The New, Invective-Free WDIK!

Thanks to the convincing arguments by moderates over at Roxanne's and here on what liberals have been doing wrong, I've finally seen the light. I renounce my liberal screeds, every single one of them.  How wrong I was to ever utter an invective against George Bush! As for voting against him, again, just plain wrong of me.

Vetching with friends? Wrong. Going to a Michael Moore movie (when my Republican neighbor, another misguided wench, invited me) was wrong. Sending that email joke to a few friends—wrong, and not funny, either. Commenting on a liberal weblog—what was I thinking? That was wrong, too.

Contributing money for that first MoveOn ad—clearly the devil made me do it. Signing up for their email—wrong again. Listening to Air America that one day before I moved—wrong, and with fuzzy AM reception too. (Must stop transmitting through my dental fillings.)

Going to a Howard Dean meetup—so wrong, on so many levels. (Why, it was there I first heard some McCain supporters use the "s" word in reference to George Bush's treatment of McCain!)

From now on, I will never speak ill of the following: Republicans, including RINOs and Log Cabin; conservatives in all their guises: neo-con, religious right, your-grandfather's, etc.; George Bush, Dick Cheney, Bill Frist, and similar moderates; right-wing bloggers, i.e. Little Green (American) Footballs or Michelle "Incarcerate 'Em" Malkin; indictees such as Tom DeLay, Scooter Libby, or Karl Rove; and for good measure, Teddy Roosevelt.

The only chickenhawks I'll reference here will be actual birds. I will no longer drop the h-bomb, since it clearly applies to myself and my liberal friends. I will no longer make fun of people whose pants are on fire—cheap jokes are unfunny, and have run their course besides.

From now on, only pure 100% unadulterated honey will issue forth from this blog, in order to catch more flies. Oh wait...did I just call anyone a fly? I meant moderates, of course.

Linking to invective and liberal polemics will be strickly forbidden. In fact, I'll cease reading them altogether, in case the urge to rant should come upon me suddenly and without provocation. I will get my news from Fox, which Rupert Murdoch has thoughtfully cleansed of calumny and left-wing screed.

I might occasionally still think a bad thought or two—old habits are hard to break—but I'll bite my tongue  before I utter anything offensive. I wouldn't want to hurt anyone's feelings.

Right. Now, what were we arguing about? Oh yes. Disabled people who can no longer take care of themselves should be tossed out on the street. Why, that's certainly a novel idea! I'll have to give it some thought.

Those moderates. So refreshingly non-polarizing, and invective-free, too!

Comments

[Chris Clarke]

I love you.

[KathyF]

And I love your dog.

[Chris Clarke]

Works for me.

[John Ashman]

"Disabled people who can no longer take care of themselves should be tossed out on the street. "

I distinctly don't recall saying that. But hey, maybe we can get back to discussing policy, rather than who's the biggest jerk, although last I checked, "I'm against that" is still not a policy proposal. ;-)

[Chris Clarke]

although last I checked, "I'm against that" is still not a policy proposal

If someone's proposing a policy that's worse than the status quo, "No" most certainly is a policy proposal.

[KathyF]

I think I said clearly, since I'm not running for office, and I don't have the weeks it would take to research real world figures, as opposed to the blowing-smoke-out-my-ass type "facts" some people spout off, I won't be making any policy proposals.

Or here's some smoke, if you like: health care for all, peace, love and understanding all round, higher taxes for the wealthy, triple the cigarette tax, and tofu in every pot. And death to radical rightists, since I just can't resist.

[John Ashman]

See, Kathy, once again you prove my point. It's easy to be "for" something if you don't do any research to understand what the side effects of liberal proposals are. It always sounds great to help someone or have safety nets, but if it kills the economy or causes low productivity or waste/fraud/abuse not understood by the populace when they support such things, well....here we are. Overtaxed, overcomplicated, overburdened and not as wealthy as we ALL could be.

Most politicians are just "blowing smoke" out their asses, but it's good to know you let that kind of thing to the "professional" smoke blowers. That way, the results are guaranteed to be screwed up.

[Kathy P.]

Isn't that Ashcroft? Or I've got the wrong guy who wants to throw the disabled into the street....

[John Ashman]

FWIW, I entered about 10 new policies in the "sinceslicedbread" contest.

Also, under the programs I sent you, your mom would have been taken care of with the catastrophic insurance policy of her MRSA. So, while you think I'm somehow cruel or a "graceless asshole", I'm actually just more efficient and practical in my thinking.

For just about every liberal policy, there's a libertarian (ish) policy that solves the probem more effectively, with less waste, less fraud, less cost, less paperwork.

And if government is every the solution, it shouldn't be the FIRST solution. That's the difference between liberalism and libertarianism. Self-sufficiency, amily, friends, church, charity should all be first, more or less in that order.

[Roxanne]

You have your own personal self-described moderate commenter. How nice for you!

[John Ashman]

Roxanne, I'm an independent, not a moderate and everyone needs a pet project, Kathy, for the moment, is mine ;0)

I've gotten her through the first two stages of denial. Depression is next, when she realizes that the Democrats really aren't going to take truly progressive steps to win the middle.

[Chris Clarke]

Libertoonian jihadists are calling themselves "moderates" now. How nice.

[John Ashman]

News flash Chris. 1. I'm not really a moderate, nor do I ever recall claiming to be. Moderate is generally applied to watered down socialist liberals or watered down religious conservatives. 2. The founding fathers of this country were all libertarians, not liberals, not conservatives. They'd be against most everything for which liberals stand. Try reading some of their writings sometime. Start with The Constitution.

[Chris Clarke]

I stand corrected on the moderate thing.

The founding fathers of this country were all libertarians,...

and

Try reading some of their writings sometime. Start with The Constitution.

Oh, boy, Kathy. You've really got a textbook case here. How nice for you.

[John Ashman]

Chris, do you actually ever say anything intelligent? Just curious.

[Chris Clarke]

When I have an audience who'll either understand or appreciate it, yes.

[KathyF]

I could vouch for Chris's intelligence by pointing him to Creek Running North, but I won't.

"Award winning writer" Chris Clarke does have a certain ring to it.

[John Ashman]

Been there. Not much to see. And people who have a point can argue them, rather than make snide comments.

Anyone want to tell me what's wrong with actually believing in the original foundations of the country? For which these folks actually risked and mostly LOST everything?

Liberals and conservatives both wish to point to the constitution when it suits them. But if someone points to the whole thing and comprehends the original intent, he's a "text book case"? (what does that mean exactly?)

[Chris Clarke]

Been there. Not much to see.

Cool. I'm saving that one.

[(: Tom :)]

It's easy to be "for" something if you don't do any research to understand what the side effects of liberal proposals are.

Almost as easy as it is to be "for" any of the libertarian proposals out there without understanding any of their side effects. Or criticizing liberal proposals which have absolutely zero chance of becoming reality as long as Drinky McDumbAss and the God Squad are running the country into the ground. Perhaps it would be a tad more beneficial to critique some of the gaping holes in what passes for conservative rationalization these days.

Btw, do you have any proof that the founding founders were all libertarians? From what I've read on the subject, a statement along the lines of "the founding fathers were all xxxx" would be inaccurate regardless of the value of xxxx...

[John Ashman]

Actually, I understand the side effects of libertarian proposals, though some may go too far too fast. But, I guess a self-sufficient society shouldn't be a goal and it's better to precondition people to know that it is okay to fail and be a ward of the state. And why take care of your family when the government will do it? Why live with your parents and get guilted for being 21, single and having three kids when you can just go on welfare?

Side effects of libertarianism:

High productivity
Low taxes
Growing economy
Low rate of poverty (too many jobs)
Greater self reliance
More charitable works and donations
Fewer drug offenders in jail
More violent criminals in jail
Less foreign intervention (though that is one of my faves)
Fewer lawyers
Fewer accountants
Fewer regulations
Less expensive products
More "made in America"

Side effects of liberalism:

Low productivity (ask Europe)
High taxes (ask Europe)
Stagnant economy (as Europe)
High rate of poverty (ask us!)
Lesser self reliance (the government will save me!)
Less charitable works and donations (people have to work harder)
More drug offenders in jail (The Reps help with this one)
Fewer violent criminals in jail (Dems and their liberal judges!)
More foreign intervention (a Republican AND Democrate fave)
More lawyers (Dems will go to the mat for their lawyer pals)
More accountants (nothing like a complex tax code to keep accountants employed!)
More regulations (Why make it simple when you're trying to do something?)
More expensive products (Ever wonder why a ladder cost so much?)
Less "made in America" (Thanks, Clinton, for giving China MFN status!)

Care to dispute any of that?

Oh, and yes, I should't say ALL of the founding fathers, but all that I've read seem to be solidly libertarian and the Constitution and Bill of Rights is solidly libertarian. Where do you think Libertarianism comes from, anyway?

Shall I provide quotes to prove it? Can you provide quotes that disprove it?

[(: Tom :)]

I would dispute all of the points you have made.

Please show me some real world examples of policies enacted by a libertarian government and their effects. Oh, that's right - there has been no libertarian government in any country in the history of the world! So, how can you detail the side effects of non-existent policies? Or is this some of that faith-based reasoning I have been hearing so much about?

I'd love to take your word about all of this Mr. Ashman, but I've been hearing far too many people telling me about facts which have no supporting evidence. Funny how they always seem to be painting liberals in a damning light - and seem to have nothing to say at all about the current administration's policies, or those of the Repubs who have been in control of congress for over 12 years now. It is to your credit that you have managed to find a way to find fault with conservative policy at all.

I would also ask where it is that you saw me make any statements to the effect that a self-sufficient society shouldn't be a goal, it's better to precondition people to know that it is okay to fail and be a ward of the state. And why take care of your family when the government will do it? Why live with your parents and get guilted for being 21, single and having three kids when you can just go on welfare? If you think that these are liberal policies, I would respectfully suggest that you re-check your liberal ideology manual. Or possibly get one that wasn't written by Rush Limbaugh...

[KathyF]

Tom: Take care when replying to non-natives. Please note the loose terminology applied here: "ward of the state" which normally applies to children in foster care has suddenly been expanded to apply to adults, perhaps in ignorance of local language customs. Other examples abound; see the proper function of "debt" in a previous writing sample.

This evidence of limbic language techniques indicates a native from the Kingdom of Limbaugh, or possibly its neighbor, Outer Wingnuttia.

[John Ashman]

Here you go Tom - The United States of America, which defined the term "Libertarian Government" (okay, point taken - as long as you were a European male) for a solid 150 years or so. Libertarianism is founded on the actual Constitution of the US. You could smoke marijuana, do cocaine, see a prostitute, own a gun, and there was no SSS, no Medicare, no welfare, nothing. There were virtually no restraints on commerce or ingenuity. It's how we surpassed all of Europe in power and technology in less than 200 years while these countries had been around for 1000s of years. BTW, Hong Kong was largely viewed as libertarian, at least in terms of business policy. Notice how fast it grew and became one of the powerhouses of the world before, ironically, being taken by a communist empire (that cautiously allows it to function because of all of the revenue it brings in)

As for the effects of liberal policies, those are the effects, like them or not. Every time you create a regulation, a law, take money from someone, there are consequences, often unintended. You don't' *intend* to drive wedges between families, but that's one of the side effects. You don't *intend* to hold back the economy, but that is one of the side effects. You don't *intend* to have a family member surviving as a ward of the state, but that's one of the consequences.

As for Rush, he's entertaining, but he's at least half full of crap. I can listen to him because he's funny, but haven't for several years. I like, though, how people who live in the middle and are independents and don't agree with the radical left are deemed to be right wingers. It's why the Democrats can't win, you can't understand the middle because you think of them as the right.

[John Ashman]

BTW, as an aside, eRobin just banned me from her (I assume it's an estrogen-positive human) site. People were piling on one of the better spokesman for moderate Democratic policies - Joe Leiberman (her spelling), because he dared to show up at a conservative magazine's anniversary party, especially since they once ran a politically incorrect editorial about blacks. Well, god forbid I should mention that anyone who has ever had dinner or meetings with Robert Byrd might want to be demonized as well. Oh, and I said that Chris is "hopeless" if he still couldn't understand the previous paragraph I'd posted for him. Oops. All the freedom of speech in the Blog world, as long as it's the speech you want to hear. I guess that's why the site is called "fact-esque"

[(: Tom :)]

I would disagree with your statement that

The United States of America, which defined the term "Libertarian Government" (okay, point taken - as long as you were a European male) for a solid 150 years or so.

This supposed libertarian government also allowed you to own other human beings (even after slavery was outlawed, you had this little thing call indentured servitude which was all the rage among the original libertarian businessmen of the time - and of course women are still considered property by some in this country), blatantly lie about the nature of the product you were producing for the consumer, and even produce products that were harmful to the consumer, with no consequences to your business - provided you were connected to the government in the proper manner. You could squash legitmate competition if you were big enough and powerful enough, and monopolize an industry in order to set your own prices (instead of that supply and demand thing which libertarians are so fond of citing). You could flaunt what little law there was regarding that sort of thing if you were in the right circles. There were also virutally no restraints on murdering your fellow citizens, or finding ingenious ways of defrauding them and taking away their means of survival. This is the libertarian ideal you hold up as the way a government should be run?

As for the effects of liberal policies, those are the effects, like them or not. Every time you create a regulation, a law, take money from someone, there are consequences, often unintended. You don't' *intend* to drive wedges between families, but that's one of the side effects. You don't *intend* to hold back the economy, but that is one of the side effects. You don't *intend* to have a family member surviving as a ward of the state, but that's one of the consequences.

Would you possibly be able to provide some proof for your assertions, as opposed to the broad generalizations you make here? I could say that some of the side effects of libertarianism are monopolistic behavior, corrupt businesses, less charitable works and donations, less of a common infrastructure beneficial to all, lower productivity once a business has cornered a segment of the market, greater lawlessness and more incentives towards corporate criminal behavior, and less reliable products. For starters. If I used the same standards of proof that you have been using.

I could also say: libertarian policies don't intend to let people die from toxic products, but that is one of the side effects. They don't intend to cause lawlessness and corruption to be the acceptable norm, but that is one of the side effects. And on and on ad nauseum.

Funny how your perceptions of how people are categorized are different than mine, too. It appears to me that pretty much anyone to the left of Goebbels is branded a radical liberal these days. The moderate line has shifted wholesale to the right as far as I can see. The only difference between the two of us here is that I am aware that I am stating an opinion instead of professing an obvious truth, and it seems to me that you are trying to make categorical statements of what you perceive to be obvious truths. Obvious truths with which I wholeheartedly disagree to be the truth; however, I have never known something like that to prevent people like you from stating it as categorical fact anyhow. I would also challenge you should you consider yourself to be a moderate who is in the mainstream and an independent. Spouting Bushian propaganda (which is what your arguments sound like to my ears) may be your idea of the middle of the road; I would respectfully disagree with that assessment.

Incidentally, would you like to take a stab at which party is the only one that I have ever been registered as a member of in my lifetime? Here's a hint: it's the one you ostensibly profess to be a member of.

[(: Tom :)]

I would disagree with your statement that
[continued]

I could also say: libertarian policies don't intend to let people die from toxic products, but that is one of the side effects. They don't intend to cause lawlessness and corruption to be the acceptable norm, but that is one of the side effects. And on and on ad nauseum.

Funny how your perceptions of how people are categorized are different than mine, too. It appears to me that pretty much anyone to the left of Goebbels is branded a radical liberal these days. The moderate line has shifted wholesale to the right as far as I can see. The only difference between the two of us here is that I am aware that I am stating an opinion instead of professing an obvious truth, and it seems to me that you are trying to make categorical statements of what you perceive to be obvious truths. Obvious truths with which I wholeheartedly disagree to be the truth; however, I have never known something like that to prevent people like you from stating it as categorical fact anyhow. I would also challenge you should you consider yourself to be a moderate who is in the mainstream and an independent. Spouting Bushian propaganda (which is what your arguments sound like to my ears) may be your idea of the middle of the road; I would respectfully disagree with that assessment.

Incidentally, would you like to take a stab at which party is the only one that I have ever been registered as a member of in my lifetime? Here's a hint: it's the one you ostensibly profess to be a member of.

[(: Tom :)]

D'oh! Sorry for the mess I made in your comments here, Kathy...

[KathyF]

Mess? I don't see a mess. I actually like your comments about truth and the eye of the perceiver.

You sort of put your finger on the whole argument, and what I've been saying all along. People see what they want to see, whether it's Democrats and their behavior or Asians or outer space objects.

Interesting.

[Johnny Ashman]

Tom -

Part 1 - You're not disagreeing with me, you're telling me what I already know. The fact that the freedoms and privileges granted to white males weren't granted to women and minorities both sucked and was eventually rectified simply by expanding the definition of men to actually mean all people, not just the chosen few. Sure, that was a mistake, but slavery and patriarchy were something of a norm in human culture and black on black slavery exists to this day in Africa. Not an excuse, it's just the way it was. It wasn't a problem with Libertarianism as a philosophy, it was how it was implemented. Sure, there were almost no regulations on business of any kind and it could suck to be a consumer OR a competitor. But the country simply boomed because of it. But we have decided that it should be illegal to have a monopoly because that is not good for the people and that you can't kill people with your products, etc. Fine. We grew a bit. Life is more complex, it helps to have some laws to protect people. That's "general welfare". But that's not the same as taking money from someone and giving it to something else. So, no, I believe that there need to be rules by which the capitalistic game is played and not everything goes. But it needs to be sensible and it doesn't mean driving companies out of the country.

Part 2 - Take an economics course. I'm not going to teach you your ABCs either.

Part 3 - Bush is a big spender and I was horrified by the Prescription Drug Benefit - taking away money from people trying to raise kids and giving it to wealthiest of the elderly. That was the most liberal, anti-libertarian thing I've seen in awhile. Also, the line hasn't shifted, the left keeps trying to drag the country to the left and people have gone as far as they're willing to go. So, the left can either turn back around and come back a little or they'll get a nice long "time out" to think a bit.

Part 4 - I'm not a Libertarian, I'm a libertarian. And a registered independent.

[John Ashman]

Tom, here's a perfect example of government waste, stupidity and inefficiency better left to private companies.

The Pentagon needed to set up a travel system to try to save money on all of the flights they need to use every year.

First they tried to contract out to an outside company on a fee-based system, but the no one wanted a piece of it because it was known to be a defective concept.

So then they tried to hire an outside company to develop a system, but only one applied.

They finally developed a computer system to do this and and finally, after 7 years and $500M (original concept - 6 months and $263M), have a system that is *partially* working.

The problem? Less than 8% of all reservations are booked through the system because it often doesn't find the lowest price fare. The Pentagon Inspector General has recommended shutting it down, but since congress never met a boondoggle in didn't like.

So, rather than simply using Orbitz or something like that, it will cost $25-$100 per ticket more for each Pentagon ticket over what it would have cost to do if they simply had done it through private companies. Total cost will be something like $4B to develop a Pentagon system similar Orbitz or Travelocity. Way to go gubment!

[KathyF]

Orbitz doesn't find government rates, you ding dong. They have agreements with specific airlines. Often the rates are not the cheapest, but that's not the only consideration the govt has when choosing an airline. For instance, travel on questionable carriers is forbidden.

That said, there is lots and lots of waste in the Pentagon. I'm all in favor of cutting their budget, in areas that don't affect the comfort of the troops.

[John Ashman]

I didn't say they used Orbitz. I'm saying they try to use their own system, which is kinda similar, just far less effective and costs a lot more. I'm saying they probably SHOULD use Orbitz!

[Chris Clarke]

Dude. You're making us libertarians look like morons. Cut it out.

[John Ashman]

Many of you are, you certainly seem to be. That's why I'm a "small l" libertarian. I haven't seen you espouse a Libertarian belief yet. Unless being a smartass is now a part of the official plank.