Monday, April 18, 2005

Reading Liberal blogs is a waste of time

Atrios at Eschaton is one of the most widely read Liberal bloggers and reading him is like sitting on top of a shit heap during a tornado. Here is his post on Time's article on Ann Coulter. Read the comments. They are largely crazed, ugly and stupid and these are the so-called informed Liberals. I looked at the Ann Coulter criticism when I read Slander. I checked up on the original sources and the claims made by her critics. I did it again when I read Treason. They are simply wrong. The criticisms are not valid.

Liberals are Liberals because they have not developed the skill of critical thinking. They can not seem to make good judgments about evidence and argument. They are often very good and complex thinking which sounds critical and they are always impressed by it, but it rarely comport with reality. Compare the weak charges they have made against Tom Delay to the charges against Clinton. Delay seems to have been doing business as usual, the same things Barbara Boxer has done, whereas Clinton actually did commit perjury and sexual harassments. Somehow, Liberal make excuses and obfuscate the facts surrounding the myriad Clinton problems, but can see very clearly the crimes of Tom Delay (not Boxer, though). They, of course, have it backwards.

I think that this is only possible because they approach the debate with a preconceived world-view which informs them about reality. The problem is that this world-view is wrong. That is why they are so willing to believe weak, faulty arguments which happen to agree with the Liberal world-view and ignore the obvious problems with it.

I am not saying that Ann's arguments are always right nor that Conservatives are always right. Indeed, here I show that a Conservative was wrong about Ann Coulter. What I am saying is that reading Liberal blogs is a waste of time. We do it, of course, but it rarely yields anything of value. On the other hand, Libertarians, Neo-Libertarians, religious conservatives and non-religious conservatives, et alia, debate current issues with an openness and rigor that puts the left to shame. It is very rewarding and fruitful. Remember, Clinton's greatest achievements were conservative ideas. Right now, there is more debate about SS reform and real tax reform than ever before -- and it is all coming from the right.

Since Liberals do wield political power (demagogery always does), we have to spend alot of time refuting them and therefore explaining the positions to which we object. So if you read good rightish blogs you will inform yourself of both sides. It is truly laughable to read a Liberal who tries to explain the conservative position on anything. They have no idea how we think - how many times have you heard that Conservatives don't care about the environment?. On the other hand, we know very well how they think. Many of us used to be Liberals and nearly all of us were educated in Liberal thinking.

Whether you think Liberalism is a religion, a mental disorder, or, like me, an immature state of personal development, reading their blogs is mainly a waste of time.

Sunday, April 17, 2005

Hypocrites Attack Bolton

The Democrats are throwing the word "abuse" around like monkeys fling crap. It's effective, stinky, and won't come back to stain them. It's a vague, risk free accusation that truly can be leveled against any one who's ever had any authority.

It's the primary indictment against John Bolton, and honestly, I'm extremely comfortable with that. I mean really, is that the best ya got, Biden? You're concerned that he doesn't work well with others? 'Pot calling the kettle black, much?

I might be compelled by the "abuse" complaint if I'd never seen a senate hearing, or any news debate show ever. Our leaders and experts yell over and at each other all the time. Or if Id never had a job ...

Have you ever worked under a manager who shied away from conflict with their subordinates? Sure, you have. It's hell, isn't it? Bad workers get away with being bad, while good workers pick up the slack. And the reward for picking up the slack, is more slack to pick up.

But I digress. The point is, leaders sometimes have to yell, or threaten. Some people need to be yelled at and threatened because they do crappy work or are inappropriate. Why would you want a leader who never yelled at any one? Are we to assume that no one at the state department has ever done crappy work?

At least Bolton tries to get rid of people he thinks are bad. I watched Joe Biden call Condi Rice a liar even while telling her he planned to vote for her confirmation. What is that?

P.S. The word "abuse" has a serious context to any one who has ever actually been abused. How very sensitive of the Democrats to use the same word to describe Bolton that we use for adults who beat their kids.

P.P.S. Is it abusive to go around calling some one abusive? And what's the difference between Bolton trying get rid of people, and people trying to get rid of Bolton?

John Bolton's Bedside Manner

Imagine you're quite ill, and you need to choose a physician. When the shit hits the fan, and your life is on the line, what are the criteria you would use?

Would you eliminate an M.D. from your list if he said uncomplimentary things about the hospital administration or other doctors? What if yelled at nurses, or intimidated them? What if he occaisionally insulted patients or hurt their feelings?

I can tell you I have worked closely with three doctors who've done all those things, and they're the best three doctors I've ever worked with. When I had a patient in crisis, they're the doctors I wanted around.

I don't like their nasty attitudes, but these three doctors can be depended upon to get the job done, and do it well. I believe they save people where other doctors would have failed. But if their presence depended upon their popularity with the nurses, they might have a hard time finding work.

Now, a good bed side manner is important and helpful, but it's not the end all. In the end, you want to be healthy. You want to live.

It's the same with John Bolton.

Thursday, April 14, 2005

Wu Li Blogging and Joe Jackson

We took a 2:00 AM drive tonight under a crystal clear night sky, listening to Joe Jackson's haunting and lovely Steppin' Out. When we got back home, I googled "joe jackson stepping out lyrics." The first response was a post from Right Thinking Girl dated April 3rd which was also the date of our last post. Coincidence? I prefer to think like a Dancing Wu Li Master. There is some mysterious mist hiding the lines which connect our minds with electricity so fine.

We are always very happy when people we like like the same stuff as we do. We have always been huge fans of Orson Scott Cards' Ender's Game, one of the best SciFi books ever. We could barley contain our joy when we found out that he is not a moonbat. There are others too, like Alton Brown who appreciates the beauty of (the old) Junkyard Wars and does not sound like a Liberal to us either. The list, thankfully, goes on.

I am tempted to attribute these connections we share to "spooky actions at a distance" especially now. Better, though, is the simple truth. It is not surprising that people who think clearly often agree. The real world has honed our minds in a similar manner. Ender's Game is great because Card is true to human nature.

Well, I could go on, but my comfy bed beckons and I absolutley must have an Ouzo.

Monday, April 04, 2005

Zogby Schiavo poll makes me sick

Michelle discusses the new Zogby poll on the Schiavo matter. Zogby's poll suggest that a plurality of Americans in fact agree with us:
43 percent say "the law presume that the person wants to live, even if the person is receiving food and water through a tube" while just 30 percent disagree.
I argue that the numbers are actually higher and are artificially low due to the massively biased and shoddy, but overwhelming media coverage.

A perhaps more important consideration is what this means for our court system. Judges are now being told that an "evolving national consensus" is the guide by which they are to rule. That is offensive enough anyway, but what about the dangers of divining this "consensus?" This poll certainly suggests that may be very tricky indeed. Yes, I know that is why the Court appealed to an "evolving" consensus, one that has developed over time so as to even out these kinds of things.

But, really, do you think that works? First, think about how much time went by concerning McCarthy. Certainly any judge would have been on safe ground assuming that the national consensus was that he was a raving lunatic who falsely accused people of conspiring with Communists. How about Julius Rosenberg? I was taught as a fact that he was falsely executed by our government. Surprise! Along came VENONA proving that Julius was a spy and that McCarthy was right; there were spies in the State department. Many people still think McCarthy was wrong (and basically evil.)

"National consensus" has nothing to do with truth or justice. Terri may very well have been killed because the judges who had the chance to stop this travesty felt that they were carrying out the national consensus. Surprise! There was no consensus.

This poll did not make me feel justified. It made me feel sick.

Sunday, April 03, 2005

Bill Press is an idiot

Now, we are not religious, but we can recognize atheistic bias when we here it. Judge Roy Moore was on After Words with Bill Press. Moore explained his position that the U.S. is a Christian nation. He explained how this does not in anyway mean that it is so by "establishment." Press simply would not here it and kept on complaining that to say that was in contradiction of the establishment clause.

This, of course, is dumb. Press has an anti-religion bias that prevents him from hearing anything which to him suggests that America was and is a Christian nation. Moore was very reasonable and appealed to the actual words of our various founding documents and early Supreme Court texts which all prove to any reasonable person that the Christian faith was taken as granted among all citizens and even in our documents like the Declaration. The genius of the founders was that despite this, they prohibited the governments from actually establishing any particular sect or religion by law. Somehow, Press takes this to mean that the founders were describing a nation without any religious character, a nation whose laws and institutions must not contain anything remotely religious.

What infuriates me about this is the bigotry. We just saw it in the Schiavo case where people who themselves do not want to live like that were biased against any arguments from the other side. Here we are again. Press does like religion and thus he can not allow any argument which favors it to have merit.

America is a free country and that means we are free to exercise our religion. The only limitation to that exercise is that such may not hinder another's religious exercise. That is the point of prohibiting the Federal government from establishing one religion in law. (Of course, states should be free to do just that, but let's not go there.) There is nothing in our Constitution which says you are protected from hearing or being near another citizen while he or she is engaged in religious exercise. Indeed, as we often say, the cure to odious speech is laudable speech, not a restriction of speech. The same must apply to religious exercise.

It is stupid and dangerous to think that federal institutions must be cleansed of religion. They must allow for free religious expression; that is the point of the establishment clause. Just because Bill Press is offended by silent school prayers does not mean that the school has established Christianity as the official state religion. It is absurd to think that a Jewish or Muslim student's right to free exercise of religion is in any real way diminished by this. Also, school prayer is not the law and no school has ever attempted to enforce any sort of conformity of school prayer. As usual, the religious right is far more tolerant than the Left.

Atheism, Leftism and Liberalism are, in fact, religious in nature. It's not that they have moral value like many religions, but that they appeal to man's religious nature. (Need proof? Just talk to them. Why do you think they all act like they are in a cult? It's because they are.) Anyway, I think that it is man's natural religious tendency which is to blame for Liberalism surviving despite it very obvious corruption. (This is not to say why Liberals themselves adopt Liberalism. On that issue I still like my earlier explanation: immaturity.) Naturally, Press and other Left cultists are perfectly happy to enforce their own religious views on others.

Just to be clear, this is not the first time I've examined Bill Press. He debated somebody on C-Span just before the election making arguments from his book. I took notes and began to analyze them. I gave up because it was not even worth my time. It was another example of the above. He refused to accept the validity of arguments which proved him wrong.

Liberals do this sort of thing all the time for the same reason that they hypocritically impose restriction on others they would never accept on themselves. They believe that they have special insight, gained by their "education" (read indoctrination), as to the future. They believe in a political heaven. Yes, it is the old utopia which the rest of us have left behind along with our blanky and teddy bears. They may not call themselves Marxists or Communists any more, though some still do, but they are the same. They have seen the light and they will bring you with them whether you like it or not. In fact, they have to bring you, because they need your labor to make their paradise work. All is in the service of Progress. History and human nature be damned -- full speed ahead!