Friday, October 14, 2011

There They Go Again…


Desperate democrats have hijacked the legacy of Ronald Reagan in a vain attempt to save their skins

First they ridiculed him. Then he beat Carter and they reviled him. Now they are revising him beyond all historic fact in order to advance their sinking, discredited agenda. At long last, they have no sense of shame.

Any time you see conservatives do something to great effect, you can expect the libs will follow with their own twisted imitation...

Obama talked about “Cleaning up” after Bush because the Bushies talked loudly of fumigating the White House after Clinton’s many misadventures.  The Tea Parties begat the left’s Communist Kook Coffee Klatches (or whatever the failed project was called) and now the Occupy Wall Street human bowel movement is touted as the left’s tea party movement and Arab Spring all rolled into one.

Reagan and Kennedy:  Two Conservative Presidents

The conservative comparison that really burned the liberals' asses was that of Reagan and Kennedy’s tax and economic policies, complete with audio recordings of JFK touting free market principles that are anathema to the modern day democrat party.  Indeed, Kennedy sounds like a small government conservative tea partier.  And the left is struck dumb at the realization that their martyred hero is a Reagan doppelganger.

Finally, they’ve struck back.  They shamelessly ignore recorded history and turn Reagan into a compromising “fair share” taxaholic who enjoyed an era of unprecedented political goodwill.

Steven Hayward has written a comprehensive article debunking this Democrat party myth-making surrounding President Reagan.  They hated him worse than they did Bush, and Hayward puts the tax raising issue in its proper context, reminding us that the net tax cuts under Reagan were gargantuan, he doubled GDP and he saved Social Security for the next generation.

Go here to read the excellent article, The Liberal Misappropriation of a Conservative President.

See also: 
Reagan vs. Obama
Obama Compares Himself to Reagan...  Again

51 comments:

Infidel de Manahatta said...

Era of unprecedented political goodwill?

Um. Yeah, that's exactly how I remember the Democrats reacting to Reagan during the '80s.

LD Jackson said...

Let's see, wasn't Reagan the President who was promised big spending cuts in exchange for raising taxes? Best I can recall, he trusted the liberals and got burned for it. Other than that, he handed them their heads on a platter, for the most part of his presidency.

Of course they can't stand him, then or now. He goes against everything they believe in and it's right down their alley to try to blemish Reagan's record of accomplishments.

As you said, GDP doubled, the USSR was broken, American prosperity soared, etc. etc. I could go on, but there is really no need. America fared far better under Ronald Reagan than the liberals would care to admit.

Bd said...

Reagan supported taxing the rich at a higher rate than the middle class. He also raised taxes 11 times. If he tried to run today, the loony, corrupt GOP would run him out of town!

Ducky's here said...

Hijacked the legacy of Saint Ronnie Raygun? Are you daft? What legacy?

Just what did he ever accomplish?

Other than a huge income transfer upwards of course.

I'm curious about what you imagine are his accomplishments.

Iran/Contra, Lebanon, D'aubisson, Savings and Loan deregulation ... what did he accomplish that anyone wants to admit?

Silverfiddle said...

No Ducky, it's the loony left that is daft. Heaping scorn on the man in one breath, and then comparing themselves to him and enlisting him for their cause in the next.

That is downright schizophrenic.

For the sane people who visit here, please see Intellectual Ammo and scroll down to the Reagan vs. Krugman (It's no contest) heading. It's just past the picture of Thomas Sowell.

There you will find a bandoleer of Ammo to fight the Reagan haters

Here's the link:
Intellectual Ammo

Ducky's here said...

Question: Relative to the last article you linked to, When did Obummer become a liberal?

Have you been paying attention?

Feed the military industrial complex
Support privatized public schools
Feed the banks
"Free"(LMAO) trade
Give Israel anything it wants
Huge healthcare giveaway to insurers.


I'm trying to figure out why you think this guy is liberal.

conservativesonfire said...

There is no end to what the liberal mind can conjure up to justify their actions. I learned yesterday, for example, that liberals are now trying to distance themselves from the Occupy Wall Street crowd because they want to destroy capitalism and one the core beliefs of liberals is that they (liberals) are capitalist. I'm serious!

Silverfiddle said...

He lapped up Rev Wright's class-warfare hatred for 20 years and he's for spreading the wealth (of others, of course!)

bunkerville said...

They have no shame. I am not sure even whether they have maintained their hold on reality.They can't believe what they are saying. Hearing Pelosi lately, she indeed has lost hers. Thus rational discourse is not possible

98ZJUSMC said...

Give Israel anything it wants

annnnd off the deep edge, you go.

The mind reels.......

Number One, clueless factor nine, Engage!

98ZJUSMC said...

Thanks for those links, SF. I missed those before. Always a pleasure to read more Dr. Sowell who, was smarter at conception than any adult(sic) liberal.

Anonymous said...

That many of the most successful Capitalists in recent history -- Armand Hammer, Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, George Soros, etc. have ardently endorsed Marxian dialectics and spent megabucks to promote de facto Communism is one of the greatest ironies of all time.

It certainly lends weight to the idea that something else must be behind these paradoxical policies. Successful Capitalist entrepreneurs, Captains of Industry, International Bankers and Financiers, etc. could never gotten where they did had they been fools.

Why then would they promote a political philosophy bent on destroying the very system that enabled them to rise to great heights?

Why? Why? Why?

I think I might at least have a clue, but I'd love to hear what others might have to say on the subject.

IS the apparent impulse to push the West over the cliff suicidal -- or could it possibly be supremely self-serving in some way that's rarely-if-ever discussed?

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

Incidentally, I believe the reason John F. Kennedy seems so much like a "conservative" to us today is more indicative of how very far to the left both parties have moved in the past half-century. If this movement had been controlled by a dial, I'd say we've been twisted more than 90º in the wrong direction since the late-1940's and early 1950's.

I suppose I must be what-some-today-would-call a paleo-Conservative -- in other words I have always been in favor of smaller, less-intrusive government, strong defense, low taxes and fiscal responsibility.

I lived through the Kennedy Era, and believe me we did not regard JFK as anything remotely conservative at the time. Anything with a "D" besides its name was considered too close to Franklin Roosevelt, who was roundly despised by everyone in the circles in which we traveled back then.

The irony, of course, is that the country seemed far less polarized during the post WWII period than it has been since the realization dawned in the mid-Sixties that we were no longer living in a representative republic but were, instead, being rudely pushed around by an arrogant de facto oligarchy drawn from key members of the Media, and the Courts.

The understanding that this haughty group of authoritarian idealists had arisen because of powerful Marxian influences in the Professoriat, who had gained much too great a degree of acceptability in the wake of the Nuremberg trials, came later. I believe this unwarranted acceptance may have marked the emergence of Political Correctness in American society.

Everyone should read The Little Prince by Antoine de St. Exupery. In that charming fable filled with wisdom and eternal truths you would learn about the Baobabs and the havoc they are capable of wreaking if left to their own devices.

Instead of sedulously weeding out and guarding against "the Baobabs," we decided to be give them a sporting chance, and wound up CULTIVATING them -- even WORSHIPPING them in too many cases.

The results are what trouble us so greatly today.

~ FreeThinke

By all means read The Little Prince, if you don't already know it.

Silverfiddle said...

Moneymakers want stability because it increases efficiency, allowing them to maximize profits.

What's more stable than a market locked down by the state?

Better yet if you can get the state to carve you a special path, clear out the messy regulations, and combat the vagaries of the scary marketplace for you.

That is the essence of crony capitalism.

In all fairness to Bill Gates, he did not make his money that way. Indeed, he stayed out of politics until Clinton and the EU went after him. And it's telling that he got the bureaucrats off his back by going left with his billions, not right.

Fuzzy Slippers said...

Frankly, this tactic puzzles me. Your post is spot-on, of course they are engaging in the most gross revisionist history, but . . . to what end? Obot zombies hate Reagan, and we know better, so what's the endgame on this?

Always On Watch said...

FreeThinke said: , I believe the reason John F. Kennedy seems so much like a "conservative" to us today is more indicative of how very far to the left both parties have moved in the past half-century.

I concur.

However, I also recently read THIS by Milton Friedman:

In a much quoted passage in his inaugural address, President Kennedy said, "Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country." Neither half of the statement expresses a relation between the citizen and his government that is worthy of the ideals of free men in a free society. The paternalistic "what your country can do for you" implies that government is the patron, the citizen the ward, a view that is at odds with the free man's belief in his own responsibility for his own destiny. The organismic, "what you can do for your 'country" implies the government is the master or the deity, the citizen, the servant or the votary.

To the free man, the country is the collection of individuals who compose it, not something over and above them. He is proud of a common heritage and loyal to common traditions. But he regards government as a means, an instrumentality, neither a grantor of favors and gifts, nor a master or god to be blindly worshipped and served. He recognizes no national goal except as it is the consensus of the goals that the citizens severally serve. He recognizes no national purpose except as it is the consensus of the purposes for which the citizens severally strive.

The free man will ask neither what his country can do for him nor what he can do for his country....


Food for thought, IMO.

Jersey McJones said...

FT, no one is suggesting "de facto communism." Why do you always have to be so ridiculous?

Silver, speaking of ridiculous, Obama is not more liberal than Reagan was conservative in any real tangible sense. The same Milton Friedman school of economics is still in place to this day. The endless war footing economy is still with us to this day. Tax rates are roughly the same to this day. Nothing has changed all that much.

JMJ

Anonymous said...

SilverFiddle,

I hope you didn't think I was suggesting that Gates --or any of the others cited -- made their money through the practice of "Crony Capitalism" -- a term on which I wish you'd write a clearly defining essay someday soon? Instead, I indicated the great irony of their having risen to great wealth, power and influence using the good, old-fashioned principles of classic Capitalism, if such a thing has ever existed.

I'm sure several volumes could be written about the curious, often suspicious, seemingly self-contradictory uses to which highly successful men have put their wealth.

I wish too that you would tell us the difference between Fascism, where the means of production are owned privately but controlled by the State and Crony Capitalism -- or State Capitalism. All three sound alarmingly similar to my ignorant old ears.

In fact I have never been able to see any significant difference among Fascism, Communism, Socialism or even Theocracy, BECAUSE all those systems invariably end up in the same place -- TOTALITARIANISM -- DESPOTISM -- TYRANNY -- ENSLAVEMENT of one kind or another.

If I am wrong, I welcome honest correction.

~ FreeThinke

Jersey McJones said...

"I hope you didn't think I was suggesting that Gates --or any of the others cited -- made their money through the practice of "Crony Capitalism""

I guess, FT, you guys think antitrust violations are "the good, old-fashioned principles of classic Capitalism."

I guess Corporatism is okay with you too, huh?

JMJ

Ducky's here said...

Silverfiddle, any comment on the revelation that The Pizza Man got his 9-9-9 plan from Sim City 3?

Anonymous said...

Free thinker, that is an easy one. These giants, of whatever it is they do, want to be part of the Vanguard, the elite. Hell, even Marx himself knew that to segue into communism, it would take capitalism to build up the wealth necessary. As much as this jersey character is obtuse on many issues, I agree with him here. Obama is just more statist than Reagan. But, they were both statists, no matter what the rhetoric used by Reagan. Well, Obama is a much bigger war monger to be sure. As far as Freidmanism being dominant, that's just not true. This is neo-Keynesianism all the way. But, even John Maynard wouldn't have taken government spending this far.

Anonymous said...

AOW,

Interesting slant from Milton Friedman on JFK's most memorable public statement . I imagine, however, that most people of a basically conservative turn of mind interpreted the remark as discouragement of too much dependency on the Welfare State.

The rest of your Friedman post, if I read it right, seems to indicate that JFK was every bit as liberal as my parents, relatives, and their paleo-Conservative friends feared at the time.

HOWEVER, a net pen pal with whom I exchange ideas, opinions and information on politics, had THIS to say less than an hour ago:

"One of Kennedy's greatest achievements was his repudiationof Keynesian/Marxist economics (including heavy taxation for "the rich") in a major speech he delivered before (IIRC) the Economics Club of NYC.

"Unfortunately, that happened during the newspaper strike in NYC so the world took little note of it. In fact, I'm sure the MSM were quite happy not to have to cover it."


This netpal is close to me in age and reliably conservative, believe me.

There's so much wild opinion and conflicting "information" that purports to be factual, AOW, it's very difficult to know what is and is not strictly true.

Who has time to dig through all the primary sources to be absolutely sure of what one is talking about? The prospect is frankly mind boggling.

~ FreeThinke

Leticia said...

To the free man, the country is the collection of individuals who compose it, not something over and above them. He is proud of a common heritage and loyal to common traditions. But he regards government as a means, an instrumentality, neither a grantor of favors and gifts, nor a master or god to be blindly worshipped and served. He recognizes no national goal except as it is the consensus of the goals that the citizens severally serve. He recognizes no national purpose except as it is the consensus of the purposes for which the citizens severally strive.

No better words have been spoken and I concur.

I fail to understand why the progressives/liberals want to tear down a nation that has done nothing but given them their freedom to live. A free nation does not mean you milk the government for every penny, no, it gives you the freedom to work and be what you choose to be.

Anonymous said...

Jersey,

I don't enjoy trading insults. I think it's a waste of time, although every once in a while I break my own rules and go to town -- but that was long ago.

I've reformed.

Because I can't think of anything affirmative, pleasant, or polite to say to the remarks you've directed my way, I will refrain from responding directly.

From what I've been able to gather, you are young enough to be my son. Suffice it to say I believe you are sincere, well-meaning, and good-hearted to a fault, but I am certain you've been victimized by an educational system that ran amok long ago. If you hadn't been sadly misinformed and misdirected, you wouldn't say the things you say or believe what you, apparently, believe.

Some would be sorely tempted to call you a "useful idiot," but I despise clichés and dislike direct insults even more. You do remind me of a favorite Reagan quote, however. It goes something like this:

"I would respect liberals a great deal more, if only they didn't know so many things that simply aren't true."

You do have a tendency -- like so many of us -- to "cherry pick" phrases from a post and treat the isolated words as though they adequately expressed the intent of the writer. The agenda-driven media does this all the time. To say it's a poor practice is entirely too charitable a criticism.

What do you think I meant when I referred to "de facto Communism?"

Labels mean nothing. Results are all that count.

My fatherly advice to you would be to THINK MORE and FEEL LESS.

Cheerio!

~ FreeThinke

Finntann said...

"When did Obummer become a liberal"

I think there is a lot of label confusion regarding liberal-conservative, capitalist-marxist.

Obama is, in my humble opinion, not very liberal but very much a socialist.

He is not a socialist in the sense of Marx, but of Plenge and National Socialism. Plenge who declared National Socialism a 'declaration of war against ideas of 1789 (French Revolution), ideas that included the rights of man, democracy, individualism, and liberalism.

It is not the socialism of Marx but of Anton Drexler. There are left-wing socialists and right-wing socialists, Obama is a right-wing socialist.

Cheers!

MK said...

Apparently the left’s tea party movement, apart from being bowel movements, is also into sex with animals. Yes really -
http://karenhowes.squarespace.com/blog/2011/10/13/neverland-in-nyc.html

Anonymous said...

RIght-wing Socialist?

Good God! Sounds like a classic OXYMORON to me.

Apparently you don't define "right wing" as "conservative," is that correct?

At any rate, I don't care what "wing" or what "name" anything goes by, I am interested primarily in avoiding DESPOTISM.

Conservatism, as I have always understood it, is the antithesis of despotism. Liberalism or Progressivism or Communism or Marxism or Socialism -- all of them roots and branches of the same Totalitarian Tree -- have all been generated by leftists and all embrace tyranny -- i.e. citizens under these systems effectively become Slaves to the State. It doesn't matter whether the totalitarianism is instituted by violence, or by craft, guile and sophistry, because it all ends up in the same dark, dreary, evil smelling, initiative stifling, life-denying place.

Academicians and theoreticians love to make things appear far more complicated than they really are. It's their stock-in-trade. Affixing abstruse terminology, esoteric titles and recondite interpretations to ordinary everyday things, while piling up the largest store of fundamentally useless knowledge possible, is a way academicians have of making themselves appear smarter and more significant than they really are.

As the not-so-proud possessor of three college degrees and a former college instructor, myself, I know whereof I speak. An awful lot of bullshit gets fobbed off as "original scholarship." An intelligent witness emotionally uninvolved and independent of the status seeking aspects of the Scholarship Game quickly realizes he's being had, and turns away half in amusement, half in disgust.

Why do you think a really smart guy like the late Steve Jobs quit school and never returned? Why do you think most of the truly great creative geniuses in history were not burdened by the traditional orthodox educational processes of their time?

Totalitarianism by any other name is still an affront to human dignity and assault on the natural rights with which all men have been endowed by their Creator, whether they realize it or not.

"Education rears disciples, imitators, and routinists, not pioneers of new ideas and creative geniuses. The schools are not nurseries of progress and improvement, but conservatories of tradition and unvarying modes of thought."

- Ludwig von Mises


"Without education we are in a horrible and deadly danger of taking educated people seriously."

- Gilbert Keith Chesterton

Though each of these distinguished men take a different twist on it, they agree fundamentally with my perception. Naturally, I agree with them both.

Chesterton is correct that we need to be educated -- to a certain degree -- to be able to see through the meretricious and fraudulent aspects of what-too-often-passes-for-scholarship in the realm of higher education.

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

To be alive is power,
Existing in itself,
Without a further function,
Omnipotence enough.


~ Emily Dickinson (1830-1886)

An assertion of profound simplicity! Certainly worth noting certainly, and very possibly an ably encapsulated philosophy by which to live.

Emily was well educated by the lights of her time, but she is remembered only for the myriad flashes of inspiration that came to her intuitively in the sacrosanct temple of her mind and spirit.

Like all the truly great geniuses she took dictation directly from God.

~ FreeThinke

ecc102 said...

"Corporatism". Progressive code for "you are richer than me and I don't like it".

Pfft. Tedious. So tedious.

Z said...

Ducky, "the REVELATION?" Who says? Nobody's REVEALED that! And if it did, so WHAT?
I'll just bet the Cain people thought nobody else had EVER played SimCity so they could STEAL the 999 idea and rest assured NOBODY in the WHOLE WORLD would ever catch on! naaa.. I doubt it!
LOL!

Finntann said...

In this case right-wing is defined not as conservative but as authoritarian.

Conservatism: a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically: such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage). -Merriam-Webster

Which is why I specifically used the term right-wing and not conservative.

As the not so proud possessor of three college degrees, I would expect you have some passing familiarity with National Socialism, which certainly wasn't Marxist in any way.

Conservative does not necessarily imply libertarian, and there indeed have been authoritarian and totalitarian conservative states. During the revolution the conservatives were the Tories, not our founding fathers.

Initially the National Socialist Party in Germany focused on anti-big business, anti-bourgeois, and anti-capitalist rhetoric. It wasn't until much later after co-opting business that it evolved into a corporate-fascist state with business and government in bed together.

Cheers!

Anonymous said...

Because too many "contributors" are so rude and thoughtless as not to bother defining the esoteric terms they bandy about, I've taken the liberty of posting a brief definition below. It feels as though these cryptic commentators mean to imply,"Of course, everybody who is anybody would know this, so if you don't, you're obviously a nobody."


So, for any poor soul who is as puzzled as I was, here comes Wiki to the rescue:


”SimCity is a critically acclaimed city-building simulation video game, first released in 1989,[1] and designed by Will Wright. SimCity was Maxis's first product, which has since been ported into various personal computers and game consoles, and spawned several sequels including SimCity 2000 in 1994, SimCity 3000 in 1999, SimCity 4 in 2003, SimCity DS, and SimCity Societies in 2007. The original SimCity was later renamed SimCity Classic. Until the release of The Sims in 2000, the SimCity series was the best-selling line of computer games made by Maxis. ...”

~ FreeThinke

Jersey McJones said...

FreeThinke, you are a lousy judge of character.

"From what I've been able to gather, you are young enough to be my son."

My father is 80 years old. He's lived more life in his taint then you ever experienced - ever, you punk.

Make a real grown-up argument, you child.

Your entire reply to me was nothing but sleazy, punky, adolescent insults. For all you know, you idiot, I could be a gun-toting lunatic. THINKE! ;)

MAKE AN ARGUMENT, kid. Stop it with the juvenile punking already.

I call out your posts because they are devoid of historical context.

You, and many of your ideological bent, cull quotes and simplistic versions of events, to create these utterly fictional narratives to bolster your paranoid, nationally fratricidal conspiracy theories.

Stop it! You sound like Glenn - that psycho idiot - Beck!

JMJ

Always On Watch said...

FreeThinke,
I was a bit taken aback by Friedman's analysis of that quote from JFK.

Have you ever seen that particular episode of the Twilight Zone, the episode entitled "To Serve Man"? The episode highlights how we perceive definitions differently.

Anonymous said...

Jersey,

Pace pace, figlio mio!

I'm sorry I hurt your feelings. I guess I must have touched a nerve. 'Twas not my intent.

I'm sorry you don't understand my posts. If you did, you'd, perhaps, respond differently.

Have a good weekend, man. Stay calm, stay sober. It's best always to rejoice in the life you have, even though it may not be the life you want. bloom where you're planted, and all that.

~ FreeThinke

PS: I've often criticized Glenn Beck, myself. He's the wrong man for the job he's taken on. For the most part he imparts important, half-forgotten truths we desperately need to know, but uses such a hysterical tone in rhetoric larded with hyperbolic ravings he continually damages his own credibility. With all due respect you do the same thing, my friend. It's impossible to win an argument when we let our tempers get out of control. - FT

Anonymous said...

Hi, AOW,

I used to watch The Twilight Zone purely as entertainment when it was new. I've realized in latter years that Rod Serling was imparting much wisdom -- and probably some propaganda too -- in his highly original series.

I'd like to see the episode you mentioned today. It sounds like it has something significant to say.

The meaning of terms and labels change over time -- and mean different things in different cultures.

Finntann ably indicated that when we had our exchange over "terminology" above.

The Founding Fathers were radicals, so in that sense we should categorize them as left wing activists, even though Conservatives today want to preserve and revere their ideas as eternal truth and received wisdom.

When the Republican Party was founded, it spearheaded the radical reform movement of its day, so it too had a left wing orientation -- if you want to look at it that way.

Over time the Republican Party became America's Conservative Party, while the Democratic Party, which had been the Conservative Party in Lincoln's time, became America's Liberal, Progressive and now quasi-Communist Party.

Today, of course, the Republican Party is no more "Conservative" than the Democratic party was in the 1950's.

So, yes, indeed, it's very difficult to communicate effectively, unless we take great pains to define our terms as we use them each time. And even when we do, it can still be confusing.

I guess it may be safe to say "Left Wing" represents the burning desire for reform and constant change in the guise of "improvement," while "Right Wing" represents the desire for stability, contentment with the status quo, and wants us always to "look before we leap."

I'm glad you were taken aback by Friedman's analysis of JFK's "Ask not ..." quotation. I found it interesting, but also irritating, myself. I'm always annoyed by people who over-intellectualize, and want to tell you that things you've known all your life are probably not true -- or don't mean what you've always known they meant, and then want either to argue or lecture about it. I see an aggressively argumentative approach like that as another form of self-aggrandizement. It's like saying, "See how much smarter than you I really am."

Oh well ... this is the only world we have. you and I aren't going to be able to change it very much, so maybe it's best just to enjoy who we are and what we have and let it go at that?

"Love your life, poor as it is. You may, perhaps, have some pleasant, thrilling, glorious hours even in a poorhouse. The setting sun is reflected as brightly from the windows of an almshouse as from a rich man's abode."

~ Thoreau (1817-1862)

"This is the day the Lord hath made. Let us rejoice and be glad in it ..."

All the best,

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

Here's an oxymoronic irony for you:


Since the Marxiant-Fabian-Liberal-Progressive-Socialist-Communist bloc has been in control, we Conservatives or Tea Party Activists and Libertarians (who revere "the original intent" of the Founders as we resist change as a matter of principle) are now the Radicals calling for a Revolutionary Reform of the Status Quo, even though that reform requires a RETURN to earlier methods of governance.

Come dance The Terminology Tango and the Fabulist's Fandango!

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

Hmmmmmmm ...

It feels like a scene from On The Beach here today.

When SilverFiddle stays away,
No one else comes out to play.


Se ya!

~ FreeThinke

Always On Watch said...

FreeThinke,
Another thing that struck me about Friedman's analysis of JFK's speech was that my parents also alluded to something very similar. My parents didn't have a clue that Friedman even existed, so they had a very similar idea on their own. My father, in particular, was an avid historian. He was also wary of the meanings of words and frequently mentioned, "We hear what we want to hear."

HERE is the Twilight Zone episode "To Serve Man." You might want to watch it.

this is the only world we have. you and I aren't going to be able to change it very much, so maybe it's best just to enjoy who we are and what we have and let it go at that?

I don't resign myself easily. I'm trying not to worry myself into an easy grave.

Anonymous said...

Thanks, AOW. I'll look at it before the night is over. It's amazing what turns up on the net, isn't it?

I just heard a performance of a piano concerto that took place sixty years ago. My teacher was a student of the man who performed, and has been raving about that event ever since. We had assumed it was lost to posterity, but, apparently, someone in the audience pirated a tape of it, and it JUST showed up on YouTube.

I copied off the links, and sent them to my teacher who is now 89 years old and still giving concerts, himself. He was so delighted he may never get over it.

Every time I think how much I resent technology something like his happens, and I realize how stupid it is to be Luddite.

Thanks again.

~ FreeThinke

PS: I don't think of myself as "resigned," just realistic. There's a fine line between the two, I know. - FT

98ZJUSMC said...

You, and many of your ideological bent, cull quotes and simplistic versions of events, to create these utterly fictional narratives to bolster your paranoid, nationally fratricidal conspiracy theories.

Culling simplicity, from seemingly complex events, is a very rare trait. It does not require education. To the contrary, it requires the ability to learn from reality, as opposed to what you have been told in the abstract.

98ZJUSMC said...

My father is 80 years old. He's lived more life in his taint then you ever experienced - ever, you punk.

You have some serious issues.

I call out your posts because they are devoid of historical context.

Historical context, of course, only being required by others.

Stop it! You sound like Glenn - that psycho idiot - Beck!


Sucks when a "rodeo clown" can be so prescient. I guess no one likes to be called out for who they are.

Anonymous said...

Well, AOW, I watched it. Very funny -- and NOT so funny -- since it illustrates our ever-present capacity to be duped by clever charlatans and sophists into believing what we HOPE and DREAM and DESIRE rather than look at a piece of "bait" from every conceivable angle before biting on it. Few have the patience to maintain objectivity and test new data thoroughly before getting involved with it.

Yes. "To Serve Man" -- not to HELP him live better, but to FARM him as a source of FOOD.

YIKES!

And that, of course, is what all the utopian philosophies do -- raise hopes high that heaven on earth may be established after all -- if only you'll give up your freedom to be an individual and become an obedient servant to The New Regime. After you acquiesced -- i.e. given up your soul -- they deliver the death blow to those foolish enough to fall for their blandishments.

Thanks for the reference. It's good to know whole episodes like that are available free of charge. Regular programming has gotten so bad I've been thinking seriously of getting rid of my TV altogether -- but I doubt I'll get up enough courage. It's so much a part of our lives, isn't it?

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

JUSMC,


Only the saints and poets are capable of intuiting accurate perceptions from the avalanche of trivia that gets dumped on us each day. Spotting trends and divining essences through the miasma of modern life is, indeed, an unusual talent, but most important discoveries come to us in just such a fashion.

Albert Einstein said “Imagination is more important than knowledge.”

Wordsworth was a great diviner of truth from the bounty of his good heart and fertile imagination as this small fragment from Intimations of Immortality should attest:


Moving about in worlds not realized,

High instincts before which our mortal Nature
 
Did tremble like a guilty thing surprised:
 
        But for those first affections,
 
        Those shadowy recollections,
 
      Which, be they what they may,
Are yet the fountain-light of all our day,
 
Are yet a master-light of all our seeing;
 
  Uphold us, cherish, and have power to make
 
Our noisy years seem moments in the being
 
Of the eternal Silence: truths that wake,
 
            To perish never:
 
Which neither listlessness, nor mad endeavour,
 
            Nor Man nor Boy,
 
Nor all that is at enmity with joy,
 
Can utterly abolish or destroy!



Perhaps you don’t agree, but at root we are spiritual beings. The flesh is but a temporary carapace for the mind and soul. Everything that matters about us is intangible, immeasurable, unquantifiable and as elusive as a moonbeam, and yet we’d be nothing but lumps of inert matter helpless as we sit acted upon by our environment.

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

To finish the last sentence:

... we’d be nothing but lumps of inert matter helpless as we sit acted upon by our environment ere it not for such things intelligence, passion, integrity, decency, creativity, eagerness, vision, hope, and perseverance.

Thinks about that list of qualities. can any of them be weighted, measured, put in a drawer, hung in a closet, stored in a vault, washed in a sink?

Of course not!

Well, neither can they be smashed, burned, gunned down, bombed, or buried. They are SPIRITUAL attributes and they have ETERNAL LIFE.

~ FreeThinke

Jersey McJones said...

FreeThinke, you patronizing schizophrenic, the point I was making is that you are a lousy judge of character, as most patronizing schizophrenics are. ;)

I'm not some socialist screwball. I'm not stupid. I'm not drugged or drunk. I've been around a bit, sure. When at least you can easily confess, since when is that a bad thing?

I am rather well-educated, always try to keep an open mind, and have changed my mind on subjects many times over the years as I've learned and grown.

Intellectually, I always assume there is something to learn.

Can you say the same thing? Or are you too focused on an ideology?

Even if you are all focused on a particular ideology, why not argue tenets? The only thing it could hurt is your expectations. You can always have new expectations.

JMJ

Anonymous said...

Jersey,

I honestly don't know what you're talking about. You've certainly made no attempt to address any points I've tried to make. All you've done is call me a bunch of silly names, and I'm sorry to have to say it, but that's childish. It makes me feel embarrassed for you.

You keep defending yourself against attacks I never made. You say, "I'm not stupid," when I've never said you were. You keep saying "I'm rather well-educated," as though I'd said you weren't. I haven't. However, I do believe you assume you've you've been educated, because you've gone through a certain process. From everything you say here I am inclined to think you've been indoctrinated in leftist cant and rhetoric rather than educated properly to think things through for yourself -- a fate you share with thousands upon thousands of college graduates born in the past 30 years -- many of them from our "top" schools. You're full of liberal talking points that never originated with you -- I can tell -- and you toss them around like rocks without much purpose or direction.

I've said any number of times since I arrived here several months ago that I am predisposed to like you for reasons I can't quite fathom, and I generally attribute decent motives to your irrational, perennially irate outbursts, but unfortunately that doesn't stop them from being irrational.

Anyway, if I am, as you insist, a poor judge of character, then my liking for you couldn't speak very well for you, could it?

Now, that's all I'm going to say about this. We don't think on the same wave length, so meaningful communication for us is all-but-impossible. I have no idea why you are so full of anger and derision. The world is a stinking mess. I agree -- so what else is new?

Allowing ourselves to be consumed with anger and contempt is counter-productive, unworthy and just plain silly.

Cheer up! The God you don't want to believe in loves you -- and most of us here do too, believe it or not.

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

WHOOPS! Sorry! I meant to say "college graduates born in the past FIFTY years" in the last post.

~ FT

Trestin said...

You lost me with the Social Security mention.

Kennedy must have rolled in his grave when Johnson forever destroyed his Democratic Party.

Silverfiddle said...

Trestin: Reagan raised social security taxes in 1983. Here are a few links:

http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=488

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2009/04/02/bipartisan-reagan-oneill-social-security-deal-in-1983-showed-it-can-be-done

Always On Watch said...

FreeThinke,
I'm going to have my World History and Economics classes watch "To Serve Man." In fact, I made a brief mention of the episode in my classes.