The following is an interview with Daniel Hannan, a British MP, who gives perspective on what's happening in the European elections, the swing to the right, and how it relates to politics in the U.S. Great article:
hip Johnson of the San Francisco Chronicle reports that Oakland, California is considering a bankruptcy filing, which would make it the Golden's State's largest city (so far) to declare itself unable to pay its bills.
"We have asked the (bankruptcy) question because we wanted to know the impact," said District 5 council member Ignacio De La Fuente. "In closed session, the question has been asked, and an answer was given." He would not elaborate.
"It's a possibility," he acknowledged. "Things are that bad." [...]
Consider the city's cash position: Out of next year's general fund of approximately $415 million, police costs are estimated at $212 million, fire protection service $103 million and $41 million in debt service payments. That leaves about $60 million to pay for everything else, from library services to recreation centers to public works.
And that calculation doesn't include $50 million more in deferred debt service in a budget proposal presented to the council last month by Mayor Ron Dellums.
Johnson reports that if federal funds are not secured by Oakland, up to 200 police officers will be laid off, among other measures. In a city hosting such a large population of violent criminals, that could be a catastrophe. A very fine journalist, Johnson notes that municipal employees in California have had quite a run the past few decades, with wages and especially benefits that are the envy of private sector workers.
American Thinker's recovering liberal learns the true meaning of conservatism
When I was a child I had a pretend best friend just like me. She looked like me, talked like me, and had the exact same interests. I named her Robin 2. (I also named my stuffed animals by their colors, i.e. Whitey, Greyey, Pinky; what can I say? I wasn't the most creative of tots.) I must have been influenced by my favorite TV show, the Patty Duke Show. (For you young'uns, it was a wholesome show (they all were back then) about identical twin cousins, both played by the adorable Ms. Duke.) When my mom took me to the store, my friend came too. She'd sleep with me, eat with me, and keep me company when I was sad.
As I got older, I had live best friends, but none fulfilled the promise of Robin 2. My real friends and I would get into nasty fights and not talk for days. Girls can be so cruel; I remember a group ganging up on me and starting an "I Hate Robin Club" replete with posters and banners. Luckily it didn't last (though, given that I still remember it, clearly the trauma did). Even as I got older, I still maintained the fantasy of having a sister type of best friend who, unlike my real older brother, wasn't making ruining my life her raison d'etre.
Last week, on a grey day when I was home nursing a cold, I thought about old Robin, about how nice it would be to have a best friend I could really talk to. I'd been feeling a bit sorry for myself lately being a conservative in Berkeley. My friends adore Obama; my clients talk excitedly about him all the time; even the random stranger in front of me at the supermarket is talking up Obama. So it's all Obama, all the time, and I feel like crawling under a rock. I don't dare reveal my true feelings since I don't want my clients to run screaming from my office or to have another friend throw me under the bus.
My husband is a type of best friend in a way that a guy can be (when I'm upset or sad he goes and fixes something). But he has no idea what planet I've just returned from, politically speaking. For example, he recently told me he heard Obama speak and that, " Obama has a great sense of humor." I repeat: the man said, Obama, o-b-a-m-a, the man with the thinnest skin on the planet, has a great sense of humor. Stunned into silence, I finally sputtered, "I guess we have different presidents," and he agreed, looking at me perturbed, as though I had just said, "An alien kidnapped me last night and impregnated me with his love child." So let's just say my man and I are still close but we avoid politics and both think the other is delusional.
A little loopy from the Nyquil, I wondered what would be the harm of a middle aged, newby conservative resurrecting her childhood pretend friend. (Yes I know it's weird, but people in downtown Berkeley chat with their invisible buds all the time.) Bored with Oprah and Ellen, I decided to envision a reunion with Robin 2.
me: It's so great to see you!
robin 2: Right back at you! Girl, you look fantastic.
me: You too. You haven't changed one bit since I saw you.
robin 2: And I have never seen anyone, anywhere age as seamlessly as you.
It was great having Robin 2 back! She was fun, lively, supportive. She was, in fact, me!
me: I have missed you so much. There's no one like you.
robin 2: So what's been up with you all these years?
me: Oh, sis, it's been a wild ride. I live in this insane area and I'm a psychotherapist, and I was politically Left all my life but recently turned Right. It's a bit dizzying to talk about.
2: Wow, you really changed. What happened?
me: It's a long story but basically this really angry scary dude Obama ran for president and he and his cronies destroyed the competition and they continue to mow down anyone who gets in their way. I couldn't go with the program so I read about conservatism, and it was totally different than I thought. It's about values, and morality, and love of country.
2: Sounds a little old fashioned and stodgy.
me: Not at all! Actually, liberals with their insistence on being politically correct at all costs are the uptight ones. Conservatives value individual freedom.
2: I don't know. It just doesn't sound young and cool and with it.
me: (with annoyance) Robin 2, we are not young and cool. We are no spring chickens, and it is time to grow up and take our place as society's elders.
2: (sarcastically) I don't think so.
me: It's natural to become more pragmatic and logical as we get older, and less driven by emotions.
2: I think we can change the world.
me: I used to believe this, but then, I finally got it. Only God can do the changing. When humans try, it turns into arrogance, social control, even fascism.
2: But we have to hope! We have to believe!
me: Robin 2, what in the world has happened to you? I invented you. You are my twin. But you are not like me at all. You are (I gasped) Obatomized!
Then I noticed it. The girl had snuck in a gallon of Kool Aid, and was drinking wildly, madly. Just like we used to sneak in weed and boys when we were teens, the rascal had brought in some Obama love potion #9.
And when she uttered these words, I knew the gig was up, "And anyway I think Obama is hecka cool. I just love the brother. He's all about love and hope and joy. And, the cat has a great sense of humor."
In an instant, I knew what what I had to do. I had to say goodbye to my old friend. The image of unconditional love was fading as fast as the effects of the Nyquil. But just then, I had an epiphany. Why do I need people to mirror me anyway? Why this relentless focus on what others think of me? Could it be just some throwback from decades of liberalism, the Kumbaya image of eternal love?
I say I'm a conservative who believes in individual freedom. But being a conservative isn't just spouting words. It means being a free individual, getting off of my high horse and standing on my own two feet.
Just then, I thought of a Far Side comic I kept in my drawer for years. A black lamb is beckoning to other, white, lambs to go in another direction. He cries out, "We don't have to be just sheep." And I got it: when you have the truth of your convictions, you must sometimes stand alone. Perhaps this is one of the definitions of maturity: to stand upright and separate from the herd, even if you end up being the black sheep.
"We don't have to be just sheep." Perhaps that's my cry, the battle cry of all of us conservatives who do not want to become sheep, who refuse to take the Obama pledge and do the Obama salute and worship at the altar of Obama.
So given the choice between pleasing everyone and freedom, I choose the latter. I may not win any popularity contests anytime soon. But maybe that's not the point of this one short, precious life.
A frequent contributor to American Thinker, Robin is a recovering liberal and a psychotherapist marooned in Berkeley.
lol, converting to conservatism it is not a religion - tho it appears more & more of you are behaving like it is tho, it is funny to see some of these guys acting like it is in fact the above reads like a story from a "Lighthouse" pamphlet
so how's about taking the next step? build churches, so y'all can bow down and worship your most holy of holy's : the dollar
[This message has been edited by Pyrthian (edited 06-10-2009).]
lol, converting to conservatism it is not a religion - tho it appears more & more of you are behaving like it is tho, it is funny to see some of these guys acting like it is in fact the above reads like a story from a "Lighthouse" pamphlet
so how's about taking the next step? build churches, so y'all can bow down and worship your most holy of holy's : the dollar
Not really talking about you here Pyrthian, but your comments are kinda' funny in light of the way that Obama is looked at by way too many of his "followers." Not sure if it's irony or not, but interesting.
On another point though, you've once again misrepresented "conservatism" with your remark about the "dollar" being the most holy of holies for conservatives. This connection of being conservative to being a money meister is simply wrong. That part I do find questionable.
[This message has been edited by FieroFanatic13 (edited 06-10-2009).]
Originally posted by FieroFanatic13: Not really talking about you here Pyrthian, but your comments are kinda' funny in light of the way that Obama is looked at by way too many of his "followers." Not sure if it's irony or not, but interesting.
yes - I know - I am just sick of the blanket stereotyping. at least when it doesnt involve Negro's
and - yes - that is much of why I put it that way - because the way these left/right extremists talk - it is like you are commiting blasphemy, and should be burnt at the stake. well, at least on one side - the other, burning produces greenhouse gasses - and I guess will put you in the dunking chair or squish between rocks.
and yes - Obama and his followers. holy crap. but, I suppose if they turned it into a cult, and it worked, might as well jump on, and creat the counter cult, eh?
this "for us or against us" crap is completely nuking what once was a good thing. bust the republican & democrat unions. let issues stand on their own merit - not on the merit of who proposed them.
"Ask Robin: A Recovering Liberal...." every forward step civilization has taken was a LIBERAL step at the time it happened. that is the the very defeinition of liberal and conservative. conservative is: "dont take the step". yes - even MONEY was a liberal idea. but - the obvious other side is: MOST ideas are not really that good. and boy oh boy is Obama proving that. so - instead of just blanket "NO - Dont take the step" - allow for actual thought. yes, we get it - "I got mine - dont change a thing".
Not really talking about you here Pyrthian, but your comments are kinda' funny in light of the way that Obama is looked at by way too many of his "followers." Not sure if it's irony or not, but interesting.
On another point though, you've once again misrepresented "conservatism" with your remark about the "dollar" being the most holy of holies for conservatives. This connection of being conservative to being a money meister is simply wrong. That part I do find questionable.
On Friday evening Newsweek editor Evan Thomas had an extraordinary exchange with MSNBC’s Chris Matthews. Thomas, commenting on Obama’s Cairo speech, said, “I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above — above the world, he’s sort of God.” And when Thomas was asked by Matthews, “Reagan and World War II and the sense of us as the good guys in the world, how are we doing?” Thomas replied:
Well, we were the good guys in 1984, it felt that way. It hasn’t felt that way in recent years. So Obama’s had, really, a different task. We’re seen too often as the bad guys. And he — he has a very different job from — Reagan was all about America, and you talked about it. Obama is “we are above that now.” We’re not just parochial, we’re not just chauvinistic, we’re not just provincial.
These comments reveal several notable things.
The first is that it is now impossible to mock the media’s adoration for Obama. In the past, if conservatives had said that MSM commentators viewed Obama as God, people would have assumed they were exaggerating in order to make a point. But in this instance, there is no exaggeration; Thomas stated that Obama is “sort of God.” It appears as if in their unguarded moments, Thomas and those like him really do view Obama as the Anointed One, a political Messiah, not only a gift from heaven but the Creator of Heaven and Earth.
Keep in mind that Thomas is viewed as a serious journalist for what was once seen as a serious mainstream publication: Newsweek. Now Newsweek long ago set aside any pretense of objectivity when it came to Obama; every week it takes up palm branches for him. Still, it is a bit jarring to see the bias so obvious, so up front, so proudly out in the open. In that respect, Thomas’s comments are useful; they reveal a cast of mind that no one can now deny.
No political figure in modern American history has been so adored by the press. JFK came closest — but even he was not deified, even in death. The depth and intensity of the passion for Obama among the press is something young children need to be shielded from.
A second thing to note in Thomas’s comments is his assertion that “we [the United States] were the good guys in 1984, it felt that way.” Well, it might have felt that way to many conservatives. But to many liberals, it was actually something very nearly the opposite. It’s worth reminding those on the Left with selective memories that Reagan was mocked and ridiculed as a dangerous figure, trigger-happy, a war-monger, reckless and provocative. His support for the Nicaraguan contras, his build-up of America’s defense, the installation of Cruise and Pershing missiles in Europe to counteract the Soviet deployment of SS-20s, and Reagan’s talk about the Soviet Union as an “evil empire” unnerved and infuriated liberals.
“I wonder how many people, reading about the [”evil empire”] speech or seeing bits on television, really noticed its outrageous character,” Anthony Lewis wrote in the New York Times in March 1983. “Primitive: that is the only word for it. … What is the world to think when the greatest of powers is led by a man who applies to the most difficult human problem a simplistic theology — one in fact rejected by most theologians?… What must the leaders of Western Europe think of such a speech? They look to the head of the alliance for rhetoric that can persuade them and their constituents. What they get from Ronald Reagan is a mirror image of crude Soviet rhetoric. And it is more than rhetoric: everyone must sense that. The real Ronald Reagan was speaking in Orlando. The exaggeration and the simplicities are there not only in the rhetoric but in the process by which he makes decisions.”
Commentators like Lewis and magazines like Newsweek had contempt for Reagan’s approach; it is only now, after history has vindicated him, that we’re supposed to believe we all supported Reagan and that Americans were seen as “the good guys.”
A third important thing to take away from Thomas’s comments is why Obama is so beloved by some reporters and commentators. Reagan, Thomas says, was “all about America.” But Obama is “above that now.” He is “standing above the country” he was elected to represent. And in doing so, we’re not just “parochial, we’re not just chauvinistic, we’re not just provincial.”
That is an extremely and probably unintentionally revealing set of comments by Mr. Thomas. For the president to speak on behalf of his nation as Reagan spoke up for America is viewed as unsophisticated, narrow-minded, and bigoted. Obama, in the eyes of his supporters, has transcended such things. According to the logic of Thomas, Obama deserves to be praised precisely because he does not, in the first instance, represent America. At his best, Obama is a “citizen of the world,” standing “above the country.”
Some of us have a different, quainter notion of such things. We believe America is, in the words of Lincoln, an “inestimable jewel” — an imperfect and extraordinary nation that deserves our affection and deepest attachment. We believe, as Lincoln and the founders did, that the fate of this republic is inextricably tied to the principles upon which it was founded. We actually do not want our President to “stand above the country.” And we do not believe it is particularly sophisticated to disparage as chauvinistic and provincial those who speak up for her. Nor, I might add, do we view Obama as “sort of God,” or anything close to God. The fact that Evan Thomas and those who view the world as he does, do see Obama in supernatural terms tells you everything you need to know, and probably nothing you didn’t know.
every forward step civilization has taken was a LIBERAL step at the time it happened. that is the the very defeinition of liberal and conservative. conservative is: "dont take the step". yes - even MONEY was a liberal idea. but - the obvious other side is: MOST ideas are not really that good. and boy oh boy is Obama proving that. so - instead of just blanket "NO - Dont take the step" - allow for actual thought. yes, we get it - "I got mine - dont change a thing".
every forward step civilization has taken was a LIBERAL step at the time it happened. that is the the very defeinition of liberal and conservative. conservative is: "dont take the step". yes - even MONEY was a liberal idea. but - the obvious other side is: MOST ideas are not really that good. and boy oh boy is Obama proving that. so - instead of just blanket "NO - Dont take the step" - allow for actual thought. yes, we get it - "I got mine - dont change a thing".
By your definition, every BACKWARD step taken by civilization has also been a LIBERAL step.
Your definitions are true as far as the dictionary definitions of liberal and conservative, but in practice the political definitions aren't split that cleanly.
[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 06-10-2009).]
Originally posted by Formula88: By your definition, every BACKWARD step taken by civilization has also been a LIBERAL step.
Your definitions are true as far as the dictionary definitions of liberal and conservative, but in practice the political definitions aren't split that cleanly.
yup - as I said - not every step is a good one. and, yes - the definitions do seem to vary from person to person. but to say that liberals are just lazy fools who want stuff for free is not one of them. tho - I must agree completely that there sure is whole pile of "them types" who line up behind "liberals"
every forward step civilization has taken was a LIBERAL step at the time it happened. that is the the very defeinition of liberal and conservative. conservative is: "dont take the step". yes - even MONEY was a liberal idea. but - the obvious other side is: MOST ideas are not really that good. and boy oh boy is Obama proving that. so - instead of just blanket "NO - Dont take the step" - allow for actual thought. yes, we get it - "I got mine - dont change a thing".
The definition you use seems to only represent the concepts of "change" versus "staying the same" when there is a lot more to it- and in actuality, conservatives are not against "change," but rather "change without purpose or without thought." It's an "if it isn't broke, don't fix it," not a "no change for any reason." I'm not saying nothing is/was broken by any means. Just that conservatism is not "don't take that step."
And you bring up money way too often in reference to conservatism. That is exactly how the liberals want people to see the other side- as money hungry big whigs. Well, I don't have money, nor does my family. But we all work for what we have and don't ask for hand outs and government intervention in our lives. Conservatism is about earning your own way and taking care of yourself, not "I've got mine, don't change a thing." Nor does it say don't change anything without thinking. That is also an innacurate comment. It's don't change unless it's a good idea. That IS thinking.
A painfully accurate definition. The irony of this is that conservatives out give liberals 2 to 1 in terms of charities and non-profits. The moral here is, people are giving by nature, but tend to dig in when it's taken from them.
quote
Originally posted by D B Cooper:
Liberal - (n) - one who seeks to make up for his own greed by being very generous with other peoples' money.
Originally posted by FieroFanatic13: The definition you use seems to only represent the concepts of "change" versus "staying the same" when there is a lot more to it- and in actuality, conservatives are not against "change," but rather "change without purpose or without thought." It's an "if it isn't broke, don't fix it," not a "no change for any reason." I'm not saying nothing is/was broken by any means. Just that conservatism is not "don't take that step."
And you bring up money way too often in reference to conservatism. That is exactly how the liberals want people to see the other side- as money hungry big whigs. Well, I don't have money, nor does my family. But we all work for what we have and don't ask for hand outs and government intervention in our lives. Conservatism is about earning your own way and taking care of yourself, not "I've got mine, don't change a thing." Nor does it say don't change anything without thinking. That is also an innacurate comment. It's don't change unless it's a good idea. That IS thinking.
Just my .02 cents.
well, to start with - earning your own way, and taking care of yourself is UNIVERSAL - it is not a "quality" of conservatives.
so - do conservatives think the lame & crippled should be left to die? of course not, right? even tho they dont take care of themselves? or earn their own way? what about auto insurance? do conservatives think auto insurance should NOT be required by all drivers? since that is government intervention? we already know how they feel about health insurance. why one but not the other?
anyways - all I am trying to show is the ignorance of the stereotyping, and especially using it to taint what really needs to be done. you'll see it everytime - each side dismissing the other on the basis of over-the-top stereotypes. as you said - the money grubbing big-whigs vs the uneducated lazy. even tho - both of these are wholly wrong.
Yes on the contrary isn't it conservatives who fight for right to life for unborn babies and for saving Terri Shivo? Isn't money the majority of what Liberals vote based on, (legalize marijuana and hookers and tax them, we need the "undocumented" immigrants they do work Americans wont and our economy would fall if they left)?
Those may be stereotypes as well, but it shows how even the stereotypes can do an about face.
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 06-10-2009).]
I urge people to read that article. It is probably going to spread throughout California within the next 20 years. I trust that "Conservatives" have the best interests of the environment in mind, even though stratagies may differ from viewpoint to viewpoint. Serious question, what would be your solution to the waste issue in urban areas?
In my opinion, a recycling program like this could easily (and should) be paid for through private industry. The idea of composting on a huge scale like is addressed in the article can not only provide agriculture with quality organic fertilizer, but can also produce energy from harnessing methane gas and geothermic energy.
The days of the city dump have been over for a while now. Most metro areas in CA use transfer stations where recyleable materials are seperated and sent out to different processors for recycling. Food residue on recycleable materials adds health risk to workers and processing costs are increased. It is not difficult to scrape stuff into a seperate container. If you don't want to participate in the process, feel free to get a garbage disposal, they have been around for ages now.
Originally posted by WhiteDevil88: I urge people to read that article. It is probably going to spread throughout California within the next 20 years. I trust that "Conservatives" have the best interests of the environment in mind, even though stratagies may differ from viewpoint to viewpoint. Serious question, what would be your solution to the waste issue in urban areas? .....
dump it on those who cannot afford to live is garbage free areas. duh.
Sure. How about instead of mandating that citizens provide free labor in sorting and cleaning debris for commercial recyling firms that nearly every community waste disposal system in this country contract with, you stop this pointless "feel good" nonsense and rely of the industrial sorting equipment that nearly all of these places already have in place.
Is Califonia so backward that they don't know what commercial recycling sorting equipment is? Let me help them out...
My community has one of the country's largest operations that not only processes waste for recycling, but generates clean electric power from a closed system incinerator plant. Pretty state-of-the-art stuff really. This plant is just down the road from where we built our new medical products plant. I've toured it a couple of times and watched the *automated* recyclable sorting process. Very efficient and fast. http://www.pinellascounty.org/utilities/wte.htm
Our citrus industry here in Florida also recycles. Since the vast majority of Florida citrus is processed for orange juice concentrate, the rinds from the fruit are recycled as cattle feed, generating additional income for the citrus industry and providing a local source of feed for another big Florida industry, (Yes, Florida is a big cattle producing state as well).
Most of our waste water treatment plants also "recycle" the high nitrogen sludge that is left as the last of the wastewater treatment process. It is sold as an excellent high nitrogen fertilizer to ...guess who...the citrus industry.... and other agricultural businesses here in Florida, again generating a profit, (I know libs hate that term), for the community wastewater treatment facilities and again providing a valuable, yet inexpensive source of fertilizer for growers.
It's called free market, and when libs stay the hell out of the way business can , and will, resolve the problems to the benefit of many.
The folks out in Loopyland can continue scraping their granola into separate containers by hand and bashing capitalism and feeling good about their silly selves while they continue to go more broke than they already are.
Good Luck
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 06-13-2009).]
I guess that lording your superiority complex over others trumps reading comprehension. As I said, initiatives like this could and should be paid for through private industry for a profit.
I should know better to engage people like yourself to discuss things rationally, I really should.
I guess that lording your superiority complex over others trumps reading comprehension. As I said, initiatives like this could and should be paid for through private industry for a profit.
I should know better to engage people like yourself to discuss things rationally, I really should.
Perhaps you could "rationally" explain how a law requiring people to sort garbage or face civil fines is somehow related to being paid for through private industry? I see nowhere that you have expressed any opposition to the S.F. law that was the subject of the article. In point of fact, your own comment: "Food residue on recycleable materials adds health risk to workers and processing costs are increased. It is not difficult to scrape stuff into a seperate container." clearly is supportive of the S.F. law. The liberal mind looks for more government control to solve every problem and control every aspect of people's behavior, (more laws, taxes and fines always seems to be the answer) The conservative mind looks for opportunities to solve problems with the least government interference. You say that you expect the S.F. initiative to spread across California in the next 20 YEARS. I show you how the problem is being handled in Florida right NOW. (Without more taxes, laws and fines I might add) The only thing you really regret about engaging "people like me" is that you didn't like the answer.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 06-13-2009).]
I have no problem with your answer. Just the rude and demeaning manner you feel that you need to use in order to make your point.
OK, I "de-personalized" my original post for you. Now let’s talk about the facts. Tell me how you can obviously support a law that fines people for not scraping off their dinner plate properly. Tell me how you appear to believe that more government intervention to control even the simplest and most mundane aspects of individual behavior is appropriate. Tell me exactly why the S.F. initiative should spread through California. Tell me how “Food residue on recycleable materials adds health risk to workers…” but is apparently ok for workers handling it for composting???
Last, but not least, tell me how quoting a post I clearly made to someone else and then asking right below it if I have an answer to your question, isn't "rude" on your part. Of course you're going to probably claim that you were simply asking if I had an answer, nothing more, but we both know full well how transparent that excuse would be, so before you try playing the "victim" you might want to examine your own behavior. I won't play to your double standard.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 06-13-2009).]
I would like to know how I "obviously support" this initiative. First we should address an image that non Californians have. We do not all live in San Francisco. So regardless of my feelings about it, it won't make a difference as I don't have a vote in the matter. I live in a relatively conservative agricultural area. We are not all Berkeley.
Furthermore, I don't believe I ever showed any support, I just encouraged people to read the article for themselves before chalking it up to "the loony left". "Read the article." I believe that was the extent of my editorial. I did express an opinion. I have visited the transfer station in our area, and unfortunately I guess we are too backwards to have robot sorters that can seperate food from non-biodegradable materials.
I would like to know how I "obviously support" this initiative. First we should address an image that non Californians have. We do not all live in San Francisco. So regardless of my feelings about it, it won't make a difference as I don't have a vote in the matter. I live in a relatively conservative agricultural area. We are not all Berkeley.
Furthermore, I don't believe I ever showed any support, I just encouraged people to read the article for themselves before chalking it up to "the loony left". "Read the article." I believe that was the extent of my editorial. I did express an opinion. I have visited the transfer station in our area, and unfortunately I guess we are too backwards to have robot sorters that can seperate food from non-biodegradable materials.
Please try to stay focused Stimpy.
I answered your questions and now you answer mine, That's the way this sort of thing works.
I'll repeat:
OK, I "de-personalized" my original post for you. Now let’s talk about the facts. Tell me how you can obviously support a law that fines people for not scraping off their dinner plate properly. Tell me how you appear to believe that more government intervention to control even the simplest and most mundane aspects of individual behavior is appropriate. Tell me exactly why the S.F. initiative should spread through California. Tell me how “Food residue on recycleable materials adds health risk to workers…” but is apparently ok for workers handling it for composting???
Last, but not least, tell me how quoting a post I clearly made to someone else and then asking right below it if I have an answer to your question, isn't "rude" on your part. Of course you're going to probably claim that you were simply asking if I had an answer, nothing more, but we both know full well how transparent that excuse would be, so before you try playing the "victim" you might want to examine your own behavior. I won't play to your double standard.
Randy, as much as it would please you to fill my mouth with your words, I never said that I support any initiative, I never said that it should be statewide in 20, I said it probably will. That has nothing to do with my opinion on the matter. I don't like fines, apparently that is how society gets people to abide by it's laws. See speeding tickets.
As far as my request about if you have any opinion on solutions to the issue, you have your mind made up about my "motivations". No matter what I say, you will insinuate that I am lying. So why don't you just go ahead and fill in the blanks for yourself. I am sure that you will be satisfied with your answer.
I've been thinking about learning how to fire a gun, maybe even buying one. Now if you are a lifelong conservative, Red State dweller, and NRA member, you might be thinking, "Big yawn. What's next? She'll be telling us what she had for breakfast?"
So let me try to convey to you the enormousness, the Alice in Wonderland quality of my even posing the question, something I've never, ever considered in my life. No one I know owns a gun. I've never seen a gun (well on a holster of a police officer but I never wanted to get up close and personal with it). I have given lots of good money over the years for gun control. Learning to fire a gun seems as ludicrous as deciding to take up brain surgery.
But, I am rethinking absolutely everything. There is not a single thing that I believed, that I held absolute and holy, that is not up for grabs. My brain is in a tizzy 24/7 and I don't know if up is down, or if east is west.
And the thought about a gun just came to me last week when I was listening to talk radio. A caller related how an armed citizen in the South stopped a take over robbery in a fast food restaurant. A light went on in my head. Suddenly I realized that the Red States may be on to something: the police are strongly supported, the citizens have guns, and, therefore, the gangsters may be a little reluctant to take over the local Burger King.
Contrast that to the Blue States where few liberals own guns, and the police are being emasculated. You may have heard of the horrendous case in Oakland where four cops were killed by a known felon, on a parole violation for child rape. But the powers that be in Oakland sent out the message to the police to make nice and not scare the populace, so the officers never drew their guns when approaching this felon. (Anyone else notice how the Left is slowly but surely disarming the police and military, situation-by-situation?) When I expressed my heartfelt grief to a friend about the deaths of these brave officers, he said, "The man who shot them was a human being too."
(I'd like to say that, as a psychotherapist, I responded in a sophisticated and psychologically crafty manner. No such luck. I almost blew a gasket, turned bright red, and said with barely contained anger, "He lost his claim to be human when he raped a child." To the friend's credit -- and perhaps some fear on his part -- he shut up.)
So what I realized during the talk show is that in places like Berkeley, only the criminals have the power. Not only do they have the power of guns, they are supported by several thousand brainwashed zombies who give the green light to criminals because they are the victims of someone else's "privilege" and "supremacy" and "imperialism." (Although I was a leftist until recently, I was the rare exception: I never excused crime because of the bad guy's race, creed, age, sex, or daddy being a meanie.)
I recall vividly what a Berkeley police officer once told me:
"Berkeley is a city of victims. You try to understand the street people and the criminals and sit down and talk to them and then they hit you on the head and steal your purse. The police come and then you refuse to press charges. The criminals know this and prey on you."
And he's right: almost everyone I know has been a victim of some awful crime, from being in restaurants during takeover robberies (not uncommon here), to being robbed at gunpoint, to being assaulted for no other reason except a thrill for the assailants. A neighbor, who had lived all over the world, once said to me, "Berkeley is the most dangerous place I've ever lived." Her husband was robbed at gunpoint as were almost all her friends. She couldn't wait to get out of here.
I wish I could say I'm an exception to the victim rule. But several years ago I was coming out of a restaurant in a decent area and was mugged. As Gavin de Becker states in his seminal book, The Gift of Fear, (which I, unfortunately, read after the fact), victims generally sense when they're about to be victimized but ignore the signs in order to be nice and not judgmental. This was my situation exactly. I could tell right away that the guy looked sinister. But it was a major street, at high noon, and I didn't want to seem racist, so I turned the corner a few feet to reach my car, and a minute later, had my purse stolen as well as all my feelings of being safe in the world.
I'll spare you (and me) the horrible details, but the incident ended with my having a broken nose and two black eyes, and needing surgery for the nose several days later. People wrote bad checks and stole rental cars in my name for a year afterwards. I developed a fear not only of people, but of the phone and the mail, as every day was another reminder of what happened.
Witness the response of a left wing friend, Judy, when I told her I was mugged. She said, and I quote, "I don't think what you went through was so bad. And anyway he was a victim too." (Maybe it's a good thing I wasn't armed back then.)
So I'm asking myself whether I should become armed, and I'm also wondering why so many "educated" people (I might have just answered my own question) put up with crime infested streets? Why are the biggest protests against the cops? Why are the innocent viewed as guilty, and the guilty innocent? Why is no one up in arms about liberals literally bleeding?
Then it occurred to me: Stockholm Syndrome, the same brainwashing that turned Berkeley resident Patty Hearst into Tania the bank robber. She was tortured, sexually abused, and kept in isolation by the far left group, the Symbionese Liberation Army (kissing cousins of Bill and Bernadine's Weather Underground). Successfully brainwashed, she joined their twisted and sick "army."
In the real Stockholm, the hostages were locked in a vault for days, came to "love" their captors in that perverted way that an abused woman loves her husband, and refused to testify against them in court. One even became engaged to her captor.
SS (good acronym, huh?) is rooted in a basic, primordial instinct for self protection in the wake of extraordinary trauma and terror. To survive, the victim identifies with the captors and merges psychologically with them. But SS takes on a life of its own when victims stop seeing their own humanity and want only to serve the abuser.
Living in places like Berkeley, being force fed propaganda, with police afraid to protect you, your friends unsympathetic, and no one armed, SS can spread like a virus. What starts out as compassion morphs into complicity. Occasionally there may be someone, like me, who snaps out of the trance they've been in for decades. After all, Tania woke up and became Patty Hearst again and, interestingly, married her bodyguard. (I bet that they own a whole lot of weapons.) But she had to leave Berkeley for a leafy, sheltered life elsewhere to do this.
But then again, I never bought into the notion of collective guilt, that groups of people are guilty because of the color of their skin, and individuals are exonerated because of some protected victim status. I'm the rare bird. In Berkeley, most people are so over identified with their ideology, that their logical, questioning minds have flown the coop along with a God-given knowledge, possessed by every 5 year old, of right and wrong.
As a good, loyal liberal, I always expected others to take care of me. If I gave my unqualified loyalty to the system, I could sleep well at night. But now, with victims left bleeding, a dangerously naive government, and sheep like masses, I see the absurdity of my thinking.
I heard a philosopher once say that one of the biggest existential tasks of life is giving up the fantasy of the ultimate rescuer. Liberalism reinforced this fantasy for me, as it does for so many others. Now I see the truth: We come into this world alone, and we will leave it alone. When we live our lives in the back seat of the car expecting Daddy to drive us, we only have a child's view of the world.
On that very dark day in November years ago when I became an object of someone's evil and inhumanity, I glimpsed a truth I never wanted to see: that there really is no protection, not in the way I had always thought, not by other flawed humans. I didn't know what to do with this insight until 1 1/2 years ago when I discovered that there were others out there like me, that there was something called conservatism, and now slowly but surely the pieces are coming together for me, one by one.
As I continue on the path to independence and personal responsibility, perhaps looking to myself for protection is another step on my journey.
By Robin of Berkeley And the thought about a gun just came to me last week when I was listening to talk radio. A caller related how an armed citizen in the South stopped a take over robbery in a fast food restaurant. A light went on in my head. Suddenly I realized that the Red States may be on to something: the police are strongly supported, the citizens have guns, and, therefore, the gangsters may be a little reluctant to take over the local Burger King.
Contrast that to the Blue States where few liberals own guns, and the police are being emasculated. You may have heard of the horrendous case in Oakland where four cops were killed by a known felon, on a parole violation for child rape. But the powers that be in Oakland sent out the message to the police to make nice and not scare the populace, so the officers never drew their guns when approaching this felon. (Anyone else notice how the Left is slowly but surely disarming the police and military, situation-by-situation?) When I expressed my heartfelt grief to a friend about the deaths of these brave officers, he said, "The man who shot them was a human being too."
(I'd like to say that, as a psychotherapist, I responded in a sophisticated and psychologically crafty manner. No such luck. I almost blew a gasket, turned bright red, and said with barely contained anger, "He lost his claim to be human when he raped a child." To the friend's credit -- and perhaps some fear on his part -- he shut up.)
So what I realized during the talk show is that in places like Berkeley, only the criminals have the power. Not only do they have the power of guns, they are supported by several thousand brainwashed zombies who give the green light to criminals because they are the victims of someone else's "privilege" and "supremacy" and "imperialism." (Although I was a leftist until recently, I was the rare exception: I never excused crime because of the bad guy's race, creed, age, sex, or daddy being a meanie.)
I recall vividly what a Berkeley police officer once told me:
"Berkeley is a city of victims. You try to understand the street people and the criminals and sit down and talk to them and then they hit you on the head and steal your purse. The police come and then you refuse to press charges. The criminals know this and prey on you."
And he's right: almost everyone I know has been a victim of some awful crime, from being in restaurants during takeover robberies (not uncommon here), to being robbed at gunpoint, to being assaulted for no other reason except a thrill for the assailants. A neighbor, who had lived all over the world, once said to me, "Berkeley is the most dangerous place I've ever lived." Her husband was robbed at gunpoint as were almost all her friends. She couldn't wait to get out of here.
This made me think of quotes from the Movie "Batman Begins," where the character played by Liam Neeson who is training Bruce Wayne how to fight says:
"Crime cannot be tolerated. Criminals thrive on the indulgence of society's understanding."
and
"There are those without decency who must be fought without hesitation, without pity."
[This message has been edited by FieroFanatic13 (edited 06-17-2009).]
"A Liberal is a Conservative who hasn't been mugged yet."
I would just hope that in her consideration for learning how to fire a gun and considering buying one she takes the time to decide if she could ever take another human life. If not, that gun won't protect her and may end up causing her more harm.
It is a tool. A tool that is only helpful when properly used. She needs to make sure she's not buying it and viewing it as her protector the same way she viewed the system. Having a gun doesn't protect you. YOU have to protect yourself. The gun is only one possible tool in your arsenal.
[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 06-17-2009).]
I still remember the knot in my stomach upon seeing the sea of white faces from the window of our school bus. It was the first day of school 1961. We came from a neighboring black community, about a hundred or so of us, to the newly integrated white Jr/Sr high school with thousands of students.
Everything intimidated me, the massive school building, being around whites for the first time, feeling small, seventh grade school work (would I measure up) and my stutter.
The night before, I shared my fears with my preacher dad. Dad gave his typical answer, "Trust God".
Someone grabbed me from behind. It was an angry older white teacher with a crew cut. He spun me around and almost pressed his wart-covered nose against mine. In my haste to find my homeroom, I went the wrong way on the stairs. Stammering and scared, I tried to explain that I was lost. But he refused to listen and carted me off to the principle's office. There I sat on my first day, a 'problem kid' and late for homeroom.
However, things did get better. Mr. Gomer, my art teacher and Ms Hornet, my English/creative writing teacher recognized my talents and nurtured them. Still, I felt pretty invisible at Brooklyn Park Jr/Sr High in Maryland.
The popular black students in the mostly white school were athletically and/or academically gifted. I was neither.
Then something wonderful happened. Every month, the best four art pieces from the entire school art classes were displayed in the lobby. My paintings were selected numerous times. This was not Affirmative Action. My paintings were displayed solely based on merit.
This achievement helped me to realize I had talent. It dramatically impacted my self esteem and life. I won scholarships to art college and enjoyed an award winning career as a television Graphic Designer.
But what if my school had embraced a liberal mindset so prevalent today? "EVERY child should experience the feeling of having their artwork displayed in the lobby. It's only fair". If every student's artwork was displayed, it would have robbed me of the knowledge that I possessed above average artistic talent.
Liberals frown upon individual achievement. I heard a news story about a kid banned from Little League pitching because he threw too hard. Rather than welcoming an opportunity to raise the game of the batters, Liberals chose to force the gifted pitcher to lower his game. Many schools even ban the keeping of score at sporting events. Typical, touchy, feel-ly, let's not cause anyone to feel bad, liberalism.
God forbid kids learn that sometimes you win, sometimes you lose and these experiences make you stronger! It's called life! It's how we grow. Without failure, you would never experience the joy of success.
Some of you may be thinking, "Why is Lloyd always ranting about liberalism"? Folks, I have witnessed the devastating effect of liberalism in my own family. A forty something drug addicted cousin is a serial impregnator with several out of wedlock children. And yet, he enjoys a new townhouse, food stamps, free health care and methadone all funded by working taxpayers. In essence, the government is enabling and funding my cousin's irresponsible lifestyle.
American taxpayers are extremely generous, sympathetic and more than willing to help those in need of a hand up. But liberal cradle to grave government dependency programs kill incentive and ultimately hurt people.
Here is another example of how touchy feel-ly liberalism overrules common sense and what is best for people. Without question, to move economically forward in America, it is most beneficial to speak English. Those who do not are stifled and stuck in minimum wage jobs. And yet, any politician courageous enough to merely suggest that immigrants learn English is crucified for racism.
Meanwhile, frustratingly, Conservatism gets the bad press branded as mean and heartless.
Conservatism 101: A Tale of Two Dads by Lloyd Marcus.
Little Johnny hates school and does NOT want to attend. Liberal dad says, "I know how you feel. I hated school also. There are bullies, kids who think they're hot stuff and it is just too HARD! You can sleep as long as you like".
Conservative dad says, "Jonathan Matthews (and his last name) you get your rear end out of that bed this instant and off to school. Why? Because I SAID SO and it is best for your future! And also, because I LOVE YOU!"
Lloyd Marcus is Singer/Songwriter of the "American Tea Party Anthem" and President, NAACPC (National Association for the Advancement of Conservative People of Color).
James Kirchick writes for, and is the assistant editor of, the liberal The New Republic and also wirtes occasionally for Commentary Magazine. Today, in the New York Post he writes of the betrayal of Israel by Obama, and the shaping of public opinion against Israel:
This dramatic shift in American policy began several months ago when the administration signaled that it would make the cessation of Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank the centerpiece of its policy to revamp the region. And that approach, mostly hinted at through anonymous leaks, became as good as official when Obama delivered his vaunted address to the Muslim world in Cairo earlier this month. In that speech, Israel (and, specifically, its policy of settlement construction) was the only state to merit specific criticism from the president of the United States. Among all the degradations and injustices in the Middle East, from the abhorrent treatment of women in nations like Saudi Arabia, to Syrian-backed assassinations of pro-sovereignty politicians in Lebanon, to the arrest and imprisonment of gay men in Egypt, the leader of the free world singled out America's one, reliable democratic ally in the region for rebuke.
Obama's strategic worldview assumes that once the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is resolved, other problems in the Middle East will be easier to fix, if not solve themselves. "We understand that Israel's preoccupation with Iran as an existential threat," National Security Advisor Jim Jones told George Stephanopoulos last month. "We agree with that. And by the same token, there are a lot of things that you can do to diminish that existential threat by working hard towards achieving a two-state solution."
By establishing this connection, the fate of the entire region thus hinges upon the resolution of a problem that hasn't had a solution for over six decades. This is an awfully convenient view for those who enjoy the status quo, which is why so many Arab despots cling to it, and it's discouraging to see the Obama administration joining them.
Every time Obama and his minions (Biden, Clinton) use the phrase that a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians is in “ the national security interests of America” or the “national interest” of America he plants a seed in the mind of America that 9/11 was caused by American support for Israel and that any violence towards America from the Muslim world is motivated by American support for Israel. He has made it a meme and it is proliferating. No American President-including George H.W. Bush, ever coined this particular phrase-one that Obama has repeated ad nauseam for months.
Do you believe in God? Really? And you're willing to admit it in public?
Oops. Sorry, for a moment I slipped back into the arrogant Atheism of my youth.
Before my parents had children, they decided to raise their kids in a secular home. We had gifts at Christmas time and chocolate covered matzoh during Passover, but there was no religion and certainly no God.
When I was in grade school, God was just a kind of nondescript character who popped up in Little House on the Prairie books from time to time. He seemed like a decent enough fellow, but was more or less a bit player who didn't have much to say.
After my grandfather died when I was seven, his Baptist minister lifted me up in his arms and told me, "It's all right, Grandpa's with God now." At that moment, I could feel my dress was hiked up in the back and all I could think about was pulling it back down. But later, I asked around and discovered that God was our Heavenly father, whatever that was supposed to mean.
I figured, who better to ask about my Heavenly father than my earthly father, but when I did he laughed.
He wasn't amused in a "kids say the darnedest things" kind of way. He was laughing derisively at the idea that my mother's family believed in God. And thus began my introduction to Atheism.
There are people who call themselves atheist who are simply nonbelievers, and then there are the big "A" Atheists for whom Atheism is almost a religion. This quasi-religious doctrine isn't neutral on the existence of other religions; rather, Atheism is a virulently anti-theistic creed characterized by sneering contempt for religion and a profoundly dogmatic bigotry toward people of faith.
Want to know how Atheists see the rest of us?
I grew up learning from my father that Atheism is rational, and therefore, religious belief is irrational; Atheism is defined by logic, religious faith by fantasy; and science is real while religion is make believe. Faith, I was taught, requires a willful stifling of reason.
The Torah, the Gospels, the Qur'an? All woefully inaccurate, laughably inconsistent fictions used to encourage belief in an illusion for the purpose of social control.
My curiosity in religion surfaced again in seventh grade when several of my friends were planning Bat Mitzvahs. Surely my friends weren't ignorant enough to actually believe in God, were they? The answer was no. For most of these Reform Jews, this celebration marked the official end to the tedium of Hebrew school. Most of their families were Ethical Culturists with a recreational interest in preserving their Jewish cultural identity. In other words, they too were Atheists.
By the time I reached high school, having had little contact with religion, I was convinced that people of faith were credulous and unenlightened. They gravitated toward soothing tales of God and afterlife to help them deal with their own mortality. At best, I considered belief in God an anachronism, a quaint vestige of days gone by, on par with superstitions about wicked thoughts causing birth defects.
At my extremely liberal college, I was exposed to even more militant Atheism. It was there that I learned the mere whiff of religiosity is worthy of denigration. Many of the people I met approached religion with something between disdain and loathing, and considered all religious belief a form of fanaticism. Christians in particular were characterized as knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing fundies (and that was in polite company.)
Fortunately my mother taught me enough manners that I kept my bias to myself.
In this new environment, my Atheism was more than evidence of good reasoning, it was a socially desirable badge of intellectual superiority. Make no mistake: Atheists think they're smarter than you. Atheism isn't simple skepticism. It is a certainty that believers are wrong, and by extension, intellectually inferior. Religion, especially Judeo-Christian religion, is nothing more than a crutch for dupes.
But Atheists aren't content to leave religion as a mere object of ridicule. They want it cleansed from public life. And enlightened as they are, they've come up with quite the pretense for justifying the righteousness of their bigotry: they are defending the vision of our Founding Fathers from a dominionist conspiracy to establish Christianity as the state religion.
You see, for liberal Atheists, the only thing worse than religion is the Religious Right, a term they use to encompass all Christian conservatives. And what better way to siphon fuel from the Religious Right than to convince Americans that the government is perpetually on the verge of becoming a theocracy?
And so, they accuse local governments of trampling the Constitution in the name of God and they find subliminal Christian iconography in political ads. They wring new meanings from Thomas Jefferson's notion of separation between church and state, and condemn our country's motto and the status of Christmas as a national holiday. But above all, Atheists stoke fear among religious and nonreligious alike that conservatives view government as a tool to force religion down your throat.
Pope-slandering buffoon Bill Maher, something of a patron saint among Atheists, has called religion "the ultimate hustle." Last fall, Maher's fellow liberal Chris Matthews, a self-described Catholic, roundly criticized Alaska Governor Sarah Palin for talking about prayer in a "secular environment" and complained that she made the Republican Party look more like a church tent than a big tent. In March, Matthews complained, "Why does everything sound like the '700 Club' with this Party now?" Such examples of anti-religious bias can be found every day on cable news, network television, and in the pages of The New York Times and The Washington Post.
As my politics strayed right of center after college, I realized I wanted no part of that Maher/Matthews worldview based in elitism and the ridicule of others. I made the transition from Atheist to atheist to agnostic, and have since discovered why it is often said that religion is experiential.
There was a time when I would have preferred any manner of torture to admitting the possibility of a higher power. These days, I'm proud to say I lost my faith in the Atheist creed.
T's Recovering Liberal Responds to More Burning Questions
Dear Robin,
I've read all your articles and find them self indulgent, like you are doing some sort of personal therapy. It's not conservative at all.
L
Hi, L:
It's nice of you to take the time to read my articles since clearly they are not your cup of tea.
Let me explain: memoir writing is very popular, though only in liberal circles. It's deeply personal, and usually irreverent, witty, and wise. True masters of the genre include Anne Lamott, Elizabeth Gilbert, and Augusten Burroughs. Memoirs are one of my favorite types of writing because I enjoy being drawn into the author's life, and I admire the fierce honesty and vulnerability.
I know of no conservative authors who write this way. So I am making a stab at telling my story using this genre. My new conservative friends, especially my professional writer pal Virginia, have been urging me to write for some time. It's what I can do during these dark times.
I aim to share my experiences and psychological insights in as honest, entertaining and informative way as I can. I'm very grateful to my amazing editor at AT for thinking outside the box and publishing my work. Personally I think we need a big tent and should mix it up with all sorts of creative writing. Either I am filling a need out there for nonliberal memoir writing, or it won't work. To paraphrase Winston Churchill: if I fail, I'll do so with great enthusiasm.
Dear Robin:
Why don't you distinguish between liberals and leftists?
KD
Yo KD:
Good question. There used to be a real difference. Like your odd ball cousin twice removed, the hard Left was on the fringe. But the Left has implanted microchips in the brains of most liberals (metaphorically speaking), and now they sound as Left as can be. To test my theory, say the words "George Bush" and also "conservatives" to your local liberal and watch them foam at the mouth like a rabid dog. I can only speak of Blue State Liberals. Perhaps those in the Red States haven't lost their marbles yet.
Dear Robin:
Can you explain why liberals are so angry?
Jen
Hi, Jen:
Puzzling, isn't it? You'd think that since liberals have won big time, they'd be sitting pretty, chilling on the couch, all happy clappy. Instead, they're acting like angry victims of "the man."
Why is this? You don't have to read much further than Saul Alinsky, Obama's role model. Alinsky taught disciples to foster resentments, agitate people, and create paranoia. He preached ridiculing and intimidating all opponents, especially reasonable people. His mission -- and I think the goal of the Powers that Be -- was revolution so that the haves were on the bottom, and the have nots were in power.
By the way, did you know that the dedication on the first edition of Rules for Radicals read as follows, "To the very first radical, the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did so so effectively that he won his own kingdom -- Lucifer." How creepy crawly is this? Once the book was a hit, the dedication was expunged from later editions. It makes me think of a line from a Bob Dylan song, "You have to serve somebody. It might be the Devil or it may be the Lord but you're going to have to serve somebody."
For the average Joe to inflict cruelty on another, he has to trick himself psychologically into thinking he's doing good. There are defense mechanisms employed, rather primitive ones like dissociation. He dissociates from his humanity and the humanity of the other. He represses his human urge to empathize and protect. He projects his self hate and shame onto the other person. Just look at what's being done to good Christian women like Carrie Prejean and Sarah Palin. Most people know deep inside that making rape jokes and wishing decent folks harm is contemptible. So they turn it around, demonize the other. and delude themselves into thinking they're right.
Lastly, to control people, the power structure uses addiction. Our masses are fed addictive technology, media, highly sugared food, antidepressants, and illegal and psychotropic drugs. Anger itself is addictive. It feels powerful, and stimulates feel good chemicals like adrenaline.
Now liberals will balk, arguing that conservatives are being mean too. But the crucial point here is that liberals are in power. When underlings at a job gripe about the boss, they are letting off steam. When people who hold the power act like schoolyard bullies, that's dangerous. That's the slippery slope into sadism and fascism. We might already be there.
Dear Robin:
You are a fake. Obviously you have always been a conservative and are pretending to be an ex liberal.
RJ
Dear Robin:
You're a phony. Clearly you are still a liberal pretending to be a conservative.
Jim
Hey RJ and Jim:
Actually you're both right. I'm a liberal and a conservative. I'm also an actress, a neurosurgeon, and the oldest living exotic dancer. The truth is that I suffer from Multiple Personality Disorder.
Dear Robin:
Very good memoir writing. However, saying liberals "worship at the altar of Obama" is clearly a nonobjective exaggeration that is stated as a fact and not a personal perspective. . . "
Clarity
Hi there Clarity:
Thanks for the compliment.
You know I could have instead written, "Many liberals greatly admire Obama, and are extremely devoted to him, " but, my friend, that would be BORING! I'm trying to animate my readers, not put them to sleep.
Plus, let's be honest here. if I had McCain's smiling mug splashed all over my T-Shirts, car, walls, windows, and owned life size cardboard dolls (I've seen several of Big O out here), and if I said stuff like, "McCain is special. I think he's like Lincoln and FDR and maybe even God a little, and that he was freed from his POW camp because he has a special mission in this country and the world. When he speaks I get a chill up and down my legs," wouldn't you consider me "McCain-atized"?
Dear Robin:
Do you believe you are more, or less, compassionate as a conservative than you were as a liberal?
Bernie
Hey Bern:
Interesting question. My dictionary defines compassion as a feeling of sympathy and concern for all. So if that were the yardstick, I'd say I'm not as compassionate. I have little sympathy for the guy on the corner with his wee-wee out, screaming that I'm a stupid ***** . To me, people should earn compassion and respect through their behavior. I think that the Left confuses compassion with codependency, which I define as the three C's: Controlling, Caretaking, and Changing others. I always thought that conservatives were meanies and that liberals were the compassionate ones. Now I've realized that you do people no favors viewing them as helpless victims that require rescuing.
Dear Robin:
Just what we need, an ex cocky liberal turned neuvo cocky conservative.
Roy
Hey Roy:
Oh, my gosh, did you just call me "cocky"?! Be very careful, my friend. I am now a protected class. According to the Thought Police, the word cocky is an insult to womyn, and will be punished harshly. Remember, first they'll come for us. Then they'll come for you.
A story from the Globe and Mail that illustrates that Liberalism is a mental disorder not only limited to the US. Meet the new Liberal Prime Minister in waiting, Michael Ignatief. In it, the writer talks about the liberal leader's view that the drunken indian who sent his kids outside on a cold winter night last winter,dressed only in diapers, only to freeze to death was not a murder, but rather a victim of white oppresion.
Last updated on Tuesday, Jun. 23, 2009 03:30AM EDT
.lgagnon@lapresse.ca
The story of Christopher Pauchay is well known. It's been recounted in the media across the country. Before we see what kind of sappy tale Michael Ignatieff made of it, let's recall the horrible events that unfolded during the night of Jan. 29, 2008.
Mr. Pauchay, a resident of the Yellow Quill reservation in northern Saskatchewan, left his house in the middle of the night as a blizzard was sweeping through, driving the temperature down to -50. He apparently wanted to go to his sister's house - the reason is unclear since he was extremely inebriated and lost track of what happened.
In any case, he took with him his two girls, aged 15 months and three years, dressed only in T-shirts and diapers. Outside, he lost his way and eventually dropped the girls in the snow.
He somehow managed to get to a nearby house, where he passed out. His daughters were found many hours later, frozen to death. Mr. Pauchay, who has been sentenced to three years in jail - a merciful sentence - had already been convicted of 52 other offences, including assault on his wife.
Now let's see how Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff describes these events, in the introduction of True Patriot Love, an otherwise interesting essay about his maternal ancestors and his own dreams about Canada.
"Imagining what we share is not easy. Imagining this land is never just to imagine it as it appears to you alone. It is to imagine it as an Inuit person might see it ... To imagine it as a citizen is to imagine it as a resident of Yellow Quill reservation in Saskatchewan would have had to imagine it, this Canada where two half-naked children died in a snow-covered field in the subarctic darkness because their father tried to take the sick little girls to his parents and never made it, and all you can hope is that death was as mercilessly quick as the cold can make it. What does a resident of Yellow Quill imagine, what do we, Canadians, imagine our country to be, the morning we learn that children have perished this way? It is surely more than just a tragic story of one family. It is a story about us."
In this melodramatic reinterpretation, Mr. Pauchay is turned into a devoted father who is a victim of "Canada" ("it is a story about us").
There is no mention of alcohol consumption, nor of Mr. Pauchay's own responsibility in the death of his daughters, who, under the pen of Mr. Ignatieff, seems to have been hit by some mysterious calamity, like a sudden avalanche.
This is an acute case of the syndrome brilliantly described by French writer Pascal Bruckner in Le Sanglot de l'Homme blanc - about the self-hating, teary-eyed White Man who carries on his shoulders all the sins of his ancestors and who ends up patronizing and dehumanizing the people of the Third World (in this case the aboriginals) by refusing them the status of responsible adults.
Mr. Ignatieff's reinterpretation of the Pauchay story wouldn't be worth a second thought if he weren't leader of the Liberal Party and possibly Canada's next prime minister.
The Liberals have already promised to act on the Kelowna Accord, negotiated under former prime minister Paul Martin, which would transfer some $5-billion to aboriginal communities for purposes such as health, housing and education. One wonders whether an Ignatieff government would make certain that the first nations chiefs are accountable to their communities and to the taxpayers about the way they use the money.
Under Jean Chrétien's government, Indian Affairs minister Robert Nault tabled a bill aimed at introducing some basic democratic rules into the governance of the reservations. The bill was forgotten as soon as Mr. Martin came to power.
He was so eager to please the leaders of the first nations that he gave them everything they wanted: a great deal of money with no strings attached. It would be regrettable if Mr. Ignatieff followed the same path.
[This message has been edited by loafer87gt (edited 06-23-2009).]
That sounds about right. I actually think that neck ties are ridiculous. 
