I get a big kick out of Pastor Manning and his eccentricity. His "Obama's Momma" video gets me going every time. There's a lot of truth to what he's saying in this video, but I posted it as much for the belly laughs as for anything else. Albeit, it isn't going to be funny when it comes down to it. But one may as well take the opportunity to laugh while he still can.
I can't agree to the "can't blame 'em" part. After all, if you look at the history of the whole thing, or even the polls for the last election, it's not like "white people" are blameless as a class, or even individually...including many who will be doing all the things he talks about. Heck, as Manning does mention, the white race bears more than half the responsibility for longlegged Macdaddy being born in the first place.
Of course, Asian people are, as a class, even less blameless (Obama's parentage notwithstanding). But few of them are unprepared to make themselves absent from the fighting if they aren't fully comfortable with the winning side. I don't think it's even a conscious thing for most of them.
On a not entirely unrelated note, the revolt against the Fed has gotten a bit out of hand. Ron Paul is claiming that the Constitution doesn't give Congress power "To borrow money on the credit of the United States; To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States...To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof...To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers" when I'm actually pretty sure the Constitution does give Congress those exact powers.
Which is...well, not entirely unexpected. I mean, Ron Paul at least tries, but his reading of the Constitution often leaves much to be desired. The more alarming note is that he's no longer being ignored, and yet apparently nobody is able and willing to point out when he makes one of these little blunders in his reading of the Constitution. This doesn't make the government any more broken than it already was...but that is truly faint praise.
I have to admit, I still wish it were my job to fix America. But doing so is now officially outside of my capabilities, even had I authorization to use them thus.
That's what happens when people get desperate, they start acting out in ... desperation. I've never been much of a follower of Dr. Paul anyway, and that's putting it mildly.
I haven't personally seen where Dr. Paul is making such claims, or maybe I'm not reading between the lines enough, or something like that.
I don't read LewRockwell, or Mises, or Cato, mainly because me an these pure libertarians (for lack of a better term) don't quite see eye to eye on any number of issues. The insistence of libertarians on the idea that everybody ought to have license to indulge every flippin' fantasy that his mind can possibly conceive of (as long as it doesn't harm anyone else, and as long as he is made to suffer the consequences of his misdeeds, of course) simply gets my blood a boilin' every time I read such nonsense. So I just stay away from those places as much as possible.
The whole idea of it all is a fantasy in and of itself. Few people are ever going to be willing to suffer the full consequences of their personal misdeeds, even if they realize that it is wholly their own doing, or undoing. Homosexuals and sexual liberationists who have contracted AIDS are a good case in point. I could name many, many others. The point, though, is that libertarianism, to my mind, is a goofy ideology (and with Dr. Paul's goofiness, the two are made for one another, in a manner of speaking). Plus, when they (libertarians) start all of this ... stuff about everything being arbitrary, I want to physically slap them upside the head a couple of times and exclaim "Think, McFly, think!"
Well, there's also the fact that such an extreme libertarianism isn't justifiable in any realistic sense of how the world works.
None of us have the ability to live in isolation, without affecting anyone else (and none of us live in the first place except by the action of others).
Our only option is to try and direct our unavoidable interactions towards the good of ourselves as much as possible. The principle of symmetry (what goes around, comes around), where it can be drawn, is very helpful in allowing both parties in the interaction to seek a mutual benefit.
But of course often there is a breakdown in the willingness of some parties to observe the principles of mutual benefits. In that case the solution is to reinforce the principle of symmetry on which they are based (what comes around, goes around).
Negotiating between patterning and reflecting symmetry is at the foundation of every non-solipsist philosophy. Extremist libertarianism, by unilaterally rejecting the use of reflecting symmetry and failing to properly develop the principle of patterning symmetry, fails as an ethical philosophy.
Anyway, I was paraphrasing what Ron Paul was saying. It's very true that the Fed is completely out of control. But Constitutionally speaking, the basic problem is that it is not operating under appropriate Congressional oversight. This has allowed the Fed to take on many roles that could not have been granted by Congress, but the core functions of the Fed are certainly in the powers of Congress granted by the Constitution.
In a pragmatic sense, it doesn't matter. Ron Paul is leading the charge to do pretty much what the Constitution demands, even if his rhetoric is flawed. And he's not going to succeed in bringing the Fed back under Congressional authority, let alone abolishing it. But if he were to succeed in bringing the Federal Reserve back under control, the broad acceptance of his present rhetoric would force a distorted interpretation of the Constitution.
I would wish to claim that this particular distortion is not dangerous...but it actually ruins the entire federal design. Regulation of the value of legal currency is the least intrusive method to regulate interstate commerce. The alternatives all involve federal officers at every border crossing, in some mix of bureaucrats and police forces, or basically resigning the role of regulating commerce.
The first alternative does not bear contemplation, the second reduces the nation to an alliance amongst basically independent states. Which is where we're headed anyway, without the "alliance" bit, but it isn't the best scheme for preserving individual liberty.
Not that you have much of that as things are now...like I said, in practical terms this all doesn't really affect the current situation.
It baffles me sometimes that otherwise intelligent (and decent) people like Dr. Paul effectively deny the existence of the immutable laws of nature in favor of a perverted individualism.
Here's an interesting question for you: Would Dr. Paul lose his support base if he began to adhere to a more realistic, less extreme individualist, worldview? I mean, there are several reasons that people claim to follow Dr. Paul, he's "Dr. NO," he's the "Champion of the Constitution," he's an "intellectual," and so forth.
That was an interesting video. I don't know about belly laughs, but I'll give you raised eyebrows and a few chuckles.
(This is Call Me Mom. I'm posting as anonymous right now because our computer became ill with a fair number of viruses yesterday and I'm not signing into anything that requires a password until I'm sure the quarantine process has been effective.)
Ouch! Condolences on that. We got a trojan of some kind a while back. It was pretty hard to kill until I found something called (no joke) SUPER AntiSpyware. Don't know if it'll help you, but it did for us.
Anyway, if you put something in negative rather than positive terms, it's harder to examine. But I consider myself an extreme individualist, in that I believe that everything has to be judged in terms of how it affects individuals. Even the total dissolution of a nation, community, or family can only matter insofar as it impacts individual persons (not limited to those in the dissolved group).
So in that very fundamental sense of the term "individualism", I'd have to say that Ron Paul would lose a lot of support if he stopped espousing individualism. But believe that he could espouse a more reasoned and constructive individualism that would justify the balanced government described in the Constitution and still retain most of his base supporters while being a bit less of a kook.
It would require a lot of thoughtful work on his part, because the natural impulse is to simplify rather than elaborate. And the more particularly when one is dealing with a genuine crisis which demands immediate action more than deliberation. But if one sticks to the idea that individuals create and support government to protect their rights, then one can still easily make a case against the outrages of the current situation without disparaging the foundation.
I think that Washington said it best. "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action."
It is well to remember that, however dangerous a servant fire may be, without it we are little better off than the other animals. The same is true of government. Without it, we are not only not much better off than other animals, we are not even very different from them.
A Fire Marshall who couldn't accept that fire is necessary, and sought to abolish rather than control it, would serve his community rather poorly. Such a man can only be popular in the event of a true conflagration. But that man able to understand the necessity of fire and thus intelligently articulate the case for handling it with great care might have the influence to prevent such a disaster.
Those who would burn you alive have been careful to exclude such reasonable men from politics. Those who do protest being soaked in fuel are then derided as alarmists. But, in the end, they have left something rather significant out of their calculations. Not that it helps anyone.
Thanks for the antivirus software suggestion chiu. I appreciate it. My husband uses our 'puter for work though, so we went with their recommended malware removal tool.
I get a big kick out of Pastor Manning and his eccentricity. His "Obama's Momma" video gets me going every time. There's a lot of truth to what he's saying in this video, but I posted it as much for the belly laughs as for anything else. Albeit, it isn't going to be funny when it comes down to it. But one may as well take the opportunity to laugh while he still can.
ReplyDeleteThose "sick'ning" "Macdaddies"!
ReplyDeleteAnd their longlegged leader, of course.
I can't agree to the "can't blame 'em" part. After all, if you look at the history of the whole thing, or even the polls for the last election, it's not like "white people" are blameless as a class, or even individually...including many who will be doing all the things he talks about. Heck, as Manning does mention, the white race bears more than half the responsibility for longlegged Macdaddy being born in the first place.
Of course, Asian people are, as a class, even less blameless (Obama's parentage notwithstanding). But few of them are unprepared to make themselves absent from the fighting if they aren't fully comfortable with the winning side. I don't think it's even a conscious thing for most of them.
On a not entirely unrelated note, the revolt against the Fed has gotten a bit out of hand. Ron Paul is claiming that the Constitution doesn't give Congress power "To borrow money on the credit of the United States; To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States...To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof...To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers" when I'm actually pretty sure the Constitution does give Congress those exact powers.
Which is...well, not entirely unexpected. I mean, Ron Paul at least tries, but his reading of the Constitution often leaves much to be desired. The more alarming note is that he's no longer being ignored, and yet apparently nobody is able and willing to point out when he makes one of these little blunders in his reading of the Constitution. This doesn't make the government any more broken than it already was...but that is truly faint praise.
I have to admit, I still wish it were my job to fix America. But doing so is now officially outside of my capabilities, even had I authorization to use them thus.
That's what happens when people get desperate, they start acting out in ... desperation. I've never been much of a follower of Dr. Paul anyway, and that's putting it mildly.
ReplyDeleteYes, whites shoulder a lot of the blame.
Also, Chiu...
ReplyDeleteI haven't personally seen where Dr. Paul is making such claims, or maybe I'm not reading between the lines enough, or something like that.
I don't read LewRockwell, or Mises, or Cato, mainly because me an these pure libertarians (for lack of a better term) don't quite see eye to eye on any number of issues. The insistence of libertarians on the idea that everybody ought to have license to indulge every flippin' fantasy that his mind can possibly conceive of (as long as it doesn't harm anyone else, and as long as he is made to suffer the consequences of his misdeeds, of course) simply gets my blood a boilin' every time I read such nonsense. So I just stay away from those places as much as possible.
The whole idea of it all is a fantasy in and of itself. Few people are ever going to be willing to suffer the full consequences of their personal misdeeds, even if they realize that it is wholly their own doing, or undoing. Homosexuals and sexual liberationists who have contracted AIDS are a good case in point. I could name many, many others. The point, though, is that libertarianism, to my mind, is a goofy ideology (and with Dr. Paul's goofiness, the two are made for one another, in a manner of speaking). Plus, when they (libertarians) start all of this ... stuff about everything being arbitrary, I want to physically slap them upside the head a couple of times and exclaim "Think, McFly, think!"
Well, there's also the fact that such an extreme libertarianism isn't justifiable in any realistic sense of how the world works.
ReplyDeleteNone of us have the ability to live in isolation, without affecting anyone else (and none of us live in the first place except by the action of others).
Our only option is to try and direct our unavoidable interactions towards the good of ourselves as much as possible. The principle of symmetry (what goes around, comes around), where it can be drawn, is very helpful in allowing both parties in the interaction to seek a mutual benefit.
But of course often there is a breakdown in the willingness of some parties to observe the principles of mutual benefits. In that case the solution is to reinforce the principle of symmetry on which they are based (what comes around, goes around).
Negotiating between patterning and reflecting symmetry is at the foundation of every non-solipsist philosophy. Extremist libertarianism, by unilaterally rejecting the use of reflecting symmetry and failing to properly develop the principle of patterning symmetry, fails as an ethical philosophy.
Anyway, I was paraphrasing what Ron Paul was saying. It's very true that the Fed is completely out of control. But Constitutionally speaking, the basic problem is that it is not operating under appropriate Congressional oversight. This has allowed the Fed to take on many roles that could not have been granted by Congress, but the core functions of the Fed are certainly in the powers of Congress granted by the Constitution.
In a pragmatic sense, it doesn't matter. Ron Paul is leading the charge to do pretty much what the Constitution demands, even if his rhetoric is flawed. And he's not going to succeed in bringing the Fed back under Congressional authority, let alone abolishing it. But if he were to succeed in bringing the Federal Reserve back under control, the broad acceptance of his present rhetoric would force a distorted interpretation of the Constitution.
I would wish to claim that this particular distortion is not dangerous...but it actually ruins the entire federal design. Regulation of the value of legal currency is the least intrusive method to regulate interstate commerce. The alternatives all involve federal officers at every border crossing, in some mix of bureaucrats and police forces, or basically resigning the role of regulating commerce.
The first alternative does not bear contemplation, the second reduces the nation to an alliance amongst basically independent states. Which is where we're headed anyway, without the "alliance" bit, but it isn't the best scheme for preserving individual liberty.
Not that you have much of that as things are now...like I said, in practical terms this all doesn't really affect the current situation.
That's right, Chiu.
ReplyDeleteIt baffles me sometimes that otherwise intelligent (and decent) people like Dr. Paul effectively deny the existence of the immutable laws of nature in favor of a perverted individualism.
Here's an interesting question for you: Would Dr. Paul lose his support base if he began to adhere to a more realistic, less extreme individualist, worldview? I mean, there are several reasons that people claim to follow Dr. Paul, he's "Dr. NO," he's the "Champion of the Constitution," he's an "intellectual," and so forth.
What do you think?
That was an interesting video. I don't know about belly laughs, but I'll give you raised eyebrows and a few chuckles.
ReplyDelete(This is Call Me Mom. I'm posting as anonymous right now because our computer became ill with a fair number of viruses yesterday and I'm not signing into anything that requires a password until I'm sure the quarantine process has been effective.)
Ouch! Condolences on that. We got a trojan of some kind a while back. It was pretty hard to kill until I found something called (no joke) SUPER AntiSpyware. Don't know if it'll help you, but it did for us.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, if you put something in negative rather than positive terms, it's harder to examine. But I consider myself an extreme individualist, in that I believe that everything has to be judged in terms of how it affects individuals. Even the total dissolution of a nation, community, or family can only matter insofar as it impacts individual persons (not limited to those in the dissolved group).
So in that very fundamental sense of the term "individualism", I'd have to say that Ron Paul would lose a lot of support if he stopped espousing individualism. But believe that he could espouse a more reasoned and constructive individualism that would justify the balanced government described in the Constitution and still retain most of his base supporters while being a bit less of a kook.
It would require a lot of thoughtful work on his part, because the natural impulse is to simplify rather than elaborate. And the more particularly when one is dealing with a genuine crisis which demands immediate action more than deliberation. But if one sticks to the idea that individuals create and support government to protect their rights, then one can still easily make a case against the outrages of the current situation without disparaging the foundation.
I think that Washington said it best. "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action."
It is well to remember that, however dangerous a servant fire may be, without it we are little better off than the other animals. The same is true of government. Without it, we are not only not much better off than other animals, we are not even very different from them.
A Fire Marshall who couldn't accept that fire is necessary, and sought to abolish rather than control it, would serve his community rather poorly. Such a man can only be popular in the event of a true conflagration. But that man able to understand the necessity of fire and thus intelligently articulate the case for handling it with great care might have the influence to prevent such a disaster.
Those who would burn you alive have been careful to exclude such reasonable men from politics. Those who do protest being soaked in fuel are then derided as alarmists. But, in the end, they have left something rather significant out of their calculations. Not that it helps anyone.
Thanks for the antivirus software suggestion chiu. I appreciate it. My husband uses our 'puter for work though, so we went with their recommended malware removal tool.
ReplyDelete