Previous 11 - 20 Next
In response to:

A Young College Grad Calls My Show

cordeg Wrote: May 27, 2014 8:10 PM
This comment betrays a seriously attenuated notion of morality. I know kids are taught to believe that all questioning of moral absolutes is a sign of "higher thinking" and sophistication, but the irony is that a majority of such equivocation is actually an indication of over-simplified thinking. It is simplistic to say war is immoral. This is recognizable the moment one asks, "Why is war immoral?" That is, is it the activity or the intent? War to subjugate is plainly immoral. War to liberate is just as plainly not so. To argue otherwise is akin to arguing that driving 80 MPH is immoral. Through a residential neighborhood? Absolutely. A casual disregard for the lives of everyone who lives there. But on a highway across the plains of the mid-west? No "moral" issue whatsoever. When America chose to go to war against Hitler, there was nothing immoral in that decision. When it firebombed Dresden to -- in FDR's own words -- "terrorize" the German citizen, that was an immoral act within an otherwise moral war. To claim that both the engaging in war and the decision to fire-bomb represent two examples of immorality is to possess a simplistic understanding of morality. The world and morality are apparently a lot more complex than the average "complex thinker" seems to think. In fact, it turns out that the people who think there EXISTS an absolute right and wrong and who seek to figure out what they are in various contexts are thinking MORE, not less, critically than those "sophisticates" who think that moral relativism is a sign of higher thought rather than a simplistic view. Granted, the problem with recognizing that moral absolutes EXIST is that it obliges one to conclude what does and does not qualify for "good" and "evil" -- AND ITS DARN EASY TO SCREW THAT UP. :-) That is to say, the person who says that moral absolutes exist does not necessarily understand enough to conclude what is "right" and what is "wrong". This is what leads otherwise rational human beings to reject the notion that such absolutes exist in the first place, since they -- simplistically, again -- jump to the conclusion that the fact that one can discern badly between the two polarities necessarily means that there are no poles to discern.
"Wait! You mean I actually WON the 2012 election? I didn't get to read the newspaper at all that week. Wow! No one ever tells me anything." -- Barak Obama, US President (at least that's the scuttlebutt)
In response to:

Poll Finds Wide Support for Voter ID Laws

cordeg Wrote: May 19, 2014 8:03 PM
It demonstrates both the bankrupt nature of the Liberal position on this subject as well as the cluelessness of the Liberal elite that erstwhile "news" anchor Tom Brokaw used his "American Stories" radio spot the other day to highlight a "proposal" by one-time civil rights hero Andrew Young to "compromise" on Voter ID laws by having the government pay to provide all Americans with a Picture version of the ubiquitous Social Security card -- supposedly eliminating the problem he imagines most Liberals have with the Republican push for picture voter IDs -- that they are "really" meant to block African Americans and Hispanics from voting because they are more likely not to be able to afford to get the ID. apparently unknown to the brilliant Liberal thinker Brokaw, several previous Republican proposals for Voter IDs in various states have INCLUDED provisions to provide them for FREE to those who were on ANY type of government program for low-income people -- solving the very same problem -- and Democrats STILL voted against these proposals and continued to demagogue them as "tantamount to literacy tests and other forms of voter suppression". Poor Tom. Poor Andrew. They don't even know the position of their OWN Liberal comrades.
No, no, Eleanor is quite right. And JFK wasn't assassinated by a gunman -- "lone" or otherwise -- he died from bumping his head into a bullet. Just a freak accident!
I would just like to point out how this episode defines a substantive difference between Republicans/Conservatives and Democrats/Liberals: I think it is safe to say that no matter how you personally feel about Sarah Palin, she is considered by the other side to be pretty "far out there" (they use a lot dicier language), and yet listen to how she puts her comment regarding the desire for a "pro-choice" Liberal Democrat to be discouraged from her present position to come over to our side: that is, she hopes that the wonder of becoming a grand-parent will make Hillary think more seriously about human life for a moment and perhaps see the error of her ways. Meanwhile, when Liberals/Democrats -- even those considered fairly mainstream rather than "far out there" -- describe what they'd like to have happen to perhaps cause Republicans/Conservatives to re-think their "pro-life" position and perhaps come over to their side, they express it as a desire that one of our children be born with two heads, or other horrible malformation, or have the lives of our wives (or selves for the female R/Cs) put in jeopardy by a problem pregnancy to convince us we are wrong in our position (although the latter case always seems to me to demonstrate that the "pro-choice" crowd doesn't understand the "pro-life" position at all, given that self-defense is a long-standing perfectly reasonable cause for the taking of another life in any case). So, even the so-called "wing nuts" on our side wish others to come to our side as a result of something wonderful happening in their lives, while even the supposedly mainstream members of their side wish us to come to their side as a result of some horrible devastating event occurring to us. Interesting, no? I've always said -- and they are forever vindicating my judgment on this -- Liberals/Democrats really love humanity in the abstract -- its actual people they hate.
In response to:

Noam Chomsky: Palin Was Right About Obama

cordeg Wrote: Apr 07, 2014 7:28 PM
Uh...yeah, I see. You're probably one of those people who think GWB and Cheney were "neo-cons" -- a clear demonstration of a failure to understand the plain meaning of words. Like "genocide", say. The killing fields were clearly the mark of "genocide" -- about one-quarter of the total population of Kampuchea (nee Cambodia) ALL killed by KR to consolidate the power of the Communist regime over the country. The war in Iraq was, well, a war, and not for nothing is it said that "war is hell". But, you can't exactly have two sides fighting and call all the deaths caused by one side the result of "genocide" by the other side. That's inane. It is also a bit foolish to shout "genocide" over any of the deaths inflicted on that side which spent the previous several years shooting at us and violating the treaty by which it obtained the end of the last war it brought upon itself by invading Kuwait. Furthermore, if there is one thing several years of half-way measures in Iraq proved, it was that neither GWB nor Cheney had any designs on imposing US rule in Iraq -- or even an Iraqi-led "puppet" regime. Quite the opposite: we put up with leaders and legislators who openly poked their fingers in our eyes. It may well be hard for you and your pals to accept that US policy consisted of virtually nothing more than overthrowing a thuggish regime that even the Clinton administration said it was US policy to oust (he just never did anything about it, since he had enough military involvement in Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo, where, one presumes, he didn't engage in "genocide" either), and enabling 25 million Iraqis to enjoy the kind of Liberty that allows citizens to criticize their government even when those criticisms are based on vacuous notions -- you know, the kind of liberty you think you deserve, but think "even one life" is too dear a cost for others to obtain. Well, despite years of braying by the likes of Chomsky and your illustrious self, ALL the empirical evidence supports the plain fact that the US administration you clearly love to hate had nothing more up its sleeve with regard to Iraq. They didn't take its oil (no "blood for oil") and they didn't impose their own government (no "American hegemony"). You must be so disappointed. I salute the independent thinking behind your anti-administration thoughts, but just objecting to those (once) in power, doesn't qualify as "speaking truth to power" -- that requires truth, not just a loud mouth.
Raising the federal "minimum wage" is a method of income redistribution -- from one group of low-income workers (the ones the raise puts out of work) to another group of low-income workers (the ones who remain employed at these entry level jobs). This is typical Democratic Party policy: throw a bone to one group of Americans while ignoring the damage being done to those who pay for the meager benefits the party's policies promise. They are always the first to say that -- for example -- deploying a missile in Poland is "stealing food from the mouths of children" by comparing the cost of one program to the other, but no one ever puts their feet to the fire to explain why they are themselves willing to "steal food from the mouths of children" to, say, support public broadcasting or any of the other Liberal favorites that divert priorities from the poor and the hungry. The reality is that the REAL minimum wage is $0.00, not $7.25, and what Democrats want to do now is give 900,000 Americans a marginal raise of a few thousand dollars at the expense of 500,000 other Americans who will lose their ENTIRE annual incomes. WHO WILL SPEAK FOR THEM? NOT "Liberals" and NOT "Progressives" -- who consider those Americans their policies will devastate to be simply "collateral damage"..
So, we have perhaps 2M people who "gained" heath insurance by signing up for Medicaid under rules that would have allowed them to sign up for it before ObamaCare. Hey, I guess "Happy Days are Here Again". But, there is yet another number I want to know: what is the number of kids who are being counted as having "gained" health insurance under ObamaCare, but are actually just under 26 and covered on their parent's plan, and who prior to the dismal Obama "recovery" might well have had their own employer-provided coverage because the unemployment rate among those in this age group would have been significantly lower? And what does that number become once you add to it the number of unemployed adults who may have "gained" insurance under ObamaCare but who actually ended up in the exchanges only because they lost their employer-provided coverage after they remained unemployed for an historically-long period in the Obama "recovery" and their Cobra coverage ran out? In other words, how many Americans have had to rely on ObamaCare simply because they were victims of Obama's other policies? With each passing day, I get the feeling that the current administration's strategy is to first create a crisis and then create a "progressive" program to mitigate the effects of that crisis -- and then claim that working-class Americans would be in trouble if it weren't for their "solution".
Solar panels on homes -- like electric cars -- are CURRENTLY the toys of the affluent. While the Ed Begley, Jrs and Tim Robbinses of America are constantly admonishing the rest of us to "go alternative energy", the fact is that the cost/benefit ratio dictates that most Americans simply can't afford these alternatives. BUT, if wealthy people want to dabble in personal energy plants and electric vehicles, more power to them -- just don't try to tell the rest of us we don't care about the environment because we can't afford the same. after all, if money was really no object, then they should be able to not only counteract their entire environmental footprint, but also those of 300 Million other Americans by simply paying to sequester all the CO2 the country produces, etc. Should we be allowed to assume that they do NOT do this because they "don't care", or are we the only one's expected to be adult enough to recognize that they simply couldn't afford to do that much? Yeah, I thought so.
actually, not even close. i was doing this in 1979 on the roof of our lab, and the loss to drive the motor to move the panels was more than made up for by the additional energy generated -- and this was when panels were far less efficient as well as heavier than today (i.e., now the additional output would be higher and the loss from panel movement less). used a sensor to detect the optimal incidence angle and moved the panel to maintain proper orientation. moved just a nudge at a time every so often, so it wasn't like it was consuming power continuously.
In response to:

Thank These Republicans for Obamacare

cordeg Wrote: Oct 31, 2013 10:17 PM
Yeah, those rascally Republicans are forever trying to overturn "settled law" that was settled fair and square by Democrats -- like, for example, when Democrats passed all those laws ensuring the perpetual enslavement of people of African ancestry in America and then got a favorable ruling from SCOTUS in "Dred Scott v Sanford" in 1857 to make it "settled law", and the Republicans continued to fight against it even several years later, finally ratifying a Constitutional amendment after 8 years of opposition that barred any such law from ever becoming "settled" again. Gosh, those Republicans are hard heads, no?
Previous 11 - 20 Next