Tea Partiers are closet Darwinists

September 14, 2011

Here’s the evidence: (Click for link)

In fairness, there only seemed to be a few boors who were cheering at the thought of leaving the uninsured to die without medical care.  There was a good deal more audience support for Rep. Paul’s suggestion that neighbors, friends and churches would pay for care in the absence of government assistance.  That might be true in Paul’s case, and in the case of most of us reading this post.  But, what about those without such a safety net? 

I guess that’s why the “virtue of selfishness” espoused in Ayn Rand’s writings seems to resonate more with this crowd than do the teachings of Jesus – despite their claims to the contrary.  While they may not want it taught in schools, it looks like they are rather fond of Darwin’s idea that only the strong will (should?) survive.


Talking Points vs. Policy

June 2, 2011

You don’t hear much about bomber pilots suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder due to the death and destruction wrought by the bombs that they dropped at 20,000 feet, or about sailors with PTSD due to the devastation caused by missles launched from far out at sea. Similarly, those who perform their military service in the rear or at the Pentagon, where many of the decisions about where to drop the bombs and launch the missles are made, don’t tend to be plagued with nightmares, flashbacks, and constant anxiety . While pilots, sailors, Pentagon staff and REMF’s (sorry, look it up) all contribute to the horrors of war, it is the front-line grunts – the soldiers and marines on the ground – who see the carnage and suffer the consequences. Generally speaking, those who plan the battle see things differently than those who actually carry it out.

The same may be said for political philosophies. Considered in the abstract, some of the writings of Karl Marx or (on the other end of the spectrum) Ayn Rand might resonate – but putting them into practice leads to disaster. Moving to less extreme examples, the talking points spouted by those on either side of the modern-day American political fence may sound good to us – who actually likes taxes or pollution, anyway? – but the consequences of converting those talking points into policy may be something else again.

All of which is an over-long introduction to this article, to which I can add little, other than a request that you read it.

I have dear friends and blood relatives who are staunch conservatives. Our neighbor down the street is a sweet lady – and a sign-carrying Tea Partier. While I don’t think much of Eric Cantor, there are conservatives who I do respect as decent and intelligent people. How can something that is so obvious to me be so invisible to them?

Or, is it me that is missing something?

The Conservative Constitution

January 6, 2011

Everything funny has at least a shade of truth behind it. This piece from the Washington Post has a shade and then some.


June 29, 2009

Until I can come up with something blog-worthy on my own, here’s something to think about.

Squinting for the Fence

December 11, 2008

Apart from a brief flirtation with the Republican Party in college (hey, the Wake Forest of the early 1980’s wasn’t exactly a bastion of liberalism, and Walter Mondale always reminded me of Mr. Rogers), I have always considered myself to be a moderate Democrat. Left-leaning, but sitting on the fence nevertheless. Reasonable, rational, thoughtful, even-keeled, willing to consider all options. Sure, I’ve nearly always voted a straight Democratic ticket, but that’s only because it’s been the reasonable, rational, thoughtful thing to do.

I guess that should have been a hint.

According to this quiz, I’m not only not sitting on the fence that separates liberals from conservatives, I’m nowhere near it. Maybe, if I squint, I can see the fence – way off in the hazy distance somewhere to the right of me.

Hi, I’m Wags, and I’m a Liberal.

Take the quiz. Know thyself. It might confirm what you already know. Or, if you’re like me, you might have your eyes opened just a bit.

Thanks to Democratic Central for the quiz.

Palin Part II

November 16, 2008

One of my favorite Latin legalisms is “res ipsa loquitur” – “the thing speaks for itself”.  This phrase is appropriate in situations where no further detail or explanation is necessary; the proof of the matter is self-evident.  As we got to see more and more of Sarah Palin after my initial post on her, in which I had reserved judgment, I’ve been tempted to just say “res ipsa” and move on.

But, I can’t let this Dick Cavett column go by without passing it along.  Enjoy.

It’s Split

September 30, 2008

“It’s split.”

Fair and balanced, for sure.

Thanks to Kos for the link.