And a hardy good morning to each and every two of you. Wanted to put down a thought or two on a specific political topic this morning. I'm struck with how often the conservative category of thought, and it is a category, not a rigidly defined doctrine, is presented as being "against" so very much but ambiguous about what it is "for". I'm guessing most reading this will shake their heads in agreement.The media are quick to define us as being "against" so many things and we are perceived as being "for" very little. While some of this affect is exacerbated by the conservative movements shortcomings in the presentation of it's position, it is also largely a function of the media's desired perception of conservatives. If we begin listing all the things that liberals are against the list becomes rather lengthy in a relatively short amount of time. They are certainly well ensconced, (I know how very unprofessional this is but I spelled ensconced correctly without the use of the spell checker), in a contrary position to our 2nd amendment rights. It would seem they are against an unborn child's pathway to citizenship as well and how about the general public's freedom to eat what it wants and use the type of light bulbs it wants and use the type of flush toilets it wants and to drive the type of cars it wants etc. etc. etc. Additionally, they are against our right to see whatever evidence they have justifying their insistence of us using the afore mentioned items. How about the lefts obsessing on getting the societal sugar daddy's to let go of even more of their money while letting the country go off the fiscal cliff. The small amount of money being talked about in the higher taxes debate is nothing in the big picture. The only real effect these tax hikes would have is to further the misconception that the left is "for" the little guy while extending our financial woes out another several years by ignoring the real problems of a government that is spending to much. Let's fix our economy first then attack the successful when it won't hurt so many of us to do so. Certainly both parties are "for" and "against" a lot of different things but to characterize one party as being against so much and for so little doesn't even make sense. How can you take a contrary position on something that only has one side? You can't. If the media wanted to they could put the "against" label on our liberal friends but then they would have one less straw hammer to beat conservatives over the head with. If liberals decided stop signs should be considered suggestions then the media would say conservatives are "against" the proposed changes in sign interpretation. Those darn conservatives are at it again, just being against stuff and all, can you believe it? Just for the record let me list a few things this conservative is "for". I am for the freedom of speech; separation of and balance of powers provided by the constitution; federalism; gun ownership (exclusive of the second amendment); the citizen's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Each of these things I am for can be expressed by saying I am against any number of contrary positions to these positively stated items. Please be sure that I am for preserving what's left of our language and would stand beside anyone who will help in this preservation effort.
Just sitting here at 3:45 am wondering when we will, as a nation, be able to have a meaningful discussion about abortion. (by the way, my wife is away for a few days so this entry will have more grammatical and spelling issues than usual) I know it's anecdotal but my efforts to have a meaningful discussion on the issue usually ends up focusing on something other than the actual issue of abortion. A recent effort landed us at the predictable "if you're against abortion but aren't a foster parent then you are a hypocrite". This is a comment given during a dialogue supposedly about abortion. While it's way off the subject lets waste a little more time and follow the logic for just a moment. If in order to be legitimately against something you must be personally involved in an effort to repair the damage then it would appear that we live in a society that is OK with child abuse. If you're against child abuse but aren't volunteering 40 hours a week, which is actually less time than a foster parent gives, at a children's home then you're a hypocrite. If you "say" you think it's wrong that Priest's have molested young boys but haven't offered to man phone's at a hot-line for young people abused by Priest's then you're a hypocrite. If you are against animal cruelty but haven't had an endless string of abused pets in your home then you are obviously a hypocrite. For cryin' out loud, all you have to do to show how much you care about wiping out breast cancer is to wear something pink. All you have to do about young boys being molested by adults is to gossip about it at work. But abortion, well, if you're not a foster parent then you obviously don't give a rip about unborn children. Gossiping and wearing ugly clothes will land you precisely in the center of the "I care" target on virtually any issue except abortion. But to answer one idiotic position is to ask for an endless string of them. Once you start down that road there's no end in sight. If you are going to offer a meaningful opinion on abortion then there is a never ending list of prerequisites that must be met. If, however, you are going to move a whole nation down the bloodiest path it has ever embarked on, all you need is a black robe. Oh, and an apparent indifference to our constitution. Gee, I think it would be easier to be a supreme court justice than to hold a meaningful conversation on the street about abortion. Maybe I should look into that as a good retirement activity.
