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

Conservatism - A Mighty and a Grand Illusion

Here's a great topic for discussion. And I hope y'all are sitting down because you are now reading the latest edition of the great trifecta I had predicted (only last night) may be forthcoming. Not only is this strong indication that I may well rank among the prophets of old as to my accuracy concerning the fulfillment of my predictions, but it marks the first recorded trifecta in the short yet distinguished history of this blog. Y'all must be positively sitting on the edges of your seats waiting to read what my next prediction is going to be, right? Well, you can relax now because it ain't gonna come in this post. I like to keep my readers in suspense. lol

As my wonderful step-mother used to remind me quite frequently when I was a youngster, and as she still does from time to time to this very day, and in her own unique way of expressing the thought: "It don't take much to entertain you, does it boy!?" Well, I can't rightly say that I disagree with that. I'm pretty easily entertained, as is clearly documented in the above paragraph. But now that I've managed to get that out of my system, let's move on, shall we?...

During a visit to Savage's blog yesterday (that's BNWW if the name Savage isn't ringing a bell), and while scanning through his rather voluminous list of latest posts, I ran into one title that I'd simply overlooked during my former visits. This isn't at all unusual for me since my habit, particularly when I'm in something of a hurry, is to scroll down the page, stopping at new post titles as they appear and reading the first few lines to see whether I'm particularly intrigued by it. During that process it's easy, I've noted on several occasions, for me to fly right past an independently posted title only to realize I'd done so during a later visit. And that's what happened with this particular post, the more intriguing part of which (to me anyway) is shortly forthcoming.

I'm going to take the liberty to quote John here without having obtained his express permission, but I'm fairly certain he's not going to mind, and if he does, I guess we can hash that out later. By far the most intriguing part of John's post to me as I read it is contained within this interesting excerpt from the post itself. Says he:

I think it’s actually reasonable to believe that conservatives often become conservative because they have struggled against a stronger tendency toward sin. They’ve shown a stronger need for God’s help, as well as that of a "judgmental" society, and they naturally sympathize with others who have had the same experience.

Y'all see why I found it so intriguing now, don't you! I've said this before, and I'll say it again because I think it bears repeating: it's a lot easier to go around picking apart someone else's quality posts than it is to write one, at least for me it is. This recognition of mine can be said to account for most of my effort to exercise the quality of moderation when challenging someone on an assertion that I believe to be wrong. And this is the very reason that I approached John fairly cautiously in raising a question as to the validity of his argument. I reasoned that either one of three things was likely the case: 1. John had mispoken a thought; 2. I had misinterpreted his intent; or 3. John had intended it just as I had interpreted it. John has graciously confirmed that indeed, the third option is the correct one in his latest reply to my comment to the post which you may read at the link provided.

So, now that we have that cleared up, let's move on to some more meatier stuff here, shall we, 'cause I fear I'm about to lose some of you, or to bore you with details that you can read for yourselves...

As you're thoroughly aware of by now, John asserts that 'conservatives' are drawn to conservatism by what he terms a 'greater tendency toward the greater sin.' In other words, and to expand upon John's theory a bit more, John's thinking is that conservative people tend to be the more sinful people matched up against their liberal counterparts who naturally tend to sin less than do conservatives. Something about human biology I think.

According to John's logic, it's a grand struggle with a greater, more egregious form of sinning that draws eventual conservatives away from their left-leaning/embracing youthful polity and more toward the right. In strict adherence to the natural laws of magnetism, persons with a greater tendency to commit the greater sin are simply naturally drawn toward the positively charged poll on the political magnet, while those who are less inclined to sin, or exhibit a more 'sinless' tendency are quite naturally drawn to the negative, or the liberal side. I suspect that this answers to John's mind the question of why people tend to be more left leaning in their youths, and to begin to move more or less to the right later in their lives.

Now, while it may be argued that I have effectively mixed those up -left and right; positive and negative charged polls- the analogy works to my mind because I see a greater tendency to sin (whether I accept John's logic or not) as negative, and a desire to control it with respect to oneself as positive, and vice versa.

But as I related to John, I can't say as I agree with his logic here. I don't necessarily think it illogical to theorize this way, nor do I think it illogical to conclude as he does based on the ideas he proposes. However, I do think it illogical to form that conclusion in the absence of thoroughly considering other options. And while I find John's theory to be quite intriguing, probably because I don't recall having ever run up against it before, at least not in his exact form, I find it to be somewhat dishonest with all due respect to John. And that's not at all a dig at John, I just think he may be engaging in a little self-induced denial here.

But here's a little food for thought that I'll throw into the mix, I can't say as I've ever truly embraced liberalism. Oh, I entertained it some during my youth, and a bland sort of mixture of it and conservatism appealed to me for a relatively short while during my more promiscuous days. But to claim that I ever actually embraced liberalism as such as a youngster would simply be an untruth. The more truthful history of my formidable years is that I actually and really acted in defiance of what I knew to be the better way. And here's a key point that I don't want you all to miss...

You'll note in reading John's posted profile his honest acnowledgement that he was a liberal until about 2005. Now, either John exposes in himself a greater tendency to commit the greater sin by his ultimate conversion to conservatism (unless of course he's some kind of odd exception to his own rule, and I assume that he does admit of such exceptions as I do), or he exposes a real weakness in his argument, i.e., that all those years he was fondly embracing and likely propagating the idea of liberalism he was somehow shielded from his own self-awareness of his own more sinful tendencies, only for them to come to bear upon him at some later date. BTW, the weakness exposed in the argument better stated is this, that it necessitates that a great many people who would describe themselves as liberals have yet to come to this realization about themselves. Yet indeed they are the greater sinners, to which eventually many of them will be forced to conclude, embracing in that wake the more fitting ideal of conservatism. So how can it be concluded that liberals are the lesser sinners when indeed they are the greater sinners in a state of unawares?

There's another point I'm driving at here as well, and it is that my having never actually embraced liberalism as opposed to John's having actually done so by his own admission, I think presents us with two naturally opposing perspectives on the subject. And that while by comparison I might be considered the more 'experienced' conservative between the two of us, John would certainly be thought of as the more experienced across the spectrum of political philosophy. He has an understanding of the idea of liberalism that I just can't possess given my lack of personal experience with eagerly embracing the philosophy. In either case I think there is something to be learned of each of us. It is often stated within Christian circles, as an example, that we know the better way because we've experienced both worlds - the commission of sin without redemption, and of course its opposite. And I admit that I've always embraced this idea to some extent or the other. This idea necessarily works under the assumption that 'all men are more or less on an equal sinning field,' however, John would simply not accept that idea. But there is yet another conclusion which John draws on his conception worthy of note...

To John's mind, liberals, given their tendencies to be less disposed to sin, are naturally in need of less government than are their conservative counterparts. I find it extremely interesting, with this view in mind, that in John's espousing of the traditionalist conservative idealism he also, and by necessity of the philosophy itself, espouses a view of government less restricting, less powerful; less controlling. This to me is yet another weakness in his argument. For if conservatives actually need more government due to the comparatively egregious nature of their sin, and therefore embrace a political philosophy which tends to recognize this need more than its counterpart, then why does the philosophy itself vie for more self-government, and less external manifestations thereof? And of course given that this is indeed the case, then why would 'conservatives' be drawn to this political philosophy as opposed to the liberal kind? The question of course may be asked as well in the reverse - why does liberalism promote the idea of more government, and why are liberals who need less of it, according to John, drawn to the liberal philosophy and ideas of the same?

The only reasonable answer I can formulate on the proposition is that John must believe as well that liberals also possess a very keen and unique sense of recognizing in their more sinful brethren the very sinfulness that they themselves wrestle not with. Since liberals magically possess this more perfect awareness of the true nature of sin and of the sinful, liberals naturally embrace and actually demand a form of political philosophy which directs itself more to the control of the more egregious sins and the more likely perpetrators thereof, i.e. conservative doctrine, and conservatives. There's nothing wrong or immoral about this approach, of course, because liberals actually must possess this distinguishing and more righteous characteristic, while it must elude the great majority of conservatives given what we and our resulting philosophy are - sinful in the extreme. While we conservatives recognize and own our sinful tendencies, according to John's theory we possess a very imperfect understanding of its nature as compared to liberals.

Well, it won't surprise y'all that I simply reject this idea and all the related mess that naturally follows it. To my mind it is simply dangerous to assume one group of people to be more sinful than another. Eventually one must arrive at the ultimate conclusion that that group -the more sinful one- must be controlled by the other when in fact the opposite may be the case. I think the more reasonable approach is to count all men equally disposed to sin irrespective of their political philosophy. I don't deny John's assertion that certain individuals possess certain tendencies to commit certain kinds of sins, while others possess lesser tendencies in those areas. What I do deny though is his conclusion on that truth that these factors are indicative of an attraction to a certain political philosophy. This assertion necessarily denies mine that conservative people are simply more aware of their sins and the need to govern them, than are liberals generally speaking; that the two groups are more or less equally disposed to sin, yet unequally aware of the same.

But I wonder how liberals, not actually experiencing sinfulness to the extreme degree that conservatives do, can have such a keen awareness of the extreme sinfulness of conservatives and conservative idealism when their own experiences would lend to them little insight as to that which uniquely affects the latter group to the greater degree? Wouldn't logic dictate under these conditions that those who possess these characteristics to a greater degree would in turn most likely possess the better understanding of their causes and effects; or at least a greater degree of resolve to discover them?

In any event, and as per the usual, liberals are way more everything that is good and holy than are you and me less evolved conservatives. I can't say as that is much of a revelation to me given that I've been pounded over the head with it more or less all of my life. But you know me, I'm pretty thick headed.

-DW

Read More

Collecting Data

Once in a while I'm going to put up back-to-back posts, or even back-to-back-to-back posts encouraging you to drop by one of my stop-off places. This is one of those rare cases where indeed this post and the one preceding it names the same blog and the same blogger the primary source to which you should refer.

No doubt y'all have noted my covetous appreciation for the writing prowess of one Mr. John Savage. Lord knows I wish I had his talent. I guess some of us are just resigned to the fate of working for everything we get, eh John? kidding, kidding. ;)

Nonetheless, I'd like to direct your attentions to John's blog once again because I noted this morning during my stopover that he'd put up a poll which asks a very specific and interesting question, while providing ample answers for you to choose from. I encourage you to stop by and take the poll because John is collecting data for a specific purpose, the explanation for which may be had in John's reply to my comment to the post announcing it.

In the meantime I'm going to see if I can figure out a way to make this easier on myself. lol

-DW

Read More

Why Do I Object to the Savage Strategy?

As y'all know, John Savage from Brave New World Watch and I have been engaged in a cross-blog discussion over the merits of John's strategy to mobilize traditionalist voters to cast a vote in favor of Hillary come November, '08, given two established variables: 1. That Hillary is indeed the democrat nominee; and 2. that the eventual republican nominee is someone other than a traditionalist -Rudy, McRomney, Thompson, or the like. John says he'll vote for the traditionalist Republican should a traditionalist get the nomination. But he agrees with me that that's not a likely scenario.

Thus far the discussion has centered more on our clarifying our respective positions on the subject, or, to give one-another some bit of clarity on the other's written perspective. However, we seem to be past that stage of the discussion now, and hopefully we can move on to more of the meat of our arguments for and against the proposal.

Now, I should say that John seems to be committed to the strategy whether Hillary is the demo nominee or not. The reason I threw that variable in the mix though is because Hillary is probably the best example of the worst potential POTUS that most of us traditionalist voters can even imagine. So, though the Hillary factor (or variable) is not a determining factor for John, I assume that it would be for most traditionalist voters - in their case it might be the difference between their engaging the strategy or not.

What John is proposing may be summed up as follows (and if I get it wrong here, I trust he'll correct me): to basically violate all that you've ever thought right, proper, and sacred about your duty as an American citizen and a traditionalist, consciously choosing to cast your vote in favor of the candidate the farthest left of your own political philosophy. And if this strategy works in the way John speculates it will, you will have in actuality and by the very act itself, earned to yourself the laudable chacteristic of a true and a distinguished patriot.

My disagreement with the approach originally was based in part on the predisposition I had with regard to the strategy itself - that it was intended as a more election-wide strategy aimed at securing more defeats to republicans, which of course would be seats gained to the demos. And that is where I focused my attention in raising a contention with the approach. As John has patiently and politely explained to me, this was indeed an unwarranted assumption on my part. And I accept his explanation without further question.

Yet, I still find myself reeling at the thought of my casting a vote in favor of Hillary or any other democrat in the race right now, and against the republican challenger whomever that may be. And as I suggested originally, I still find it more palatable to simply recuse myself from that particular aspect of the upcoming election than to actively engage myself in the former.

But beyond the distastefulness of the thought of the whole thing, I do have actual concerns with the method and its most likely effects. John assumed that immigration was probably my chief concern with electing Hillary or one of her lesser-thans. But as I explained to him, that is not as much a concern to me as are other things connected with the office of the presidency.

For one, John tends to focus his attention on the internal aspects of the executive department, while I would place more emphasis than he does (or so far has) on the external aspects of that office. That is, where John devotes a lot of consideration to the workings of our federal executive with respect to ourselves, I would tend to consider the appointment of ambassadors to foreign nations as representatives of the United States as one example, as well as the executive's treaty responsibilities as yet another. And the reason I would put a lot of emphasis on those aspects of the presidency and the office-holder's duties therein is because foreign relations, even those between the U.S. and nations not particularly friendly to us, is one of those things that could be the difference between war and peace; that could be the difference between security and insecurity, not just between us and other nations, but between other nations friendly and unfriendly to the United States. And if there's anything I know to be an absolute truth, it is that this nation as such has an obligation among the nations to promote (not to establish it; not to entangle itself in foreign relations between differing foreign entities) peace between nations, as well as to guard against creating an instable situation between ourselves and other powers. It's in our interest as well as everyone else's to do so.

To put an analogy to it, and to bring it down to a more personal and individual level, it is my responsibility as a father to my children and a member of my community to establish and maintain order within and without my family as regards my family members' external relationships, not only for my family's sake, but for the greater good of the whole of my community, state, and nation. If I enter into a bit of strategery aimed at correcting a problem with my child's temper, yet putting the larger community at risk in the process, I've more or less made matters worse, not better; effectively endangering the very lives, liberties, and properties of my neighbors, not to mention giving them just cause for pitting themselves against me.

There is yet another concern I have about actively engaging the strategy. Whether I agree with them or not; whether I like them or not, Presidents of the United States now have the privelege of Executive Orders. And this is not a power that is likely to be removed from that branch anytime soon. One of the things with EOs that really bothers me is that many of them are enacted without the knowledge of the general public. It isn't bad enough that the president has this illegitimate power, but he/she generally utilizes it in a rather secretive fashion. I recognize that there are watchdogs out there keeping up with every move the president makes, but this seems to make little difference as to what the general public realizes about what their government and their executive is up to with regard to these particular orders.

Another concern is that of the President's appointment of executive officers to positions in the justice department and etc... I can't even fathom who Hillary's choice for the AG's position might be, or what her list of choices for the position might look like - remember Janet Reno, anyone? I for one remember very well the actions of a government gone completely and utterly berserk on the intoxicating influence of power during the former Clinton administration, and with the advantage of having a majority republican Congress, mind you. And if it's argued that we oughta be willing to sacrifice the few in the short term for the many over the long haul in a fashion remotely resembling that of the Clinton administration's murderous actions, I think I'm going to shoot myself. lol

But generally speaking I think a republican much easier controlled than a nutty democrat like Hillary or Edwards or Kerry or Gore, or whomever. Though they're savvy politicians, they're still nutty, and nutty people are just hard to contain within certain bounds. President Bush wasn't my first choice back in 2000 either. But I took him, and still would take him over Al Gore or John Kerry any day of the week and twice on Sunday. Personally I think more emphasis oughta be put on a strategy that, though it may seem an impossibility at this moment, would secure to us more long-term advantages than that offered by John. It also should take into consideration some of the ways in which a president of the United States is actually encouraged to, not discouraged from, act(ing) in defiance of the public's wishes and against their best interests. And what I'm getting at here is our limiting the president to two terms. Though we can't properly be credited with the creation of that amendment, we continue to sustain it to our own hurt in my opinion.

So, in essence I have a lot of concerns with engaging such an approach as John is suggesting. And there's more where those came from. When I was learning to fly airplanes one of the first things my instructor, as well as the training manuels I was reading, kept reiterating until he'd thoroughly driven it home was that of making coordinated turns particularly on approach to land. Pilots know that one of the most vulnerable times of their flights is during this transition from straight and level powered flight to entering the landing pattern/approach, and a whole heap of a pilot's required training is dedicated to properly piloting this transition. As the pilot begins to slow the airplane in this pattern through the use of flaps, and decreasing power, he is keeping a very watchful eye on his instruments which tell him such vital things as his relative airspeed, his heading, how many degrees of flaps he has engaged; and in his turns whether they are 'coordinated' or not. In other words, as every pilot knows full well, every time you adjust a single element of the airplane, to slow it, to turn, to gain or lose altitude, whatever, there is an effect on all the other aspects of your flight which you must account for if you care to live. And many a pilot has lost his life, and the lives of his passengers due to a neglect of some form to attend to this essential element of his flight.

Essentially I think John's proposal probably does not take into account enough of the necessary and related effects of engaging it. And that pretty well sums up my disagreement with the proposal. It's purpose is to create a manufactured crisis situation which might effectually spark a real crisis situation that we're not properly trained and equipped to handle when it comes down on us. And on that note, I disagree with John in his thought that a huge majority of Americans were against the amnesty bill. I rather think that a mobile and loud minority effected that outcome. I'm not sure it can with certain other things it's not so passionately opposed to, or not so keenly aware of. And though during my flight training we continually engaged in manufacturing crisis situations as an essential part of my training, we were always at a high enough altitude to allow for a safe recovery with plenty of altitude to spare, and I wasn't manufacturing them without a qualified pilot sitting next to me, ready to take the wheel and control of the airplane.

-DW

Read More

Time Isn't Always On My Side

Tirelessly, ceaselessly, intrepidly...wait!, I've already used that line somewhere else, haven't I, and the comparison that would ultimately be made by those who've read it in the other context wouldn't really be an appropriate one, now would it? lol Let's try this again...

Fearlessly, unceasingly, untiringly (it don't flow as well, but hey!), we've been working to make this blog more attractive, more useful, and more perfect overall. In so doing we've been forced to neglect, to some extent or another, other of our interests, some of which are vitally important to our well-being, our safety and our happiness; others of which are relatively minor by comparison.

Though I'd love to spend more time on the blogosphere than I'm currently able to, I'm really stretching it to dedicate as much time as I am to this pursuit right now. And with all the tech stuff we've been preoccupied with here at Webster's, a huge amount of the blogging time I'm spending now is devoted to that pursuit at the expense of quality writing.

As I said when we started this newest blogging venture, and as the blog description (in the left sidebar now, for those who haven't noticed it) makes clear, the whole purpose of Webster's is to advance and propagate the ideas of Balanced Government responsible for the creation of the AFB, and of this blog. Let me assure you all that although that has not necessarily been the case thus far, that responsibility is indeed very fresh on my mind, and will remain so. In fact, that's one reason that I insisted on the blog description being re-installed, just as a reminder to myself.

As for our work which provides us with subsistence and with a living that we have absolutely no complaints about, it's simply a matter of cautiously avoiding the neglect of that aspect of our lives in a way, or to an extent which would ulitmately be harmful to my business. At times we can afford to rob a little time here and there from our work and devote it to other pursuits like the blog. And we've done so lately to an extent, but as I said, we've been cautious about how much time we borrow from that vital interest. Besides that, one of the beauties of being self-employed is that the time stolen from one's business pursuits for the use of others may be more than made up for later on down the road when some of the pressure is removed elsewhere. But again, one has to be pretty careful about not overdoing it in that respect.

My main concern at this very moment with regard to our blogging interests, obviously, is to keep improving on Webster's until I'm completely satisfied with the layout, appearance, and all the little bells and whistles yet to be added. But in the grand scheme of things this is just a temporary thing. One of the changes you can look for in the pretty near future is the posting of (what I hope to be) quality material here at Webster's as well as over at the AFB. As I've said before, quality of content is very important to me. And the way this blog is shaping up, I now only hope that the content forthcoming is half as good, or it will all have been just a wasted effort on our parts. Forbid it!

In any event, my sincerest apologies to Mike and Edmund for neglecting my work over at the AFB. As I said before, it is only temporary. I appreciate the understanding of them both, and I thank Mike for once again willingly devoting a portion of his limited time to doing the heavy lifting over there while I concentrate my efforts more over here. I hope this serves as explanation enough to them both, and to the wider readership, about where we're at, where we're headed, and where my mind is with regard to the ultimate prize. More quality material to come shortly, I promise. And thanks again for the patience and understanding of you all.

-DW

Read More

Another Tech Update

Okay, first, it's nice to finally get a post up having the fifteenth letter in the alphabet as the opening letter in the opening paragraph. In the world of oversized first letters, the O may well be one of, if not the most endearing. And it's been all I could do to keep from forcing it into a post since we first added that feature a few days ago.

As for the rest of the blog and our continual work behind the scenes to improve upon and refine its quality of appearance, I think it's coming along very nicely. If you've been reading the comments, you're aware that Mom is responsible for the idea of the background color change in the header (I think it's a keeper, Mom. Thanks!), and that my good friend MT offered a suggestion along with an excellent example to study over at Katie's Dad's. Mom's suggestion was a bit easier to incorporate, of course, since it merely involved a color change. But we certainly won't allow the difficulty of adding a feature to deter us if in fact we count it a worthwhile addition. As Dad used to say: 'anything worth having is worth working for.' So, Mike, CTO knows how to do it, and he's just waiting on me to give him more specified instructions on that addition.

One of the coolest features newly added, in the opinions of CTO and I, is the scrollbar in the post section. It also happens to be one of the most challenging installations we've run across to date. Apparently blogger isn't set up for the addition of such a feature, and as of now there are no tech support resources to be found out there which explain how to do it. But I'm told that once you understand the limitations inherent to blogger, the addition of that and other features is really a fairly simple procedure. I'll take the word of CTO on that'n. And on that note, our very own CTO, to whom so many accolades have been directed lately, is himself working on his own 'tech support' blog. Look for it listed under my recommended links in the future.

To close this post out, let me reiterate that I'm very happy with the changes we've made over the last couple of weeks. The left and right sidebars, as opposed to just one sidebar, along with the post section in the center column was an absolute must as far as I was concerned because it would make or break the overall appearance I was looking for. It took a lot of technical work (again, on the part of CTO) to get that feature exactly as we needed it. But we finally got it, and I think that it makes for an outstanding feature overall.

And though I appreciate MT's honesty in expressing himself on the scrollbar feature, not to mention that his opinion on any matter ranks high with me, that's one feature that definately shall remain. But to show how much I value Mike's opinion on such matters, what we've done is to incorporate the feature with Mike's concern in mind. Essentially the way it'll work is this, and I need to get more material up to get the most benefit out of the incorporation, btw, so I have a lot of work to do: Whatever your preference is (use of the page scrollbar, and/or, use of the post scrollbar), both will be available to you, and both will function usefully in and of themselves so that the reader's personal preference is actually considered and accounted for. So with the addition of the post column scrollbar, we've very nearly 'had our cake and eaten it too;' a significant accomplishment in my books. ;)

Otherwise, if there are any other features that y'all can think of, or that you've seen somewhere else around the blogosphere, that you might think useful and appropriate to Web's, please do not hesitate to offer them up. I should say that we did try one feature that didn't really work out for us as we incorporated it -a 'read more' feature in the post section. This is not to say that we won't add it back in eventually, but it's very unlikely that we'll utilize it in the post section. The great likelihood is rather that we'll utilize the feature in conjunction with some other feature yet to be added. So once again, keep your eyes peeled for newly added features to this blog. But I think the overall look of the blog as you see it now is pretty much the way it shall remain, and I like it a lot, don't you?

-DW

Read More

Seeking Input

Here's your opportunity to make any suggestions on the appearance of Web's that you might have. And everyone's opinion counts. Right now I'd rather keep the content out of it, and to focus more on appearances. We can deal with content later.

So, are there any ideas any of you have with regard to the way the blog looks? Any criticism as to its appearance will be taken into serious consideration, as well as any idea for additional elements that you think might serve to make the page more attractive. It's not that big of a deal to try it, and if I don't like it we can simply disregard the addition and move on.

I know y'all have been saying to yourselves as you return to see differences in appearance shaping up on the blog from day to day: "Why don't they try this, or that; it sure would look better if they'd make this section this color, and if that were done to the other section...," and whatever. So, why don't you post a comment to this post informing me of what your ideas are? Don't leave me hangin' y'all! ;)

In any event there are more changes yet forthcoming. So y'all keep your eyes peeled.

-DW

Read More

Vote Democrat; Save the Republic?...

An idea that gets floated around from time to time is that of strategically utilizing the sacred franchise of the vote to effect a greater end within the 'conservative' hierarchy.

The idea is simply to join in a united, and a movement-wide effort to cast your vote in favor of the opposition candidate/candidates, essentially effecting an opposition win, which it is theorized will result in tempering the resolve of the wayward party, the core principles of which you actually and truly support.

John Savage over at Brave New World Watch (BNWW) wrote a piece on this very topic recently. Do go over and visit his blog, it's well worth your time.

The suggestion, or proposal for dealing with the crisis, if it comes to that, is an interesting one; one might even say an intriguing one. In theory it would work; in practice I ain't so sure. We've dealt with that before around here. And the truth of the matter is that I don't have much faith that it could ever actually work as proposed.

I can't say as I agree with the method, as you readers have undoubtedly figured out by now, but I certainly understand why someone would conclude that kind of approach a viable, and even a preferable option given the apparent state of confusion about who and what it is, seemingly pervading the GOP right now.

Committing just a quick bit of reflection to it, I think my main disagreement with the approach, however, is this: that I really don't think 'conservative America' can find the inner strength at this moment to effect that kind of a systematic, united, purposeful, and strategic effort. At least I don't think it ('conservative America') could sustain it (the effort) even if it found that inner strength, or remnants of it hiding somewhere deep within itself. I just don't think we're accustomed to digging that deep within us as a group, nor to committing ourselves to such a systematic cause greater than ourselves, and over the long haul, which for me may be said to account for a lot, if not most of the problems we find ourselves facing these days.

Do I deny that it is there, somewhere, waiting to be re-discovered and brought to the fore? No; I don't deny the inner strength of true conservatives; the principled basis upon which our philosophy is erected, and to which it is firmly anchored. To deny it would be no less than to resign myself to a hopeless feeling of impending doom for conservatism, by extension for the nation as a whole. And I ain't ready to do that by any means.

Indeed, I think that it is that kind of inner strength which is usually to be found in an actual crisis situation, not a manufactured one. And that's why I question a conservative-wide commitment to it. After all, 'mankind is more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves...' This suggestion is to me nothing less than a proposal to attempt to manufacture a crisis, and as I said, manufactured crises are not the same as actual ones.

We (and I'm painting with a pretty broad brush here, but for a reason) tend to focus so much on our petty differences, and this practice has become so habitual for us, that we tend to forget what it is that truly unites us many times...most of the time, even. But beyond that, I think we average joe conservatives have lost our sense of direction enough, and again, habitually so, that an attempt at what some are proposing would likely end, if it could ever actually be effected movement wide, in a chaotic going in all directions except the right one. And the only thing I see benefitting from that is the opposition movement if it recognizes what is happening well enough to capitalize on it. Perhaps I give them too much credit, but I think the opposition has proven themselves on more than a few occasions a pretty savvy bunch.

But this is a really deep subject which is deserving of much more time and reflection than I have to give it at this moment. Don't be surprised if I devote yet another post, or even several more to the topic. In any event it'll make for some good discussion, I'm sure, as it has in the past.

P.S. as y'all can see we're still making lots of changes to the blog, and there remains much more work to be done. Please be patient with us as we tirelessly work to perfect it for your viewing pleasure.

-DW

Read More

Behind the Scenes

Most of you have probably noticed that Webster's, and in some cases the AFB, have been undergoing frequent changes in appearance the last few weeks. This is all in an effort to provide the readership with a more quality product, both in appearance and in actual content.

Many thanks go out again to our CTO for providing technical assistance in making these marked improvements to the blogs.

With respect to Webster's, I had an idea in the beginning of what the blog should look like. As far as he could, our CTO reworked our chosen template so as to accomodate some of the vital changes in format that I thought were needed. But the template we chose (as a matter of convenience for the time being) has proven to be less than accomodating to certain improvements I'd still like to make.

Therefore, we've concluded that a whole new template, customized to our desires, is the best means to effect our ends. I could never even begin such a work without the aid of our CTO, who again is solely responsible for the actual changes that you've been witnessing here at Webster's and at the AFB. And considering the lack of compensation he is receiving for his work, I do indeed owe him a great debt of gratitude, as has been said.

But don't be surprised if you happen by sometime in the relatively near future only to find a completely new look here at Webster's. If everything goes off without too many hitches, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised at the coming changes. And I think you'll probably agree that those changes forthcoming will prove the difference between what is now a quality appearance, and what shall be then a superior one.

Let us hope that the content is as good. I may need some help...

-DW

Read More

Where do the Candidates Stand?

Here's an informational site that's definately worth your time to visit: On the Issues. I ran across it while doing a search for information on Fred Thompson. Speaking of which, as I've shared with my brothers, Mike and Edmund, off blog, I happened to catch just a few minutes of an interview conducted with Fred on Fox News' "Hannity and Colmes" one night a few weeks ago. Sean Hannity conducted the interview.

Truthfully, I can't recall what about Thompson's responses to Hannity's questions left me with an overall feeling of 'this guy ain't impressing me' (perhaps he was too vague in his answers, or maybe he had some 'left-leaning' ideas that I picked up on; I just don't really recall to be honest.), but that's the feeling I came away with during the short time I half-heartedly listened to the interview.

To be fair, I should make it perfectly clear, if I haven't already, that I wasn't paying real close attention to the interview with Thompson. As I said, I just happened to catch the interview somewhere in the midst of it, and as I recall I was working on something else at that moment and Thompson failed to redirect my full attention away from my other work, and toward the interview.

I also understand that short interviews like that, due to the constraints of time and so forth, make it very difficult to get a clear picture of a candidate's stance on the numerous issues that are generally touched upon within the context of the interview itself, or to get a grasp on the candidate's command of a given subject, or the lack thereof. Not to mention that the interviewer himself is constrained in what questions to ask, how general or specific he may be, and so on and so forth due to the same time constraints.

So in essence what I'm saying is that though I came away from that interview with a general feeling of disappointment in Thompson's performance in a rather friendly atmosphere, given all the hype surrounding his possible candidacy, I also recollect that my attention was a bit distracted away from the interview at the time, which probably accounts for some of disappointedness I was left feeling. That probably doesn't speak very well of me and my ability to focus my undivided attention on something that warrants it, but I'm just being honest here, and I'm willing to take the risk of seeming a little scatter-brained at times. Indeed, I own that I am once in a while.

Notwithstanding that, the site that I provided the link to at the top of the post is indeed, as I said, worth your time to visit. The positions of all the candidates ('big boys' and 'little boys' alike) on all the major issues are provided under generalized headings for each individual candidate. Each candidate has his/her own page devoted to providing a record of their votes on specific issues and pieces of legislation under more generalized headings. A short synopsis is given of the paticular issue or legislation in question, along with the vote of the candidate in question. And a more detailed explanation of the candidate's position is further expounded upon by clicking on one of the links provided under each heading.

Here's a sample randomly chosen from Fred Thompson's page:

Fred Thompson on Abortion

Click here for 6 full quotes on Abortion OR other candidates on Abortion OR background on Abortion.

• Roe v. Wade was bad law and bad science. (Jun 2007)
• Appoint strict constructionist judges. (Jun 2007)
• Has never been pro-choice despite 1994 news reports. (Jun 2007)
• Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
• Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
• Voted YES on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998)

Hope y'all get some good use out of the site...

Read More

No 'Exit Strategy,' Tom?

Is Tom Tancredo our man for the White House? And if not, then who?

It's a pertinent question, and one which we could (and should I suppose), ask ouselves in relation to every other prominent (or not so prominent) candidate on the campaign trail in the not-too-distant future.

As I was making my morning rounds -a thing that has become something of an enjoyable ritual for me lately- along the blogosphere, I ran into excerpts of this Backwoods Interview with Tom Tancredo posted over at VA's.

As I read the entire interview via the link provided, I noticed early on in the discussion that the question was posed (indirectly) and that Tancredo, picking up on and addressing it, refused to nail down an 'exit strategy' for his campaign. According to Tancredo, 'you can't really do that because once you've made the commitment to run, and you've accepted money and other kinds of support from various and sundry supporters who believe in your cause, you feel obligated to stay in the fight as long as you can, and to push your/their main agenda to the fore.'

For Tancredo that main agenda is immigration reform; real immigration reform. That is why he got into the race to begin with. And as the interview makes abundantly clear, that is why he's still in it at this moment, despite his low polling numbers.

I suppose that on a certain level one can use the same sort of approach with regard to the 'war in Iraq,' and the larger 'war on terror.' Many of us believed from the beginning, and still do today, that once we made the commitment to the Iraq war and the WoT, that we were in it for the long-haul, and that seeking an exit strategy too soon would be disastrous for the country and for the cause. But that's really a different discussion altogether, and I only mention it here because I see some parallels here with regard to what the two men (Tancredo, and President Bush) are passionate about and why an exit strategy as such is not currently an option for either of them in their endeavors.

But as far as I can tell by the interview, Tom Tancredo is all that he says he is, as well as all that he says he isn't. And that latter part is significant. The whole of the interview had me feeling as though this man is truly a regular guy just as he says he is. And of course I can identify with a lot of what he exposes in the interview; the travel to and fro would be a killer, and it would just get to a guy, y'know. Not to mention his freely admitting that the campaign necessitates that he neglect certain family things like, for instance, where he laments over the fact that he can't attend baseball games his grandchildren are playing in, and so on.

But one of the things I find so appealing about Tancredo, and that which sets he and one or two more apart from the rest of the pack to my mind is this very fact that indeed, he is a regular person just like you and me. And btw, I'll address all you self-indulging 'irregular' persons shortly...

Those of you who've been there right along with me in the muck and mire over the last couple or three years probably recall that the quality of 'intellectualism' in and of itself carries little weight with me, particularly when it is considered by some to be of the utmost import in choosing a Presidential candidate behind whom one gets and offers his/her full support. Those of us who were there recall all the self-promoting claims of 'intellectual superiority' interspersed throughout the vitriol of one individual whose name I'll not mention here. But I think it's significant because I think that down deep, this is what 'intellectualism,' and/or, one's being convinced of his/her own superiority therein does to a person. And this is one of the main differences I see between someone like Tancredo, and, say, someone like Ron Paul.

Not that Ron Paul has necessarily given me the impression that he thinks himself superior intellectually to his opponents. There is a slight tinge of that in his speeches and interviews and such, but I don't see it as a big problem with Paul. It's more to the point, I think, that a good proportion of those who support him point to this aspect of Paul (his 'intellectualism') as that one factor that should draw us, above all else, to support his campaign.

Now, I should say that I don't believe there's anything wrong with being an intellectual per se, nor is there anything wrong with identifying that aspect of a candidate as something important to be considered. But when too much emphasis is placed on a person's 'intellectualism,' and the lack thereof in his opponents by inference, I for one start to get a little concerned.

Do we seek in our POTUS an intellectual, first and foremost, or do we seek in him/her someone with good, solid character qualities; someone devoted to family, to God, to country; to liberty and justice for all; someone who truly 'bears true faith and allegiance to the same?' As for me I openly admit that intellectualism comes in a distant second to outstanding qualities of personal integrity and character. The 'quality' of intellectualism, or what the term seems to signify these days, doesn't even register on my radar until I have something of an understanding of the internal character of the individual under my investigation. Then, and only then, when I've identified and am convinced that the candidate in question has a good, solid moral foundation; that his/her personal life and political career are marked by such outstanding qualities of personal integrity and moral character, will I begin to consider his/her intellectual capacity and how much that factor weighs into my choice. So to me, for supporters of a particular candidate to point out that aspect of their choice's person as THE quality most appealing in him, tends more to turn me off than to turn me on to the candidate.

So, all that considered, is Tancredo my man? Well, you could certainly come to that conclusion based on the contents of this post. But the truth of the matter is that I've still not decided who that special candidate is for me. At this point I'm just beginning to investigate the different aspects of the different candidates, and as I've said, Tancredo's 'regular guy' qualities are pretty appealing to me. And he doesn't appear to me to be no dummy either.

There are really only one or two more candidates currently in the race that appeal to me at all. One is Duncan Hunter, and the other is Ron Paul whose libertarian undergirdings, very evident in virtually all of his speeches and writings I've read so far, are becoming more and more troublesome. I can't help it, y'all, that's just the way I feel. But you're more than welcome to try to dispel some of the predispositions and notions I have with regard to libertarianism if you like...

-DW
Ron+Paul '08 elections president canidate news+and+politics

Read More

Happy Birthday Hoover Dam, and...

How many of you have ever heard of "The Hoover Dam Bypass Project?" I had never heard of it before, and only ran across the story while reading the AP headlines and this day in history, July 7, 2007.

According to the AP, work began on Boulder Dam on July 7th, 1930. That makes the dam 77 years old by my calculations, at least the initial phases of it.

It seemed like something worthy of note so I thought I'd put a post up about it, and I went in search of a photograph of the Dam to accompany the post. The photo you see posted is one among several on the Hoover Dam Bypass site that was brought up when I entered the words "Hoover Dam." Initially I had planned to put up a photo of the dam and to say a few things about the significance of the date in relation to the construction of the dam itself, and perhaps a few thoughts about our visit to the site in 2002. But my plans for the post were quickly altered by the revelation I was about to receive.

If you'll look closely at the photo I've chosen to put up, you'll note several odd, seemingly out of place, shadow-casting protrusions on the Nevada side of the canyon that certainly weren't there in '02 when my family and I visited the Hoover Dam. Those protrusions are piers in various stages of completion set in place to support the nearly two thousand foot long bridge that will eventually span the Black Canyon overhanging the mighty Colorado River approximately 1600 ft. south of the dam itself.

Work on the Nevada side of the project is said to be 70% complete, while work on the Arizona side is 100% completed. The project website projects that the entire Bypass project will be completed no later than 2010, and judging by the photographic record it looks like they're well on schedule.

People visiting the dam after 2010 will certainly be treated to a new view from either the Nevada or the Arizona side. And of course crossing the bridge itself will offer a view of the dam that few have ever experienced before other than in photos. Also as part of the project are several other bridges on both the Arizona and the Nevada sides, as well as sections of connecting highway of course, and etc...

You can check it all out for yourself at the project website.

And be sure to tour the photo gallery. Included in the gallery are photos of the various stages of the work as they have been conducted over the last several years, as well as renderings of what the final project will look like once the work is completed.

Read More

2/3 to 3/4 of Americans Communists, depending...

Anyone who knows me well at all knows that I don't care for polls and surveys and such. I think it's a rare occurance indeed when a survey consisting of five hundred or a thousand people polled hits upon a single, much less numerous sentiments consistent with the general sense of a citizenry topping 270 million.

I don't think it's necessarily a purposeful misleading that these poll-takers are engaging in, but I don't necessarily believe it isn't either. It all depends on the reasoning behind the particular poll taken, who's conducting it, what kinds of questions are asked, what kinds of answers are provided, and so on and so forth. All of these factors weigh into the final outcome of the survey in question.

I admit that I'm not well versed in the science of poll taking. And I suppose that there are methods to the madness that I'm probably overlooking. But I think it's hard to make a case for polls basing their findings on such an insignificant proportion of the citizenry as the one the story below cites...

WASHINGTON (AP) --

Income differences in the U.S. are too stark, and the government should provide jobs and training for those having a tough time, according to majorities in a national poll released Thursday.

About seven in 10 said discrepancies between income levels are too large, a sentiment voiced by nearly two-thirds of those from households earning at least $80,000 a year, the survey said. Three-fourths of people earning less than $80,000 agreed.

Eight in 10 said the gap between the rich and the middle class has worsened over the last 25 years, said the survey by the University of Connecticut's Center for Survey Research and Analysis.

The poll comes in the early stages of a 2008 presidential campaign in which several Democratic candidates have discussed a widening distance between the country's rich and poor.
Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards has made ''two Americas'' one of his favorite themes. Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois have also touched on the topic.

In the survey, 58 percent said large pay differences help get people to work harder. Yet 61 percent said such discrepancies are not needed for the country to prosper.

Two-thirds said the government should make sure there is a job for everyone who wants one. Small majorities said it should provide jobs for people who can't find private employment, increase federal training programs and redistribute money with high taxes on the wealthy.

Even so, nearly two-thirds said it is not the government's responsibility to ease income differences.

The survey was conducted from June 18 to July 2 and involved telephone interviews with 500 adults nationally. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.

My question is simply this: How do these surveys show such disparate results on different, yet obviously related questions asked of the same individuals; why are there such inconsistencies shown in the answers given? Are people truly that fickle about what they believe?

The results to which I refer in this particular survey are of course those showing very even percentages (58% and 61% respectively) of people who apparently believe on the one hand that 'large pay differences help get people to work harder,' yet on the other that 'such discrepancies (in pay I'm assuming) are not needed for the country to prosper.' Huh!?....prosperity has no relationship to incentive, yet it does; productivity is, or it isn't to be associated with success? I'm getting more confused by the second.

Other results from this survey I'm referring to are the ones indicating that two out of three people surveyed believe the government should 'make sure there is a job for everyone who wants one,' and nearly two out of three people surveyed believe that 'it's not the government's responsibility to ease income differences.' Say what!? On the one hand it IS the government's responsibility to provide jobs for those unemployed 'against their will;' on the other hand, and at the same time, it IS NOT the responsibility of government to do anything about the income gap between the, what, 'over-employed,' and the 'under-employed?'

Okay, obviously I'm utterly confused now. And I admit that the more surveys I read, the more confused I get, as a general rule. That probably accounts for most of why I'm simply not a survey/poll kinda fella. The results have never made much sense to me, and I think, based in part on these and others I've had the misfortune to read, they probably never will.

The only thing I've ever found to be consistent in the published results of most polls I've read is the overall tendency for them to show inconsistencies in the thinking of the individuals polled. In other words, they're consistently inconsistent. That fact in itself is enough for me to shy away from putting any stock whatsoever in poll and survey results of virtually any kind, on questions of virtually any kind.

Having taken a few polls myself, I can tell you that my personal experience is that the questions are always either too vaguely asked (not specific enough), or the answers provided are too few or too vague in themselves; or both. In fact, I've given up right in the midst of taking a poll due to these very factors before. I have no interest whatsoever in answering questions wherein someone has already predetermined for me that my answers must fall within a certain range of responses carefully chosen and framed by...someone.

So what is my point, you may be asking? I guess my main point is that I don't like polls, and I want you to know it. Other than that I'd be remiss if I didn't touch on the upside to the poll - only a 'small majority' of Americans (according to the survey) are true believers in the principles of communism. We can chalk that up to the triumph of capitalism I guess.

-DW

Read More

July Fifth

Around my house we refer to the 'fourth of July' as "Independence Day." And we make allowances for few exceptions to the rule. I've never tried it yet, but I think I may, one of these years, make an effort to fill in the date line on a personal check on that day, "Independence Day, 200(8,9, whatever). Y'all remind me next year and I'll sure give 'er a shot. As a matter of fact, I'll make it a point next year to pay by check on that day for any purchases I make, and we'll see how many of 'em get through. If questioned about the date, I'll simply reply: "isn't that the way you spell july fourth?" lol

Independence Day is one of the few days in the year that I absolutely refuse to work on. Others are Thanksgiving and Christmas Days. My personal opinion is that what with all the holidays listed on the calendar, weekends, birthdays, anniversaries, and what have yous, there are an abundance of reasons and days to take off work, few of which rise to the level of holy day status. For myself and my family, the three days I've listed above pretty well cover it. And btw, neither do we refer to Christmas Day as December twenty fifth. Hey!, there's another idea for making transactions on that day (only those that are necessary, of course). The date line might read: "CHRIST-mas day, 2007; or I just might throw an "anno domini" in there somewhere, who knows.

Anyway, here we find ourselves on July fifth; the day after Independence Day. Nothing really significant about this day except, as I said, it's the day after a significant American holiday. And of course there's a lot of cleanup to be done and whatnot. But more importantly it's a good day for reflection...

We had a fair Independence Day this year. And there's a reason I say "fair" the details of which I won't share with you here. Suffice it to say that something unexpected happened that pretty well threw all our planned events somewhat out of whack. Nonetheless, we had a lot of fireworks (and I do mean a lot) and we managed to get them all fired off. My eldest son and I took the opportunity from work to build a nice picnic table for the family as well. There was plenty of food and all that too.

Another thing we did this year, different than years preceding, was to make colonial style hats for the two younger boys. And since they have dvds of "Johnny Tremain," and the "Daniel Boone" series, they thought those were about the coolest things they'd ever been given, and they wore them with pride. I remember one year that my wife helped the girls make themselves Pilgrim style dresses for Thanksgiving. They came complete with bonnets and aprons, and the whole nine yards, no pun intended.

On the hats for the boys, and if you care to do it for your own sometime, they're very easy to make, and inexpensive too. Just buy them a five-dollar 'felt' cowboy hat at Wal-mart or wherever. In my neck of the woods Wal-mart keeps them in stock in youth sizes. Other than that, all you have to have is something with which to pin the rim up on the sides and at the back. That's all there is to it. My wife used a needle and thread with ours. All I did was show her (precisely) where to sew. On the dresses for the girls, well, you'd have to discuss that with my wife.

But like I said, all-in-all we had a nice Independence Day celebration this year. The children certainly enjoyed it thoroughly. They had a lot of fun setting things up, decorating the yard with balloons and flags and other patriotic novelties. And of course, as I said, the fireworks were plenty and of very good quality this year. And I expect that the boys will henceforth want their hats as part of their way of celebrating future Independence Days. In fact, I think I'll make me one next year.

I hope all of you had a nice Independence Day celebration as well. And may we all improve upon our celebrations in the years to come.

-DW

Read More

Star Spangled Banner

Just a short note to encourage you, if you happen to stop by, to turn your volume up and listen to my very favorite rendition of the Star Spangled Banner.

I first ran across it several years ago while shopping for patriotic cassette tapes at Hasting's, or somewhere like that. Of course I now have the CD version of the collection entitled: "Stars and Stripes Forever, Volume II."

Many thanks again to our CTO for putting it up, along with the waving banner. And also for the work done to the AFB button. Very nice!

Hopefully the music'll help to get you in the right mood for the day's activities. And if you've never heard this rendition before, wait for the introduction of the Piano....very uplifting, very encouraging, very....American!

Perhaps we'll put up other patriotic music that perhaps some of you have never had the pleasure of hearing. I can think of a couple of songs from a Boston Pops album -America The Beautiful- offhand that probably exist in relative obscurity. And of course the Mormon Tabernacle Choir is famed for its many albums containing patriotic music.

Enjoy!

-DW

Read More

Monumental use of Wisconsin Cheddar

This story's a few days old, but nonetheless interesting.

The artist, Troy Landwehr, was commissioned by Cheez-it snack crackers to sculpt this 700 lb. block of Land-O-Lakes cheddar into a replica of one of America's most recognizable landmarks.

The story goes on to say that the cheesy Mt. Rushmore look alike is to go on tour beginning in New York, and ending in, of all places, Oklahoma where it will be cut into cubes becoming itself a snack...or I guess many snacks.

According to the story, Landwehr isn't bothered by the ultimate fate determined for his sculpture. He figures we Okies'll love eating good Wisconsin cheddar. And I'd have to say he's right.

I admire Landwehr's skill, and I always enjoy the taste of Wisconsin's finest. And Cheez-Its rank among the family's favorite snacks. So I guess you might say we're experiencing the best of everything down here in Okie land.

-DW

Read More

Dearest Abigail,...

The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epoch in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever...

Most, if not all of you are probably familiar with the quote above, and recognize it as an excerpt from a letter written by John Adams to his wife Abigail, after having sat through the reading of the Declaration of Independence with his brethren in the Continental Congress. The letter goes on to reflect that while his words might cast an appearance of being overly exuberant on the memorable occasion, that indeed he was well aware of the sacrifices that must follow in support of the Declaration.

In the many years since I first learned of the significance of the second day of July to this nation's founding, it has been my tradition on that day to reflect upon the prophetic words of John Adams. I like to take myself back to that day and imagine that I'm seated in Independence Hall listening intently as the Declaration of Independence is read to the members of Congress. As I look around the room observing the solemnity of the occasion evident on the somber yet determined faces of the body history establishes in such a favorable light, I myself am moved with a range of emotions perhaps not too remotely different than those which must have enveloped John Adams as he expressed them in his letter to Abigail.

Of course, our time-honored tradition as a nation is indeed to celebrate the nation's birthday in ways very close to those which Mr. Adams expressed to Abigail as he envisioned them. And though there are many who dishonor the occasion with drunkenness, irreverance, and through general displays of lasciviousness, there are yet a great many of us, I must believe, who take care on the occasion to honor the memory, the work, and the great sacrifice of our glorious forefathers. And I should hope that each of us may count ourselves among the latter group, non-participants by choice in irreverant displays of a feigned patriotism, for some more properly denominated as just another day to engage in personal activities more properly associated with the idea of license, than of liberty.

On this memorable day, July 2nd, 2007, I am thankful that Adam's letter to Abigail was preserved for my own discovery some years later. For since that day of discovery, it has served as a reminder to bridle my activities in the coming days in such a way that cannot be construed, particularly for my children, to dishonor the memories and the sacrifices of our founding generation.

-DW

Read More

Survey Says?...

Here's an AP story that's just got me utterly confused:

NEW YORK (AP) -- The percentage of Americans who consider children ''very important'' to a successful marriage has dropped sharply since 1990, and more now cite the sharing of household chores as pivotal, according to a sweeping new survey.

The Pew Research Center survey on marriage and parenting found that children had fallen to eighth out of nine on a list of factors that people associate with successful marriages -- well behind ''sharing household chores,'' ''good housing,'' ''adequate income,'' a ''happy sexual relationship'' and ''faithfulness.''

In a 1990 World Values Survey, children ranked third in importance among the same items, with 65 percent saying children were very important to a good marriage. Just 41 percent said so in the new Pew survey.
Chore-sharing was cited as very important by 62 percent of respondents, up from 47 percent in 1990.

The survey also found that, by a margin of nearly 3-to-1, Americans say the main purpose of marriage is the ''mutual happiness and fulfillment'' of adults rather than the ''bearing and raising of children.''

The survey's findings buttress concerns expressed by numerous scholars and family-policy experts, among them Barbara Dafoe Whitehead of Rutgers University's National Marriage Project.

''The popular culture is increasingly oriented to fulfilling the X-rated fantasies and desires of adults,'' she wrote in a recent report. ''Child-rearing values -- sacrifice, stability, dependability, maturity -- seem stale and musty by comparison.''

Virginia Rutter, a sociology professor at Framingham (Mass.) State College and board member of the Council on Contemporary Families, said the shifting views may be linked in part to America's relative lack of family-friendly workplace policies such as paid leave and subsidized child care.

''If we value families ... we need to change the circumstances they live in,'' she said, citing the challenges faced by young, two-earner couples as they ponder having children.

The Pew survey was conducted by telephone from mid-February through mid-March among a random, nationwide sample of 2,020 adults. Its margin of error is 3 percentage points.
Among the scores of questions in the survey, many touched on America's high rate of out-of-wedlock births and of cohabitation outside of marriage. The survey noted that 37 percent of U.S. births in 2005 were to unmarried women, up from 5 percent in 1960, and found that nearly half of all adults in their 30s and 40s had lived with a partner outside of marriage.
According to the survey, 71 percent of Americans say the growth in births to unwed mothers is a ''big problem.'' About the same proportion -- 69 percent -- said a child needs both a mother and a father to grow up happily.

Breaking down the responses, the survey found some predictable patterns -- Republicans and older people were more likely to give conservative answers that Democrats and younger adults. But the patterns in regard to race and ethnicity were more complex.

For example, census statistics show that blacks and Hispanic are more likely than whites to bear children out of wedlock. Yet according to the survey, these minority groups are more inclined than whites to place a high value on the importance of children to a successful marriage.

The survey found that more than 80 percent of white adults have been married, compared with about 70 percent of Hispanics and 54 percent of blacks. Yet blacks were more likely than whites and Hispanics to say that premarital sex is always or almost always morally wrong.
Among those who have ever been married, blacks (38 percent) and whites (34 percent) were more likely than Hispanics (23 percent) to have been divorced.

Delving into one of the nation's most divisive social issues, the survey found that 57 percent of public opposes allowing gays and lesbians to marry. However, opinion was almost evenly divided on support for civil unions that would give same-sex couples many of the same rights as married couples.

Asked about the trend of more same-sex couples raising children, 50 percent said this is bad for society, 11 percent said it is good, and 34 percent said it made little difference.

On the Net:
Pew Research Center: http://people-press.org//

Y'know, I have to wonder...ummm, I tell ya what, if you all would care to participate, I'd like to hear from you on what you believe some of the problems with this story are. I have a couple of my own ideas about why the survey results came out as they did, but I wonder what your thoughts are. And I can't wait to read 'em.

-DW

Read More

What say we cut the President a little slack...

There's an AP story out this morning -Supreme Court Term Shows Shift to the Right- which focuses, as the title implies, on the noticeable trend of the Supreme Court during its last term to render its decisions in a more right leaning fashion.

This story underscores, I think, one of the outstanding accomplishments of the Bush Presidency. And to my mind will forever cast a more favorable light on this administration than on either of the two preceding it. Depending on how one looks at it; that is, the worldview perspective that invariably guides one's thinking on such a subject, the appointments of Alito and Roberts to the court might be said to be the defining characteristic of the Bush Presidency, for better or for worse.

I own that I voted for President Bush twice, and on reflection I don't regret either vote. As I've said before, I've never thought of him as much of a 'conservative,' but he is a damn sight more conservative than either of his opponents were/are. And seriously, folks, I could never have, in good conscience, voted for the other candidates. Nor could I have chosen not to vote, or encouraged it in others, given the gravity of the situation. And here is an undeniable case in point, for even the most extreme conservative Bush-bashers out there must at least acknowledge that the trend cited in this AP story is a quantifiable step, though a small one it may be and of little consolation to some, in the right direction for the court and for the country over which it presides.

Now, with the recent happenings concerning the amnesty bill, the President has managed to get severely under my skin too. I think I even referred to him as 'El Presidente' once or twice during the more stressful moments of the late showdown. And I admit that his getting chummy with the gentle-scum from Massachusetts (to whom I'll yield none of my time) didn't sit well with me either. I don't necessarily regret having said what I said (I'm a big believer in the idea of 'if you've got it coming to you, just buckle up and take it like a man'), I do however regret what the expression of it might imply - that I harbor contempt for the President himself, and the office that he occupies. Neither of which is the case.

We must be cautious, my friends, to incorporate in our own assessments of a given situation the idea of balance. And a balanced perspective on the president takes many variables which may not be readily apparent into consideration. The way we think the President should be conducting himself under a given scenario is not necessarily the way reality lends itself to the actuality of the thing. Let us always keep in mind that so long as this nation is inhabited by a more or less dependent citizenry then the various branches of government are likely going to be negatively affected in the manner in which they conduct themselves, their proceedings, and the administration of their duties. Even the best preachers can be limited in their effectiveness by disaproval within their congregations.

We also must remember that the President is a human being, which is to say corrupt to some extent or the other. And it's not like we bear no responsibility for the mess we're in. To the contrary I'd say we bear most of it. But I can tell you that if I were tasked with taking over a business which had been poorly managed for years and years, the great likelihood is that many of the correctives I'd initiate (if I could successfully navigate all the obstacles in the way) would probably cast an appearance of being detrimental to the business itself, and self-aggrandizing to me, simply based on the fact that they would at first appear to be radical changes for some within the company. Furthermore, if I were given two, and only two, limited terms in which to accomplish my objectives without the possibility of being chosen for another term, then I think reasonably it's hard to argue that my second term would experience anywhere near the successes I may have had in my first. Provide me with a hostile board of directors, and so on and so forth, and, well, you get the point.

But truly folks (and I'm speaking mainly to you conservatives out there) we can be thankful for President Bush's appointees to the federal courts, and to the High Court. I mean, it's not like it wasn't a battle all the way through. And even if there were nothing else that he'd accomplished during his Presidency, this in itself is vindication enough for this conservative and his choice on both occasions of Bush's election.

Let us be minful of that, and let's cut the President some slack, shall we?

-DW

Read More

A New AFB log-o-Venture

It occured to me, ladies and gentlemen, that as my friends and I were beginning to break new ground as far as our blogging efforts are concerned, that all of us might be better served if we were to add a new feature to the AFB whereby each of us contributers would have his own page available for the posting of individual thoughts, reflections, commentaries and opinions on the vast array of subjects which seem to occupy our minds these days, yet do not necessarily fall within the purview, or the scope of what the AFB is here to provide.

While the AFB is a great forum for posting all of these and more, little reflection on the subject, and on the limitations of the blog itself, particularly under a team concept as the AFB has been built and developed around, tends to yield conclusions that one of several ameliorating options is available to us. As for right now, this is the option that we chose because it seemed to us the best, and the simplest solution to a potential and anticipated problem.

Just to offer you a brief overview of what you might expect to see here at Webster's Blogspot, I will say that I'll strive to put together thought provoking, informative, and interesting pieces that, as I said, might not necessarily fall within the general scope of the AFB...

The toughest part in taking on this new venture may well prove to be in delineating between what belongs over here at Webster's, and what properly belongs at the AFB. I promise to give you my very best efforts in making those determinations, and I'd respectfully ask in return that you'd grant me some degree of latitude in that regard as I'm very likely to make numbers of errors in judgment therein. On the other hand, I'd certainly appreciate any constructive criticisms you may have with what I'm posting here so that I may take them into consideration in an effort to improve upon, and to provide a truly valuable product tending, as is intended, to compliment our efforts at the AFB.

Finally, with regard to my resurrected pen-name, Daniel Webster, I must admit that I have grown accustomed and quite attached to using it. I thought that this forum would be a great place to re-establish the usage, satisfying my own good pleasure. As I think I've said before, it's not that I count myself worthy of the name, or among the ranks of such eminent men as he; far from it. It is more to the idea that the name itself inspires a sense of principled guidance or influence in me, and helps me stay focused on what it is I'm trying to achieve.

And so we set upon a new venture here. It's my fondest hope that it will bode well for us all, and as I said, will prove a fitting compliment to the AFB. And with that I will sign off for now...

Your humble and faithful servant,

-DW

Read More

Comments or Suggestions to Lawrence Auster on Islam

Please leave your comment or suggestion here. Thank you.

Read More