Blood from a Stone

So I read an article by Neal Gabler of the L.A. Times called "America The Stony-Hearted". Have you read this? Go ahead. I'll wait.

I'm not even sure where to begin. I guess at the beginning. I thought I could just let this go, but I can't stop thinking about it and the more I think about it the more it bothers me. So here I am, getting it off my chest.

Compassion is a good and necessary thing, but like all good things it can be taken to a point where it is no longer compassion and no longer good. Our "complex national morality" is not dual in nature. When one truly lives the "Puritan-inflected America of rugged individualism, hard work, self-reliance and personal responsibility in which you reap what you sow, God helps those who help themselves, and our highest obligation is to live righteously" one creates an "America of community, common cause, charity and collective responsibility." (Though I would like to point out a contradiction. There is no such thing as collective responsibility. All behavior comes down to individuals. Each individual is responsible for his or her own behavior, no one else's.)

Where did this idea come from that compassion's only proper channel is a government program? Compassion is not something that's done by committee. It's one person acknowledging and wishing to alleviate another person's suffering, particularly when that suffering is cause by conditions outside their control. Thus, it is best served first by one's family, then friends then larger community and then outward from there. But the farther it gets from home, the less it's compassion and the more it's a cop-out. If the government takes your money and throws it at a problem then you don't have to think about it. Oh, the government has a program for that! They're handling it. Makes me think of that line from A Christmas Carol when Scrooge asks, "Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?"

 So when people like Mr. Gabler call people like Hannity, Beck and Limbaugh on the carpet for "promulgat[ing] an individualism untempered by human decency", I get a little twitchy. Human decency?! What's indecent about wanting the government to stop taking our money only to pour it endlessly into bureaucratic black holes that wind up feeding a bloated government machine more than it actually helps anyone? What's indecent about demanding that the people who earn the money be allowed to keep it and decide where, when, how and to whom their resources are allotted? Oh, he "generously" allows that the occasional conservative demonstrates a certain kind of compassion, but then takes back that narrow compliment by implying that it's not the right kind of compassion because it's not directed at the kind of crises and suffering that he has decided are more morally valid. If it's directed more toward those who are affected by natural disasters as opposed to social disasters (what is a social disaster, anyway?! Because to me, it sounds like a birthday party or a prom date that went bad) and those whose productive, wealth-making capacity is being strangled by overzealous regulation as opposed to those who've had their feelings hurt because no one thought their idea was good enough to buy the market was too callous, somehow it doesn't really count as compassionate or generous.


Then to claim that the right has "moralized" our politics implies that our politics were, at best, amoral to begin with and should return to that level. I don't know about anyone else, but I find that kind of offensive and more than a little scary. Politics is nothing more or less than the art and science of government. Government is, at it's simplest level, direction and control exercised over the actions of the members, citizens, or inhabitants of communities, societies, and states (Dictionary.com). Are you trying to tell me that an entity that exercises control over the actions of the members of society should NOT be moral?! 

Compassionate service is the rightful responsibility of individuals. The government is impeding our ability to fulfill that responsibility by removing the resources that make it possible, but the left still expects us to give as if we still had those resources. We're willing to give, but not to point that we become sacrificial animals. You can't squeeze blood from a stone.

Apple in Your Mouth

It seems a Pulitzer Prize-winning satirist has created an i-Phone app with his cartoons. Great if you're into that sort of thing, and plenty of people are. But Apple rejected it, saying they did not release apps that ridicule public figures. Personally, I think that's a pretty dang good policy. No telling how many lawsuits they'll avoid that way. Refusing to ridicule people used to seem like such a no-brainer, didn't it? Alas, people are crying censorship. Apparently being on the cutting edge of news-delivering technology does not entitle you to say what kind of news you're comfortable delivering.

I have a couple of issues with this whole thing. Or maybe questions would be better term, since they haven't blown up into full-fledged issues yet.  First, what, exactly, constitutes censorship? From what I'm reading and hearing all signs point to a definition of any action that doesn't allow a person to say whatever they want to say in whatever forum they want to say it. I don't think that's an accurate definition. Censorship is a function of government, meaning the government uses its power to repress the publication or broadcast of information that would damage said power in a totalitarian way. The concept of censorship is the principle of a central power having control of the content and dissemination of infomation.

I'm not seeing that as an issue here. It's not as though Apple is in control of the news. It doesn't have the power to repress it. There are still multiple sources to go to if you want this gentleman's cartoons, or any other piece of information. People are just whining becaue they aren't getting everything they want, exactly how and when they want it. There's a word for people like that: Brats.

Which brings me to my second point. Apple is under no obligation to sell that which they do not wish to sell. If it doesn't meet their standards or even if they're just feeling capricious, there is no moral or legal imperative there. Censorship is the enemy of free speech, a fundamental American right. But what we need to remember is that free speech is a right that is tied strictly to our government. In other words, we have the right to criticize our leaders without fear of governmental reprisal. Freedom of the press is part of that. Reporters and news publishers should be free to report the facts without the government forcing them to "tidy it up" to make them look better than they are. But that's really as far it goes. Freedom of speech allows you the right to speak your mind freely. It doesn't grant you the "right" of an audience, however, let alone a warm and accepting one. An audience is not a right.

There is a very simple solution here: If Apple products don't give you what you want, don't buy them. Get your news someplace else. Spend your money in places and on things that give you what you want. In response to the public demanding access to these apps, Apple has reconsidered its stance, and is re-evaluating many apps that have been rejected under their current standards. This, my friends, is what it means to let the market work. Make your wants and demands as a consumer known and someone in the market will meet them. And it might just be someone besides Apple.

A Royal Decree: Take Congress Down a Peg.......or Ten

This Royal Decree (you may all stop commenting on my beauty now, thank you) addresses Congress. I know. I already feel dirty, and all I did was type the word.



Oh, Congress, Congress, Congress. You've been very, very bad. You are SO grounded. Congress is completely out of control. They have forgotten their place in the scheme of things. They've gotten too big for their britches. Egos and power-mongering, backroom deals and wallets padded with kickbacks. They are corrupt as a body. Entirely corrupt. So I guess the first thing I would do is encourage the citizens to seriously examine the candidate you voted for. See if they're part of the problem or could be part of the solution. If they are part of the problem, out they go. Start with a clean page. And really pay attention to what your proposed candidate is about, not just his pretty promises.



Personally, I would like to see three major things happen to Congress.



One, I would require complete transparency, meaning they would only be allowed to address one issue at a time. No more of these packages. Each issue would be required to be its own bill, and each issue would be voted upon on its own merits, not because you sweetened the pot with some deal. THOSE are the polititcs that make people angry. If you want pork, have the chutzpah to stand up and ask for it. Don't try to sneak it in to some completely unrelated legislation as a backroom deal. That's the problem. It's why we don't trust you. Because you've proven yourselves to be untrustworthy. And I'm talking to both political parties. I know. I can hear you saying, "But that would slow government to a snail's pace!" And I have two responses to that. One, you say that like it's a bad thing. And two, it would require them to really analyze how much something is worth. How much time are we willing to spend on this one thing?



Two, term limits. Maximum of three for the Senate, nine for the House. That's 18 years. That's a career in almost any field. If you know your days are numbered, maybe you'll keep your focus just a little better.



And three, remuneration. No more full retirement after one term. No one in the private sector gets anything like that. You all totally live in glass houses when it comes to throwing stones at the Wall Street biggies for their Golden Parachutes. Yours are PLATINUM. You don't even have to be good at your job to get it. I would institute a pension. If you serve the maximum number terms, and they need not be consecutive, you are entitled to the full pension. If you only serve one or two terms, your pension is proportionate to your service. As far as wages go, there would be a base pay amount, but I would make it an amendment to the Constitution that, aside from minimal cost-of-living raises (which would be determined by the market, not the Legislative body), pay raises for Congress would be decided by popular vote, state by state. Think about it. You get a raise when your boss thinks you're doing a good job. WE are their bosses. It's time we reminded them of that, don't you think?

Hero Despised

I saw this on Facebook last night:

Shame on you America: the only country where we have homeless without shelter, children going to bed without eating, elderly going without needed meds, and mentally ill without treatment - yet we have a benefit for the people of Haiti on 12 TV stations. 99% of people won't have the guts to copy and repost this

Ok. What. the. HELL?!?!? Are you kidding me?! I find the entire attitude behind this statement to be offensive! So let's just reframe it, shall we?

America: I am so proud of you. Despite all our short-comings, all the problems we have to deal with at home, when someone needed help, we put our differences aside and we came. We gave. We helped. We dug deep to the tune of over $100 million. That's over a third of the entire global contribution. And that doesn't even begin to touch on the $1 billion plus that we've given to them over the last 5 years. This is what we do. Because we're Americans.

To those who do not share this love: The italicized statement above is a total piece of GARBAGE. We are not the only country with homeless, with hungry children, with elderly and mentally ill who need care. That's an asinine statement. To denigrate us just because we have the prosperity and the generosity of spirit to give in times of crisis, even when we haven't solved every single one of our own problems yet, only makes us greater, and you more petty, mean and small. Shame on YOU.

If I Were King of the Forest

If I were king of the forest, I'd make every day casual Friday. Or I'd demand that someone create the technology for instantaneous learning. Or maybe I'd just commission a statue of myself at my ideal weight.



But seriously, I'd like a show of hands, please. Raise your hand if you have ever said anything along the lines of "If I were president/in charge/ running things, etc... this is what I would do!" Yeah. Me, too. There are several things that I would like to see addressed specifically. But they'll take a lot of space, so I'm gonna break it down into one post per issue, so people don't just roll their eyes and leave.....y'know...any..sooner than they already do....



Ahem...So, in short (and no particular)order, I'll begin my list of issues and what'd I'd like to see done about them:






The Goddess's Presidential Agenda

• Congress
  
  
  
• Illegal Immigration
  
  
  
• The War on Terror
  
  
  
• Taxes
  
  
  
• The Federal Government in General
  
  
  

I saw an interview with Valerie Bertinelli on The Hour (which is probably my favorite TV show in the world right now. You should check it out.) in which she expressed annoyance at the "lies" that were being spread regarding our Fearless Leader's health plan, i.e., death panels. Her response was frankly terrifying to me. In essence, she said,"This is America. That won't happen!" Well, I'd like to remind her that the German people probably never thought their country would go the way it did, either. I'd also like to let her know that the argument that "This is America. It can't happen here" is totally bogus. It is precisely this attitude that creates the danger! Our freedom is as vulnerable as anyone else's. Freedom is a fragile, but resilient, thing. It requires a very specific environment in which to flourish. It can never be truly killed, but it can be driven, or given, away.



Stay tuned for my decrees in defense of American freedom.....

In Which an Introduction is Probably in Order

Oh, yay! Another political blog! I can hear you, you know. So indulge me while I make feeble excuses for why anyone would want to read a total stranger's ideas on topics that make everyone angry.

I love politics. Not the power mongering part. No, the pursuit of power is not something I grasp on a fundamental level. I get it on a  purely mental one, but my fundas just don't go along with that sort of nonsense. What I love are the principles. I love the principles of freedom, self-reliance, self-governance, and honor; all the things our country is founded on. And these are the principles that I believe most Americans still adhere to, when the government gets out of our way and just lets us be. Aha!! You've given yourself away, you say! Yes. Yes, I'm one of THOSE. A conservative. But honestly, I think most people are conservative in one way or another. Does anyone doubt that people are better equipped to run their own lives than some distant bureaucracy? Does anyone not think that Americans are good, generous, kind, intelligent and resourceful already, and that we don't need a government entity to tell us how to be those things? That's what I think. I like to think I'm not the only one. Yes, there are many social problems that need to be addressed, but that is for humans to solve, not governments. Governments have no place in social engineering.

So that's pretty much the perspective all my posts will be taking. You know, for the three family members who will read this, and likely agree with most of what I say.