One of the elegantly circular fairy tales that libertarianism propagates is disguising their actual, root concept of 'pure social darwinism' with dreamy terms like "free markets" and "free choice." As if stapling the word "free" magically transforms something from ruthless and heartless into sweet and wonderful.
Mix in oblique, professorial-sounding anecdotes about marginally documented, ancient civilizations (so there's no way to actually perform a scientific analysis on cause-effect) and you have basically a new religion. A religion whose practice will NEVER be implemented with voter support in an industrialized nation, of course, which helps perpetuate the tail-gunning lunacy. This is because they have the luxury of blaming EVERYTHING bad on the failure of the world to take up their belief system.
The author's most compelling statements surround the observation that the most ardent Libertarians expose personality traits that belie a lack of human empathy. I've witnessed the same thing. And it makes sense you recognize that you'd have to truly not care about your neighbors' well-being in order to embrace such a code.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Thursday, March 5, 2009
If the Republican Party Represents Family, Then How Come Their Two Leaders Are Childless?
Brilliantly argued point.
I think the lowest common denominator with the current national republican party apparatus is an eternally stubborn, infantile reflex to cling to their own opinion of people and the world. Facts and ground truth are "liberal conspiracy." They hate everyone and anything who dares challenge their defective world view.
There is also a very Neanderthal-like tendency to gravitate toward the person(s) who grunt the loudest and flail a club around the most wildly. An image of power and strength is far more respected than reason and logic and knowledge.
And I suspect your husband has a heart of gold, otherwise, the tired, superficial republican campaign drivel would have at least been critically evaluated before being accepted as something that would actually be actuated upon election. I know some "moderate Rs" and they are sweet and trusting souls. Unfortunately, WAY too trusting for their (and our) own good.
About John McCain
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Monday, March 2, 2009
Why Are the Republicans Such Anti-Obama Liars?
Let's face it, though. The fact is that people who are willing to center their lives around a very malleable artifact (Bible) are, by definition, more easily conned than those who are less devout and dogmatic.
This is why Frank's father was so important to the GOP. The more of the evangelical "leaders" they could bring into their camp to spread the repuglican gospel intertwined with Jesus' teachings, the stronger the hold will be on the sheep.... the many, many, many voting sheep.
And this isn't something new. This has been going on for about 40 years. It didn't happen overnight and won't go away overnight. The best we can all hope for is that our fellow voting citizens who heretofore have done/believed what they were told by a preacher will at least begin to recognize that candidates who yammer about Jesus aren't necessarily the best politicians to vote for on election day.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Why Limbaugh Is Right to Oppose Obama's Economic Policies
Interesting spin. Maybe I could agree with you if history, facts on the ground, complete lack of honesty from the administration during the ramp-up, and analysis from anyone with any knowledge of the incompetent f00ls in charge of the operation didn't SCREAM that the whole invasion/occupation idea was a pure dead-end disaster waiting to happen.
I knew we'd fail because the "plan" couldn't succeed. It may as well have been a plan to build a human pyramid to moon in order to mine it for its delicious pies. Impossible logistically and based on the quest for a nonsensical prize.
So it may be semantics, but whether or not I wanted it to succeed, there was just no chance at all for "winning." I think your comparison is flawed because of it.
About President Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
I knew we'd fail because the "plan" couldn't succeed. It may as well have been a plan to build a human pyramid to moon in order to mine it for its delicious pies. Impossible logistically and based on the quest for a nonsensical prize.
So it may be semantics, but whether or not I wanted it to succeed, there was just no chance at all for "winning." I think your comparison is flawed because of it.
About President Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)