The New Civility?

People are people, so why should it be,
You and I should get along so awfully?

People Are People - Depeche Mode

I have wondered for months if anything would motivate my lazy carcass to blog again, and now I have my answer.  Before I go any further, I would be crass if I didn't say that which goes without saying: that myheart & my prayers go out to the victims of the shooting in Arizona, I wish speedy recovery to those injured and peace for those who have lost loved ones.

The shooting is in itself a national tragedy, but I fear a far greater one is unfolding...one promulgated by those who place politics above all else, and will stoop to any depth to damage the political or media figures they despise.  I'm of course speaking of those individuals in the media, government and even in the general public, had taken to the airwaves and internet before the crime scene tape was up to blame the the acts of a violent madman on Sarah Palin and the Tea Party specifically, and on conservative commentary in general.

I'm sure that what I'm going to say here will cheese some of you off, and while I do not intend to upset you, I am at peace with it because I understand that while I can indeed control what I say, I can rarely control how people react to what I say.  That is applicable to the debate raging today over "hate speech" and "rhetoric" that some are now wildly claiming practically put the gun in the shooter's hand and dared him to pull the trigger.  In fact, the notion that politicians or talk radio made this nutjob shoot people is no more credible than claims years ago that rock music makes kids juvenile delinquents and playing Dungeons & Dragons will lead to suicide.  Just because something isn't your cup of tea doesn't make it the very face of evil.  Crazy people do crazy stuff, they really don't need a reason.

Now then, do politicians and pundits on all points along the ideological spectrum often resort to hyperbole or allegory to make a point?  Of course, and they have since the invention of language.  Are there those who could perhaps chose their words more carefully so as to make their point without all of the "over-the-top" showmanship?  Absolutely, but often their intent is not to harm, but to get attention.  And although the conservative mindset is the one most often touted on talk radio or Fox News, rest assured that they in no way corner the market on reckless, even unkind, talk.  I could reel off a dozen quick examples of how those on the left, including our President, has framed political debates in confrontational, even violent, turns of phrase, but you've heard them before and I won't belabor the point.

So, do we have a civility deficit in this country?  I believe so, and it may in fact be getting worse although it's been around a lot longer than I have.  But is the answer to this lack of common decency to ferret out whomever you deem to be hatemongers and make a public example of them?  Would our better angels surface if Sarah Palin were to retire to her log cabin and the Tea Party folded their signs and went home?  Will lambs lie down with lions the day that we pull the plug on conservative talk radio?  Is free speech a luxury we can no longer afford?

If you believe these things...well...I may be about to harsh your mellow.  The real answer is much simpler to find, but infinitely harder to do.  Civility, much like charity, begins at home.  I can't bring about civility by pointing fingers and keeping a records of "wrongs", I will only provoke a defensive response.  Instead, I first have to take a good, long look at myself and the things I do and say.  Only once I change my own heart will I be able to reach out to my adversaries and say "We may never agree on some things, but you are my brother and I respect you as a person."  That is how true healing begins; not by demanding that others change, but by changing ourselves and reaching out the hand of sincere friendship.

If you sit back in self-righteous indignation and demand that others conform to your definition of civility - or far worse, use a horrible tragedy as an excuse to crucify those you hate - you are not helping and you are not part of the solution.  And if you call yourself a Christian, I challenge you to re-read what your Bible says about love. Or about hypocrisy. You want true civility?  There's the blueprint, right there, if you can handle it.  Until you can learn that people are people (and not politics or angels or demons), YOU my friend, are the real problem, if only to yourself.

Nolanbuck

Strong Brew

I'll admit it, I've never been to a "tea party" rally.  I don't have a Gadsden flag or a tricorne hat.  But I do agree with a lot of the principles of the Tea Party movement, as I stated on this blog way back when the movement began last year.

It will come as no shock for you to learn that I am also a Republican...I have voted a straight GOP ticket in every election since 1992.  I am not only a registered Repub, I am a dues-paying member of the local chapter of the party.  Thus, it pains me to state the obvious today: the Republican party at large is run by blithering idiots.

How did I come to this conclusion, you ask?  I had figured out by 2008 that the leadership of the GOP were mainly interested in staking out the real estate two inches to the right of the Democrats.  They spent too much money, and acted like they were going to be there forever.  I will never forget the night right before the 2006 election when I spoke briefly to a U.S. Congressman (who I will not name) while he was pressing the flesh at a high school football game.  I shook his hand and said, "Fight hard, congressman, we need to keep that majority".  With the look he gave me, I might as well have just said "By the way...I am the Walrus, koo-koo-kachoo."

That was the first sign that something in the minds of the GOP top brass was terribly awry.  This man knew he was going to win handily (and he did), he was not concerned about the majority, and was more than a little perplexed as to why I'd care.  But the final diagnosis came this Tuesday, when Christine O'Donnell - another Tea Party backed candidate - won the Delaware GOP primary.  Among the GOP intelligentsia, wailing and gnashing of teeth immediately ensued.  "Unelectable", they called her.  "The senate majority is out of reach now," they moaned.  "Balderdash!" I replied.

You see, here's the problem with Mike Castle, the GOP establishment's hand-picked candidate: He's been Congress since 1993.  He voted for the stimulus, he voted for TARP, he voted for the car company bailout.  He is part of the reason why the Tea Party formed, he supported the very bills that have so angered the American electorate and turned them against Democrats.  Why would we want to replace a Democrat who will vote with the President to enact bad policy with a Republican who will do the same thing?  Who gives a crap what letter is behind his name?  In short: Castle is (or was) part of the the problem, not the solution.

But beyond all that, if he were the nominee, I would have supported him, if only tepidly.  Christine O'Donnell would have supported him.  But since he lost, he and his GOP upper-crust pals are turning their noses up at the will of the people.  Pride goeth before the fall, fellas.  Didn't you learn that in 2006?  This election is not about parties, or even politics, it's about good governance and sound policy...or the lack thereof.

Nolanbuck

Long time, No blog...

Well, due to both the forseen and unforseen, I have been away from this blog for months.  I'm not sure anyone noticed, but...well...I'm back.  And with football season cranking up, and the Dems looking to take a drubbing in November, I can't think of a better time to start back blogging.

The lovely and talented Debbiebuck may not be able to blog at all, due to taking some college courses added to her normal hectic schedule, but I may bring a brand new Buck up from the minors to fill her spot on the roster.  More on that later.

Anyways, I'm back for now, and you can expect the normal high-quality useless crap here that you've come to expect from me. LOL!

Nolanbuck

Healthcare and The Rights of Man

With our Congressional Democrats writhing about trying to find the votes to pass the latest version of so-called "Health Care Reform", I've been doing a lot of thinking about rights, obligations, and freedom.

Here's the thing: everyone having health care sounds good.  Yeah.  I mean, all things being equal, who doesn't think that's a good idea?  And there may yet be a smart way to get there, but all the bills waved at us by the Dems so far aren't the way.  Why not, you ask?

Ok, let's say that we agree that all citizens have the right to health care (I do not necessarily agree, but for the sake of discussion, I'll concede the point).  Now, we have created a right, all shiny and new.  But now there's a problem, some of us can't afford it.  So we have to help them pay for it, because despite what you may have heard, it ain't free.  Who's gonna pay for it?  Why the government, or course.

But hang on..where does the government get their money?  Well, they can borrow it or they can take it.  Borrowing it means they took out a loan in your name (as a taxpayer) without your permission or signature, and you are partially responsible for paying it back.  Or they can just raise your taxes, tax the health care plan that you worked hard for, or just take it out of your check...also without your permission by the way.  Do you have a right to your money?  Is your right to the money you earned more important than your neighbors right to health care they didn't work for?

Secondly, let's look at this notion of health care as a right.  The government cannot create a new right, regardless of what they tell you.  Rights are inherent in man from birth, you have them simply because you are alive...endowed by your Creator, you might say.  Our Declaration of Independence says:


"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..."

Ok then, so rights come from God (or whomever you chose to call him).  Did God give us the right to health care?  And then  if we already have rights, what is the government for?  Most people don't read the next sentence in the Declaration, or they'd know:

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,..."

Did you catch that?  To secure these rights.  Governments are supposed to protect our liberties, not create or enforce them, or even make us pay for them.  And the consent of the governed is required...if you don't want government help, the Declaration of Independence says that's your choice, not Nancy Pelosi's. Read the rest of the document if you want to know what happens to governments that rule without the consent of the governed.

Rather that create a right that doesn't exist, or fund this new right by unconstitutional taxation, why not work to fix the problems that exist in health care now?  Stop listening to the special interests groups and lobbyists, and start listening to doctors, nurses, and other health care professionals, and their patients.  Find out why people can't get or keep health insurance, and remove the roadblocks where we can.  Find out what makes health care so unnecessarily expensive (like baseless lawsuits) and let's work to streamline the process without adversely affecting cost or quality.

Why won't they?  Because then they can't claim to have given us a new right, and claim victory.  And because it makes too much dang sense.

Nolanbuck

The Fort Hood Shooting

I'd like to begin by saying my thoughts & prayers go out to those who have lost loved ones in this unspeakable horror, and I pray as well that those wounded make a complete (and hopefully speedy) recovery.  And thank God for heroes and heroines like this lady.

It is a shocking thing to know that our soldiers aren't safe on their own bases on U.S. soil, but I guess that just speaks to the dangerous world we live in.

We have been told by our President (the same guy who apparently nearly forgot to mention the shooting at all yesterday) not to jump to conclusions in this matter, and for the most part that's good, if mostly self-evident, advice.  But a few conclusions can be made here based on what we know.

1. 13 unarmed people were gunned down in cold blood.
2. The killer was, by all reports, motivated by religious and political views.
3. That spells terrorism.

Terrorism does not have to be a grand nefarious plot cooked up in a cave in Waziristan, an act of violence to further a political or religious agenda is terrorism, even if performed by a lone wacko.

Don't tell me to wait and see, the forthcoming facts are just going to fill in the blanks.  But the question of whether this was terrorism had already been answered when the first bullet left Hasan's barrel.  And don't make this into an anti-muslim discussion.  It's not terrorism because he's Muslim, it's terrorism because he did it because he was Muslim. This was not a "man-caused disaster" (the Dust Bowl was a "man-caused disaster") this was an act of terrorism...albeit by a lone crazed assailant.

Nolanbuck

Same Old Song & Dance

Today I read this brilliant column and it encapsulated perfectly what I've been saying & thinking for months: this administration is using the financial crisis to make the social and governmental changes it wants by blaming the whole thing on Bush and saying their way is only undoing the wrong done by the previous administration.  I call B.S.

[Nolanbuck's note - Most of you know where I stand politically, but for those who may not, I am a social conservative and a classical liberal in most other matters, including economics (which is not to be confused with modern liberalism, which is not true liberalism but rather progressivism...but I disgress.) I am a member of the Republican Party who has become increasingly disenchanted as the GOP turns out more & more to be "Democrat light".]
Everything that Mr. Obama has tried so far or proposed has been tried before, with mostly poor results. All of this "hope & change" is fancy wrapping for tired old progressivist ideas that didn't work in the previous century, and won't work in this one. Economic "stimulus" is creating a false recovery that has included a drastically weakened dollar and increasing unemployment, all of which will (if history is any indicator) lead to a second downturn in the economy in the coming months and years that I fear will be deeper than the first (see the late 1930's "second crash"). Regulation and government involvement in business during the 50's & 60's caused the stagnant economy of the 70's (also see the 90's in Japan, the so-called "lost decade").  This is nothing new, and most of the old ideas are the bad ones.
True laissez-faire, free-market policies will produce prosperity every time in the long run. Every.  Time.  I will grant you, free market capitalism is a dangerous beast sometimes, it can buck and thrash wildly on occasion and some companies and people will get hurt economically. But I will posit that many (if not all) of the undulations of the market are caused by our meddling and not by the market itself. And yes, corrupt businesses and people will taint the system and cause it to falter, but that is not the fault of the market, but of those unscrupulous few who would spike it for political or economic gain. In short, I am not pro-business, or even anti-government, but staunchly pro-market.
And I want to tear my hair out when the neo-con "borrow and spend" policies of the Bush administration are called free market or conservative ideals. Bush was not a conservative in the truest sense, he was a neo-con. Neo-cons began as liberals who abandoned the Democratic party in the 50s & 60s due to it's left turn on social issues. I was against Bush's spending and borrowing, his ridiculous immigrant amnesty bill, and a host of other things. The true conservatives biggest mistake was not loudly criticizing Bush when we disagreed, for fear of weakning the GOP's grip on power. Well, we let Bush crap the bed and the progressives now run the government, so in that we failed utterly. Lesson learned.

Nolanbuck

Building a Better Monster

The end of the U.S. dollar as the world's go-to currency began this year, as world banks put 63% of their cash in Euros and Yen over the summer, a stunning reversal from all of recent history.  With the Fed printing greenbacks like monopoly money to pay for the Obama administration's many spending programs that we can't afford, and low interest rates depressing the greenback's value, Fed chairman Bernake has killed the "meltdown" monster by creating a bigger one, making our dollar worthless to comsumers and foreign investors alike.

The problem is, we are paying off the massive debts incurred by Bush and Obama with dollars...dollars that are dropping in value, and foreign banks can't afford to overextend their dependence on the sagging greenback.  But raising interest rates and slowing the printing of money to strengthen the dollar will slow down any economic growth we may be producing and extend our recession.

This, ladies & gents, is why you cannot fix a recession or depression with government spending.  The governemnt can't afford this rampant spending that seems to be mainly going to Democrat-aligned groups like unions and the indigent (so much for "shovel-ready" projects).  And the spending hurts our currency's value, and leaves the government in an ever-increasing portion of our lives.

And Congress is about to stick us with paying for a disaster of a healthcare bill,and even a second stimulus bill.  Hang on to your wallets, folks.

Nolanbuck