Blog powered by Typepad

« Blog alert! | Main | On a lighter note ... »


Are there any other Democrats besides Charlie Rangel who support the idea of reinstating the draft? On the surface it is not a bad idea, part of citizenship in many countries. But I agree, that it is entirely too much of an infringement on personal liberties. If one does not believe in a war, they should not be forced to fight in it.

You do know that President Bush is now on record (on Rush Limbaugh) stating that we are in Iraq to keep the oil supplies from falling into terrorists hands who might raise prices and hurt our country. That is now are latest stated reason for being in Iraq and confirms what many on the left have been saying all along, that this is a war driven by economic forces.

One startling fact I just pulled out of is that the U.S., as of 2004, imports 65% of our oil, and that is expected to increase to the 70% to 75% range. That is reaching very dangerous numbers and should cause us to consider our energy policies for national security purposes.

It's just human nature to bicker and argue. You say "po-tay-toe" and I say "po-tah-toe". It's all about experiencing duality and separation. "I am not you." Or, "I am separate from you." Once you've experienced enough of it you get to graduate on to the next level.
excerpt from Mark Horton's NDE:
I suddenly just relaxed completely and allowed "myself" to dissolve (?) open up (?) merge (?) into the "oneness" that surrounded me." - Art

Nations form according to the universal law of attraction of similars. The holding of certain common values and principles is the glue which binds any nation. Service to the "greater good" in the form of public service is in NO WAY oppressive when it is held as a common ideal. If our country has come to the point (and I definitely think it has) that we no longer have common ground as a distinct people, then our nation will inevitably disintegrate because it will be in violation of a basic natural law. The process of disintegration will be long and painful. Arguments over things like the draft, as well as many issues in the culture wars, are just symptoms of the fact that "American" no longer means anything particularly binding.
Sometimes we look on in astonishment at the speed and effectiveness with which other nations are able to enact legislation regarding things over which we can only endlessly dispute. My favorite example (I am in alternative medicine) is the breastmilk/formula debate. Everyone knows that breastmilk is vastly superior to formula in every way. The evidence is compelling that the amount of money spent on healthcare for children whose health is damaged by the use of formula (increased infections, allergies, etc.) is significant. However, in our country this knowledge will never lead to any formal PUBLIC policy which might serve to strengthen and benefit the culture of breastfeeding. That is because we don't agree fundamentally that anything is of greater value than our individual right to choose whatever we wish. In Australia, by contrast, it is only possible to use formula for your baby if you obtain a prescription for it from your doctor because you cannot nurse. We might look at those poor Australians and say "man, what an oppressive system" because we have long since lost the ability to experience the joy of commonly held values and their public expression. Think of the example of a house full of vegetarian roommates living together. THey share this binding common value of vegetarianism, and in order to protect and uphold this value, they agree that the house rules are that no meat will be prepared in the common kitchen. Is this oppressive? Or is it an expression of an important value which is made official and therefore BINDING EVEN IN THE FACE OF THE TEMPTATION TO DISOBEY, which disobedience would effectively erode the common value? I guess I just think you are too quick to label every transpersonal social demand as being somehow oppressive. And the thing is, I am not a liberal. While I definitely agree that service as a spiritual ideal is in no way limited to public service, nevertheless public service is potentially noble and provides a psychic glue which has the potential to greatly strengthen a nation.

>Think of the example of a house full of vegetarian roommates living together.

If they choose to be vegetarians and live together, fine. If they're forced to adopt this lifestyle, it's not fine. And remember: a government that can force you to be a vegetarian can just as easily make vegetarianism illegal. A government that can prohibit the use of baby formula can just as easily make breastfeeding a crime. Think this couldn't happen? There are already periodic efforts to outlaw herbal medicines and other natural remedies. It's easy to assume that only the "right" policies (i.e., the ones you agree with) will be enforced. The reality is that once we give government this much power over us, they can enforce any policies they like, and many of these policies will be ones you disagree with.

>"American" no longer means anything particularly binding.

What it used to mean is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ...

>Nations form according to the universal law of attraction of similars.

Most nations form through warfare and accidents of history. The USA formed according to a set of politico-economic principles based on individual rights.

>you are too quick to label every transpersonal social demand as being somehow oppressive.

You could have said exactly the same thing to any critic of Nazism, Italian fascism, or Soviet Communism. Those systems imposed plenty of transpersonal social demands. If today's society is moving in a statist direction (which in some respects it is), it's not because there are too few transpersonal social demands, but because there are too many.

That government is best which governs least.

"That government is best which governs least. "


"That government is best which governs least. "

As I grow older, I find myself more in agreement with that old saying. Government as an institution is completely messed up. It does not matter what particular party is in control of the government. It functions in a completely dysfunctional manner. Starting and continuing wars for dubious reasons, spending amazing amounts of money overseas and neglecting domestic priorities, picking winners and losers in the marketplace, etc. How many companies could survive if they spent money recklessly and made poor decisions like the U.S. government does, not any, at least not with government "help".

"government that can prohibit the use of baby formula can just as easily make breastfeeding a crime."

Public breastfeeding is actually a crime in many states within the U.S. That demonstrates how absurb government, those who pass the laws, can be. There is nothing more natural and more vital to human being's historical development than "breastfeeding", yet in modern America it is deemed inappropriate to be done publicly and a crime. Kind of nutty.

"Most nations form through warfare and accidents of history. The USA formed according to a set of politico-economic principles based on individual rights."

That is a bit of a warmed over view of the formation of the United States. There was a bloody civil war between breakaway colonists and those loyal to the British crown, which we now call the American Revolutionary War, that was the actual event that allowed the United States to form in the late 18th Century. Certainly, the United States codified and promoted individual liberties in its fight for independence, but it was savage violence and the power of the gun that really allowed the rebel colonists to establish their own country.

I take it that you are the lowlife who attacked me on the Randzapper blog.
When I briefly posted my comments on holocaust revisionism on the Barnes site you raised no objection or gave any semblance of an argument.
Your whole approach is Hey,isn't this outrageous that someone could doubt this holy truth. Several folks have and the uniform response in many countries is to imprison them. Here they can't quite do that yet so smears are the only "argument" of the traditional defenders of the holohoax.
Sometime check out the video of the Michael Shermer-Mark Webb debate and you can decide which side here has the facts.
By the way wasn't the "someone" on the oofy Barnes site who asked me about holocaust revisionism you ?
Even Vad Vashem and the Wiesenthal Center don't peddle the hoary human soap nonsense.
Read Faurisson, Rudolph, Butz, Hoggan, Rassinier,Rassinier, Harwood, Sanning et al and seriously look at the many informative essays on the JHR part of the IHR website. If you can refute anything, let's see it.
Since NO one said Auschwitz or any other camp was a nice place you are inventing a strawman of your own making.
The fact that I reamed some moron who voted for Bush in strong language is not a bad thing.
I had stronger words for John Lewis at ARI. Michael, you are still haunted by The Silence Of The Laughs as I explained to you at site for popperian goofs.
You are pathetic, you are a liar and you are a coward.
Oakland News was a one person website of a local Demo Party hack and vulgarian named Jeanette Sherwin who was struck down dead a few months after she banned me. Gee, maybe Rand's wrong about God. Good riddance was the majority view in Oakland of people of all ideological shades.
She would ban people when she was losing the argument, a quite frequent occurrence.
As far as some typos go, it happens and you
wouldn't even bring it up if we agreed.
On abortion, I was relaying the substance
of Rothbard's argument in The Ethics of Liberty. Where's the rebuttal ?

The comments to this entry are closed.