No Good Opinion Goes Unpunished

Geez-o-peats.

Ya ever have a donkey kick you in the back of the head?  Yeah, me either.  But it kind of feels like I got kicked in the head today.  

In my posts, I have a tendency to bloviate about politics which is something I never thought I'd have any interest in at all. 

I got very involved in the politics of gun ownership and game laws when I started a hunting and fishing website and started getting the word out about anti-gun initiatives.  In the midst of that, we started a new Presidential campaign cycle and the flood gates opened.  Now I'm an absolute news junkie, political student (unofficially) and unrelenting rabble-rouser.

But believe it or not, there are some issues that I don't have strong opinions on.  I may have opinions on them, but they're issues I don't get all crazy about.  

Abortion:  As a man I can have an opinion, however as a man my rights are limited, as are my perspectives - so I have a tendency to keep my thoughts to myself.   

Crime & Punishment: Since it's not an issue that affects me directly, I don't get all nuts about this.  I do have my opinions on this, though.  I used to do some website work for our local sheriff's office, and one of my jobs was updating the E-Sorn list (the list of local sexual offenders).  One of these days, if I get a wild hair, I may give you my perspectives on that.  Until that hair grows, it's not that important.

Education:  Sorry.  I don't get all goofy about this.  I know it's an important issue, but school was never an important part of my life, so I don't get all up on it.

Culture and Influence:  Yeah, this one I do get my ire up about sometimes.  I don't think it's right to tell off-color jokes in front of children, introduce racist or hateful thoughts to kids, or corrupt the "family hour" of television with a bunch of adult-based programming.  But is it something I need to blog about?  Nah... not now.  Maybe when something ticks me off.

Gay Rights/Equality Issues:  This is another area that I don't have a strong opinion about.  I inadvertently find myself getting dragged into debates about it, when actually I don't have what some would consider a personal stake in the issue, or some kind of strong stance like I do on other issues.  I normally try to stay neutral when I get involved in these debates, but somehow because I don't take a strong stance, someone gets a thorn in their butt.  I recently got into it with an old friend who now lives in Long Beach.  She was all in my face about Prop 8, when all I said was that the issue was legally placed on the ballot, legally voted upon and legally defeated.  I offered no opinions as to whether things should be one way or the other, just facts.  It took a long time to get it through her head that I wasn't taking a stand - except to suggest that the rule of law had been properly followed and that the majority vote needed to be respected, and not overruled by some activist judge that holds himself higher than the voice of the voters themselves.

Where is this blog leading?  I'm getting there...

I was watching the news and saw where Perez Hilton, famous for internet commentary, asked a Miss USA contestant from California about her opinions on gay marriage.  Gay marriage is a lava-hot issue in California as it was just voted down by the voters of California.  There have been protests after protests after protests about "Prop 8" in California, and it's not going to be resolved any time soon.  Anyway...

After Hilton asked her, Miss California remarked that she believed that marriage was defined as being between a man and a woman.  She apologized to those who she may have alienated due to her opinion, but she stuck to her gut.  Shortly after the competition was over (she didn't win), Hilton, who is gay, posted a blog ripping her apart, calling her a "dumb bitch".

I made a comment on Facebook that I felt she was to be congratulated for having the guts to tell the truth based on her upbringing and opinion.  I further thought that Hilton needed to be chastised for the way he handled the whole thing.  When I was further asked about this issue as the blog progressed, I simply stated that I felt that Hilton chose the wrong forum in which to inject the debate, that as a judge in the pageant he unfairly put the contestant "on the spot" in front of a national audience about an incredibly polarizing topic and that his online reaction was abhorrently inappropriate because he's the one that put her in that position in the first place, asked her for her opinion and received an honest answer.  Later I even said that had Pat Robertson (700 Club) been a judge and asked the same question, and had the answer (opinion) had come back the opposite way, it would have been a travesty for him to call her a "heathen" on his blog, if he even has a blog.

In no way did I offer an opinion on gay marriage or civil unions, but my own sister-in-law, a stage actress in Houston, got her ire up because I defended Miss California for standing up for herself.  She's straight, but she has an increasing clutch of gay friends, and feels very strongly about the issue of equality.  Earlier, she agreed with me that Hilton was a pinhead, but as the conversation ensued, she somehow got the idea that the argument was about gay rights, not about whether Hilton was right or wrong in his behavior.  When I continued to mention that Hilton was in the wrong (for bringing up a divisive issue in an inappropriate forum and then profanely trashing someone for offering an opinion THAT HE ASKED FOR), the debate got more heated, and she ended up "unfriending me" on Facebook.

So, here's where the mule kicked me.  It doesn't matter if you're left or right, gay or straight, male or female, black or white... you're entitled to an opinion.  You're further entitled to keep your opinion to yourself.  Other people are fully permitted to have differing opinions too.  If for some reasons these opinions should be made public, and they are not in any way similar, it doesn't make one opinion WRONG or RIGHT... it just makes it different.  Because people are entitled to their own opinions, which are simply opinions and neither wrong nor right, it is inappropriate for one of those opinions to be called wrong or right, for it is just an opinion and opinions cannot be wrong or right.  (Catch the drift?)

Therefore, to attack someone over an opinion rather than have a useful debate that may either persuade or (at the very least) inform is inappropriate.  Further, to call someone a "dumb bitch" because of an opinion that she was asked to give doesn't solve, inform, persuade or ingratiate anyone.

I will further inject that opinions are different than judgments.  I may have an opinion about the way I want my life to proceed, and my opinion on what is right and wrong in this world.  It's an entirely different thing to place judgment on the things I opine as right or wrong.  Judgments are actionable, where opinions are not.  I not only offered no opinions on gay equality, but I similarly offered no judgments.

We live in a culture that if someone offers a differing opinion, they're wrong.  We've gotten so closed-minded that we're not even willing to listen to another point of view without getting our undies bunched up over it.  Respectful debate (without name-calling or finger-pointing) is a lost art.

I have challenged people to debate me, most recently on my last blog, if they have a differing opinion.  Truthfully, I'm interested in knowing dissenting views on the opinions I hold, because if I don't know the other side of an issue, how can I be fully informed enough to offer an intelligent debate for my own side?

I am white, straight and male, but I have friends that are not white, straight or male.  I can get along with just about anyone unless my personal pursuit of life, liberty and happiness is threatened.  If there's ever a time when our opinions differ, please respect my friendship enough to debate me respectfully.  I promise to do my best to offer you the same respect, even if I vehemently disagree with you...

...and that's the way I see it.

Ideology Challenged

Since Barack Obama became a serious contender for the American Presidency, there has been a great deal of talk about the ideologies that we adopt.  Whether you're a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian or one of the other parties, a conservative, a liberal, a statist, a progressionist, a moderate... what does it all mean?

Many of my friends have their political position noted as "liberal".  My opinion is that to many of these friends, "liberal" can be simply defined as not conservative, or in essence, not a Republican or even more to the point, in no way aligned with George W. Bush.  I surmise that many of these self-proclaimed liberals have done no research into the ideology they profess to follow, or the political path that liberalism suggests.

To be fair, I also must relent to the number of liberals who at least have a basis for their ideologies, most notably those with a family history of Democrat party affiliation, or those who have had a working history as a member of a union;  perhaps an auto worker, a teacher or professor, a construction worker,  a creative services provider (movies, radio, TV), or a member of some of the other aspects of the "labor class".

So, why do we feel the way we feel?

I've been doing quite a bit of research on this question, especially as of late.  The "tea parties" and tax protests brought out millions of people from all ideologies to debate governmental policy and the constitutionality of federal taxation.  Indeed, the tax party I attended brought out Obama supporters, Obama voters who had a change of heart, and Obama policy detractors.  Truly, the Obama supporters were not out in great number, but we did enjoy debating with a few, though unfortunately the points on either side really never went much deeper than a simple regurgitation of the talking points espoused by ideologues on either side of the issues.

"Obama is doing everything he can to help the American people and bring us out of this recession."

"Obama is going to get us out of these ridiculous wars and bring our manufacturing back home."

"Hey, I had to live through 8 years of George W. Bush.  We won - deal with it."  (That is the stupidest argument for anything, ever.  That simply follows a negative liberal media bias and does nothing to intelligently explain a political position.  It rivals, "just because!" in it's idiocy.)

I understand the power of the liberal media, even though they have never done anything publicly to explain why they lean the way they lean.  ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, HLN, MSNBC - they're all pro-Obama, but they never adequately describe why.  Fox News personalities explain their positions regularly.  "Big government is bad because..." (ad infinitum).  MSNBC, to my knowledge, has never really said why big government is better.  Is it in the equalization of the working class?  I doubt it.  Katie Couric makes more than I do, but I've never received a check from her to level our economic playing field, and to apologize for her achievement-based successes that keep us at disparate economic levels.  Billionaire George Soros spends a lot of his fortune in efforts to reform American politics, but he does not apologize for the fact that he is a billionaire and I'm not.  As a matter of fact, much of his wealth is gotten through betting against the American dollar.  When America takes a dip, he's bathed in wealth.  

That aside, all the left-leaning media does is continually denigrate their opposition without a proper explanation as to why... but the public accepts it, believes it and regurgitates it as if the facts they espouse are their very own.

Many that's why liberals aren't very good at explaining themselves.

Well, maybe I can help explain a few things.  Maybe not.

A conservative talk radio host, Mark Levin, recently released a novel, "Liberty & Tyranny - A Conservative Manifesto".   It has been celebrated by the right as one of the most important writings of our time.  Wanting to know why, I picked up a copy.  One chapter in, I realized that there was much to learn about both sides of the issue.  But where would I learn the other side? 

Well, for many Americans, conservatism is analogous to capitalism.  Thus, to research the reverse of capitalism, especially in search of a profound document that equals Levin's book, one must look for a defining document about capitalism's antithesis, socialism.  But the only document worthy of standing up for socialism actually regards it as a soft version of socialism's true origin, communism.  That document is "Manifesto of the Communist Party", written primarily by Carl Marx in 1848.  It's most notably referred to as the Communist Manifesto.

Now, uninformed liberals may not appreciate having their beliefs referred to as communist in nature, but we need to get past the stigma attached to the word communism.  In fact, the manifesto was written to try to convince the rest of Europe of the finer points of Marx's feelings of the superiority of communism, not as some foreboding cloud that signaled the march of the ideology throughout the region.  Consider it Marx's soft sell.  It wasn't successful as a recruitment device, but is does allow us some fantastic insights into the mind of the anti-conservative.

A defining quote from Marx is actually not found within the pages of the Communist Manifesto, but is actually found in the pages of another document, "Critique of the Gotha Program", written in 1875, but it generalizes Marx's true views as to economics and how the communist manifesto's suggested role of government can facilitate his vision. 

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need".  The phrase basically says that we should all contribute to and consume from society in proper proportion, regardless of how much we give.  So, I could make 100 documentaries about green energy and the virtues thereof because I'm fully capable to do so, but if I'm single with no dependents I should still only make the money according to my needs, not my wants or aspirations.  Let's see.  My mortgage is less than $1,000 a month, my car payment is about $350, I eat between $200 and $300 worth of groceries per month, cell is $99 a month... okay, so according to my needs I should make about $25,000 per year.  I won't be able to afford an iPod, but hey - do I really NEED an iPod?  Plus, if my neighbor can't get an iPod, it really isn't FAIR for me to have one.

But, the Communist Manifesto goes even further.  It establishes a massive state of dependency.  Under true communism, you can't own a house.  You can only rent - according to your needs.  You need a roof over your head... what does it matter that you don't own it?

There are ten defining principles to socialism*, which is the soft side of communism:

1: Abolition of property in land an application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2: A heavy progressive or graduated income tax

3: Abolition of all rights of inheritance

4: Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels (you move here, give us your stuff)

5: Centralization of the banks in banks of the state, by means of a national bank

6: Centralization of communications and transport in the hands of the state

7: Extension of factories/production owned by the state

8: Equal obligation of all to work, establishment of industrial & agricultural armies

9: Abolish distinction between town & country by combining the industries & their workers

10: Free education for all children in state public schools, combine it with industry (not child labor)

*http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/s/o.htm#socialism

These are also the 10 tenets laid out within the Communist Manifesto.

Of these tenets, several of them seem to have already taken shape under the Obama administration, and even to an extent, under the end of the Bush administration as well, particularly the centralization of the banks and the centralization of manufacturing.  But the biggest socialist tenet adopted by the Obama administration is the second tenet of socialism or communism, the graduated income tax.  The AIG executives received a bonus from the bailout money.  Then the government thought of taxing them 90% so they could get it all back and distribute the wealth fairly.  That's an exaggeration of the graduated tax, but it serves as the most visible example.  The most notable example is the new tax policy that raises federal taxes on any family making more than $250,000 annually, while "lowering" federal taxes on families earning less than that amount.  Redistribution of wealth.  From each, to each...

In our Declaration of Independence our founding father's established some inalienable rights - life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  This phrase alone destroys the possibility of socialism or communism in America as one could argue that the ability to own property itself is seen as a liberty.  Further, if my ownership of an iPod makes me happy, and it doesn't infringe on the rights of someone else, I should be able to buy one regardless of whether my neighbor has the money to purchase one himself. 

The Federalist papers suggested that a government was necessary to control the populace, but that it was just as responsible to control itself.  This idea was killed in the 1930s as FDR initiated "The New Deal" in an effort to get us out of the Great Depression.  A Democrat President and Democrat majority in Congress started wildly creating new federal projects, new entitlements, new agencies, new laws, setting price limits and production limits and threatened to re-seat the justices of the Supreme Court if they challenged it.  FDR's reign ran for four terms, and history has proven that the depression was defeated by the industrial revolution that followed WWII, and that recovery took longer because of the massive spending initiatives of FDR and his Congress.

Let's take a moment now to challenge capitalism, in all fairness.  People see CEOs and bank presidents making millions of dollars on the sweat of the people working for them who make far less.  They want equality.  Sure, the CEO should make more, but not that much more, right?  Some of that wealth should be redistributed to the workers.

There's something to be said for "competitive wages".  Why should I pay a worker $20 per hour when the prevailing market will enable me to get equally talented employees from a reasonably sized pool of applicants for $10 per hour?  One might argue that there are a lot more people in the $10 per hour pool of the working class than there are in the class of thinker necessary to run a multi-billion dollar corporation.  Should there be oversight?  Yes -  but not by the working class or even the government.  The oversight should come from the body of the ownership of the company.  They set the wage, they set the expectations, they hire the person - they should be the body to end the career of someone not effective in the position.

The liberal will say, "if that person has a better education, they should use it to make the company more money than can be distributed amongst all the people who work as a team to accomplish that company's goals."

The capitalist will say, "if that worker wants to elevate themselves to the level of CEO and all the riches and accolades that position entails, they should invest the time and money it takes to achieve that position... and they should be compensated well for that investment."

The first, liberal ideal above is purely socialist as per the teachings of Marx - "From each according to his ability to each according to his need", while the other Capitalist ideal allows for a person to achieve according to ones own pursuit of liberty and happiness.

Capitalism is not perfect.  There are charlatans and crooks who dole out crap that promises to cure the world of all its ills, but we the people have the power to stop those people where it warrants.  Product recalls, awareness (lead in paint on toys from China, anyone?) and the internet are proven to help consumers make informed choices.  If someone chooses to purchase without an informed decision, whether it's a baby-stroller or a financial investment, it's nobody's fault but that someone.

Is capitalism fair?  I think it is.  It encourages personal responsibility.  Caveat emptor is Latin for, "let the buyer beware", and that whole phrase had to originate from something that pissed someone else off.  But with a free society (free of oppressive government oversight that limits liberty) we do need to have the aforementioned personal responsibility.

The Communist Manifesto targets manufacturing and says that if you make too much of something, it's not out of need, it's out of a desire to profit which is not fair to others who don't stand to profit from its surplus manufacture.  That applies to a home woodworking shop to General Motors.  I can make a coat hanger for myself.  If other people like that coat hanger, I may make more than I need with a desire to sell some of them and make a profit.  There are lots of good cars in the world, but if GM comes out with it's newest Tahoe and I like it better than the 2005 I'm driving, I may buy it.  I already had a car, so GM didn't need to make it... but they hoped that someone like me may have an old one and want something newer in my pursuit of happiness.

Big government exists for one thing - to spread the government and its influence and control over the citizenry of the United States, which directly contradicts the ideals of the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution.  Big government is about power and "equality" amongst the people regardless of the amount we each contribute (to each according to his need), which is Marxist by its very nature.

I challenge a "liberal" to do the research that offers a construct that differs from the origin or the ideology I've presented here.  I'm secure in the idea that the left-wing stance adopted by most liberals is simply "anti-Bush" and little more, because if the research was done in due earnest, they would not adopt that ideal with the same ferocity.

If I'm wrong, it means that all the people in college right now to be engineers, doctors, lawyers, scientists, teachers and more are merely there so that they can invest their personal time and finances so that they can contribute their knowledge and the fruits of their sacrifice only to others and not themselves for the good of the people as a whole.  They want to be doctors to cure the sick, and not be financially rewarded for it, lawyers to defend the accused, and not ask for anything in return that's beyond their level of need and so on.

The truth is that if there are college students with that aspiration, that's great for them - that's their choice.  To have a government demand that of its people - that's not so great.  That's liberalism.  That's Marxism.  That's what the Democrat party has become.

And that's the way I see it.