WANTED: STRAIGHT TALK

Conservatives generally hold the right positions on the issues but their arguments are not persuasive because they are missing two essential ingredients:  Precision and Proof.

PRECISION

Conservatives summarize their political position by saying they are for "less" government.

What does that mean.  Except for absolute dictatorships, all governments are "less" than they otherwise could be.  How much less?  We have 50 million people receiving food stamps.  How much less should that number be?  35 million?  25 million?  10 million?

And "less" Where has it overstepped its proper and Constitutional authority?  Exactly which programs should be eliminated entirely?

PROOF

Virtually always, no objective, logical proof is offered as to why a particular position is correct.  The two most common "proofs" offered about the correctness or incorrectness of what the government is doing are (1) it is supported by or violates the Constitution, and (2) the country was "better off" when that position was in effect.  Both "proofs" fail.

The fact that something is or is not in the Constitution is not logically convincing one way or the other.  As much as I admire and respect the Founding Fathers, I know they were neither omniscient nor infallible.  There were errors in the original Constitution (slavery was recognized and slaves did not fall under the provision that "all men are created equal"; women were not permitted to vote, etc.), and there are errors still.  The fact that something can be found in a document or book is not a shred of proof it is correct.

The argument that we were better off when the conservative position was in effect, is unspecific as to what "better off" means (see above), and also offers no proof that the standard being used to support "better off" (e.g., lower unemployment rate, lower crime rate, higher stock indexes) is, in fact, the right standard to use (which is maximum freedom for all).

Without proof, the position taken is merely a subjective opinion and as such has no...no...persuasive power.  I have no interest in your preferring vanilla ice cream, nor does it prove it is the healthiest and best flavor to eat...any more than you should care that I prefer chocolate.

There is a third error that all political pundits and commentators make and it is to speak of opposing political views as being monolithic.  Conservatives talk about what the Left wants as if every member of that political persuasion feels the same way.  Tell me the Left wants to transform our country into a socialist state and I might think, "I  have a good friend who is a Democrat and he doesn't want to do that.  The Conservatives don't know what they are talking about".  (The Democrats and Republicans do the same.)

So...we have to get back to basics on the road paved with logic and reason.

NONE OF YOUR DAMN BUSINESS, GOV

In 5-4 split decisions, the Supreme Court threw out the ban on same-sex marriage in California, effectively allowing those marriages in the 13 states that now recognize them, and, on very technical legal grounds, left in effect the ban on unisex marriage in the states that do not now permit them. While its decisions were half right, the Court’s reasoning was all wrong.

What the Court should have said is that marriage is a private relationship over which the government (federal, state, city or otherwise) has no jurisdiction, no authority, no power.  And it should have said so very simply, clearly and loudly:

“In America, every man and woman is free…free to live his or her life as he or she alone chooses…that freedom can only be denied, limited or restrained through acts of force…and that the sole function of all governments, therefore, is to provide the people with a force-free environment.”

In other words, you and I are free to enter into a marriage relationship with any one or more consenting adults…or with one or more goats, if we wish.

Our Constitution states that powers not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved to the people and the state.  The Founders were wrong here.  Powers not granted to the federal government to provide us with a non-coercive environment are properly retained by the people, individually.

So what ought those seeking to marry in a state that does not permit same sex marriage do?  Marry…and sign an agreement which sets forth the personal responsibilities, financial obligations and authority which the parties choose to have.  In the unlikely event that no religious minister will perform the ceremony, have a mutual friend say the appropriate mumbo jumbo words, sign the agreement, and have a great marriage!

Oh, yes.  One further thing:  laugh, long and loud.

(The issue that a same sex couple in those non-permitting states will not be entitled to government benefits accorded other couples will be dealt with in a future post.)

The AMERICAN FRONTIER

The American frontier was first and foremost an idea. A unique idea on which no country in the history of the world had ever been founded:  the idea that each and every one of us had total control and was totally sovereign over his or her own life.  There was to be no royalty, no government, to which man was subservient.  It was the idea expressed by the Founders as our “unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of (our) happiness”.  it was the idea to which they pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor.

It is the idea which has virtually disappeared in our country.  Government has moved with little resistance into virtually every aspect of our lives, setting demands on what we must do and limitations on what we must not do.  Big Brother is bigger and more onerous than Orwell ever imagined.  The magnificent Constitution, intended to preserve and protect our rights, is disregarded/violated, by those of all major parties with political power…and their unlawful actions approved by our highest courts.

And perhaps worst of all has been the destruction of the American spirit, manifested so beautifully by the early American frontiersman.  He courageously forged new paths into uncharted wilderness, into areas in which there was no government, relying solely on his own abilities, recognizing no authority over his life, prepared to defend it with the rifle he always had at hand, asking for and giving no quarter.  His philosophy of life was simple and heartfelt:

“What’s mine is mine, what’s yours is yours”

“Don’t push me around”

With those who abided  his philosophy, whether native Americans, pilgrims or others,he was at  peace.  With those who didn’t, he was at war.

If we are to regain our glorious heritage, we must do more…much more…than simply fixing a particular social or political issue.  That will not do it, nor will compromising the exquisite idea on which our country was founded, as so many urge.  I recently heard a political commentator on the radio asked by a listener: “What can we do to stop the decline of America and restore it to greatness?”  His answer: “Nothing now.  We have to wait until the next election and try to put better people into office”.

He is wrong.  Totally wrong.  There is much we can do.  We must again become frontiersmen, and women.  We must emulate the Founders’ commitment to the glorious American idea of individual freedom, and be willing to fight for it without hesitation or  reservation.  We must not sanction, and become accomplices to, the destruction of our great country by doing nothing.

Are you a frontiersman?

"THAT'S NUTS!

"I say we should increase the income tax rate on the rich, lower the estate tax, increase the gift tax, lower the sakes tax, increase the corporate tax, eliminate the charitable deduction, implement a savings tax, increase the excise tax, decrease the medical exemption, stabilize the tax on minors, impose a tax on illegals, tax unearned income, reduce stock transfer taxes, lower gas taxes, eliminate the luxury tax."

"That's nuts.  I say we should  reduce payroll taxes, increase property taxes, lower cigarette taxes, increase the self-employment tax, reduce inheritance taxes, increase consumption taxes, lower capital gains taxes, reduce dividend tax, raise retirement taxes, lower tariffs, increase tolls, lower city taxes, increase state taxes, lower unemployment taxes, raise Social Security taxes, lower fishing taxes, raise hunting taxes."

THE "EST" SUPERLATIVE

Parade magazine headline referred to Matt Damon as "the sexiest family man alive".  The missing words to the headline are "In my illogical unintelligent opinion"...thr "I" being the writer of the writer of the headline.

Why illogical and unintelligent?  Two primary reasons:

 1.  The writer did not meet each of the billion or more family mean alive on the planet to be qualified to give Mr. Damon that ranking
 2.  There is no one objective standard to be used for "sexiest".  Different people of the same ethnicity, different people of different ethnicity, cultures, ages, etc. would define "sexiest" in grossly different ways...from "makes me want to hug him" to "makes me want to jump into bed with him".to "makes me want to ---" (you fill it in).

We humans have a compulsion to label something or someone as biggest/ best/strongest/fastest INin the world, virtually always without reference to the two flaws mentioned above.  Logically, you can't even refer to the Olympic gold medal winner in the 100 yard dash as "the fastest human alive" (which is what he is always called).  At best, he may have been the fastest runner in that race on that day.  The actual fastest human alive may not have competed that day.     Secondly, even the guy who won the race may not be the fastest.  He may have won because he ran a smarter race and in fact may have been the slowest runner in the race, if capacity for speed is what "fastest" means.  And further, why is 100 yards the right distance...what about the guy who won the mile race?...the marathon?

Muhammad Ali may indeed have been right when he referred to himself as "the greatest".  But like Ali, the misguided use of "est" must now be retired.

THE DILEMMA OF THE COMPASSIONATE CARNIVORE

(This is a copy of an email I wrote to a CNN columnist.)

Regarding your support of the banning of fur sales in West Hollywood, CA, may I ask :  What did you have for lunch yesterday?  For Thanksgiving dinner?  Do you ever eat hamburgers, turkey, chicken, steak, duck, bacon, lamb, lobster, shrimp  (dear little cuties), etc.  Those all come from animals like the ones you don't want to see killed for fashion.

Are you consistent?  Do you argue against the killing of animals to eat them as you argue against killing them for their fur.  And please don't make the argument that we have to eat to stay alive.  We do...but we don't have to eat animals, we can survive quite well and healthily without them.

I do not favor the wanton killing of animals (I don't support keeping them in a zoo for our pleasure and amusement either, I don't support keeping birds in cages) but these are not proper political matters in a free society.

By the by:  do you own  any leather jackets, shoes, belts, wallets,  handbags, pearl earrings or necklaces ?

CAIN MAY BE ABLE

I would have liked to see Herman Cain remain in the race for the presidency despite falling popularity presumably due to the allegations that he had adulterous affairs.  I would have liked to see that because whether or not those allegations are true, they are irrelevant to his qualifications for the job.

It is time for America to wake up.  The job of President requires administrative abilities, leadership qualities, in depth knowledge of, and allegiance to, the Constitution,  and negotiating skills.  That is what the President should offer to the American public in exchange for their vote.  Whether or not the President is and always has been faithful to his wife may be of concern  to the President's spouse, but not to the American public.

Some of the most accomplished and admired Presidents are known to have had extra-marital affairs.  Whatever his or her sexual proclivities (if legal), whatever his or her sexual orientation, it is the list of qualities above that determines his qualification for the job.  So many Americans, however, seem more interested in a candidate's personality and how photogenic he or she is (listen to how often you hear that Sarah Palin is too pretty to be President. Newt Gingrich is too angry looking,  Ron Paul is too short). A candidate's  political views, policies and programs?  Eh..  What, after all, did American voters know about Barack Obama?

What is also worthy of note is that the woman who claims she had a long term affair with Cain and who took money from him  was interviewed on tv, with her attorney by her side, looking hurt and unjustly treated because Cain did not acknowledge the affair.  Please, lady, not for you to feel a victim in this matter, nor do you have the credentials to be a moral judge.  By your own statements, you acknowledge carrying on an extended affair without presumably any concern for Mrs. Cain.  If the affair took place, you were a co-conspirator, co-deceiver.  If there is a victim here, it is not you.

Herman Cain can help break this insensible voter practice by getting back in the race.  Then I can listen to him some more and decide if he earns my vote.