Moderate: Because Being Liberal Hurts

Recent polling suggests pretty heavily that the Democrats and President Barack Obama need the so-called moderate vote in order to win elections, while the GOP can rely on the conservative vote quite readily. This can be interpreted in several ways, but perhaps the most insightful is this: moderates aren't really moderates, as a group, but, rather, lean towards more traditional and familiar thoughts whenever in doubt.

That makes sense, in the end. For when there is a crisis, don't most people act based on what they know? When President Reagan was elected back in 1980 to stem the tide of Democratic and hence more liberal leadership, what was his appeal? To make America great again, based on the traditional American values of individualism and hard work. When the GOP ran the tide last November, what was the big question: nothing less than obtrusive, interfering government trampling the rights of the people.

The moderates responded as they knew how, by throwing out those who did not support real American values. That's why conservatives don't have to appeal too overtly to the presumed middle: they aren't actually in the center after all. They are in fact more moderate to conservative rather than being between the left and the right as they are generally portrayed.

Given the fact that so few people, about 20 percent or one in five, call themselves liberal, and it seems that what we truly have in our nation today is an overall aversion to liberalism. Even the presumed center appears to harbor similar doubts about the left, seeing as the Democrats need to get about 60% of the middle of the road vote to win major elections. It is a telling statistic, and does not bode well for any long term success for the party of Jefferson and Jackson.

Of course, the Democratic Party left the beliefs of those American stalwarts behind eons ago. But that is a tale for another time.

Paul Scott's Recall: Liberal Pettiness

All the time, all the effort, all the false angst and all the cash which has been and will be spent on the recall efforts, have led to what? Exactly one state lawmaker is being subjected to recall. This despite the backing of at least one major union, the Michigan Education Association (surprise, surprise) and the self righteous wailing of the those jealous that they are no longer in power precisely because their message has finally been seen for what it is: a con game based on failed big government theories.

Paul Scott, a Republican out of Grand Blanc, faces recall on November 8th. The most reliable polling shows him winning reasonably comfortably. Should that trend hold out, it will show all the more why the recallers were simply little more than rabble along the lines of the Occupiers. They aren't interested in what the people want. They are interested only in their narrow ideals.

Why is it that we never see conservatives in particular and Republicans in general seeking to recall elected officials? Simply because we believe in the power of the people and the power of democracy. We know and accept that elections happen routinely and regularly and that we can have our say then. We accept that, as one respondent to Rep. Scott's door to door campaigning said, that recalls are for criminals and slackers, not for those actually doing the job of a legislator.

The sweetest irony here is that if Scott is indeed recalled, it will only magnify the narrowness of the interests who will have won. If he loses his seat because of the MEA and the rabble, we will see all the more clearly that it would be a win of the special and not the general interest. It will merely serve to hurt the left even more in the 2012 elections. Not that we want Scott to lose, but merely that a Scott loss won't hurt the Michigan conservative movement all that much. It's a win/win for the right, and, played properly, a lose/lose for the left.

As the old saying goes, give them enough rope. November 2012 can't come quickly enough.

Christ, the Moneychangers, and the Occupy Movement

As often happens in this Internet age, where photoshopping is rampant and the virtually immediate inundation of the world's e-mail with snarky refinished imagery based on recent events is encouraged, it is not surprising that many people stoop to the profane. Add on the fact that it can all be done anonymously and what we have is not a more enlighten world but, indeed, a cruder and less fully human one.

Making the rounds lately is a famous image of Christ throwing the moneychangers out of the Temple. Overwritten on the picture are the words, 'The Original Occupy Wall Street Protester'.

It is not a point which helps anyone understand the Occupy Movement nor Christianity. Indeed, it flowers the Occupiers to a status of glory which they do not merit, but, more critically, it slanders Christ to nothing more than a rabble rouser. What the two have in common is precisely nothing.

Christ was evicting people from the temple who did not belong there; they were defaming a holy place. So unless the Occupiers believe that Wall Street is holy and in need of something along the lines of sanctification, then the analogy is less than poor. It is downright, we will say it, blasphemous. Because, in fact, the Occupiers do not want that. They want, all those do gooders who pretend to speak for who they do not, their share, whatever that is. They are jealous of those who have without rational consideration of how they got it. They do not protect something worth protection, as Our Lord was doing, but call for what they do not of their own effort deserve.

No decent Christian would tolerate such tarnishing of the image of Christ, particularly as what He did was based on something really right while the Occupiers are a mere semi-organized rabble who do not understand history, economics, and certainly not religion. If the poster is someone's idea of the intellectual, it instead demonstrates pig ignorance. From that, we learn all we need to know about Occupy sympathizers.

We Americans boast routinely about free speech, being so proud of the right that we put it smack at the top of the Bill of Rights. So, perhaps, it should be. But there are unfortunately degrees to which it must be seen negatively.

There are folks who opine that free speech means the right to say offensive things. They forget that there are two ways in which someone is offended: either when the listener is a fool, or when the speech in question is genuinely offensive.

No one has a moral right to voice offensive remarks solely for the sake of making offense; that is simply rudeness at best and insulting and vulgar at worst. To say that they have such a right under the guise of free speech is really only to hide irresponsible behavior behind a pretty face. As rights only grow from responsibilities, it is reasonable to argue that the right to speak freely comes from the obligation to speak truthfully, in the reasonable interests of ourselves and the general society, and considerately, so far as circumstances may allow.

Still, the only way to really stifle morally offensive speech is censorship, and the problem with censorship is that it is only good when good people are in charge. When bad people hold the reigns, then good and necessary free speech will be prohibited. It is a risk we cannot take.

In the end, though, no one has the right to say offensive things, but merely the practical option of expressing them freely. No one has the right to be wrong in the truest sense of the term, but only the free will to be in the wrong. Until we understand that, we really won't understand the importance of a well regulated freedom at all.

Rights must be viewed in their proper perspective. They are not, not a one of them, open ended and subject to mere personal interpretation. We may treat some select few of them as absolute, but only due to abject necessity. Actions which beg the true nature of free speech do not promote but instead denigrate the right. They make us less than we can be and less than we should be. We should be good and decent people.

Message to Occupiers: We Don't Care

The Occupy movement in Oakland has turned violent, as police there tried to move the protesters off the plaza they have occupied. They returned last night, an attempt at showing their resolve.

How about showing some real resolve and actually getting active in the body politic rather than taking over public areas? Your movement cannot achieve its goals by simply sitting somewhere and staying put. Oh, right: you're calling attention to your aims.

Well, here's a news flash: Wall Street doesn't care about you. It's been business as usual from day one of your charming little protest. Big business isn't affected by what you think and how you act. Besides, the overwhelming majority of the rich folks you hate so much actually do do a lot for charity. They are a very philanthropic lot. Here in Detroit, for example, I doubt that you could name all the buildings and foundations with Ford attached to them. And Taubman and Adray too; yessiree, them rich Detroiters sure don't share of their wealth, no way.

But perhaps the best way to rid ourselves of the occupiers is to simply ignore them. They'll go away, we assure you, without the glare of the media shining upon them, because at the end of the day, that's all they want: attention. Remove it, turn your eyes elsewhere, and their candle will burn out. With any luck, they'll take their tie dye with them.

Used Cars

When attempting to buy a good used car in or around Detroit, indeed perhaps anywhere in the nation, and one thing will surely jump out at you: the high prices of used cars. At Auto Round Up on Detroit's west side, a 12 year old vehicle with 225,000 miles was going for $2,400! At A and G Auto Sales on the east side, a 1997 Mercury with 150,000 miles and a badly damaged rear bumper was priced at $1,695. Similar tales abound, but the bottom line is this: in the Motor City, good used cars at good prices are tough to find.

We have our friend President Barack Obama to thank for that. You see, the Cash for Clunkers program decimated the used car market. Every car turned in for the program had to be destroyed; they could not be refurbished or resold. The reason given was to get older, gas guzzling vehicles off the road.

But were they all really gas hogs? One particular area heavily hit are the famed minivans, family cars not especially known to burn excessive petrol or horribly pollute the air. Trying to find a decently priced one less than even 15 years old Ais a challenge: a 1995 Caravan at a car lot on Van Dyke in Warren, Michigan was listed at $1600. This is a vehicle 16 model years old.

So who benefited from the program? Middle class Americans who could have afforded a new car had they wanted anyway, and unionized auto workers who vote for the Democratic Party and our President. The poorer classes, the ones the left tell us so often how much they care about, meanwhile, are struggling to get something within their budgets. Even the used car dealers are struggling because they can't get cars for inventory at prices their clientele can afford.

The federal government should have never been in the auto sales field anyway, and part of the reason is in the unintended consequences of such behavior as illustrated by the dry yet inflated used car market. Cash for Clunkers hurts the very segment of society which Democrats claim to love so much. Yet a moment's simple thought would have prevent the harm. A basic understanding of supply and demand would have shown the folly of the program as written.

But appealing to the people who vote them en masse and are also more likely give the Democratic Party cash and effort means more to the left than rational government policy. Yet the poor? The ones the Democrats so much for?

We suppose that they may eat cake.

State and Schools and Excercise

The people of Michigan have weight issues, to put it nicely. The question has become so heavy (oh, come on, you like the pun) on the minds of our leaders that even the state government has taken notice. There are talks of pop taxes, and restaurants are being made to post calorie counts for their patrons. Governor Snyder is encouraging exercise and regular checkups. Schools are providing healthier lunches. Overweight issues are costing billions a year in health care. It's an epidemic of gross proportions.

And it's none of the state's business.

All this talk is little more than feel good stuff whereby our elected officials and schools board members can strut their plumage as community leaders and say they care about the people. But the fact is that without dictatorial methods there's no way you can actually control what people eat or how often they exercise or go to the doctor. Period.

This is not to say that too much weight or a lack of exercise are good things. But it is to say, quite firmly and without reservation, that it isn't anyone else's business. If people do not want to take care of themselves, then the rest of society must simply learn to deal with it. The most of an adjustment in public attitude which can properly be tolerated would be higher health insurance premiums, so long as they're driven by the private sector and not government (nor the schools). If folks choose unhealthy lifestyles, let those folks pay for it. But if you demand more than that, you're simply a little Hitler.

If you want to encourage friends and family to live more active lives and eat healthier, good for you. That's what friends are for. Beyond that, you have no right to make it a public campaign, unless you pay the costs yourself. There are worse troubles in the world for which the public sector must raise concern.