flightleader

I both understand and agree with your criticism of the vile rhetoric of Leftist politicians, celebrities and organizations such as the Black Panthers as well as the irresponsible “reporting” of the mainstream media. Had you allowed your criticism to remain within those boundaries, I would be allied with you. But far too many of you have gone as far as passionately and blindly defending the actions of Zimmerman which requires that you feign ignorance of the facts before you. What is worse, you have decided to engage in a campaign of character assassination of the victim, Treyvon Martin. Please help me to understand your rationale?

The Left has historically sought to embrace and “understand” America’s enemies while simultaneously holding America’s friends in utter derision. In fact they are more committed to “understanding” the views and motivations of enemies of the country than their fellow Americans whose only crime is disagreeing with the Left. So the Pakistanis shouldn’t feel too slighted by Democrat’s desire to overthrow their government and replace it with an American hating Islamist regime like Iran. They are just doing what comes naturally for socialists. We don’t blame lions for eating gazelles do we?

For some reason the Left holds America’s friends to an unjustifiably high standard whereas they have no standards for enemies. The more you hate the US the less Democrats demand of you in terms of social, economic and political freedom and progress. It was the same during the Cold War: Iran bad, USSR good. Taiwan bad, China good. El Salvador bad, Nicaragua good.

Democrats controlled the US Congress for nearly 50 years until the Republican “revolution” in 1994. Democrats controlled at the State and Local levels throughout the US since the Civil War ended and in some States, Republicans had never held Governorship or a noticeable presence in the State Legislature (particularly in the South and North East). However because of the Cold War and the Republican opposition to the USSR many Americans who would not vote for a Republican as Dog-Catcher often voted for Republicans for the Presidency. This was more true of the Southern States however.

So I’m forced to asked why Americans who are governed almost exclusively by Democrats at the State and Local levels, by their own choice, continue to blame only the Federal government (namely George Bush) for every problem in their lives?

Hollywood “liberals”, journalists and other Leftists have long criticized “conservatives” for repeatedly suggesting that drugs, sex and violence in films, on television and in entertainment in general has an influence on the behaviour of children. Now as a Liberian I’m not sure I completely agree with that position but stick with me for a minute.

The Left responds that it is not only untrue, it is ultimately the parent’s responsibility anyway. But if the content of entertainment has no effect on children why is it necessary for Hollywood to first ban smoking from its films? It began with a policy of having smoking qualify as one justification for an “R” rating. Now they will take steps to remove smoking from all films regardless of rating.

Did I miss something?

If so what do you do to get through it? I’ve been this way for as long as I can remember. I don’t touch doors/handles, I don’t shake hands unless of course I can wash immediately, I take a salsa class and it took more than a month for me to warm up to partnering because I was afraid to touch their hands. I can do it now but I still take frequent trips to the men’s room. But I’ve never been phobic to the point of dysfunctional.

Lately however, I notice that I am getting more “concerned” if you will, about cleanliness in general.

This weekend I had a pretty bad experience. I was out with some people who didn’t know me all that well and they decided to visit a gentlemen’s club. I nearly passed out. I wouldn’t sit down or touch anything, I was doing well until one of the dancers approached me and started rubbing my back. I think I lost consciousness for a moment there. No offense to exotic dancers but I was praying for a tub filled with penicillin.

I know that people use words as insults without any understanding of their actual meaning. But considering Mussolini’s definition, what distinguishes Fascism from other forms of Collectivism? Fascism was obviously opposed to Marxian Socialism but so was Fabianism and Titoism. Stalin’s Socialism was in stark contrast to Trotskyism. It is foolish then to define “Socialism” by its adherence to the principles and philosophy of Karl Marx.

If you have ever bothered to gain an accurate understanding of Fascism, can you explain what separates it from Fabianism (UK), Solidarism (France), Maoism (Asia/Latin America), Soviet Communism (Eastern Europe/Asia/Africa/Latin America), National Socialism [NAZI-ism] (Germany), Ba’athism (Syria/Iraq) or Democratic Socialism (USA)? Some of the States advocating these views have since passed but the ideologies remain intact.

So why do Leftists, repeatedly utter the “Fascist” when the ideology of the Fascist is more consistent with Leftist ideology?

I’ll excuse some people on the Left for their ignorance of the Constitution and the basic laws and rule of procedure. But I will not forgive the political demagogues and “journalists” who spout political attacks against the Bush Administration under the guise of principle. The Libby affair is just one example. They pretend to be shocked and offended that the President commuted Libby’s sentence. They claim that it is some kind of attack on the rule of law. They suggest that he could not possibly have respect for the decision of the jury if he sets aside part of their judgment. Additionally they act as if this were some invention of Bush that never has been used by a President before. I refuse to believe that these people are this ignorant. Therefore, their attacks cannot be anything but politically motivated. Few things irritate me more than feigned ignorance and sanctimony.

I cannot count the times I’ve watched, read or listened to a news report and heard the newsreader preface the report with the words, “studies show.” Then proceed to report some group’s statistical analysis showing a correlation between A and B. Don’t they know that statistics do not prove scientific fact? Now I appreciate the value of statistics in the initial phases of research. But these reports are usually released to the media so as to drum up support for whatever cause the groups are advocating. Additionally it is a tool used to obtain public and/or private funding for real scientific research. Telling me that 60% of men accused of DUI come from broken homes is about as informative as telling me that they have two arms, two legs and a head. These reports do nothing to enhance our understanding of the issues.

I witness on a daily basis, Leftists, who are incapable of mentioning Bush’s name without digging into their standard lexicon of offensive invectives. As a libertarian, I disagree with several of his policies, but I am still able to discuss my disagreements without a barrage of ad hominem attacks. Why is it impossible for so many of you on the Left to state in rational, logical terms why you dislike his policies without attacking him personally? I suspect that it is because you have no specifics. You dislike Republicans in general, Bush in particular so the very fact that he breaths leaves you traumatized to the point of incoherence. Am I wrong? Can you give me three policies of his with which you disagree and why? I don’t want wild conspiracy theories or conjecture. I want actual policies.

My top three:

1. Tariffs on imported steel and steel products. He later reversed himself on this.

2. Support for amnesty for illegal immigrants

3. Support for the Minimum Wage rate hike

You women are constantly talking about the kinds of men you want but the fact is, those are the guys you use or cheat on. Experience has taught me that women want real men. Now I have two, count them 2, post-graduate degrees, I go to art museums and the theatre (on my own), I don’t dress and smell like a troll, I am a gentleman (most of the time), I watch films with subtitles (and enjoy them), I have a personal library of over 500 titles, I use words with more than one syllable and I collect art and antiques. But I still enjoy hanging out with my mates, playing pool, extreme sports (including rugby), action movies, off-colour humour, Girls Gone Wild and saw-dust-on-the-floor pubs. What’s wrong with that!?!

Nothing says it better than the lyrics of Brad Pailey’s, "I'm Still A Guy"

http://www.dooballoh.com/cgi-bin/display.cgi?id=42...

Why do I always end up BEHIND people with the collective intelligence of dried fruit?

Every time I’m in a queue I get stuck behind people who take longer to conduct their business than it takes nature to convert dead dino carcass into crude oil. At the ATM people in front of me are apparently trying to refinance their mortgage. At the coffee shop people wait in line for 15 minutes then get to the cashier BEFORE deciding what they want to order. And I cant understand these people who exercise a greater degree of specificity and healthy discrimination in ordering a cup of coffee than they have ever exercised in their choice of lovers. At the bank people get to the teller and are caught by surprise at the fact that they need their paperwork on hand. In the airport people get to the gate and cant understand why they need a boarding pass and photo ID at the ready. The nerve of asking for a boarding pass and photo ID at an airport!

I ask this question because of a discussion with fellow scholars who did not know the answer even though it was a material fact in our discussion. What concerned me is not that they didn’t know, but that they never thought it important to an understanding of the issues we were discussing. Isnt intellectual inquiry a basic duty of a scholar?

Isn’t intellectual inquiry a basic duty of a scholar? Maybe I’m just too traditional.

For me there is a difference between an acquaintance, an associate and a friend. But since so many people use the term “friend” to describe all three I have to ask what kind of friend you are:

1) A fair weather friend

2) A “see you when I see you” friend

3) A “take you to the airport” friend

4) A “bail you out of jail at 3 in the morning” friend

Following the overthrow of Saddam’s Ba’athist regime millions of Iraqis went to the polls to elect a Constituent Assembly whose duty was to draft a Constitution. The Constitution was submitted to the Iraqi people who voted en masse for it’s ratification. The only group to boycott the election was the Sunni Clergy. Notwithstanding, several thousands of Sunnis voted in the affirmative for the Constitution. This was followed up with a general election for a new Parliament and President. This election was not officially boycotted by any group. Yet there are a few extremists (Iraqi and foreign) who are opposed to this outcome and demonstrate on a daily basis their passionate opposition with violence against the US forces, the Iraqi authorities and the Iraqi people.

Is it advisable then to abandon the millions to the whims of the few for no other reason than our desire to sleep well at night in the “peace” of surrender?

So many people tend to think that crime exists because people are poor. But there are numerous examples of economically depressed communities with miniscule crime rates. Generally speaking if a neighbouhood is beset with crime, businesses will be less inclined to locate there. Those that do so are forced to charge higher prices for the goods and services they provide as the cost of doing business in high-crime areas is greater than in others. With fewer job opportunities in the community and fewer employers outside the community willing to higher its residents (rightly or wrongly) an economically depressed community can quikly become an impoverished community where the poor simple get poorer.

The Parties have undergone a considerable reversal of positions. The Republicans began and have existed until quite recently as the opposition Party. While there were good reasons to oppose to Slavery, the early Labour Movement and Communism, they never fully articulated their opposition in the context of a philosophical or ideological framework that could serve as the basis for intellectual engagement with the Left. These roles are now reversed. The Democrats are now the opposition Party and have fallen into that same intellectual abyss. But-for Socialized Medicine and Global Warming, they lack a positive raison d’etre.

It is natural for a Party in opposition to rely on the emotional fervour of radical extremists and the intellectually uncouth. The trick however is to avoid becoming a prisoner of the emotion-driven mob. The mob that brings the demagogue to power will naturally expect him to uphold his promises. If he vacillates, he risks trading their support for their animus

Leftists vociferously criticize the US for having warm relationships with countries that they claim are corrupt and dictatorial yet simultaneously insist that the US should have warm relationships with other countries that are corrupt and dictatorial (Iran, Syria, Cuba, Korea, etc.). It seems to me that this is nothing more than good old-fashioned political jargon. If they are opposed to corruption and dictatorship as a principled position, why do they reflectively support those corrupt dictatorships that oppose US interests?

If I may be so bond as to make an unpleasant observation, those countries that the Left wants the US to cozy up to are Socialists countries (with exception of Iran which is more Fascist). For the record, Ba’athism is Socialism (part Stalinist, part Hitlerian).

Within the last ten years or so this term has become fashionable in the American political lexicon. Unfortunately it has no substantive meaning. Its more of a euphemism as I see it. In my experience, the people who describe themselves as “moderate” are basically Leftists who lack the intellectual honesty to admit it, lack the courage of their convictions and/or lack the ability to understand that they are Leftists. After all, they tend to regurgitate Leftists dogma in knee-jerk fashion on any number of issues. Now there was a time in my life when I could legitimately be considered “middle of the road” but at the time my philosophical perspective was transitioning from Socialist to Liberal (Classical Liberal that is or Libertarian if you prefer). I was too busy getting informed of the facts I, like every other Socialists, vehemently refused to even consider before.

Why not drop the “Moderate” label and all other cowardly pretensions and admit where you stand.

Yes it does!!!!

Our ability to understand the difference between natural climate change and man-induced climate change is crucial to our understanding of our ability to affect it the outcome. If we accept the “man-made global warming” model then it is entirely within man’s ability to alter the environment. Man is granted a degree of power over his environment that strains credulity both logically and scientifically. On the other hand, if we accept the “natural global warming” model, it places into perspective our ability to affect our environment considering our limitations as human beings. We can then see the harmful effects of our activities and take reasonable steps to reduce those effects. Absent such a distinction, we succeed only in doing more harm than good.

What say you?