The divide on morality

Ross Douthat, the latest resident well-mannered conservative at the New York Times, wrote an interesting article that lays out the conservative point of view on sexual morality. He explains why a more traditional stance on sexual morality may lead to a culture where"young people (can) achieve romantic happiness". How touching Also, it demonstrates that, contrary to Thatcher's dictum on society ( it doesn't exist), a goal of Catholics has always involved a vision for society on earth. He acknowledged that while real people do not live up to this ideal, positing this as an ideal gives us something to strive for. Bush II showed us that a power unconcerned with appearances can sink very low. Was the sexual revolution a mistake? Now change every mention on sexual morality with economic morality and a concern for fairness. It is properly the business of government, that how business is conducted has a large influence on general cultural morality. That although we are greedy creatures and may not live up to ideals it is better to have high ideals so we strive for better. That the intent an enterprise is undertook has a huge influence on how it develops. All the arguments used to advocate for a society enforced standard of sexual morality can be used to support society enforce standards for economic fairness. I seem to remember a sayi ng about gooses and ganders....

Egypt

The removal of Egypt's authoritarian is both a test and a hope for the future. I thought the removal of a dictator was impossible in this post Tiananman square age of total wired Police states.But this machine is staffed with humans, and no microchip can make a man fire a gun at his neighbors if he sees them as his neighbors. This is what is so destructive about Hannity, Rush, Beck et al; teaching us that some Americans are Americans and so me are not. This, like the radio propaganda offensive waged before the Rwanda genocide, makes it possible to find people willing and eager to kill. If Egypt turns into another militarist state then it will still show that people can remove powerful, U.S. supported dictators. If it becomes a better state with a decent level of minority protection and rights enshrined in enforced law it will mean a different world IS possible. That means we are only held back by fear. I was starting to doubt that such was possible

Sore losers

The Republicans are sore losers. They do not accept the resukts of elections lying down. The long temper tantrum the Right had during the 90's was a result of Bill Clinton winning the presidency. This punctured the myth of an overwhelmingly Conservative nation so dear and central to their ideology. This is one of the strengths of the Republican movement. Democrats, on the other hand, are great losers. Democrats will always be responsible adults, always swerve first in chicken, a nd that is why the are and look weak. The Dem leadership always misinterprets the public perception of Dems as weak as being insufficiently Right wing or hawkish. Wrong. It is because they are such good losers. Think about it. Obama legitimately beat McCain, just as Clinton did best in a three way field. Do the Repug's ever roll over? NO!!! What did the Left do when Bush was handed a victory? Whine a little. Live went on. Someone has the be the adults here. How bout it stop being us? WE need to stop being good losers. Maybe we will do it less frequently then.

Odd symetry on presidents

One place residents of Texas have had it worse than other Americans is the length of time we had to put up with George "Shrub" Bush (a.k.a 43). I wake every morning glad than I no longer have to listen to that man talk. George Bush was not merely a man I disagreed with, he was(is? now I don't have to care) an embodiment of everything I despise in a human wrapped into one package. Bush's combination of Texas frat boy and Greenwich, Ct., where the Bush families roots truly are, "43" disgusts me on multiple levels. I wonder if for the TEA party people Our President produces the same, deep almost subconscious level disgust? And if it does, would these white people, and it really is white middle aged people, want to ask them selves what it says about them.

what is so special about property protection?

The Tea party and other libertarians proclaim that the on ly function of government is protect borders, protect property and enforce contracts, although Rick Perry adds delivering mail to the list. What is so special about these services that elevates them to being legitimate functions of government? To me, protection of property is the ultimate nanny state service. I rely on dogs and guns. I say those who loudly proclaim their county or state sovereignty should be the first to demand freedom from protection. Courts are paternalistic also. If you need a court to enforce a contract you are to weak to demand much of anyone and should gladly take what you are given. Border protection? Seems like invasions should be stopped with the kind of militias the Founders envisioned. Why is Afghanistan unconquerable? No central government to topple, just thousands of warriors taking orders from a local warlord. My point is that the "natural" functions of government that Libertarians speak of are not natural at all, just arbitrary rules benefiting a certain class/caste in the US. Health Care is no less a Natural function of government than any other function. It is just that the Tea folks have not had an insurance company destroy their lives yet so they figure it is only a luxury, unlike having someone to respond to a burglar alarm.

Privilege of property

I fi nd the assertion made by Rand Paul and repeated by many in the "tea" movement that the only legitimate functions of government are protection of property, protection of borders and enforcing contracts. They seem to consider these so self evident that they do not justify why these, above all the other rights claimed over history. Some claim a Right such as a "Right to health care" is an obligation on someone else to provide you with this care and is a seizure of power over this person. The Right to own property is exactly the same. A Constablary is established to help you retain/ get back your property, a court system with punishments re-enforces this right. If we are truly responsible for ourselves, why so much support? Every one should be armed and know how to defend themselves. Wealthy people would have to act like they have throughout history and today in much of the world and hire security. I say only wimps need a Nanny State to protect property. I prefer guns and dogs. However health care seems like a reasonable right to have, at least to patch you up after fighting off intruders!

some rights are righty-er than others

I have been examining libertarian thought lately. I must admit that when I was young and living in New york city I flirted with Anarchism. Manhattan makes you an anarchist because everything good happens in opposition to City government. A big difference between self identified anarchists and self IDed libertarians is the attitude towards Corporations. Rightist libertarians have a blind spot for corporations. If they think about abuses they always come from business manipulating the over powerful governments ability to grant favors. Un fortunately this is not the only case of private tyranny we find throughout history. This present Gulf oil disaster leaves libertarians speechless because a solution to such a huge problem is not possible without the command and control of a government unburdened by fiduciary concerns. A mixed economy is not nearly as sexy as No Government or a Revolutionary government, but it does seem like really the best way. Our way leaves big holes that are being filled with crude everyday