Wednesday, February 07, 2007

The Good and the Bad

The good, at least I think so, upon a quick glance. Newt has an organization called American Solutions. Worth checking out. He keeps sending me e-mails about it...

The bad? Governor of Texas, Rick Perry. I won't even do it justice, but check out this link to Mr. Light Bulb's blog.


Rather than leave you with a bad taste in your mouth, check out Coulter's latest column, which is always a treat.


JWales said...

Your starting to scare me A.H..

Regarding Newt. He says all the right things conservatives want to hear (what else is new), but then I look at his character; did he not have an affair? broke a marriage vow? Red flag! What's going to stop him from screwing us?

Today I see Mitt Romney (not sure of spelling) on CNBC, giving all the right answers the conservatives want to hear, while dodging a few others (gracefully I might add).

It's the same game all over again! Two years of the same game coming to us!!!! The same rhetoric! The same mantra! The same polished politicians!

They say: less government (no wait I mean limited), less spending, less debt, family values and on and on and on. Once their in office its the Washington status quo!!!! More government, more spending, more debt, erode the family, more more more for everyone!!

Havent heard a peep from the MSM about Tom Tancredo, Ron Paul, Constitution Party, Heartland Party and the like to name a few.

Do you think the Republicans are actually going to nominate somebody outside of their chosen few? How is the Republican party going to regain lost confidence with the same broken record?

Help me out here.

The Monarchist said...

Hey J,

Let me answer your questions in the order they were posed.

1) Yes he did.
2) Probably nothing.
3) No - I think it'll be John McCain.
4) They're not. Not until the message changes, and THAT is only going to happen when that party becomes a party of principled people again. A party of people like you. Me. Webster. Adams. Mom. Mr. Light Bulb. See what I'm saying?


Daniel Webster said...

Don't forget Hargis.

Here's hoping that the Texas State Legislature'll clean up Gov. Perry's mess, and will restrict his EO power so as to prevent something like this from ever happening again. Appalling, absolutely appalling!

michael hargis said...

Yeah, don't forget me. If you do, it'll conjure up memories of being cut from the basketball team in 8th grade in favor of a guy who was slow, couldn't jump or shoot, and to put this...gravitationally challenged. I've never forgiven my coach for that, nor for the fact that the guy in question went on to play ball at a Division III school. I coulda been a contenda...

Anyway, J., what foibles, weaknesses, mistakes, errors of judgement, caddish behavior, brain freezes, displays of dubious ethics, etc., would you consider compatible with public service at the highest levels?

After all, we're talking about human beings here, and if you're looking for a shining example for us all to line up behind, you must remember that the shine is mostly chrome plating, and even if it covers a core of iron, that iron is notoriously susceptible to the weather.

Monarchist: Point taken. In the words of that famous philosopher, Ann Landers, I'll accept fifty lashes with a wet noodle. ;)

Call Me Mom said...

My last comment on the "In Loco Parentis" post has a link to a story about Mr. Perry's outrageously appalling executive order.

I cannot tell you how upset I am to find that my own state is even now considering legislation to do the same thing. I cannot tell you because it would require the use of words unfit for this blog and damaging to my personal determination to avoid using such language.

HPV is not chicken pox or mumps, the spread of which could disrupt the educational process, it is an STD with no visible symptoms.

This is absolutely outrageous, but it certainly does show us which of our legislators are the most susceptible to the lobbying efforts of business.

On a calmer note, that American Solutions site looks interesting Mr. Hamilton

JWales said...

The nobody's perfect mantra is just more compromise.

The bar keeps moving backwards when it comes to holding people in office accountable (and others in leadership positions thruought society). Marital infidelity shows lack of character and integrity Mr. Hargis, remember Clinton? Newt talks a good game as anyone, and has a nifty website, but Newt's chrome has flaked off and pitted, and his iron is really a cheap alloy. He's part of the same establishment of double talk.

There are principled people who can and are running for office, but I doubt the Washington Establishment will support them, too much power at stake.

JWales said...

looks like there is a clause in the Rick Perry executive order allowing parents to opt-out their children from the vaccination. MSM isnt revealing it, imagine that.


The Monarchist said...


I didn't forget Hargis, I was trying to get his goat! And there you go, spoiling my ploy.

Mike, I love ya man. You know it.


michael hargis said...

J., I don't think it's a compromise at all. I don't care who you pick, there's some dirt there somewhere. Cheating on one's spouse is not exactly something one would put on one's resume, but does it automatically disqualify an otherwise qualified person from holding office? I repeat my original question: What character flaws would you find acceptable? When we come out of the factory we're all lemons, so to speak.

Certainly anyone running for any kind of office is deserving of scrutiny, but if you turn loose a squadron of reporters with the specific goal of digging up as much dirt as they can, you can massacre anybody. Anybody. No one gets through this life without a few stains on his conscience.

Would you vote for a thief? Probably not. But what if the thievery in question was that the person got an extra order of fries in the fast food drive through and didn't return them? It's still stealing, isn't it? Is that person forever banned in your mind from the sacred public trust?

Here's a question: Would you vote for someone who was no worse than yourself?

It kinda depends on how you rate various ethical and moral infractions...doesn't it?

Monarchist: Sorry. I don't care how much you try, you can't have my goat.

Mom: Count to ten. Then swear.

Daniel Webster said...

"I didn't forget Hargis, I was trying to get his goat! And there you go, spoiling my ploy."

DOH!! Sorry 'bout that.

Call Me Mom said...

Mr. Wales,
Opt out clause or not, that executive order is way out of line, as is any similar legislation. There is nothing in the constitution that allows that kind of governmental control over our children or over our own health care choices. If we as a people allow such usurpation of our rights, where will it end? To remain silent would be unconscionable.

Mr. Hargis,
While I thank you for the permission, I find that swearing is demeaning to myself and my family as well as limiting to my vocabulary and lacking in imagination. I am determined to avoid it.

I have already contacted the sponsoring senator of the legislation in my state to voice my disappointment. I sent copies of that missive to my own senator and representative as well.

JWales said...

I agree the executive order is out of line, as most are. I was just trying to point out a small light in the darkness per say.

"If we as people allow such usurpation of our rights, where will it end?" I believe that usurpation began many many years ago with children vaccinations, try and get an unvaccinated child into a school and see what happens.

Mr. Hargis,
Agreed, nobody's perfect, but committing adultery and getting some extra fries is stretching it dont ya think?

Believe it or not, there are people out there that would tell a cashier a lower price was charged than should be, or too much change was given, or you gave me three fries instead of two. These are people of integrity.

The Monarchist said...

Oh my goodness! I have just witnessed one of the greatest quotes of all time:

"...I find that swearing is demeaning to myself and my family as well as limiting to my vocabulary and lacking in imagination."

J, of course they are different in severity, but they're the same in principle, which was the point Mr. Hargis was trying to make (I think). And I think Mom might have made the point earlier that mumps or measles differs in that it is contagious and disruptive to the learning process. Just for the record.

People make mistakes - a good question Mr. Hargis posed was what level of imperfection is acceptable?


JWales said...

"what level of imperfection is acceptable?"

Apparently, whatever level of compromise each individual is willing to endure.

michael hargis said...

First of all, Mom, I'm sorry about the poor joke. I DID mean it as one, but it was clearly in poor taste. Please forgive me.

J., of course there are people of integrity out there, in both parties. And I'll agree that while the french fry/adultery thing was a bit of an extreme example, AH is right is saying that my main point was that they are identical in principle. Stealing is stealing. Steal a car and you wind up in the hoosegow, but fail to return excess change at the local BigBurger and it's only your conscience that'll trouble you.

Let's pursue this a little further. Are we obligated to obey immoral laws? Specifically, what if the law in question puts you in the position of a) obeying the law and violating moral principle, or b) obeying moral principle and violating the law. One degrades respect for morality, the other degrades respect for the law.

Either choice could cast a bad light on a person's character depending on, as I said earlier, how you rank various moral and ethical issues. One person follows his moral compass and refuses to participate in social security, either as a taker OR a giver, and winds up in jail. The other person participates (obeys the law) and thereby encourages a system where people are coerced into giving their property to someone to whom it does not belong. In other words, he encourages legal plunder.

Which one is the bigger sinner? Which one is more qualified for public office? What level of compromise are YOU willing to endure?

On another note, I saw that Texas governor y'all are talking about on TV the other night. He said something to the effect of "Well, if we can save even 70% of women, it's better than condemning them all!" To death, presumably. I should be used to politicians committing the False Dilemma fallacy, but that one was a doozy.

Daniel Webster said...

"I should be used to politicians committing the False Dilemma fallacy, but that one was a doozy."

The False Dilemma Fallacy? Do tell. ;)

michael hargis said...

The False Dilemma fallacy is in the category of Fallacies of Omission. In this case, one omits other possible options or outcomes.

"Either you're for welfare, or you hate poor people."

"Either sign Kyoto, or the polar ice caps will melt, the oceans will rise 20 feet, and Mother Earth is doomed."

It's a favorite tactic of the Left, but the Right is guilty, too.

"Either you support the Patriot Act, or you want the terrorists to kill us all."

Thanks, Webster. You knew I hoped someone would ask me that, didn't ya? ;)

Call Me Mom said...

Mr. Hamilton,
You're making me blush.

Mr. Hargis,
Rest assured that I have not taken even the slightest offense from your light hearted comment.
Good call on the false dilemma fallacy too.
"Well, if we can save even 70% of women, it's better than condemning them all!"
That's a mighty big assumption to make, that 70% of these children are going to die of an STD without the vaccine. One wonders how he would define the risks associated with the vaccine itself? One wonders even more exactly what is being taught in those Texas schools that he thinks so high a level of std's could possibly be expected? lol

jwales said...

depending on one's world view we could analyze the gray areas of moral and ethical principles until the cows come home.

I'll stand by my convictions.

michael hargis said...

J., I can understand the desire not to compromise, but not how to put the desire into practice.

Anyway, the discussion's over, if you wish. Onward and upward...

Daniel Webster said...

"That's a mighty big assumption to make, that 70% of these children are going to die of an STD without the vaccine."

Strictly speaking, I guess the Governor could have used any percentage over and above zero and his point would have been made. Let's put 'er to the test, shall we...

"Well, if we can save even 5% of women, it's better than condemning them all!"

Quite so. But I admit that 70% sounds almost immeasurably better than 1%, or 5%, or 10%. In addition to the false dilemma fallacy, it appears that Governor Perry has also learned the art of overstating his case.

michael hargis said...

J., as my good friend Webster could tell you, analyzing the gray areas of moral and ethical principles until the cows come home is one of my favorite activities. An avocation, if you will, a hobby, a way to pass the time, an obsession, perhaps. Some people knit socks for fun, some analyze formal arguments.

Our hosts here are awfully forgiving of my tendency to ignore the forest and concentrate on the trees. I can only be thankful.

JWales said...

Awfully forgiving they are indeed! Although sometimes it may not seem like it, I do appreciate it.

Daniel Webster said...

Hey!, we're all guilty of ignoring the forest and concentrating on the trees to some extent or the other. But I think it's safe to say that I speak for all of us when I say that our forgiving attitude (as far as it goes - I admit being less than forgiving at times, and I apologize for it) is not without huge benefit to ourselves. How could we not be forgiving when we stand to gain so much in return???

The pleasure is all ours!