Another Peek Into The Liberal Mind
Monday, August 17th, 2009I saw an eye-opening post over at Mike Thomas’ blog the other day.In this post, he gives us his interpretation of something called “The Conservative Pledge.” Of course, I have never heard of this organization, or its pledge, but it is interesting to see how Mike reacts to it.
I will support the People’s right to self-defense.
And the right to carry loaded guns anyplace we feel like… and not just little small-caliber pea-shooters either. We mean big-honking elephant guns and bazookas with automatic firing and unlimited clip capacity.
Well, right from the get-go it appears that Mike doesn’t support the Second Amendment to the Constitution. As far as I know, elephant guns don’t have clips and are not automatic, but not everyone knows a lot about firearms. I guess he is one of those guys who thinks that they can support only those parts of the law they like, and can ignore the rest. I wonder what he would think if someone ignore his right to privacy?
I will be devoted to the principle of blind justice.
And “blind justice” means being completely oblivious to any ounce of empathy or human compassion. It means applying the harshest penalties and sentences regardless of the attenuating circumstances. It means closing your eyes to the consequences of so-called “justice”.
Again, he seems to think that it is perfectly fine to ignore those elements of the law which don’t agree with his political beliefs. In the application of the law, empathy and compassion have nothing to do with it. You may feel sorry for someone who robbed the store because he had a rough childhood, but that rough childhood doesn’t excuse armed robbery. Bleeding-heart liberals can’t understand that.
I recognize the media for its bias, bullying and deception.
This is pure projection coming from the folks who get all their news from the radically-biased, bullying and deceptive Fox News and the rightwing radio talk shows. What could be more bullying than people like Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck screaming at and shouting down people on their shows who dare to disagree with them?
Of course, Bill Maher, Chris Matthews, and Keith Olbermann never, ever shout at their guests or have a political agenda, right? There was a reason CNN was known as the Clinton News Network from 1991 until 2000. Also, there is reason why NBC News and its cable affiliates are getting the lowest ratings ever recorded; they do nothing other than carry Obama’s water day in and day out. Hell, they don’t even hide it anymore.
I will emphasize self-reliance and being able to keep the fruits of one’s labor.
Pure selfishness and greed dressed up to sound not quite so bad.
Hey, Mike? How much of your hard-earned salary are you giving up to the government so that they can give it to someone else? Under your parameters, if you’re not giving it all away than you’re being selfish and greedy. Wanting the fruits of your labor is not selfish or greedy. Raising taxes on an entire country of people for the sole purpose of social engineering is.
I will emphasize self-restraint against hurtful activities.
And hope that other people will use “self-restraint” too when we can no longer afford our military and police forces.
Liberals and Democrats are the only ones who are cutting the military budget.
You get the drift. In general, Mike thinks all Conservatives are greedy, selfish people who want to kill with guns and starve the poor and elderly to death. This is what years of a liberal education indoctrinates you into believing, and it won’t change any time soon. At least not as long as Obama keeps pushing this tripe down the throats of his supporters.
Of course, people who are capable of putting some thought and research into these matters realize that Conservatives are not greedy and selfish; they just want the government to get out of the wealth-redistribution business and allow individuals to donate to charities of their choice. They also know that Conservatives cherish their Second Amendment rights, and wish to arm themselves to prevent criminals from victimizing them. Finally, they know that Conservatives don’t want to starve the poor or elderly; but they do want to remove waste and fraud from the welfare system so that the limited resources available can be used to do the most good for the most needy.
I went looking for a “liberal pledge” on Google, but came up empty. Sure, there were a few hits, but nothing which looked official or that could be taken seriously. About the closest I found was this, but this really can’t be taken seriously. I guess the reason no liberal pledge exists is because what a liberal believes changes with the breeze. Except for killing unborn babies and raising taxes, they don’t really have any core values. I guess that is why liberalism appeals to so many college-age kids — it doesn’t require any thinking or any work. Just do what “feels right.”
Print This Post
August 17th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
I’m flattered once again to have one of my posts receive special attention from my friend Nick. I would note that I churned that one out rather quickly with a mixture of snark and seriousness, but I suppose it is fair to call it a “peek into a liberal mind”.
The first item on the 2nd Amendment was mostly snarky. It is incorrect to say that I do not support the 2nd Amendment. I just disagree with the radical interpretation of that amendment by extremist groups like the NRA (which used to be a legitimate gun-owners organization, but has since been co-opted and taken over by radical-right gun nuts.)
I support the right of homeowners to keep guns for their personal protection. But I see no need for the average citizen to maintain an arsenal of high-powered assault rifles and explosives on their premises. Furthermore, I am dead-set opposed to allowing people to carry concealed handguns onto school campuses like the college where my wife teaches.
Blind justice, to me, is a misnomer. I know the original conception of the blindfolded lady was to demonstrate fairness and equality under the law. We don’t want the law showing favoritism to one group over another, but we should also not want judges who divorce themselves from common sense and pass judgements and sentences without accounting for the extenuating circumstances which make every situation unique. If you are not going to allow judges to show any kind of “empathy” or “compassion” then you may just as well get rid of all the human judges and replace with with computers or robots. Check out the first letter in today’s Letters to the Editor section about the disabled veteran who got a parking ticket while dropping off 500 pounds of food at a downtown homeless shelter. Clearly that was a case where the ticket should have been dismissed, and yet it was not probably because of people who hold to this misguided notion of “blind justice.”
Of course, we could go round and round on the media bias question. CNN has always been a center-right network. You call it the Clinton News Network (they were indeed obsessed with Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky non-scandal of the 90s) while I call it the Conservative News Network.
I don’t get HBO, so I can’t speak to Bill Maher, but I have never seen Chris Matthews or Keith Olbermann “shout at their guests” or treat them with the kind of disdain and disrespect that Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck show on a routine basis. And of course Rush Limbagh is too cowardly to have actual guests on his programs who might disagree with him.
Faux News is nothing but an outlet for rightwing propaganda and its sole purpose is to provide entertainment for the partisan folks who have convinced themselves that the world is slowing turning against them.
Yes, it is true that I think the modern-day conservo-radicals are being selfish and greedy in their attacks on government programs that benefit others. And I think they are being extremely naive and unrealistic when they refuse to recognize that they could cut out nearly all domestic spending programs sans military, Medicare and Social Security and debt service and not make hardly a dent in the annual federal budget.
They are also being naive when they act as if churches and charities could step in and take the place of government social-welfare programs that form the safety net that keeps the underclass from sliding into abject poverty and also props up the middle class from becoming the new underclass.
I am a liberal because I love my country and (unlike most conservo-radicals) I love my government – recognizing that it is nearly one and the same. Furthermore, I think that my country can do the right thing and that it works when given the chance.
August 17th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
Well, I’ve learned a new word today: conserva-radical. When you don’t have the facts on your side, I guess all you can do is call your opponent names.
If one or two teachers had been armed at Virginia Tech, maybe fewer people would have been shot. Just because you’re content to be a victim doesn’t give you the right to force the rest of us to be.
Again with the names; don’t you have any facts? Hell, even the Democrats said Fox News had the fairest election coverage during the last election cycle. You can ignore the facts and the ratings all you want, but it doesn’t make your assertion any less wrong. Just because Fox News isn’t genuflecting every time Obama enters the room, like CNN, NBC, the New York Times, and MSNBC do, doesn’t mean they’re radical or partisan.
Please explain how wanting to keep the salary you earn to benefit yourself and your family is selfish. Despite what you may think, the United States is not a commune; I am not responsible for supporting everybody. I work hard, each and every day, to earn money to feed, clothe, and support myself and my family. On my salary, that’s about all I can handle right now. The absolute last thing I need is Obama (or anyone else) reaching into my pocket and taking my family’s only means of support and giving it to somebody else, regardless of whether or not they have a need for it. When I am capable, I’ll donate to charities that I feel deserve it.
Let’s be honest — the only reason you “love your government” is because it is currently run by people whose political agenda aligns with yours. I doubt you would have said that anytime between 2001 and 2008, or 1980 through 2001.
Anyway, there’s one problem right there — the government and the country ARE NOT one and the same. The country is made up of the people who live in it; the government is made up of people who should be representing the people who make up the country. Under Obama, the government has done only one thing: tax the people and enlarge itself. Nothing the government has done since 1/20/2009 has benefited the country; only itself, whether it be expanded powers, increased tax revenues, or increased infiltration of the public’s privacy. As long as the people in charge are interested in nothing other than increasing the size and scope of government, they will never be capable of making the right choice.
August 18th, 2009 at 11:02 am
Nick, I’ve known Mike a long time so when I read his original post I understood it to contain a heavy dose of tongue-in-cheek, but you could be forgiven for not seeing it that way. Since I don’t know you very well, I can’t be certain that stuff like this is intended as satire, but if it is, I don’t get the joke:
I guess the reason no liberal pledge exists is because what a liberal believes changes with the breeze. Except for killing unborn babies and raising taxes, they don’t really have any core values. I guess that is why liberalism appeals to so many college-age kids — it doesn’t require any thinking or any work. Just do what “feels right.”
Yet, in spite of that treatment of his post, Mike still came over here and wrote an extrememly respectful and thoughtful response to you. Seems to me that the least you could do is respond in kind. Nowhere in it does he call you any name. Mike has consistently referred to you as someone he counts on to engage in civil discourse, which is a compliment I should think you might want to honor instead of tossing out lines like this:
Just because you’re content to be a victim doesn’t give you the right to force the rest of us to be.
“Content to be a victim”?? Because he’s opposed to allowing concealed weapons on campuses such as the one where his wife works? And as for this:
If one or two teachers had been armed at Virginia Tech, maybe fewer people would have been shot.
Then again, maybe not. That ever occur to you? You do realize that the overwhelming number of university administrators and police organizations oppose such regulations because of the extremely high likelihood of MORE deaths and/or injuries on campuses, not fewer? Have you ever considered what a nightmare it would be for a campus security guard or police officer to try to diffuse a situation when everyone is waving a gun around trying to play like Bruce Willis?
I’ll let Mike deal with your just-because-I-don’t-want-to-pay-taxes-I’m-not-greedy bit, but as for this:
Let’s be honest — the only reason you “love your government” is because it is currently run by people whose political agenda aligns with yours. I doubt you would have said that anytime between 2001 and 2008, or 1980 through 2001.
Yes, let’s be honest. I have known Mike since 2001 and he has never demonstrated anything BUT love for both his country and his government which is exactly why he and I argue so passionately on political blogs such as this. It seems to me that you have known him at least long enough to understand this.
August 18th, 2009 at 11:50 am
Ann: Throughout his comment he referred to “Conservo-Radicals.” Since he didn’t define the term, its context indicates that he believes me to be one of these people. If this is incorrect, he should clarify.
Yes, I am aware of what the university admins think. I also know that the campus “security” guards were nowhere to be found at Virginia Tech until after the shootings occurred, and that was the problem. In almost all cases, police and security is reactionary – that is, they react to something which has already occurred and is over. An armed student trained under the conceal-carry law regulations might have been able to intervene during the shootings and prevented a large number of them from happening. Of course, with having no armed students in the area whatsoever, it was a forgone conclusion that many people were going to die.
Re-read the post. I never said anything close to “I don’t want to pay taxes.” What I object to is the forced redistribution of wealth by the government used to implement policies which are not essential. When the government takes money out of my paycheck, I realize it goes for the operation of the government and to maintain national defense and the like. However, right now, the Obama Administration is planning on increasing the amount of money they are taking from my paycheck so that they can simply give it to other people it deems more worthy. This, I do not agree with and I will fight to resist.
August 18th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Since he didn’t define the term,…
“Conservo-radical” isn’t self-explanatory enough for you? I took it to mean “conservative radical” but I guess that’s just me. Still, it hardly seems the pistols-at-dawn level of epithet that you treated it as. I welcome Mike’s clarification.
As for:
What I object to is the forced redistribution of wealth by the government used to implement policies which are not essential.
and:
right now, the Obama Administration is planning on increasing the amount of money they are taking from my paycheck so that they can simply give it to other people it deems more worthy.
I know I said I’d let Mike deal with this, but oh well, here I go. You know Nick, these statements strike me as a rather shockingly simplistic and naive summary of US tax legislation. Now must be the appropriate time to remind you that “Elections Have Consequences!” which The Right used to smugly chant at us liberals when we were objecting to the Bush administration policy of cutting taxes on their rich friends thus forcing the financial burden of the astronomical cost of the Iraq boondoggle onto the backs of us middle class and poor people. Yeah, well.
Point is, of course, that every administration gets to choose its priorities and, naturally, we are not going to all agree on what those should be. But we owe it to each other to engage in honest, good faith dialogue and work toward finding reasonable compromises, and that sure is increasingly difficult. Do you suppose there’s something we could do about that?
August 18th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Sorry, one more thing:
the campus “security” guards were nowhere to be found at Virginia Tech until after the shootings occurred, and that was the problem.
No, Nick. The kid with the gun was the problem. Of all the many things that can be done to prevent violence on college campuses, arming the faculty and student body to the hilt seems to be the one option guaranteed to have the exact opposite effect.
August 18th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
Ann: Yes, the kid with the gun was the real problem, but you know what? He was, or he was at least acting like, a criminal. Criminals ignore or blatantly disregard the law, so no university policy, local or state law would not have prevented him from bringing that gun that day. Enacting a policy or passing a law isn’t magic; a law or policy is only as good as its enforcement mechanism, which is why I say that campus security was the problem in this case. There was no enforcement; only reaction, which came well after the shooting was over.
August 18th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
Ann:
Democrats are not debating anyone; they are ignoring the Republicans in Congress and they are hiding from their constituents. Hell, one Democrat says he’s going to vote for Obama’s plan even though he knows it goes against the interests of the district he is supposed to represent. What good does debate do when one side isn’t listening?
Yes, the Democrats won the 2008 Election, and they get to choose the priorities. Just ask Obama, he’ll tell you who won the election the next time you suggest anything he didn’t dream up himself. One reason why the people at these town hall meetings are venting is because they know the Administration isn’t listening, and the only chance they will get to have their voices heard is in meetings like this.
August 19th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
OK, sorry for the delay in responding. First, conserva-radical or conservo-radical is a tongue-in-cheek term I throw out to illustrate my belief that many of the extreme positions taken by conservatives today are indeed NOT conservative but, in fact, are radical in nature. Nevertheless, I apologize if it came across as a pejorative.
This notion that “if one or two teachers had been armed at Virginia Tech, maybe fewer people would have been shot” is pure fantasy. Just wishful thinking. In practice, a policy that allowed everyone – teachers and students as they are trying to do in Texas – to have guns on campus would be a nightmare.
Just imagine if everyone was armed at Va. Tech. The gunman pulls out his weapon and starts shooting. Then other people start pulling out guns and firing back. But who shot first and who is the bad guy? No one is really sure. You hear a shot. You look up and see someone holding a gun. But is it the shooter or someone who pulled out a gun in response to the shooting? Do you shoot at them before they have a chance to shoot you?
And when the police arrive they have no idea who is the gunman and who is the innocent bystander who just also happens to be armed.
“even the Democrats said Fox News had the fairest election coverage”
Any what Democrats might that be? Dick Morris? Alan Colmes?
“the United States is not a commune”
OK, then what is it? What does it mean to be “United”? What does it mean to be a state? You say you are not responsible for supporting everyone? So then who is? Nobody? We just let people starve? Live on the street? Go without an education? Go without healthcare? (Oops! We already do that! Well, not totally, of course. They can always go to the emergency room at the county hospital where it ends up costing more, but heaven forbid that we try to do anything about it because that would be SOCIALISM! Booga-Booga!!!!
Look around you, Nick. You live in a country that doesn’t allow people to starve or go without an education. That is what makes America great. But we all have to pitch in to make it work. Sure, I don’t like paying taxes and I resent it when I see billions of tax dollars wasted like the Republicans did with the Iraq War. And I also resent all the wealthy tax cheats who stick their money in Swiss Bank Accounts with the help of Phil Gramm so that they can skip paying taxes and thus force me and you to pay that much more.
August 19th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
Mike:
Ed Rendell (D – Pa.), Phil Singer, spokeman for Clinton’s 2008 Campaign, and Terry McAuliffe. Is that enough for you?
America was and is based on the idea of individual liberty. Freedom for you and me to decide what we want to do, where we want to work, whether or not we want to give some of our hard-earned money to charity to help others, or whether or not we want to be a selfish bastard and keep all of it. Regardless of what choices you make, the idea is that you got to make these choices — they’re not made for you by the government or anyone else. These choices are not supposed to be forced on you by others who think you are not doing enough for the poor or sickly.
It all begins with liberty, even charitable giving. This administration has done nothing but erode that liberty since entering office. That is what I detest the most, and that is what I am compelled to fight against.
Seems like you forgot some people, like Tim Geithner (tax cheat), Tom Daschle (tax cheat), Nancy Killefer (tax cheat), Ron Kirk (tax cheat), and Kathleen Sebelius (tax cheat). What do they all have in common? They are all members of Obama’s Administration, and each of them refused to pay their taxes until they were nominated to serve.
And if you think none of the wealthy Democrats (like Marc Rich and George Soros) put their money in off-shore bank accounts, you’re either real stupid or real naive. Naive is my guess. Also, remember that the Democrats voted to go to Iraq as well as the Republicans, so there is enough blame to go around on that.
August 20th, 2009 at 11:30 am
Oh, I understand now! We are talking about coverage of the Hillary vs. Obama fight in the primary. Hillary began attacking Obama from the right, so naturally Faux News took her side in bashing Obama and some of the Hillary partisans showed their appreciation by making the schmoozing comments in the linked article.
But it doesn’t change anything. Fox very clearly has a rightwing bent in its news coverage which it doesn’t even try to hide – in fact, that is their whole marketing approach – they are unabashedly rightwing so as to appeal to all the conservative viewers which is their market niche. The “fair and balanced” slogan is little more than an inside joke.
It would be like me insisting that the most fair and balanced source of political news is People For the American Way or MoveOn.org.
Yes, America is based on individual liberty. We are one of the most free nations in the world in that respect. But that does not mean freedom from paying taxes and sharing the burden of social responsibility. We are free to live where we want, take the jobs that we want, say and think what we want, worship the way we want and so forth. But we have never been a nation that tolerated free loaders who refuse to pay their share of the tax burden which is necessary to keep and maintain the freedoms that we cherish.
And no, I do not like tax cheats of any political persuasion. But I do recognize a difference between someone who screwed up on their tax filing and subsequently paid their back taxes with penalties vs. someone who is actively hiding large sums of money overseas to avoid paying their share of the tax burden. And if Soros is doing that, then he should be nailed right along with the rest.
August 20th, 2009 at 9:44 pm
Mike:
I have never suggested that I wanted to be “free from paying taxes.” To infer that I have is dishonest and harms your credibility. I said that I didn’t want to pay more in taxes just so the government could give it to someone it deemed more worthy.
In one paragraph you go from recognizing that the US was founded on individual liberty to advocating forced charitable giving by the government. Do you realize how diametrically opposed those two concepts are?
These people didn’t screw up anything — they did what they did and waited until forced to pay up. Regarding hiding large sums of money, do some research on George Soros and Marc Rich. We could probably afford most of the stuff Obama’s already forced down our throat if these two would only pay their fair share.
August 21st, 2009 at 10:11 am
Nick, regarding:
just so the government could give it to someone it deemed more worthy.
and
forced charitable giving by the government.
What in the world are you talking about? Is this a reference to the proposed reform of our healthcare system? Or just social programs in general? You do realize, don’t you, that your tax dollars – and mine – go toward funding a broad range of government programs and services that run the gamut of ideological support. Some of them you like and I don’t, some of them I like and you don’t, some of them we might even agree on as either bad or good, but we are all “forced” to pay taxes as part of a shared responsibility for our freedom. It ain’t cheap!
Assuming, for the moment, that you are talking about healthcare, it might be helpful to keep in mind that the reason Medicare came into being in the first place is because The Free Market and “charitable giving” were failing to do the job: As people started to live longer, their medical needs were becoming more expensive and private insurance was not willing to bear the cost. Our government (legislators) came to agree that taking care of the medical needs of our elderly citizens was a “common good”, meaning that it benefitted our society AS A WHOLE, and therefore fell under the purview of a service that could, and should, be provided with tax dollars. Furthermore, by spreading the cost out across a broader spectrum, the government was able to provide the service CHEAPER and, of course, more fairly. This is not rocket science.
So here we are in 2009 and, lo and behold, The Free Market is still failing in the job of providing adequate healthcare for the citizens of this country. Despite spending a higher percentage of our GDP on healthcare, we have 50 milllion uninsured and another 50 million under-insured and a lower life expectancy than any other industrialized country. It is for the common good of our country that the government address this problem. You can call this “forced charitable giving” if you must, Nick, but the rest of us see it as just common sense. It’s also not in the least bit surprising that the insurance industry is spending huge amounts of money to protect its turf, though it is surprising how many are falling for its propaganda.
August 21st, 2009 at 8:54 pm
With regards to free market health care, one of the big reasons it is failing to work for everyone is excessive government regulation — you know, like Obama is proposing with his “reforms.” Rationing of health care treatment, which is the backbone of Obama’s proposal whether he admits it or not, is not for the common good.
The three government medical programs the government already runs (Medicare, Medicaid, VA Hospitals) are all a mess. Problems include waits of anywhere from weeks to months to get an appointment, denial of care due to cost/benefit ratio, etc. It doesn’t take a genius to see that if the government takes over the entire health care system, it will fail on an epic scale never before seen.
As for “the government was able to provide the service CHEAPER,” I don’t believe it. Health care costs have done nothing but increase for the past several decades, and whenever the government gets involved with anything, it gets more inefficient and more expensive.
As for that supposed “50 million” uninsured, read this to find out that:
That’s right — when you subtract illegal aliens, people who make more than $50k per year and choose not to purchase insurance, or those who are uninsured for a short period of time, the number is reduced radically.
August 21st, 2009 at 11:08 pm
Oh, you mean this Kaiser Family Foundation? See, Nick this is what happens when you do a little bit of independent research and don’t rely on blatantly-in-your-face-obviously biased sources like the “Business and Media Institute”, with “Obama Socialist?” as a header on its home page. Good grief.
And as for:
With regards to free market health care, one of the big reasons it is failing to work for everyone is excessive government regulation
Uh huh. I’m sure the for-profit health industry has absolutely no interest in perpetrating that myth, right? And look how well “Less Government Regulation!” worked out for the financial industry!
August 25th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
It was FEDERAL government regulations that keeps the insurance companies from interstate competition. These regulations prevent the free market from working and keeps premiums high as each state is it’s own little monopoly for the insurance company.
So why wont the congress repeal the regulation? must be those lobbyists, ya think?