Go here...

...read this.

Doctor Zero over at Hot Air has been writing some amazing pieces and you're a damn fool if you don't read 'em. Especially this one. Behind all of the relativism of torture debates and intelligence gathering techniques is a very important observation on how a passive/defensive nation must conduct its foreign policy.

"Ferocity" indeed.

Conservatism and ownership

Patterico and Jeff Goldstein have been having a very enlightening discussion over Rush Limbaugh. Actually, the discussion has little to do with Rush, but as usual he serves as a useful catalyst for discussion. Go to their sites if you want background on the discussion. Hell, go to their sites because they are both conservative mainstays...even in disagreement they are probably twice the conservative anyone in congress is.

The point I want to make is that conservatism is about sticking with what works. Throughout recorded history, capitalism is the only economic system that doesn't lead its people deeper into slavery to the state...rather, it engenders freedom simply by following the free market. No one can own conservatism, and in that sense Rush is just a man speaking about what he believes. Listen to him or not, he is not conservatism. If Rush Limbaugh damns himself it irrelevance that doesn't mean that conservatism is defunct...it just means that conservatism will fall back on what works.
What works you ask? People that are clear about their fundamental beliefs, live by them, and speak with conviction about a hope for a free America. An America free from the despotic rule of fairness and censorship. An America that permits people to fail while offering them myriad opportunities to succeed. These are the people that conservatism must hail as its standard bearers. True believers as it were.
Final thought on the Limbaugh mess: what have we learned about the power of language? Rush spoke only four words and yet people are looking for any possible misunderstanding rather than face the truth. I have commented a few times that I think this problem is one of philosophy - namely, intentionalism vs. formalism/reader-response theory. I am an intentionalist. I believe that when someone says something their words can only mean what they intended them to mean. No amount of reinterpretation can change what an author meant.

If success means the end of freedom and the final breath of liberty in America, then I hope he fails too.

Whatever communists support, I oppose.

Think of it as cleverly undermining the opposition. Do I think every idea communists have is bad? Not necessarily. It is how they want to go about things that scares the hell out of me. I decided to go see what the CPUSA was chirping about in this new age of enlightenment. If the communists are excited about Obama you should ask yourself why?

...the Obama administration and the broad coalition that supports him will almost inevitably have to consider—and they already are—the following measures:

* Public ownership of the financial system and the elimination of the shadow banking system and exotic derivatives.

* Public control of the Federal Reserve Bank.

* Counter-crisis spending of a bigger size and scope to invigorate and sustain a full recovery and meet human needs—something that the New Deal never accomplished.

* Strengthening of union rights in order to rebalance the power between labor and capital in the economic and political arenas.

* Trade agreements that have at their core the protection and advancement of international working-class interests.

* Equality in conditions of life for racial minorities and women.

* Democratic public takeover of the energy complex as well as a readiness to consider the takeover of other basic industries whose future is problematic in private hands.

* Turning education, childcare, and healthcare into “no profit” zones.

* Rerouting investment capital from unproductive investment (military, finance and so forth) to productive investment in a green economy and public infrastructure.

* Changing direction of our nation’s foreign policy toward cooperation, disarmament, and diplomacy. We can’t have threats, guns and military occupations on the one hand and butter, democracy, goodwill, and peace on the other.

* Full-scale assault on global warming.

* Serious and sustained commitment to assisting the developing countries, which are locked in poverty and misery.

When does the President of the United States become an enemy of the people? Is it possible for the government of the United States to become a domestic enemy? I'm assuming that it is impossible since those terms are defined by the government and they would have the sense to exclude themselves from such "oversight." I hope the communists are dead wrong about Obama. I hope he has the sense not to try to reinvent America despite what Americans want.

I'm waiting for the devourer, but he still hasn't shown at my door...still hasn't paid me a visit. I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine...

Sovereign Nation Defends Itself!

Yeah, go figure. Sign a peace treaty with a political party that exists to destroy you - they fire rockets at you until the treaty expires...then they REALLY start firing them at you. Fatah wasn't really any different. The problem is that Palestinians consistently vote for the destruction of Israel. I'm linking to Hot Air because they are much better with updates.

Weng Weng

If you think we're overly sensitive in America, you're right. A TV show where a tiny little man takes out crime syndicates with his scooter and blowgun would only work here if it were clearly satire. Even then, I'm not so sure. Minor content warning for an F-bomb, nude silhouette dancer, and bad rapping.



This "news" via AOSHQ.