We Interrupt this Broadcast to Bring You a Special Story

So I rise early this morning to get back to work on my commitments here at Webster's, but before I start I make a couple of my usual rounds, and wouldn't you know it, I run into this posting over at VA's: 'Too many People'

I'm going to attempt to make this fairly short and sweet. VA does a fine job of saying most of what I should like to say anyhow, and more...

In some ways it reminds me of a debate I had some months back with a liberal gal about 'mountain climbers,' and whether or not they contribute to society. And BTW, if you're debating a thoroughly indoctrinated liberal person, you're not going to convince them, so from my view that shouldn't be your purpose anyhow. Your purpose should be, as I've learned, to refute their arguments for the sake of the wider audience.

But getting back to the point, this person was arguing that mountain climbers, and those who engage in activities she later generalized as “high risk sports” or something like that, do not contribute to society and should be forced to contribute to society through differing means like training in mountain climbing techniques which would be taxed heavily, fees paid to climb a given mountain which would go to fund rescue efforts and so forth. This particular individual had a bone to pick with most anyone who engaged in 'amateur' pursuits of any kind, insisting that anything that was deemed to be 'risky' should come with the requirement of the enthusiast to become a 'professional' before ever being allowed to pursue such a thing. And who, pray tell, did she think should determine what is 'risky,' and what not? Well of course, the government. Typical liberal.

My argument against this point, of course, was that there are any number of 'high risk' activities out there that the government needn't bother itself with - “Aren't you liberals ever satisfied; haven't you saddled the government with enough activities it's not equipped to deal with? And of course there was a lot of passion from the other side about how poor old grandma would be turned away in her moment of need due to the fact that 'high risk sports enthusiasts' had overwhelmed the rescue services financially and in the availability of manpower. Liberals always pull grandma out of their hip pockets when they need her most. But enough on that.

VA's post deals with the Duggar family in Arkansas, and some of the “ignorant of the facts” vitriol which has been leveled against them. They don't live but a stone's throw away from yours truly, in a manner of speaking. And I should like to take the family to visit them sometime. The Duggars, if you haven't heard of them, have seventeen children. That's right, 17. They have a huge home, as you might imagine, but something that some of you may not be aware of is that they built that home with their own hands. I remember watching a documentary about the family during the time that they were still building this home, and one of the older male children said something on camera that struck a chord with me, he said, and I paraphrase:

“Dad said “I think we can pour the foundation.” And I said that I thought we oughta hire a professional to do it. But Dad thought we could do it, so we did it. Later, Dad said he thought we could frame the walls. I said I thought we might should consider hiring a professional framing contractor to do the work for us. But Dad thought we could do it, so we did. Then it came to putting the roof up and drying the house in. Dad thought we could do it, I thought...well, we did that too...

Interestingly enough, the home they built had very little work done on it from outside the family. Yep; truly this family, The Duggars, built the home they now live in with their own hands. Quite an accomplishment in my books, for someone whose profession is not 'construction.'

All that one needs do is to click on the profile of yours truly to find that I have six children, which, even in this neck of the woods is considered to be a lot, too many by most standards. I know this because I listen to the gasps that always attend my first sharing of the fact that I have 'so many.' Lot's of times people want to know how many different mothers these children have, automatically assuming that there must be more than one. Usually they seem pleasantly surprised when I inform them that they all have one mother and one father.

But as I shared over at VA's in a comment to her post, I can't even begin to count the times that people have gone plumb out of their way to strike up a conversation with us in some public place, announcing that “these are the best behaved children I have ever seen.” They are shocked, shocked I tell ya, that six siblings consisting of three boys and three girls, and ranging in age from two to nineteen years (the nineteen year old is out of the house now, making his own way) can behave and get along together so very well. I suppose there's something to be said for the ideas and negative predispositions people generally have about 'large' families. Heck, I even complain myself about the fact that “I have enough mouths to feed, I don't need, and shouldn't be taxed to feed everyone else's offspring, nor their aged.” To me, government coerced taxation aimed at 'social programs,' like welfare, food stamps, WIC, State funded health and dental care, and etc., is the same as taking food out of the mouths of my children. Of course, I'm totally against the dependency that such programs create, not to mention the undue attachment to 'government' that they create as well.

But before y'all go assuming anything about large families, barking out blatantly stupid comments about how that you're going to have to feed and shelter these offspring of these 'oversexed' parents, you might want to do a little research. As I noted over at VA's, some folks need to pay more attention to that old adage which states: “To assume anything, makes an Ass outta u and me.”

Nonetheless, though, I ain't real sure about this, but I think my wife may have an eye on a couple or three of the Duggar boys, and a couple or three of the Duggar girls, for some odd reason. And y'know, there's a ratio advantage in our favor there...lol

-DW

Read More

The Witness of the Stars...

That's the title of a book I have in my fledgling little library here at home, and it just happens to be of some significance to this blog if you'll go check out the world map over at the site meter, which button is provided in the bottom left sidebar.

CTO and I were doing a little update and maintenance to Webster's when I happened upon this interesting (somewhat weird) occurance...

Anyone who knows me well knows that I put little emphasis on weird occurances like this one, but I thought it pretty interesting anyhow, and I thought that some of you might get a kick out of it. If you'll go to the updated world map by clicking on the site meter button in the left sidebar, you'll note something of a strange alignment of the dots representing the latest visitors to this blog.

The alignment is strange in a couple of senses. First, it looks a whole lot like the alignment of the stars in the constellation Scorpio. Second, since my birthday falls on November 9th, I am, in fact, a Scorpio. Couple these facts with what my long-time friends and closest confidants know of me – amateur astronomy is one of my passions – and the 'siginficance' of the event becomes more clear.

I have no idea what the date: 8/04/07 has to do with it, but there has to be something significant to it, right? I guess I need to get my 'star chart' out and find out what this all means, right? Lol

Anyway, I thought it was kind of a fun deal that y'all might get a needed laugh out of. You'll note some changes we've made in the sidebars. And we have another change that we'll be putting up shortly so stay tuned.

-DW

Read More

Something Worth Sharing

You'll recall that I expressed a desire to be back at it after returning home Thursday night if all went as planned. Well, all didn't go quite as planned, which was as much my own fault as the fault of anything else.

We finally got back home yesterday at around noon or so. I got on the computer and made a couple of quick rounds, after which I started to work on a couple of items that I'd promised to get to this weekend...

But here I wish to share with you what ultimately delayed our return home by at least sixteen hours or so. Our original designs were successfully completed within the original allotted time frame, so we should have been home on schedule had I not decided to extend one entertainment portion of the trip.

One of my purposes, besides the pressing issue I told y'all about, was to take the kids fishing that evening – something that we haven't done as a family in quite a few months, and that's not like us. As it turned out, we were having so much success (and fun) catching fish that we decided to stay longer than we'd originally planned to. To give you some idea of how many fish we caught, not to mention the ones that 'got away,' I spent two solid hours cleaning them after dark, and I'm no novice at filleting fish.

By the time I finished cleaning fish, a measure of fatigue had crept up on me. That coupled with the fact that the kids were eager to spend the night at the other place finally convinced me that we should wait till the next day to make the drive home. The kids would have preferred that we'd stayed for the entire weekend as they were really wanting to do some more fishing and four-wheeler riding. But I told them we'd do it another time since I had work to do at home.

But anyway, we had a good time fishing even though we lost probably twenty or thirty dollars worth of new fishing lures. Even ol' Sam (my 2 year old) caught a fish all by himself. And come to think of it not one of us got skunked this time around.

-DW

Read More

Great Question, and an Appeal to the Readership

A couple of days ago I posted a comment to this entry over at Savage's blog. In reply to my comment John posed a question about why I thought Ron Paul gets so much attention among bloggers, as opposed to someone like Tom Tancredo or Duncan Hunter. VA interjected with her own thoughts which closely resemble my own original thoughts on the matter.

I put some more reflection to it before I answered John, because I thought the question quite appropriate and deserving of a more full answer than that which came to mind immediately following the reading of the question. Indeed, there has to be a reason why I believe Paul garners so much attention among bloggers, and I would take it a bit farther and say: there has to be a reason for why I believe Paul garners so much positive attention among conservative leaning bloggers...

I tried to answer the question as best I could given the thoughts I'd put to it, but I still get a strong sense that my answer is just not adequate enough. And here's where the appeal in the title comes in...

I wonder whether any of you have put much thought to this question? But whether you have or haven't, have you any ideas you'd be willing to share as regards the reasons you think Paul gets so much quality attention from bloggers, and why Tancredo and Hunter don't?

There's no doubt that Paul gets more attention than the other two. I had CTO find out for me a while back what some of the most searched for items are as respect this blog's general focus. And Ron Paul was among the top of that short list. Tancredo and Hunter were not even in the same ballpark.

On the one hand, Paul was involved in the famous incident with Giuliani which probably helped to draw to him more conservative attention of the anti-war kind. To his credit he seized upon an opportunity in a very public forum, and that must have gotten him a lot of exposure that otherwise he would not have gotten most probably. Whereas neither Tancredo, nor Hunter, to my knowledge have been able to seize upon that kind of an opportunity thus far in the race.

But can this be said to account for all of the disparity between the interest in these candidates generated over the internet and the blogosphere? I had some additional thoughts on the matter that I posted in my latest comments to John's post, but as I said before, they just don't seem to me sufficient to account for the disparity.

I suppose if I were forced to give a specific answer I would likely say that the incident at the Republican debate probably sparked the interest in Paul, and that my thoughts over at John's blog probably account for the continued interest among conservative leaners throughout the blogosphere. But to be very honest, and to reiterate, I'm just really not sure whether that's an adequate enough explanation. I mean, Paul draws a lot of attention from folks I'd consider to be more than just 'conservative leaners.'

If any of you have any additional ideas on this question, please don't hesitate to put them in a comment here, or over at John's blog. This is a question that I've actually asked of myself on numerous occasions, but so far I've not been able to satisfy my own curiosity as to why this is, except in the way that I've already shared. Perhaps that's all there is to it; or perhaps that's not all there is to it and I'm missing something vital here. Maybe my thoughts are simply altogether wrong.

Whatever the case may be, or whatever you believe the case to be, please do let me know. More to come on some of these other items later...

-DW

Read More

So Much To Say; So Little Time to Say It...

My friends, thanks in large part to your contributions to this blog, I have many things I desire to post on, and as immediately as possible. This post is simply going to be dedicated to informing you of what kinds of topics you're likely to see here in the next few days, beginning this evening hopefully, if all goes as planned...

First of all, I want to get back to the Ron Paul series we started a while back. I think that two or three more posts should suffice to complete the series to my satisfaction, unless of course there are questions raised that need to be dealt with in an additional post or two.

Second, y'all be sure and check out John Savage's interesting analysis on his recent poll that I recommended to you some time back. I'll be addressing his analysis more fully in a post forthcoming. Also, John brings to the fore an interesting idea in this post that I have been contemplating myself. As I said once before, my idea for it will take a good deal of research on my part prior to adding the feature I have envisioned emanating from it here at Webster's. And so far I've had very little, good, quality, uninterrupted time that I could devote to that specific purpose. But I'm just going to have to resolve to make time for it; that's all there is to it.

Third, Katie's Dad helped to convince me that I should pursue an idea for an entry on the immigration situation in his comments to my post "So You've Considered Moving to Oklahoma, Have You?" Look for something rather unique in that vein in the near future. And btw, Edmund and Mike, I need to get back with you guys on the video thing. I will have CTO provide you with a link to what he's developed so far. In any event, we've not forgotten it, just haven't had time to work on it lately.

Finally, I think I've pretty well covered what you can expect to see posted here over the next few days. I want to thank everyone for the ideas they inspire, either at their blogs, or in their comments to my posts here at Web's, because without them I would simply be at a loss - I simply don't have a deep reservoir from whence to gather ideas for posts in the absence of feedback from the readership like some of my friends seem to have.

We have a pressing issue (don't worry yourselves, it's not life threatening or anything like that, just pressing) that we need to resolve around here. After having successfully completed this mission, I should be able to devote some quality time to honoring these commitments I've purposely entered into here. I imagine it will take us the rest of today to get this issue resolved, and as I said, I hope to be back here working on these other items thereafter.

If everything goes as planned, I should have three good solid days at my disposal to work on them. And I should hope that I wouldn't squander any of that time. But I get a little lazy from time to time to be honest. And that's the reason I make these announcements; because it will serve to motivate me to get to work when I might get a hankering to just relax a bit.

Y'all be on the lookout for all of that, and I'll see ya later...

-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

So You've Considered Moving to Oklahoma, Have You?...

Over at the AFB, my friend, Mike Tams, posted this entry yesterday. I'm going to provide the link to Katie's Dad's entry here, as well that posted on the same topic at VA's.

This story is an all too familiar story for your's truly. And though I can't say that my business, my employees, nor my family have been nearly as negatively impacted financially speaking as this particular contractor and those associated with him has, I can say without hesitation that all of these have indeed suffered at the hands of cheap, illegal, mostly Mexican labor...

Months back my brothers and I discussed this very topic and the negative impact my interests had suffered on several occasions due to the influx of illegal Mexican construction workers in my area over the last couple of years. Interestingly, while I was away over this past weekend, I managed to get a visit in to one of my good friends whose initials, MB, I'll use from here on out. MB also has his own business, and he employs about six people full-time I think.

MB and I were in his office along with his wife and my two employees just shooting the breeze. I don't recall exactly who or what got the conversation started, but somewhere along the way we began discussing the illegal alien situation. I made a statement to the effect of "ah, don't fret it, man, come November 1st it's reckoning time. He asked what I meant so I told him that November 1st is when Oklahoma's tough immigration legislation goes into effect...thanks to the defeat of the amnesty bill. This legislation, as I related to MB, deals not only with illegals, but with their employers as well. And the fines incurred by the latter for employing illegal aliens get substantially stiffer with each offense so that it becomes increasingly more difficult to justify employing illegal aliens.

The reason I tell that story is because MB said something to me in the wake of my little rant that hit home pretty well. He said that there was a time in the not so distant past when he himself had thought pretty highly of these Mexican illegals because he considered them to be hard workers, pretty reliable, and overall to have good work ethic. His next statement, though, put his initial statements into proper context; he said to me that "I think I'm over that now." Of course we got a good laugh out of it, and certainly I agreed with MB that I had held some of his very views concerning Mexican illegals until I got properly educated.

I've complained to my brothers at the AFB before about the fact that finding good (American) help these days is extremely difficult. And believe me, it doesn't matter how much you pay them; that's not the issue. This being the case, I ran into a situation a couple of years ago wherein two of my four employees quit work (that is, they quit working altogether, for anyone), leaving me with a workload that the three of us left could not handle on the schedule predetermined for, and agreed to by us. I was turned on to a young Mexican immigrant who was supposedly legal and of age, and I hired him. It weren't very long before I realized that I'd made a mistake, however.

I was a little suspicious of him to begin with, so as is my general approach to things like that, I simply listened more than I spoke. And eventually he let out more information than he intended, as per the usual. He had a distinctive accent, but he spoke english very well. The fact was that he had been here several years with his parents who came here illegally. As it turned out he was only 16 years of age, he had no driver's license, no insurance, no tag and no registration in his name. As he was commuting about sixty miles a day, one way, I asked him, upon learning some of these facts: "you realize, do you not, that you're going to get stopped one day during your commute to or from?....what are you going to do when you get caught? His answer was simply this, and in these exact and nonchalant words: "go back to Mexico!"

I approach my nationality in the same sort of way that I approach my immediate and extended family members. Which is to say that while I may complain about the way certain of them act from time to time, and while I may curse their actions on occasion, they are my family so I consider myself allowed. Whereas, someone else had better not curse them with me being present unless they care to get an earfull from your's truly. And it works the same way with my countrymen. We're all Americans, and while I may complain about this and that which Americans do, or about this and that which the President does, that doesn't give an illegal alien license to curse them, or to complain about them in any way, shape, or form. And here again, they had better not in front of me. Well, this young Mexican employee of mine made that mistake, saying some very unflattering things about our President and Americans in general, and very boldly so in my very presence. Not only was he 'biting the hand that fed him' in a direct sort of way, but indirectly he was biting all the hands that feed him, and I didn't like it, no; not one bit! You can use your imaginations to conclude what happened next.

I remember well when these illegals began to arrive here in relatively small numbers. At that time there was enough work to go around for everyone, and in many cases customers were forced to wait as long as a month on some of us contractors to get to their jobs. I'd like to discuss more about how that a certain amount of independency on the part of contract laborers works very well to the advantage of not only the contractor in question, but also to that of the customer. But that's yet another subject for another discussion. The point here is that these illegals began arriving here in very small numbers, and under extremely difficult circumstances. So much so that myself and other contractors I know not only welcomed them against our better judgments, but we loaned them essential tools they needed yet did not have, as well as to help them to find places to live and to help them get jobs, and all sorts of things like that. Such I guess is the nature of many Americans.

While I certainly understood the idea that mass immigration to this country of any kind, and from anywhere was bad (just remember, anything done in the extreme is bad), I still felt sorry for these individuals who were 'just trying to make a better way for themselves and their families.' It was only a couple of years, and several very strained relations between myself and some of my former accounts, before their numbers increased exponentially in my area and they began to compete with me for many of the jobs that formerly I would only have had Americans to compete with. The difference being, of course, that Mexican illegals pay no taxes and they're generally not held to the same standards by law that American contractors are held to. Therefore they can charge as little as half our prices and still come out ahead of us in the end. And of course a general contractor, or a homeowner, or whomever is enticed by these potential savings to their own pockets, so they hire the illegals to do their jobs many times when they would otherwise prefer American labor over Mexican labor.

This all came to a head (but it was far from the only incident of its kind I had personally experienced) when I secured a large commerical contract with one individual who later reneged on his obligation about two days before the actual work was to begin. The exact same Mexican illegal, along with his somewhat larger crew now, had come in and undercut my bid by about half. When I learned of this I immediately got on the horn with some of my nativist friends and we began to start to make phone calls to I.N.S., and to some of our state legislators, expressing our severe displeasure with the immigration situation in our State and our area. This was before we kicked out the democrat bums who had held power in our Congress during the entire existence of this State, and replaced them with a Republican controlled legislature that started work on correcting this immigration deal immediately.

Now here's the deal, this same crew is still out and about undercutting contractors like myself, and funneling in new illegals almost on a daily basis. This has effectively caused a great power shift to take place wherein myself and others like me either have to give up some of our independency, or to cowar to the implicit (sometimes explicit) threat that "ok, we'll just get the Mexicans to do it, and they'll do it whenever we say to do it, and at a cheaper rate too." Since I'm not really one to cowar to anyone, and since I enjoy the independency that my profession provides me, not to mention that I understand certain aspects of it, as I said before, that actually works to the advantage of the customers themselves, though it's hard for them to see it unless someone points it out to them, I have since been dedicated to ridding this State first, and the nation second, of these illegals whose compass oughta be pointing south.

But there's a lot more to it than these personal experiences I've had, of course. So very jealous am I of my liberty, my independency, and the ideas of government that have secured them to me in my own State, that I don't even like to see Americans from other States moving into and establishing permanent residency in mine, particularly folks from some of the more liberal States in this nation. And indeed, as I've discussed before with Mike and Edmund, and as my crew will confirm, I don't hesitate to make this known to these migrant Americans whenever I happen upon them. My approach to them on an individual level is usually to give an extreme example of some goofy individual moving in on us from somewhere up in the northeast. Invariably these individuals bring with them inordinate and fallacious ideas of government learned in their former environment and they begin to assert them upon their establishment of citizenship within this State. Their goal is to 'improve upon' what Okies have long since determined to be their own self-governing methods. Our State looked so very inviting to them until they lived amongst us for awhile and finally decided that we're just too d*mn independent here, not to mention that the idea of 'self-government' means just that down here in flyover country - the government of oneself and of one's affairs and concerns without undue influence from on high.

This is generally the line of thought that I engage with these migrants. And of course I also let them know that "we have enough nut-jobs of our own; we don't need anymore moving in on us, so if you have those kinds of ideas that you need to improve upon what Okies have already settled in this State, please leave them at the door because in the end you're destroying the very foundations of the things you found so attractive about our State before you decided to move here."

Now, if I have those kinds of negative feelings about migrant Americans moving into my State generally, how much more must I have the same kinds of feelings with regard to immigrants from other countries? And I ask you, where am I going wrong?

-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

Back to it

Dear Readers, my apologies for my recent absence. As was said in the previous post, our late trip down to my hometown was supposed to be more business than pleasure. And indeed, that's the way it ultimately turned out.

Our intentions were to cram four days worth of work into three, and to spend the fourth relaxing with the extended family. And we were well on our way to accomplishing that goal until we ran into a (major) problem Saturday which ultimately cost us about 12 hrs. additional work.

Fortunately I caught the problem by 8:00 am Saturday morning given that the job location is quite off the beaten path. I spent the next four to five hours attempting to rectify the situation before everything closed at noon, Saturday, as we were scheduled to be back home and ready to start a new project Monday morning.

In any event things worked out fine. We finished up at about 9:00 pm last night, and by a little past 10:00 we were loaded and on our way back home, arriving here at around 2:00 am.

That said, I've only had time to make a couple of blog rounds this morning. Not surprised at all am I, though, that there's been some good stuff posted as well as some interesting conversations at either place. After I've had a chance to make all of my rounds, I'll be putting something up here at Webster's that will hopefully be as interesting, if not to generate the same kinds of quality discussions. And of course some of you may be wondering when Part IV of the Ron Paul series will be posted. I hope to get back to that soon as well.

I also have a couple or three ideas for additional features here at Webster's which I've mentioned to CTO, but we need to discuss in more detail. One of them will require a good deal of initial research from your's truly, so the great likelihood is that there'll be something of a lengthy delay in getting that feature up and running. The other ideas simply require the technical assistance of CTO to get them up so they should be coming shortly.

Notwithstanding all of that, I'm glad to finally be back home and back online. I'll be posting something more relevant either tonight or early in the morning, so y'all stay tuned.

-DW

Read More

Mixing Business with Pleasure

Friends, just wanted to inform you that I'm out of town and will be most probably until Monday of next week. We're at Dad's mixing business with pleasure, but it's supposed to be more business than pleasure. We'll see how that works out.

After we rolled into town yesterday at around 4:30 pm local time due to the delay of the arrival of some essential materials we were waiting for back home, Dad took me out to his shop building and introduced me to his newly acquired, thoroughly non-'jap-junker' motorcycle; his new Harley Davidson. After I gave it good lookover and climbed on it to see how it felt, he started the thing up for me, and let me tell ya, it was the sound of 'sweet music.'

If he could manage to sell his better-half so easily on the propriety of his acquisition, I think the pleasure part of our trip might be more, well, pleasurable. lol

Anyway, I'll be in and out while we're here, but you'll be seeing less of me until next week. Y'all be good.

-DW

Read More

Traditionalism and Worldview

Often I wonder whether 'worldview' gets its due consideration when we discuss the ways and means of correcting and rectifying some of our most egregious mistakes over the last, say, 140 years. I would even go further back in time, but to date it back to the 'constitutional' overthrow of some of our more vital foundational constitutional principles seems to me a good place to look.

As I make my way around the 'traditionalist' blogosphere I often note what seems to me a tendency to long for days-gone-by that really weren't that long ago, and may not have been as good as they could have been, or as good as we perceive them to have been; or as 'traditional' as we think them to have been. Often these longings are for times which fall within the span of our own lifetimes, which is natural I suppose, given that we're most acquainted with, and attached to that which we've actually witnessed and experienced and feel a personal connection with. And I'm probably as guilty of this as anyone.

Indeed, I can remember when I was still in H.S., and even in grade-school -not so awful long ago- and I often fondly reflect upon those times as something of an 'age of innocence.' Much of that reflection has to do with the relative innocence of my mind at that age, of course, and the way that this youthful innocence of mine perceived the world around me. Much of it has to do with the environment I was raised in as well - a good, moral family and community structure with much emphasis placed on being good and doing good, as opposed to the self-indulgence and the materialism that seems to rule now. I was also raised in 'small-town-rural-America,' and that in itself had a profound impact on the way I viewed the world around me, as well as the way I remember that time, not so long ago...

During the early part of the 1990's I was serving in the U.S. Air Force, stationed at Elmendorf AFB in Anchorage, AK. At that time there was a nation-wide effort underway among the homosexual community to have the words 'sexual orientation' entered into all the 'non-discrimination' laws of local governments, and Anchorage was one of the cities wherein this push was happening in full force. I remember it well because as a completely committed member of the opposition to this movement, I counted it my duty to brave sub-zero temperatures and adverse weather conditions to make sure I had done all I could possibly do to stop the progress of these measures. In the end, as I've related before at the AFB, these initiatives passed, but the very next election cycle literally every member who had voted for them was summarily removed from his/her seat and replaced by new members who repealed those laws. Those were the 'good ol' days.'

That battle was won, but the larger war is ongoing and we traditionalists have incurred some significant losses along the way. I look back on those days, as well as the days of my childhood and think to myself how wonderful those times were given that abjectly immoral behaviorisms were not only not encouraged, but they were put down by an overwhelming display of moral rectitude from the vast majority of Americans when the time came. One of the faults we seem to have, though, is that the 'goodness' in us seems to supercede our instinct to survival once a movement like that is perceived to have been effectively put down. And in the end, rather than to go that 'extra mile' making certain that these things will not arise again anytime soon, we tend rather to have sympathy for those we've defeated, and to even help them back up. I often think of it in terms of a fist-fight wherein having neutralized your opponent's ability to cause you harm at that moment, conscience (or something) convinces you to let the poor soul up; often even to help him up, brush him off, and send him on his way. And I cannot help but to think that often this is a huge mistake. And yes, I've had the misfortune of having to do it all over again.

We look back with fondness to yesteryear because relative to today it was a fine, one might say even an 'innocent' time. Yesteryear was a time when we seemed to have possessed more grit, more determination, more goodness, more everything that may be said to be good and wholesome, and 'American,' and of course, less of everything else. The America of yesteryear would not have allowed the moral degeneration and degradation we see today to have occured. No; it would have put it down thoroughly, convincing the licentious movement that it had better not come back for more if it knew what was good for it. And there is a great deal of truth to that.

However, when we traditionalists long for days-gone-by we should not fail to recognize that those times and those generations we generally laud as better than ours are partly responsible for what we're experiencing today. I have always thought of the 'greatest generation' label put to the WWII generation as extremely misplaced. It was this generation, was it not, that effectively brought in 'social security,' and the 'welfare state?' I don't concern myself with whether their intentions were 'noble' in this cause; the effects are what they are, and in my opinion they speak poorly of themselves. And certainly there must have been those 'traditionalists' who were absolutely opposed to these measures, longing themselves for 'days-gone-by' when Americans were more self-reliant, and when they had rather starve than to take a government handout.

In another time traditionalists rose up and vehemently opposed the proposal and ratification of the 13th, 14th, and the 15th amendments following the war between the States, warning that the effect would be detrimental to all this nation was founded on. And it was traditionalists who shouted in opposition to the introduction of progressive education in America, raising cautions themselves against the probable and long-term effects this 'new deal' would have on this country, her laws and institutions, and on the minds and hearts of her people.

Nevertheless, here we are in the year of our Lord, 2007, and of our nation's 'independency' the 231st, and progressive government education of our impressionable youth, once just a fancy of some obscure group of liberal minded nobodys, is now just an accepted norm with majority America. Indeed, I would venture an 'educated' guess that in stark contrast to this once 'unAmerican' style and methodological approach to education in this country, the American psyche has now been thoroughly indoctrinated to the supposed 'superiority' of this thoroughly liberal educational philosophy. But this is not enough, the march must go forward say the liberals. Indeed it does, for how many of us have witnessed the disgusting rise of government funded 'early childhood development centers' across the fruited plain?; and even in small-town-USA, accompanied by the happy consent of the parents and grandparents of these helpless two and three year old unformed and uncultivated minds.

It's a tragic set of cause-effect events which have happened in our nation over the last 160 years or more. Traditionalists have been there all along like 'voices crying in the wilderness': "repent, repent!," but to no avail. The most that traditionalism has been able to do, it seems to me, is to slow the progress enough to avoid all-out armed conflict between the warring factions...most of the time. But the march of progressivism; of liberalism, and of abject moral and cultural degradation seems to have moved forward pretty well unimpeded to this point. We find ourselves in a nation, as well as influenced by its socialist tendencies, that our founding generation simply would not have recognized in any meaningful way. And it seems we must ask ourselves how much further we may stray before we reach the point of 'critical mass'?

The 'worldview' of our founding generation -that which is responsible for the creation of this nation in its pure form- was much, much different than is ours. Today worldview seems to get little direct notice even among 'traditionalists.' At least that worldview of the nation's original creators gets little direct attention. Often it seems that the worldview of the generation of my grandparents is equated with that of the founding father generation. But is this true? Is this consistent with the facts? We may say with little reservation that the worldview of my grandparents' generation was certainly closer to that of the founders' worldview than is ours. But still it can be shown that there was already a wide gulf between the two. And in fact, were the founders capable of transcending time and observing the two, they would probably recognize little in either largely consistent with their own. Just as we look back to those days of our youths with such a longing that 'if only things were that good today,' and so we should since it is the 'good' of those days we so long after, we should as well look past those days to the days before them, and the days before them, and so on until we arrive at the time when the pureness of this nation, of its laws and institutions; of the very worldview of its people reigned supreme.

In the year of our Lord, 1833, and of this nation's 'independency,' the 57th, "America's Schoolmaster," the honorable and learned Noah Webster, published these words in the preface of his work: "History of the United States":

The brief exposition of the Constitution of the United States will unfold to young persons the principles of Republican government; and it is the sincere desire of the writer that our citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct Republican principles is the BIBLE, particularly the New Testament or the Christian Religion.

Later in this little volume Webster makes these equally remarkable assertions:

Almost all the civil liberty now enjoyed in the world owes its origin to the principles of the Christian Religion. Men began to understand their natural rights as soon as the reformation from Popery began to dawn in the sixteenth century; and civil liberty has been gradually advancing and improving as genuine Christianity has prevailed....the religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and his apostles, which enjoins humility, piety, and benevolence; which acknowledges in every person a brother, or a sister, and a citizen with equal rights. This is genuine Christianity, and to this we owe our free constitutions of government...

Certainly we must look to our government as well as our churches and note a marked movement away from orthodoxy in both. We may look back twenty, thirty, even to fifty years ago and wish that our churches were now as uncorrupted as they were then. But do we not recognize that 'uncorruptedness,' that 'pureness' in them only as we contrast it with the corruption we see and witness today? Might we not travel back to Webster's time and truly find that 'almost all the losses to civil liberty in this country owes its origin to the prostration of the Christian Religion?' May we not further conclude that 'Americans first began to lose sight of the true origins of their natural rights as soon as the movement away from orthodoxy began to dawn in the 19th century; and civil liberty has been gradually diminishing and deteriorating as prostrated Christianity and other religious impurity has prevailed.'

It may not be popular to say these things in today's pc dominated America, but since I'm not one to toe the pc line, and since I am definitely one to strongly resist further advances of this pc dominated culture we find ourselves in, I'll say it, and let the chips fall where they may. My friends, there is a unique worldview that has always been consistent with genuine American traditionalism, and I think we should probably reach back further in time to discover it in its purest and its simplest form. For I think that therein lies the very key to our salvation.

As has been said before: "Worldview is everything!"

Read More

Charisma = Leadership = Where's the Beef?...

Over at VA's is posted this interesting entry from yesterday. In this excerpt from her post she astutely observes:

Now may we please put an end to the illusion that Obama can 'transcend race' and be a 'uniter' because of his mixed heritage? This was my feeling about him from the git-go; he is a divider, and despite his half-white ancestry, he has a grudge against majority America.

Simply put, I agree...

I was flipping through the channels and happened to catch the first part of the Monday night Hannity and Colmes replay. That part of the show was dedicated to covering the democrat primary debate. One aspect of their coverage was on the Fox News live-feed piped in from some location here in the U.S. I'm assuming (lol) where there was a room full of 'average' folk who were to observe the debate as it transpired, and to offer their assessments of how each of the candidates fared as compared to the rest once the debate had ended. Naturally a lot of focus was put on the two most popular demo candidates, Hillary and Obama.

The interesting thing about the consensus among this rather 'diverse' group of participants, and as the Fox host kept reiterating, was that the overwhelming majority of them claimed to have come in preferring Hillary over Obama. Whereas when all was said and done in the debate, about the same number of participants, and most of the same people as far as I could tell, claimed to have changed their minds, now preferring Obama over Hillary. And their reasons for were interesting in light of some other blogging efforts done previously, particularly...

John Savage wrote about this (very observable in this gathering) preference among the American electorate for 'style over substance,' assigning to it the domineering quality of the "Triumph" of style over substance. And I think it notable that he doesn't limit the effect to liberals only. Moreover, that he identifies precisely what I observed; the exact sorts of responses to the questions posed of the host - which this 'style over substance' idea would predict - to the effect of "why did you prefer Obama over Hillary?;" "why did you change your opinion during the debate." John writes:

As an admirer of certain media critics, foremost among them Neil Postman, I’ve frequently criticized the way that style reigns over substance in the media. Like Postman, I think the triumph of style over substance (henceforth SOS) is a very bad thing, but it’s also not something we can expect to change. At best, we can hope that the news media (which currently has a stake in the avoidance of real issues) will stop reinforcing SOS by focusing on the style displayed at presidential debates at the expense of the issues. But to a large extent, SOS is an unavoidable direct consequence of television as a medium, of which Marshall McLuhan said, "The medium is the message." The message of the TV medium is entertainment, which when applied to politics produces SOS – presenting oneself as honest, optimistic, unflappable, and responsive to constituents, among other things. In addition, most Americans want to get the impression that the candidate stands for Mom, baseball, and apple pie. Principles that are universally honored are prominently displayed, whereas unpopular principles, as well as mutually conflicting principles, are hidden...

Almost to the person, when asked to answer the question, this is the kind of answer they gave. "Obama was just more believable;" "I felt a connection with Obama;" "I think he (Obama) showed his leadership abilities because he was more believable, and I connected more with him," and such as that. While on the other hand the consensus about Hillary's believability, her 'disconnectedness' with the average person, and so on and so forth, and therefore her capacity for leadership was found to be wanting. One young caucasion male even referred to Obama as "Charismatic." I guess in his youthful exuberance he forgot how offensive that is to say about a 'black leader.'

There was also the desire expressed of one person in the audience that the two of them team-up, to which the majority of the rest of the group seemed to heartily approve of. Sean Hannity posed the question of whether the members, given such an alliance, would prefer Obama or Hillary as the top-dog? And once more the group reconfirmed their newly formed 'convictions' that they should prefer Obama to hold that distinction.

But the point I'm really driving at here is that indeed I think John is right that 'style over substance' is triumphant in today's American politics, and probably for the exact reasons he offers us in his excellent post. Not that I think either of them to have any firm attachment to any 'principled' stand that I would in any way approve of, but I came away from that segment of the show thoroughly convinced that to these people the debate between Hillary and Obama was nothing more or less than a competition between them for who could project the more favorable image; whose personality was most approvable to them. And Obama won that contest hands down. It saddens me that people tend to place so much value on their emotions, but I guess that's just the way it is.

Thanks to VA, and to John for continually providing us with some outstanding, thoughtful, and pretty darn accurate commentaries.

-DW

Read More

Who is this Ron Paul Character? (Part 3)

The first and second editions to this series having posed what we've now come to know as the 'big question' still under our investigation, the second of which having concerned itself with what we might learn of Paul's character, his integrity, and how those match up against what the man is saying publicly about himself. You will recall that in the first and second entries we uncovered that Ron Paul thinks of himself as 'the champion of the Constitution,' and I think our investigation thus far has called more into question whether this can truly be said of the man than it has served to answer it either in the affirmative, or in the negative. Therefore, let us keep the question in mind as we continue to uncover who this Ron Paul character truly is.

In this edition, once more keeping in mind this question of whether Ron Paul may rightfully claim to himself the appellation 'champion of the Constitution,' let us take our investigation to yet another level. Let us lay a foundation to begin to open more to exposure what would appear to be Paul's underlying principles; that which governs the man in the way he conducts himself in his public life, and most probably in his private life as well. And let me say for the record that I'm interested in Ron's private life no more or no less than I am any other serious presidential contender's private life. Which is to say that a person's private conduct will generally teach us something about how he/she will conduct himself publicly. But Ron Paul has an extensive record of public service that we may appeal to, and it is there that we shall continue to concentrate our efforts within this series...

All of you know by now that Ron Paul is the Congressman representing the 14th district of the great State of Texas. And of course we're all well aware by now of the fact that Congressman Paul thinks of himself as the 'champion of the Constitution,' as has been restated numerous times. As far as the latter goes it seems to me that anyone serving in his capacity might (justly to their own minds) claim to themselves that distinction. And on that note I'd bet that many who serve in that capacity or at that level of government tend to think of themselves to some extent or the other in that way.

It seems to me natural, therefore, to question further whether this distinguishing characteristic is itself as worthy or as noble as it sounds? Certainly at first blush the appelation 'champion of the Constitution' seems to be a pretty laudable distinction reserved as it were for those select few having marked themselves worthy of the high thoughts which its mere mention naturally brings to mind. But on a closer inspection is the descriptive truly as noble and as worthy an appellation as it seems on the surface? Does the question here posed not depend on what one considers to be the 'core principles' and 'values' which the Constitution itself is founded on? What if one believes that the Constitution is a 'living, breathing document,' subject itself to the rapid changes of society? Would the person believing that about the Constitution not think of a 'champion' thereof as someone who recognized this quality inherent to the document; someone whose public life is marked more or less by a recognition of this principle as well as a voting record to support and perpetuate it? These are the kinds of questions we must keep at the forefront of our thoughts whenever we entertain the notion that one may rightly be described as 'the champion of the Constitution.'

Now, if it appears to some that I'm being a little obsessive about this idea of championing the Constitution, I can only say that it appears to me that this is a very important question which needs to be answered to the fullest extent possible. Indeed, I think that everything about the man under our investigation more or less centers around this idea about him. The concept itself extends to the furthest reaches of who this man Ron Paul really is. And since our series is itself intended to answer this most fundamental of questions, then it follows that to answer that question of who the man truly is, we must concern ourselves as particularly as possible with this attribution he notably claims to himself. Therefore we may expect that the remainder of this series will in one way or the other revert back to this fundamental question of whether Ron Paul may truly be said to be 'the champion of the Constitution.'

At the site "On the Issues" you may have noted at the bottom of Paul's page that he ranks as a 'moderate libertarian' on the VoteMatch chart. There is also a quiz provided for you to take to see where on that chart your political philosophy falls. Most of you can probably guess pretty accurately as to where you'd wind up on the chart, but I would still encourage you to take the quiz as a way of matching your position up against Paul's as well as some of the other candidates. And yes, in case you were wondering, I did take the quiz, and I wound up (not at all surprisingly to myself) way to the right of Paul being myself denominated a 'hard-core Conservative.' I ended up in the same block on the chart as the 'Constitution party' candidate, so it would appear for me, if this chart is at all accurate, that the description 'champion of the Constitution' would better fit that party's candidate than it would Ron Paul. And this is what I mean about the accuracy of the appellation being more or less 'relative to' one's political philosophy. While I believe strongly in the idea of there being 'absolute truth,' as opposed to there being 'relative truth,' still I understand that one's 'truth,' whatever it may be, is measured against some standard for determining it.

But to get on with our investigation now that we've hopefully managed to establish some guidelines that will be helpful to us in discovering who the man truly is, let us narrow our scope to yet another of Paul's apparently guiding philosophical approaches to government...
While I can't say that one's 'moderation' ranks high with me on certain things, particularly on political matters, I will admit that Paul's brand of moderation does have a certain appeal to it. And while Paul's brand of 'moderation' is in some ways intriguing, we must not fail to acknowledge that the term 'moderate' in his case is a qualifier of his 'libertarianism.' Irregardless of where one searches, Paul's underlying libertarian philosophy is everywhere notable, at least insofar as I've independently conducted my own investigation of the man.

John Savage and I recently had a discussion about the differences between a traditionalist's idea of 'self-government,' and that of a libertarian. And while I may have gone too far in stating somewhat emphatically that libertarians generally concern themselves not with how one's exercise of 'self-determination' affects others, nonetheless I believe that the common libertarian refrain on this subject - no one has the right to harm another in the exercise of self-determination - falls pretty short of an actual commitment to the idea. (Notable here as well is the oft repeated libertarian refrain that they seek 'the maximum amount of liberty with the least amount of government necessary.' We've had that discussion before at the AFB, but I'll repeat here that the refrain itself seems to me to be somewhat overly vague. Not to mention that as stated it would seem to apply to libertarians in no particularly exclusive way, for I too seek the maximum amount of liberty with the least amount of government necessary. And I'd be willing to bet that many of you who would not denominate yourselves 'libertarians' believe nonetheless in the concept.).

But that's only relevant here as pertains to Mr. Paul and how strictly he holds to the libertarian idea of 'self-government,' as I said, to be distinguished from the Conservative idea of same. In this sense is Paul rightly denominated a 'moderate libertarian?' That is, can it be said of Paul that his idea of 'self-government' is less extreme than the more 'radical' elements of the libertarian philosophy? Further to the point, can Paul's idea of self-government be said to be closer to a traditionalist conservative's idea of same than that of a strong libertarian? His position on the chart seems to indicate that his idea of 'self-government' would fall virtually in the center of a triangular shaped chart consisting of points liberal, conservative, and libertarian. But what does this mean within the context of our investigation?I should like to cover that ground more particularly in the next installment of this interesting series. And while I know that I'm raising more questions than I am providing answers for, I trust that you'll agree that these are worthy questions which a proper investigation into the depth of our subject does indeed warrant.

Hopefully to this point in our investigation we've at least managed to raise important questions about who this man really is which will ultimately lead us to a more thorough pursuit and investigation into the matter. One thing that I think cannot be said is that we've wasted any efforts thus far. So, until the posting of the next edition, I bid you all a happy and an affectionate: good hunting!...

-DW

Read More

Old News; New News

Now and again I'm going to attempt to direct your attentions to some ongoing pursuits that for me can be said to be 'old news,' yet in your case might actually represent something you've yet to hear of for whatever reason. And I'd hope that you'd return the favor if there's something significant out there that I'm missing, which is most certainly extremely likely.

In this case something was brought to mind as I read MT's post over at the AFB yesterday, and though I probably should have mentioned it earlier and in the former post, as you're now aware I neglected to do so. But the thing in question probably warrants a post of its own anyhow.

If you'll go to the link provided here and in Mike's post at the AFB you may notice after having signed the petition aimed at releasing the 'Texas three,' that you'll be taken to a page containing at the bottom a link to 'return to the list of petitions.' If you'll click on that link you will indeed be taken to the page in question. For those of you who have already signed the petition to free the Texas three, just go to the yellow section at the top of the page and click on the "Current Petitions" button provided. If you'll then scroll down the page you'll eventually run across the 'patriot petition' calling for amending the Constitution to halt the practice of 'judicial activism' - The Enumerated Powers Amendment, definately not to be referred to as the 'EPA.' lol

I remember the very first announcement of this proposal way back when. At that time my friends (Mike and Edmund) and I had not yet met one-another. And certainly I had yet to discover the blogosphere. I recall that the actual wording of the amendment proposal itself went through several revisions over the span of about two months if memory serves in that respect. And the reason I recall that aspect of the proposal is that it caught my interest immediately and proceeded to gain my undivided attention over the course of time.

Eventually, though, I stopped keeping regular track of the progress of the proposal as far as numbers of signers is concerned. They were slow to come in, and after the initial surge therein I think the numbers of signers of that particular petition sort of paused more or less around the mid twenties of thousands (24,000 to 25,000 as I recall).

Nonetheless, having now re-read the amendment proposal I'm not seeing that any significant changes to it, if any at all have occured over the course of time between now and then. So it appears that the folks over at the Patriot Post finally got the kinks in the wording worked out. And there were some fairly sizeable kinks in the wording to begin, lemme tell ya. I do note, however, that there are now a significant number of additional signatures added to the measure - quite a happy revelation for me I must admit.

Essentially what attracted my attention to the proposal initially, and still does btw, is that I think this amendment proposal addresses, perhaps better than any I've yet to see, the fundamental, or the root cause of the problem, as well as proposing the most effective means for dealing with a wide range of problems which are either directly or indirectly associated with the ever increasing tendency of our judiciary (particularly the federal) to engage itself in the practice of what has been rightly termed in my opinion 'judicial activism.' And this has been accomplished with at very least tacit consent of the federal Congress, which the measure also addresses in a meaningful way.

By limiting the courts in their ability to 'legislate from the bench' (something the founders never intended!), many of the ills which infect our government may be cut out at their common core. This is my firm belief, and this is the reason that I strongly endorse this amendment proposal.

But I'd like to hear your thoughts on this subject after having read the proposal itself, as well as its foundation. So y'all post a comment and let's discuss it.

-DW

Read More

A Couple of Worthy Announcements

First of all let me thank both VA and John Savage for posting links to Webster's on their excellent blogs. And let me say again that if you've not yet visited them, which I trust most of you have, then please do. I assure you it will not be a wasted endeavor. You may find links to their blogs permanently posted in the right sidebar of this one. So there's no excuse for not visiting them.

And I would be remiss if I did not mention the fact that it is due in large part to their posting of the link to Webster's that this blog itself has enjoyed already a significant number of visits from folks who would otherwise not have come here. So once again my sincere thanks go out to both of them.

Second, I'd like to direct your attentions to the AFB, which itself has its own separate link provided in the right sidebar of this blog. You may use that link, or if you prefer you may use this one to go to the specific title to which I'm directing your attentions - Time to discharge your civic duty - posted by my friend, MT. And as he says: "what are you waiting for; go sign that petition!"

Third, and finally, CTO, why is the coding missing in the post section of the blog? Would you be so kind as to put it back in because at this moment I'm having to copy and paste it from other post titles, and I'm starting to get a little aggravated! Not to mention that as you know all too well, this necessity is eventually going to lead most likely to my messing something up real bad. ;) Please help.

-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