samdrawsyourmom

thismademehappy

2007-10-03T23:34:00.000-07:00

Conservatism and the individual
By P.J. O'Rourke

The individual is the wellspring of conservatism. The purpose of conservative politics is to defend the liberty of the individual and-lest individualism run riot-insist upon individual responsibility.

The great religions (and conservatives are known for approving of God) teach salvation as an individual matter. There are no group discounts in the Ten Commandments, Christ was not a committee, and Allah does not welcome believers into Paradise saying, "Y ou weren't much good yourself, but you were standing near some good people." That we are individuals-unique, disparate and willful-is something we understand instinctively from an early age. No child ever wrote to Santa: "Bring me-and a bunch of kids I've never met-a pony, and we'll share."

Virtue is famously lonely. Also vice, as anyone can testify who ever told his mother, "All the other guys were doing it." We experience pleasure separately; Ethan Hawke may go out on any number of wild dates, but I'm able to sleep through them. And, altho ugh we may be sorry for people who suffer, we only "feel their pain" when we're full of baloney and running for office.

The individual and the state

The first question of political science is-or should be: "What is good for everyone?" And, by "everyone" we must mean "all individuals."

The question can't be: "What is good for a single individual?" That's megalomania, which is, like a New Hampshire presidential primary, the art of politics, not political science.

And the question can't be: "What is good for some individuals?" Or even: "What is good for the majority of individuals?" That's partisan politics, which, at best, leads to Newt Gingrich or Pat Schroeder and, at worst, leads to Lebanon or Rwanda.

Finally, the question can't be: "What is good for individuals as a whole?" There's no such thing. Individuals are only available individually.

By observing the progress of mankind, we can see that the things that are good for everyone are the things that have increased the accountability of the individual, the respect for the individual and the power of the individual to master his own fate. Jud aism gave us laws before which all men, no matter their rank, stood as equals. Christianity taught us that each person has intrinsic worth, Newt Gingrich and Pat Schroeder included. The rise of private enterprise and trade provided a means of achieving we alth and autonomy other than by killing people with broadswords. And the industrial revolution allowed millions of ordinary folks an opportunity to obtain decent houses, food and clothes (albeit with some unfortunate side effects, such as environmental da mage and Albert Gore).

In order to build a political system that is good for everyone, that ensures a free society based upon the independence, prestige and self-rule of individuals, we have to ask what all these individuals want. And be told to shut up, because there's no way to know the myriad wants of diverse people. They may not know themselves. And who asked us to stick our nose in, anyway?

The Bill of Rights tries to protect our freedom not only from bad people and bad laws but also from the vast nets and gooey webs of rules and regulations that even the best governments produce. The Constitution attempts to leave as much of life as possibl e to common sense, or at least to local option. The Ninth Amendment states: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Continues the 10th Amendment, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

It is these suit-yourself, you're-a-big-boy-now, it's-a-free-country powers that conservatism seeks to conserve.

But what about the old, the poor, the disabled, the helpless, the hopeless, the addled and the daft?

Conservatism is sometimes confused with Social Darwinism or other such me-first dogmas. Sometimes the confusion is deliberate. When those who are against conservative policies don't have sufficient opposition arguments, they call love of freedom "selfish. " Of course it is-in the sense that breathing is selfish. But because you want to breathe doesn't mean you want to suck the breath out of every person you encounter. Conservatives do not believe in the triumph of the large and powerful over the weak and u seless. (Although most conservatives would make an exception to see a fistfight between Norman Schwartzkopf and George Stephanopoulos. If all people are free, George Stephanopoulos must be allowed to run loose, too, however annoying this may be.)

But some people cannot enjoy the benefits of freedom without assistance from their fellows. This may be a temporary condition-such as childhood or being me when I say I can drive home from a bar, just fine, thank you very much, at three a.m.-or, due to in firmity or affliction, the condition may be permanent. Because conservatives do not generally propose huge government programs to combat the effects of old age, illness, being a kid or drinking 10 martinis on an empty stomach, conservatives are said to be "mean-spirited."

In fact, charity is an axiom of conservatism. Charity is one of the great responsibilities of freedom. But, in order for us to be responsible-and therefore free-that responsibility must be personal.

Not all needful acts of charity can be accomplished by one person, of course. To the extent that responsibility should be shared and merged, in a free society it should be shared and merged on the same basis as political power, which means starting with t he individual. Responsibility must proceed from the bottom up-never from the top down, with the individual as the squeezed cream filling of the giant Twinkie that is the state.

There is no virtue in compulsory government charity, and there is no virtue in advocating it. A politician who portrays himself as "caring" and "sensitive" because he wants to expand the government's charitable programs is merely saying that he's willing to try to do good with other people's money. Well, who isn't? And a voter who takes pride in supporting such programs is telling us that he'll do good with his own money-if a gun is held to his head.

When government quits being something we use only in an emergency and becomes the principal source of aid and assistance in our society, then the size, expense and power of government are greatly increased. The decision that politicians are wiser, kinder and more honest than we are and that they, not we, should control the dispensation of eleemosynary goods and services is, in itself, a diminishment of the individual and proof that we're jerks.

Government charity causes other problems. If responsibility is removed from friends, family and self, social ties are weakened. We don't have to look after our parents; they've got their Social Security check and are down in Atlantic City with it right no w. Parents don't have to look after their kids; Head Start, a high school guidance counselor and AmeriCorps take care of that. Our kids don't have to look after themselves; if they become addicted to drugs, there's methadone, and if they get knocked up, t here's always AFDC. The neighbors, meanwhile, aren't going to get involved; if they step outside, they'll be cut down by the 9mm crossfire from the drug wars between the gangs all the other neighbors belong to.

Making charity part of the political system confuses the mission of government. Charity is, by its nature, approximate and imprecise. Are you guiding the old lady across the street or are you just jerking her around? It's hard to know when enough charity has been given. Parents want to give children every material advantage but don't want a pack of spoiled brats. There are no exact rules of charity. But a government in a free society must obey exact rules or that government's power is arbitrary and freedo m is lost. This is why government works best when it is given limited and well-defined tasks to perform.

The preamble to the Constitution states: "We, the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare..." It doesn't say "guarante e the general welfare." And it certainly doesn't say "give welfare benefits to all the people in the country who aren't doing so well even if the reason they aren't doing so well is because they're sitting on their butts in front of the TV."

A liberal would argue that those people are watching television because they lack opportunities, they're disadvantaged, uneducated, life is unfair-and a conservative might actually agree. The source of contention between conservatives and liberals, the po int at which the real fight begins, is when liberals say, "Government has enormous power; let's use that power to make things good."

It's the wrong tool for the job. The liberal is trying to fix my wristwatch with a ball pein hammer.

Government: Robin Hood or just robbing hoods?

Government is an abstract entity. It doesn't produce anything. It isn't a business, a factory or a farm. Government can't create wealth; only individuals can. All government is able to do is move wealth around. In the name of fairness government can take wealth from those who produce it and give wealth to those who don't. But who's going to be the big Robin Hood? Who grabs all this stuff and hands it back out? (Remember: even in a freely elected system of government, sooner or later that person is going t o be someone you loathe. If you're a Republican, think about Donna Shalala; if you're a Democrat, think about Ollie North.)

When government takes wealth from those who produce it, people become less inclined to produce more of it-or more inclined to hide it. Conversely, when government gives wealth to those who don't produce it, they too become less productive since they're al ready getting what they'd produce in return for not producing it.

If government is supposed to make things good, what kind of good is it supposed to make them? And how good is good enough? And who's going to decide? What person is so arrogant as to believe he knows what every other person in America deserves to get? (We ll, actually, all of Washington, press and pundits included, is that arrogant. But never mind.)

We don't know what people want. By the same token, we don't know what people need. The government is going to wind up giving midnight basketball to people who don't have shoes to play in. Then there will be a block grant to provide shoes, which people wil l boil because what they really lack is something to eat. And that brings us to expanding the school lunch program. Pretty soon, it's not government, it's shopping. It's not Congress and the White House, it's Mall of America-and a bunch of politicians hav e your charge cards.

Individual liberty is lost when government stops asking "What is good for all individuals?" and starts asking "What is good?" To ask the latter question is to abandon a system in which all people are considered equal and to adopt a system in which all peo ple are considered alike. Collective good replaces individual goodies. Government will make life fair. But since limited government is hardly suitable to a task of this magnitude, the role of government will need to be expanded enormously. Government will have to be involved in every aspect of our lives. Government will grow to a laughable size. Or it would be laughable except for our experience in this century.

Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Communist China and dozens of smaller places around the world did indeed create just such leviathan governmental engines of "good," and the dreadful history of the 20th century is in large part a history of the terrible result s of these collectivist endeavors. Once respect for the individual is lost, then what do 100 million dead individuals matter-especially if their deaths are for the "collective good"?

Of course, a liberal would say that a sharing and caring government doesn't have to turn out this way. It could be something like Sweden. And there you have it-the downside: 100 million people killed; the upside: ABBA, Volvos and suicide.

Why collectivism doesn't work

Why can't life be more fair? Why can't Americans take better care of each other? Why can't we share the tremendous wealth of our nation? Surely if enough safeguards of liberty are written into law and we elect vigorous, committed leaders...

Have another hit on the bong.

Collectivism doesn't work because it's based on a faulty economic premise. There is no such thing as a person's "fair share" of wealth. The gross national product is not a pizza that must be carefully divided because if I get too many slices, you have to eat the box. The economy is expandable and, in any practical sense, limitless.

Under collectivism, powers of determination rest with the entire citizenry instead of with the specific citizens. Individual decision-making is replaced by the political process. Suddenly, the system that elected the prom queen at your high school is in c harge of your whole life. Besides, individuals are smarter than groups, as anybody who is a member of a committee or of a large Irish family after six in the evening can tell you. The difference between individual intelligence and group intelligence is th e difference between Harvard University and the Harvard University football team.

Think of all the considerations that go into each decision you make: Is it ethical? Is it good in the long run? Who benefits? Who is harmed? What will it cost? Does it go with the couch? Now imagine a large group-imagine a very large group, say, 250 milli on people-trying to agree on every decision made by every person in the country. The result would be stupid, silly and hugely wasteful-in short, the result would be government.

Individuals are not only smarter than groups, they are also-and this is one of the best things about them-weaker than groups. To return to Harvard for a moment, it's the difference between picking a fight with the football team and picking a fight with Mi chael Kinsley.

Collectivism makes for a very large and, hence, very powerful group. This power is centralized in the government. Any power is open to abuse.

Government power is not necessarily abused more often than personal power, but when the abuse does come, it's a lulu. At work, power over the whole supply cabinet is concentrated in the person of the office manager. In government, power over the entire mi litary is concentrated in the person of the commander-in-chief. You steal felt tip pens. Hitler invades Poland.

Most government abuse of power is practiced openly, and much of it is heartily approved by The Washington Post editorial board and other such proponents of the good and the fair. But any time the government treats one person differently than another becau se of the group to which that person belongs-whether it's a group of rich, special-interest tax dodgers or a group of impoverished, minority job-seekers-individual equality is lessened and freedom is diminished. Any time the government gives away goods an d services-even if it gives them away to all people equally-individual dependence is increased and freedom is diminished. Any time the government makes rules about people's behavior when that behavior does not occasion real and provable harm to others-tel ling you to buckle your seat belt or forbidding you to publish pornography on the Internet-respect for the individual is reduced and freedom is diminished.

adamwestVSfrankmiller

2007-10-02T17:12:00.000-07:00

nanananananananananananaBATMAN!!!!!!!

iwannavoteforthisguy

2007-09-18T09:32:00.000-07:00

from wired

Nebraska Senator Sues God to Stop Terror Threats

By Ryan Singel September 17, 2007 | 6:04:48 PMCategories: The Courts, Threats

Nebraska State Senator Ernie Chambers filed suit against God Friday, asking a court to order the Almighty and his followers to stop making terrorist threats.

The suit (.pdf), filed in a Nebraska district court, contends that God, along with his followers of all persuasions, "has made and continues to make terroristic threats of grave harm to innumerable persons." Those threats are credible given God's history, Chambers' complaint says.

Chambers, in a fit of alliteration, also accuses God of causing "fearsome floods, egregious earthquakes, horrendous hurricanes, terrifying tornadoes, pestilential plagues, ferocious famines, devastating droughts, genocidal wars, birth defects, and the like."

Likewise the suit accuses God of having his chroniclers "disseminate in written form, said admissions, throughout the Earth in order to inspire fear, dread, anxiety, terror and uncertainty, in order to coerce obedience to Defendant's will."

Chambers, who has represented Omaha, Nebraska since 1970, asked the Douglas County district court for summary judgment or to set a quick hearing date "if the Court deems such a hearing not to be a futile act."

The senator also wants the court to issue a permanent injunction prohibityin God from plagues and terrorist threats. It's unclear how this could work since God is usually understood to be all powerful.

Chambers does admit that God is omnipresent and omniscient, however. Since God is everywhere, the Nebraska court has jurisdiction, Chambers argues, and since God is all-knowing, Chambers need to serve him with a notice of the lawsuit.

The lawsuit indicates that Chambers attempted to make God appear in order to serve him by saying "Come out, come out, wherever you are," but the Almight declined, like many defendants, to make it easy for a plaintiff to serve him with court papers.

Chambers filed the suit to make a point that the state constitution allows lawsuits to be filed for any reason, according to WOWT.

Attempts to reach Chambers for comment were unsuccessful.

God did not immediately respond to a non-denominational prayer for comment by this reporter.

The suit is Chambers v. God.

----------------
Now playing: Replacements, The - Answering Machine
via FoxyTunes

ilovelarryflint

2007-09-14T11:26:00.000-07:00

edwardgoreydoesstartrek

2007-09-01T21:42:00.000-07:00

super fucking funny

lawrenceburg

2007-08-16T18:56:00.000-07:00

so basically i'm gonna wright this entry in the style of jennie(no y who knew). started the day with a couple laps in the pol and then i went to lawrenceburg with clif. i gotta tell you not much to do in the ole stomping grounds although i did find a sweet sake iset so i may go take some fermented rice to the face in just a little bit but i'm tired so i mean i don't really know. we also called on mike and nicole (no h didn't know that either). that was kinda fun. it's kinda nice to have a family now. mike kept beefing out these really crass farts so we basically had to split after about 30 minutes. on the way home we ate at royal thai and i had the basil mussels. pretty nice. ok i've officially decided against the sake so i'm gonna go read on the balcony.

basically an after thought thinking of having an anchor man party so but some silly dress clothes and bring your face.

somerandompictures

2007-08-14T20:35:00.000-07:00

ok here are the random pictures i've been working on:

john gattis going away party was last night. it was pretty fun and also the first time a lot of people got to see the new place. i drank a little and was pretty dancey all night long.

last night was also the first night i got to talk to jenny (seeing as how she was running around doing boy stuff in the woods) that was super nice although cut a bit short thanks to jon. what an asshat.

when i got home today from my long ass work i made some super tasty pom frites. double fried them and everything. kinda of a bad idea though before a jog. i feel all heavy with oil and potato goodness.

holycrap

2007-08-12T21:17:00.000-07:00

...i'm out of shape i went on my first jog and i thought for a second i was gonna die. time to man up.

so the football game was kinda boring but then again i didn't know what the shit was going on. it was kind of an interesting experience but i felt it was kinda wasted on me. here are pictures...

me and my frozen margarita.(clif says it gay to drink frozen drinks at football games)

mike and nichole

the field i guess

ok thats it time to go do something. anything.

$715!!!

2007-08-11T14:57:00.000-07:00

...is how much it's gonna cost me to fix my car. goddamn it to hell!!!

anyway, i did make fish last night for the boys. flounder with lime and thyme. he that rhymes!!! yay!!! i served red skin potatoes with rosemary and garlic on the side. apparently it was quiet delicious.

later on that night anna, john n., and becka came over and i served them some pizza using the same recipe i did the other night. they seemed to enjoy it maybe i'll look back into culinary school. after everyone finished eating they kinda passed out and i ended up sleeping on the floor. that kinda sucked and now i hurt everywhere. hellshits!!!

a bit ago me and rivet where out at the goodwill on lebenon pike and we ran into my myspace friend carmen that was pretty nice seeing as how i've never met her in real life.

ok i'm gonna go listen rivet play guitar on the porch now and then i'm off to football game how crazy is that?

arealpost

2007-08-10T15:19:00.000-07:00

so any way moved into a new place this week and i'm really digging it. we got this little balconey that over looks the pool and this nice oak tree. it so nice to just chill outside and listen to some groovy tunes. for those of you who havent seen the joint yet come have a look.

also new in my life a girl thats been hanging around (she'sprobablywaytooyoungformeand movingtopraguebutidon'twannathinkaboutallthatnow) and a renkidled love afair with food. i made some killer pizza the other night from scratch and am currently working on an antipasto recipe for an upcoming party. im thinking asparagus, black olives, heirloom tomatoes and feta cheese with a lemon drizzle. nice huh? i might invest in some seafood tonight and see what turns out.

ok that it for now gotta work on some shit around the place.

iggypopandpeachesfightzombies

2007-07-23T22:25:00.000-07:00

davecloudminidocumentarything

2007-07-23T21:49:00.000-07:00

goingtohell

2007-07-07T09:46:00.000-07:00

The Dante's Inferno Test has banished you to the Sixth Level of Hell - The City of Dis!
Here is how you matched up against all the levels:

Level	Score
Purgatory (Repenting Believers)	Very Low
Level 1 - Limbo (Virtuous Non-Believers)	Very Low
Level 2 (Lustful)	High
Level 3 (Gluttonous)	High
Level 4 (Prodigal and Avaricious)	High
Level 5 (Wrathful and Gloomy)	High
Level 6 - The City of Dis (Heretics)	Extreme
Level 7 (Violent)	High
Level 8- the Malebolge (Fraudulent, Malicious, Panderers)	Very High
Level 9 - Cocytus (Treacherous)	High

Take the Dante's Inferno Hell Test

themostpunkrockthingiveeversceneever

2007-06-24T21:25:00.000-07:00

zombiequiz

2007-06-08T08:55:00.000-07:00

zombies are about to attack us and you only have your top eight friends to go to war with you....

1. john
2. jon(even though he's an asshole)
3. kevin
4. rob(guns)
5. mikey(makes things and kills things)
6. mike
7. anna
8.megan

Who is the fastest?mikey but im pretty fucking fast when chased. ask the man himself.
Who is the most logical and strategic? kevin. mos def.
Who would you entrust to carry the food?not rob
Who would carry the weapons and ammo? well all of us... rob would probally have like 10 weapons for everyone else's one.
Who would drive the car? not me or megan or john. probably mike.
Who would you eat if you ran out of provisions?john
Who would slow you down?john is night blind
Is there anyone who you don't think will make it?john or anna
Would you shoot number 1 if they were bitten and going to turn?oh hell yes.
Who would be bait to a booby-trap? mikey because he could probally make it back out alive.
Who would mutinize your leadership? i dont trust any of these fucks.
Who would be the hero?me. who else.
Who would you sleep with when you realized you could die?i dont think i'd fuck any of these fucks either.
Who would take one for the team?we could probably throw anna at some zombies and run.
Would you sacrifice yourself for number 7? sorry anna

YOU'VE BEEN BITTEN!!!!!!
Who's brains will you eat first? jon for fucking me on his list.

ha

2007-06-07T21:21:00.000-07:00

sammanga

2007-05-25T09:02:00.000-07:00

this is what this web site sez i would look as a anime character.

musicalempires

2007-05-23T22:47:00.001-07:00

classicpunkzines

2007-05-23T22:36:00.000-07:00

check it out

cashversusnorris

2007-05-21T19:37:00.001-07:00

from shoutwire

Reason 1.
Only one man who has ever lived has been bad enough to be called “The Man In Black” and it wasn’t Chuck Norris

Reason 2.
Johnny didn’t have to fight to be a bad ass. He just had to pick up a beer bottle and a guitar.

Reason 3.
Norris made a bunch of films where he killed folks. Johnny Cash went to Folsom Prison and did a concert. You tell me which one takes more balls.

Reason 4.
Chuck wasn’t the first of his kind to kick ass. Johnny was the first rock star to set something on fire. While most artists only set their hotel rooms on fire, Johnny took it one step further and burned down half a national forest.

Reason 5.
When Chuck was five, he was a normal five year old. Johnny had already earned man points by working in his dad’s cotton fields. That is a true bad ass. By the time he was six, Cash did more hard work than most men do in their whole life.

Reason 6.
Chuck never got stabbed in the back by a woman. Johnny never stopped bleeding. Chuck may have gotten punched a few times, but Johnny knew what real pain was.

Reason 7.
Chuck is a republican. Johnny was close with every president except for GWB. It was said he just didn’t trust that son of a bitch. When Johnny didn’t trust someone, you just knew something foul was going on.

Reason 8.
Johnny was invited to play the at White House in 1972 for Richard Nixon. He was given a list of politically correct songs to sing. He instead metaphorically threw up his middle finger at the establishment, in true ShoutWire fashion, and sang a set full of left leaning, politically charged tunes. Chuck Norris has never told the president to fuck off in his own house.

Reason 9.
Chuck Norris made a lot of crappy movies. Johnny Cash never touched anything that didn’t turn to gold. In the 80’s, he made a song called “Chicken in Black” to get himself out of a record deal. Even that became popular.

Reason 10.
Johnny is the only man in history to decline painkillers after a double bypass heart surgery. He knew he liked drugs too god damn much and wouldn’t stop. That shows power over an addiction previously not seen before. Kicking a ninja's ass is easy compared to kicking a drug's ass.

pakistanizombieflick

2007-05-16T11:04:00.000-07:00

ha

2007-05-12T21:20:00.001-07:00

flowchartsareawesome

2007-05-12T08:37:00.000-07:00

arnold

2007-05-11T14:10:00.001-07:00

clickbitch

stupidfuckinghippies

2007-05-11T11:55:00.001-07:00