The Insanity in the Wings

February 26th, 2007 by shaun25

I am really tired of the insane rhetoric of extreme factions. Who are they to assume they speak for the “middle class” or the “true majority” of this country. They claim that the one type of media is shifting our culture so far to one side that only an extreme pull to the other side will get things to be “fair and balanced.”

Unfortunately, it is not about balance. It is about being right. It is about blame. It is about making people join up on one side or the other. Since when did self-segregation become the law of the land?

What really bothers me is that a person can’t have an opinion about an issue without a brand. You have to be either conservative, liberal, or moderate. Politics are not linear. Opinions aren’t either. Why the linear scale? The very idea that we’re on a political seesaw just proves the playground level of immaturity in the rhetoric.

We have a multi-dimensional, multi-faceted, mutli-cultural society. How about we try to find a way to the truth, the best solutions, the most profitable enterprises. Rather than spending so much time, energy, and money proving how one wing is prettier than another.

Seriously, what can all sane Americans agree on?

  • We all want to be protected from crime and unfair punishment
  • We all want a strong economy that can bring us convenience, wealth, education, and health if we work hard for it
  • We all want a government that respects and represents the collective will of the country — while making good decisions when the people are not available to cast their vote
  • We all want peace
  • We all want a beautiful and well-preserved environment
  • We all want freedom to worship God (or not) according to the dictates of our own conscience and the freedom from religious persecution
  • We all want to have a military that will preserve our peace and protection from terrorist threats

Do we have these things? Not completely.
Are we working towards them? Sometimes.
Who’s to blame for the misdirection?…

Here’s a better question: Since when did blame solve a problem?

Though I will always defend the truth, as far as I know it, I’ve decided that extremism rarely includes any truth and that both “sides” have at least some. I would say that conservative values have more truth, but certainly not all of it.

Look. I’m an American. And so are you. Let’s see if we can find a way through the tar-pits of ideology to the light and truth at the end of the tunnel.

whereIstand Tags

Posted in Politics | 1 Comment »

The Depth of Hate

February 26th, 2007 by shaun25

Carol, my dear friend, my fellow American, my companion in the quest for freedom and equality.

You don’t like me, do you? Yeah, I know. Good eye, right? Well, it is not hard to see why. I am a conservative. And most notably, I am the conservative that has been most adamantly opposed to your more lunatic statements. But even when I agree with you, you attack me

Unfortunately, I am not alone. You have a habit of slamming the conservatives on this site on an individual basis. You mention them by name and then proceed to call them names, attack their intelligence and integrity, and disregard their points as some sort of prejudice rhetoric.

You did this most recently in these posts:

An Answer

The Murky Beliefs of the Brainwashed

The Height of Fear Mongering

Carol. My goodness. You are old enough to be my mother. Why do you speak to people like you are in junior high? Name calling is for schoolchildren and presidential candidates. Can’t we act like grown-ups here?

Mark SteynAs for your slander of Mark Steyn. (…is blogging considered slander or libel?) Isn’t it you that so often slams people for reading a single article and then claiming to be an expert?You say:

There may come a point when I will read it, but from my research, it appears this man relies on fear mongering.

Research? Reading wikipedia is now considered research? Maybe that’s where Al Gore got his facts for “our climate crisis” — as he so cleverly referred to it in the Oscars last night.

I don’t know, I don’t have a doctorate in political research, but shouldn’t you actually read a book before you make the claim that it is full of “fear-mongering?”

HomosexualitySee on this topic I have a bad habit of equating homosexuality with being gay. Is that wrong? Because homosexuality is about sexuality, I rather clumsily assumed that being gay was also about having a certain sexual orientation. According to Carol, it is not:

What I think he’s attempting to say, though, is that unless one has sex with someone of the same gender then he or she isn’t gay. What he fails to recognize, though, is that whether one abstains or not, that does not mean a person is not who they really are.

Okay. My turn. Huh?

What are you talking about Carol. Let me define it for you. If you have sex with only the same gender you are homosexual. If you have sex with only a different gender you are heterosexual. If you have sex with both genders, you are bisexual. If you never have sex with anyone, you are a celibate.

I thought that was clear. But now you are trying to cloud the issue by saying that someone doesn’t have to have sex to know who they really are. So someone can be gay without being homosexual? Based on what? Fashion?

I said the majority of homosexuals are not born with homosexual tendencies. You refute that idea. Well, as the refuter the burden of proof lies with you. But keep in mind that your statement is absolute and mine is not. You have to prove that all gay people are born that way. Good luck finding them all, much less proving they were gay at birth.

All My Opinions

Shaun then tries to compare this statement, proving that all his opinions must be right, if he believes this:

But I am also of the opinion that Hitler was evil. Am I wrong there, too?

No, I am trying to prove that not all my opinions are wrong, just because they are my opinions. I believe I said that…

Be careful when you jump to the conclusion that just because something is opinion does not mean it’s true.

Yeah, that’s what I said.

Clever ConclusionOpen minds, closed parachutes, swift deaths… are we taking this analogy a bit far?I was very amused when you actually found someone who died because of a closed mind. That was hilarious. Mostly because I knew you would. That move is so like you, Carol. Good job.

Unfortunately, your story holds very little water. It was not the person with the closed mind that died. He was actually the killer.

Only you, Carol, could equate a homophobic murderer, with someone who disagrees with you.

Perhaps you should research this phenomenon: narcissistic rage.

whereIstand Tags

Posted in Morality, Politics | 4 Comments »

Gayness: The Real Story

February 22nd, 2007 by shaun25

First of all, let me just give a shout out to all my gay friends out there in blog-land… Can I get a whoop, whoop?

My gay friends and I are different. We may look the same. We may be the same age. We may have the same education, the same IQ, the same skills, and even the same interests. But for some reason, my gay friends like men. That’s where we differ. You see, as a man, I like women. Specifically, I like one woman. She’s great and she’s beautiful.

Now, many people would like you to believe that homosexuality is a great divide in our society. It’s a huge, insurmountable wall. They want you to believe all liberals love gays and all conservatives despise them. They want you to believe that all gays are not religious, or even more false, that all religious people hate gay people.

No, I don’t know why they want you to think these things.

And though it may be disturbing, I don’t think that is the real issue here. The real issue is this:

Where does homosexuality come from?

I really don’t know why everyone dances around this issue like it’s a sacred sacrificial bonfire. Let’s get real here.

Most people who are gay were not born with these tendencies. They did not start cross-dressing at age 3 or kiss another child of the same sex at age 12. These things, I’m sure happen. And often, they are due to homosexual tendencies that are not environmental. But they are the exception and not the rule.

Most homosexual behavior and feelings are due to sexual experimentation. They arise from uninhibited sexual activity, often from a young age, in which people become sexually involved with members of the same sex or in “self-stimulation.” Sometimes premature sexual experimentation with the opposite sex can also lead to homosexuality. In all of these cases, homosexuality is a perversion and is avoidable.

Unfortunately, gay openness or “freedom” in the media and elsewhere only causes more experimentation. And consequently, more people become gay.

This is not what the majority of gay people or gay supporters want to hear. They want to be told that homosexuality is always genetic. That it is always natural. That you are always born with it. Well, that is simply not true.

Is homosexuality a disease? If it is, it’s psychological. But probably more accurately, it is an addictive sexual preference. And like any addictive behavior, it can be rationalized and justified in a hundred different ways.

Don’t be foolish enough to think that homosexuality is simply a religious faux pas. While practicing homosexuality is a sin in my religion, so is fornication and adultery.

Homosexuality is dangerous because it depletes our ability as a society to reproduce. If we want to survive as a nation, there is nothing more important than healthy fertility (i.e., in families where children can grow up being taught how to be good citizens). Without fertility, our kids won’t be around to suffer the effects of global warming. Because they won’t exist. Gay couples are voluntarily infertile.

As it stands we have reached a population plateau. Barring unchecked illegal immigration, at the current fertility rate we will have the same amount of people indefinitely. Europe is not so lucky. They are bound for extinction… or domination. Abortion, contraception, and homosexuality have really taken their hold on our friends to the east.

So much for advanced culture.

whereIstand Tags

Posted in Morality, Society | 17 Comments »

Unmentionables…

February 17th, 2007 by shaun25

For all my claims to knowing the mysteries of the universe (at least some of them), I can honestly say that there are some things that just baffle me.

Among these is the strange concept of freedom of speech. I call it strange because the very people who advocate it most have also unofficially created a list of what I like to call “The Great Unmentionables.” For conservatives out there, this list is real insanity. For liberals, the list is simply reality.

Let’s delve into the realms of science for a moment to explore some of the world’s unmentionables…

Scientific Unmentionables

  1. Global Warming is not caused by humans
  2. Man did not evolve from micro-organisms (or apes)
  3. Big Bang theory was just a bad guess at the true “origin” of the universe
  4. Homosexuality is a psychological condition, not a physical one
Social UnmentionablesScience doesn’t have a monopoly on PC censorship. Take a look at these “social” unmentionables:

  1. Race and crime are linked
  2. Women are physically, psychologically, and emotionally more delicate than men
  3. Hollywood is driven by liberalism, not money
  4. Gays have the same rights as everyone else in this country
  5. America is culturally superior to any other nation on earth

I’m sure there are more, but I think these are sufficient to cause a stir. Now, I understand that I have broken the unwritten oath of the unmentionables by (bah, bah, baaaahhhh…) mentioning these things. But please understand the point of this post.

The point of this post is to point out that while many things are far from proven, the opposing viewpoint is not even allowed to be talked about.

Those who choose to believe, study, prove, or even mention these unmentionables are ridiculed and branded as either ignorant, brainwashed, or stupid. If this is not the case… prove it. Let’s talk about it without name calling and attacking.

Let’s see if you liberals out there can respond without attacking my intelligence or my religion.

whereIstand Tags

Posted in Science, Society | 16 Comments »

Where does morality come from?

February 8th, 2007 by shaun25

I think I have let poor MisterE scramble in the dark long enough on the topic of morality. Is he an athiest without morals? I’m sure only partly.

In this post, I would like to clear up a lot of confusion on this topic. It seems as though everyone wants to be moral and yet no one has the capacity to describe what that means.

MIsterE and Jenna have mistakenly assumed I think morals come from the Bible. No. The Bible is not the source of morality.

Jenna says that reading may be the source of morality. That is also untrue. If that was the case, illiteracy would be synonymous with immorality.

MisterE claimed that morality comes from everything. Hmm… closer, but mostly wrong. Everything can be viewed within moral parameters, but to say morality comes from everything is like saying life comes from everything.

Source of MoralitySo where does morality come from? It comes from Jesus Christ.

More accurately, it comes from the light or power of Jesus Christ. Some call it a conscience. Some call it a moral compass. These are all the same thing, and their source is always the same.

In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not…

[Jesus Christ] was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. (John 1:4-5,9-10)

As John says, everyone who is born into this world is born with the “Light of Christ.” Morality is not learned. It is not gathered through experience. You could say everyone “just knows” what is right and what is wrong. You could also say that everyone is “born with it.”

That is why, as Jenna pointed out, that children can have moral ideas and feelings without reading the Bible and sometimes without even being taught.

The Condemnation of ConscienceSo why do so many people act immorally and do things that are obviously wrong?

19 And this is the condemnation [of men], that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God. (John 3:19-21)

John explains that when people ignore the “light” that is in them and decide to do evil instead, they are under condemnation.

You may say, I don’t fear the condemnation of an imaginary God. Perhaps you don’t. But another interesting view comes from Cicero, one of my favorite philosophers:

Thus it is the error of men who are not strictly upright to seize upon something that seems to be expedient and straightway to dissociate that from the question of moral right… For with a false perspective they see the material rewards but not the punishment — I do not mean the penalty of the law, which they often escape, but the heaviest penalty of all, their own demoralization.

Why is demoralization such a heavy penalty? Because when we even consider doing something we know is wrong, we consciously condemn ourselves to a state of immorality. We cannot hide from our own condemnation.

Furthermore, in any such consideration we must banish any vain hope and thought that our action may be covered up and kept secret. For if we have only made some real progress in the study of philosophy, we ought to be quite convinced that, even though we may escape the eyes of gods and men, we must still do nothing that savours of greed or of injustice, of lust or of intemperance.

Hiding immoral thoughts and actions does no good. We cannot hide from our own thoughts, even if we could keep things secret from gods and men.

And while I thoroughly believe in the condemnation of God for those who act against the “light” of their own conscience, I believe it will be our own guilt that will condemn us in the end.

Christianity is not just belief in eternal punishment, but the idea that God can save us from our own demoralization.

Enlightening Your ConscienceIt is possible to ignore your conscience long enough to lose it completely. People in that state are extremely scary. No crime is beneath them, no attrocity is too evil.

For those who listen and carefully follow their conscience, they have marvelous opportunities to do good.

14 Wherefore, take heed, my beloved brethren, that ye do not judge that which is evil to be of God, or that which is good and of God to be of the devil.
15 For behold, my brethren, it is given unto you to judge, that ye may know good from evil; and the way to judge is as plain, that ye may know with a perfect knowledge, as the daylight is from the dark night.
16 For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil…
18 And now, my brethren, seeing that ye know the light by which ye may judge, which light is the light of Christ, see that ye do not judge wrongfully; for with that same judgment which ye judge ye shall also be judged. (Moroni 7:14-16,18)

The Light of Christ that is given to everyone that comes into this world is the source of morality. Like a conscience, it will direct your path to all that is good. This is just one way that Christ can save you from your own guilt.

I hope this has been enlightening for you, MisterE.

whereIstand Tags

Posted in Morality, Religion | 4 Comments »

Classical Liberalism, Libertarianism, and Socialism

February 8th, 2007 by shaun25

While I don’t claim to be an expert on any of these topics, I did read an interestinhg article about them. The article was actually about classical liberalism, but it was very clear to point out that modern liberalism is nothing like its classical conservative counterpart.

Here are some of the more interesting points I found.

Classical Liberalism is Conservative

Classical liberalism is a doctrine stressing the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, constitutional limitations of government, the protection of civil liberties, an economic policy with heavy emphasis on free markets, and individual freedom from restraint as exemplified in the writings of Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Jeremy Bentham, and John Stuart Mill, and other thinkers.

To me that sounds like pure conservatism. In reading further, I found that’s exactly what it is.

The “normative core” of classical liberalism is the idea that in an environment of laissez-faire, a spontaneous order or invisible hand market emerges that benefits the society. Though, it is not necessarily opposed to the provision of a few basic public goods by the state that the market is seen as not being able to provide.

Capitalism does not create more poor

In an interesting quote from Toquerville, a highly regarded “thinker” among classical liberals, he explains how capitalism is not the cause of poverty, but of wealth. However, capitalism does not and cannot distribute wealth evenly.

Alexis de Tocqueville illuminated the events of the early industrial revolution and why wealthy societies became more concerned with the poor, stating,

“The progress of civilization…brings society to alleviate miseries which are not even thought about in less civilized societies. In a country where the majority is ill-clothed, ill-housed, ill-fed, who thinks of giving clean clothes, healthy food, comfortable quarters to the poor? The majority of the English, having all these things, regard their absence as a frightful misfortune; society believes itself bound to come to the aid of those who lack them, and cures evils which are not even recognized elsewhere.”

Modern liberalism is willing to decrease the total pie in an attempt to give everyone an equal slice. Classical liberalism had the idea that even though the pie may not be evenly sliced, everyone would have a bigger piece in the end.

I believe it is not government’s job to slice the pie.

Modern “New” Liberalism is SocialismOne of the most telling descriptions of modern liberalism can be found from L. T. Hobhouse and A. F. Hayek:

In 1911, L. T. Hobhouse published Liberalism, which summarized what social liberals believe is a “new liberalism,” including qualified acceptance of government intervention in the economy, and the collective right to equality in dealings, what he called “just consent”. So different from classical liberalism did Hayek see Hobhouse’s book that he commented that it would have been more accurately titled Socialism instead. (Hobhouse called his beliefs “liberal socialism”.)

Because of the relationship between socialism and communism, many liberals shy away from this description. Unfortunately, it is all too accurate.

Liberal rights aren’t rightsHere is another interesting tidbit about how the idea of “rights” has changed among liberals:

David Kelley also suggests that classical liberals understood liberty to be a negative freedom–a freedom from the coercive actions of others. Modern liberals include positive freedoms in liberty, which are rights to the provision of goods.

In other words, classical liberalism (and modern conservatism, I might add), believe that rights are for protection against grievances. People do not have rights to receive goods or privileges.

So, according to this philosophy, healthcare, social security, education, property, etc. should be managed by a free-market system, not by the federal government. None of these things is a right.

Classical Liberalism is very similar to LibertarianismAnother thing I found interesting that Terp might enjoy is the reference that classical liberalism is very similar to libertarianism. Though the article is quick to point out the flaws in this comparison, it is similar to comparing libertarianism to conservatism in general.

I find classical liberalism most similar to modern conservatism. And that conclusion seems very odd to me.What does this tell me about liberals? It’s not just their philosophies that are deceptive, it’s their name, too.

whereIstand Tags

Posted in Politics | 1 Comment »

A Small Dangerous Man

February 8th, 2007 by shaun25

I know I shouldn’t descriminate against short people (I am 6′4″), but there’s one I particularly don’t like. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (5′2″) is really starting to freak me out.

I wrote what I thought was an extremely important post on the “small subject,” but it didn’t make it into the mainstream WIS. Perhaps if I add more tags…

In other words, I really think you should read this one.

whereIstand Tags

Posted in Politics, Society | No Comments »

blink, blink … Say What??!!

February 5th, 2007 by shaun25

Today I heard something that made me have one of those “…whoa…what did he just say?” moments. Here is the news from the CNN pipeline:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tuesday his country expects its uranium enrichment program to be ready by February to meet Iran’s nuclear fuel needs, the national news service IRNA reported.

We knew it was coming. But wait, it gets better:

Ahmadinejad said Tuesday that Iran is ready for better relations with other countries — with one exception.

“We are after positive interaction with the whole world, except a state which we consider its foundation as wrong and do not attach any value to its legitimacy,” he said, referring to Israel.

Positive interaction? Positive for whom? Is Ahmadinejad really trying to be the world’s benefactor? There’s more:

Ahmadinejad also said Tuesday he has something to tell the American people.

“I will soon send a message to the American people. The message is in the stage of preparation,” he said. Without elaborating, he said his message would be in response to U.S. government statements.

“Send a message to the American people” ? …whoa… what did he just say?

With an announcement about his nuclear capabilities, the dictator of a terror-sponsoring, tyranical regime says he has a message for the American people that is in the stage of preparation. I really don’t like the sound of that.

“U.S. government statements”What has “our government” said recently about Iran?

November 13, 2006 – Ambassador James F. Jeffrey, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs:

While these are the problems longstanding, there is a particular problem with the current government under President Ahmadi-Nejad that requires very close attention by all of us. The U.S. is not seeking regime change, what we’re seeking is a change in behavior across the board and the path to seeking this change is multilateral action.

January 10, 2007 – President George W. Bush, Iraq Speech

I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region [of the Middle East].

We will expand intelligence sharing – and deploy Patriot air defence systems to reassure our friends and allies.

January 23, 2007 – President George W. Bush, State of the Union

In recent times, it has also become clear that we face an escalating danger from Shia extremists… Many are known to take direction from the regime in Iran, which is funding and arming terrorists like Hezbollah — a group second only to al Qaeda in the American lives it has taken…

The United Nations has imposed sanctions on Iran, and made it clear that the world will not allow the regime in Tehran to acquire nuclear weapons…

If American forces step back before Baghdad is secure, the Iraqi government would be overrun by extremists on all sides. We could expect an epic battle between Shia extremists backed by Iran, and Sunni extremists aided by al Qaeda and supporters of the old regime.

Not exactly an invitation to Camp David, is it? Makes one wonder what surprise our “benefactor” in Iran might have for us. There’s really only one thing that could get our attention. Does that little dictator really have the guts to deploy a nuclear bomb?

whereIstand Tags

Posted in Politics, Society | 1 Comment »

Abortion: Life, Liberty, or the Pursuit of Happiness

February 2nd, 2007 by shaun25

In the immortal words of the Declaration of Independance, we find this clause:

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.

In context of the Abortion debate I find it interesting that the three main issues are life, liberty (freedom of choice), and the pursuit of happiness.

While most people would be hesitant to admit that their primary concern in the abortion issue is the pursuit of happiness, I believe it is a legitimate concern. Don’t all women (and any men involved) deserve the right to seek for happiness?

In light of these three issues, I would like to make a case for this stance:

I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother.

As may of you know, this is the stance of Mitt Romney, JHWhicker, and myself. What you may not know is that this is also the official stance of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, to which we all belong.

Carol claims that this stance is both arrogant and hypocritical. I think she is biased on two fronts, being both liberal and a former born-again Christian. I say this because fundamentally, liberals do not like conservative views and born-again Christians do not like most Mormon views.

Even so, she brings up a good question:

How can you emphatically believe in “life” and then claim that abortion is permissible in “special” circumstances?

Making the CaseTo answer this question, you must first understand the idea that in our religion, we believe certain principles are greater or better than others. For example, in the Bible it says that the principle of obedience is greater than the principle of sacrifice:

And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. (1 Samuel 15:22)

You could properly say that religious principles have a hierarchy or order to them. We believe that for the three principles involved in the abortion debate, they are organized in this order:

1. The Right to have Freedom of Choice (Liberty)

2. The Right to have Life

3. The Right to Pursue Happiness

With this order in mind each “exception” in our stance on abortion must be viewed individually.

Agency: The Freedom to ChooseRape
In cases of rape, the principle of agency (or freedom of choice ) has been taken away. They did not choose to become pregnant, or more importantly, to engage in sexual intercourse in the first place. Because of this, rape victims should be allowed to make a choice concerning their pregnancy even though it may nullify the right of the baby to live. That is how strongly we believe in the right to choose.

Protecting the Life of the Mother
When a woman’s life is at stake, even when her baby may survive, she has the right to choose whether or not to live. When she decided to have sex, she could not have known it would be a decision of life or death. For that reason, she should have the choice to decide to protect her own life even if this decision might negate the right of the baby to live.

Incest
Often incest is a case of sexual abuse or what is called legally “statutory rape.” In such cases, abortion may be permissible as it is in other rape cases. However, because of the unique nature of incest, sometimes it appears on the surface that conscious choices have been made. Such cases should be examined on an individual basis and should be a matter of professional counselling and legal action, if necessary.

Other Cases
It is completely contrary to the principle of agency to choose both your actions and their consequences. When a woman has already decided to engage in sexual intercourse, she has made her choice. The right to choose the consequences of your own decisions is not a right at all.

The Right to LifeThe right to pursue happiness does not trump the right of an unborn child to live. If a woman engages in sexual activity knowing that there is a chance of pregnancy, her status, her marital bliss, her career, her age, her finances, or any other “source” of her happiness is not a good reason for an abortion. In all such cases, the right of the child to live is fundamentally more important.

The Pursuit of HappinessWe believe that the happiness of both the mother and the child is important. It is for that reason that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is one of the largest proponents of adoption in the world. They have a special adoption program for those who want an alternative to abortion and for those who cannot have children themselves.

Adoption is a marvelous alternative to abortion because it allows a child to grow up in a home that may be more healthy and happy than might otherwise be the case. It also allows the birth parents to be free to pursue a course that would, hopefully, bring them more happiness as well.

Even with the exceptions mentioned above, adoption is almost always a better “choice” than abortion.

I hope that exlains my stance a little better, Carol.

whereIstand Tags

Posted in Morality, Religion, Society | 7 Comments »

The Flip-Floppers Guild

February 2nd, 2007 by shaun25

Awww…yes. The flip-flopper. A position that has been around as long as democracy itself, and perhaps longer. Only recently has it gained the rhetorical and buzz-wordial fame it currently enjoys. For that this country will always be subconciously grateful to Senator John Kerry.

Divisions in the Flip-Floppers GuildWithin the Flip-Floppers Guild there are two types of flip-floppers:

1. Antagonists

2. Ambitionists

As the name suggests, antagonists engage in flip-flopping for the sole purpose of keeping a stance of opposition.

Most recently, most Democratic politicians have joined the anti-Bush club in which flip-flopping is a regular practice used to disagree in every detail with President Bush.

I have learned personally that this is a common practice among liberals. Their stance is: “No matter what conservatives say, they are wrong, whether they agree with me or not.”

I believe such behavior is immature, counterproductive, and annoying. When it invloves war and foreign policy, it is dangerous and borderline criminal. Antagonistic flip-flopping is truly the flesh eating scurge of a representative democracy.

The other kind of flip-flopping, is less serious, but just as confusing. Ambitionists are people, usually politicians, who will switch sides on an issue for reasons of personal ambition. It may be to get elected to an important office. It may be to pass a popular bill. Or it may be merely to bump your approval ratings with the public. Usually, such behavior is simply hypocritical.

Moral ExpediencyMore rare is another type of ambition. This type of ambition is what our country was founded upon. It is the ambitious goal of doing the right thing. Philosopher’s call it “moral expediency.”

Night before last I found myself engulfed in a documentary on PBS about the Supreme Court. One of the most interesting characters I learned about was John Marshall Harlan.

Justice Harlan grew up the son of a slave owner and a staunch Democrat in the pre-Civil War south. He became a Supreme Court Justice in 1877, but previously had owned slaves for many years in his home state of Kentucky. After the creation of the 13th ammendment, Harlan said he would oppose it even “. . .if there were not a dozen slaves in Kentucky.”

Hardly more than two years after this statement, Harlan turned his final and most amazing political somersault: He became a Republican, joining the party of Lincoln, whose policies he had so reviled…

In 1871, he said: “I have lived long enough to feel and declare that . . . the most perfect despotism that ever existed on this earth was the institution of African slavery. . . . With slavery it was death or tribute. . . . It knew no compromise, it tolerated no middle course. I rejoice that it is gone.”

As to his spectacular flip-flop on the issue, Harlan said: “Let it be said that I am right rather than consistent.”


It was Justice Harlan that gave the famous dissent against the case of Plessy vs. Ferguson in which the doctrine of “separate but equal” was established. His was the only vote against it.

So, I ask this simple question to those of the Flip-Floppers Guild. Hillary, John, Mitt, and the rest of you…

In your political gymnastics, are you a “hater,” a “hypocrite,” or a “Harlan”?

whereIstand Tags

Posted in Politics | 2 Comments »

« Older Entries