Right before I left last night, I found out that the Company I work for is so enthusiastic about the Tea Party rage, they are paying for buses to take those that wish to attend OTHER Tea Parties in the region to places such as New York, Philly, Harrisburg and Trenton. The one in New York City (at City Hall Park) is expecting to draw as many as 10,000 people, and has Newt Gingrich booked to speak. The one I am attending is hoping for as many as 1,500 to 2,000... but Scranton is pretty "blue" right now, even with two top-notch Catholic Universities in the city. We'll hear from the Archbishop of Philadelphia, the local GOP leadership (including former Governor Schweiker (sp?)... and last election's GOP candidate, Lynn Swan.
Still, there are enough traditional Italian, Irish and Polish neighborhoods still in Scranton that we could see quite a few "blue dog" Democrats out and about, too. Lest we forget, Obama still isn't the popular "jock" here that he is elsewhere... NEPA is "Hillary" territory, and the DNP election still rankles in Scranton.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Friday, April 10, 2009
Scranton Tax Day Tea Party
I think I'm going to go. I'm going to size into Mick, too... see if he'll come with me, for the experience if nothing else.
From 12 PM till 2 PM... and only a block and a half from the Banshee, so I can expect to be a pint or two into the afternoon by 3.
Any of you going to go to a Tea Party?
From 12 PM till 2 PM... and only a block and a half from the Banshee, so I can expect to be a pint or two into the afternoon by 3.
Any of you going to go to a Tea Party?
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Bowing...
So, there are a few conservatives left in NEPA, and those that I work with are griping and bitching about Obama's "Apology Tour '09" and his bowing to the Saudi royals.
The problem isn't the bowing. Every US President or dignitary that has ever visited Japan, China or South Korea has bowed in greeting to his Far Eastern counterpart. Bowing is a sign of respect and dignity... not submission or subservience, as some would read into it.
The problem is the "Tour" itself. At every stop along the way, the man has said that "America has made mistakes", and that "America has been wrong" in the past. Is this true? Undoubtedly. Does it ever need to be expressed by a sitting US President to the leader of a nation that activily and openly gives money to communities and families that support terror against the US? Not in a million frigging years!
To think that a man who has very recently been voted into the highest and (potentially) the most powerful office in recorded human history is going to APOLOGIZE for American actions and policies to a nation where no women has EVER cast a vote in an election... that openly and without shame supports efforts to utterly destroy the strongest ally that the US has in the region... that continues to employ the same means of "aggressive interrogation" OR WORSE on its own citizens while decrying the US for using them on "enemy combatants" and avowed terrorists... that promoted and exploited HUMAN SLAVERY as recently as 1928 within the palaces of the Royal Family itself... how can this be "okay"?
When is it going to be enough? When are we going to see the media begin to show just how radically different the Obama White House is conducting its foreign policy affairs from ANYTHING we have seen in all of US history? I would have been hard-pressed to express the fear that Obama could eclipse Carter in making the US look bad (at best... flat out WEAK at the worst) just a few months ago, but Mr. Obama has done more damage in 100 days than Carter did in an entire term of office.
I don't often agree with Newt Gingrich on ANYTHING... but he said today that Obama had reversed nearly 200 years of US foreign policy with one extended diplomatic tour. Speaker Gingrich is 100% correct on this point... no question.
The problem isn't the bowing. Every US President or dignitary that has ever visited Japan, China or South Korea has bowed in greeting to his Far Eastern counterpart. Bowing is a sign of respect and dignity... not submission or subservience, as some would read into it.
The problem is the "Tour" itself. At every stop along the way, the man has said that "America has made mistakes", and that "America has been wrong" in the past. Is this true? Undoubtedly. Does it ever need to be expressed by a sitting US President to the leader of a nation that activily and openly gives money to communities and families that support terror against the US? Not in a million frigging years!
To think that a man who has very recently been voted into the highest and (potentially) the most powerful office in recorded human history is going to APOLOGIZE for American actions and policies to a nation where no women has EVER cast a vote in an election... that openly and without shame supports efforts to utterly destroy the strongest ally that the US has in the region... that continues to employ the same means of "aggressive interrogation" OR WORSE on its own citizens while decrying the US for using them on "enemy combatants" and avowed terrorists... that promoted and exploited HUMAN SLAVERY as recently as 1928 within the palaces of the Royal Family itself... how can this be "okay"?
When is it going to be enough? When are we going to see the media begin to show just how radically different the Obama White House is conducting its foreign policy affairs from ANYTHING we have seen in all of US history? I would have been hard-pressed to express the fear that Obama could eclipse Carter in making the US look bad (at best... flat out WEAK at the worst) just a few months ago, but Mr. Obama has done more damage in 100 days than Carter did in an entire term of office.
I don't often agree with Newt Gingrich on ANYTHING... but he said today that Obama had reversed nearly 200 years of US foreign policy with one extended diplomatic tour. Speaker Gingrich is 100% correct on this point... no question.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
It's more than that, though...
I'm not denying what you are saying... that the hubris of youth in and of itself is enough to make most under 25-year-olds nearly intolerable... but I think there is a more damaging aspect to the general malaise that is sweeping society in regards to faith and religion.
I agree that among the 18 to 25 year old age group, you are going to find more agnostics and atheists... but it is the prevelance of such within the bounds of modern "conservative" views that I find so surprising. It is this aspect of the issue that I attribute to the likes of such influences as Rand, Limbaugh, Coulter, Peikoff (sp?) and other "Objectivist" pundits and authors.
Now, I could go off on some long and drawn-out rant about Objectivism... but that would mean I'd have to detail its metaphysical and philosophic details, and I am not an Objectivist, so I don't want to do that. Suffice to say that the adherents feel that the purpose of life is to live and enjoy life, and that all efforts and labors to reach that goal are GOOD (morally and ethically), while any efforts taken that deny those goals to the individual are BAD (morally and ethically). Only those things/experiences/efforts that stem from or produce "objectively" measurable results or fruits are REAL. Anything else (resulting in or stemming from) a "subjective" or "relative" basis are meaningless and completely without value (morally, ethically, or otherwise).
It goes without saying that, since there can be no "objective" evidence for the existence of God, then God cannot exist and cannot be a factor in any aspect of the human experience of any value or effect. "Faith" has no value to an Objectivist because there is nothing of meaning in their lives that ISN'T validated through non-subjective, purely non-relative physical evidence or observable fact.
Much of what Rand professed as political opinion is solid, conservative thought... strong objection to collective policies, insistance on self-reliance and individual freedoms, and the need for low taxes and strong property protection laws... but her broader philosophy (in my eyes) is far closer to the model given to history within the framework of Italian Fascism... with a massive emphasis on atheistic foundational thought. A system of government where the capitalist engine is fostered and protected by the police/military complex from encroachment or theft, and where there is no welfare protection or coverage for any member of society outside of what is provided via the private sector. "Dog-eat-dog" social darwinism, in my opinion... but no one has offered an alternative counter to my opinion anywhere else.
Is this the face of modern conservative thought? Is the Randian model what is shaping future Reagans, Gingriches, Delays, and Demints? Why else is Atlas Shrugged number 2 on the Amazon.com best-sellar list after more than 50 years in print?
I agree that among the 18 to 25 year old age group, you are going to find more agnostics and atheists... but it is the prevelance of such within the bounds of modern "conservative" views that I find so surprising. It is this aspect of the issue that I attribute to the likes of such influences as Rand, Limbaugh, Coulter, Peikoff (sp?) and other "Objectivist" pundits and authors.
Now, I could go off on some long and drawn-out rant about Objectivism... but that would mean I'd have to detail its metaphysical and philosophic details, and I am not an Objectivist, so I don't want to do that. Suffice to say that the adherents feel that the purpose of life is to live and enjoy life, and that all efforts and labors to reach that goal are GOOD (morally and ethically), while any efforts taken that deny those goals to the individual are BAD (morally and ethically). Only those things/experiences/efforts that stem from or produce "objectively" measurable results or fruits are REAL. Anything else (resulting in or stemming from) a "subjective" or "relative" basis are meaningless and completely without value (morally, ethically, or otherwise).
It goes without saying that, since there can be no "objective" evidence for the existence of God, then God cannot exist and cannot be a factor in any aspect of the human experience of any value or effect. "Faith" has no value to an Objectivist because there is nothing of meaning in their lives that ISN'T validated through non-subjective, purely non-relative physical evidence or observable fact.
Much of what Rand professed as political opinion is solid, conservative thought... strong objection to collective policies, insistance on self-reliance and individual freedoms, and the need for low taxes and strong property protection laws... but her broader philosophy (in my eyes) is far closer to the model given to history within the framework of Italian Fascism... with a massive emphasis on atheistic foundational thought. A system of government where the capitalist engine is fostered and protected by the police/military complex from encroachment or theft, and where there is no welfare protection or coverage for any member of society outside of what is provided via the private sector. "Dog-eat-dog" social darwinism, in my opinion... but no one has offered an alternative counter to my opinion anywhere else.
Is this the face of modern conservative thought? Is the Randian model what is shaping future Reagans, Gingriches, Delays, and Demints? Why else is Atlas Shrugged number 2 on the Amazon.com best-sellar list after more than 50 years in print?
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Atheism
It's funny you should be surprised by the number of rabid atheists especially when you consider the age groups you're dealing with.
While I never can say I was atheist, I had my time where I strongly questioned the Church. When faced with a debate concerning God and organized religion, I would marshal strong anti-structure, anti-fundamentalist ideals that bespoke of a young know-it-all punk who never faced true adversity or serious life issues other than high school relationship issues and which exam I needed to cram.
I'll use an example from the bar a little while ago.
Before the economy went south I was parked at the Project, decompressing from a tough night at work. no specifics, no one trading stories, me and the two friends I was with were simply drinking beer and talking about baseball and hanging out. Then these kids come in, early twenties, talking about their JAM UP dice skills, what moves you do for this and that, what this pays and that pays and is this a proper bet and so on. I finally had to turn and ask them to move down the bar because the last thing my fat old ass wanted to listen to was their work talk. What was worse was their "profusion" of knowledge advertised their break in status.
Their hatred of religion, of God, of anything absolute in terms of morality and political science again only advertises their youth and inexperience. Their lack of form, procedure and courtesy also say much of their maturity.
For those who don't believe, no explanation is possible. For those who do no explanation is necessary.
I never thought the porch conversations with the old men on the rocking chairs would be so infinitely preferable than the screaming matches in the bars.
When the sun comes up over their neighborhood and it resembles the surface of the moon and they're looking at each other with that thousand yard stare, we'll ask them where God fits into their life equations then.
While I never can say I was atheist, I had my time where I strongly questioned the Church. When faced with a debate concerning God and organized religion, I would marshal strong anti-structure, anti-fundamentalist ideals that bespoke of a young know-it-all punk who never faced true adversity or serious life issues other than high school relationship issues and which exam I needed to cram.
I'll use an example from the bar a little while ago.
Before the economy went south I was parked at the Project, decompressing from a tough night at work. no specifics, no one trading stories, me and the two friends I was with were simply drinking beer and talking about baseball and hanging out. Then these kids come in, early twenties, talking about their JAM UP dice skills, what moves you do for this and that, what this pays and that pays and is this a proper bet and so on. I finally had to turn and ask them to move down the bar because the last thing my fat old ass wanted to listen to was their work talk. What was worse was their "profusion" of knowledge advertised their break in status.
Their hatred of religion, of God, of anything absolute in terms of morality and political science again only advertises their youth and inexperience. Their lack of form, procedure and courtesy also say much of their maturity.
For those who don't believe, no explanation is possible. For those who do no explanation is necessary.
I never thought the porch conversations with the old men on the rocking chairs would be so infinitely preferable than the screaming matches in the bars.
When the sun comes up over their neighborhood and it resembles the surface of the moon and they're looking at each other with that thousand yard stare, we'll ask them where God fits into their life equations then.
He's right...
It was a slow month. I have been visiting another board (I, too, call it "cheating"), but I have to say this...
The Bund is much harder than anything else I have experienced in the realm of discussion groups and Internet bulletin boards. When I get involved in something at the other board, I find myself longing for the depth of debate that we have here. If I am trying to make a point in a debate here, I am forced (by convention, I know... but forced, none the less) to provide ample proof or evidence of my case. I carry this forensic tool with me to the other board, and find that (very often) I am the only one using it. I feel I do very well in the making of my points and opinions... but the threads are very short and often very unpleasant. I'm not suggesting we change our habits here, but I offer this as an explanation as to why we don't get as many comments and outside participation... but still get hundreds of "hits" a month.
What we "lack" here at the Bund is a true "counter-culture" point of view. There are no avowed liberals here... no one openly supports ANY of the new President's plans or agendas, and no one here can be considered anything but "conservative" in their fundamental political, religious or social views... no matter what "Party" we are registered to vote with.
Another thing I have noticed since visiting other boards is that, when you present a case with ample investigation and knowledge about the topic (any topic), you rapidly run out of dissenting opinions... because no one else wants to take the time to do the homework to support their view. Either we are ALL very dull and studious people here, or there is simply something different about our approach to discussion and debate. I'm not suggesting that we don't get caught up in the "emotion" from time to time... because the site is riddled with examples to the contrary. 99% of the time, however, we have some level of "substance" to our cases and opinions that can be weighed against those of another opinion.
While I still feel we have a more civil and adult basis for our debates here, I have to admit that one terribly tough aspect of venturing out into the broader world of Internet discussion groups and blogs is the fact that so many of those using the sites are still in college and grad school. This puts me at a distinct disadvantage, as I haven't had any formal study of ANYTHING in more than 20 years... while these kids are fresh from listening to a political theory lecture for 2 hours, or from an all-night cram session of classical liberal ideology with the campus poli-sci club. I see quotes and fundamental positions from the likes of Locke, Voltaire, Bacon, Rand, Marx, Jefferson, and Gibbons... names I often have to "google" simply to recall who (exactly) they were or are.
I also want to say this... it has been far TOO long since I have had to contend, openly, with a real, avowed and enthusiastic atheist. I am SHOCKED at the number of rabid, nearly irrational atheists as I have seen on the limited number of "conservative" websites I have visited. The same "young conservatives" espouse the values and ideas of such giants as Washington, Adams, Paine, Lincoln, and Reagan but refuse to ackowledge the link between these values and ideas and traditional Judeo-Christian ethics and morals, even though each of the examples listed above BELIEVED in God. Between the influence of such ideologues as Ayn Rand, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and the general "amoral" attitude and position of the mainstream media today, it would seem that the "next generation" of Reagan-Conservatives are going to be anti-religious at best... and outright atheists, worst case.
Anyway, I promise to be more attentive to the Bund in the future. If nothing else, I can bring some much thought-on fodder to the table from my "travels", can't I?
The Bund is much harder than anything else I have experienced in the realm of discussion groups and Internet bulletin boards. When I get involved in something at the other board, I find myself longing for the depth of debate that we have here. If I am trying to make a point in a debate here, I am forced (by convention, I know... but forced, none the less) to provide ample proof or evidence of my case. I carry this forensic tool with me to the other board, and find that (very often) I am the only one using it. I feel I do very well in the making of my points and opinions... but the threads are very short and often very unpleasant. I'm not suggesting we change our habits here, but I offer this as an explanation as to why we don't get as many comments and outside participation... but still get hundreds of "hits" a month.
What we "lack" here at the Bund is a true "counter-culture" point of view. There are no avowed liberals here... no one openly supports ANY of the new President's plans or agendas, and no one here can be considered anything but "conservative" in their fundamental political, religious or social views... no matter what "Party" we are registered to vote with.
Another thing I have noticed since visiting other boards is that, when you present a case with ample investigation and knowledge about the topic (any topic), you rapidly run out of dissenting opinions... because no one else wants to take the time to do the homework to support their view. Either we are ALL very dull and studious people here, or there is simply something different about our approach to discussion and debate. I'm not suggesting that we don't get caught up in the "emotion" from time to time... because the site is riddled with examples to the contrary. 99% of the time, however, we have some level of "substance" to our cases and opinions that can be weighed against those of another opinion.
While I still feel we have a more civil and adult basis for our debates here, I have to admit that one terribly tough aspect of venturing out into the broader world of Internet discussion groups and blogs is the fact that so many of those using the sites are still in college and grad school. This puts me at a distinct disadvantage, as I haven't had any formal study of ANYTHING in more than 20 years... while these kids are fresh from listening to a political theory lecture for 2 hours, or from an all-night cram session of classical liberal ideology with the campus poli-sci club. I see quotes and fundamental positions from the likes of Locke, Voltaire, Bacon, Rand, Marx, Jefferson, and Gibbons... names I often have to "google" simply to recall who (exactly) they were or are.
I also want to say this... it has been far TOO long since I have had to contend, openly, with a real, avowed and enthusiastic atheist. I am SHOCKED at the number of rabid, nearly irrational atheists as I have seen on the limited number of "conservative" websites I have visited. The same "young conservatives" espouse the values and ideas of such giants as Washington, Adams, Paine, Lincoln, and Reagan but refuse to ackowledge the link between these values and ideas and traditional Judeo-Christian ethics and morals, even though each of the examples listed above BELIEVED in God. Between the influence of such ideologues as Ayn Rand, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and the general "amoral" attitude and position of the mainstream media today, it would seem that the "next generation" of Reagan-Conservatives are going to be anti-religious at best... and outright atheists, worst case.
Anyway, I promise to be more attentive to the Bund in the future. If nothing else, I can bring some much thought-on fodder to the table from my "travels", can't I?
Out like a lamb...
So it's the last post of March, and it's one of our slowest months ever. Even if we posted every Ryan text verbatim we're below average.
Aside from Titus' cheating and a general sense of agreement in disagreeing with the current administration's handling of just about everything since being sworn in, why the silence?
4 days ago we got plastered by almost nine inches of rain in thirty-six hours. My apartment took water. The master bedroom is now the home of three industrial fans, a gigantic dehumidifier and two walls with more ventilation holes poked in them than a McDonald's play area. Never mind the fact that the machines combined make slightly less noise than one of Baddboy's C-130s on take off.
Is that an excuse for my not posting? No, just filling in the dead space.
I'd like to launch on a Ryanesque like rant concerning GM and Chrysler. I'd like to point and say that no matter what tough talk Obama may spew, he CANNOT let the big three fall. If any American company was going to get a bailout, this administration should have PLANNED on these three, for what is the Democratic Party without the UAW? And if the current administration allows the big three to fall, whether through restructuring in bankruptcy or what have you, what union would EVER support the dems again?
I'd like to talk about this but I am so numb to "recovery" and "stimulus" and "bailout" I cannot create an original thought.
I do want to know where we, as Americans, became slaves to entitlement? When did we, simply by being citizens of the United States, get the ideas in our heads that we are OWED something? Anything? We have rights, we have responsibilities, we have duties, but are we OWED something? Just by being here?
Just a last shout out before April. Hope we're busier here next month.
Aside from Titus' cheating and a general sense of agreement in disagreeing with the current administration's handling of just about everything since being sworn in, why the silence?
4 days ago we got plastered by almost nine inches of rain in thirty-six hours. My apartment took water. The master bedroom is now the home of three industrial fans, a gigantic dehumidifier and two walls with more ventilation holes poked in them than a McDonald's play area. Never mind the fact that the machines combined make slightly less noise than one of Baddboy's C-130s on take off.
Is that an excuse for my not posting? No, just filling in the dead space.
I'd like to launch on a Ryanesque like rant concerning GM and Chrysler. I'd like to point and say that no matter what tough talk Obama may spew, he CANNOT let the big three fall. If any American company was going to get a bailout, this administration should have PLANNED on these three, for what is the Democratic Party without the UAW? And if the current administration allows the big three to fall, whether through restructuring in bankruptcy or what have you, what union would EVER support the dems again?
I'd like to talk about this but I am so numb to "recovery" and "stimulus" and "bailout" I cannot create an original thought.
I do want to know where we, as Americans, became slaves to entitlement? When did we, simply by being citizens of the United States, get the ideas in our heads that we are OWED something? Anything? We have rights, we have responsibilities, we have duties, but are we OWED something? Just by being here?
Just a last shout out before April. Hope we're busier here next month.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
