Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Happy Independence Day! Here's How You "Must" Celebrate!
Any time a presidential candidate follows the phrase "loving your country" with the word "must," a shiver runs through me, and not in the Chris Matthews way. Here's Barack Obama yesterday, as part of his week-long patriogasm in the run-up to Independence Day:
loving your country shouldn't just mean watching fireworks on the Fourth of July. Loving your country must mean accepting your responsibility to do your part to change it.
First of all, as reason columnist Greg Beato has amply documented, it's getting harder and harder for happiness-pursuing Americans to watch their own damned fireworks, thanks to politicians of the nanny-boo Chicago school. Second of all, who died and made this guy the arbiter of what "loving your country must mean"? He's been musting all week, too:
[P]atriotism must, if it is to mean anything, involve the willingness to sacrifice - to give up something we value on behalf of a larger cause. [...]
For the rest of us - for those of us not in uniform or without loved ones in the military - the call to sacrifice for the country's greater good remains an imperative of citizenship.
Sacrifice for the greater good, sacrifice for the greater good ... where have I heard that before?
Read John McCain's alarming views on national service here. Barack Obama's various bad ideas on the subject can be found here. Paul Thornton warned us about national service back in May, and in the June issue, Gene Healy explained just how and why it came to pass that "Today's candidates are running enthusiastically for national preacher-and much else besides."
Nigel Watt|7.3.08 @ 10:54AM|#
On the plus side, all those Euromaniacs will get the government of their dreams.
ed|7.3.08 @ 10:56AM|#
the willingness to sacrifice - to give up something we value
on behalf of a larger cause
Wrong. Exchanging a value for a greater value is not a sacrifice.
Some may say it's quibbling, but words have meanings and there's an
important distinction to be made. What he really means, of
course, is that your life doesn't belong to you, and if you resist
his "invitation" to sacrifice, he'll find a way to convince you to
submit. Happy Independence Day, everyone.
Elemenope|7.3.08 @ 10:56AM|#
[P]atriotism must, if it is to mean anything, involve the
willingness to sacrifice - to give up something we value on behalf
of a larger cause. [...]
For the rest of us - for those of us not in uniform or without
loved ones in the military - the call to sacrifice for the
country's greater good remains an imperative of
citizenship.
So far as this goes, it is unobjectionable, and in fact close to
tautological; that *is* patriotism. It only becomes objectionable
when someone attempt to *force compliance* with some arbitrary
standard or method of expressing it.
|7.3.08 @ 10:58AM|#
the call to sacrifice for the country's greater good remains
an imperative of citizenship.
This is the sort of talk which makes me want to stab the speaker in
the eye with my American Flag lapel pin.
Elemenope|7.3.08 @ 10:58AM|#
What he really means, of course, is that your life doesn't
belong to you, and if you resist his "invitation" to sacrifice,
he'll find a way to convince you to submit.
ed --
I'm glad your telepathy has developed. Now, do a real trick and
read your own mind and try to find out why you believe those darned
politicians are out to get you.
It's this sort of hyperbolic shit that makes libertarians all seem
like shrill idiots.
|7.3.08 @ 11:00AM|#
Sacrifice for the greater good, sacrifice for the greater good ... where have I hear that before?
Animal Farm?
Guy Montag|7.3.08 @ 11:02AM|#
Well, I plan on celebrating on federal property, watching
federal fireworks. Not an endorsement, just seems like the easiest
and nicest view for me this year.
I can bring 10 guests too, so show up at the DC 2600 meeting in
Champps, Pentagon Row, Arlington, VA tomorrow evening if you want
to be a guest of mine.
NO WEAPONS, FIREWORKS, GLASS CONTAINERS, ALCOHOL OR ILLEGAL STUFF!
Sorry, not my rule, it is the rule of our "host".
Oh yea, the Senators can shove it.
Nigel Watt|7.3.08 @ 11:03AM|#
It's this sort of hyperbolic shit that makes libertarians all seem like shrill idiots.
How is that hyperbolic? Isn't that the idea behind the income tax?
Elemenope|7.3.08 @ 11:07AM|#
How is that hyperbolic? Isn't that the idea behind the
income tax?
Ed was outright implying that if Obama gets his way he will impose
by force (i.e. boots and kicked-in doors) or by threat of such
force his notion of sacrifice, above and beyond what prior
politicians have done. That strikes me as hyperbolic and shrill.
Not you?
I somehow doubt that Obama is going to be *more* oppressive than
his predecessors, and *certainly* no more than McCain.
Guy Montag|7.3.08 @ 11:07AM|#
How is that hyperbolic?
Maybe he means parabolic? Simple mistake, nothing to get upset
about.
|7.3.08 @ 11:11AM|#
"P]atriotism must, if it is to mean anything, involve the
willingness to sacrifice - to give up something we value on behalf
of a larger cause. [...]"
Let me translate that into clear and simple words that we can all
understand. Patriotism means giving up your freedom and most
importantly your money so that Obama can take that money and that
freedom and make sure it is used responsibly.
Nigel Watt|7.3.08 @ 11:11AM|#
Not you?
Doesn't most every Balko post detail how they're already doing that?
Fluffy|7.3.08 @ 11:13AM|#
Ed was outright implying that if Obama gets his way he will
impose by force (i.e. boots and kicked-in doors) or by threat of
such force his notion of sacrifice, above and beyond what prior
politicians have done.
I don't think he implies that at all.
I think it implies that Obama will propose legislation that
identifies a certain group of Americans who must sacrifice for the
greater good, and if he is successful in passing that legislation,
will use the existing machinery of government to enforce and
collect those sacrifices. Just like every other politician. The
statement doesn't require Obama to kick in doors or do anything
more than other politicians who have used the same rhetoric and
proceeded from the same assumptions.
Fluffy|7.3.08 @ 11:14AM|#
I will quibble with Matt's universal distaste for the word
"must", though.
I think the sentence "Loving America must mean loving the
Constitution" or a similar formulation would be quite sound.
dhex|7.3.08 @ 11:18AM|#
the entire idea of "loving america" is fucking crazy. how the living fuck do you love an abstract concept?
Guy Montag|7.3.08 @ 11:20AM|#
the entire idea of "loving america" is fucking crazy. how
the living fuck do you love an abstract concept?
So, loving my 1972 Dodge Charger is fine, but loving her coolness
is not?
Josh|7.3.08 @ 11:22AM|#
Obama will: "Require 100 Hours of Service in College"
FOAD. He also wants 50 hours a year for middle and highschool
students.
Unretorical question: When calls for mandatory national service
come up (including the draft), why is it that the youngest people
are always the targets?
Elemenope|7.3.08 @ 11:23AM|#
Maybe he means parabolic? Simple mistake, nothing to get
upset about.
ROFL!
Doesn't most every Balko post detail how they're already doing
that?
My problem with the shrillness is the carelessness with which the
"they" is imputed. Libertarians have many betes noirs, but
during election season everyone seems to become sloppily
indiscriminate about which one they choose to lash out
against.
For example, Mr. Welsh corrected my sloppy imputation of McCain
bombing civilian targets the other day, and I retracted, not
wanting to accuse a man of war crimes who has not committed them. I
think that's the honorable thing to do. Ed, on the other hand,
seems to be of the school of thought that if a politician ever
speaks of duty or normative thought, he should be accused of
wanting to send jack-booted thugs to his place the day after
election.
That strikes me as, well, fucking stupid, as well as intellectually
and ethically dishonest.
Nigel Watt|7.3.08 @ 11:26AM|#
That strikes me as, well, fucking stupid, as well as intellectually and ethically dishonest.
So if I refuse to do national service, the jackbooted thugs will just send me nastygrams?
Elemenope|7.3.08 @ 11:27AM|#
I think it implies that Obama will propose legislation that
identifies a certain group of Americans who must sacrifice for the
greater good, and if he is successful in passing that legislation,
will use the existing machinery of government to enforce and
collect those sacrifices. Just like every other politician. The
statement doesn't require Obama to kick in doors or do anything
more than other politicians who have used the same rhetoric and
proceeded from the same assumptions.
As is noted ad infinitum ad nauseam here, legislation is
backed up ultimately by the state's monopoly on force. And he was
definitely implying the use of that force, regardless of how many
steps there lie between the abrogation of a legislated duty and a
boot planted squarely against the front door.
Nigel Watt|7.3.08 @ 11:28AM|#
As is noted ad infinitum ad nauseam here, legislation is backed up ultimately by the state's monopoly on force. And he was definitely implying the use of that force, regardless of how many steps there lie between the abrogation of a legislated duty and a boot planted squarely against the front door.
So you recognize that the chain of action exists, but to talk about it directly is hyperbolic?
Elemenope|7.3.08 @ 11:28AM|#
Unrhetorical question: When calls for mandatory national
service come up (including the draft), why is it that the youngest
people are always the targets?
Neutral: They have more to give.
Obvious: They can't (or don't) vote.
Truth: Old people don't like doing work.
Jane|7.3.08 @ 11:31AM|#
You show your love of country by obeying it's laws and following the orders of it's government, period, end of discussion.
Dave B.|7.3.08 @ 11:31AM|#
Obama will: "Require 100 Hours of Service in
College"
If you read a little further down his site, it turns out that the
100 hours are optional. Furthermore, you get paid $40/hour in
scholarship money if you choose to do them. The stuff with the
middle and high schoolers would be mandatory, though.
Remember: Pay a kid to work, and you're an evil child-exploiting
capitalist. Force a kid to work for free, and you're an
inspirational bringer of hope.
|7.3.08 @ 11:35AM|#
Loving your country husband must mean
accepting your responsibility to do your part to change
it him.
I think this is a clever/coded play for the women's vote.
Guy Montag|7.3.08 @ 11:36AM|#
Scary to hear slavery being endorsed by a black
guy.
Did you miss Rep. Rangel's conscription slavery bill
from a few years ago?
|7.3.08 @ 11:41AM|#
Old people don't like doing work but we love Medicare and SS
paid for by working folks.
But as the old song goes, "I'd trade all of my tomorrows for just
one yesterday"
Elemenope|7.3.08 @ 11:43AM|#
So you recognize that the chain of action exists, but to
talk about it directly is hyperbolic?
No, to talk about it as a done deal before the chain even *exists*
is hyperbolic. So far as I know (please, stop me if I'm wrong)
Obama has neither sponsored nor supported any legislation requiring
mandatory service of any sort.
And until he does, making him out to be a jack-booted fascist on
the issue is, yes, hyperbolic.
Elemenope|7.3.08 @ 11:45AM|#
Many people here seem to confuse "It would be nice if..."
speeches with "I'm gonna use the power of state to do..." speeches.
I'll admit that sometimes they blend uncomfortably, but I have not
seen any evidence that Obama has been doing such blending.
It is possible to praise and extol patriotism without advocating it
be enforced at the barrel of a gun, y'know.
ed|7.3.08 @ 11:45AM|#
Gee, I just reread my original comment and I see no evidence of shrillness or hyperbole, but rather an opinion based on the historical events of the last century and before. To say veiled threats of force by my government cannot lead to outright coercion is, Penelope, retarded at best. Read a book. Better yet, go back to your sandbox. The adults are trying to have a conversation.
technomist|7.3.08 @ 11:47AM|#
Happy Independence Day from the land of the Evil
ex-Empire.
Luckily, we don't have politicians over here trying to get elected
by saying things like:
"P]atriotism must, if it is to mean anything, involve the
willingness to sacrifice - to give up something we value on behalf
of a larger cause. [...]"
Nor do we have oaths of allegiance in our schools, rarely if ever,
are flags worn on lapel pins, (or even seen outside of sports
arenas, nor have our governments ever attempted to claim what they
do has anything to do with 'dreams'.
But its a good time of year for a public holiday, and I do hope you
enjoy yours.
(If anyone can explain the relevance of the 'Euromaniacs' comment
to this article, I would be interested to know what that is
about.)
Nigel Watt|7.3.08 @ 11:50AM|#
(If anyone can explain the relevance of the 'Euromaniacs' comment to this article, I would be interested to know what that is about.)
Many Americans think Europe has the policy answers to everything. They, from my experience, love Obama.
Other Matt|7.3.08 @ 11:51AM|#
I'm glad your telepathy has developed. Now, do a real trick
and read your own mind and try to find out why you believe those
darned politicians are out to get you.
It's this sort of hyperbolic shit that makes libertarians all seem
like shrill idiots.
And the fact that Obama goes to such great pains as to qualify or
deny any time he is tied to a definitive statement shows what then?
I'm curious what you believe his agenda to be, as your description
will show a lot about what you project on Obama. Listening to him,
one can only surmise that he plans to push as hard towards
authoritarian socialism as possible. Listening to the people that
loudly support him makes you wonder if they would pay attention to
a rat eating their genitals, as they sure haven't paid attention to
what he's saying, much less what he's not saying.
Other Matt|7.3.08 @ 11:52AM|#
Many Americans think Europe has the policy answers to
everything. They, from my experience, love Obama.
Yep. Leftist/socialism in their approach to the world kind of would
drive them in that direction. Let me qualify my previous statement
that at least these people are paying attention to what he says and
what he doesn't.
Elemenope|7.3.08 @ 12:00PM|#
Calling someone Penelope when that is not their nickname is
retarded at best. Other than that, parsing your statement sounded
really quite shrill. "Your life doesn't belong to you" is pretty
off-kilter and does *not* match "the historical events of the last
century and before" unless you are talking about slavery, which is
about the most childish and idiotic thing to bring up in the
context of this discussion.
Your implication that Obama would use that force to enforce his
ideas of how ideally life should be in America is not borne out by
evidence yet and so is also shrill. If that evidence changes, then
it would be time to re-evaluate your claim. Right now, it's
approximately as substantive as an aerogel.
Josh|7.3.08 @ 12:03PM|#
Has McCain made any recent propositions for mandatory national service work?
Guy Montag|7.3.08 @ 12:06PM|#
Has McCain made any recent propositions for mandatory
national service work?
Not that I recall. Yesterday he was busy chatting with one of our
Allies while several North American hostages were being rescued by
them.
Heard that Sen. Obama had some comments about visiting an ally, but
did not catch the pleasentries.
Elemenope|7.3.08 @ 12:08PM|#
And the fact that Obama goes to such great pains as to
qualify or deny any time he is tied to a definitive statement shows
what then? I'm curious what you believe his agenda to be, as your
description will show a lot about what you project on
Obama.
I believe exactly two things about him, policy-wise:
1.) He's for open government. That he has been unambiguous and
clear on from the get-go and is my primary reason for supporting
him now.
2.) He's a pragmatist who wants to keep his options open, and not
be tied down to specific ideological pronouncements. I vastly
prefer this to a man (*cough* Bush *cough*) who cannot adapt to new
evidence if it contradicts their ideological presumptions.
I'd prefer an idealist who shares my ideals, but I'll take a
pragmatist over an idealist who *doesn't* share my ideals.
BakedPenguin|7.3.08 @ 12:12PM|#
What I'd like to know is why these idiots think it's a good idea to subject the young to the same punishment petty criminals receive. I don't know if orange jumpsuits are part of the "service" proposals, but I wouldn't be surprised.
|7.3.08 @ 12:29PM|#
"Unretorical question: When calls for mandatory national service
come up (including the draft), why is it that the youngest people
are always the targets?"
Because they don't vote. I would love to see someone come out with
a "geezer national service plan" target the healthy and wealthy who
collect social security. I am not holding my breath.
What infuriates me most about Obama's "we have to sacrifice
language" is what has that paper hanging race baiting son of bitch
ever sacrificed for this country? I wasn't aware that attending top
flight colleges, getting a do nothing "community organizer job"
after law school, as opposed to working at a firm where he would
have been expected to produce something, or parlaying a political
career into being a millionaire was "sacrificing for the country".
Obama has never done one God damned thing that didn't benefit his
skinny geeky ass or his mouthy wife. That of course taken in
isolation is fine. It is a free country and no one has ever asked
Obama to do anything nor should they. But, what it does mean is he
needs shut the hell up and stop lecturing the rest of us about
sacrifice. I will sacrifice for this country just like Obama does.
So, when do I get my sweetheart multi-million dollar deal with a
crooked lobbyist on his way to prison?
Guy Montag|7.3.08 @ 12:37PM|#
What I'd like to know is why these idiots think it's a good
idea to subject the young to the same punishment petty criminals
receive. I don't know if orange jumpsuits are part of the "service"
proposals, but I wouldn't be surprised.
Because we are all property of the state and that is the method
they choose to use that portion of their property.
Invisible Finger|7.3.08 @ 12:39PM|#
I'd prefer an idealist who shares my ideals, but I'll take a
pragmatist over an idealist who *doesn't* share my
ideals.
Instead you're gonna get a crook who shares your delusions.
(No matter who wins.)
|7.3.08 @ 12:43PM|#
"I'd prefer an idealist who shares my ideals, but I'll take a
pragmatist over an idealist who *doesn't* share my ideals."
Where exactly is the line between a "pragmatist" and a liar and
opportunist who tells you whatever he thinks you want to hear?
Obama sure looks like the latter to me. When it was to his
advantage in the primaries he was Mr. I am going to pull out of
Iraq and stop warrentless wiretapping. Now that that is over and he
has to appeal to someone besides the Nutroots, FISA is looking
damned good to him and that whole pull out of Iraq thing may have
to be a little more "nuanced" than he first thought.
Egosumabbas|7.3.08 @ 12:54PM|#
Thank you Reason Magazine for finally jumping off the Obama
bandwagon and realizing that Obama is just as much an authoritarian
as McCain.
This also ties in with the previous articles about Chicago. I don't
want the rest of the country turning into Chicago under Obama...
then I'd have nowhere to run to as this city transforms itself into
the Nanny State.
Polimom|7.3.08 @ 1:03PM|#
Unretorical question: When calls for mandatory national service come up (including the draft), why is it that the youngest people are always the targets?"
Maybe because young people are not yet locked into the nearly
impossible-to-suspend-temporarily demands of family and/or
established career? (And it's worth pointing out that the existing
programs upon which these proposals rest have slots for the
retired.)
Also -- It looks to me as if the "Require 100 hours for college
students" is getting twisted rather badly. Reading further, one
discovers that it's a requirement only if one wants the attached
college tax credit. One can certainly debate the merits of offering
a tax credit, but it's a bit of a stretch to suggest that there's
some blanket requirement there.
Rhywun|7.3.08 @ 1:37PM|#
I threw up a little in my mouth when I read this yesterday just like everyone else. But what I want to know is... why is work never considered a "sacrifice" that's good enough for these types? My job does every bit as much good for the country as changing diapers or picking up garbage along the highway or whatever other nonsense they can think up. Let the people who actually care about this stuff do it, and leave the rest of us the fuck alone.
Other Matt|7.3.08 @ 1:40PM|#
I believe exactly two things about him, policy-wise:
1.) He's for open government. That he has been unambiguous and
clear on from the get-go and is my primary reason for supporting
him now.
2.) He's a pragmatist who wants to keep his options open, and not
be tied down to specific ideological pronouncements. I vastly
prefer this to a man (*cough* Bush *cough*) who cannot adapt to new
evidence if it contradicts their ideological
presumptions.
1) I assume you mean the yellow brick road over the rainbow blown
up your backside at high volume sunshine on his website. Rather
than waste bandwidth, find something there that is a) workable, and
b) is something we don't have already, and c) actually would result
in some outcome as a result of it being there that wouldn't happen
otherwise. You can't, I tried. You have to actually read what it
says, and pay attention to what it doesn't say.
For example, he advocates that people have five days to comment by
email on proposed legislation. We don't have this already? It also
presupposes that we as a public are informed about things like line
items shown as $100M really are $3.1B as in the recent farm bill,
but it's ok because they were black farmers I guess. That minor
detail aside, even the congresscritters themselves were largely
unaware of what they were voting for, so I fail to see the value in
saying "Ok, you have five days to comment, go now!" and having
spambots from the Ukraine send comments about how badly some guy
named John Sanchez wants to show us his tits, but perhaps you and I
differ on that.
I see no great shining beacon of open government anywhere, I see a
morass of redundant recordkeeping and a focus on people being
"heard", whatever the hell that means, but no description
whatsoever as to what end will result, nothing indicating things
like real time polling (dangerous as it presupposes people know
what they're voting on, but it's "open").
I would ask you, why do you trust the "openness" of a man who is
obviously so lacking in "openness" and so full of intentional
obfuscation in terms of providing his true positions on significant
issues?
2) "Keeping options open", you're presupposing that his "options"
include only those which are "good" to you, or I guess you're only
including those by using this description as a good thing. They
don't. As long as politicians "keep options open" while striving
for authoritarian government,that leaves all options on the table,
including the whole subset that results in "bad for
everyone".
Just a note, you resort to defining "against Bush" as your final
comment. To vote against someone many times results in voting for
someone far worse, which is exactly what I fear with the ignorance
of the public and Obama's obviously accomplished ability to be
devoid of true substance. They hear a nice sounding speach, and
with joe-like absence of thought, they talk about how wonderful the
guy is without really knowing what the guy stands for. What they're
doing is projecting their version of "good" on his future actions,
with no basis to do so. If he's "keeping options open", then he
really stands for nothing, and "change" is at best undefined, at
worst, well, far worse.
Fluffy|7.3.08 @ 1:58PM|#
To vote against someone many times results in voting for
someone far worse
Only one Democrat President has been worse than Bush: FDR.
Carter was less than competent but was not malicious enough to be
worse than Bush.
LBJ was as bad as Bush, but not any worse.
Truman was as bad as Bush, but not any worse.
McCain looks like he will be as bad as Bush, and has an outside
shot at being worse.
That means to be worse than Bush and McCain, Obama would have to be
the worst Democrat President is history other than FDR. And how
likely is that?
Johnny Nowhere|7.3.08 @ 1:59PM|#
BakedPenguin,
the orange jumpsuits are high-visibility, so they would protect our
little dears as they sacrifice for The Homeland by beautifying our
highways and byways.
Other Matt|7.3.08 @ 2:30PM|#
That means to be worse than Bush and McCain, Obama would
have to be the worst Democrat President is history other than FDR.
And how likely is that?
Depends on your measuring stick. In terms of authoritarian
socialism, the answer to your question is "pretty damn likely". His
ideas seem to be on the order of FDR in regards to socialist
economics with Al Sharpton's view of minorities, to the extent that
we can actually discern his views and I haven't seen anyone able to
do that yet. Combine this with a cult leader personal magnetism.
Bad combination.
If your measuring stick is the aforementioned euro-lovers, then
he's great, and we'll have all the silliness that the Daily
Brickbat harvests from GB over here very shortly.
Change, it's all in the definition, and only from the Void of
Obama.
McCain looks like he will be as bad as Bush, and has an outside
shot at being worse.
I'm no friend of either party, I don't particularly like McCain but
to my thinking he's preferable to Obama simply because he actually
says something. I won't vote for him, though, I'll be one of those
"wasted" vots. That said, what basis do you have to say that McCain
will be "worse" than Bush? What measure are you using to forecast
this, as I haven't seen it.
Fluffy|7.3.08 @ 2:44PM|#
That said, what basis do you have to say that McCain will be
"worse" than Bush? What measure are you using to forecast this, as
I haven't seen it.
Piece by piece over the campaign season McCain has explicitly
embraced the entire Bush agenda / legacy [with a slight deviation
on immigration policy]. McCain differs from Bush mainly in
that:
1. He hates free speech more than Bush.
2. He has disdain for all private economic activity and views
government service as the only worthwhile activity in life.
3. He thinks that Bush's foreign policies failed because of a
failure to start enough wars or to make the wars big enough once
they were started.
So if you take W, and add 1-3, that to me is "worse" than W.
|7.3.08 @ 2:45PM|#
Many people here seem to confuse "It would be nice if..."
speeches with "I'm gonna use the power of state to do..."
speeches.
Only because so many people out there, especially politicians,
don't seem to see any difference between "It would be nice if..."
and "I'm gonna use the power of state to do..."
|7.3.08 @ 2:47PM|#
Elemenope wrote at 12:08 with regard to supporting obama:
1.) He's for open government. That he has been unambiguous and
clear on from the get-go and is my primary reason for supporting
him now.
2.) He's a pragmatist who wants to keep his options open, and not
be tied down to specific ideological pronouncements. I vastly
prefer this to a man (*cough* Bush *cough*) who cannot adapt to new
evidence if it contradicts their ideological presumptions.
----------------------------------------
1) Being for open government is like being for apple pie; and in
any event, any support obama may have professed for open government
is belied by his rejection of public financing.
2) The labels "pragmatist" or "problem solver" are (i) not
justified by obama's accomplishments, or lack thereof and (ii) void
of any real meaning. The labels say nothing of what means or end
the candidate would view as practical, nor does it speak to what
the candidate would view as a problem.
Moreover, there is a difference between shifting POLICIES and
shifting PRINCIPLES. Polices (on tax cuts, troop levels, etc.) must
change to accomodate facts on the ground. Principles (such as
support of public financing of elections to minimize the influence
of money in politics or the primacy of 4th Amendment rights over
the government's interest in warrentless wiretaps) should never
change. Obama's principles change and change often.
Other Matt|7.3.08 @ 2:56PM|#
1. He hates free speech more than Bush.
I assume you're referring to his campaign finance limits? I don't
agree that he hates free speach more than Bush, it's probably the
same level of disdain just focused differently, and probably no
worse and perhaps slightly better than Obama in this regard.
2. He has disdain for all private economic activity and views
government service as the only worthwhile activity in
life.
You are correct, he's probably worse than Bush here, and Obama is
worse than him here as Obama has the view that part of that
worthwhile government activity is to take the fruits of the private
economic activity and redistribute it. I haven't seen McCain quite
so eager to do so, but yes, more than Bush.
3. He thinks that Bush's foreign policies failed because of a
failure to start enough wars or to make the wars big enough once
they were started.
I haven't heard "failure to start enough wars". I kind of agree
with him on not making it big enough. To try to occupy a country is
not what our military is designed to do, it's a force fit that
hasn't worked since WW2. Our military is designed to fuck up as
much stuff and kill as many people as possible in the shortest
period of time.
So if you take W, and add 1-3, that to me is "worse" than
W.
Ok. Just curious, how do you arrive at Obama being "better" with
the above list? At least two of the three, he's further over than
McCain.
|7.3.08 @ 2:56PM|#
Loving your country must mean accepting your responsibility
to do your part to change it.
... or else, we will place your unlovin' ass on a psychiatric ward,
because you must be crazy not to accept your responsibility as
subject.
Premier Obama, on his 4th ascension as president for life of the
United by Love for the Children States of America
Egosumabbas|7.3.08 @ 2:59PM|#
"1. He hates free speech more than Bush."
I would agree on the whole McCain-Feingold law violating political
speech. On the other hand, Bush had repeatedly said something to
the effect of "there are times when freedom of speech goes too
far". Overall, I think Obama would be worse for free speech
(political correctness, hate crime legislation, etc.).
"2. He has disdain for all private economic activity and views
government service as the only worthwhile activity in life."
So why does McCain advocate lowering taxes on the economics section
of his website, while Obama advocates increased intervention? I'm
not voting for McCain, but obviously he's better than Obama.
"3. He thinks that Bush's foreign policies failed because of a
failure to start enough wars or to make the wars big enough once
they were started."
Actually, we probably would have done a better job in Iraq HAD it
been bigger--for instance had we actually gotten a full declaration
of war instead of just sending in a paltry number of troops. Not to
say that it was a good idea to base a war on faulty intelligence
(in retrospect staying at home would have been a better idea), but
if we're committing to war, we better do a thorough job of pursuing
it so we don't end up like we did in Vietnam or Iraq. The "fire and
forget" military policy of Bush is far worse than the "boots on the
ground" military policy of Powell or McCain.
|7.3.08 @ 3:01PM|#
Sacrifice for the greater good, sacrifice for the greater
good ... where have I heard that before?
It's a Nazi slogan: The wants of the individual are second place to
the wants of the people. It is also a favorite slogan of Vulcan
fascists (there aren't any other type, by the way): The needs of
the many outweigh the needs of the few.
Other Matt|7.3.08 @ 3:19PM|#
Wow, Other Matt, I think we just had a vulcan mind
meld.
Sounds fun, but in reality it's just thinking it through all the
way without getting emotionally caught up.
|7.3.08 @ 3:45PM|#
in reality it's just thinking it through all the way without
getting emotionally caught up.
Very Vulcan, really.
Other Matt|7.3.08 @ 3:52PM|#
Very Vulcan, really.
Damn, you're right, didn't really think about it that way.
Well, live long and prosper, I guess, and I'll go study how to make
ancient jewish hand forms and the like.
LT Nixon|7.3.08 @ 4:29PM|#
Why serve your country when there's other suckers out there willing to do it for you?
economist|7.3.08 @ 6:20PM|#
While I have stated this before, I will state it again:
Why is it not okay for a teenager under 16 to work at most jobs for
pay?
But perfectly fine to be forced to work for free as "community
service".
Wanna know the best way for kids to contribute to the common good?
Read "The Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith.
(Full disclosure: I personally did not get a job until I was 18 and
had graduated, because my parents wanted me to focus on my
education)
Bill Clinton|7.3.08 @ 6:56PM|#
How dare you suggest that we in the freest nation on Earth live in tyranny. How dare you call yourselves patriots and heroes... There is nothing patriotic about hating your country, or pretending that you can love your country but despise your government.
Other Matt|7.4.08 @ 5:24AM|#
There is nothing patriotic about hating your country, or
pretending that you can love your country but despise your
government.
He was talkin 'bout Kerry, right?
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245