Login to comment
Posted on August 9, 2007
Blogging, Politics, Reason, Web 2.0
Any blogs–especially political blogs–that require you to sign up for an account before you can comment on posts is run either by cowards or people more interested in monetizing their blog (by selling your information) than in true conversation.
Here are some of the big cowardly offenders:
The Daily Kos
Blue Mass Group
Political Forum
MyDD.com
More fun debating with liberals
Posted on June 22, 2007
Liberalism, Politics, Reason
All none of you who are regular visitors to my blog, you have got to read this one.
Man, liberals are so smart and rational, and they’re not judgmental or hypocritical at all.
It’s important to understand also that I had another comment, kind of a closing summary, that I submitted which was removed by the moderator. It basically said that I won the argument and until somebody presented an argument that actually disputed me rather than just attacking me, everyone would know that I won. No cursing or anything, yet I got moderated. Good ol’ liberals. You can always count on them to manipulate the truth of things if given the power to do so.
Blogosphere A.D.D.
Posted on May 18, 2007
Blogging, Politics, Reason, Web 2.0
For those of you who have read and actually understand American history, particularly as it pertains to the founding fathers, you realize that conversation–passionate, sometimes even fiery debate–were the very fiber and filament of the political and social fabric of their time. The idea was revered by all, and discussions and debates about ideas would carry on for weeks and months. It just wasn’t acceptable or even thinkable to leave a debate unfinished, no matter how long it took.
How ashamed they would be of us today.
With a tool as powerful as the blogosphere at the disposal of everyone with internet access–a tool that exists for the sole purpose of engaging an ever-growing, global audience in conversation–one would think we’d be more interested in actual ideas and debate than in publicity.
I blame Google. Google, which is obviously the Xerox of search (meaning the brand that has become the verb), has necessitated that bloggers concern themselves more with frequency of posts than with substance if the blogger hopes to gain any kind of page rank or authority–in other words, exposure–from Google.
I guess Google isn’t solely to blame though; the ever-shortening attention span of the masses contributes significantly to the problem as well. Google authority, after all, relies largely on backlinks, and backlinks in the blogosphere are earned by posting frequently (and to a lesser degree substantively) enough to keep the attention of the public. The more the blogger is able to keep the reader’s attention, the more backlinks the blog will gain, the better the placement in Google search results, the more people will discover the blog and start paying attention to it, which attention the blogger will have to try to maintain…by posting frequently.
The sad truth, however, is that in my experience, very few bloggers, particularly political and social commentators, are interested in carrying on extended conversation about the issues they blog about, nor are their readers who comment on the posts. Over the past several months, I have made it a point to comment on various blogs–mostly liberal blogs–in an attempt to engage both the blogger and the readers in deeper conversation about the issues raised in the blog posts. Those issues are broad in scope, everything from abortion to Mormonism to Mitt Romney and more. Almost invariably, my comments elicit some kind of response, as is typical when a conservative has the nerve to comment on a particularly liberal blog.
I welcome it.
Unfortunately, however, with few exceptions, the conversation on any particular blog post has a life-span of about twelve hours, if that much. So just when the debate is starting to get good, those who once seemed so eager to voice their opinions suddenly fall mute and vanish into oblivion. (For the purpose of this blog post, the term “oblivion” shall be understood to mean “a more recent blog post conversation.”)
It’s a sad fact that bloggers pursue post proliferation much more passionately than progress. No one takes time to really dig into an issue, they just publish talking points, maybe a few follow-up comments, and then move on.
I think the founding fathers would be ashamed of us. Such a powerful communication medium available to basically every citizen, and yet by and large the bloggers are so intent on monetizing their blogs (which requires frequency of posting under current models) that they can’t afford to engage in real conversation.
S-P: Sorry, O’Reilly, you got the “P” wrong
Posted on May 17, 2007
Media, Reason
In his book Culture Warrior, Bill O’Reilly coined the term Secular-Progressive (S-P) to refer to that group of American’s–mostly elitist academics and politicians–who champion a decidedly liberal agenda; a secular agenda bent on removing all references to God and religion from any public conversation or policy.
At some point in times past, liberals usurped the term progressive to describe themselves, much as they have done with the term liberal. By designating themselves as progressive, the intent of this segment of society is to trick the masses into believing that their liberal beliefs and the policies that they would espouse and impose are just that–progressive–meaning that they would engender progress in society.
This is just silly. An examination of the liberal agenda reveals beliefs and desires that are far from new, having been espoused by many societies of the past (see Roman Empire in your local encyclopedia). The thing is, these societies are now reduced to little more than archaeological relics, having died off in one way or another after only a few hundred years.
Hardly a history that indicates progress.
Rather, O’Reilly should use the “P” in S-P to describe these people as they really are: permissive. The term progressive should be taken back by those people who truly believe in positive change and progress. Contrary to the liberal assertion, this kind of progress does not come from permissiveness. On the contrary, humanity is never more stymied in its progress than when it has become overly permissive–a fact proven by history. Look it up.
So, liberals, please be honest. What you truly want is a world without boundaries, without rules and restrictions. You don’t want progress, you want permission to behave however you will without consequences.
Best of luck to you on that. I’ll be sure to leave a note to future civilizations indicating that you were once part of a great society, but you decided to permit gay marriage and unfettered abortion and the negative birth rate that resulted ended in your demise.
Life begins at birth?
Posted on May 4, 2007
Abortion, Reason
As part of my ongoing conversation with a particular liberal blogger, I’d like to address the common argument from the “pro-choice” establishment (so to speak) that life begins “at birth.”
I find this argument to be intentionally myopic, since all that is required to identify the beginning of life is a simple examination of the characteristics of life. We can perform such an examination in a single sentence: if it requires nourishment in order to continue growth and development, it is alive.
Now for the argument of when a “fetus” becomes “human,” that’s just a simple: if the end or objective of development of an organism is human, the organism is effectively human. It doesn’t matter how far along that development life cycle the organism has progressed. Trying to claim that an unborn fetus is not human simply by virtue of the fact that it has not yet left the womb is about as logical as arguing that I am not a citizen of my country except when I have left my house.
In a previous post, I made the assertion that abortion is effectively murder, to which my liberal opponent counterclaimed that life begins at birth. He made this claim in an attempt to destabilize my assertion on the grounds that all claims made without “basis for [the] position” carry equal validity. So since I did not provide a “basis,” nor did he, his claim is as valid as mine. If he were right–if there were no absolute truth against which all claims must be measured–I would agree with him. It saddens me that some humans can be so committed to an agenda that they need certain obvious truths to be spelled out for them, and that in the absence of a valid argument in their favor, rather than admitting to their error when truth is spelled out for them, they will resort to “lawyer ball,” demanding the definition of the letters.
But since this world seems to suffer from an ever-growing epidemic of self-imposed blindness, here’s the spelling again: if something is alive (as we have already established) and its life is terminated with pre-meditation, it is murder. Can anyone seriously argue that an abortion is not the pre-meditated termination of life? How else is murder defined? Would you prefer the term “homicide?” That’s just the “lawyer ball” term for a murder that has not been through the courts yet.
A shining example of the “life begins at birth” problem is found in the exchange between former Senator Rick Santorum (R-Penn) and Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Cal) that I pointed to in another previous post.
I’d like to see what you liberals have to say about that exchange relative to the “life begins at birth” argument.
Partial-Birth Abortion: What are the liberals really saying?
Posted on April 26, 2007
Abortion, Liberalism
Opponents to the recent decision by the US Supreme Court to uphold the ban on partial-birth abortion (or IDX) argue that the decision–the ban itself–only serves to increase the health risks to women, at least in certain circumstances.
I think the truth behind their opposition has different roots.
First, it seems obvious to me that this ban really makes very little difference to the overall abortion issue, at least from the liberal perspective. The IDX procedure isn’t the standard choice, so it’s not like the ban is going to create a dramatic shift in medicine. I think that the opponents oppose this ban so vehemently because, to them, it strikes fear into their hearts about the future solvency of the right to have an abortion all together. Their passion is somewhat misdirected, then, on this partial-birth abortion ban decision, because they’re not really mad about that; they’re afraid for the future of Roe v. Wade.
Many opponents also claim that their real problem with the decision is that it represents an encroachment of government into matters in which it should not be involved. In this case, the truth of what they are saying is that government’s regulation of medical procedures is an affront to science–the religion of liberalism. This ban, in their estimation, is an attack on their god. After all, “how dare the government question and subvert the supremacy of the medical and scientific communities!? Science is infallible and should be allowed to act in whatsoever manner it sees fit relative to what is best for individuals and humanity in general!”
The issue is really about weighing the lesser of two evils. On one side of the scale, the evil of government infringing on the rights of citizens (which is the core evil from which our Constitution was born); on the other side of the scale, the evil of murder (and let’s not mince words–ending a life, no matter at what level of development, is murder). At face value, murder seems to be obviously the greater of the two evils, and at this point liberals might be tempted to launch into a debate about “when does life really begin,” and all that nonsense. But that’s beside the point. Truthfully, these two evils are both pretty serious considering their attendant ramifications, but I won’t get into a long essay about the absolute necessity of agency.
So, to stick with the issue at hand, we have to weigh the two evils according to the facts that we have.
- Fact 1: no matter how you slice it, abortion is effectively murder. Whether you call it murder or “termination” or whatever, the end result is the same: one less human on Planet Earth.
- Fact 2: literally hundreds of thousands of abortions are performed each year in the U.S., the vast majority of which are NOT IDX. Statistically, very (and I mean very) few of these abortions result in long-term or permanent health complications for the woman.
- Fact 3: the medical statistics do not bear out this purported (and irrational) fear of an increase in health risks for women. If there is to be an increase, it would not be considered significant and certainly does not rise to the level of epidemic as some liberals seem to be suggesting.
- Fact 4: the use of IDX as a convenient method for terminating unwanted pregnancies in late term has been on the rise in recent years, medical considerations aside.
Given these facts, the comparison seems pretty easy: it is far less an evil to allow this ban as a blanket measure for protecting the lives of citizens (even the unborn ones) and to deal with any resulting health issues for women on a case by case basis than it is to continue to allow IDX to be mainstreamed. If IDX is off the table as a convenient alternative for mothers in the second and third trimester, perhaps they will consider committing to motherhood, adoption or some other means of dealing with their pregnancy rather than simply falling back on IDX because it’s “safe and easy.”
Of course there are exceptions. There are always exceptions. Those exceptions should be considered on a case by case basis, each according to its own merits, so to speak.
It seems obvious: there is far less bad that comes of this ban than there is good.
Now, you liberals who disagree, dispute me.
Debating with Liberals
Posted on April 26, 2007
Liberalism
I’ve had quite a bit of fun recently debating with people on the “liberal” side of the social framework, mostly using the comment threads from their own blogs. I find commenting on liberal blogs to be a particularly cathartic experience. It’s a great outlet for the closet socio-political commentator inside me.
There are a few things that I find curious, however.
First, I have to clarify the definition of liberal. In today’s world, the characterization of “liberal” means something diametrically opposite to what it meant back in the times of, say, Jefferson. Today, the term has been usurped by left-wing propagandists to disguise their true natures and identities. In reality, today’s liberalism is a misnomer that attempts to disguise what can only accurately be described as permissiveness. So when you read me using the term “liberal,” you should understand it to mean “permissive.”
It’s important to understand that definition first so we can better understand the true intentions of liberals of today.
Liberal rhetoric is replete with suggestion that everything they do is founded in some sense of moral authority or superiority. The truth, however, is that they don’t actually believe in morality of any kind. Rather, they subscribe to the philosophy most recently attributed to Carl Rogers, but that has two hundred year old roots in Jean Jacques Rousseau. That philosophy, in simplified terms, is this: “if it feels good, it is good.” According to this philosophy, which is the secret mantra of modern liberalism, there is no absolute right or wrong. Liberals claim to have the corner on morality, yet they deny the “power thereof,” so to speak. In other words, they suggest that it’s somehow possible for individuals to define their own personal, private morality, irrespective of the moral sensibilities of others, and that they should be free to pursue paths consistent with their personal moral definitions without consequence from other individuals or government. Take, for example, this comment from a particularly venomous liberal:
“The pursuit of happiness is what is stated on the constitution, and freedom is necessary for that pursuit to even begin. This is what Liberals fight for, freedom. Freedom to choose and decide ones own morality without governmental interference, without force, without fear.”
The “power” that they deny, though–the very force of morality–is that, by definition, morality presupposes the recognition of absolutes of right and wrong, as well as a higher authority than one’s own interpretation to define those absolutes.
In simpler terms, morality cannot be weighed on a sliding scale. If it could, then liberals would have to concede the right of some to disregard any considerations of right and wrong all together on moral grounds. By that reckoning, since I disagree with the liberal philosophy and I see it as a material threat to humanity, I could claim the moral obligation (remember, this is my own private morality) to remove any liberal from humanity to ensure the perpetuation of the species. So on moral grounds, I could kill all liberals and, by their own philosophy, I could not rightly be punished for it.
A great, real-world example of this moral sliding scale with which liberals are trying to weigh (and in this case legislate) the social issues of the world is revealed in this exchange between Senator Barbara Boxer (D-California) and former Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pennsylvania):
http://www.nrlc.org/news/1999/NRL1199/boxsan.html
Notice how Senator Boxer, who obviously espouses the personal moral position of “pro-choice,” is unable to answer the most basic question about the moral ambiguity in the partial-birth abortion procedure. As Senator Santorum backs her more and more into a corner by asking her to specifically define what she means by “born” (as in “the baby is born when the baby is born”), she eventually refuses to continue with the line of questioning. She knows she’s beat. She can’t draw a clear line on defining the issue of the debate because, according to liberal governing philosophy, there is no such thing as a clear line. It must be left open to interpretation.
To me, since so many outspoken liberals are lawyers or university professors by profession, it seems apparent that this “sliding scale” system of measurement is designed really for one thing: to create a platform (platform = work = money) for themselves. Someone has to interpret all this ambiguity, don’t they?
The Reason
Posted on April 23, 2007
Reason
It was Aristotle who characterized the law as “reason, free from passion.” The intent of this blog is to illustrate that, while passion cannot be allowed to overrun reason, reason cannot be free from passion, not only in law, but in religion, sociology and any other realm that is worthy of intellectual attention and effort. It is passion first that leads us to seek truth; it is reason by which we make sense of it. No experience inspires passion like the discovery of truth.
This blog will also present ideas founded in reason about which I am passionate, as well as (I hope) passionate debates about the reason in everything.
Therefore, “Come now, and let us reason together…” What greater pursuit can there be than the pursuit of truth? Like faith without works, reason without passion is dead.
« go back