Intolerant Right Wing Wacko

Thursday, July 01, 2004

The Collective Madness of the American Left

So, I am developing a thesis. Over the past few weeks I've read several articles and heard many stories that are making me question the sanity of the American left. Al Gore using the phrase "Digital Brownshirts" to describe right wing bloggers and imply that the American right wing are the moral equivalent of Nazis. The Washington D.C. premier of Fahrenheit 9/11 was attended by Nancy Pelosi, Tom Daschle, and other prominent Democrat leaders. The movie received a standing ovation, one has to assume that at least some of the Democratic leadership joined in since no one has denied it. Today I heard Prager talking about a book, called Checkpoint, in which the two main characters discuss killing President Bush throughout the book. It is going to be released during the Republican National Convention in August. It is expected to be an instant bestseller.

Dipak Gupta, in his book Path to Collective Madness, comes up with a term he calls "collective madness." He says that this is a situation when a whole group of people working for a shared ideology knows of no boundaries to achieve their shared goals - legality, civility, or even the most basic humanity. What defines collective madness is the total merging of individual identities into a collective one. It is as if everyone in the group posses one mind, one goal, and one all-consuming desire to strike a blow at the enemy. He says that its presence is not apparent to those who are afflicted by it. He uses the examples of Jonestown and Rwanda to illustrate his point.

Now, I don't think that we're quite there yet but the above examples illustrate that the "extreme" left is becoming the "mainstream" left and they are heading down this path. One cannot imagine Tip O'Neil, Robert Byrd (in 1989), or George Mitchell attending Roger & Me's premier and giving it a standing ovation and that was not even a hit piece like Fahrenheit 9/11.

Monday, May 31, 2004

Intolerant Right Wing Wacko

Something strange happened while I was reading Tammy Bruce’s The New Thought Police: Inside the Left’s Assault on Free Speech and Free Minds. The title pretty much says it all. It is about how those on the Left, particularly those in leadership positions, want to not only change how we speak but how we think. Bruce claims that they are doing this in an effort to maintain power for power’s sake, sometime to the detriment of their causes. I found myself becoming a victim of the “groupthink” mentality of which she speaks.
Each time I arrived at class a few minutes early I would whip out Bruce’s book and start reading. After a while I started to notice the stares and condescending snorts from others as they saw the giant blue and red letters ot the title on the dust jacket. I wanted to rip the cover off of the book, but it was a library book. I was afraid that people would believe that I was a racist, homophobe or even the dreaded Intolerant Right-Wing Wacko.
Bruce describes herself as an “openly gay, pro-choice, gun owning, pro-death penalty, liberal, voted-for-Reagan feminist.” She has appeared on numerous television and radio talk shows, she has been a radio talk show host and the former Director of the Los Angeles chapter of the National Organization for Women, LANOW. Her outspoken support for Dr. Laura Schlessinger, her lack of support for O.J. Simpson, and her inclusion of men and conservative in LANOW drew fire from the National leaders of NOW. She has been called everything from traitor or sell-out to a conservative operative (perhaps part of Hillary’s vast Right-Wing Conspiracy.)
I was in Navy Boot Camp when Proposition 209 was being debated. It ended the use of racial preferences by the State of California, including the UC/CSU systems. Myself, a few Hispanics, and a number of African-Americans were arguing the merits of Affirmative Action. The others believed that ending Affirmative Action was a plot to keep Mexicans and Blacks out of college. I explained that Prop. 209 was sponsored by Ward Connerly, an African-American and member of the UC Board of Regents. Turner, one of the African-Americans, told me that Affirmative Action was necessary because minorities, many times, grew up in the poorest neighborhoods and went to the worst schools. My school had one of the highest percentages of minority students in the city. I grew up in one of the poorest neighborhoods in the city. I asked if I should get special preferences, even though I’m White. Turner grew up in Grosse Point, Michigan, a mostly White, upper-middle class suburb of Detroit. He felt that I was not deserving of special treatment and that he was, despite our socio-economic situations. He told me that Blacks could not get into college without preferences. I thought that was one of the most racist things I have ever heard. He just relegated a whole race to an inferior status. He told me that because he is Black that he could not be a racist. Furthermore, I was a racist for even suggesting it. Turner explained that by being White, I was inherently racist. It did not matter what I did, how I acted, or what I said or thought, I would always be racist. Most of the other did not agree with Turner’s assessment of Whites, but they all did not see how what he said was racist. They all agreed that because I am a Republican that I am racist.
A few years ago I was attending San Diego City College. Every once and a while I would wear a T-shirt that said “Straight Pride” on the front. One of my classmates, himself wearing a T-shirt with a rainbow above the words “I’m A Fag, Do You Hate Me Now” told me that I was an intolerant homophobe. My T-shirt merely implied that I am straight and proud of it. His implied that because he is homosexual that I should hate him. My shirt made no moral judgment and his had the vulgar epitaph “Fag” on it. But of course, I am the one filled with hate. I was the one that the Political Science teacher, days after discussing the Bill of Rights, asked to leave.
My first semester at SDSU I overheard part of a conservation that puts it all in perspective. Two girls were walking just ahead of me. I could not help hearing part of their conservation. One girl said to the other, “Wow! That would be enough for me to become a Conservative.” The other girl responded, “I know. I would be conservative, but I’m tolerant of other people’s opinions.” She, apparently, thought that she was tolerant of other people’s opinions. She, it seems, also believes that to be conservative is to be intolerant.
Even though the girl had a preconceived stereotype of a major portion of society and nothing could changed it she was tolerant. Because I believe in right, wrong, good, evil, God, taking personal responsibility for my actions and Free-market Capitalism, I am intolerant. I am the dreaded Intolerant Right-Wing Wacko!

Thursday, November 13, 2003

Preserving Peace

In his First Annual State of the Union Address, in 1790, George Washington said, "To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace." North Korea recently announced that it might resume multi-lateral talks with the US, China, Russia, South Korea, and Japan. This summer International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors detected a gas, krypton 85, in areas that suggest it did not originate at Yongbyon (North Korea's only known plutonium processing plant). Krypton 85 is a byproduct of processing spent nuclear fuel rods into weapons grade plutonium. If North Korea does have a hidden processing plant, which is almost certain, combined with the nearly 10,000 spent fuel rods from Yongbyon, the regime may have enough fissile material for several weapons.

In the Wall Street Journal, James Woolsey (former director of the CIA) and Lieutenant General Thomas McInerney (Retired Three-Star Air Force General and Fox News military analyst) recently posed the theory that we should prepare for a war in North Korea. They point out that the leader of North Korea, Kim Jong Il, has shown the capacity for dishonesty in both private and public talks. They believe that there is a risk of creating four new nuclear states, not one. If North Korea develops nuclear weapons, we will not be able to stop South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan from following suit. Further, Kim Jong Il has stated that he will sell weapons grade plutonium to whomever he pleases, including rouge states and terrorist groups. Woolsey and McInerney believe that we do not have months or years, but only weeks, to settle this issue.

Woolsey and McInerney believe that there are only two solutions. One, China must decisively press for regime change in North Korea. Second, the US must prepare for a war on the Korean Peninsula. Can China pressure North Korea and why would they? China has enormous economic leverage, based on North Korea's dependence on China for food and energy, it can use to force a regime change. Woolsey and McInerney feel that our instinctive rejection of the use of force against North Korea undermines our efforts to disarm Kim Jong Il. They believe that the US should rapidly and realistically assess what it would take to fight and win a conflict in North Korea. A surgical strike on Yongbyon, they say, would not be enough. We will need to destroy Yongbyon but that does not stop the hidden facility or facilities. That is why they believe regime change is the only answer.

Woolsey and McInerney exhaustively describe overwhelming air superiority that would shock and awe those who witnessed "shock and awe." With North Korea's, close proximity to the sea and numerous Air Bases in the region we have the ability to launch 4,000 sorties a day, compared to only 800 during the height of the war in Iraq. With precision guided munitions and stealth technologies we can render North Korea's 11,000 artillery pieces useless before they can harm South Korea. Marine forces already deployed off both coasts can rapidly seize North Korea's two largest cities, Pyongyang and Wonson. They believe that, with the help of two US Army Divisions, South Korea can handle any counter-offensive into North Korea. They estimate that 30-60 days would be more than sufficient and quote Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Meyers as saying there is "no doubt on the outcome."

Woolsey and McInerney do not desire, nor are they calling for, another war. They believe that it would be much better if we can solve this problem peacefully. However, according to them, if we do not prepare for a war we will surely have to fight one. China will not push for a regime change and Kim Jong Il will not feel any pressure to disarm unless we demonstrate that we are prepared and willing to fight.

Saturday, September 27, 2003

Desperate Power Grabs

We hear it all of the time, "The Republicans are trying to Shred the Constitution. They are trying to undermine the democratic process. They want to disenfranchise voters. They are making desperate power grads." This is the new mantra of the Left. Gray Davis, Cruz Bustamnate, Bill Clinton, Tom Daschle, Texas Democrats, and The Despicable Dozen (the ten Democratic Presidential Candidates, Hillary and Gore) are all regurgitating the same talking points. I even heard it on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart. It is a classic example of projection. The Left accuses the Right of trying to destroy democracy all the while they are ripping at its seams.

The Left claims that the Republicans were grasping for power during the Clinton Impeachment. I got news folks; Gore would have become President if Clinton were removed from office. It suffices to say that Gore is hardly a Republican! When Nixon was nearly impeached, the Democrats just wanted to "know the facts." When Clinton was impeached, for lying under oath to congress and various courts not for having sexual relations with an intern, the Democrats portrayed the Republicans as desperate power grabbers. The Republicans were following the Constitution. The Democrats in the Senate are complicit in the perjury (a high crime) and obstruction of justice (a misdemeanor) of Bill Clinton. But, it is the Republicans destroying the Constitution?

Democrats constantly bring up the 2000 election. They say, "Bush was selected, not elected." It was another Republican power grab! Gore was the one who brought it to court. He asked for recounts only in four select heavily Democrat counties. He tried to have thousands of Military Absentee Ballots tossed out. He asked the Florida Supreme Court to rewrite election laws and tell different counties to count their ballots differently. All the while Bush was just asking that the overwhelmingly Democratic County Election Officials certify the election, according to the existing election laws. But, it is the Republicans destroying the Constitution?

Lets look at another story that got overshadowed by the by the Florida Fiasco. Shortly before the election the plane of Missouri's Governor, Mel Carnahan, crashed, killing the Senate candidate. John Ashcroft, who was ahead in the polls at the time, suspended his campaign. He was not going to capitalize on the death of his opponent. Carnahan's widow and successor certainly had no problem exploiting his death. Roger Wilson, Missouri's new Governor announced that if Mel Carnahan won the election that he would appoint Jean Carnahan, Mel's widow, to the Senate. Jean continued top campaign, bringing up the memory of her dead husband for her own personal gain. When exit polls showed Ashcroft with a lead labor leaders, presumably Democratic operatives, asked a Federal Judge to hold open polls in only the most Democratic St. Louis precincts hours past closing time. Democrats got on the phone, drove voters to the polls did what they had to do to get out the vote. Jean, or should I say Mel, eventually won. John Ashcroft could have contested the election in court. Missouri's election laws state that you must be an inhabitant of the state at the time of the election in order to appear on the ballot. Unless you count being buried in a cemetery as being an inhabitant, Mel Carnahan's vote should not have been counted. John Ashcroft would have been the winner. Did he make a desperate grab for power? But, it is the Republicans destroying the Constitution?

Despite all the Democrats, efforts to gain control of the Senate through elections the failed. But, they did gain control of the Senate by upsetting the will of the people and disenfranchising thousands of voters. The Republican voters of Vermont elected Jim Jeffords. When he switched parties months into a six-year term, he disenfranchised all of his supporters. Tom Daschle, one of the most vocal accusers of the Republicans, made a power grab for the Majority Leadership. But, it is the Republicans destroying the Constitution?

Less than two year later, in an effort to keep control of the Senate, the Democrats made yet another power grab. New Jersey Senator Robert Torrecelli, in the middle of a bribery scandal and desperately behind in the polls, dropped out of the Senate race. That is fine, but it was thirty-four days before the election. New Jersey law states that there can be no ballot changes fifty-one days before an election. The Democrats did not care; they went to the New Jersey Supreme Court and asked that Frank Lautenberg's name be placed on the ballot. Again, they disenfranchised millions of voters by removing the primary election winner and replacing him with a man for which no one voted. They disregarded the laws and placed a name on the ballot after the legislated deadline. But, it is the Republicans destroying the Constitution?

Last May, Governor Rick Perry of Texas called a special election to consider constitutionally mandated redistricting. Texas is overwhelmingly Republican, but for some reason their congressional delegation is not. The Republicans redrew the Congressional Districts in a way that will more accurately represent the people of Texas. The Democrats could not tolerate that! In May, nearly fifty Texas State House Representatives violated the law and fled to Oklahoma in an effort to prevent that House from establishing a quorum. Eventually, Governor Perry gave up and suspended the special session. Again, in September Governor Perry called another special session. This time it was Ten State Senators who violated the law and fled to Albuquerque, New Mexico. But, it is the Republicans destroying the Constitution?

Caught up in all of the California Recall excitement the Democrats formed a group calling for the recall of President Bush. The group led by Joe Lockhart, President Clinton's former Press Secretary, and Mike Lux, a Democratic Political Consultant, believes that President Bush should be recalled even though the Constitution does not provide for recalling elected officials. Democrats call the Davis recall an attempt to destroy the democratic process, even though it is provided for in the California Constitution. They call it obscure, and that the Republicans are power grabbing, but it has been tried more that thirty times. The Democrats have tried four times to recall Reagan and five times to recall Wilson. But, it is the Republicans destroying the Constitution?

The Democrats are always shouting, like Chicken Little, that the sky is falling. They accuse the Republicans of destroying the democratic process. They accuse the Republicans of disenfranchising voter. They accuse the Republicans of shredding the Constitution. While yelling as loud as they can the Democrats are themselves destroying the democratic process, disenfranchising voters, and shredding the Constitution. But, it is the Republicans destroying the Constitution?

Friday, September 19, 2003

Anti-Choice Liberals

I was listening to Rush Limbaugh this morning. He was reading a story about San Francisco's attempt to ban cat declawing in the city. It is despicable what these Anti-Cat, Anti-Choice Nuts in San Francisco are considering. We must stop these intolerant wackos. I support cats rights to choose what they do with their bodies. It is a decision between me and my cat, the government should stay about of our litter boxes.

Do you have any idea how many cats will risk their live in going to back alley veterinarians to get declawed. What about stray cats, who's going to pay for their declawing? I think that our tax payer dollars would be put to good use if we paid for open access for all cats to get declawed. Even kittens should be encouraged to get declawed, they shouldn't be put through the horrors of having a waiting period to think about if they want their claws, they definitely shouldn't be forced to look at pictures of their claws or even consider what their claws could one day become. I can't imagine the horror a little kitten would have to face if its' owners were notified before it got declawed.

It's outrageous! I can't believe that these radical Left-Winged Anti-Cat-Choice Democrats are doing. We definitely can't let one of these nuts get appointed to the Judiciary! It may even be worth undermining the Constitution by allowing a few Senators preventing the full Senate to vote on the confirmation any Anti-Cat-Choice Judge.

Saturday, August 30, 2003

The American Dream?

Many years ago, in a high school drama class, we performed Studs Terkel's American Dreams. It was a series of stories about everyday Americans talking about there lives and what their American Dream was. The Lottery is now over $65 Million. I heard someone say "if I won that, I would be living a dream." I began to think "what is the American Dream?" It seems that the American Dream is not what it once was, and that is sad!

The American Dream used to be embodied in the millions of immigrants that arrived in America over the years, from the parents of Bob Hope to my Grandparents. They dreamt of coming to a country where their children could get a great education, get an honest job, work very hard, save some money, and buy a home. This involved a lot of work. Many were not successful; some, like Bob Hope, were extremely successful. My Grandparents did not speak much English but they insisted that their six children all learn English. They realized that the only way to be successful, in America, was to learn English. My Grandfather moved from the Azores to Bermuda, where he farmed just long enough to enough to move to the US. Once here, he worked as a gardener at teaching convent. He worked there until he retired. All of his children learned English, learned a trade, and worked hard. They all worked hard and were succeeded. Five of the six bought their homes.

Today, we Americans are always looking for the easy way. There are varying versions of the American Dream. One version involves picking the six right numbers. Another is sitting on the porch drinking a beer while the mailman delivers another welfare check. Yet another involves getting in a car accident with a hard working, Mercedes driving individual or slipping on a spilled soda in the Wal-Mart and "suing them for all they're worth." None requires an ounce of hard work or even learning the English language.

Wednesday, August 27, 2003

Is Rush Right?

In a Wall Street Journal Op-ed, Rush Limbaugh proposed the idea that electing Arnold Schwarzenegger will set back the Conservative movement. He believes that we must vote for a strong Conservative, who sticks by his core beliefs, in order to advance Conservativism. He cites the 1976 and 1980 Presidential Elections to show how a strong Conservative is needed to turn a faltering country, or state, around. I think that Rush is trying to throw the election into Cruz Bustamante’s lap, so he, along with other conservatives, can point to California as an example of Liberalism run amok. If he is not, then he is extremely naïve.
Rush has been the iconic conservative talk show host for years, but he is out of touch with California. He says that it is sad that Conservatives in California say that we must elect a liberal Republican in order to advance Conservativism in California. Rush is forgetting a couple of key points. One, this is not a normal election cycle. Two, Ronald Reagan, or anyone similar, is not running for Governor. Many nationally syndicated talk show hosts, all more familiar with California, are supporting Arnold. Hugh Hewitt and Dennis Prager, both from LA, and Michael Medved, from Seattle but intimately familiar with California, all support Arnold with differing levels of enthusiasm.
As I mentioned, this is not a normal election. In a normal election cycle there is a primary and a general election. In the primary the party chooses who they think is the best candidate. In the general election, the party rallies around the winner of the primary, even though he may not be the first choice for many individuals in the party. In this election there is no primary, it is winner take all. There are one Democrat, Cruz Bustamante, and four Republicans: Arnold, Simon, McClintock, and Uberroth. In a normal primary conservative would prefer Simon or McClintock but would unite around Arnold in the general if he won the primary. They would see Arnold as a better choice than Bustamante. Every vote, in this election, for Simon, McClintock, or Uberroth takes a vote from Arnold and helps Bustamante.
Rush believes that many of the problems California is facing are similar to the problems the US was facing in 1980. The difference, which obviously escapes Rush and many other Conservatives, is that Ronal Reagan is not running. McClintock, who probably knows more about the budget than anyone, would be the obvious choice but nobody knows him and he does not have the needed money or charisma to win. Simon is a good solid conservative, but he does not have the political shrewdness to win. He does not even try to convince us that he is like Reagan; his website says that he is a Nixon-like conservative. He does have the I told you so thing going for him, but if he did not run probably the worst campaign in the history of campaigns he would already be Governor. Simon, who obviously learned a thing or two from Davis, is abandoning his principled campaign from last year and is running misleading attack ads on Arnold. Uberroth is a day late and a dollar short; if he wanted to be Governor he should have run in 1986. He is an unknown to too many people outside of LA for this short election. It is quite certain that Simon, McClintock, or Uberroth will not be able to get more votes than Bustamante will, so now our only real choice is between Arnold and Bustamante.
Rush is trying to paint Arnold as a liberal. He is a liberal on social issues, but fiscal conservative. Simon is running ads that claim that Arnold wants to raise our property taxes. Despite Arnold’s Chief Economic Advisor, Warren Buffet, suggesting that our property taxes may be to low Arnold has stated that he will not raise taxes. Bustamante is running on tax hikes and fee increases. Arnold wants to attract new businesses and recently fled businesses back to California. Arnold is the candidate most similar to Reagan. When Reagan first ran for Governor, he ran on a campaign of fiscal conservativism. He was very charismatic and not much was known about his social views, which were decidedly more liberal than when he ran for president. This sound like Arnold, much is said of his social liberalism, but relatively few specifics are known. Even if Arnold is a true social liberal, how bad can it be? Abortion, the standard by which most are judged, is not a state issue. As long as Roe V. Wade is the law of the land, a Governor can do no good or bad on abortion. True, he may appoint pro-abortion judges but so will Bustamante. As long as a Conservative is in the White House those judges will not reach the Supreme Court and a Liberal would not be inclined to appoint a Republican appointee, no matter his views. What about new social programs? Arnold has said that kids will come first, but he has also stated that he is a fiscal conservative. Any new programs will be paid for by cutting elsewhere or by growing revenue. How about illegal immigration, the hot button issue in California? He openly admits to voting for Prop. 187 and Pete Wilson, probably the staunchest opponent of illegal immigration, is one of his top advisors.

Sure, it would be best for California if we elected a strong Reagan-like Conservative and it would be a great learning experience for the country to watch a Democratically dominated California go down in smoke because of its ultra-liberalism. However, a strong Reagan-like Conservative is not running, the other conservatives cannot win, and we cannot morally stand by while California dies. If a truck (Liberalism) hit your child (California), you would do whatever you could to help. It would be a great learning experience for the rest of the children to see what the result of playing in traffic is, but you would not let your child die just to prove a point. You would want a highly trained doctor (McClintock) or an EMT (Simon) to help. If they were unavailable, you would want a Boy Scout (Uberroth) to help. If he was unavailable, and your choice was between the All-American high school jock with good intentions but no training in first aid (Arnold) helping you or the malevolent incompetent driver (Bustamante) repeatedly backing over your child until he is beyond help, you would choose the jock. California is too valuable, and in too precarious of a situation to wait for the ideal candidate while an acceptable one is waiting or to play politics just so we can show what happens when Liberalism runs amok.

Powered by Blogger