekend – and we will get back to this, as its been a worthwhile conversation. I’ll only point out two things:

        1. You have to pick a number some where and 500 seems a good, round number – it is up for debate, however.

        2. As long as the property remains in government hands, it will be ladled out solely to those most juiced in to government – Harry Reid gets his sweetheart land deals from the BLM and even gets the taxpayers to cover the cost of building a bridge to his land…that is brought to an end when we sell the land to the people (I’d do it in a lottery system – we price the acres low enough for any working stiff American to afford and the 1 acre lots are distributed to all those who bought in by random chance – no more than 100 acres per citizen to prevent bazillionaires from buying it all up).

        UPDATE – actually, 3 things, ’cause I think this important.

        Zoning is where you prohibit a toxic waste facility/day care center from being in the same building – or even in the same area. But no licensing of the toxic waste operator of the day care operator. Free enterprise and buyer beware…and if anyone’s action harms the life, liberty or property of other citizens, then that is a matter for the courts…but not a matter for pre-licensing which merely protects those already in the business by limiting future competition.

      • Amazona May 25, 2013 / 9:34 am

        Mark, I am adamantly against your proposal to sell off Federal land.

        Sure, I’ve envied a lot of Federal land and wished I could buy it, but as one very familiar with several National Forests in the West I think they are necessary and valuable assets to the country.

        The problem with the National Forest system is that it is no longer managed according to the original National Forest charter, which created the system for the specific purposes of providing shelter for the nation’s watersheds and an ongoing source of lumber for the country, with recreation kind of an afterthought.

        If the system were run the way it was intended to run, we would not have hair-on-fire hysterics shrieking to establish road-free areas in National Forests, or ignorant legislators going along with it. If the system were run the way it was intended to run, we would not have millions of acres of dead trees filling the forests, as the origin of the massive beetle population, the blow-down of millions of trees in Colorado, would have been promptly harvested for lumber instead of providing a breeding ground which encouraged an explosion of beetle population which then rampaged through the nation. If the system were run the way it was intended to run, foresters would design carefully engineered and built roads, and a healthy forest would be encouraged through the selective harvesting of weak trees, overcrowding, and clean-up of much of the floor. If the system were run the way it was intended to run, remaining trees would have adequate air and water, and fires would not have lavish stores of fuel at the bases of trees, where they could burn hotter and not only kill standing trees but sterilize and harden the soil, leading to runoff full of silt and ash, killing all life in streams downhill and leading to massive erosion.

        One of the things that makes America so special is its vast unpopulated areas that keep it from being an ocean-to-ocean populated mass. I see the problem not with the existence of Federal land but the expansion of Federal land designed to limit things like mining and petroleum exploration, and the mismanagement of Federal land under goofball pseudo-enviro hysteria.

        As for the grand idea of handing out land to “the people” check out the Agrarian Reform in Peru to see how well that can work out.

      • M. Noonan May 25, 2013 / 12:51 pm

        Amazona,

        But we must obtain vastly more property owners if we are, ultimately, to be and remain a conservative, free society – as we don’t wish to confiscate the land of those who hold it today, the only logical place to obtain the land is from the government. Furthermore, what is wrong with the management of the lands is because government owns it and is beholden to, on one hand, those who can bribe to misuse the land and, on the other hand, outsiders in the major, liberal metropolises who don’t care what happens to be people who live on the land. I’d much rather have our forests run cooperatively by private owners…those who obtain forests will, naturally, want to make use of them…and not only make use, but make use in a manner which ensures their long-term viability. There is a fantastically better chance of maintaining wilderness which is also usable under private rather than government ownership.

      • Amazona May 25, 2013 / 5:39 pm

        Mark, I see nothing but disaster in having a template for how things “ought” to be and then declaring that people ought to fit into it.

        Not everyone can or even wants to grow, or mine. It’s not only a lot harder than one might think, it is far less efficient than modern technology.

        We simply can’t unring the bell. We destroyed the American farm by applying estate taxes to inherited farms, and by subsidizing farming to an extent that attracted large factory farms and land collectors. That can’t be fixed by dismantling Federal land and selling it off to people.

        We might be able to create some balance by eliminating the death tax and farm subsidies, and resetting our tax code, discouraging people like John Malone from collecting hundreds of thousands of acres of land they don’t even set foot on, driving up prices and keeping it out of the hands of average every-day wannabe farmers and ranchers.

        But the economics of small farming and ranching mean that it is very very hard to make a living, and restricting these occupations to those who have deep emotional, historical and familial commitments to these ways of life. And there just aren’t enough people like this to occupy this land you want made available.

        I spent many years in and near Denver, and saw a constant stream of idealistic dreamers flocking to the area and insisting that they simply had to live “in the mountains” because of the romance associated with perceptions of this kind of life. There is a reason real estate turns over so quickly in mountain communities—it is because it takes such a short time to become acquainted with the reality of mountain life and realize there is little romance associated with 70 inches of snow a year and steep driveways that are impassable in many weather conditions. It is not romantic to see your dog eaten by a mountain lion, or to be stranded for days without heat or electricity.

        Expect these people to become growers and they will throw up their hands, because it is hard, demanding work and few are cut out for it.

        Yours is a lovely, wistful look backward at a romanticized way of life in our past, but as much as I have been a part of the kind of life you advocate, and look back on it with longing, I know it is not for everyone, or even for very many.

        I suggest that revisions of our tax code, going to a Fair Tax and eliminating the Death Tax for starters, and getting back to a smaller and more restricted federal government, and shifting political power back to state and local governments, will do more to allow a rebalancing of the way we live than a master plan which strives to impose a theoretically “better” way of life.

        That, and a return to actual education, in which young people are taught accurately about the formation of this nation, its ideals and its goals, its successes and its failures without imposing political bias, and in which young people are taught the basics such as reading, writing (including spelling and grammar) and mathematics and science, will also contribute to a well-balanced populace.

      • M. Noonan May 25, 2013 / 6:12 pm

        Amazona,

        But we’ll never get away with properly educating kids under the current system – it won’t be allowed. It is true that this is a backward look – but all true revolutions are precisely that. You really must be conservative to be a revolutionary because you must conserve within yourself an ideal which needs to be restored. To the assertion that we can’t turn back the clock I answer: why not? Who says? It is a progressive view that once something is gone it is gone for good – with the implication being that its successor must be inherently superior. I reject that view.

        You are correct in stating that a large number of current American simply won’t do it – they lack the grit and determination to work for themselves. Of this, I am quite certain – but if we release the land, people will be found who do have that grit – and if those people aren’t Americans today, they will be tomorrow, once possessed of land and living under the rule of the American Constitution, which they will die in the last ditch to defend because it assures their new-found property for themselves and their children. Also, of course, among our fellow Americans will be found plenty who are willing to give it a go – all those who simply will not do it will remain where they are, and they will die out – we already see among the city-bred a declining vitality and a collapse of birth rates far faster than among rural populations. City-bred people die out – rural people keep living. Pass out the land and eventually the balance of the nation will be in favor of the small property owners.

        The main thing for me is that if we wish to save our civilization, then the only method of doing so is to restore our civilization – a civilization of small holders working mostly for their own sustenance. That is what made America; that is the only thing which can be America.

      • Jeremiah May 26, 2013 / 6:37 pm

        Mark,

        I like your idear. Instead of opening up the Federal land though I’d like to see the paper companies land opened up, and managed by people that know more about land/forest management…because the paper companies sure don’t know anything about land/forest management. The land looks nasty when the paper companies clearcut it, and every time it rains it turns the streams into a muddy mess because the timbering activity doesn’t leave a buffer…you don’t have the plants and grasses and things to hold the dirt in place. So it all flows down into the creeks and rivers. Chokes the fishes gills too.

      • M. Noonan May 26, 2013 / 10:17 pm

        Jeremiah,

        I’ll bet dollars to donuts that when clear cutting it done, it is mostly done on US government owned land.

      • Jeremiah May 26, 2013 / 11:58 pm

        Mark,

        To my knowledge, the paper companies (i,e – Plum Creek) own the largest share of acreage in the lower 48, and most of it is forested, or tree farmed. The paper companies bought the land from the government many, many years ago – and they use it for the sole purpose of the natural resources. Some locations they sell their mineral rights to mining companies. Just small tracts. So most of the acreage that is used is used for the wood resource. These paper companies are extremely rich, not only do they make money off their wood…but they make money off the hunting, too. They lease out their property for hunting recreation. Of course, they lease it out so they can the taxes on it and make clear profit on the wood. They don’t care what it looks like after they’re done stripping the land of trees, or how nasty the water looks after it rains. All they care about is that almighty dollar.

        But yeah, it’s their own land that they’re clearcutting. A lot of people are like that, what’s theirs they don’t care how they treat it, like cars, or their bodies, or whatever. The problem with the paper companies activities, however, is they don’t care that it directly affects other life. To be quite honest, it is rather nauseating.

        But, who am I to complain? I do like crystal clear water though 🙂 and the smell of the fresh greenery, hearing the birds singing, etc, etc.

      • Jeremiah May 27, 2013 / 12:20 am

        Something else I don’t like, and that is surface-mining. Don’t mind deep-mining too much…but don’t like surface-mining. Surface-mining, much like clear-cutting, defaces the land. And, it opens up sulfur leaks (red water) into the streams. And, ain’t nothing can live in a stream with that stuff running into it.

      • Jeremiah May 27, 2013 / 12:30 am

        That is actually iron. I’m sorry. I just always called it “sulfur” water cause it has a bad smell. But no, it’s actually iron water.

    • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) May 24, 2013 / 6:00 pm

      But, other than that Mark, i agree with everything you say.

      (I don’t want the t liberals who still troll this site to think this is anything but an echo-chamber,)

      • Amazona May 24, 2013 / 10:50 pm

        Yeah, me too.

        Yeah, me too.

        Yeah, me too.

        Yeah, me too.

        Yeah, me too.

        Yeah, me too.

      • neocon01 May 25, 2013 / 10:05 am

        count
        sorry mark I agree with the count on this one…..I think that system was good for the time, but not really for todays world.

        other that that
        me too
        me too
        me too
        me too

        LOL

    • M. Noonan May 25, 2013 / 1:20 am

      Pel,

      It all depends – but here’s the thing:

      1. Those who marry and have children are doing the most important thing.

      2. Those who make, mine and grow things are doing the 2nd most important things (and those who make, mine and grow the basics of life are doing the most important part of this thing).

      All of our political and economic system must primarily be geared towards these two things – all else is, however good or useful it might end up being, entirely secondary.

      Getting in to your doctors and teachers and computer programmers, all of them must be judged in relation to these two crucial things – so, a doctor practicing plastic surgery to implant large boobs in to silly women is doing something useless; the doctor who is practicing general medicine is doing something vastly important. The teacher is who is instructing kids in the finer aspects of feminism is wasting time; the teacher who is instructing the kids on how to do match – which can lead to all sorts of wonderful things for everyone – is doing something important. The computer programmer working out ways to use computers to more efficiently search for natural gas deposits deserves a vote of thanks from everyone – the computer programmer working on the next iteration of Grand Theft Auto is wasting time (his and everyone else who plays the game).

      This is not to say that useless things are to be banned – it is merely to say that useless things must take a backseat to useful things. Our whole political and economic system is geared towards advancing the useless and discouraging the useful. Its why farmers in California’s central valley will, in some cases, get 80% less water than they are due – because people in San Francisco and Los Angeles think that “saving” a frickin’ guppy is more important than growing food.

      A Distributist society will turn this around – those who are doing the crucial things will be fostered, encouraged, protected and advanced – those doing the useless things will be pretty much left to sink or swim on their own…you, as a free person, are free to waste your time and money in any way you choose…but I’ll never agree that you should be subsidized in it…certainly not if that subsidy is going to impinge upon people doing what is actually important.

      By switching over to a society where what matters comes first, everyone will be better off. There will be more food grown; so food will be cheaper. There will be more energy produced; so energy will be cheaper. There will be more goods produced; so goods will be cheaper. There will be more people working directly for themselves; so there will be more independence and liberty. There will be more self-satisfaction among the general populace; so people will be happier. There will, though, be less chance for financial sharks to make a killing; less chance for grafters to grow fat on government contracts; less chance for power-mad people to grow government…so, yes, there are some losers under Distributism…but they are free to get a job and work for themselves, so if the are miserable and unhappy, its their own darned fault.

    • neocon01 May 24, 2013 / 1:39 pm

      yeah blame the white construction workers that were kept from all the construction jobs…..

  7. Cluster May 24, 2013 / 3:21 pm

    The Democrats have never seen a dollar they didn’t want to have.

    But now they’re even pissing off the unions:

    “It makes an untruth out of what the president said, that if you like your insurance, you could keep it,” said Joe Hansen, president of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union. “That is not going to be true for millions of workers now.

    • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) May 24, 2013 / 5:14 pm

      Cluster,

      Obama and the dims got there by the influence and money of the Unions, protected by the Press and pandering to special interest groups. Now that ObamaCare screws the Unions, The Justice Department screws the Press and the IRS screws any Special Interest group it deems in conflict with the Chosen One, from where will their power come next?

      Couldn’t happen to a more applicable bunch of thugs.

      • neocon01 May 24, 2013 / 5:21 pm

        Count

        all will be well at the White House ……..HOLDER is investigating HIMSELF and his JD!!

      • Amazona May 24, 2013 / 10:55 pm

        I’m actually starting to understand the Obama approach to cutting spending—he is pointing out to us that his position is unnecessary, as the President is now merely a figurehead, with the entire administration, by his own admission, running itself without his knowledge or participation.

        I think it’s a great idea. We can abolish the position now that we know it isn’t necessary, hire George Clooney or Tom Selleck or some other charmer to handle social affairs of state, have Martha Stewart be the official hostess, and save bundles on vacations alone.

  8. neocon01 May 24, 2013 / 4:35 pm

    crusty

    OOH the IRONY……..ROTFLMAO…….

    You can even pretend to know what ***yore*** talking about. It’s fun to pretend!

    : time past and especially long past —usually used in the phrase of yore

    ahoity matey arrrrrgh

    • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) May 24, 2013 / 7:31 pm

      neo,

      He’s just upset that db, Mark you and me can disagree with one another without the flying monkey $h*t the liberals bring to the discussion.

      Have a great holiday weekend brother!

      … and thanks for yore service.

    • neocon01 May 24, 2013 / 5:40 pm

      Great vid, Great family….

  9. Cluster May 24, 2013 / 10:10 pm

    The following from the brain trust at MSNBC is a great example of what liberalism has become:

    On his May 23 program, the Rev. Al Sharpton’s PoliticsNation panel turned to the thorny issue of race in politics. As could be expected, it was not a balanced discussion as Sharpton’s panel was an Amen pew of liberal pundits: the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank and left-wing XM Radio host Joe Madison.

    For his part, Milbank snarked that the GOP is made up of “a coalition of white southern men,” but even more outrageously, Madison railed that Republican leaders “really don’t know people who look different than they are.” Sharpton, a Baptist minister, did not rebuke his guests for bearing false witness.

    • neocon01 May 25, 2013 / 6:56 am

      .” Sharpton, a Baptist minister,.. Evil lying racist snake oil salesman…… did not rebuke his guests for bearing false witness.

      Fixed 🙂

      the GZ trial is the next 3 ring circus coming to town…….it will be an explosive time in Fla. If the INNOCENT GZ manages to skate this staged Kangaroo court it WILL be a LONG HOT summer.
      with the likes of $harpton leading the PACK!!

      • neocon01 May 25, 2013 / 7:09 am

        OMG…Amateur and we wonder why we have Bengazi??

        Obama Forgets To Salute Marine, Awkwardly Makes It Up To Him

  10. J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) May 25, 2013 / 7:25 am

    Tell you what, Axelrod, maybe if you and your buddy Barry hadn’t use the last pile of money just to keep your union buddies employed then that bridge would have been fixed!

    Seeing as how there was nothing wrong with the bridge except that a truck with an over-sized load was in the wrong lane and hit a support girder, Axelrod’s tweet is even more rediculous.

    • Amazona May 25, 2013 / 9:57 am

      JR, I heard that in the last bridge inspection that particular bridge was rated at about 50, out of 100. So it sounds like it should have been on a list for that 400,000 Americans ready to work and well financed to fix up our aging infrastructure.

      BTW, a few years ago I complained about signs along a highway touting the stimulus, claiming that it would be funding wonderful new work on the road. I suggested that as of that date, the only companies making money off the stimulus were the ones who made signs.

      The signs were eventually taken down, a few holes were patched, and it’s still the same old road.

  11. Cluster May 25, 2013 / 8:49 am

    Often times Sweden is held up as the standard of a liberal paradise – well recent events should now convince most everyone that “legislating” fairness, is impossible:

    Despite Sweden’s reputation for equality, the rioting has exposed a faultline between a well-off majority and a minority, often young people with immigrant backgrounds, who cannot find work, lack education and feel marginalised.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/24/stockholm-rioting-continues-fifth-night?guni=Network%20front:network-front%20main-3%20Main%20trailblock:Network%20front%20-%20main%20trailblock:Position8

    • neocon01 May 25, 2013 / 9:38 am

      young people with immigrant backgrounds, who cannot find work, lack education and feel marginalised.

      Gee where have I heard that before??
      maybe 15 MILLION ILLEGAL peasants many with criminal backgrounds?

      these new Sweeds just couldnt have been proponents of the TROP could they?
      say it aint so joe!!

    • neocon01 May 25, 2013 / 9:57 am

      proggy ideas at work

      For years, Sweden – one of Europe’s most tranquil countries, famous for its attractive immigration policies and generous welfare system – has been accepting an influx of immigrants, which now make up about 15 per cent of its population. These migrants have failed to integrate into Swedish society, and are only in the country to enjoy the country’s social benefits system, Swedish journalist Ingrid Carlqvist told RT.

      “The problem is not from the Swedish government or from the Swedish people,” the editor in chief of Dispatch International said. “The last 20 years or so, we have seen so many immigrants coming to Sweden that really don’t like Sweden. They do not want to integrate, they do not want to live in [Swedish] society: Working, paying taxes and so on.”

      “The people come here now because they know that Sweden will give them money for nothing. They don’t have to work, they don’t have to pay taxes – they can just stay here and get a lot of money. That is really a problem,” Carlqvist added.

      BINGO!!!!!!
      *******Young Muslims******* who enjoy tolerance, social institutions and welfare while living in Sweden nevertheless refuse to integrate into the West, Gerolf Annemans told RT.

      • Amazona May 25, 2013 / 10:04 am

        “These migrants have failed to integrate into Swedish society, and are only in the country to enjoy the country’s social benefits system….”

        Gee, that sound sooooo familiar………………

        I’m now waiting for the claim that they really only went to Sweden for—–wait for it——A BETTER LIFE !!!!!

    • Amazona May 25, 2013 / 10:01 am

      I’ve got friends who just left, with their two young children, for a trip to Sweden. I’m looking forward to hearing about their experiences.

  12. Amazona May 29, 2013 / 11:29 am

    Red says: “….yes, we got to the moon, a very easy task. Getting to Mars is much much harder.”

    Personally, I think we should concentrate on going to the Sun.

    Of course, since it is so hot, we would have to go only at night……………….

      • Amazona May 30, 2013 / 3:18 pm

        Hmphffff—as if I didn’t THINK of that!

        But the Sun is, like, really really big, so going around it would be, like, a really really long trip.

        And there is no way to know what might be hiding back there.

  13. Amazona May 29, 2013 / 11:33 am

    BTW, Red, it did not escape my notice that once I started to talk about POLITICS—-that is, about the best way to govern our country—–and suggested that someone who declares himself to be on the Left might want to explain why he thinks the Leftist model is better than our Constitutional model and support that with evidence, you suddenly started to talk about pretty much everything else, including computers.

    Surely you are not falling in line with every other Lefty we have ever had on this blog, and dodging a serious comparison of the two basic models of government (small vs large).

    Say it ain’t so, Red……….

    • tiredoflibbs May 29, 2013 / 12:21 pm

      Ama: “Surely you are not falling in line with every other Lefty we have ever had on this blog,”

      Unfortunately, he is. He makes statements that is not sourced and then jumps on any statement that we make which is not sourced. Just like the statement he made on computers – he claims it was government that developed the first one without any sort of a link or proof to back it up. When I point out he is wrong, then he jumps on me about proof.

      He is falling in line and the usual tactics of the other lefty mindless drones out there.

Comments are closed.