HDR 146: Hey Barack – Stupid Is As Stupid Does


ALOHA, ALL!  “I’m leaving it as I found it.  Take it.  It’s yours.”  I saw “Atlas Shrugged” the other day – it’s amazing how a book published in 1957 was so prescient of what’s happening today.  Think about it:  when Ayn Rand wrote the book, America was booming.  We were still in major growth mode after winning WWII, with all aspects of the economy growing.  My Dad was a builder and even though I was quite young (not telling you my real age) I remember how he started with nothing and built a successful business (of course, later he pretty much lost it all – no government bailout for him, and he wouldn’t have taken it even if it had been offered.)  Anyhow, the fact that Ayn Rand foresaw the nanny state we’re living in now is remarkable.  Then again, Alisa Zinov’yevna Rosenbaum (her real name) grew up in Russia and saw first-hand what collectivism and statism can do.  She abhorred them.  She cherished individual rights, constitutionally limited government, and capitalism  If you haven’t seen the movie, go.  You can find out where it’s playing here:      Atlas Shrugged Movie – The Official Atlas Shrugged Movie Web Site  Here’s how it did its opening weekend:  ‘Atlas Shrugged’ Earns $1.7 Million at Weekend Box Office – Common American Journal

As if on cue:  Editorial: Even S&P Gets It: We’re Broke – Investors.com  “Who needs a ratings agency to tell you bigger and bigger government threatens America? Catastrophe is just around the bend if President Obama and congressional Democrats are not stopped.”  Precisely.  We’ve gone from “stable” to “negative” for the first time since Pearl Harbor was bombed.  Of course, 0bama’s minions immediately tried to dismiss the S&P’s warnings:   “They are saying their political judgment is that over the next two years they didn’t see a political agreement to reduce long-term deficits,” Austan Goolsbee, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, said in an interview with Bloomberg Television. “I don’t think that the S&P’s political judgment is right.”  Really, Austan?  And why on earth should we trust you?  

WARNING:  DON’T INTERRUPT HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS!!  Barry gave an interview to a Texas news reporter a couple of days ago.  Let’s just say the interviewer was asking some questions Barry didn’t like (thanks to Scott for the link):  

In contrast, these politicians were ready, willing and able.  Politicans including Paul Ryan and Eric Cantor and others came face-to-face with both 0bama & McCain voters, answering their questions.  If you didn’t see this on Fox News, here’s a link to the entire segment – it’s worth watching!  Frank Luntz: The American people vs politicians – Common American Journal  No hissy fits here, like we saw with “The One.”  Just straight talk and direct answers.

POOP (Particulars of 0bama’s Presidency):  Remember the much touted “Cash for Clunkers” program?  Cash for Clunkers Results Finally In: Taxpayers Paid $24,000 per Vehicle Sold, Reports Edmunds.com — Edmunds.com  “Our research indicates that without the Cash for Clunkers program, many customers would not have traded in an old vehicle when making a new purchase,” Edmunds.com Senior Analyst David Tompkins, PhD told AutoObserver.com. “That may give some credence to the environmental claims, but unfortunately the economic claims have been rendered quite weak.”   (Thanks to hubby for the link.)

So THAT’S the problem!  Absurdity: Detroit’s Mayor has 48 City Unions to Deal With | THE UNION LABEL  “As things stand the city has 8,000 active employees but is stuck with a legacy cost of 22,000 retired workers. Because of this, fully 30% of Detroit’s budget is going to retirees’ pension benefits.”  Who is John Galt??????

"But Mom, Im only going out to do my paper route."

Hey Kids in NY – Big Brother is looking out for you!  Classic kids games like kickball deemed unsafe by state in effort to increase summer camp regulation  “State bureaucrats have identified a potentially deadly hazard facing our children this summer – freeze tag. That’s right, officials have decided the age-old street game – along with Wiffle Ball, kickball and dodgeball – poses a “significant risk of injury.  And classics like Capture the Flag, Steal the Bacon and Red Rover are also deemed dangerous in new state regulations for day camps.”  Wow – how did we ever survive riding in cars without seat belts, drinking from garden hoses, playing in the woods or down at the creek, and shooting each other with toy guns?   And those evil Happy Meals??????  Wake up, people.

Final Thought:   “I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows.”  Ayn Rand

Happy Passover to all my Jewish HDR readers – God bless you!

GOD BLESS AMERICA – PASS THIS ON – REMEMBER IN 2012!!

Advertisements

Tags: , , , ,

About giliar

An American patriot who has gone rogue - I will remember in November!

11 responses to “HDR 146: Hey Barack – Stupid Is As Stupid Does”

  1. Lee says :

    This article is directed at Christians, but the rest of us can learn from it as well. The main point is to show the incompatibility of Christianity with Ayn Rand’s philosophy (though it exposes the weakness on economics of the Christian religion):

    A Look At Ayn Rand
    (Tuesday, 19 April 2011 20:50)

    A Look At Ayn Rand
    (Tuesday, 19 April 2011 20:50)

    A response to Cal Thomas’s endorsement of the ATLAS SHRUGGED movie and its attack on Caesar

    By Gary Moore

    Founder, The Financial Seminary

    http://www.movieguide.org/articles/main/et-tu-cal.html

    MY COMMENTS:

    This demonstrates so much at one time:

    1. The Christian contradiction with Ayn Rand.
    2. The selfishness of Ayn Rand’s philosophy:
    3. The flaws of Christianity.

    1. The Christian contradiction with Ayn Rand.

    Theologians from Martin Marty on the left to Chuck Colson on the right have recently written that Rand turned the Bible upside down. She was a disciple of Nietzsche’s elitism so it’s understandable she wanted to be remembered as “the greatest enemy of religion ever.” Jesus told us to “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s” and Paul said to “honor and respect government” as it was instituted by God (Romans 13). But, Rand told us there is no God and we’d have utopia on earth when we rid ourselves of government.

    (Clear contradiction that so-called “libertarian Christians”–a complete contradiction in terms, as one can be one or the other, but not both–have pushed. As a more fascist-minded person when it comes to the philosophy of government’s legitimacy, I must come down on the side of the Christians here.)

    2. The selfishness of Ayn Rand’s philosophy:

    …Rand’s teachings also have far reaching social consequences. As a fierce individualist, Rand advocated the legalization of abortion and drugs, both of which she reportedly used personally. Believing there are no moral standards other than what we think there are, she thought it fine to have a most public affair with a close disciple. Yet she then thought it rational to excommunicate him from her movement when he thought it rational to have another affair. It takes evil genius to rationalize such selfish and contradictory confusion.

    (This valueless approach to actions invariably leads to short-sighted decisions, such as the screwing over of allies [no pun intended, but I’m sure I could make a great one!].)

    (Personal comment: Ayn Rand had an affair? WT*? Have you seen that ugly broad?)

    3. The flaws of Christianity.

    But, Rand told us there is no God and we’d have utopia on earth when we rid ourselves of government. That’s hardly conservative; and indeed, Rand was a self-described “radical.” Jesus taught the interests of our neighbors must be lovingly elevated to the level of our own interests. Rand taught selfishness is a virtue and charity toward neighbor should only be practiced in “emergency situations.”

    That ethic highly influenced her close disciple Alan Greenspan, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve. Greenspan did his best to deregulate our S&L’s during the eighties, as well as Wall Street during the nineties and years leading up to the credit crisis and Great Recession. Many observers now doubt that deregulating our financial elites, as well as the CEO’s deified in Rand’s book and movie as human saviors, created heaven on earth. But, we still share Rand’s belief that government is the root of all evil. So despite Einstein saying insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result, America’s new economic and political “roadmap” to the future has again been prepared by another Rand disciple, Congressman Paul Ryan. The House recently approved his plan to further cut the top rate on our economic elite from 35% to 25%. Yet the most recent IRS statistics show the 400 highest income Americans only paid federal taxes of 17% on annual income averaging $345 million. That was down from 26% in 1992. As Leona Helmsley might have quipped, paying taxes is for suckers.

    (Economics is the one place where Rand’s ideas have definite merit, and that is probably why they are so often expressed by her supporters in that context. The writer takes the correct aspects of Christianity’s teaching of love of neighbor and turns them into wealth redistribution, entitlement mentality, and the self-defeating idea of inherent equality of people. He pushes the second-biggest weakness of Christianity–the denying of loyalty, whether they deserve it or not–to the forefront of his attack on Rand. As a former Christian with profound disagreement on this excess of Christianity, I come down on Rand’s side on this point.)

    • giliar says :

      Lee – I admire Rand’s economic philosophies but her personal life and views are not to be admired. Frankly, I think it IS possible to have strong, market-driven economic principles and Christian values at the same time. It’s a country where people are free to work hard with no limits on what they can earn, and where those who are successful help those who are less fortunate (voluntarily….not mandated by the government.) It’s a place where hard work is admired and rewarded, not derided and punished. And where freeloading off the “system” is punished and only those who are truly needy get the help they need. That is utopia.

      • Lee says :

        And I basically agree with that in broad principle (though I question whether we really need more “Christian values” like “turn the other cheek” and the spiritual deprecation of material wealth among his followers). That is why I said in my very first post here that “the story does indeed oppose much of the Obongo agenda, and I certainly hope the movie does well,” and “[t]he key to our sociopolitical survival is much like the key to our spiritual survival–even as we must limit Relativity to the realm of physics, we much limit that story’s Individualism to the realm of private commercial endeavors. Otherwise, our far-more-collective enemies will overwhelm us, even as a tight-knit gang of thugs overwhelms a neighborhood. Even as a free society depends on a socialist dictatorship (the military) for its survival, the economic freedom Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, et al, championed depends on the willingness of those partaking in it to subordinate their freedom to the common good.”

      • Lee says :

        And I basically agree with that in broad principle (though I question whether we really need more “Christian values” like “turn the other cheek” and the spiritual deprecation of material wealth among his followers). That is why I said in my very first post here that “the story does indeed oppose much of the Obongo agenda, and I certainly hope the movie does well,” and “[t]he key to our sociopolitical survival is much like the key to our spiritual survival–even as we must limit Relativity to the realm of physics, we much limit that story’s Individualism to the realm of private commercial endeavors. Otherwise, our far-more-collective enemies will overwhelm us, even as a tight-knit gang of thugs overwhelms a neighborhood. Even as a free society depends on a socialist dictatorship (the military) for its survival, the economic freedom Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, et al, championed depends on the willingness of those partaking in it to subordinate their freedom to the common good.”

  2. Lee says :

    Actually, Gilia, JFK pointed out that the extremes (Right vs. Left) often look more like each other than they do the Center. This makes no sense to politically-uneducated people who don’t understand the Right-Left schematic–in other words, most Tea Partiers and conservatives. You are correct in noting that the Left uses such concepts, but you ignore the far Right movements which also put a group identity above the individual (e.g., “Christian-Republic”-types who claim the First Amendment only means the government can’t force you to choose between Christian denominations–a concept recently championed by someone from the American Family Association: White nationalist groups who claim America was never intended to include non-Whites or who call for a monoracial “White homeland” within America, etc.).

    (And before you try to challenge that too much, libertards often try to establish themselves as above the Right-Left schematic by pointing out exactly this sort of thing. I would still label them as on the Right due to their rejection of collective ownership and retention of ethnic distinctions in their end game.)

    The truth is that both extremes appeal to something above and beyond the self. The Left looks to “internationalist” ideas which run down traditional power structures and classes (e.g., economic collectivism, anti-colonialism, opposition to traditional religiosity, championing of non-White, non-Western resistance to White/Western hegemony). The Right looks to “nationalist” ideas which champion one or more of the opposing ideas (White nationalism, Christian nationalism, entity nationalism, etc.). Hence, the Left by nature will be more cohesive–their differences are more linear (“how far, how fast”) than lateral (substantive contradictions), and they all look in principle to the “stateless utopia” goal–while the Right by nature has more lateral differences (a White nationalist and a Christian nationalist will have severe substantive differences, and the entity nationalist will disagree with both). “Individual freedom” is not necessarily a factor in defining this spectrum, contrary what some Tea Partier who slept through high school world history, knows nothing of political science, thinks “Congress done violated the Constitution sayin’ ‘all men are created equal’ when they passed dat dere ‘Roe V. Wade’ law,” and can’t even spell “didn’t” might tell you. (There is a reason the Left labels the Right as largely “uneducated”–it’s true!)

    (LOL “Stateless utopia”. I once used this standard term for explaining the goal of Communism to a conservative/Right-type who actually tried to challenge me on it, claiming I had Right and Left reversed. He was so uneducated on what he talked about that he didn’t even know what the concept was.)

    By your definition, any viable “militia” is Leftwing, because it will have a discipline that puts the unit above its individual members. Any “militia” that doesn’t isn’t a militia, but rather a social gathering of armchair commandos who think wearing faded and obsolete fatigues and carrying military-lookalike guns around make them soldiers (which describes most of these non-government “militias” I’ve had the dubious distinction of having run into at gun shows). So, are you prepared to post that “the Militia Movement” is a Leftwing movement?

    By your definition, the Left has a lock on action beyond the self. That’s right. As one on the conservative/Right, you cannot participate in any political campaign where you are not the candidate, as that is not pure self-interest. You cannot participate in neighborhood betterment groups (whether government or private), as that means you are sacrificing for–OH–the COMMUNITY! And you cannot champion the American military, absolutely the most socialist and collectivist (and thus, by your measure, Leftist) element in American society (virtually everything needed for your life is provided simply by virtue of your membership, you are assigned where you are needed or wanted–regardless of what your recruiter told you–and you can’t just turn in your two weeks’ notice and quit).

    Finally, your understanding of American political history is sadly lacking. The Constitution was intended to do what it says it was intended to do. Rather than doing as the liberal judicial activists and reading modern ideas into the document, simply heed its own words. Indeed, it does limit the role of the federal government, but not the states vis a vis their citizens. The federal government could not tell people what religion to be, but states could extract tax money to support their official denomination, or even forbid other denominations (in the 1830s, my own state of Missouri essentially declared war on Mormonism, offering a reward for killing Mormons–and all was in accord with the pre-14th Amendment Constitution; this was ended in1976, long before I was old enough to profit from the policy). Thus, the dangers of libertardism and excessive individualism in civilized society were still restrained (just ask a homosexual from 1800–the great libertarian Thomas Jefferson years earlier had proposed legislation in Virginia punishing “sodomy” the same as rape and polygamy).

    In the western territories there was far more individualism–the whole “mountain men” phenomenon, the isolated settlers, etc.–but those areas were–get this–TERRITORIES! They didn’t elect members of Congress. They didn’t in those days elect their own territorial governors. They had individual freedom, but it didn’t impact on civilized areas or the national political condition. In other words, their individualism was subsidized and protected by the more collective civilized areas (actual states). But as things became more settled, more civilized, much of that individualism was curtailed. This is why in 1890 historian Frederick Jackson Turner offered the thesis that the American frontier was “closed”–very little uncivilized area remained in the contiguous U.S., even in the territories.

    The funny part of your post, Gilia, is that if I had used the more generic term, “common,” or maybe “cooperative,” instead of the more precise entity-focusing term, “collective” you likely would never even have thought of your post.

    And again remember, if it weren’t for a group of people who are bound in slavelike status to their jobs, who are legally considered “government property,” who are subject to restrictions most Americans will never experience, and who can legally suffer official penalties for legal expression (you know what I mean), you and your fellow free Americans would have no such freedom. Our people–our COLLECTIVE identity–would have lost it to far-less-individualistic forces long before either of us were born.

    Your individualism requires my (Rightwing) collectivism.

  3. David says :

    “I’m busy,” “I have a family,” and “I have to work.” Bad? Lazy? Unproductive? Ignorant? Inactive? Apathetic? Out of touch? Non participant? I would venture that this statement is popular with a vast majority of the people who will throw the lever on voting machines in 2012. The motivation they need is POSITIVE, not negative.

    The State exists to serve the individual….first and foremost in protecting his freedom to pursue his personal opportunities. The Constitution was a doomed document until the Bill of Rights was added. God, Family, Country, in that order for that reason.

    Milton Friedman laid down the finest argument ever filmed for capitalism………..I believe it was John Locke who described the ‘tacit consent’ to be governed that we all must let limit us in our “republic.”.

    • Lee says :

      Libertards argue that the United States of America was set with the individual more important than the community. Let us see, in a few words, that this self-defeating and dangerous notion is incorrect:

      PREAMBLE TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION:

      We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

      1. “We the People”–Nope, that’s a collective term, and it reaches beyond the assenting individuals. It doesn’t say, “We, a bunch of individuals who got together, but not including other individuals who live in this same country…”

      2. “of the United States”–“States,” not “Persons”.

      3. “in order to form a more perfect Union”–Not “in order to make sure there is no unity of the people”.

      4. “establish Justice”–Not “do only that which (the aforementioned) individuals can’t do for themselves” (a common libertard formula for their view of the legitimate role of government). Individuals can “establish Justice”–if you steal from me, I take my gun, kill you and your family, and take your stuff. Boom, we’re even and the bad guys are punished.

      5.”insure domestic Tranquility”–Fancy term for coerced adherence to societal order, i.e., a police state.

      6. “provide for the common defence”–“Common.” Completely non-individualist.

      7. “promote the general Welfare”–Even with a proper understanding of “welfare,” it remains contrary complete “rugged individualism.”

      8. “and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”–“Ourselves,” not “each of us.” “Posterity,” meaning that the purpose went beyond each individual, explicitly extending to others.

      9. “do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America”–Not “for the people of this country/land, who agree to assent to it, but allowing others to not assent, not be taxed because they don’t agree to be, yet to benefit from blessings of our society.”

      CONCLUSION: Nope. America was NOT founded as an individualist country (a contradiction in terms, in any case), and the individualist/libertard philosophy would be offensive to the Founders. The lack of concern for others would violate John Adams’ notation that the Constitution works only for “a moral and religious people.” The denial of government’s inherent power and duty to enforce right and wrong (even if “no one is hurt” or if individuals could do it themselves) would violate the early American Christians’ recognition of Genesis 9:5-6; Romans 13:1-6; et al. And the Ayn Rand-ish refusal to live for others, even voluntarily, would be so contrary to the “common” and “general” elements of the Preamble as to border on seditious.

      • giliar says :

        Actually, Lee, liberals argue for the “collective good” versus the individual because collectivism equals statism equals control. And the union (aka Federal government) was formed not to promote a collectivist society but to protect it citizens.

    • Lee says :

      “I’m busy,” “I have a family,” and “I have to work.” Bad? Lazy? Unproductive? Ignorant? Inactive? Apathetic? Out of touch? Non participant? I would venture that this statement is popular with a vast majority of the people who will throw the lever on voting machines in 2012. The motivation they need is POSITIVE, not negative.

      THERE IS MORE TO POLITICAL SUCCESS THAN VOTING ON A BALLOT.

      The State exists to serve the individual….first and foremost in protecting his freedom to pursue his personal opportunities. The Constitution was a doomed document until the Bill of Rights was added. God, Family, Country, in that order for that reason.

      THE STATE EXISTS TO SERVE THE NATION AND TO IMPLEMENT JUSTICE. THE INDIVIDUAL FACTORS INTO THAT. WHEN THE INDIVIDUAL IS PUT AHEAD OF THAT, THE DIVERGENT INTERESTS THAT DOMINATE WEAKEN THE NATION AND LEAD TO THE LOSS OF THE VERY FREEDOM SUCH A PHILOSOPHY DEPENDS UPON TO FUNCTION. IT IS SELF-DEFEATING, AND THE LEFT LOVES YOU TO THINK THAT WAY.

      Milton Friedman laid down the finest argument ever filmed for capitalism………..I believe it was John Locke who described the ‘tacit consent’ to be governed that we all must let limit us in our “republic.”.

      TELL THAT LAST PART TO THE OXY-MOROONS WHO GO TO TOWNHALL MEETINGS AND ASK WHY THEY ARE BEING TAXED WHEN THE DIDN’T PERSONALLY CONSENT TO IT. TELL THAT THE LOCAL LIBERTARD RADIO HOST WHO WILL DO AN ENTIRE SHOW ABOUT A LAWBREAKER’S ACTION, YET CONSIDER MEANINGLESS THE FACT THAT WHAT HE DID WAS AGAINST THE LAW!

  4. Lee says :

    I hope you didn’t think you could bring up Atlas Shrugged without me commenting:

    While the story does indeed oppose much of the Obongo agenda, and I certainly hope the movie does well, it accomplishes this by the promotion of selfishness. The whole “living for no man other than me” stuff (which, for you Christians out there, directly contradicts and violates your religion, whether you want to admit it–or are spiritually mature enough to understand it–or not) is a recipe for the destruction of our country and society, and ultimately–ironically–for the very freedom it exploits. A nation of individuals is, in fact, not a nation, and will ultimately collapse under the lack of cohesion to work in a unified direction or resist a not-so-individualist foreign (or internal, for that matter) military or political threat.

    While free enterprise and a profit motive (i.e., self-interest) are generally positives in economic matters, unless a strong distinction is made to limit such self-interest to that realm, it WILL seep into other aspects of existence, even as Einstein’s Theory of Relativity seeped from the realm of physics and into the realm of moral thinking (Einstein, regardless of his religiosity, was as times a moral absolutist). We already see this, of course, in the normal conservative focus on their own lives and families at the expense of political activism. “I’m busy,” “I have a family,” and “I have to work,” form the three-legged stool of conservative laziness. They pursue their own lives and preferences, while the enemies of what they want work together and seek to destroy it. And because conservatives so value individualism, they not simply cannot, but generally will not–that is, they willfully refuse to–deprecate their preferences in favor of submitting to any common cause. In short, they mock by their attitudes the sacrifices made by the Founding Fathers to establish the freedom they rely upon to engage in their selfishness. Bill Maher, as much as I hate that man’s guts, makes a point in a number of ways that the modern Tea Partiers would hate the Founders. This is just one way.

    Now, in mentioning the Tea Party, I must address the 2010 election success. If one is honest in looking at that, one will see that far from it being a victory of individualism over collectivism, it was, in fact, a case of individualists and social donservatives selling their souls when pressed. The individualists saw the danger to their selfish lifestyle, and suddenly dropped their near-religious obsession with political non-activism, with social conservatives likewise dropping their principles for electoral success. The individualists sacrificed and became “joiners,” and the social conservatives happily stood shoulder-to-shoulder with what their faith considers abominations (homosexuals and pro-choicers–e.g., Tammy Bruce). In short, they became their enemies. (AND I’M SO GLAD THEY DID! MAY THEY KEEP IT UP THROUGH 2012!)

    Rush Limbaugh has always amazed me by his self-defeating individualism. But I had hope for him–once. In June or July of 2008, with it clear that Barack Obongo would be the Democrat nominee for President (pResident), Limbaugh said at least once on his radio show that for the first time, he actually feared for the survival of the republic. (For the first time?! Fool!) When I heard this, I thought of how he had so naively in the past often said that his success did not depend on who won elections. His problem, like that of Arn Rand’s philosophy, was that he never really saw that the basic freedoms of Americans would domestically challenged. In his individualist selfishness, he lacked the scope of vision to see beyond his own little situation. Now, faced with a Socialist, Black Nationalist, anti-White, anti-American Muslim standing to have that body of morons called the American people elect him as their leader, he for a moment saw the light. But not to worry. His selfish nature came back eventually.

    Thus, in conclusion, Atlas Shrugged will hopefully, on balance, do some good in fighting the threat we face, and I certainly look forward to seeing the film ( http://www.atlasshruggedpart1.com/get_involved ). But unless serious affirmative action is taken to contain its individualist message, the work of the Tea Party movement and of true patriots will be undermined as morons embrace its rejection of collective submission and return to their narrow and selfish lives. The key to our sociopolitical survival is much like the key to our spiritual survival–even as we must limit Relativity to the realm of physics, we much limit that story’s Individualism to the realm of private commercial endeavors. Otherwise, our far-more-collective enemies will overwhelm us, even as a tight-knit gang of thugs overwhelms a neighborhood. Even as a free society depends on a socialist dictatorship (the military) for its survival, the economic freedom Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, et al, championed depends on the willingness of those partaking in it to subordinate their freedom to the common good.

    That is truth, whether you like it or not.

    Just a few thoughts off the top of my head.

    • giliar says :

      Lee – great “off-the-top-of-your-head” thoughts! Yes, I recognize the selfishness inherent in the story. But the selfishness aspect of the story allows others to live and thrive. Once the desire to be capitalistic (or even selfish) is gone, those who rely on such a system are left in the dark (even though they rant and rail against the evils of it.) Ah…except for a chosen few members of the Nomenklatura. They do OK no matter what. And I do think it’s possible to have a nation based on individualism – that’s what the Founders thought when they started this nation.

      You really hit an important point when you said that we’ve become so wrapped up in our own lives that we refuse to put ourselves out there and be politically active. While that has changed somewhat in the past couple of years, I still talk to so many people who feel the country is going in the wrong direction, yet they refuse to step up, for all the reasons you mentioned and more. Someday – when they’re ready – it may be too late. I’m reminded of this quote:

      First they came for the communists,
      and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist.

      Then they came for the trade unionists,
      and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

      Then they came for the Jews,
      and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew.

      Then they came for me
      and there was no one left to speak out for me.

%d bloggers like this: