Links
Blog Archive
-
▼
2010
(295)
-
▼
Jun 2010
(24)
- Wallis Takes it on the Chin
- No One Earns His Keep
- God Cares About It All
- GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOALLLLLL!
- Forever Reconciled
- A Cultural Shift
- We Are Our Problem
- Is She Your Glory?
- He is Love
- The Real Source
- Perfectly Good
- The Lies Keep Mounting
- Perverted Sympathy
- RIP Big 12
- Case Closed
- A Sign of the Times
- Bum-Bum!
- The New Gender Gap
- It's Coming...
- Ave Atque Vale
- Take Me Out to the Ball Games!
- Capitalism Fights Racism Better than Government
- Christian Charity
- Is He Merely a Road?
-
▼
Jun 2010
(24)
Labels
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Yeah, yeah, yeah... Some true stuff eclipsed by a bunch of partisan nonsense and war propaganda. Truly the best way to poison an animal is to add small amounts of the toxin to his food so he eats it unsuspectingly.
He creates this false dilemma of whether the UN or the US is the greatest force for good in the world. And of course, the "liberals" pick the UN, while the "conservatives" pick the US. And this, of course, was followed by more pro-war propaganda and anti-Iran rhetoric.
And the fact that Kagan barred the military from her campus is the least of our concerns about her. How about her argument that government has the authority to ban books and "disappear" free speech if it is considered offensive, that she is a proponent of indefinite detention without trial for anyone ACCUSED of being a terrorist? Oddly enough, this is the sort of thing that Republicans would have looked for in a Bush II appointee. But no, the so-called conservatives want to make this about left/right issues to keep things divisive. Like the guy who tried to out her for being a bull dyke. It's like, "Yeah, this will polarize things."
Well, yeah, I wouldn't say he's spot on with EVERY thing he says, but a majority of it at least. The comment about limited government being a MORAL question rather than an economic one is particularly helpful.
Yeah, I suppose for libertarians, they would choose "none of the above" between the UN and US as the greatest force for good, since you all don't like the idea of governments helping other people. But for conservatives who recognize the need for such force on occasion, the US wins hands down in relation to the UN, both morally and constitutionally.
Kagan is all sorts of bad, what you mentioned is the most egregious. But what does one expect from a radical like Obama?
What would I expect from a radical like Obama? The same I'd expect from a radical like Bush, which is basically my point.
Governments are never a force for good, except when they are within the confines of their biblically defined role of judgment. Even then, we have to be careful about how we use the word "good" in reference to them. Is force needed? Yes, for defense, not for conquest and not for philanthropy.
Part of the reason I voted for Bush in 2000 was his statement that the military did not exist for humanitarian actions. At the time, all of the conservatives were championing such a statement, after Clinton's indiscriminate use of the military for these means, but after Bush we are in a much worse situation militarily. Hearts and minds and all that. "But...9/11 changed everything!" Yeah, I know, I know.
Governments never help anyone without helping themselves. In other words, nothing is ever done apart from the selfish consideration of how it will benefit the government or their interests.
The UN, while not an invention of the US government technically, is the invention of the Anglo-American establishment, and is the Rockefeller arm of British oligarchy. If indeed the US is morally superior to the UN, why then is it subject to the rules of the UN? In a very real way, the US is the UN, just as is every other country who is a member. Not to mention that the US contributes almost as much to the organization as do all the other member nations combined.
"Governments never help anyone without helping themselves. In other words, nothing is ever done apart from the selfish consideration of how it will benefit the government or their interests."
So freakin' what? That's like saying free market capitalists don't do anything except out of self-interest. DUH. What do motives matter as long as good is being done???
"If indeed the US is morally superior to the UN, why then is it subject to the rules of the UN? In a very real way, the US is the UN, just as is every other country who is a member."
Yes, because of some stupid former leaders of this country. Are you seriously suggesting that the UN is morally equal or superior to the US??
Ha ha. Now we're getting somewhere. Its been a while since I was able to goad you into a debate.
"So freakin' what? That's like saying free market capitalists don't do anything except out of self-interest. DUH. What do motives matter as long as good is being done???"
This speaks to my point of our usage of the word "good" in reference to governments. The same could be said for free markets. If a government does something that appears to be good, but does so because of what is in it for them, is it really good? I say no - definitely not. Its only good from the perspective of the one who stands to gain, which equals somebody else's loss.
The argument could be made and has been made that taking Saddam out of power was good. I could make the exact same argument - and let me make it clear that I am not making such an argument - that taking out Bush II would also be "good". Saddam killed his own people. Yeah, and the US supplied him with the means to do so, and the Bush regime was responsible for a war that killed many more of "his own" people than Saddam could have imagined.
And guess what, there is no realistic way the US will ever pay for it. Greenspan said the other day that US is nearing its debt limit. Because guess what? Being the world's (failed) super-state actually has economic consequences. So I ask you, all things considered, is that "good"?
The comparison with capitalism is not a fair one. Hopefully no one has any illusions about the fact that the idea of the free market is to make money and not to do good. Yeah, I know Bill Gates is everybody's hero, helping the poor little African children, but what they don't know is that he is a bona fide eugenicist who has even stated on record that vaccine research should be put into practice with population control in mind.
"Yes, because of some stupid former leaders of this country. Are you seriously suggesting that the UN is morally equal or superior to the US??"
I'm going to use a Scripture out of context to prove my point.
"Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?" (Romans 9:20)
In other words, the UN is largely the brainchild of Anglo-American interests, meaning Britain and the US. Yes, it is anti-American at its core, and is repugnant to the Constitutional fabric of our nation and is the New World Order incarnate, but no one in government has seriously undertaken the abolition of US's membership in it. So "conservatives", many of which are actually Neocons, or neo-Bolshevics, can claim moral superiority as a talking point, but these are empty words. It is a philosophic sticking point with which the overwhelming majority of Republicans have not intention of actualizing. Why? Because despite our failure to control the UN, in the end, membership serves our military and geopolitical objectives. So its the pot calling the kettle black to say we are better than they, when in fact, WE ARE THEM.
From the perspective of who the US is on paper, she is obviously morally superior. We've never been perfect, but we are drifting further and further from our Constitutional framework, such that we are barely recognizable as "the country our forefathers conquered." That America is all but dead. I think by now we should all be able to admit that. If we can't then there is no hope of turning this thing around.
"This speaks to my point of our usage of the word "good" in reference to governments. The same could be said for free markets. If a government does something that appears to be good, but does so because of what is in it for them, is it really good? I say no - definitely not. Its only good from the perspective of the one who stands to gain, which equals somebody else's loss.
Yes, and the one who stands to gain in this case is the whole world. Sure, it was Germany's and Japan's loss that America entered WWII, but the world gained, thus it was a force for good there. Motives don't matter a whole lot as long as good is being ACTUALLY done.
"It is a philosophic sticking point with which the overwhelming majority of Republicans have not intention of actualizing. Why? Because despite our failure to control the UN, in the end, membership serves our military and geopolitical objectives. So its the pot calling the kettle black to say we are better than they, when in fact, WE ARE THEM.
True, but how is the fact that a bunch of Repub politicians are neocons who don't mind the UN Dennis Prager's fault? What he said about the UN remains true, even if the woman to his left may (or may not) be honestly in favor of revoking America's membership in it.
"We've never been perfect, but we are drifting further and further from our Constitutional framework, such that we are barely recognizable as "the country our forefathers conquered." That America is all but dead. I think by now we should all be able to admit that. If we can't then there is no hope of turning this thing around."
I believe that was basically part of Dennis Prager's point. If we don't realize that this ship has nearly sunk and throw out the scoundrels now, it will be too late. Furthermore, what makes this election potentially so exciting is that not only are the Dems getting politically executed, so are a bunch of Repubs. Harry Reid is getting thrown out of office, but McCain might also be sent packing. This has a CHANCE of being the election to make all elections. A seismic shift in policy could result. I pray it does.
"Yes, and the one who stands to gain in this case is the whole world. Sure, it was Germany's and Japan's loss that America entered WWII, but the world gained, thus it was a force for good there. Motives don't matter a whole lot as long as good is being ACTUALLY done."
I would not qualify the outcome of this war as good. Its not that black and white. Certainly there was a good outcome for some countries, but not necessarily the whole world. In fact, I would argue that the world, as if anyone is in a position to speak for the whole world, both won and lost. We were able to temporarily stay the New World Order via Hitler, who was actually aided by the British royal family, by the way. We got out of the Great Depression. But ultimately we lost because we empowered the bankers who funded both sides of the war, and we ended up with this monster we call the United Nations.
People remember from history what they want, and Americans are caught up with this fairytale of the "good war" and all that nonsense. If that's what makes us proud to be Americans, we are in sad shape.
"True, but how is the fact that a bunch of Repub politicians are neocons who don't mind the UN Dennis Prager's fault? What he said about the UN remains true, even if the woman to his left may (or may not) be honestly in favor of revoking America's membership in it."
Prager's partisan rhetoric is part of the problem. He is touting the GOP as the party of choice, knowing full well they are no better, or perhaps marginally better, than the Democrats in terms of their representation of "what it means to be an American". They are wholly invested in an outcome, knowingly or otherwise, that is the antithesis of American, the dissolving of national sovereignty. Sovereignty is being eroded on the fractional reserve banking front because of endless wars, debt, and bailouts - and they signed off on them as much as they want to lay this at the feet of Barry Soetoro. Sovereignty is being eroded on the governmental front because of "entangling alliances" with and because of the UN.
The fact that Prager exposes the UN for what they are may be good only if he weren't redirecting people towards those who aren't going to change that.
"I believe that was basically part of Dennis Prager's point. If we don't realize that this ship has nearly sunk and throw out the scoundrels now, it will be too late. Furthermore, what makes this election potentially so exciting is that not only are the Dems getting politically executed, so are a bunch of Repubs. Harry Reid is getting thrown out of office, but McCain might also be sent packing. This has a CHANCE of being the election to make all elections. A seismic shift in policy could result. I pray it does."
When a ship is sinking, it takes drastic measures to save lives and I don't think he is near drastic enough. He, like 95% of everyone else, is still locked in this paradigm of Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum. That isn't going to work. Tweedle Dee capitalizes on the mistakes of Tweedle Dum to stay in power, and Tweedle Dum does the same. It is an endless cycle that goes nowhere. And the moment someone offers some real solutions, Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum, sworn "enemies", will gang up on him because he threatens their enterprise. Because ultimately this is a duopoly whose objectives are very much the same, though their approaches and rhetoric differ slightly.
So we'll get some new Republicans and some new Democrats. So what? How are they any different really? I think its great that incumbents are being ousted. I really do, but I'm not very optimistic about those replacing them. But I will agree that this is a great opportunity. Time will tell, I guess.
Post a Comment