Log in

No account? Create an account

Hypocrisy in action.

  So, I see they have found the wonderful Gov. of my state. After fighting against equal rights for LQBTQ marriage, the definition of a family/marriage as "one man, one woman", and other such drivel; he admits he was off in Argentina with his mistress. WTF? Is this a real situation? If so, there goes the hypocrisy.
  As a bisexual polyamorous person... i am a bit confused about his actions.... no never mind, his actions are predictable: you can only have a heterosexual two person marriage, but cheating is okay.
  Glad he can not run anymore as Gov..
"How can you tell if a politician is lying?" (or in most cases being  a hypocrite.. "They are talking."
  And Michelle Obama saying that people are going to have to give up some of their pie to help others... She sure helped make sure her hospital did not have to givbe anything up. Hypocrisy on both sides of the isle... just damn.

Liberty.... or Voluntary Servitude?

Just another interesting article I happened across.

Despotism – The Soft Way

by Samuel Gregg D.Phil.           April, 29 2009

Though it went virtually unnoticed, April 16th marked the 150th anniversary of the death of one of the significant thinkers of modern times. Author of the classic Democracy in America (1835/1840), Alexis de Tocqueville’s prophetic insights into America have been cited approvingly by figures ranging from Nobel Prize economist Friedrich Hayek to Benedict XVI.

Today Tocqueville is largely ignored in his native France, where the left-dominated intelligentsia dismisses him as “antidemocratic.” Americans of all generations, however, have regularly turned to this nineteenth-century aristocrat to understand their past and future. This is especially true when it comes to Tocqueville’s thoughts about democracy’s promise and perils which, more than ever, seem relevant for America.

Travelling through 1830s America, Tocqueville was struck by government’s apparent absence from this bustling commercial society. Unlike France, Americans had no particular regard for government officials, let alone politicians. They wanted to be let alone to follow their chosen pursuits. Why, Tocqueville wondered, did this not degenerate into anarchy?

The answer, he discovered, was two-fold. First, Americans had developed habits of free association. They did not address social and economic problems by asking the state to fix the situation. Instead they banded together to resolve their own difficulties.

Second, there was the influence of religion. Tocqueville was amazed at the plethora of religious activities in America which, unlike European countries, had no established church. While religious bigotry existed, religious liberty was generally taken seriously by American society and government alike.

This, however, did not translate into ACLU-like attempts to exorcize religious influence from the public square. On the contrary, Americans openly drew moral sustenance from their various faith traditions. This helped temper the everyday tensions of civil, economic, and political life. Simply being “a nation of citizens,” as President Obama recently labeled America, was not enough. “The Americans.” Tocqueville noted, “combine the notions of religion and liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive of one without the other.”

Without question Tocqueville regarded these features of America as portents of a great future. But other dimensions of American democracy troubled him, the poignancy of which is difficult to ignore today.

One concerned a fascination with equality. For all their love of liberty, Tocqueville stated, “Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.”

Democracy, Tocqueville argued, encouraged this fixation with equality because it requires people to relate to each other through the medium of democratic equality. This encourages us first to ignore, then to dislike, and finally to seek to reduce all differences that contradict this equality -- particularly wealth disparities.

This is key to what Tocqueville considered democracy’s tendency to “soft despotism.” Democratic despotism, Tocqueville thought, would rarely be violent. Instead it would amount to a Faustian bargain between the political class and the citizens. He predicted that “an immense protective power” might assume all responsibility for everyone’s happiness – provided this power remained “sole agent and judge of it.” This power would “resemble parental authority” and attempt to keep people “in perpetual childhood” by relieving them “from all the trouble of thinking and all the cares of living.”

Is America on the road to comfortable servility? “The American Republic,” Tocqueville wrote, “will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” Since Roosevelt’s New Deal, America has slowly drifted towards a political economy of soft despotism. Despite the Reagan Revolution, the trend-lines of government-spending and intervention have been in the anti-liberty direction. Entire constituencies of people now exist who regularly support politicians who promise that, in return for their votes, their entitlements (corporate-welfare, bails-outs for the “too big-to-fail,” the old-fashioned welfare state etc) will be maintained and increased.

The problem is that governments can only tax-and-spend so much before incentives to wealth-creation (as opposed to wealth-transfers) begin disappearing. The material comforts of servility slowly start to wane for many people. Politicians then have a choice. They can tell citizens the truth and risk losing their votes. Or they can incite populist envy by blaming whatever’s left of the wealth-producing classes for the situation.

In these circumstances, America’s greatest hope is hardly its political leaders. Rather it is those millions of Americans who still treasure liberty and have no intention of becoming comfortable serfs. As Tocqueville himself observed, “The greatness of America lies not in being more enlightened than any other nation, but rather in her ability to repair her faults.”

Let’s hope he’s still right.

Samuel Gregg is research director at the Acton Institute and author of The Commercial Society.

A question of WWJD?

Rochester Buddhist Temple Vandalized

AP, Jun 8, 2009

ROCHESTER, Minn. (USA) -- A Buddhist temple in Rochester has been vandalized twice over two weeks.

The Olmsted County Sheriff's Office is investigating the incidents at the Buddhist Support Society.

Sgt. Scott Behrns says the second incident happened late Thursday or early Friday, when someone smashed spotlights and globe lights at the entrance to the property.

The weekend before, someone painted a cross on the driveway and the words "Jesus Saves" on the property.

Behrns says the person behind the incidents needs to "knock it off and grow up."

Behrns says anyone who sees suspicious activity should call police.

After reading this article I began a series of head cocking and puzzlement.
 I thought Christians followed the teachings of Jesus and constantly asked WWJD?  It appears these individuals thought that Jesus would vandalize a spiritual house on two different occasions.
What ever happened to "God is Love"? or "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone?" Guess those don't apply to these vandals.

I apologize for the ramble, but things like this are a bit disappointing. The hypocrisy of it all should astound me, but it does not seem to anymore.

Political questions

"WASHINGTON: Aiming to forge a new beginning with the Muslim world and change the course set by the former Bush administration, President Barack Obama acknowledged in Cairo this week that the US response to the 9/11 attacks was enormous and led to “grave violations” by some Americans."

  Grave violations... yes, unfortunately the US Military has created a stir with the actions of some of its soldiers... actions that are unacceptable. But what about the "grave violations" perpetrated on America by its own government?

  Now, I am not a Christian but I have a question... Obama said that America is not a Christian Nation in a foreign speech. That is an accurate statement, especially if you look at the way the "Christians" behave; seemingly in opposition to their scripture.
 In Cairo, Obama said that Islam is a part of America..... okay, but he never indicate din what way.
He has also made statements that Bush was wrong to use force after 9/11 and indicated at a Naval Academy speech that he would not send troops to an unjustified action.  If he feels that the 9/11 response was unjustified... why not withdraw all the troops... immediately and stop the unjust and incorrect action?

 Just curious. Also, I have asked many people many times after being told that Bush was, "evil.", very evil", or very, very evil"; just how was Bush was so "evil", yet no one will respond and enlighten me with fact, just adamantly stated emotional response.

  Can someone enlighten me.. please?

Just rambling

While trying to think of something witty to write about social or political issues I came to a realization that I nothing to say; which is odd for me. I guess I have "Journal block"..lol, so I will just stream of thought ramble on.

  I have a friend, Kevyn, on here that used to live near me. I really do miss him a great deal since he moved away.. so does my family. I love him to death, and really wish there was more I could do for him in his time of adjustment and trouble.

  In my polyfi quad, things are going very well, except that our male love is sometimes in and out of his "affection and romance" mood. I often get the feeling that he no longer cares for the relationship, though he always says he is just, "going through some changes"... I have heard this before from others... so I am just taking a "wait and see" attitude. He and his primary wife have been poly for 10 years.... so it is sometimes confusing to me and my primary wife. Add to that the fact that I am bisexual, and very much in love with him as well (he can not decide if he is really bisexual or simple "bi-friendly" and the confusion grows). Over all things are going very well though.

  Work related issues are not as good. After leaving Law Enforcement, the job prospects have been slim. I apply evrey chance I get to any job I am qualified for... but seem to be overqualified for most in HR's opinion it seems. When you have someone willing to do a job, and learn new skills, why waste that. The interesting thing is... Most of the jobs seem to be filled then are reposted a month or two later... forthe exact same position. I fail to understand. Is there a lack of work ethic in the people they hire? Are the companies expectaions too high that these people need to be replaced? What is going on and why won't they just give me the opportunity... hell, after 12 years of management experience (Law Enforcement and private sector) one would think a job in management would be easier to get. Oh well, I'll jst keep plugging away.

Okay, I have other things to do today.. so until later.

CA and the Decision

Well, I see the CA Court upheld the ban on gay marriage..... I thought CA was more progressive than that, especially since it was "legal" for a while.
   The twistedness of it all confounds me.
  Once again, the government sticks it's nose into our lives, where they have no business being.


With the upcoming decision in CA, and the recent battles in many states over the definition of "marriage" and who is allowed to marry... I have been contemplating. Why is it that politicians, ie. government, feel the need to get involved? When did we give over our liberties to a group of people that no matter which party is elected... they seem to be very much out only for themselves?
  In this particular instance, we should not need a government ruling, State or Federal, about who we can legally profess our love for in a bonding ceremony.
  Even further, as a bisexual, polyamorous male, I would like the ability to marry, legally, my other "wife" and "husband" as well.
 When do we say enough is enough, and look to politicians who will actually support our liberties, as granted by the Constitution, and not be the deciders of what is right and wrong for the people they allegedly serve, us?
 Let us face it, neither party really looks out for us and our liberties, only themselves.
    Obama has already back tracked on his stance on "Don't ask, don't tell" (Sorry my bretheren in arms, it appears we are still not good enough to serve our Country if we admit we are of the GBLTQ Community) and even has stated that he believes "marriage" is between a man and a woman. (Now, why was he not critizied for this stance when the "Miss California" contestant said the exact same thing and was loudly critizied?)

  Before you start thinking I am anti-Obama, I am not.. He is the Preisident and I support him, even if I do not agree with him. I have no great love for Bush or actually for any politician that usurps my liberties and wants to run this Nation into the ground, caters to special interests, or only looks out for themselves.....

  What happened to "WE THE PEOPLE,"..........