ACORN & Police Block 1st Amendment at HC Townhall

He's baaaaaaaack! Must-See TV: Beck's DIS-Disinformation Czar "Stu"

Dear Jon: We need to focus on reform throughout government, not just in the GOP

This is in response to Jon Henke's Next Right post titled Reform the Republican Political Culture. It began as a terse little comment on a break and grew into a short novella over lunch, so I'm publishing it separately for those who wish to engage in political philosophy.

It's difficult to take The Anonymous Liberal seriously when she or he puts forth the following syllogisms summarized in Jon's column:

• Premise: The GOP is corrupt and incompetent
• Premise: The reason the Republican Party continues to bleed members has much more to do with the general attitude of the party's political and intellectual leaders than anything else
• Conclusion: Until corrupt, incompetent Republicans lose the attitude of general combativeness, they will just continue to turn people off

Next:

• Premise: [The voters] watch TV and see a very intelligent, charismatic President who says a lot of "very reasonable sounding things" and "exudes competence" (quotes mine)
• Premise: They [the same voters?] see a bunch of angry conservatives and Republicans who insist the same ["reasonable-sounding" "competence-exuding"] President is some sort of evil communist who's going to destroy the country
• Conclusion: Republicans are coming across as a bunch of obnoxious, unreasonable a-holes [which invalidates any criticism or dissension because the "tone" and "source" are all wrong]

Then it's Jon's turn:

• Premise: People accurately perceive the [obnoxious, a-hole?] state of the Republican Party
• Premise: The leaders of the Right must change and embrace reform, regardless of how Democrats behave
• Conclusion: The first priority for the Right cannot be to defeat democrats [emphases mine, based on sheer incredulity]

I disagree. Let me start with my observation that our entire government is corrupt and incompetent - and that includes not only the GOP and DNC but also independents, that precious group of "no-flies-on-me-bro" fame.

The first priority for the Right should be to continue its role as the vocal loyal opposition, followed by the priority of reform throughout the government. I appreciate Jon's ideals and in fact share quite a few of them, but there are some serious flaws with all of these propositions. Anonymous Liberal has created a straw man that basically states "until conservatives behave with appropriate contrition and cease acting as though a perfectly reasonable President is flawed, they have no credibility." In the liberal reality tunnel, this straw man is attacked early and often. However, conservatives on the Right, Center and even, I might add, on the Left, all share an intersection in their reality tunnels that the President does not necessarily appear to be entirely reasonable regardless of how much confidence he exudes. In fact, he appears to be just about as unreasonable in his own Presidency as Bush was in his. And for those of us who sport first, second and third degree burns from the previous Bush years (in which I'd include both Bushes), we are most assuredly twice shy today. Let me provide a very recent example of Bush-trauma-induced trepidation, courtesy of the potentially unconstitutional Chrysler controversy:

New Allegations of White House Threats Over Chrysler

Creditors to Chrysler describe negotiations with the company and the Obama administration as "a farce," saying the administration was bent on forcing their hands using hardball tactics and threats.

Conversations with administration officials left them expecting that they would be politically targeted, two participants in the negotiations said.

Although the focus has so been on allegations that the White House threatened Perella Weinberg, sources familiar with the matter say that other firms felt they were threatened as well. None of the sources would agree to speak except on the condition of anonymity, citing fear of political repercussions.

The sources, who represent creditors to Chrysler, say they were taken aback by the hardball tactics that the Obama administration employed to cajole them into acquiescing to plans to restructure Chrysler. One person described the administration as the most shocking "end justifies the means" group they have ever encountered. Another characterized Obama was "the most dangerous smooth talker on the planet- and I knew Kissinger." Both were voters for Obama in the last election.

Chrysler Countdown: Obama to Blame if Bankruptcy Filing Comes?

Repeatedly, the Obama administration has favored its political supporters by interfering in the marketplace and now it extends that to judicial processes with a dangerous and politically jaundiced decision.

Obama's favoritism toward the union in these negotiations is a clear example of political expediency imposing grave economic costs. Specifically, Chapter 11 makes the potential deal with Fiat to provide small car designs to be built in Chrysler factories much less likely. Hence, the company that emerges from Chapter 11 will be much smaller than the one that would have emerged through the task force's mediation, because the company that emerges from bankruptcy may not have small cars to make at a time when the market wants them. More of Chrysler's car assembly plants will be permanently shuttered.

This outcome was precipitated by the Obama Administration's failure to deal firmly with the union. In the end, retiree benefits may have been protected but only at the cost of greater job losses among current autoworkers.

"Obnoxious conservative a-holes" being watched on teevee may, in fact, have every right to be angry, and to express that anger in an appropriate manner such as the right to assemble and present their opinions in other venues. It's Jon's highlight of an affront to these people that I wish to address, and certainly not his critique of the mutually agreed robust failure of Republican leadership.

When we take the time to speak with average conservative Americans, we discover that a great many of us are actually very repentant about having stood by and abetted the politically dangerous and in some cases unconstitutional Bush overreaches which have beautifully set the table for the Obama administration to cook up a veritable feast of progressivism and potentially totalitarian corporatism. Jon supports Anonymous Liberal by marginalizing the concerns that American conservatives have over a repeat of history here: AL writes: "When you've just been voted out of power for manifest incompetence and your opponents are led by a very popular and reasonable-sounding person, you don't have the luxury of acting smug and uncompromising all the time. You have to acknowledge error and show some humility."

Even Anonymous Liberal doesn't make any firm commitments to Obama's competency - he (or she) continually alludes to style traits such as "confidence", "popularity" and being "reasonable-sounding". Anonymous Liberal omits substance while focusing on appearance, image, and "perception". Robert Anton Wilson stated that the past 2500 years of philosophy from Plato and Confucious to present have combined to illustrate that the notion of perception beiing reality constitutes Naive Realism. In other words, the whole "perception is reality" meme is patent bull crap. There are as many realities as there are observers. The perception challenge is to have the awareness, energy and/or skepticism to rise above the magic of good marketing, which includes repeating a lie so often that everyone believes it.

If conservatives are so wrong about the President, then fine - let's bring Anonymous Liberal over to The Next Right to participate in an educational presentation and/or debate highlighting this President's achievements while citing specific examples of Republican peccadillos other than the conclusion that conservatives are obtuse, flawed, rude and have no appreciation of the young, popular President's hip style. I would argue that the style-over-substance presentation is brilliantly designed to place observers into a mass trance that distracts them from noticing disturbing events which are occurring in Washington and the State capitals. Perhaps conservatives simply aren't subject to it because of a different set of internal beliefs. Rather than honoring and respecting conservative beliefs as a diverse and different point of view in an open dialogue, they're consistently minimized, marginalized and perhaps may ultimately be shut down because they don't align with the beliefs of the central power structure.

We've seen Jon's outrage and passion against idiocy on the Right, now where is his outrage and passion at the behavior of this administration and the intolerance on the Left? Even the moderate center/right columnist Michael Barone refers to the current regime as the "Gangster Government". The Chrysler senior creditors are literally in fear of their lives, of being outed as were the AIG executives, of having the daylights scared out of their families by drive-by protesters accompanied by the propaganda arm of the media, while Jon and Anonymous Liberal render images of retrograde "teabaggers" appearing out of touch and inappropriately vexed because they exhibit a pathological fear of a [legitimate historically cyclic] encroachment of government totalitarianism and are trying to sound an alarm over it. Hmmm...

Even though I completely agree with Jon about the sorry state of Republican leadership, I urge him to become - and remain - equally exercised about the fact that civility and reform are greatly needed on both sides of the aisle. Both parties are in need of a complete overhaul, but it's our Constitution and economy which is in the process of being overhauled while Jon urges inward reflection by a group of men and women in GOP leadership roles who have absolutely no intention of complying with such advice, no matter how sage - and we both know it.

I'll leave you with a few more RAW quotes: "the greatest conspiracy theory in the world is the conspiracy of stupidity." "Stupidity has a place in the universe, and we should appreciate it." Over time, stupidity will create the level of failure required to actually prompt a rebuild - and there's Jon's recipe for actual, painful reform - on both sides of the aisle - in a nutshell.

Behold, I Bring You...Barakhenaton?

An interesting trend is emerging online, in which comparisons are being made between the appearance (and philosophies) of our POTUS to the revolutionary and innovative Egyptian pharoah considered "the father of monotheism" (possibly influencing the development of Hebrew monotheism?) who took the throne of Egypt in 1352 BCE.

The CNN user-generated site iReport carries a story titled Barack Obama looks just like dignified Ancient Black King Akhenaton:

Los Angeles Artist and historian, Bridgitte Montgomery noticed that Barack Obama looks Just like the dignified Ancient Black King Akhenaten. The media has allowed images of Obama as Curious George, Barack the magic negro, and Obama bucks to take over the media. In 1925, The artist of Harlem Renaissance combated images of blacks as "Black Sambos" etc. In 2009, this is my effort to combat these same types of images. See the full photo collage and painting at http://www.bridgitteMontgomery@blogspot.com/ and www.myspace.com/intuitart2

Artist: Bridgitte Montgomery Title: The Media Filter 2009 Medium: Paper Collage and Acrylic on Wood Size: 26 ¼ by 49 ½ * As visual artist and a student of Egyptian history, I noticed that The President -Elect, Barack Obama looks just like the dignified ancient Black King Akhenaten. I also noticed that in 2009, there is a gap in the general self perception of Blacks Americans and what the current media allows to filter in about Black Americans. In 1925, the artist of Harlem Renaissance combated undignified images of blacks in the "New Negro Art Movement." In this collage, my presentation of the similarities between these two dignified Black leaders, and the self respect of dignified Black Americans, this my political commentary and artistic effort to combat the non representative images of Barack Obama and Blacks that proliferate the media in 2009. Artist Bridgitte Montgomery at

www.bridgittemontgomery@blogspot.com www.myspace.com/intuitart2 * *

(Note - these links didn't work for me, and CNN disclaimer specifies that none of the items posted on the iReport site are verified for content)

The resemblance of President Obama to an ancient pharoah is not the only coincidence revealed by comparing photographs of the current day to photographs of museum busts of the royal family of Akhenaton. Freeman, an Austin, Texas TV producer who has made a life study of the mysteries of human culture (among them, conspiracy theories), has a little fun with the resemblances of the entire Obama First Family to the Akhenaton royal family:



Freeman's article titled Barakhenaton and Renaissance Tiye expresses the notion that cloning the well-preserved mummified DNA of Egyptian ancients is a topic on the table for discussion by his readers. A web author going by the name of Brianstalin has a competing theory: reincarnation. His website states:

Despite the fact that Brianstalin's material is very controversial, he is considered the foremost past life expert in the world.

Brianstalin's article (linked above) conflates Barack Obama with Akhenaton and 19th century Pope Leo XIII, Donald Rumsfeld with 19th century Thomist cardinal Giuseppe Pecci, Madelyn Dunham with 18th century countess Anna Prosperi Pecci, Stanley Dunham with 19th century cardinal Mariano Rampolla, and (wait for it!) David Axelrod with 19th century cardinal John Henry Newman.

Critical thinking demands that I must either have witnessed the facts to which these authors allude, or trust them completely as authentic sources. Since I can't do either, I remain completely agnostic on both possibilities (cloning technology in the 1960's and what appear to be some fairly sketchy past life claims based on equally sketchy physical appearances). However, I do believe my lyin' eyes that there are some remarkable similarities between the ancient busts and the present day First Family photos. What does it all mean? Who the eff knows? ;-)

On the subject of Truth, Conspiracy Theories and Irresponsibility

In his post titled Krugman and the Tea Parties, Daniel Ruwe writes a good article overall, but I would like to take one area to task not only with Daniel, but with other conservative authors on The Next Right and elsewhere who've made statements in harmony with this one:

But without including all that, there is still plenty of stupidity in Krugman’s article. He tries to link those isolated idiots who are convinced that Obama is ineligible for the presidency with the mainstream of the Republican party, providing a convoluted parallel which compares the birth certificate people to Vince Foster conspiracy theorists, and the Vince Foster theorists to Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh once (irresponsibly) suggested that possibly the theories surrounding Foster’s death had some truth, which in Krugman’s mind apparently translates into Limbaugh relentlessly pushing those theories.

I've read opinions by many online that the tea parties aren't simply about taxes and spending, they're also about liberty and the Constitution, which affords people the opportunity to voice their opinions in what we all hope is an appropriate manner.

Some people have genuinely legitimate questions surrounding the birth of Barack Obama, the death of Vince Foster, the circumstances surrounding 9/11 and the Oklahoma City Bombing, the agenda for going to war in Iraq, the deaths of JFK, RFK and MLK, and so on, which are not aligned with the official mainstream explanation. But are these people actually idiots, and are they truly irresponsible? Honestly, I'm agnostic about what the truth may or may not be in some of these situations and it strikes me as fundamentally intriguing that some claim to be unequivocably certain that they do know (either pro or con).

The National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking published this definition of critical thinking in 1987:

Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness.

D.Q. McInerny wrote a nice little guide to good thinking titled Being Logical (Random House, 2005). In it, he writes:

There are two basic types of objective facts, things and events. A "thing" is an actually existing entity, animal, vegetable, or mineral. The White House is an example of the first type of fact, and the asassination of Abraham Lincln of the second.

To determine the reality of a fact that is a thing, all you need to is pay it a visit. If it actually exists it must be somewhere, and, assuming its place to be accessible to you, you can verify its factualness by direct observation. If you cannot travel [to view this thing], you could take the word of a trustworthy eyewitness that the White House is indeed in Washington, D.C. Or you could decide that photographic evidence is sufficient to establish factualness.

But what about an event like Lincoln's assassination? We say that is a fact. What is the justification for that claim? It is an event that is over and done with, and there are no living witneses to the event whom we might consult. Obviously, we did not ourselves witness the event, so direct evidence is out of the question. In this case our approach will be to acquaint ourselves with a variety of things that serve as indirect evidence of the event. For example, we would consult official documents (police reports, death certificate, etc.), newspaper accounts, photographs, memoirs, diaries, and items in the Congressional Record, all of which are facts in their own right and whose only reasonable explanation is the factualness of Lincoln's assassination. On the basis of the factualness of these things, we establish the factualness of the event. And thus we establish a historical fact.

To sum up how we get the facts straight: If a given fact is an actually existing thing to which we have access, then the surest way to establish its factualness is to put ourselves in its presence. We then have direct evidence of it. If we cannot establish factualness by direct evidence, we must rigorously test the authenticity and reliability of whatever indirect evidence we appeal to so that, on the basis of that evidence, we can confidently establish the factualness of the thing.

It all comes down to the authenticity and reliability of our source. [emphases mine]

People who are familiar with my comments know that I read a wide variety of books, articles, research papers and very much enjoy exposing myself to all sides of a debate, not just the "official one". I question authority because -- well I was going to say because I think it's "healthy" but perhaps that's a misnomer (irony intended). Let's just say I find it illuminating to listen to both sides of the debate on certain conspiracy theories.

Daniel Pipes, in his book Conspiracy - How the Paranoid Style Flourishes and Where it Comes From, quotes Michael Billig:

The conspiracy theorist...is to the professional historian what the reasure-hunter is to the archaeologist; only in the case of the conspiracy theorists, there is no means of convincing them that their quick dig amonth the documents has revealed only false gold.

Of course if "History is written by the winners" as quoth George Orwell in his Tribune column "As I Please" on February 4, 1944, it appears that even the professional historian is prone to dig up a motherlode of pyrite every now and again as well, does it not? Pipes goes on to say that "When the topic is conspiracy, it is often difficult to distinguish truth from falsehood". So with one hand he criticises conspiracists while throwing them a bone with the other. Why should this be the case? Because it all comes down to the authenticity and reliability of our sources, that's why. My agnosticism regarding the "truth" in these matters is really a reflection of my detachment from absolute certainty about the validity of the sources of said truth. Is this paranoia, or is this simply logical analysis? I will leave the question open for discussion, but I won't refer to you as an irresponsible idiot if you disagree.