Conservatism's Eternal Problem

THE CONSERVATIVES recently had their big annual meeting, confronted with the problem of what to do about the recent election disaster, and how to lure hispanics and young people, how to reverse the war against secular socialism, which they seem to be losing.

One young lady pointed out "people think young people are liberal. That isn't true. Some television shows are sending a conservative message. There's one with a gay couple, but they're married, and they have a kid! That's conservative!"

Well, not exactly. If this is what passes for modern conservatism: a gay couple, but married, then conservatism is becoming yesterday's liberalism. Conservatism is more like "gay guy fights agains being gay, knowing its wrong, and eventually he succeeds."

The conservative community will have to adjust its views on gay marriage, and other social issues, such as abortion  recreational drug use, and pathways to citizenship for illegal immigrants, among other things, in order to sufficiently catch up with the times to attract tomorrow's voters.

That's what their big meeting is all about; finding ways to modernize, without appearing to compromise consrvative principles. That's the eternal problem confronting conservatism, and its a big one. Wish them luck.

Rand the Fatuous

SO NOW, RAND PAUL is "seriously considering" running for president, which is code for I am intoxicated by the power, prestige, and attention i receive as a united states senator, and i want more of the same.

It is certainly not code for I want to be of service to my country. It never is. Anyone wanting to be of service need only pay a quick visit to a salvation army location, or plant a tree. One need not engage in a desperate twenty four seven two year pursuit of high political power to be of service to one's country.

Rand Paul the other day stood on the floor of the senate and refused to stop talking, because he had not received an answer from president obama to the following question; "would you ever launch a missile attack against the united states of america?"

Let us assume, for the sake of sanity and cynicism that no president of the united states would ever attack america. Can we ast least agree on that? Apparently not. Rand Paul already knew this, knew the answer to his theatrical, fatuous query perfectly well, but anything for a bit more attention from the media.

This is not the behavior of a person who is qualified to be president. This is the behavior of a small child. This is petty, this is juvenile. Well, he got his answer, in writing, from the attorney general. It is to be hoped that any campaign he launches for the american presidency will be met with the derision it so deserves.

Without Socialism

LET'S BE CAREFUL to make neither too much, nor too little of the death of hugo chavez. Was he a tyrannt? Absolutely. Did he advocate for the poor? He did, in that he seized much of the wealth of his country, and redistributed some of it, while probably keeping some of it for himself. Like many politicians, he became wealthy while in office, and, like harry truman once said, you cannot do that by being honest.

For those conservatives among you who denounce chavez for being a socialist, which would you do away with? Social security, medicare, medicaid? Minimum wage? All of the above, considering the nature of wealthy american conservatives.

Would you do away with the process of incorporation? Or patents? Or bankruptcy? All of these, dear conservative friends, are socialistic devices, government mandated programs created for the very purpose of propping up capitalism, and preventing the free market from consuming itself, and everone else, save for a few extremely prosperous few.

In a free market, anyone who participates in any business would bear the full responsibility of that participation, without hiding behind a conceptual  entity. Any good or service to enter the market would immediately be available to anyone wishing to exploit it, and anyone whose business failed would be responsbile for all debt incurred thereat, without using bankruptcy to evade responsiblility.

The united states is, at least in large part, a socialist country.
why, the very process of magically, mysteriously converting a business into a hypothetical human being, a legal fiction of a person, in order to relieve its real human participants of the responsibility for their own actions- is an atrificial economic device intended to prop up business.

Without socialism, there can be no capitalism.

Jesus, Guns, and Money

GORE VIDAL, THE prominent writer who died a few months ago, was anoted liberal, and he had a name for american conservatives. He called them the "jesus, guns, and money  crowd". This in reference to the seemingly accurate generalization that american conservatives tend to be very strongly pro capitalistic, stridently anti socialistic, tend to be closely accosicated with christianity, and tend to ardently support the second amendment, unmitigated.

To vidal, and perhaps to others, this combination seemed a bit, shall we say, incongruous. Did the Son of Man not preach weaponless pacifism, and absolute sharing of wealth? Turn the other cheek, render unto caesar, go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give unto the poor, and so forth.

It seem plain enough. The explanation to this seeming contradiction of values might be found in the nature of consrvatism itself. nConservatism embraces the status quo. Conservatism resists change.In any culture, and country, the "establishment" is the conservative status quo.

And, in this country (U.S.A.) the establishment is christianity, capitalism, and the second amendment. These values are never seen as contradictory or inconsistent.They are bulwarks of the statuw quo, and are what they are because they are tried and true, proven effective, unassailably true.

Those who succeed greatly financially are being rewarded becuae they are good christians, devotedly, unswervingly following the man who preached a message of voluntary poverty. (sell WHATSOEVER thou hast, and give.)

Ironic, that the most liberal person in human history is most admired by the least liberal humans among us.

More Things In Heaven and Earth

A FEW DAYS AGO  a major television network had a story about dolphins, and the amazing discovery that dolphins not only have a language and speak to each other, they have names.
It may be that for a living creature to have a name is really no big deal; maybe it happens all the time.

I have always suspected, and still do suspect, that cats, for instance, have absolutely no interest in the names we haman pet owners give them. Cats don't repsond when you call them, they respond when they are good and ready, right?

Maybe every sparrow has a name for every other sparrow, and likewise earthworms, and so forth. Still, to us, to actually hear dolphins calling each other by name is profoundly exciting, and maybe just a bit humbling.

It makes you wonder what else different animals can do that we don't know about. Maybe you don't have to use tools, build structures, and print books to be intelligent. Could it be that dolphins, without arms,legs, or hammers, know more about the world than we do, and travel around the universe more than we can even dream?

Suddenly the need to save this planet intensifies, and not only becuase we wish to save oursleves. Who knows what precious cargo this world harbors that we know nothing about? Ther is evidence, good evidence, that dolphins use telepathy in communicating, as well as sound waves.

There is evidence that humans, using "mass mind melding" can influence conditions on this planet.

The first lady, the oscars, and true democracy

PRETTY COOL,  the first lady michelle obama being introduced by the legendary jack nicholson, and reading in front of the world, from the white house, the winner of the oscar for best picture. yes, abraham lincoln was another scheming politician, and it cost him the big prize.

There was a whole lotta negative criticism about michesse's TV appearance, mostly coming from, of all people, american conservative republicans. And its like the first lady said; since we can now all know what everybody else is saying, ever little event turns into a national conversation.

And that's a good thing. Really, its getting to the point where we can almost all just about vote on everything, every issue, without having to leave it to the elite few ruling class of politicians. Hallelujah.

We all know of course that the founders were more fearful of real democracy than they were of tyranny, and, really, for good reason. mob rule can become an exercise in insanity. Representative democracy, republicanism, is the sensible form of democratic government.

But maybe we have just a bit too much representation, indirect representatin, and not quite enoug direct democracy, not quite enough mob rule. A little mob rule now and again never hurt anybody, long as it don't get outta hand.

Millions of good, patriotic americans, in front of their computers, casting votes on whether to draft a new constitution, or keep the old one. Whether to legalize marijuana, or keep criminalizing it. Whether to retaliate against china for unfair trade practices. The potential is unlimited.

All three hundred million of us could, in theory, get online, and send demands to our congresspeople and to el presidente, demanding national online referendums of a wide variety of issues, issues which need to be decided, but haven't beren by the "representative" government, but haven't been.

Our founders, dear friends and fellow american citizens, were far too fearful of mob rule. We don't have "representative" government in this country any more than we have equal protection under the law. We have an oligarchy of the corporate elite.

So let's change it. Let's create a real, direct democracy, using modern high tech. We've only our submission to the military industrial corporate complex to lose.

The Sequester, and Common Sense

So OBAMA GOT A LITTLE TESTY at a press conference, when someone suggested that maybe he shouldn't blame the republicans. These people don't know what testy is. They should have hung around harry truman. harry got testy, in a hurry. harry was testiness, personified.

at first, obama wanted to raise income tax rates on the wealthy, and the republicans responded that this was robbery, and suggested instead that tax loopholes be closed. So, obama gave up the tax increase, and instead endorsed and proposed closing loopholes;

only by now, the republicnas, perhpas emboldened, has decided that closing loopholes was unacceptable. And they accuse obama of moving the goal post. what we have here is a failure to communicate, as the line goes.

We have to have an economic system that works, wouldn't we all agree, and in order to do that the currency must be, shall we say, "viable"? Worth something, in other words. And how can that happen when the very government which issues it  and supports it treats the currency as if its worthless?

And there shall be a constitutional amendment prohibiting the spending by the government of money it does not have. Simple common sense, seemingly.

The "sequester" is tough medicine, but its the sort of medicine we need. We need lots of intelligent government budget cuts. Too bad the sequester cuts make no sense, but, at least its a start. If there are vast amount of money in circulation with no real material wealth to back it up, then problems arise, problems  with the value of the currency. Inflation can kill an economy, and always does.

At the Bottom of the Cliff, With No Pope

MARCH FIRST HAS ARRIVED, the pope is no longer the pope, and the united states has fallen off the cliff, again, or, as our half breed president says, its gone down a steep incline, or something like that. Half breed? Of course. Nothing derogatory intended. If the term was good enough for cherokee-irish americans in previous american history, it'll do just fine now.

Either way, it makes no sense, just like it makes no sense to abuse a perfectly good currency system, or place unreasonable requirements upon people, such as priests. A lot of what we the human species does makes less sense than it should, it might be agreed.

And it almost seems as if the world is continuing to turn. Can you imagine a papal election every , say, four years, a billion catholics registering and voting, with world wide election campaigns featuring mass advertising, pep rallies in full stadiums, the whole works?

"Crush the infamous thing!" said francois marie arouet, aka voltaire, in reference to the catholic church. That might be going a bit too far, particularly since he said it in seventeenth century france, but, his point is well made; we must not overly fear change.

We could eliminate annual cost of living increases for social security, ease the retirement age up just a smidge, use means testing for medicare, cut the military significantly without harming america's safety in the least, and pretty much be on our way out of this mess.

Can you imagine a priest, promising to remain celibate for life, and then, later on, finding out that, oh my, notwithstanding pledges and contracts, he is still human, in every conceivable way. What on earth could ever be done about that?

If we are not even remotely willing to give consideration to solutions which loom conspicuously before our smiling faces, then what hope have we to escape  future entrapments of our own creation?

 they all are, you know.  "so often times it happens, that we live our lives in chains, and we never even know we have the key." (the eagles). Congratulations are in order for pope benedict 16, who found the key. May we all be so fortunate.