The Space Between…

Posted on Sep 6th, 2011 | 0 comments

The Space Between…

There is a story making the rounds where a certain union leader made incindiery comments towards an opponent group that can definitely be read as a call to arms for union members to ‘take ‘em out’ (whatever that means). This caused me to think (something I am lead to do more and more frequently these days) – what generates the space between those that yell and scream from those who are the receipents of those vocal and at times physical abuses?

I am an individualist – rabid but not radical; I wish no one ill will or feel animous toward those who believe differently than I. I cannot say the same for others on the opposite end of the idealogical spectrum. Wherever I encounter those who are championing the cause of the ‘little people’, invariably I find that the love for their fellow person ends with those who believe as they do. Call it what you will – progressive, liberal, socialist, anticapitalist, unions, social welfare advocates and so many other titles – the defining factor of these groups are one of hatred and acrimony toward those who believe differently than they.

I have my own reasons for not shouting and raising my blood pressure where issues are concerns (well, most of the time) – however I cannot fathom those who will leverage their full volume for simple, often stupid points of contention. I cannot understand the MTV “real world” generation of those who will yell and get in one anothers faces for the silliest things. I don’t understand those who target others personally for topics centered around ideas and beliefs – those who will attack others verbally and/or physically whether violent or not. I want to believe that those who behave in such ways have poor impusle control (I know I once did) or don’t have malice in their hearts – this is however a fools desire and I know it.

Bullies, thugs and gang members (whether from areas of squaller or from marble palaces and office buildings) are convinced they are better than the rest of us. If you swear allegince to their cause, you’re fine; if you disagree with their message or approach you are akin to slave property in their minds. Beatings, verbal abuse and general pit bull behavior are acceptable because we are in their way. Their enemies must be defeated – even though there is no war outside of the one in their minds. Any means is acceptable if the ends are met.

The space between us and them couldn’t be more stark. I want the world to be as Lennon wanted it but in a libertarian framework. I want the hunger and poverty to end as much as Tia Leone does (UNICEF spokeswomen) but I wouldn’ think of taking from another to make those wants come true. I want the dialog in our country to be spirited and lively with zero personal attacks and the job of representing the Republic to be one that is honorable and prized for the message it says about the one entrusted – not one of graft and corruption where the lowest common denominator runs to get a choice job.

I don’t want what another has through theft or entitlement. I want to earn my way even where it causes me great pain and impact to do so. It is my desire to talk and not to yell. Rather than stick around and bark at someone I will walk away and remove myself from that situation. I have had incredible discussions with friends and strangers that have been fulfilling and informing without being flogged or talked down.

I do not know what the answers are related to making progress toward civility and retarding scandalous behavior where human interactions are concerned. My dogs deal with one another by barking and making more noise and alpha positioning. I cannot imagine a world where humans are devolving towards pack behavior with one another – this however is what I am seeing and it scares me. The only choice in that world is one the 12th century mongols would recognize.

What does “being involved” look like?

Posted on Sep 23rd, 2010 | 0 comments

There’s a misnomer related to being involved with the political system- here are some ways you can show support for a candidate running for office.

• Give a little or a lot, but give  (Sadly, until money goes away or laws eliminate political spending, part of the campaign process requires funding)
• Tweet, post and speak you mind in the social media
• Put a sign in your yard
• Talk you your friends and family- nothing partisan but about character and the need for honor in office
• Give of your time and skills – campaigns are no different than other endeavours
• Be a poll monitor
• Become a precinct capitan
• Support your candidate at the polls on election day and during early voting
• Attend events rallying support for your candidate

More than any of those small sampling of ideas, register to vote and show up at the polls on election day.  You can do that here (www.triggerthevote.com) or at your local State Board of Elections website and office.  In NC, the registration deadline is 25 days before an  election so get you butt into gear and flex your liberty and freedom.  A pathetic 38% historical turnout is due entirely to apathy and we can no longer afford the luxury of standing idly by.

Political Affiliation – What do you believe?

Posted on Sep 15th, 2010 | 0 comments

First off, if you are reading this post and have hatred in your heart for one party or another, you’re probably in the wrong place.  You’ve been forewarned….

There was a quote recently by a talking head on CNN – the quote (paraphrased) was, “He’s worse than a racist; he’s a libertarian”.  This person was speaking of Rand Paul, of whom I knew little about until he was propelled onto the national scene through his primary win in Kentucky.

The first thought that I had was, ‘What an idiotic premise – that a person was worse than a racist (pretty damn bad from my perspective) because they believed in a set of political principles.”  I was sufficiently interested to make myself aware of the range of modern American political process.  Here I share with you what I learned.

There are two primary groups that drive the discussion in America – The Individualist and the Collectivist.   I am purposely avoiding party names as that reference is meaningless in today’s world.  From the Collectivist, the groups include Communist, Socialist, Fascist, Statist and any other line of thinking that posit the ‘State’ should be primarily responsible for the welfare and care of citizens in the country in question.  The Individualist brings in groups such as Libertarians, Conservatives and so called Independents who posit that individuals in a free society should be primarily responsible for the welfare of themselves and their families and communities.

Bad Actors and Crying Wolf

Posted on Sep 10th, 2010 | 0 comments

I’m sitting in my office and looking out the window.   The radio is on, there is a hummingbird hovering on the other side of the glass.  I hear a story come over the radio about the tragic crash of a plane.  The next is Senator Harry Reid saying “I cannot see how a Hispanic could be a Republican”.

That triggered a thought that festered.  I recalled a speaker I’d heard years before (Brian Tracy) who introduced the idea “You are what you think about most of the time”.  That got me thinking about the current origin based controversy and the race baiting that is so often associated with politics.  If you look at Charlie Rangle, Maxine Waters, Sheila Jackson Lee, Harry Reid (and I could go on and on and on) – you can’t get through a news article without some mention of race being presented.  Incidentally many of the Democrats platform planks would be much to do about nothing in a color blind world.

If you speak with politicians who are actually focused on legislation and problem solving, you find that there are rarely mentions of skin color or country of origin during the discourse.  The example I find most striking today is Eric Cantor, who delivers the message in an articulate manner and makes a strong case with facts.  Apparently, Mr Cantor is focused on solving problems most of the time – it is what his personal presentation provides.    When talking head debates are  presented, invariably the left leaning speaker starts with an issue but turns to race, religion or class baiting and the right leaning speaker attempts to speak about the issue while fielding accusations of racism.  The progressives in the Democratic party in particular seem obsessed with race and racism.  They see racists everywhere.   Sadly the facts do not bear out the accusations.  The facts are as follows:

• The United States consists of approx. 72% white, 12.4% black, 4.4% Asian and 15% Hispanic. (Wikipedia)
• Between 1998 and 2008, hate crimes were nearly identical statistically, with 51% race related, 19.5% religion related and 16.7% sexual-orientation related.  7700-7800 incidents were reported in both years. (FBI reports)
• There were 1,382,012 violent criminal offenses reported by the FBI in 2008 – 1.4 Million.  Hate crimes makeup 0.005643% of all violent crimes.

The general narrative the Mass Media/Mainstream Media/State-Controlled Media perpetrates is that America is still a racist, bigoted nation.  The facts show that narrative is dead wrong.  America is not perfect – we are not free of character defects and problematic characters that will always be in the community.  But America is working on our failings; whites are bending their realities to more than accommodate the media’s rants, blacks are willing to accept that not all whites are suspect and must be kept at arms length and so on.  We are making the effort and culture cannot be legislated; it must evolve.

Conservatives have a natural weakness politically: we shy away from visceral conflict, name calling and charges in lieu of arguing facts and fighting in the arena of ideas.  Progressives and leftists (anarchists, socialists, marxists) have no such concerns about truth and facts.  Their approach follows media advertising principles of develop the message, make sure its got a hook in that message, and beat it to death attempting to smear, defame and sensationalize anything they think will stick to the wall.  Take Arizona;  those who believe in the rule of law supported SB1070 peacefully – those who disliked the law recruited union members and organized single issue groups to descend on Arizona and create chaos and strife.  Why?

Because the progressive thought leads them to conclude they cannot reach their goals without the use of stupid human tricks and gimmicks.  “Never let a crisis go to waste”, Pelosi’s perp walk for Obamacare, ground zero mosque, etc et al.  Their utopia is not acceptable to the mainstream of America and they believe the American people must be presented a choice as the Germans were presented in the 30s.  Out of crisis comes the foundation for their new utopia, and they attempt in every avenue to create violence and anarchy.

But Progressives are losing their foothold as the average momma-bear wakes from their slumber intellectually and begins to see the world today.  They don’t accept the story and are digging in.  Beware of bad actors crying wolf so the crisis created can be leveraged.

Update:

One final thought: saw a documentary on NatGeoWild – the natural weakness of conservatives is akin to the hibernation of a grizzly bear.  During hibernation the bear’s heart rate drops to 15 beats per minute and uses just half of the heart at that.  When awaken from their slumber, the heart resumes its normal 70 bpm and full utilization.  Conservatives find conflict distasteful and uncomfortable – but when prodded to wake we will rise and flex our strength.  No one finds themselves comfy in the presence of a grizzly bear – and the progressives, liberals and establishment naysayers are losing their minds as if they stumbled upon a hungry, angry bear.  In analogy, they have done just that.

The Wrong Prescription – repost

Posted on Sep 10th, 2010 | 0 comments

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/246198/wrong-prescription-andrew-stuttaford

The Corner

The Wrong Prescription
September 10, 2010 9:59 A.M.
By Andrew Stuttaford
Oh dear:

Sheriffs in North Carolina want access to state computer records identifying anyone with prescriptions for powerful painkillers and other controlled substances.

North Carolina’s sheriffs quite obviously have way too much time on their hands, but even if we ignore the insult to privacy concerns implicit in the sheriffs’ suggestion (not to speak of the stupidity of widening the “war on drugs” still further), there’s something else to consider. Reason’s Radley Balko explains:

[L]aw enforcement officials’ definition of over-prescribing has sharply diverged from that of pain professionals. High-dose opiate therapy, a promising new treatment for chronic pain, has basically been cut off at the knees because of high-profile cases in which DEA officials, U.S. attorneys, and state and local law enforcement with no medical training have taken it upon themselves to decide what is and isn’t appropriate treatment.

And the problem is self-perpetuating. As more doctors leave pain management out of fear, those left feel pressure to take on more patients. And the fewer doctors willing to prescribe pain patients the meds they need, the more doctors legitimate patients need to see to get proper treatment. Both are consequences of bad policy. And both are then considered by law enforcement to be signs of abuse.

Letting cops go fishing in patient databases for these “red flags” is only going to make it all worse. Sure, they may well find a few unscrupulous doctors, and perhaps some people who are using doctors to feed an addiction. But one thing that’s almost certain to happen is that doctors are going to become even more fearful that every script is going to be scrutinized. Which means fewer of them will be willing to write them. Which means more pain patients are going to suffer, despite the fact that there are drugs available to help them.

And what will the supposedly science-friendly Obama administration do about the examples of this sort of overreach at the federal level? Let’s see.