Criticism, Policy, and Intentions

I heartily enjoy pundits like Rush Limbaugh and all the sort who write for conservative news magazines and blogs, but sometimes they are far too guilty of Ad Hominem attacks.

Is suicide patriotic?

Cliff Thier
I am so excited that Nancy Pelosi (and economist George Stephanopoulo) understands the threat that people are to our way of life.

I look forward to Pelosi's opposition to increased immigration (legal and illegal), tax benefits for families with children, social security for selfish oldsters, and, most importantly, improved access to health care. It's time we confront the danger that population poses to our people.

With Nancy Pelosi as the leader of the Democratic Party in Congress, we can all sleep better at night. That is, so long as we don't close our eyes.

Posted at 6:37 PM, January 26, 2009 americanthinker.com

Attacking an argument or proposal or policy is not by any means inappropriate. Certainly, it is more than necessary to criticize and identify what's wrong. But acting as though the arguer is heartless, machine-minded Agent Smith of the Matrix is just not fair. The least we can say for our often misguided politicians is that they are mostly well-intentioned.

I can't deny what Jimmy Needham said: "Good intentions never set a man free." But it's not appropriate to compare elected officials to the utilitarian government of sci-fi movies like Soylent Green.
Yet.

Inauguration

He fumbled the oath and it was kinda cute. Okay, I'm feeling it now. I'm a little sentimental. My emotionalism is overtaking my rationalism...

until he opened his mouth.

"…because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents." EF - Not. What happened to the independent powers of the states and the limited federal government that the constitution established?

"These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land - a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights." EF - Yes, I've said this before. I don't think it's that far off, either. But don't call me a cynic--a realist, man.

"On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics." EF - Oh, yeah, like the abortion issue?

"…the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness." EF - I don't recall where Jesus said that all have equality on this earth in any regard, whether wealth, education, ambition, knowledge, happiness, or sorrow; only that it is fleeting and won't be an issue in God's ultimate reality.

"Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things - some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labor, who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom." EF - These are the ones Obama wants to simultaneously reward and suppress by establishing an economy of "equality."

"...lay a new foundation for growth." Bastiat - Liberty is an act of faith in God and in His work. EF - That is, God already laid the foundation.

"Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions - who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage...
What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them - that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end." EF - By establishing an economy that does not allow people to act based on natural motivation and incentives, people will be less and less able to react appropriately with new ideas and responses to "necessity and common purpose." It's just not logical to think that the government can take more power and not infringe on the rights, liberties, and autonomy of individuals. As for the accusation of being "cynical," Mr. Obama fails to understand that by allowing people more liberty, you in fact demonstrate your faith in people to do what is right, to govern themselves, and to respond to the needs of others and not need an over-active government to do it.

One thing he was right about: we do need a new era of responsibility. We do have duties, as individuals and as a nation. But it is wrong to confuse the two. The hard thing to acknowledge is that our individual duties extend further than our national duties do. The hard task to attempt comes from our personal responsibility to be wise and compassionate in our actions instead of letting our government take over. God did not give everyday individuals rational minds with the intention that they'd use it once every four years and let their democratically elected executive official take over the rest of the time.

And there's way more to say about this too... hopefully people won't fail to keep discussing it.

Rampage

Sometimes I wonder what the HELL I'm doing in media communications. Do I really think I can make it? And if I did, do I really think I could change how people think? Heck, could I even get them to think at all? People go to the movies as a form of escapism. Any message they really take in is subconscious, if at all (it seems). How could you reach people, educate them, challenge them--through something that's hardly more influential than a dream??!

How would I be any different than the radio station that helps faceless, nameless kids through instant messaging? It feeds our neglect of personal, one-on-one relationships. Hell, how do I deal through that when it's what I consider the BANE of our society and civilization??

What would I do if not media? Probably some combo of economics, theology, philosophy, and God knows what else. There's not time enough on the earth to learn what I want to know. That may well be my downfall. (P.S. I'm currently browsing a book about modern youth culture. Why? Because it interests me.)

So what about now? There's not a snowball's chance in hell that I'll drop media com. Not only would that be STUPID at this point, but I'd probably be tortured and burned alive and, hell, probably excommunicated for it. And frick, I don't really want to drop it anyway. I love media and it excites me. But how does it contribute the the fulfillment of my hopes, dreams, and desires? How does media relate to politics, economics, human dignity, theology, the pursuit of knowledge, and the FREAKING HUMAN CONDITION IN GENERAL?? HUH?!? Tell me that, Andrew freaking John Bruner!! (Don't worry--I do love you. :)

Ahem. (expletive) Now I won't fall asleep for hours.

For all the college peeps:

Absentee Ballot Application:

http://www.sos.state.ia.us/elections/AbsenteeBallot/index.html

GET SOME (literally)

About a week ago, my sister and I were marveling the reluctance of many modern teenagers to become not involved, but even simply knowledgeable about American politics. Why wouldn’t they want to know how the government impacts them on a day-to-day basis? They proudly (and ignorantly) boast “the government doesn’t affect me so I don’t need to worry about it,” and “I stay as far as possible away from anything relating to politics.”

So Caroline and I wondered, why would someone be so proud of their disinterest and disconnection from the politics and government of their own country? Indeed, I think I’ve discovered the answer.

Unlike in past time of—well, I’ll not be naïve about it. I suppose “growing up” has always come with a certain amount of freedom and liberty. But I think in history, there has always been a certain amount of responsibility and obligation associated with growing up that our generation is unwilling to acknowledge. Of course, I might verily write a book on that, but the relevance is in how it applies to civics. For indeed, adolescents see that they gain legal equality with their parents and elders—driving privileges, status to drink legally or go to clubs, and so on. Yet in all this, they deny the responsibility that they have to their community, to their state, to their nation.

When Alexis de Tocqueville visited the United States and observed our democratic form of government, he rightly presumed that a greater sense of individualism and independence would follow equality under the law. The government protects our equal rights as individuals and asks only that we participate in election of the legislators and executives (well, in addition to up to 40% of our total income, but that’s another blog entry…) As long as no one impinges on our liberties, many people feel no desire or obligation to do the serious thinking about these issues; we would rather remain totally independent and committed only to our own aspirations, interests, and necessities.

So certainly, the Peter Pan Syndrome (or whatever sociologists are calling it) has a worse consequence than leaving 20-something men to live off their parents’ income and play video games all day. Abigail Adams warned her son, John Quincy, that character comes with difficult times; and indeed, times are no easier in the 21st century than they were in the 18th and her words are still applicable:
“The habits of a vigorous mind are formed in contending with difficulties. Great necessities call out great virtues. When a mind is raised, and animated by scenes that engage the heart, then those qualities which would otherwise lay dormant, wake into life and form the character of the hero and the statesman.”