Always On Watch, Id like to apologize.
I just realized that I haven't blogrolled your wonderful site.
I'm sorry, I thought I had.
I'm correcting that error now
Friday, July 29, 2005
Branching out
Our friend, Drumaster, of Nicotine & Rock has created a new blog, High Voltage.
Where his first blog is mainly about music with some interesting side trips into electronic media and UFOs. This blog will deal with current events. (I'm the guilty party on the UFOs) ;^)
In his first post he asks us our opinion about sex offenders working among the unaware public.
Go read it and voice your opinion.
Where his first blog is mainly about music with some interesting side trips into electronic media and UFOs. This blog will deal with current events. (I'm the guilty party on the UFOs) ;^)
In his first post he asks us our opinion about sex offenders working among the unaware public.
Go read it and voice your opinion.
Sunday, July 24, 2005
Of Apologists and Enemies
I must admit, I do not understand the penchant that many on the left have for apologist attitudes. I think that much of it is Orwellian in nature.
They have divided the world into two political camps, (how absurd). America = Imperialism = bad, all else, revolution = good. They have become totally thoughtless reactionaries and actually see the totalitarian Islamists as an ally. They oppose any American policy or action in a Pavlovian fashion that would embarrass even the most hardened student of aberrant psychology.
Normblog
[...]
[...]
They have divided the world into two political camps, (how absurd). America = Imperialism = bad, all else, revolution = good. They have become totally thoughtless reactionaries and actually see the totalitarian Islamists as an ally. They oppose any American policy or action in a Pavlovian fashion that would embarrass even the most hardened student of aberrant psychology.
Normblog
[...]
So, there are apologists among us. They have to be fought - fought intellectually and politically and without let-up. What is it that moves them to their disgraceful litany of excuses? This is doubtless a complex matter, but here are a few suggestions. One thing seems to be the treatment of those who practise terror as though they were part of some natural environment we have to take as given - not themselves free and responsible agents, but like a vicious dog or a hive of bees. If we do anything that provokes them, that must make us morally responsible, for they can be expected to react as they do. If this isn't a form of covert racism, then it's a kind of diminishing culturalism and is equally insulting to the people transformed by it into amoral beings incapable of choice or judgement.
[...]
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
Revolution
If allowed to poison the well, (once again), the ANSWER types will make sure we are the losers. We will lose much more than a war!
There is a formula for revolution that was perfected by Stalin and used as a model for modern revolution.
(Loosely):
First unrest is generated against the government in power. Individual groups are loosely banded together under a common cause. Shrill accusations and propaganda is disseminated to achieve "popular" support. Rumors are spread and accusations fly. Martyrism is encouraged to provide more fuel for the fire until a type of critical mass is achieved where revolution becomes possible.
The Soviets were rather adroit at this and used the cell system and sleeper cells to lessen the chance of detection. Subversive elements are recruited and encouraged to pass information and if possible seek advancement that will allow the access to privileged positions inside of a government and civil services. (see the Verona papers)
Once the revolution is achieved and the remains of the old system are mopped up a new "threat" is found in the form of "counter revolution". The leaders and upper echelons of the separate groups that once formed a "popular revolution" are gathered up and "dealt with".
Power is consolidated and any descent from the party line is not tolerated. Gulags, et al ensue.
This model was used in Soviet Russia, China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba and all of the "Peoples Republics"
In an interesting twist, this formula was used by the mullahs of Iran. But this time the Communists were gathered up in the "counter revolution" phase and were hanged.
These, ANSWER, people are the rightful inheritors of Communist style revolution. They do not give a damn about Iraq or the war except as a propaganda tool. The war isn't the issue, the "cause" is the issue. If tomorrow it was decided that the Iraq war "issue" did not further the "cause" of "International Socialism", The next day ANSWER would be no more or find a new "issue".
Have you ever wondered why these people support the "Palestinians", or why so much anti-Zionist propaganda comes from that quarter? A rational view of the situation doesn't seem to warrant the absurd charges of, "Human Rights Abuses", we so often hear. Especially in the face of the barbaric actions of the PA/PLO.
If they supported Israel they would have no issue to point out the "evils" of Western Civilization. In short, it would not further the "cause".
No doubt there are many well meaning people among them, (Stalin called them useful idiots), but at their core they are the most deceitful cold blooded murderers on the face of this earth.
For the present, they are content with subversion and seeking disruption through propaganda and attempt to gain power through the ballot box. Regardless, they further their "cause". If exposed they will not go away, they will change the names of their groups then duck their heads, while planning for tomorrow.
There is a formula for revolution that was perfected by Stalin and used as a model for modern revolution.
(Loosely):
First unrest is generated against the government in power. Individual groups are loosely banded together under a common cause. Shrill accusations and propaganda is disseminated to achieve "popular" support. Rumors are spread and accusations fly. Martyrism is encouraged to provide more fuel for the fire until a type of critical mass is achieved where revolution becomes possible.
The Soviets were rather adroit at this and used the cell system and sleeper cells to lessen the chance of detection. Subversive elements are recruited and encouraged to pass information and if possible seek advancement that will allow the access to privileged positions inside of a government and civil services. (see the Verona papers)
Once the revolution is achieved and the remains of the old system are mopped up a new "threat" is found in the form of "counter revolution". The leaders and upper echelons of the separate groups that once formed a "popular revolution" are gathered up and "dealt with".
Power is consolidated and any descent from the party line is not tolerated. Gulags, et al ensue.
This model was used in Soviet Russia, China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba and all of the "Peoples Republics"
In an interesting twist, this formula was used by the mullahs of Iran. But this time the Communists were gathered up in the "counter revolution" phase and were hanged.
These, ANSWER, people are the rightful inheritors of Communist style revolution. They do not give a damn about Iraq or the war except as a propaganda tool. The war isn't the issue, the "cause" is the issue. If tomorrow it was decided that the Iraq war "issue" did not further the "cause" of "International Socialism", The next day ANSWER would be no more or find a new "issue".
Have you ever wondered why these people support the "Palestinians", or why so much anti-Zionist propaganda comes from that quarter? A rational view of the situation doesn't seem to warrant the absurd charges of, "Human Rights Abuses", we so often hear. Especially in the face of the barbaric actions of the PA/PLO.
If they supported Israel they would have no issue to point out the "evils" of Western Civilization. In short, it would not further the "cause".
No doubt there are many well meaning people among them, (Stalin called them useful idiots), but at their core they are the most deceitful cold blooded murderers on the face of this earth.
For the present, they are content with subversion and seeking disruption through propaganda and attempt to gain power through the ballot box. Regardless, they further their "cause". If exposed they will not go away, they will change the names of their groups then duck their heads, while planning for tomorrow.
Saturday, July 02, 2005
The Supreme Courts, Kelo Decision
A quick summation.
At issue was the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to condemn private property and compensate the owners if the land is for public use.
On Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled that local governments may use the governmental right of eminent domain to seize people's homes and businesses for private economic development.
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority. He was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been a key swing vote on many cases before the court, issued a stinging dissent. She argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.
"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," O'Connor wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."
She was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
********************************
IMO, at the heart of the matter is this.
Individual rights vrs group rights.
Should the Government be able to 'take' the possessions of an individual to enhance itself, (in this case by increasing the amount of property tax revenues)?
Almost all Conservatives, all true Libertarians and probably an overwhelming majority of self described Liberals are against this decision. But why?
Conservatives and Libertarians are for limitation of government and individual rights as a matter of political and moral philosophy.
The Liberals, I have talked to, seem to hold some kind of nebulous position that they are for "the little guy". That position is about as deep as the scratches in the paint on my car!
Can we assume that if Mrs Kelo had millions of dollars and wasn't blind, Liberals would be for taking her house?
Lets remember what actually happened. As a result of this decision, cities have the wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes to generate tax revenue.
Justices said, local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community.
"The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including -- but by no means limited to -- new jobs and increased tax revenue," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.
A sad, sad, day on the Supreme court. I can think of no better reason to appoint Justices that will interpret according to the original meaning of the Constitution. In this case, the Constitution would not allow condemnation because the land will go to a private developer and not be for public use.
At issue was the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to condemn private property and compensate the owners if the land is for public use.
On Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled that local governments may use the governmental right of eminent domain to seize people's homes and businesses for private economic development.
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority. He was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been a key swing vote on many cases before the court, issued a stinging dissent. She argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.
"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," O'Connor wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."
She was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
********************************
IMO, at the heart of the matter is this.
Individual rights vrs group rights.
Should the Government be able to 'take' the possessions of an individual to enhance itself, (in this case by increasing the amount of property tax revenues)?
Almost all Conservatives, all true Libertarians and probably an overwhelming majority of self described Liberals are against this decision. But why?
Conservatives and Libertarians are for limitation of government and individual rights as a matter of political and moral philosophy.
The Liberals, I have talked to, seem to hold some kind of nebulous position that they are for "the little guy". That position is about as deep as the scratches in the paint on my car!
Can we assume that if Mrs Kelo had millions of dollars and wasn't blind, Liberals would be for taking her house?
Lets remember what actually happened. As a result of this decision, cities have the wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes to generate tax revenue.
Justices said, local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community.
"The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including -- but by no means limited to -- new jobs and increased tax revenue," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.
A sad, sad, day on the Supreme court. I can think of no better reason to appoint Justices that will interpret according to the original meaning of the Constitution. In this case, the Constitution would not allow condemnation because the land will go to a private developer and not be for public use.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)