What is America's moral responsibility to the rest of the world?

If you're not a regular follower of Dr. Keyes's blog Loyal to Liberty as I am, you may be interested in his entry The USA- A special nation with special responsibilities and the discussion that ensues.

I think Dr. Keyes is more-or-less arguing for the "proposition nation" theory of America (i.e., America is an idea), a theory of America that I personally do not wholly reject, but one which I think can very easily be taken too far as it tends to set aside or dismiss certain aspects of historic Americanism that are unique to America and its founding, namely the original overwhelming WASP majority.

I'm by no means an expert on this, nor do I claim to be (how's that for unnecessary repitition?), but I think that simple common sense will teach us that there has to be a connection between the loss of freedom in America and the dilution of that majority. Perhaps I personally make too much of it, or, perhaps not. You be the judge.

To be clear, Dr. Keyes is one of my favorite, most respected provocateurs of American idealism, but the favoritism and respect I personally afford him has little to do with my larger respect for the American Idea of Nation-making.

As I wrote in a comment to Dr. Keyes's entry:

Dr. Keyes wrote:

Those who talk about the "American" idea of freedom" have already abandoned it.

I don't think that's necessarily true, although it's probably true as a general rule. People sometimes (hesitantly) use descriptives like this in an attempt to make a finer point. But of course "freedom" is expressed and exercised differently in America than it is in other parts of the world where it exists or has existed. Taken as a whole I'm not sure that America represents no-holds-barred Randian libertarianism, although there seems to be that (growing) element.

I certainly agree that any genuine notion of liberty begins with a belief in the Sovereign God of the universe and his will for His moral creatures. But then again, that's what I would personally call the "American idea of liberty" since this nation is unique among nations in that vein. After all,

"...is it not that in the chain of human events the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked to the birthday of the Savior of the World?..."

In any event I think this is an important discussion to have, and I look forward to your next edition in the series.

And the next for that matter. In any event I'll be closely monitoring Dr. Keyes's follow-on entries. I don't particularly give two hoots about black or white Americanism, only about Americanism, black or white. On the other hand, I've opened myself up to all manner of criticism. So be it.

Read More

On the intolerablest of all possible sins

There is a semi interesting discussion ongoing at Dr. Keyes's site Loyal To Liberty in which the intolerablest sin imaginable -- intolerance -- is mentioned several times back and forth between posters. (Might this be yet another case of leftier-than-thou posters sparring with one another about who is, well, the leftier of the two, which are always fun and entertaining exchanges? Well, not exactly, but close.)

I thought a word on tolerance was in order, so I posted a comment to the thread. It also seemed appropriate that I should mention in the comment the blatantly false liberal idea that we can't (or shouldn't) legislate morality. If liberals truly believe that we can't/shouldn't legislate morality, then why do they do it? The answer is that they don't really believe in the concept. What they actually believe is that legislating specific kinds of morality (i.e., non-liberal morality) is absolutely not permissable, liberal morality being excepted, of course. As I've said many times before, here and elsewhere, it's not a matter of whether we can or should legislate morality, it is rather a matter of whose morality will be legislated.

Anyway, here's what I wrote in the post:

A word on "tolerance" if I may:

Perhaps it needs to be pointed out to some in this conversation that people don't tolerate that which they agree with, they embrace it. Tolerance implies disagreement, thus those who embrace a thing and (self-righteously) count it as the highest form of tolerance are simply lying to themselves. Likewise, people who say that a person is intolerant because he expresses opposition to, or non-embrace of a thing, indict themselves. But if anyone can show me an ideology that is more intolerant (not to mention destructive) than liberalism in any case, I'd sure like to see it.

Then there's the liberal fallacy that says "we cannot legislate morality."

For our purposes here, let's throw the illegitimate word "amorality" on the ash heap where it belongs and act like adults with some semblance of common sense. As if moral beings can be morally neutral.

But if it's true that we cannot legislate morality, as liberals are so fond of saying, then why do liberals (they're the ones that incessantly make the statement, and I'm including among them right-liberals), well, legislate morality, liberal morality?

Whenever you make a distinction between right and wrong, good and evil, you've just taken a moral position. Does anyone know of any law on the books that is not founded in a moral position, someone's moral position?

Let's take abortion as our example since this thread is about abortion. Correct me, but isn't the argument, at bottom, that it is wrong, thus immoral, to deny a woman's right to choose? Isn't that what we constantly hear from the pundits, the talking heads, and our illustrious liberal politicians ("Republicans" included)?

Read More

Hypothetical:

Let's say that you were informed by a reliable source that a threat had been made against a friend (not a close friend, but a friend nonetheless) and fellow countryman's life by someone who is not a friend, nor a countryman, but a supposedly "documented" alien over a matter of a couple of thousand dollars -- a detail which to me is only relevant in that it establishes motive. And let's say, after having contemplated the implications of such threat which you learned of second-hand, you further asked of the person who informed you how serious, having heard and seen it with his own ears and eyes, the threat actually was. And he replied initially: "Very serious!...", but later in the conversation when he realized he had given out way too much information and implicated himself as a moral ingrate (among other things), began to recant his initial statement saying in effect "well, I don't really think he'll ever go through with it."

What actions would you take?

Obviously you inform the person (friend or not) whose life has been threatened. Do you leave it at that, or do you take it further, notifying some local, state, or national law enforcement or immigration agency? Let's say that the person whose life has been threatened has expressed a fearfulness that to go to the authorities himself might provoke the threatening individual to actually act out on his threat. How would you handle such a situation, all of this considered?

Additionally, let me say this: People like the threatening individual in question have a tendency to create a "to be feared" intimidating image of themselves by going about "talking it up" to their friends and associates until one day they've painted themselves into a corner, feeling forced to act on their threats, or else be labeled a "blowhard". It's hard to determine what that point is, but it's a real phenomenon, and always a danger with people who make these kinds of "idle" threats...

Update: This issue seems to have been temporarily resolved in a meeting between the principals in which I've been told that a partial payment was made on the debt owed and a promise to pay the balance within a reasonable timeframe. In the meantime I'm keeping my eyes and ears open for any more threats of murder from the individual in question. Nothing could do my heart more good and serve to ease my mind than to have this person (along with his supposed accomplices) deported from this state and nation. That in itself (which I make no bones about) is probably enough for him to consider me his enemy numero uno.

Will yours truly be the next on his list of enemies which he wishes to kill? It would be a grave mistake on his part, I can assure you!

Read More

Why do Americans accept the unacceptable,...

and what, if anything, can be done about it?

Is our society so eat up with the cancer of cultural degradation that the unacceptable has now become acceptable among the majority, or is it, as Clark Coleman suggests, that the appearance of cultural degradation, seen in television adds promoting everything from "performance enhancement" drugs to "size enhancement" drugs for men, to lesbian activities between college girls, and etc., seems so utterly pervasive and overwhelming that the majority, not realizing it is a majority, feels incapable of, and utterly helpless in doing anything about it?

In a comment to Auster's article which I sent a few minutes ago and has not yet been posted, I wrote the following:

I've told the story before elsewhere, but in 1992 while serving in the U.S. Air Force and stationed in Anchorage AK, residents became alarmed by the radical homosexual agenda that the Anchorage city council was considering passing a local ordinance on -- adding the words "sexual orientation" to their non-discrimination laws -- which, as traditionalist conservatives understand very well, has far reaching destructive societal consequences. I personally attended several of the public hearings, braving sub-zero weather conditions with many other like minded concerned citizens who were "left out in the cold" so to speak due to the fact that so many alarmed citizens became instant and active opponents of the measure thus filling the council chambers to capacity, as well as the library building where these chambers were housed.

This did not deter the council from passing the ordinance by a margin of something like five to two, even though the members were warned many times and in many different ways that they'd be removed if they voted in favor of the measure. They passed the measure in open and direct defiance, even aggressive, insulting verbal defiance, of the clear and overwhelming will of the people. And they were all, every last one who voted in favor of the measure, summarily removed from the council at the next election cycle which was only a few months later, just as the citizenry had warned they would be. The new council overturned the measure as their first order of business.

The point is that this is an example of exactly how these things should be handled. We know that there are leftists in positions of power who are going to defy the will of the people, even on threat of their removal from office or on the threat of a boycott, or whatever. Such is the nature of leftists; they are aggressively defiant personalities who recognize no authority but the authority of the ideology of liberalism. The only way to deal with them effectively, therefore, is to give them fair warning of what their fate will be if they defy the will of the people, and then to follow through on that threat once they do. And when I say "follow through" I mean follow through all the way to the end, never allowing them to hold a position of authority where public policy is made again. ...

No news to you, I'm sure, that I like Mr. Coleman's idea, and I disagree with the dissenters and the naysayers. There are always any number of folks out there who say this and that lofty and worthy goal can't be achieved. And comparatively speaking there are generally far fewer people who believe a difficult thing can be achieved, than believe it can. But as Dad always used to say, "anything worth having is worth working for," which, of course, and as I've noted before, implies the opposite: anything not worth having is worthy of the expense of no effort.

Some folks place very little value on preserving moral and cultural virtue. Others place a great deal of value on it. You can count me firmly among that latter group, as well as among that group which believes that difficult and lofty goals are achievable, which makes the pursuit thereof that much more worthwhile.

Read More

Deja vu?

See my comments to Auter's entry, Rudy ducks questions on Judi's car use, or, my preferred title: "America's Mayoral Mistress gets taxpayer funded limousine rides" with the subtitle: "Even Mayors of big cities have private lives ... which they conduct on and in and with public property."

Can there be any question about Rudy's exemplary qualifications to serve in the White House?

Read More

Savage on Legislating Morality

Over at Brave New World Watch, John Savage has put up another interesting entry concerning legislating morality. One thing I've argued ... forever it seems, is that everyone, irregardless of how often or how vehemently they deny it, has an inseparable personal bond to legislating morality...

I've argued this position in any number of ways, stating it in a variety of terms. In fact, if I recall correctly, one of the first things my brothers and I over at the AFB (the orginal three of us) discussed was this idea of legislating morality, or, that all laws are founded on a moral perspective, someone's moral perspective. My argument today is essentially the same as it was then: that all legislation can be reduced to a moral foundation whether it's coming from liberals, conservative, libertarians, or any of their offshoots. Why? Because we're all human beings, which is to say "moral" beings.

But I think there's an underlying principle that needs to be brought out here. And it is basically this:

Someone who denies that they wish to legislate on a moral basis, and there are many of them across party lines, is almost irrelevant to any cause seeking to set things aright. Until one embraces this fundamental truth, they are simply living a lie, and there is no basis for a truth-seeker to give any credence to what they say.

From my view, I have a lot more respect for someone who admits a fondness and attachment to legislating morality, even someone whose morality I disagree with. At least that person is honest about his intentions. I appreciate honesty in anyone, particularly concerning one's motives, even those I have differences with.

Dishonesty about one's attachment to legislating morality betrays a person's ill-intentions, whatever party he aligns himself with. On the other hand, we have to recognize that some folks are not necessarily dishonest about legislating morality as much as they are misguided about it. But in either case, dishonesty or misguidedness, someone who denies an attachment to legislating morality while at the same moment appealing to a moral perspective as the foundation of his position, warrants little attention.

If people are incapable of separating their morality from their politics (and I firmly believe this is the case) then what good is it to any cause to claim an "amoral" position? And by the way, I think the term "amoral" is an altogether illegitimate term insofar as it defines a person's actual position on a given subject. All the term is good for, in my view, is to show where a person claims to be on a given subject, not where he actually is. In other words, you can bet your bottom dollar every time that an individual holds a moral position, in spite of the fact that he claims a position of moral neutrality. In fact, many times this claim of moral neutrality betrays a sense in the individual claiming it, of holding the moral high ground. Which sort of defeats the purpose, don't ya know.

Read More

Is Worldview the Cure for the 'Disease' We Face?

In the previous post put up yesterday evening I asked you all to look for a post this morning having to do with what I discovered upon reading the entries put up at a few of my favorite blogs while we were away. The implication being, of course, that I was going to concentrate my efforts this morning on saying a few things about the aforementioned blogs and the entries which had been posted during my absence. Well, as these things seem to go for me fairly frequently these days, that has now all changed, though I intend to do another post on that subject later today...

It's no secret that I frequent VA's blog, nor that I hold her in pretty high esteem among bloggers. And it's been on numerous occasions like this one that a post at VA's has sparked some idea for a related post here at Webster's.

Most of you know by now that I have a pretty simple approach to the world and the problems facing it. Usually it all boils down, for me, to a poor religious foundation on an individual level. That leads to a poor foundation at the various group levels. Truly I believe, in direct contradiction to what seems to be the conventional wisdom these days, that the 'whole' of society is exactly equal to, not greater than (or lesser than for that matter), 'the sum of its parts.' Personally I believe this very idea, or concept, is at least indirectly responsible for many of the problems our society faces these days.

If the idea is accepted and acknowledged generally as a truth (and I think it may safely be said that it is), then I know we have a huge problem on our hands that results from that kind of thinking. There may be 'power in numbers,' but no more or less than those numbers add up to. And if you want to discover the character of the nation and this people as a whole, just look to the individuals making the nation up and let that be your answer, disheartening as it may be. At least that's an honest approach which leaves little room for individuals to wriggle themselves out of their ultimate responsibilities.

And that's really the subject I want to get to in this first full post following my recent absence. VA discusses this morning the problems involved with identifying personal issues of 'self-indulgence' as, or equating them with legitimate 'diseases.' She focuses her post on drug and alcohol addiction, and the tendency these days to treat them both as diseases, as opposed to treating them in the old fashioned, or the traditional way as problems associated to the lack of personal restraint and control.

Personally I believe strongly in the admonition of the Bible to 'raise up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not soon depart from it.' And truly, y'all, can any of us say with a straight face that a majority of American children (little people) these days are raised by their parents, or influenced by our society in that way?

America's Schoolmaster, Noah Webster, certainly keyed in on this approach essential to maintaining and perpetuating a largely 'self-governing' society. In his very definition of the term “education,” Webster defines it as “all that series of instruction and discipline intended to enlighten the understanding, correct the temper, form the manners and habits of youth, and to fit them for usefulness in their future stations. Note Webster's choice of terms here – discipline, correct, form, fit. And I gotta ask, folks, if our methods of 'education' are not “intended” to do all that, then why would we ever think we'd end up with a society comprised of self-governing people? How could we ever honestly believe that our constitution and the principles it was founded on could ever survive?

As I read VA's post the thought kept coming to mind, sentence after sentence, that this is far from what is intended within today's 'educational' establishment. But the primary educators of our children, irregardless of who, or what sphere of government is ultimately chosen to the task of educating them, are their parents and adult family members. But what exactly is happening with today's youth? Why is education, and the primary educational institutions in this country (the home, the church, and the schools) failing our kids? Why does each successive generation seem to exhibit less and less self-governing qualities, and more and more dependency on others, on government, on drugs, on alcohol, you name it?

Is it not that they're being raised this way? Is it not that the disease of liberalism has so infected all of our primary educational institutions that this is just the natural result of their poor raisings? I believe so, and I believe that one indicator of this is the growing tendency for parents to seek a medical cure for problems of the temper exhibited by their children, and for the schools to assist them in doing so.

All too often these days parents are all too willing to identify problems with their children which they seem to believe is related to some 'disorder' possessed of their children in a way unique to other children. I suspect I know at least part of the reason parents are inclined to accept these false notions about their kids. First, it gets the parents off the hook for the bad behavior of their kids, or so the parents believe. Second, the parents derive a lot of self-indulgent pleasure from the sympathies they receive from family members and the general public when they have a child with 'special needs.' Third, if they have a 'special' child with 'special' needs, there are all kinds of financial benefits to be derived therefrom, and so on. But is the problem correctly identified, and is it as widely spread as we're led to believe? I certainly believe that the problem is mis-diagnosed much of the time, if not most of the time.

One thing I've always said regarding my own children, albeit somewhat jokingly, is that “they all had A.D.D. until I beat it out of them.” What I mean by that, obviously, is that they all (every last one of them) showed all the signs of having an 'attention deficit' until it was cured through the methods of instruction and discipline intended to (1) enlighten, (2) correct, (3) form, (4) fit. And if this is not the method for producing self-governing individuals 'fit for usefulness in their future stations,' as self-governing, independent, and productive American adults, then I'm utterly deluded.

The point being, of course, that our tendency these days as parents and guardians to darken the understanding, encourage the practice of bad behavior through non-correction, to allow the manners and habits to be formed outside a guiding moral influence, and to raise children not fit for usefulness in their future stations is all too common, and all too noticeable out in the real world. And if you don't believe it, just make it a point the next time you go to a public place, to watch how much parents indulge their misbehaving children.

But of course these misbehaving children just can't help themselves, can they? They must have some disorder that causes them to behave so badly, whether there's been a term put to it yet or not, and for which there must be some prescription drug available to control it. And if not there will be, right? Pretty convenient excuse for those parents who themselves are very often self-indulgent, drug addicted types, wouldn't you agree?

-DW

Read More

Do We Deserve Our Government?

This is one of those questions that just eats at ya, y'know? Those who know me well know that I've been an outspoken critic of the American People for a long time now, placing the blame for our governmental situation on ourselves at least as much as on any of our so-called 'leaders,' and often more so. One of my oft repeated refrains, in fact, has been some form of this: “the next time you have a complaint about your elected officials and the way they're conducting themselves, in their 'personal' or their 'private' lives, just go to the nearest mirror in your home, look at yourself and repeat these words “I am (insert offending leader's name).”

Now, this is not a very popular position to take, even within 'conservative' circles, but as VA and others write, 'we should be able to have an adult conversation about this thing, and whether it has any truth to it.' Indeed we should, and ultimately we must, I should think...

I mention VA because she put up an entry a few days ago dealing with this very question over at her blog, Iowa and the government we deserve. And yes, implicit in the title is the idea contained in the body of the post indicting us Americans – We the People – for the government we have and complain so often about. We've had this conversation more than a few times over at the AFB, and elsewhere, and the conversation went southward fairly quickly in some instances where someone was offended by the notion that we have ourselves, and only ourselves, to blame for our condition, when ya boil it all down.

Personally I think the idea applies to Americans in a very unique way. Even at this point when things seem to be so very bad; when our government seems so very out of control, when the cancers of liberalism and political correctness seem to have almost thoroughly overtaken us in our political capacity as 'one nation; one people,' we still hold the purse strings; we still are the ultimate and the final authority in this government founded on laws and free elections.

In some other parts of the world, people are ruled by 'arbitrary' government, that is, they are ruled by illegitimate government, founded on illegitimate ideas of government. But not us. Not yet. Not completely. Many of us traditionalists who point to our Christian roots as the very foundation which gave rise to this government 'of, by, and for the People,' as well as has been chiefly responsible for sustaining it, often recur to scriptures such as Psalms 11:3, “If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?”, in our various warnings that we need to get back to those traditional roots in order to 'secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.' The implication being, of course, that the foundations themselves, once destroyed, leave us with a fragmented or a non-existent means of putting humpty dumpty back together again.

So, is our nation's foundation still left intact? In other words, do we still have in place a solid enough foundation upon which to rebuild those parts of the American edifice which we've witnessed (and actually contributed to in many cases) deteriorate over time, but at a very accelerated pace over the last couple of decades? I'm thinking here in terms of the absolute moral degradation that has seemingly overtaken us during that span of time.

To me the question is a vitally important one, because either way we answer it within ourselves, ultimately will determine within us, and without us, what measures we take, or don't take, to ameliorate the impending crisis. And seriously, folks, I don't care what it is we're talking about, whether it's immigration reform, conducting a war against islamic jihadists the world over, restraining (or not) such things as promiscuous and immoral sexually devious lifestyles, putting restraints on certain tendencies to be ungovernable, to be anarchist; or coming to grips nationally with the immorality of Abortion, or whatever, our Christian tradition always (Always!) applies in an extremely 'foundational' way.

Our founding fathers and mothers understood this concept very well. And they passed on to their children and grandchildren these fundamentally reducible principles of 'Christian Self-Government.' Not only do we see it in their writings leading up to the revolution where this example may be given as a prime one of a collective determination on their parts,:

Whereas it has pleased the righteous Sovereign of the Universe, in just indignation against the sins of a People long blessed with inestimable privileges, civil and religious, to suffer the plots of wicked men on both sides of the Atlantic...

-A Proclamation of the Provincial Congress of Massachusetts, April 15, 1775

But we see it as well in their progeny such as this exemplary example shows:

I have been blamed by men of science, both in this country and in England, for quoting the Bible in confirmation of the doctrines of physical geography. The Bible, they say, was not written for scientific purposes, and is therefore of no authority in matters of science. I beg pardon! The Bible is authority for everything it touches...The Bible is true and science is true, and therefore each, if truly read, but proves the truth of the other...

-Matthew Fontaine Maury

Many other examples of the same line of thinking may be had by even a cursory investigation into our unique history as a distinct nation. But the point is this, that which makes us, and always has made us a distinctive people when compared against other peoples of the world is our history of being unwilling to allow extra-biblical, extra-traditional doctrines to creep into our thinking. Our founders understood that to do so would eventually pave the way for extra-constitutional, anti-traditionalist American values to corrupt our system, our laws, our institutions, our very culture. And so it is that we bear witness to today.

So what is the answer? How do we get this nation back on track? Truly I believe that the only answer, when you get down to where the rubber meets the road, is that we need to rediscover our Christian roots, and to apply those uniquely Christian principles of government that this nation was founded upon. Some of course will scoff at this notion, but if I know anything at all to be a 'truth,' it is that if there is a God (and God exists, don't kid yourselves), then He has revealed certain things to his moral creatures (mankind), in 'general' and 'special' kinds of revelation. The Bible being of that latter kind of revelation, reason would teach us that, as Maury relates, whatever it touches, it is authority for. And if it touches on political science, it is authority for that as well.

Truly we are at fault my friends, because with all of our scientific 'advances,' and those things which we've discovered, not invented, having made our lives so easy, we have forgotten to whom to give the glory.

Blessed be the name of the Lord!

-DW

Read More

Custer's Rout of the Indians at the Battle of Little Bighorn?

Over at John Savage's blog under this title there is a discussion in the comments section about Americans not knowing well their own genealogy. I agree with both John, and VA that this is most probably and widely the case among Americans, including myself which I'm somewhat embarrassed by as well as ashamed of.

Here's a personal story in this vein that you might find interesting, perhaps even one to which some of you can in some way relate...

When I was about six or seven years old is the farthest recollection I have of Dad making me aware of my native American heritage. This is kind of a funny story and I recall it often attaching a lot of humor to it, though I think there are some serious aspects to it as well.

At that time some of you may recall that capitalist American toy manufacturers and retailers had seized upon what I suppose must have been a good deal of interest amongst the American population in the history of Custer's last stand at the Battle of Little Bighorn.

My recollection of this phase of Americans becoming interested in some of their post-civil-war history is best explained I think in the fact that Mom had purchased for me an action figure of Col. Custer himself, along with his horse and other bells and whistles. My best recollection is that it wasn't long thereafter that Dad brought me a counterpart to this action figure – either “Crazy Horse,” or “Sitting Bull,” most probably. Dad of course had an ulterior motive for providing me with the toy, and one in direct opposition, not necessarily to Mom's motive (I highly doubt that Mom had one to begin with other than just providing me with something I wanted most likely), but to her specific gift which I had probably requested.

Despite the true history of the Battle of Little Bighorn, my childhood replays of the battle always had Custer's regiment triumphant over the Indians. That's the way I wanted it to be, and since they were my toys I could play it out however I wanted to, or so I thought...

I remember one day while Col. Custer and company were thoroughly routing their Indian nemeses, Dad stopped me in the midst of my fun and began to explain to me that 'that's not the way it happened at all.' He further went on to ask me why it was that I preferred the Custer doll over that of the Indian he had provided me? This question of Dad's was prompted by the fact that I generally took very good care of the Custer doll and his horse. The Indian companion piece Dad had provided me was not so fortunate as that, however. I didn't have a very good answer, and it was really kind of a confusing question for me, in retrospect.

Looking back on it now, I would assume that my mind had been impressed with these ideas through different forms of media, as well as from the warring factions between my parents on this issue. I can't explain exactly why Dad's preference in this regard did not take well with me. I always thought of my Dad as being something of a 'larger than life' figure, and virtually everything he told me I took to be absolute and unadulterated truth. But in this particular an exception to that rule was very obviously noticeable, and Dad of course picked up on it and began to try to counter it with some extensive educational efforts on his part.

After Dad had that initial talk with me I remember trying to play the battle out to more conduce to the way that he had explained to me that it actually happened. But after having done so a couple of times I reverted back to my own preference for how the battle should have gone in direct contradiction to what Dad had told me. And I was in no way in the habit of contradicting my dad, nor had I any desire to disappoint him; quite the contrary. But in this case my personal preference proved to be just too strong to overcome. Of course, I was careful from there on out to have the Indians winning whenever Dad was around. And Dad and I entered upon a game of pretended preferences for several years thereafter.

I think the point of this story, besides my attempting to provide you with a good chuckle, is that even to this very day I have a strong bias in favor of my European heritage and over that of what little Indian blood I actually have running through my veins. As a matter of putting our history back in what I would consider its proper context, I think there's a largely neglected need for individuals like myself to express their true preferences, not succumbing to the pc pressure of always esteeming the poor, hapless Indians as having been manipulated, raped, pillaged, murdered and robbed at the hands of the true savages - the 'white devil invaders.'

I tend more to view 'ownership' in the way that Locke explained it, which is to say that the earth was given to man in common, but to establish a true ownership of anything thereof, one must invest that which may be reduced to his and his alone – his labor. Personally I have a hard time accepting the idea that occupation in and of itself establishes ownership in any 'American' sense of the word. I mean, I could go set up camp on a given piece of property, but the great likelihood is that the owners thereof – those who have invested their labor in the acquisition of that property – when they find me out, are going to do whatever is necessary to have me removed, as well they should.

I need a better explanation than 'the Indians occupied this land first' to convince me that they had established ownership of it entirely to the exclusion of anyone else. I don't deny that the Indians were wronged in some respects, but nor do I unquestionably accept the apparent conventional wisdom that the white devils wronged them in all respects, and that we're now occupiers of a land ill-gained. That to me is just a bunch of emotionally based hogwash, the logical conclusion of which makes me ill to stomach, to be frank.

In any event, Dad and I still have these conversations from time to time. He's not as apt as he used to be to try to convince me against my preferences and against my better judgment, but he still sticks largely to his guns on this issue. I suppose this issue will always be a point of contention between us, given that neither of us is likely to change his mind anytime soon. But for those of you who tend to take Dad's side on this question, and particularly those of you having also an attachment to the Christian faith, I would respectfully remind you, as I have Dad on occasion, that our Lord and our God must be extremely offended by an abject denial of that heritage of ours which actually resulted in 'securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves.'

These ideas of God, man, and government are traceable back to our European roots, not to the original occupiers of this land of ours. These ideas are most probably responsible for 'securing the blessings of liberty' on an individual and a collective level to the most people and generations history has heretofore ever recorded. Our European heritage is directly responsible for the blessings we enjoy, yet so easily dismiss today as a matter of luck. And as we ride upon the backs of our forefathers and mothers, we tend at the same time to dishonor them in denying that vital part of our unique heritage.

Lord forgive us, for we know not what we do.

-DW

Read More

Entertainment Media - A 'Carnival' Atmosphere

I hope and trust y'all will not mind my going in something of a different direction temporarily until I get myself caught up on what's been happening on the blogosphere (or my chosen corner of it - btw, it's ok to refer to a given section of a 'sphere' as a 'corner', just think of it in Biblical terms and we'll be alright) during my four or five day absence. At the moment of the writing of these words I've now been online for about two hours reading a few entries from other blogs (Vanishing American in particular) and I find myself rather struck by how quickly information is disseminated across this medium.

Much in contrast to the soap opera style 'news' and 'information' shows on today's mass media outlets where one may return after a long stint away and generally take up right where he/she left off weeks, months, or even years before, my chosen corner of the 'blogosphere' is a different baby altogether, as y'all well know. And this entry will be dedicated to speaking to that topic...

Over at VA's is posted a Monday entry on this very topic: Fluff and nonsense. VA notes in the post that though there is certainly an element of demand for what is termed 'cotton candy news,' in spite of that she also encounters, as I do, a lot of people of different walks, educational backgrounds and so forth, who generally despise this kind of 'news.' This causes her to question on some level why it is that the MSM engages itself in this kind of insignificant news coverage.

Personally I think a lot of it has to do with the education and experiences of the media people themselves. In short, it's what they know, all they know, and all they've ever known. And when there's a shortage, or a perceived shortage of 'newsworthy' stories to cover, these media outlets invariably revert back to what they know and understand best - entertainment.

Of course VA is discussing in the post a general problem across the MSM, but she does mention two specific examples - Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton - of the MSM's incessantly engaging itself in this kind of 'news coverage,' and she wonders on some level why this is. I think the 'cotton candy' euphemism is an appropriate one, and if we take thought to where it oughta lead us, it strikes up a pretty fitting analogy as well I should think.

We've often heard today's 'news' and news coverage referred to as a circus. But a carnival or a fair might be a better way of describing it in some instances. There is an atmosphere as well there should be at these carnivals of fun and entertainment. We associate certain ideas with certain things, and the carnival atmosphere is meant to be one of fun and entertainment. But why is it that news coverage seems to be increasingly more 'entertainment' oriented at the expense of the dissemination of knowledge of the useful kind?

I've said this before but I'll repeat it here. I think this is a more pervasive 'trend' than many of us realize. It seems to me to touch virtually everything; this 'entertainment' style of the sharing of information and knowledge. Those of us who complain about it are simply not interested in those kinds of 'facts,' or that kind of 'news' because we see it for what it is - irrelevant to real news and current events.

Now, I'll say here that I don't know who Lindsay Lohan is from Adam. I do know who Paris Hilton is because I've heard her name mentioned countless times. But beyond her being the heiress to the Hilton hotel dynasty (or whatever it is) and the fact that she was recently jailed for some kind of personal misdeed, I know very little of her as well, and that's the way I'd prefer to keep it so I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't try to educate me on this point. lol But my main point here is that I for one am apt to know a lot more about some relatively obscure character in American history, what they did and didn't do, and so on, than I'll ever likely know about Lindsay Lohan or Paris Hilton despite the MSM's incessant coverage of these irrelevant types.

And what I mean to say here is that I'm not nearly as comfortable in the carnival atmosphere as I used to be. That kind of 'fun and entertainment' is to me reserved for special and limited occasions. While I'm there and while I'm purposely seeking entertainment and pleasure I'm also willing to pay exorbitant prices for cotton candy and candied apples, and etc., as well as to pay twenty or thirty dollars for a fifty cent toy in a 'game of chance' where the deck is stacked heavily in favor of the carnival and against the individual player. I'm willing to do this because I seek entertainment in that instance, but that instance is very short-lived.

The same principle applies I think to the media and the kind of news it generates nowadays. I only wish to be 'entertained' occasionally, and it's on those limited occasions that I'm willing to pay the exorbitant rates that go with that entertainment. This probably explains why I don't particularly care for cable news. Occasionally I'll turn it on when I get the hankering to be entertained. But having been thoroughly entertained over the course of a couple of hours or so, then I'm generally good for weeks or even months.

I suppose, on the other hand, that this form of media (the blogosphere) might be said to be a form of 'entertainment' itself. And that some of us just prefer this kind of entertainment to that which the MSM engages itself in providing. In this case the MSM has its audience and participants, and the blogosphere has its audience and participants, and both have their games and sideshows that draw and captivate the attention of the attendees and observers. And in this case it all depends on what interests the individual attendee; does he prefer to shoot darts at a wall full of balloons at a dollar a dart, or had he rather shoot a basketball into undersized hoops, or to toss rings onto bottle necks, or whatever?

VA devotes most of her thoughts on this to the idea that the 'educational' establishment has more or less contributed to the desire among many to be entertained in this manner and in this kind of a 'carnival' atmosphere. People are generally going from game to game, bag of cotton candy in hand, seeking to be entertained at the expense of seeking out and desiring useful knowledge. And I think that this all begins at home where parents, seeking entertainment and fun themselves above all, and working a significant number of hours (for those who actually do still count it their duty to provide for their own entertainment) to satisfy their desire to be entertained, pass this on to their children who grow up in a home atmosphere where self-indulgence is paramount to everything else. Then they attend schools and churches where this self-indulging entertainment values system is promoted and encouraged as well.

But I would make a great distinction between the two forms of 'entertainment' if in fact both may be described on some level as such. True, I'm entertained by what goes on in this corner of the blogosphere much more that what goes on throughout the MSM. But I'm not simply entertained by this, nor is it simply entertainment that I seek in frequenting it. No; what I seek overall is to absorb and to disseminate useful knowledge. And this more or less determines what blogs I find to be interesting, and what blogs I find to be less than interesting. Generally speaking, if the contents amount to little more than an extension of what the MSM is providing, then your blog isn't going to interest me much. I can be entertained that way through that source if that's what I seek. But if that's the kind of 'entertainment' your blog is intended to provide, you're going to have a hard time competing with the 'big boys.'

In any event the question still remains, why is it that the MSM engages in this kind of 'entertainment news' so frequently? And as I said before, I think part of the reason lies in the fact that this is all they know; this is the kind of 'news' that the MSM and most the folks involved have been used to providing for decades now, and it's just natural that they'd revert to it very frequently when they feel there is a shortage of 'newsworthy' stories out there to report on. It's also notable that to the MSM that which is considered 'newsworthy' would be determined by their predispositions about the value of a given piece of news. While I may question the value of reporting incessantly on the personal misdeeds of one Miss Lindsay Lohan, who is just a name to me, I think that the MSM folks may well believe that their interest in Lindsay Lohan translates to our interest in her. If they think it newsworthy to report on her life, then we must think it newsworthy as well, right? Wrong!

I could give a hoot about what Lindsay Lohan is doing these days, whoever she might be. But if you wish to discuss with me the goings on with folks who have an impact on all of our lives to some extent or the other, then I'm likely to be more attentive.

But since I have a very short day ahead of me today, as far as my work goes, I'll be back in a couple of hours to post a couple more items as well as to continue to play some more catch-up on the blogosphere. Until then, y'all be good and keep on entertaining yourselves with useful information and knowledge.

-DW

Read More

Who is this Ron Paul Character? (Part 2)

In the first edition to this series I posed the 'big question' which you see in the titles of that post, and again in this one: Who is this Ron Paul Character? In addition, I gave you some bit of insight as to what you might expect in this as well as future editions to this series. And of course you'll recall my mentioning that the series itself, once completed to my satisfaction, would likely contain anywhere from three to five separate entries or more.

But before we get on with the meat of the subject let me also make you aware that I'll be embedding links from post to post in the series to assist anyone who happens to link up to a single entry, yet is unaware that there are others in the series. The 'Part 1,' Part 2,' and etc., designations should help us in that regard, but I imagine that before all is said and done here there will be the distance of days as well as unrelated topics separating the connected entries. Therefore, if you happen to be a regular reader, just ignore the minor inconvenience this presents you. Otherwise, use the provided links when needed, that's what they're there for.

And now, let us begin our investigation into who this Ron Paul Character truly is, as opposed perhaps to who we've been led to believe he is by himself and/or by others...

It seems like as good a place to start as any to open our investigation by attempting to answer one question which I posed in Part 1 of this series: Is Ron Paul really who he says he is? And a good place to open that investigation up would be, it would appear, to determine what it is that Ron Paul is saying about Ron Paul, as opposed to what others are saying about him. As to that latter part, we will most assuredly get to it later. But for this entry let us concentrate our efforts overall, once again, on what the man is saying about himself publicly.

In the opening paragraph to Part 1 of this series you may recall that I described Ron Paul as a "self-styled Champion of the Constitution," and that I later made a second mention of this designation. My source for that information about Rep. Paul, as well as other information about the man destined to make its way into this series directly or indirectly, is a site which I provided a link to in one of my posts a couple of weeks back. If you'll click on the link to that site provided here again for your convenience, it's just a matter of properly navigating the site (which I'll leave to you to do) to get to that revelation of Mr. Paul about himself.

I'll admit here that I'm rather turned off by individuals claiming to themselves such distinctive attributes as Mr. Paul chose to do at the late Presidential debate in June of this year. Truly it seems more appropriate to me to allow others to make these bold claims about oneself while the designee himself concentrates his efforts on supporting the claim rather than asserting it. It may just be a matter of a display of improper decorum, but it still tends to raise suspicions in me as it has something of an offensive quality to it. To be fair to Paul though, I understand the desire and the need to separate and distinguish oneself from the rest of the pack in a public debate between Republican Presidential contenders wherein one might find himself, as Paul, a relative unknown certainly must have - little recognized. Still, the traditionalist in me finds it somewhat distasteful for a 'bonified leader' under virtually any circumstances to engage himself in such self-promotional displays as Paul here did. My idea of a 'true leader' in this regard being someone possessing internal qualities of character which would rather tend to resist such impulses, strong as they may be under certain circumstances. But I can let that slide if in fact Paul truly is what he says he is - "The Champion of the Constitution." So is he? Is Ron Paul truly THE champion of the Constitution as he says? That's the question before us, and to answer it properly we must take our investigation of the man to yet another level.

Of course the preceding paragraph reveals, if nothing else, that to this point in my own investigation of Rep. Paul he's rather behind the eight ball so to speak given that he has at least one strike against him and none as yet for. So, for our purposes here our subject (Paul) has some ground to make up. This shouldn't present him with too much of a problem given that his career in public service has been rather marked, if I may say so, by this very 'champion of the Constitution' description afforded himself. And in point of fact this very thing is what has led to some of his Congressional colleagues casting other laudable characteristics at his feet. Ron Paul has been referred to (among his colleagues mind you), among other things, as 'the most principled man in Congress.' Further, it is said of Mr. Paul that he simply will not vote for a bill which is not specifically authorized by the Constitution. And there's certainly something respectable to be said of that quality which he seems to possess in a much superior way to the vast majority of his Congressional peers. While it may be said of the majority of his colleagues that 'they rarely saw a bill they wouldn't vote for,' it might be said of Ron in contrast that 'he never saw a bill that didn't raise suspicions as to its specific authorization by the Constitution.' As for me, that latter is a truly distinguishing mark that at very least evens the score for Ron once more.

Having now brought our investigation back, in fairness to Ron, to more of an even keel let us proceed by investigating Ron's principled stand on some of the key issues. Once again I would direct your attentions to the link provided above. Having successfully navigated the site to Paul's page, and under the heading "Ron Paul on Principles and Values," we find Congressman Paul's 'principled' belief as pertains to the first amendment.

The question is posed:

"You ran for president once before as a Libertarian. What do you say about this whole issue of church and state and these issues that are coming forward right now?"

And here is Paul's answer:

"I think we should read the First Amendment, where it says, "Congress shall write no law." And we should write a lot less laws regarding this matter. It shouldn't be a matter of the president or the Congress. It should be local people, local officials--we just don't need more laws determining religious things or prayer in school. We should allow people at the local level. That's what the Constitution tells us. We don't need somebody in Washington telling us what we can do, because we don't have perfect knowledge. And that's the magnificence of our Constitution and our republic. We sort out the difficult problems at local levels and we don't have one case fit all. That's why we shouldn't have it at a central level."

Ignoring the obvious misquote of the first amendment, assuming that Paul is simply paraphrasing here, I'll concentrate more on the meat of what he's saying. If I understand him correctly he seems to be saying that he believes that the 'establishment clause' in the first amendment should be read and applied more literally than seems to be the habit of that body as well as that sphere of government which he finds himself a member, albeit an often dissenting member of. On this point I would agree with Paul wholeheartedly, and notably to this investigation on this very point he seems to hold indeed to the distinguishing designation: Champion of the Constitution. However, this to me is something of an oddly simplistic view coming from a man having been the particular recipient of such accolades from different quarters of being a 'true intellectual.' I think to get a true and accurate reading of exactly where Congressman Paul stands on this issue of church and state we need the question to be posed in a more particular sense. Since the context of a Presidential debate does not necessarily lend itself to expounding upon a stated view of a given subject, we must ultimately take our investigation elsewhere.

However, Congressman Paul has given us herein enough of an insight into his overall view of the subject to warrant, in my opinion, some measure of breaking down the elements of his answer in that context in order to assist us in answering our own questions which may well come to mind in reading his answer. As an example my mind was naturally led to ask, given the fact that we do have laws in place restricting the exercise of religion, would Paul consider it appropriate for the Congress to 'write' laws consistent with the non-prohibition clause of the first amendment? In other words, if the first amendment may be read in part as "Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion..." and in light of the first amendment's express prohibition on Congress to 'make no law respecting an "establishment" of same,' would Congressman Paul consider it proper (or 'constitutional) of the federal Congress to write laws which tend to encourage and assist in Congress' resisting the apparently overwhelming urge among its members to create laws in actuality restricting the 'free exercise of religion?' And if so, should that 'writing of such laws' at the federal level tend to reflect the general sense of the People, or should it tend more to protect 'the free expression of' minority religions represented by relatively small segments of this society at the expense of the majority and the 'free expression' of its religion? What little I'm able to glean from his statement leads me to believe that he thinks it improper of Congress, and perhaps actually "unconstitutional" to write and pass any law 'respecting' religion period, effecting an 'establishment' thereof or otherwise.

I think Paul more or less answers these questions of ours, though, when he offers his thoughts on how best and at what level of government these questions should be dealt with generally speaking. Here again I tend to agree with Paul on the idea that these questions should be dealt with in more particular ways at the State and local levels of government. But that's just not the reality of our situation at present. You have to have a strong federal stucture in place to support this idea, and that we just don't currently have. More often than not these questions when dealt with in a more appropriate way at the lower levels are challenged in the courts and at length the federal government decides the issue on a grand scale. And in this process the central authority tends rather to side with the minority (often a very small and insignificant minority) on this question of the free exercise of one's religion.

By virtue of this fact we are rather left with bare remnants of the original design of this government which cannot be said to have possessed any appreciable fear or determination that it should arm itself and its minority citizens against encroachments on its powers and their rights via restrictions on the free exercise of the Christian Religion in particular. While it is all well and good to remind ourselves from time to time of the original intent of the founding generation in demanding a 'bill of rights' be attached to the Constitution, we should also, and in compliance with the underlying reasons for those reminders of ours, seek out practical means for returning our government to that original intent while in the meantime working to halt the degenerative process so pervading our government and her institutions. In this sense I think it possible that Ron Paul may more accurately be said to be something less than 'THE champion of the Constitution,' for a true and a committed 'top of the food chain champion' of anything or any worthy cause, would firmly adhere to the genuine sense in which the cause in question is to be maintained and furthered. And I think it may be said of the first amendment that a genuine reading of same would yield that indeed the federal Congress, while being expressly forbidden from 'making any law respecting an establishment of religion,' is rather encouraged to, than being prohibited from making laws of a non-prohibitionary type with respect to the 'free exercise thereof.' For what good is the statement "Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion..." without the force of law to uphold and guarantee it against violations of the principle? Some may claim that the Constitutional provision itself is enough. But this does not square with the reality that the provision of the first amendment has proven to be of little use in prohibiting the actual practice thereof.

These laws should of course, as I said, reflect the general sense of the citizenry while taking into account the necessity of preserving our form of government in very particular ways as it cannot be stated too often nor too forcefully the irrefutable fact that the general consists itself in particulars. So, while I tend to agree with Paul's approach as stated, that these questions should be dealt with at more of a local level under a 'more perfect' scenario, I should think that given our current situation on this question the reality evinces that Paul's approach to addressing this question, as stated above, while it may have been an appropriate and a capable one 150 years ago is certainly less than so now. I should further think that such an approach, once more, given our current situation, would rather tend to provide opponents of the Constitution inroads to overthrowing its sacred principles which we must maintain at all costs.

If Congress is considered by its members and by the People in authority over them authorized by the Constitution to 'write laws' on questions of religion and morality, which I certainly think may well be said to be the case, and if in fact a proper reading of the Constitution itself does yield that conclusion to be consistent with the truth of the matter (not necessarily with the way it is applied) then to me the better, not to mention the more 'Constitutionally consistent' approach is to place less emphasis on what one considers a prohibition on that authorization, and rather to use one's 'pulpit' to emphasize the duty of Congress to write such laws adhering to the true sense of the Constitution, and to the general sense of the population under its governance. Does it rise to the level of an 'establishment of religion' for the federal Congress to acknowledge by law the right of the State and local authorities to themselves authorize prayers in the local schools? Or is it rather that such laws strictly adhere to that clause of the first amendment which has in it an implicit authority for the federal Congress to guarantee by law that it (the federal Congress) shall never write or endorse a law 'prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' in schools or elsewhere? Is this not the genuine sense in which the first amendment is to be read? Is this not the restriction on itself that the federal Congress is bound to acknowledge lawfully as inplicit in the first amendment? If indeed it is, and if Paul holds a view contrary to this, then it follows that it must be said of Paul on this issue that he is wrong. And if that is the case, then we have at least one reason to believe that Congressman Paul is not the 'champion of the Constitution' that he claims himself to be, as well as further calling into question his qualifications for being the next President of the United States. On the other hand, if this is the case, and if Paul's statement reflects a view consistent with the genuine sense in which the first amendment is to be read, as well as lawfully applied, then it may be said of Paul that he is in this particular truly what he says he is - THE Champion of the Constitution - as well as securing to himself his rightful place among the Presidential contenders.

In the foregoing discourse we have endeavored to discover whether Ron Paul, while certainly being rightly denominated in some sense "A" 'champion of the Constitution,' may be wrongly denominating himself "The" champion of the same, at least in the sense that we've investigated the matter here. As I said before I can forgive Paul for what I consider to be an inappropriate display of self-promotion IF indeed he can truly be said to be what he claims to himself, though I would certainly advise him against restating the offensive gesture too forcefully as well as too often. During the course of this investigation, and for the reasons offered here among others we will surely cover, my mind is led to question and further investigate whether Ron Paul may truly be said to be all he says he is. Therefore, my conclusion to this point in our investigation is that Paul inadvisedly expressed something of a rather high opinion of himself as well as of his own sense of self-importance in his introduction of himself at the late debate, unnecessarily raising doubts in the minds of some, including myself. And while I'm sure that this conclusion of mine is likely to bring some unfavorable comments my way, nonetheless this is my conclusion. But as I said in Part 1 of this ongoing series now well underway, I welcome your input as my conclusions about Paul and his statements may certainly prove to be misguided as well as misplaced.

In any event I would once again encourage you to leave a thoughtful comment to this post whether you happen to agree with the conclusions I've drawn or not. And also that you would return to read the third edition to this series which will be coming shortly. In the meantime, and if you haven't done so yet, do utilize the link I've provided here to further educate yourself on this man, Congressman Ron Paul. I look forward to your participation as certainly and as has been promised, this series while being paused for the moment, is most assuredly:

To be continued....

-DW

Read More

Reflections on a childhood gaff...

I remember one Christmas in particular when I was about twelve or thirteen I had asked for a new bicycle. Back then money was a little tight and a new bicycle was an item that was somewhat hard to come by. And though I didn't really expect to get one, I nonetheless had hopes that maybe, just maybe I would get one this Christmas.

At this time Mom and Dad had divorced, both having subsequently remarried. I lived with Dad while my younger siblings lived with Mom. In the small town where Dad and I lived my great uncle on Dad's side (who passed away recently, incidentally) owned a hardware store still bearing his name today where Dad and I would frequently (almost daily) stop in for a visit with my uncle, if not to pick up some needed item.

My uncle, having served in the Navy during WWII, and having gone to battle with the Japanese himself sustaining several injuries as well as witnessing the death of some of his friends and comrads during these battles, had lots of lingering misgivings and ill-feelings toward the state of Japan. And at the time of this particular Christmas -around 1977 or 1978- our trade relations with the state of Japan had improved to the point that it seemed virtually everything was now 'Made in Japan.'

Dad and my great uncle often expressed their displeasure with this movement toward trading with the Japanese, referring often to Japanese made products as 'junk,' or more specifically "Jap-Junk." Japanese made cars and motorcycles, as an example, were referred to as "Jap-Junkers." And to be frank, much of it was in actuality "junk."

As I recall I spent this particular Christmas Holiday at Mom's house. And I remember very well seeing that brand new bike sitting in front of the tree on that most memorable Christmas morning. I was so excited and pleased to see it that I could barely contain myself. Indeed, Mom had worked and saved to provide me and my siblings with the best of gifts we could ever have hoped for. And while I can't recall the exact timeline of the events as they transpired this Christmas morning, I do recall very well an incident taking place which I still have much regret about...

At some point that morning I set aside all my other gifts to focus my undivided attention on that most excellent of gifts I had received, my new bike. And as I was giving her a good going over, quietly noting each and every minor imperfection in her most beautiful whole contruction, I eventually ran across a stamped impression in the frame somewhat concealed by paint which read: "Made In Japan." At which point, unaware of my surroundings, I let out a disgusted: "It's a Jap-Junker!," along with some other bits of poorly chosen verbiage such as "it's gonna fall apart on me," and the like. I was soon to regret those words.

The problem was that Mom, deriving a great deal of pleasure from quietly observing my close and excited inspection of her gift, was attentively watching every move and listening to all the 'oohs and ahs' I was uttering up to that fateful point. And I can hardly recall a moment in my life that ever I felt so low as that moment at which I realized how hurtful this exclamation of mine was to her, unintentionally so as it was.

At length the story of this unfortunate incident made its way back to Dad who promptly sat me down and gave me some much needed instruction on bridling my tongue, as well as of being more attentive to my surroundings, and of course thinking before I actually speak. And Dad's very obvious disapproval as well as his disappointment in what I had done was enough in and of itself to sink my sense of worth to the depths of self-loathing. But I think perhaps the best lesson was in seeing and realizing how hurtful this had been to Mom, who had put so much effort into providing us with with some very memorable gifts that Christmas among others. It was incidents like that one which finally led to my realization of what a sorry piece of self-indulgent work I truly was.

But one of the happy endings to the story is that the new bicycle proved to be an extreme exception to my ill-expressed perceptions as to its quality and durability as it provided me with miles and miles of riding pleasure, not to mention enduring some extensive measure of abuse and neglect. And how, you may be asking, did I account for that most notable attribution stamped into its framework? Well, as I recall I purchased a sticker of an American flag and placed it over the offending revelation. "Out of sight, out of mind." lol

-DW

Read More

Are All Laws Founded in a Moral Perspective?

Recently the question was raised on another blog of whether conservative people tend to be more disposed to sin than their liberal counterparts. And if you've been keeping up with the conversation on the subject you probably realize very well by now that I strongly resist the proposal as such.

I'll reiterate that I'm intrigued by the question, and now that I've had some more time to reflect upon it I reckon that's because the question itself as raised would likely never have occured to me, my predisposition being rather something different altogether. As I said during the discussion, I believe all people rather equally disposed to sin. Some just recognize it more within themselves than do others. And quite frankly, I think it much more reasonable to assume that folks who recognize their sins as sins are therein drawn to conservatism whereas those who do not recognize their sins as such are drawn more to liberalism for obvious reasons.

And yes; I admit that I have certain predispositions about most things just as everyone else has; that I'm not as 'open-minded' as some would have you believe they are. However, I think it may not be too 'self-righteous' to say of myself that I may be described as 'open-minded' in one particular sense, and that is that I recognize and own that I don't know everything, that I could in fact be and often am wrong; and therefore I do actually strive to govern my thoughts and reflections, and even my conversations by that knowledge...

Personally I think this may truly be the only practical sense in which the idea of 'open-mindedness' can be thought of, or can be put into actual practice. Many times I think we may be too willing to set our principles aside in an attempt to be more open-minded about certain things. Other times I think that some of us find this rather easy to do given that our 'principled' foundation may be a little shaky, or poorly established. But generally speaking I think it wise to be cautiously open-minded about certain ideas which at least give the appearance of requiring it of us.

On the other hand, I find little wrong with individuals approaching a given question with a certain set of predetermined biases. And in point of fact, I don't really think it possible to approach a given question in exclusion of some bias or predisposition toward it, even if that 'predisposition' amounts to virtually no predisposition. And yes; you are right in assuming what I'm definately implying and that is that all of us must enter upon an investigation of a question predisposed to believe a certain way and therefore to disbelieve in the opposite. For one cannot believe in a certain thing and in its opposite at the same time anymore than one can believe in something and in nothing at the same time.

Sometimes it's just a matter of being thick headed that causes us to roundly reject an idea that may well have some merit to it. Other times it may simply be a matter of confusing the meanings of certain terms within a given context. Whatever the case may actually be though, it would serve us all well I think to approach certain questions with a good deal of moderation, for it's hard to reason with someone not willing to engage the reasoning process. And of course one may well be in the right on a given question, yet have a poor way of expressing it. In this latter sense the reasoning process is extremely helpful in developing and refining one's argument for or against a given question. And I certainly can't see much wrong in that, for if one is on the right side of a given question yet has a poor way of expressing it he may as well be on the wrong side of same since his poor expression of ideas warrants little attention of his listeners. Surely I have found myself in this very predicament a time or two, if I may be so bold as to proclaim that I actually have been right on occasion.

But there's yet another beneficial aspect of the reasoning process. And that is with respect to those who happen to be on the wrong side of a given question. For if these individuals are in the wrong yet willing to engage the reasoning process, they may be led eventually to adopt the right side of the question, having recognized their error via the reasoning process. The point of course being that wrong or right, persons generally hold a perspective on virtually everything. And they do well to exercise their gift of reason in contending for and refining that perspective.

You're probably wondering "what has this to do with the title of the post?" And recognizing that this may well be the case, I'm going to attempt to offer you the best answer I have. I started out with the idea in mind to establish a foundation upon which to rest the argument I'm about enter upon. Somewhere in the midst of that process my mind was led a bit astray with thoughts certainly having some relation to the subject at hand, yet of more of a distant kind than I first intended. I recognized this early on and quite nearly convinced myself to start over. Then I thought "nah, let's just see where this takes us," and here we are. So I'll leave the preceding up and allow you to determine whether there's anything in it worthy of note.

But to finally get to the point, you may have read in the previous post Liberal vs. Conservative Morality my long-held conviction that virtually all, if not all laws are founded in a moral perspective; someone's moral perspective. Whether you have or haven't read this in the former post is really of little consequence, however, because herein I intend to retrace most of those steps as well as to take the idea somewhat further. So I propose that we get this thing underway...

First of all, and to follow the lead of my friend, John Savage, I should like to pre-establish some boundaries within which to confine the subject, else we could get way off into left field quick, fast, and in a hurry. The way in which I will attempt to do that is to explain that whenever I use the term "moral" I'm not necessarily claiming the thing to which I'm applying it to in fact be moral. Indeed, within the context of this argument I will often use the term as it applies to what many of you, and even myself, would probably consider to be "immoral." The most important thing to keep in mind in this regard is this - I'm merely pointing out that the term "immoral" comes from the root "moral," and in that sense it is a moral perspective, albeit not necessarily squaring with your or my idea of morality.

Now with that in mind allow me to restate the argument for you: It is my contention that "virtually all, if not in fact all laws are founded in a moral perspective; someone's moral perspective." This is not to say that I believe that all laws are "moral," of course, it is to say, however, that I believe all laws, or essentially all laws to have "morality," someone's morality, as their basis. Essentially my firm belief is this, that when any law is considered it must necessarily be considered to be right or wrong, good or bad. And the very essence of morality is indeed in drawing a distinction between right and wrong. If a law is said to be good then it may also be said of those assigning the description to it to be a moral law; whereas if a law is said to be bad, that law may be said to be an "immoral" law by those who assign to it the quality of 'badness.' In any event there is a moral value to both.

My contention is simply this, that as laws must necessarily be considered on their rightness or wrongness, and the distinction between right and wrong being the essence of morality, then it follows that all laws must necessarily have a moral foundation, and here again I will reiterate, not necessarily mine or yours, but someone's moral foundation. It may not be my morals that a law is founded upon; it may not be yours; it may not even be the majority's moral perspective that a given law is founded on, but it is someone's moral perspective. It is someone's idea of what is 'right,' as opposed to what the same person would consider to be 'wrong.' This is my contention.

If this idea has any truth to it, and I certainly believe it does have a lot of truth to it, then I would suggest to you that the implications of it are extensive and profound. My belief is that were the majority of Americans to understand this concept (which to me seems very logical) it would likely and most probably totally revolutionize the way we approach lawmaking. And I think perhaps in a very good and meaningful way.

We have all heard it said innumerable times that "you can't legislate morality." This has become something of a popular refrain in America, most particularly amongst our illustrious leaders, and it's not just liberals who are regurgitating it. I believe it emanates from a liberal perspective as opposed to a conservative one, but this does not mean that conservatism has not been infected with and actually in some cases embraced the disease. Indeed, I think it can be shown that conservatism has been infected to a great extent thereby. But is this reasonable; is it even logical?...

Certainly I believe it is neither reasonable nor logical to proclaim that "you cannot legislate morality," as a defense for, well, legislating morality; for legislating a different set of moral standards. The argument itself, as I've noted before, is self-defeating, for it claims as irrefutable truth the very opposite of that which it is actually intended to do - defend the practice of legislating morality. And irregardless of whether it is a liberal or a conservative "morality" that is being legislated, you can pretty well bet your bottom dollar every time that indeed someone's morality is being legislated; that someone's morality is being imposed upon someone else having a different morality.

Liberal folk tend to think of themselves as possessing something of a higher righteousness one might say. This of course leads them to believe that their morals (whether any of us denominate them such) are the superior morals. In this strict sense they are not much different than we conservatives are. Certainly if we're honest with ourselves we'll acknowledge that we think our morals superior to those of liberals. For if we didn't, why would we prefer them over liberal morals? That being the case it's really just a question of whose morals are the better morals; of whose morals more consistently square with reason and logic and with the higher authority.

And here's where the implications are profound. If indeed there's no getting around the fact that someone's morals are going to be imposed on someone else, then why should conservatives buy into the liberal idea that you can't and shouldn't legislate morality? If you must necessarily legislate morality, then what's reasonable about trying to avoid doing so? To my mind it is no more reasonable of a conservative to attempt to avoid imposing a moral perspective on a liberal than it is for a liberal to falsely claim that he is not imposing his morals on conservatives. Both are irrational from my perspective. But the conservative shall always, under those notions and conditions, get the short end of the stick. For in the very process of attempting to avoid an imposition of conservative morals, the conservative himself more or less aids and abets the liberal in establishing an imposition of his morals upon his counterparts. As I said, someone's morals are going to be imposed, which should have us asking ourselves this extremely pertinent question: whose morals is it we'd prefer to have imposed upon ourselves.

I believe that if there's anything at all worthwhile to be taken from this commentary it must be that it is simply not a logical point of view which promotes as fact the abjectly false claim that morality cannot be legislated. And if my suspicion is right that this idea emanates from a liberal as opposed to a conservative perspective on the subject, then I think it may safely be said that in this one vital particular liberalism is an unreasonable and an illogical political doctrine little worthy of serious recognition by any reasonable person.

-DW

Read More

Liberal vs. Conservative Morality

Thanks go out again to John Savage for indulging my questions and for putting together a thoughtful reply to Conservatism - A Mighty and a Grand Illusion. That post is just an extension of a conversation between John and I started over at John's blog a couple of days ago. John's reply is in some ways a more thorough explanation of his own position with regard to why he believes conservatives to be the more sinful group between themselves and their liberal counterparts. In others, he throws a few heavy punches aimed at yours truly. But it's ok, I don't mind.

In this edition I'll seek to answer some of John's objections to my aforementioned post, as well as to clarify my position with regard to the traditional conservative definition of "self-government," as opposed to that generally held by the libertarian movement. With most of my readers I needn't explain myself in that regard. However, I should probably do so for the sake of readers not thoroughly familiar with my position on the idea of Self-Government, certainly not to be confused with that of libertarians. You may read more by clicking on the 'read more' button below...

First of all, John discerningly identified a problem at the root of some of our fundamental disagreements/misunderstandings and properly injected a much needed and worthy corrective into the conversation. His categorization of the different types of 'sin' is very well placed, and if he hadn't done it, eventually I likely would have though mine most likely would have taken on something of a different form than John's 'sin categories.' Nonetheless, as I said, this was a proper establishment of some governing boundaries much needed within the context of this conversation, so kudos to John.

But if I'm not mistaken, this is most useful confined to this context, probably having, on a wider scale, little usefulness. Category 2 type sins are those sins that virtually all societies have sought in one way or another to restrain in their citizens. Whereas category 1 sins are the kinds of sins more likely restrained within peoples governing themselves more strictly by their strong belief in a singular higher authority. In other words, the more civilized (and rational) societies have historically adopted this moral element of conservatism, whereas the lesser civilized societies have not. Of course radical islam would be an exception to this (rational) rule. But otherwise I think it pretty well holds true.

However, I won't be bounded by the irrational liberal 'anything goes' mindset in any of my conversations here or elsewhere. I simply don't see the necessity, nor do I see the obligation on my part, of trying to cater to the irrational among us. In other words, it's almost as irrational, to my mind, to attempt to address the irrational with rationality. As has been said before, the only way to have an intelligent conversation is to have 1) a mind capable of transmitting an intelligent thought, 2) a mind capable of receiving the thought, and 3) a mode of conversation common to them both. And I think that many times we more or less waste our efforts because the latter element is either very imperfectly established, or it is missing altogether, i.e., a common language. In other words, we speak a different (moral) language, liberals and conservatives, so it's virtually impossible for us to have an intelligent, rational discussion particularly on ideas of what constitutes sin and morality.

I understand where most liberals are coming from on moral questions pretty well I think. But this doesn't mean I'm going to waste my efforts trying to convince them that sodomy, or abortion, or whatever is a sin. No; I think it much more productive to expose the irrationality of their positions to the wider audience, and to govern one's conversations generally by that rule. Irregardless of how forceful, or logical, or reasonable my argument liberals will not assent to it. Whereas those who are not themselves completely and utterly immersed in the irrationality of liberalism might be reachable. I should here pause to put the idea into a context...

My firm belief with regard to the irrationality of liberalism is that while liberals reject category 1 type sins as such, it is invariably upon a 'moral' foundation that they must found their arguments against. So, what essentially happens with liberals is that they engage themselves in a palpable error arguing that they 'can't impose their morals on us,' and that 'we can't and shouldn't seek to impose ours on them.' This is self-defeating because the very argument itself is founded on the very idea of a moral imposition.

I don't care what it is that a liberal is vying for, if he/she seeks to impose his/her will on society with regard to abortion as an example, it never fails that he lays his foundation for in a moral perspective, i.e., that it is wrong to deny a woman her 'right to choose,' and etc... Whenever the concept of 'right and wrong' is entered into the argument then we've just established a 'moral' foundation for the argument. John and I would consider abortion to be abjectly 'immoral,' of course, but just as the word immoral has the term "moral" as its root, so too does the liberal's 'immoral argument' rest on a "moral" foundation. So, I reject John's assertion that liberals seek less government on moral questions than do conservatives, and everything else that followed. For it is simply that liberals have a different set of 'moral' values that they seek to impose upon society, and upon one's person than do conservatives. And as I said, the very argument itself implies an imposition, so it's simply an irrational argument worthy of little notice.

Now, to clarify my position on the idea of self-government, and to clearly define a distinction between my idea of self-government and the libertarian idea of same, I will identify what I take to be a huge difference between them. Libertarians understand "self-government" as essentially 'self-determination,' whereas I understand the term to mean exactly what it clearly implies - "self-control," "self-restraint;" "self-govern-ment." As I say, there is a world of difference between the two for the libertarian would argue that the most vital element in the definition of the term is one's ability and freedom to determine things for himself without government intervention, irrespective of how much harm is done to others in that exercise. Whereas I would put much more emphasis on what I believe to be the true signification of the word which as I said is self-control. I don't deny that 'self-determination' is an element of self-government, and even an important one. But I certainly do not accept, as libertarians do, that it is the most vital element thereof. Essentially I think that libertarians tend to exalt to primary what is to me a secondary signification of the term. But as I imply, if the term "self-government" were primarily intended to mean 'self-determination' as libertarians would have it, then the idea itself would require a whole different term. Self-government is self-govern-ment. And this is the difference between my understanding and that of most libertarians, as well as where we shall ever part ways. No; I am not a libertarian, particularly in my idea of "self-government."

More to come...

-DW

Read More