November 3

midterm reflections 2010

Coming off an historic wave of incumbent-ousting in yesterday’s midterm elections, a look back on Congress, and a look forward.

  • As I was (surprisedly) glad to hear Boehner, McCain, and others recognize, this election was a repudiation of the Democrats, NOT an endorsement of the Republicans.
  • Main Street Republicans must remain vigilant. Far too often, when “their party” wins, the people become complacent and fail to hold their own elected officials’ feet to the fire throughout the upcoming term. Remember, the Republicans’ “Pledge to America” consists not of a proper healthcare repeal, but a “repeal and replace” – or put simply, “their version”, still complete with illogical preexisting conditions verbiage.
  • Nancy Pelosi (aka NoPelosi, DoPelosi, or Pelosi-Doh!) is relegated to the backseat. There is even talk of her resigning in the near future, which, I promise, would make my day. Nothing would make me happier than to never, ever have to see the bumbling, elitist, flailing-hand-gesture lady again.
  • Rand Paul’s victory was the most exciting news of the election. I’m calling it now: the start of a great, chamber-spanning relationship now known as “The Paul Caucus”. Can’t wait to see what kind of knowledge-bombs this guy will drop on DC.
  • Tom Perriello, one of the Obama/Pelosi machine’s chief enablers/rubber stampers in the House, was ousted. This after Obama made his only solo campaign endorsement for the guy (did he WANT the guy knocked off?). Or, poetically: “All King Obama’s horses and all of his henchmen, couldn’t put Tom Perriello back in Congress again!”
  • Alan Grayson’s fall from grace. I was a big fan of Grayson when he was one of only a few who stood up to the Federal Reserver and asked the tough questions. I then started to become wary of him when he began grandstanding against the Republicans on the healthcare issue, saying that they had no real solutions but to “let people die” (patently false). When he ran the sickeningly slanderous “Taliban Dan” ads, it was all over for the one-and-done-er. At least it was a good lesson on how NOT to run a campaign.
  • Lastly, South Carolinian Democrats should be entirely embarrassed at themselves. That Alvin Greene, the alleged sex offender with no platform or even capable dialogue other than robotically repeating “It’s all Jim Demint’s fault”, would carry 1/3 of the vote – shocking.
October 27

splitting the vote

With the November midterm elections right around the corner, the political discourse – as much as ever – is rampant. One timeless phrase heard and concern held in a perhaps higher-than-usual frequency this election is “splitting the vote” – with the growth of libertarianism and the onset of a new political movement, the Tea Party, one can see why. But, frustratingly, the concern in the conservative movement remains, as it has for years; if I vote for the libertarian or the independent more closely aligned with “my” views, surely my guy AND the “lesser-of-two-evils” Republican will split the vote, and the evil Democrat will win!

As a member of the libertarian (or the “true” conservative) movement, I must posit the question: what’s the difference? That is, what’s the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats anyways, especially in this new millennium? What good has either party done in the last 20 years to make them worthy of your recurring vote?

The Republicans claim they will put an end to the spending and return to limited government. Why now? Why, when they had the majority under Bush, did they expand the size of the federal government the most since the socialist FDR and his cronies at the beginning of last century?

Many conservatives claim they are tired of the pragmatism, the compromise, and yearn for a man of principle to represent them in Congress. How can they then, in the same breath, abandon their own principles and claim that the possibility of splitting the vote is too dangerous, and that they must therefore compromise?

As for the possibility of splitting the vote: does it really matter? Most Republicans in DC voted for legislation that most real conservatives are against: TARP bailouts, Medicare, the Patriot Act, and a myriad of other spending bills. In their “Pledge to America”, they admit they don’t even want to repeal Obamacare; they simply want to replace it with their own version. The Democrats and the majority of the Republicans in Washington are going down the same road – the road towards big government. Whether or not you split the vote, if you get a Democrat or an establishment Republican, there is one thing you are sure to get: more of the same.

As for me, as a resident of VA-7 district, I will be voting for Floyd Bayne (floydbayne.com). Cantor, his establishment Republican minority whip opponent, has shown his true colors by casting his vote in favor of the aforementioned big-government bills. I urge you to cast off your paradigm, cast off your ingrained party affiliation, and vote for the independent, the libertarian, the challenger – ANYONE but the incumbent – because the time is long past due for REAL change.
Find your candidates here.

Category: politics | Comments Off on splitting the vote
October 22

ideological definitions

The following is a first stab at my definitions of ideological/political views in the United States today. I will probably update this with more information soon, or as I think of it. When debating on ideological/political issues, it is important to define your terms, which is why I’ve done so here.

conservatism: from the word “conserve”, meaning to keep to the self, the belief that government should be extremely limited and non-interventionist regarding both foreign policy and civil liberties, and if absolutely necessary, only to defend the individual’s rights from others; Austrian economy; a rebellion against statism. true conservatism in the modern age is represented as libertarianism, and historically as classical liberalism (“liberalism” being derived from “liberty”, which in this instance is a meaningful derivation). in its purest form, manifested as anarcho-capitalism or minarchy, depending on adherence to Lockean principles (ie social contract, or statism).

Conservatism: the general, modern-day majoritarian view of “conservatism”; currently, Republicanism, “the Right”, or neoconservatism. see also: Fox News

republicanism: of a republican form of government, or, defending the right of the minority from the will of the majority

Republicanism: see: neoconservatism

neoconservatism: a principally inconsistent jungle of legacied conservative rhetoric mixed with unfounded corporatism, warmongering, expedient welfare, general acceptance of established social programs i.e. public education, public transportation, etc., discrimination against harmless, non-aggressionist (but usually sinful) individuals (such as gays or drug users) based on dogmatic or sometimes skewed Christianity, and blind nationalism.

liberalism: from the word “liberal”, meaning radical (opposite conservative), the belief that government should help all of its citizens; a focus on social responsibility; Keynesian economy. liberalism in the modern age is also represented as progressivism, and historically as social liberalism and Fabian socialism. in its purest form, manifested as socialism or communism.

Liberalism: the general, modern-day majoritarian view of “liberalism”; currently, Democratism, “the Left”, or progressivism. see also: all mainstream media networks except Fox News

democratism: of a democratic form of government, or, forcing the will of the majority on the minority

Democratism: see: progressivism

progressivism: a principally inconsistent blend of liberal ideas warped with verbal environmentalism, atheism and evolution, feminism and anti-non-feminism/minoritism and anti-non-minoritism/nonconformity, absurd adherence to “political correctness”, and heavy push towards extreme statism.

popular politics: political views of the typical “Main Street” (everyday working-class people and small business owners), typically varied although most identify themselves with either the Republicans/Conservatives/Right or the Democrats/Liberals/Left, even if many of their views run independent of strict party affiliation

politician politics: political views of the typical Washington politician, mostly similar, just dramatized/accelerated at different lengths. politician Conservatism and politician Liberalism are parallel streets towards the East and West Ends of the city of Big Government.

populism: the political ideology that would help “Main Streeters” the most. most people would tend to think their own stance is the most populist, but the truth is, the most populist stance is MINE :)

Category: politics | Comments Off on ideological definitions
August 26

in defense of… Wal-Mart?

Okay, okay. So Wal-Mart doesn’t really need my defense. And to be honest, defending Wal-Mart doesn’t exactly give me butterflies. However, so often we are reminded of the evils of big corporations, and many times Wal-Mart is used as a prime example. Here’s why you’re wrong, Wal-Mart haters.

1. Wal-Mart uses foreign slave labor

We’ve all heard the horrible stories of people in foreign countries, including children, slaving away for peanuts. But on this issue, we must ask the question: is Wal-Mart forcing its workers to labor – be it long hours, or poor conditions, or low wages – at the point of a gun? Or are its workers choosing to continue their employment, whatever the terms may be, voluntarily? The truth is, these workers are voluntarily choosing to work these jobs because they are better than the alternative. The alternative may be even lower-paying jobs, even poorer conditions, even longer hours, or maybe even lack of employment altogether, leading to starvation.

2. Wal-Mart kills small business

When Wal-Mart infiltrates a new area, the trend seems to be that smaller “mom and pop” stores offering the same products are slowly run out of town because they can’t compete. There is a key phrase in that sentence: they can’t compete. Wal-Mart has found ways to offer its products cheaper, more efficiently, and more extensively. But if the people of that area truly care about small business, they always retain the strongest economic weapon: they can vote with their dollar. Many times communities will attempt to legislate against construction of a new Wal-Mart. Besides being blatantly un-Constitutional, this is among the highest forms of elitism, as it is a blatant snub against the voice of the people; that is, it is an attempt to say that a small group of people should overrule the voice (or the dollar) of the many.

3. Wal-Mart treats their employees badly

Okay, so, there is a laundry list of accusations against Wal-Mart and its treatment of employees. This includes:

  • Low Wages
  • Lack of Healthcare Benefit
  • The Dead Peasant Policy
  • Anti-Unionism
  • Gender Discrimination

As you can see, Wal-Mart is no Mother Teresa. So what is the resolution? See #1 and #2. The employees have willingly agreed to work there, and the patrons have willingly agreed to shop there. If you Google “anti-walmart legislation“, you will find millions of hits, covering numerous attempts to legislate against this thing or that thing that the evil Wal-Mart has (or has not) done. The fact is, corporations like Wal-Mart should not be dealt with by legislation; they should be dealt with by the market.

Again, all of these points can be applied to [pick your corporation]. One interesting/popular qualm is that Wal-Mart seems to be “above the law” sometimes. However, this is not so much a failure of Wal-Mart as it is a case of government nepotism (or at least government incompetence), curable by a heavy dose of voter enlightenment/understanding/responsibility, which in turn forces accountability.

July 25

the top 10 political movies list

10. The Count of Monte Cristo (2002)

man gets wrongly imprisoned for years, escapes, and gets his revenge.

9. Brazil (1985)

an agent of the state becomes an enemy of the state and “terrorist”. very grimy and chaotic.

8. Soylent Green (1973)

detective investigates a murder and discovers more than he bargained for.

7. Wag the Dog (1997)

a Presidential candidate creates a fake war to distract from his sex scandal.

6. Brave New World (1998)

society is conditioned to act in a controlled manner.

5. Equilibrium (2002)

similar to Fahrenheit 451, agents are dispatched to destroy all art… but why don’t they resist?

4. Nineteen Eighty-Four (1984)

a totalitarian state dictates life for its citizens.

3. Network (1976)

Howard Beale, a news anchor, crusades against news networks.

2. The Fountainhead (1949)

Howard Roark, an architect, stays true to his designs at his own risk.

1. V for Vendetta (2005)

“remember, remember, the fifth of November, the gunpowder, treason, and plot”… how can you not love a good Guy Fawkes day?

Honorable Mentions

Shenandoah (1965)

Minority Report (2002)

A Scanner Darkly (2006)

Fahrenheit 451 (1966)

most of the films referenced above are adaptations of novels. read those too.

Category: politics | Comments Off on the top 10 political movies list