JHWhicker’s whereIstand Blog

    There is a decided monotony in exchanges with typical liberals. One generally makes an assertion and offers several reasons in defense of that insertion, and, invariably, a typical liberal will respond with a  vituperative diatribe, usually aimed at constructed strawmen or else the person or her/his beliefs, containing excess bile and little attempt at dialogue.  Granted, the same could probably be said of the typical Republican/Conservative exemplified in the Michael Savage, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh media figure.  All of these types have one central thing in common; they have absolutely no interest in reasoned discourse, dialogue, and "getting along."
    "Getting along" requires open-mindedness, modesty, and an exerted effort to remember there is a possibility, however slight we think it is, that we may be completely wrong. People who are interested in getting along approach dialogue with an interest in hearing what others believe and understanding their reasons.  The "typical" liberal (I’ll restrict my comments to them because they are the ones I’ve most often disagreed with) has dismissed the possibility of being wrong and therefore approaches dialogue with contempt for those who believe differently and a desire to belittle and mock. They rarely even manage to discuss the actual issue and instead engage in what C.S. Lewis coined "Bulverism" and ignore the actual issue to spend all their time in petty mockery.    I’ve been able to have exchanges with some atypical liberals like Donovan and others, but I find the majority fall into the typical category. In a supreme act of arrogance, they have decided they know all truth and anyone who questions their version of the universe is to be mocked, derided, and voted off the island.
    Here are some examples of what liberals like to bring to the "discussion."

Unfortunately, "alms for the poor" has always been one of the preferred methods of religion to keep people religious. It’s coercive, really. It’s just a way to market religious wares to those that have no choice but to accept them.

Well, and here I thought I was helping people out of a desire to help people.  I guess I was just coercing them into accepting religious wares; it is sure nice to have liberals to explain to religious people what their real motivations are. It gets better though.

Religion isn’t a good solution for anything other than bringing peace of mind to those that are too weak to suffer their ills, and bringing war from those that are strong and ignorant enough to think their myths bear any relationship to reality.

Ah, perfect liberal bulverism. If you can’t generate a rational argument against a belief, simply ignore the real issue and mock the people who have different beliefs from you.  Notice that there is no argument or evidence to disprove what are so easily labelled "myths." Liberals, however, don’t feel any need for credible evidence to discount beliefs they have petty grudges against, but why stop there.

You completely ignore the point here or it is over your head. The person that crashes into my car while not being insured represents and intolerable risk to society – one which the state rightly has a duty to control.

If you can’t win a point, why not take a cheep shot at your interlocutor, right before constructing a ridiculous analogy.  
    I love how liberals so easily equate themselves with "society".  I’m sure there is some actual evidence to show how dangerous uninsured motorists are.  In my experience, they drive more carefully and are less likely to cause an accident than insured motorists, but I must be wrong since the liberal has declared that every uninsured motorist is an "intolerable risk to society", much like a murderer I assume.  
    The funny thing, and I guess the point is over my head (what is graduate school worth these days) is I thought "the point" had to do with social security not car insurance.  Somehow, though, I guess a person not getting government welfare is equal to an uninsured motorist causing a car accident. I just can’t quite figure out how they equate; it must have something to do with higher math; I never went beyond calculus. It’s probably something specific to the liberal universe.  

Wait, there’s more:

If my neighbors plan their retirements on "faith" and end up destitute, they will either bring down the value of my property (you did take basic economics courses in school, didn’t you?), or they will petition the state for assistance, or they will drain resources away from productive uses by creating a constant stream of charity junk mail that sucks the life out of investment.

Finally the truth, it is all about the liberal’s property values and investments. That was too on topic though; the bitter diatribe must be coming.

Just look at all of the people that are wasting most of the lives they know exist in preparation for a mythical next life that they really have no possible rational reason to believe exists, or exists as they have been lead to believe it does.

Funny, religious people report greater satisfaction with this life than those who believe it is all they’ve got. Of course, it is the liberal who decides for others what "wasting" is. 

The argument inevitably decends into things like this:

This has a lot to do with your red-state ignorance of economics – as is evidenced here. Your red-state ignorance on matters of pride is another problem.

Can’t talk to a liberal without expecting the typical ad-hominem attack.  I guess I must be ignorant on economics because of all the evidence to prove how social security is necessary for a healthy economy, oh wait, once again there wasn’t any evidence presented to prove that assertion. I’m sure that anyone who isn’t ignorant like me knows full well that social security is necessary for a healthy economy, otherwise liberals might be tempted to offer some kind of argument to that effect.

You guys may be able to organize pretty knee-slappin’ rodeos, tractor pulls, and promise-keeper rallies, but you aren’t much in the way of providing lively economies….

That sort of missed the mark entirely considering the fact that I’ve never seen a rodeo or tractor pull and I don’t even know what a "promise-keeper" rally is, but Utah has a good economy.

Of course, it is more than a little irrational (nothing new for a typical liberal) to try and claim that the economies of blue states have anything to do with superior welfare programs.  There just might be other factors like population, being a center of national and international commerce, historical tourism, and a multitude of other things that have absolutely nothing to do with how much welfare the state gives out.  LIberals, of course, will continue to support a simplistic view of causation and put it all down to welfare programs, as if that is the only difference between New York and Alabama.

Now, I don’t proofread responses to comments or even posts very carefully, and I know that I have problems with homonyms (I blame public education), but whether I misspell the word or not, the sentiment is true. Only a certain type of mind feels a need to make up for a lack of rational argument with bitterness and ridicule: a weak one.

There really is nothing to be gained from trying to "get along" with typical liberals; they have no interest in coming to an understanding and working out win-win solutions to arguments.  Like all closed-minded people they hold only contempt and hate for those whose beliefs are different from theirs.

The right and left will never get along because the extreme factions of both have no desire to get along, and anyone who navigates through middle ground is likely to be torn to pieces. There are few with whom it is worth bothering discuss issues of weight, but don’t take my word for it; I’m just a weak, stupid, ignorant, backwater fool, unlike Nick, who has the gall to try and assert others have problems with pride.

whereIstand Tags

• Does the government have a responsibility to keep Social Security as is for those already invested in the program?
• Should Social Security include private
  retirement accounts?
• Should the U.S. increase the minimum age requirement for receiving Social Security benefits?
• What are the functions of Social Security?
• What obligation does the US Government have regarding the funds on loan from the Social Security program?
• What should be done to Social Security?
• What should the government do with the funds accumulated for future Social Security payments?
• Will the Left and Right ever find a way to live with each other in a civilized manner?

    When it comes to making sure that social security remains solvent, I think the government just needs to pay back what it owes that program and then keep their money grubbing paws off of it in the future (i.e. no "co-mingling" of the social security monies with other revenues.) That, however, assumes that social security is worth keeping solvent.
    Private accounts are certainly not aimed at keeping social security from going bankrupt; they are aimed at ending social security. Social security is a socialist program in which the government takes money from everybody for the purpose of redistributing it. Liberals wrench their arms out of socket patting themselves on the back for their great compassion and effort to care for the poor–it would be nice if they could show "compassion" or "charity" with their own money for a change.  Social security cannot contain private accounts because the idea that those who put money into the system have any right to that money is contrary to the system. Social security doesn’t have anything to do with putting money away for your future; it has everything to do with the idea that someone who no longer works has a right to the money workers earn.  
    Yes, I think that there should be private accounts, but that is because I oppose social security. My neighbor has no right to my money.  My neighbor has no right to have me pay for his medical expenses.  My neighbor has no right to have me pay for his food, his shelter, his clothing, or anything else.  Now, I might still go out of my way to clothe my neighbor,  welcome him into my home, feed him, pay for medical expenses he can’t afford with what resources I have, but that would be an act of my own free will with my own resources.  Charity cannot be done involuntarily.  Charity cannot be done with other people’s money.
    Setting up private accounts would be a step towards reaffirming freedom versus indentured servitude to the collective, but while they’re setting up those private accounts, they should also let people choose to opt out of the program entirely. 

whereIstand Tags

• Does the government have a responsibility to keep Social Security as is for those already invested in the program?
• Should Social Security include private
  retirement accounts?
• Should the U.S. increase the minimum age requirement for receiving Social Security benefits?
• What are the functions of Social Security?
• What obligation does the US Government have regarding the funds on loan from the Social Security program?
• What should be done to Social Security?
• What should the government do with the funds accumulated for future Social Security payments?

    Yes, it’s been glamorized in tv and film over and over again; the gritty hero gets information out of an individual through questionable means and saves someone, several someone’s, a nation, or the human species.  We identify with a hero who is willing to do what it takes, and we are contemptuous of the snivelling defense attorneys who attempt to surpress the evidence. It may make for dramatic fiction, but it is hardly a useful tool. It is certainly unethical, and not something we want associated with our country.
    It comes down to a simple cost benefits analysis:

Costs:

Moral high ground

International relations

Safety of US citizens and troops from similar tactics used by other countries that wish to be considered legitimate.

Humanity

Benefits:

None.

Seems pretty clear.  There is no reason to believe that anyone with relevant information is going to cave to even the most brutal tactics.  Is there any reason to believe that someone who will blow themselves up for their cause will not endure an measure of brutal suffering? Any information obtained by torture is most likely unreliable information from someone with no access to relevant information.

Everyone should really reassess their stand on this issue after they admit that the dramatic extraction of essential information that saves the world by torture is a fiction, and a very improbable one at that.

whereIstand Tags

• Can the use of torture as an interrogation technique be justified?

    It has been a long time since I have posted anything on an issue in religion.  Mainly because it seems the topic and its issues only exist as a venue for devout atheists, or deists to bash religion with extensive amounts of venom and bile and little of anything else.  Trying to have discussions in such an environment is a very unpleasant waste of time.  Most of the original issues approved under religion are perfect examples of the reason for the religion topic.  As old subtopics are archived and the issues contained in them are reapproved, I see ridiculously biased issues.
    The one that caught my attention was the issue "Is God Just", an issue that exists merely as a place for people to pontificate about how a just God wouldn’t let people suffer.  
    This issue, "Is God Infallible", is another such issue. I may not know the beliefs of all religions, but I’d be willing to argue that all monotheistic religions of note include perfection as a necessary quality of God.  By definition, God is infallible.  The question may as well ask, "Is God God."  Asking the question infers a negative response.
    Unfortunately, there is little indication that approving unbiased issues will in anyway change the nature of the religion topic on wIs. It is likely to always remain a venue for those who hate religion to rant, but, in reality, is any area of wIs any different?
    It is becoming increasingly clear that this site, like most blogs, is going to remain a new venue for everyone to publish and sanctify their unwavering opions and biases while attacking and villifying other views.  At least this sight still maintains views on both "sides", but, for the most part, there is little interest in investigation, discussion, and refinement of viewpoints.
    Not to cast out criticism, for a great deal of this is self-directed as well.  I have certainly cast stones, been stubborn, and made use of the safety and security of entrenched views. When I have tried to step away from my preformed opinions into the realms of uncertainty and insecurity, I have been accused of "trying to stay above the fray", "pretending", and many other criticisms cast at "centrism", which isn’t really centrism at all but the best attempt at "rationalism" that a somewhat foolish and opinionated person can make.
    I hope that I can make the efforts to seek to give understanding rather than reproach, reason rather than prejudice, and dialogue before debate.
    

    It seems John Bolton decided not to go through the abject rejection from the US senate.  He removed himself from consideration and resigned.

AP–WASHINGTON – Unable to win Senate confirmation, U.N. Ambassador John Bolton will step down when his temporary appointment expires within weeks, the White House said Monday.

Bolton’s nomination has languished in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for more than a year, blocked by Democrats and several Republicans. Sen. Lincoln Chafee, a moderate Republican who lost in the midterm elections Nov. 7 that swept Democrats to power in both houses of Congress, was adamantly opposed to Bolton.

Critics have questioned Bolton’s brusque style and whether he could be an effective bureaucrat who could force reform at the U.N.

While reform is desperately needed at the UN–beginning with the founding documents and organization–sending in a man with little tact and no sense of civility is hardly the means to bring about reform. If the US wants to "force reform at the  U.N.," it should withdraw and form a better organization based on priniciples of freedom and government typified in the US constitution–the only document of its calliber in the world.

Another pillar of the Bush reign falls.

whereIstand Tags

• Should the U.S. be a member state of the U.N.?
• Is John Bolton a good choice to represent the US at the UN?
• Should John Bolton’s nomination be approved by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee?
• The nomination of John Bolton to represent the US at the UN sends what kind of message to the rest of the world?

Yes.  Iraq is currently involved in a civil war.  Oh, well at least it is embroiled in sectarian violenct, or a country in conflict, but no, it is a war.
    The administration, and others who want to downplay the seriousness of the situation and the untenable position of the US forces in the situation, want to call it anything but a war. Denial, however, is not a river in Egypt, and bickering over terms really doesn’t accomplish anything.
    It is almost tragic how US foreign policy seems to be more concerned for what we call the foreign situtation the administration gets us into than in the situations themselves.
    As Collin Powell so correctly argued, facing reality means not quibling over terms in an attempt to downplay the seriousness of the situation.  We all need to "face reality", and the easiest way to do that is to call it a "war" and stop quibbling over the terms we use to describe the problem.  Since "war" is the one everyone wants to avoid, it is the most appropriate one to use–it is the worst possible term, now lets worry less about the term and more about the events of the "conflict", "violence", "operation", or whatever.  I like "war".  According to the definitions, it certainly fits.

1. a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.
2. a state or period of armed hostility or active military operations: The two nations were at war with each other.
3. a contest carried on by force of arms, as in a series of battles or campaigns: the War of 1812.
4. active hostility or contention; conflict; contest: a war of words.
5. aggressive business conflict, as through severe price cutting in the same industry or any other means of undermining competitors: a fare war among airlines; a trade war between nations.
6. a struggle: a war for men’s minds; a war against poverty.
7. armed fighting, as a science, profession, activity, or art; methods or principles of waging armed conflict: War is the soldier’s business.
–Dictionary.com

It’s a war, but call it what you like, the situation is the same, and unless the US is ready to commit enough troops to disarm the country and control the situation, US troops need to get out of the crossfire.

whereIstand Tags

• Is Iraq engaged in a civil war?

    There is an old cliche definition of insanity; something about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.  Considering the fact that the US embargo on Cuba has been so effective in bringing the Castro regime to its knees, why don’t we just keep it up and see whether or not another communist dictator will rise to fill El Presidente’s shoes when he dies.  On the other hand, we could lift the embargo and erode the communist hold on Cuba with trade, US innovative technology, and freedom.  
    At some point, it should become clear that oppressive regimes use opposition to strengthen their hold on countries inspiring nationalism by identifying external enemies.  The removal of such unsuccessful opposition and the lure of improved prosperity through trade and peaceful international relations seems to me to present useful tools for dealing with other nations.
    It might be interesting to see if different tactics yield different results better than the same old ones do.

whereIstand Tags

• Has the U.S. embargo on Cuba been effective?
• Should the U.S. end the embargo against Cuba?

    I always love it when people start talking about all those uninsured US citizens because they’re talking about me, my wife, and two children and countless others like us who do not have health insurance, and would not choose to even if we could afford it.  Insurance is a protection racket.  People pay their money in betting that they will get sick often enough or severely enough to get their money out of it–if they don’t plan on spending as much on health care as they pay into insurance they’d be better off investing their money elsewhere.  Some people actually win the bet and find themselves beneficiaries of their policies; the majority of people lose their bets, and that is how the insurance industry makes its billions.
    Now, if the government created a universal health care system funded by taxpayers, all that money would just be there in huge quantities waiting for anyone who needs it, right?  Just like all that money people pay into social security is just sitting their waiting for each of us to retire…oh wait that’s that bit of the deficit the government doesn’t actually have to report.
    What kind of return will I get on my payments to universal healthcare as I fail to make use of them year after year?  Oh, right, I get to pay without any expectation of goods or services–unless I start seeing the doctor for regular check-ups, hitting the ER for every sniffle.  Well, if I’m paying anyway.
    I don’t want insurance, government funded or otherwise, but I’m sure the government will understand that.  I don’t want to vaccinate my children, take them to regular check-ups, or have them born in hospitals either, but I’m sure the government will understand that when it enrolls me in universal healthcare.  Oh, wait, that’s the government that never has and never will exist: the one that will provide funding without assuming control and power.
    Well, at least we can expect the government to do something about our obesity problem.  If the government is paying the bills, it should require people to be healthy.  People who inflict their health problems on themselves shouldn’t expect the government to pay for their expenses.  That is another benefit of universal healthcare; the government can force people to eat healthy, get exercise, have regular check-ups, stop smoking, and not do anything unnecessarily dangerous like running with scissors. 
    It would be wasteful for the government to continue to pay for health care for people who refuse to change the lifestyles that are making them ill.  Part of universal health care would need to be requirements of a standardized level of healthy living, right?  
    When the government is forcing me to inject viruses into my children in an effort to prevent them from contracting those viruses, I can at least be comforted in knowing that fat people across the US are being forced to eat salads and take a walk of greater than a mile for the first time in their lives.  Hooray for universal health care.

whereIstand Tags

• Do people have a right to affordable healthcare?
• Should the U.S. government provide universal healthcare?

    What is the problem?  Skyrocketing health care costs which many people cannot afford.  What is the liberal solution?  Let the taxpayers pay for them.  For some reason, I just don’t think it is right to require people to pay for other people’s health problems.
    Donovan never has managed to persuade me that there is some ambigous concept of public health that makes it a public good for my tax money to pay for some kids emergency room visit when s/he contracted the flu.  Somehow, I don’t really think anyone is benefitted by depleting the public coffers of those thousands of dollars.  The kid will still take the exact same amount of time to get better; s/he’ll still pass the virus to the same number of people–likely more because of the waiting room full of people at the hospital–, and s/he will still suffer the same amount of discomfort.  Add to that the likelihood that some overworked emergency room doctor will likely proscribe antibiotics–just in case–which the parents will neglect to ensure the child takes properly helping the development of drug-resistent bacterial strains.  I think I’m much better off not helping to pay for that.
    There is an epidemic in the US of seeing the doctor too much.  Contrary to the beliefs of many people, there is no need to make that trip to the ER for every cold, cut, headache, runny-nose, and strange hair growth.  There is also no need for a perfectly healthy child to have semiannual check-ups.  I do not need to take my perfectly healthy, happy, developing children in to see the doctor every six months so the doctor can tell me they are perfectly healthy, happy, developing children in the 95th percentile for height and 60th percentile for weight–which many parents worry about because they forget too many US kids are fat.  In fact, my daughter, 1, has never seen a doctor.  She was born at home with the assistence of a mid-wife and has never had a serious accident or illness.
    Really, my families medical needs are quite minimal because we eat healthy, exercise, and take care of ourselves.  In years we do not have a baby, our medical expenses are unlikely to reach $1000 even including the costs of my son’s dentist visits.
    LIberals, though, still think that there is some justification for spending the tax dollars of people like me to pay for the outrageous medical expenses of others.  A large percentage of US citizens have eaten themselves into bad health, so everyone should pay for it.  Smokers have destroyed their lungs; drinkers have pickled their livers; dug users have contracted any number of diseases from dirty needles; those who enjoy frequent casual sex contract numerous STDs including HIV, and liberals think we all should pay for it.
    The government has no duty, and no right, to be the guardian of public health.  Medical costs are outrageous, and regulations should be made to prevent the industry from gouging people in need, and everyone should give liberally to help those in need, but the costs of a person’s medical treatments are their own; taxpayers have no obligation to pay for them; the government should not force charity.

whereIstand Tags

• DNC
• RNC
• BarackObama
• HillaryClinton
• JohnMcCain
• MittRomney
• RudyGiuliani
• Should the government regulate the cost of healthcare?
• Should the U.S. government provide universal healthcare?

    The most essential tool needed to make any kind of evaluation is an established set of criteria.  When I grade my students’ papers, I use a rubric based on the criteria clearly presented on the assignment sheet I gave them.  This gives them a clear idea of what I will be grading them on and helps me to remove my subjectivity from the grading process as much as possible.  When it comes to measuring the effectivness or success of the invasion of Iraq, I need to know what criteria to base the evaluation on.

WMDs

If the purpose of the invasion was to ensure Saddam wouldn’t be able to attack the US with weapons of mass destruction–something he had no means to do with or without the requisite weapons, then the invasion has been effective.

Regime Change

If the purpose of the invasion was to remove Saddam from power–despite the fact that he hardly headed the list of the world’s worst tyrrants, then, again, the invasion has been effective.

Peace, Stability, and Democracy

Considering the fact that the men and women of our armed forces are still risking their lives in the pursuit of some purpose, I believe that neither of the two previous criteria are useful in making this evaluation. This makes sense since neither of those purposes would seem sufficient reason to embark on such a costly war in the first place; after all, there are many regimes throughout the world worse than Saddam’s that the US feels no urgent need to change, and there are countries in possession of weapons of mass destruction that are far better positioned to use them against the US that are not being invaded.  Clearly, there is another purpose and, therefore, another set of criteria need to evaluate the effectiveness or success of the invasion.

Ostensibly, the primary reason for invading Iraq was to advance the "war on terror" by making the world safer from terrorist threats.  I assume the reasoning here involved the emergence of Iraq as a peaceful, stable democracy, so the level to which those things have been acheived would constitute valid criteria for measuring the success of the invasion.

Peace: no one could possibly claim that Iraq is in any danger of becoming a bastion of peace any time soon.  Present goals seem to be focussed on obtaining some level of supressed agression–as opposed to the daily civil conflict of the current situation.

Stability: if the US wanted a stable Iraq, it should never have removed Saddam from power.  As romantic as the idea of "regime change" is, it simply is not possible to forcibly oust one government and quickly instal a stable alternative.  Any analyst with even fleating rational abilities should have realized that the invasion would cause decades of instability in the region–that’s even without factoring in the sectarian anymosity of the region.

Democracy:  while I do think Iraq will emerge with a democratic government, I hardly think it will be a form of democracy with which US leaders will be happy.  There will be elections, and the majority will rule–most likely with some level of tyrrany.  Democracy has never, and will never, guarantee freedom, equality, or any other such desirable traits.

Having these criteria, it is abundantly clear that the invasion of Iraq has not been successful.  Likely, it never will be.

whereIstand Tags

• DNC
• RNC
• BarackObama
• HillaryClinton
• JohnMcCain
• MittRomney
• Has the invasion of Iraq been successful?