Celebrities who politically bloviate outside their chosen professional arena is a recent phenomenon of modern society. The status of celebrities in the lives of individuals and families have become over valued. The value of celebrities should only be realized with the talent they have developed, and that is creatively acting for some, and creatively promoting story telling. I only bring this up due to Johnny Carson’s death. Now, and in the last few decades, celebrities have moved into the realm of the political opinion.
Those that place undue value in the opinions of journalists and TV interviewer celebrities, and the Hollywood celebrities themselves, have contributed to the development of reinforcing a false idea that somehow the value of the opinions of those celebrities are inherently high.
In comparison of celebrities that can be classified in the same category as Johnny Carson to other celebrities that have a high regard for their own opinions are definitely in a different category. The question is then why have those, that are like Johnny Carson, moot when it comes to political opinions, and those that fall into the other category bloviate about theirs? The answer is those celebrities that fall into the trap of providing political opinions are dissatisfied with their own career of acting. Johnny Carson was very stable with the career he made himself as an entertainer. Celebrity's narcissistic tendencies bloom when they opine politically. Notice Johnny Carson has no public label of being either Democrat or Republican. Because politics in his realm of public entertaining didn't matter.
What the Hollywood crowd needs to do is develop more of a character like Johnny Carson’s, and try to have a better sense of satisfaction with the career of acting.
Monday, January 24, 2005
Saturday, January 22, 2005
The Invisible Hand vs. Chaos
The liberal left would like for “the people” to think there is power in numbers (the collective). The “power,” they claim, is for making changes in how society operates, or rather, a better term is what direction society travels (progressivism). In the liberal left’s misguided notion is a progressive direction in which society evolves, and that there will no longer be human inconveniences. The lack of retirement income for the elderly and social health care provisions to name just a few. A long list of liberal left concerns could fill this page.
On the other hand the conservative argument is to leave these “human inconveniences” to the individual that are effected by them. More to the point, those who are effected by life’s realities is more efficient for solving such problems only when society’s political leaders adhere to the principles of freedom.
As in the suggestion in the previous paragraph affords, altruistic ideas or notions, which are derived by the liberal left, always have an element of from whom, or what, these solutions come. If social resources are born out of the philanthropic heart of an individual, the idea of altruism is correct. The liberal left is very quick to bloviate the same philanthropic thread that comes from their collective heart.
The problem with this kind of false notion of altruism (collectivism) is that the collective concern for solving human inconveniences is empty of real social resources. This can be put into perspective by the following: my friends and I can come together to discuss our collective concern for dog owners to have an area for their pets to run free without the city leash ordinances applying. A suggestion is to have the city provide, through the park system, a plot of land. This solution was not altruistic and philanthropic. The plot of land did not come from my friend’s resources. The real resources that had to be fulfilled must come from somewhere. It came from another source, the public’s government. It would have been altruistic for an individual, hearing of the concern of my friends, and donated a plot of land.
This story can be analogous to a robber pointing a gun at a victim wanting cash. The resources that the robber was wanting had to come from somewhere else other then the robber. The robber most inevitably was in dire straight, to solve his inconvenience would have been better solved by obtaining a job; any job.
The invisible hand works within individual circumstances to solve social ills. The power of individual freedom, the conservatives argue, is better served when it is applied in this manner. The liberal left brushes this notion away by citing it as being chaos. The liberal left notion of altruism and philanthropy is dictatorial fascism, and progresses in the direction of elimination of individual freedom. In the end it is chaos for the real individual philanthropists.
Power in the hands of a collective in the name of altruism is dictatorial fascism. Power in the hands of a few individuals with resources for philanthropic endeavors is freedom. It is this “power” the liberal left desires in their hands is the argument.
For a post-script thought is that why is it that throughout human history evil doers always seem to harbor the need to control the good, and redefines the notion of control as being “good.” Chaos vs. the invisible hand places in whose hand the notion of what is good. The collectivist, i.e., the liberal left, argument is the need for power (the source of evil) on their side vs. the individual freedom (good) should always reside.
On the other hand the conservative argument is to leave these “human inconveniences” to the individual that are effected by them. More to the point, those who are effected by life’s realities is more efficient for solving such problems only when society’s political leaders adhere to the principles of freedom.
As in the suggestion in the previous paragraph affords, altruistic ideas or notions, which are derived by the liberal left, always have an element of from whom, or what, these solutions come. If social resources are born out of the philanthropic heart of an individual, the idea of altruism is correct. The liberal left is very quick to bloviate the same philanthropic thread that comes from their collective heart.
The problem with this kind of false notion of altruism (collectivism) is that the collective concern for solving human inconveniences is empty of real social resources. This can be put into perspective by the following: my friends and I can come together to discuss our collective concern for dog owners to have an area for their pets to run free without the city leash ordinances applying. A suggestion is to have the city provide, through the park system, a plot of land. This solution was not altruistic and philanthropic. The plot of land did not come from my friend’s resources. The real resources that had to be fulfilled must come from somewhere. It came from another source, the public’s government. It would have been altruistic for an individual, hearing of the concern of my friends, and donated a plot of land.
This story can be analogous to a robber pointing a gun at a victim wanting cash. The resources that the robber was wanting had to come from somewhere else other then the robber. The robber most inevitably was in dire straight, to solve his inconvenience would have been better solved by obtaining a job; any job.
The invisible hand works within individual circumstances to solve social ills. The power of individual freedom, the conservatives argue, is better served when it is applied in this manner. The liberal left brushes this notion away by citing it as being chaos. The liberal left notion of altruism and philanthropy is dictatorial fascism, and progresses in the direction of elimination of individual freedom. In the end it is chaos for the real individual philanthropists.
Power in the hands of a collective in the name of altruism is dictatorial fascism. Power in the hands of a few individuals with resources for philanthropic endeavors is freedom. It is this “power” the liberal left desires in their hands is the argument.
For a post-script thought is that why is it that throughout human history evil doers always seem to harbor the need to control the good, and redefines the notion of control as being “good.” Chaos vs. the invisible hand places in whose hand the notion of what is good. The collectivist, i.e., the liberal left, argument is the need for power (the source of evil) on their side vs. the individual freedom (good) should always reside.
Monday, January 17, 2005
The Root of Christian Beliefs Attacks
What has bothered me intellectually for sometime now is what are the reasons for the liberal extreme left to attack the Christian belief system and the writings thereof. The evidence of the liberal left's barrage are in a number of legal cases throughout this country.
The liberal left’s fervent public irritation root point is the argument that somehow it is wrong for the collective Christian to believe that Jesus is the only way to salvation. The liberal left determines this Christian communiqué represented as being narrow minded, and therefore abhorrent to the liberal left’s particular outlook on human life in the confines of societies. Because of this struggle between the two factions, Christian beliefs vs. liberalism, the liberal left argue that due to the narrow mindedness of the Christian belief system, Christians are disqualified to politically participate in secular society.
The fundamental teaching of Christianity (to be real clear here, there are Christian organizations that are not Christian, which this concept can be further investigated at www.equip.org) is found in the fundamental teaching that the human heart is evil due to sin, and that man then requires a way to salvation. In other belief systems, excluding the Jewish religion, they hold that man can be found good only if curtain criteria (man made) are socially integrated. The problem here is there are literally hundreds of belief systems that hold this view of mankind, and therefore clash with the Christian view. The question is then, which one is the correct view (idea).
The liberal left argues that it doesn't matter which world view is correct as long as each world view doesn't judge, or proclaim, which is correct. The Christian religion communicates that it is only Jesus that can bring the human individual to salvation from the abyss of sinfulness, which is a repugnant notion on the part of the liberal left. What the liberal say in response to the Christian rhetoric is "How dare Christians believe that they have the only correct belief system, and everybody else is wrong." They will site a Biblical passage about judging others least be judged yourself. Needless to say they have this idea wrong also.
To the liberal left what does it matter to you, personally, that Christians hold an opinion that believe the only way to salvation is believing in Jesus as God of the Bible? How does this opinion hurt you personally? Yet, on the other hand, liberalism of the left hurts Christians personally because the liberal left will not allow Christians to publicly harbor a Christ centered belief within the confines of a secular society.
The liberal left’s fervent public irritation root point is the argument that somehow it is wrong for the collective Christian to believe that Jesus is the only way to salvation. The liberal left determines this Christian communiqué represented as being narrow minded, and therefore abhorrent to the liberal left’s particular outlook on human life in the confines of societies. Because of this struggle between the two factions, Christian beliefs vs. liberalism, the liberal left argue that due to the narrow mindedness of the Christian belief system, Christians are disqualified to politically participate in secular society.
The fundamental teaching of Christianity (to be real clear here, there are Christian organizations that are not Christian, which this concept can be further investigated at www.equip.org) is found in the fundamental teaching that the human heart is evil due to sin, and that man then requires a way to salvation. In other belief systems, excluding the Jewish religion, they hold that man can be found good only if curtain criteria (man made) are socially integrated. The problem here is there are literally hundreds of belief systems that hold this view of mankind, and therefore clash with the Christian view. The question is then, which one is the correct view (idea).
The liberal left argues that it doesn't matter which world view is correct as long as each world view doesn't judge, or proclaim, which is correct. The Christian religion communicates that it is only Jesus that can bring the human individual to salvation from the abyss of sinfulness, which is a repugnant notion on the part of the liberal left. What the liberal say in response to the Christian rhetoric is "How dare Christians believe that they have the only correct belief system, and everybody else is wrong." They will site a Biblical passage about judging others least be judged yourself. Needless to say they have this idea wrong also.
To the liberal left what does it matter to you, personally, that Christians hold an opinion that believe the only way to salvation is believing in Jesus as God of the Bible? How does this opinion hurt you personally? Yet, on the other hand, liberalism of the left hurts Christians personally because the liberal left will not allow Christians to publicly harbor a Christ centered belief within the confines of a secular society.
Thursday, January 13, 2005
Questions and Answers to the Iraq Conflict
Being a patriotic American, to individualist ideals, that supports the military efforts in Iraq, I have relatively no questions concerning this topic. Although, those that do have questions present them in a number of different ways. Ranging from grotesque bloviation that reeks of unpatriotism towards American principles of individual freedom, as the Founding Father had envisioned, to intelligent objections which asks for intelligent answers.
On the Dennis Prager radio show, aired is on KNUS 710 AM radio in the Denver metropolitan area, from 10am to 1pm Monday through Friday, which stimulates listener’s intellectual curiosity. The reason I mention this is two-fold. One, I would like those that read this might want to tune to his program, in your area, to find that your own curiosity may be enticed. Two, he questions the intelligent objectors of the Iraq military conflict by submitting answers with intelligence to match.
At this point I want to lead those that are reading thus far to visit www.stratfor.com website. The founder of the organization, Dr. George Friedman, answers questions that were raised by Dennis Prager from the devil's advocate position. Dr. George Friedman wrote a book called “America's Secret War.” In it he answers many questions that the Bush administration doesn't seem to answer outright, although Dr. George Friedman is very patriotic to the principles of American individual freedom. I recommend this book to anyone.
On the Dennis Prager radio show, aired is on KNUS 710 AM radio in the Denver metropolitan area, from 10am to 1pm Monday through Friday, which stimulates listener’s intellectual curiosity. The reason I mention this is two-fold. One, I would like those that read this might want to tune to his program, in your area, to find that your own curiosity may be enticed. Two, he questions the intelligent objectors of the Iraq military conflict by submitting answers with intelligence to match.
At this point I want to lead those that are reading thus far to visit www.stratfor.com website. The founder of the organization, Dr. George Friedman, answers questions that were raised by Dennis Prager from the devil's advocate position. Dr. George Friedman wrote a book called “America's Secret War.” In it he answers many questions that the Bush administration doesn't seem to answer outright, although Dr. George Friedman is very patriotic to the principles of American individual freedom. I recommend this book to anyone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
