I only want to ask....

Karl Marx's idea for his Marxist Utopia was that the people own the producers. "The producers will produce what is needed, and the people who need will get what they need," he wrote.

Senator Barack Obama's plans for redistribution of wealth do not include the People owning the producers, and that is a major difference between his policy and Marx's dream. Senator Obama has stated many times that he is "for" free enterprise, and that his plan will help people and families of middle income move into the role of producers in the free enterprise system.

I just answered the question for the Obama campaign that Vice-Presidential candidate Senator Joe Biden refused to answer during an interview with Barbara West, a telejournalist with one of the largest television broadcast stations in Central Florida.

Here are some excerpts from Senator Biden's response to the question, in which Ms. West quoted the Marx passage and asked what is the difference between Marx's plan and Obama's plan:

"Are you serious?"

"Whoever wrote that question doesn't know what they are talking about."

At no point did the candidate try to answer the question. He seemed offended by the question. Instead of explaining why offense was taken, the Obama campaign banned all reporters from that station from any interviews or access to any Obama campaign events.

We may remember that Obama supporters were so offended by a simple question about the candidate's tax plan that was asked by the man now known as "Not Really Joe Not Really A Plumber" by the left wing press and bloggers, that he--an ordinary citizen not connected at that time with the McCain campaign at that time--lost any right to his privacy as his financial and personal records were hacked and attacked.

Are Obama's supporters embarassed by their candidates tax plan? If not, why do they feel offended by questions about it?

I suspect that the only answer I would get to those two questions would be "Are you stupid?"

I suppose the First Ammendment will be one of the early casualties of an Obama presidency.

What about me?

I earn less than $8.000 a year, love the music of the Grateful Dead, strongly believe prohibition is a waste of time, lives, and money, believe the IRS should be disbanded, and that Income Tax laws should be repealed. I fear Big Brother/Big Government, socialism, thieves, and con artists. I believe in, and have personally experienced the charity of the community and find that a much better alternative to Federal bureaucracy. I believe the strength of America comes from the individual, and I strongly believe that the Federal Government should be limited to its Constitutional restraints. I know that the economy can run itself much better than the government can. I detest Communists and Fascists. The thought of a Socialist Executive branch supported by a filibuster-proof Socialist Legislative branch literally has me scared to a near catatonic state.

I am sick and tired of pundits and politicians trying to tell me what is right for me.

What would your "tax cut" do for me? At the least, it would pay yet another bureaucrat to tell me I don't exist, at the worst, I would find myself in a Clockwork Orange scenario with my mouth gagged, my eyes propped open, and my head being held immobile, being forced to watch endless footage of long lines of cars at the Starbuck's drive-up while listening to music by the Grateful Dead. That may be an exageration, but only a slight one--individuals have no place in a government run by public hysteria. Re-education would be the only way such a government could see to "help" me.

Look how the mostly Democratic Denver City Government "helped" the homeless just prior to the Democratic Party National Convention in that city this year. The City of Denver provided them with movie theatre tickets, concert tickets, and one way bus tickets to Colorado Springs. In effect, they relocated them. Isn't relocation the same way the Nazi Party "helped" the gypsies in central Europe?

In nearly every municipality there are privately funded charitable organizations that provide food, blankets, coats, medical services, showers and clothing to the homeless. There are organizations such as the Sertoma Clubs, Veterans' Motorcycle Clubs, the American Legion, the VFW, the Knights of Columbus, Goodwill Industries, and the DAV that provide money and services to the community to help the impovershed. These organizations all exist without the aid of taxpayer money, and operate with much more efficiency than that of which any government bureaucracy has ever been capable.

The Civil Rights Ammendment was a necessary addition to the Constitution, but it has been degraded into a basis for stereotyping and racial profiling in the guise of affirmative action and "equal opportunity" programs. Racism should have died out a long time ago, but it is as rampant now as it was fifty years ago. If you don't believe me, think how the Obama supporters would feel if Condoleeza Rice were running for president. The true extent of Left Wing racism and sexism would make its presence known in every hateful and nasty way possible.

The looming period of Socialist Government of Mass Hysteria in the United States will be short-lived as We The People will finally get fed up with politics as usual, and learn what a really bad President can do. The only change we can expect is that corn will be the new Big Oil, and Johnson & Johnson, Pfeiser, and Squib will be the new Exxon and Conoco/Phillips.

The more the government tries to "help" the impoverished, the more poverty it creates, That is a law that has been proven time and time again throughout the past. Jesus Christ said "There will always be..." and that was over 2000 years ago.

A must read--unsolicited review

I apologize to my readers for the lack of posts over the last few weeks. I have no excuse--there is plenty to write about, plenty of arguments to present, and lots of ideas to throw around.
I have come across an excellent blog titled "Interdisciplinary World" by Dr T. This is a blogger who I see as very like-minded to myself. His latest posts, on sexuality and politics and on fanaticism are very well written, and bring up some points that will give the reader some substantial food for thought.
Dr T. backs up every statement with well researched references, and his writing is articulate. Best of all, he posts every day, covering a myriad of subjects.
What sets him apart from other Libertarian bloggers can be seen in the statement of purpose in the header of his blog, which reads:

It is time we had an interdisciplinary world. It is time we created a society where all levels of thinking and society can work together – so the individual psychologies can live together in a more integrated society. Interdisciplinary thinking tries to promote environmentalism, capitalism, religion, heroic individualism, and families simultaneously. Beauty, truth, and ethics are united.

In every item he posts, Dr T applies this statement of purpose, tying every example to the community. He is, what we might call an "Objectivist," that is, an activist in the philosophy made popular by the late author Ayn Rand. Objectivism is a viable, important, and necessary alternative to socialism. He presents objectivism in a practical manner, in integrating it into the idea of an "interdisciplinary world."
This is a must read for anyone who reads and writes blogs, as well as anybody who is interested in ways to repair society. Whether you agree with him or not, Dr T will allow you to think about what you do believe.

Please use some facts

I love to argue, and will do so on any point for which I can find facts that back up my argument. I believe that everyone has the right to his or her opinion, and I encourage expression of opinion on this site, whether I agree with it or not. The thing is, if you are only using conjecture and hearsay to back your comments--"facts" that would never stand up in court, for example--there is nothing for me to argue about. Just a thought I had to clear...

"And So It Goes"

Photo Credit: Avalon Books
There is not one person of my generation who has graduated from high school in America and hasn't read a book by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. His books, including Cat's Cradle, Slaughterhouse 5, and Breakfast of Champions, were often recommended, if not required reading, for high school level literature courses. He exposed us to a level of satire and humor that went beyond Mad Magazine or Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In, as well as political ideology that we may not have been aware of at the time.
Writing in the genre of Science/Speculative Fiction, his plots, story lines, and dialogue often reflected his personal beliefs in Socialism and Atheism. But, in spite of the fears of censorship advocates and book burners of the time, reading his books did not create a generation of anti-capitalists. Rather, his books opened up a dialogue in our minds where we were invited to defend our beliefs--Vonnegut, through his writing, did not try to force his beliefs upon the reader, he merely presented his ideology for scrutiny. Whether we agreed with his ideology or not, he made us think, and created constructive discourse among ourselves and our fellow students. In his way, he proved that freedom of speech/expression does not cause the End of Civilization As We Know It.
Political and social ideology aside, Vonnegut wrote good books--books that entertained us and made us laugh. He has often been called the Samuel Clemons (Mark Twain) of our time, which is, in our minds, a justifiable comparison. He allowed us to laugh at ourselves, often while identifying with his main characters who were almost always helpless victims of circumstance, with no control over their own lives. As darkly cynical as some of his humor was, a glimmer of hope was always present in his writing.
Kurt Vonnegut passed away Wednesday, April 11, reportedly due to head injuries suffered in a fall. He will always be remembered as an important and influential contributer to modern literature, perhaps the best of our time. "And so it goes..."

Whose job is it to tell us to be offended?

The questions generated by the Don Imus controversy have gone far beyond what he said, and how and why he got fired. The entire controversy has grown in such a way it affects everybody, whether we are members of the Rutgers women's basketball team or not.
Granted, Imus' bad joke was uncalled for, and never should have been said, much less repeated everywhere in the media. There were likely less than 300,000 people--less than one-one hundredth of the US population--listening when he said it, and it would be safe to say, given Imus' history of racism and sexism, that none of the listeners were members of the championship basketball team. The entire matter should have been irrelevant to most of us. The entire set of circumstances was escalated, by people who have chosen to make themselves the nation's thought police, into a situation that is life threatening to freedom of speech.
It would be entirely rational if the reason for firing Don Imus from both his radio broadcast and television simulcast was loss of revenue from lack of sponsorship. In that case, the question of First Amendment rights would be irrelevant. However, the reasons given by the Viacom/CBS broadcasting consortium that Imus was canned due to complaints by employees, and the pundits and newscasters across the media have speculated that it was because of the involvement of Sen. Barak Obama and/or the Reverends Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. It could be reasonably argued that the involvement of these three did have something to do with several large companies withdrawing their sponsorship of Imus' radio and television programs.
One question that comes to mind is, do we really need somebody to tell us when we should be offended? Certainly, we all possess the rationale to determine for ourselves what is right and what is wrong. Most of us believe in the dream of Dr. Martin Luther King--that there will come a day when the color of one's skin does not matter. But the Reverends Jackson and Sharpton have too much to gain from perceived racism. There are sheep who accept without question anything that is said by these two men. Without being told they are oppressed, the sheep wouldn't feel oppressed. Jackson and Sharpton do not want to see Dr. King's dream come to fruition, for, if it did, they would be out of a job.
What precedent does the firing of Imus set? Where do we draw the line? It should be up to the individual to treat others with respect, not up to the Federal government and the FCC to tell us what we can say, see, or hear. Can anybody who feels offended by anything just say so, and thereby limit the choices we make for entertainment? It certainly seems that way, and, figuratively speaking, book burning has made a comeback. From the looks of things, song lyrics are next, soon to be followed by such entertaining television programming as The Daily Show, South Park, Red Eye, The Jimmy Kimmel Show, and The Cobert Report, all of which are satire, which is the most often misunderstood form of humor. We don't have to agree with the issues made by such programming, and we can often laugh at ourselves watching these programs. We really don't have to watch or listen--because we have the rationale to make such choices. In any case, we must realize that humor and satire are not news or opinion, in order to realize the significance, or lack of such, to the nature of society and culture as a whole.
As South Park creators and writers Trey Parker and Matt Stone often point out, in their program, we can only be offended if we choose to feel offended . We can either laugh at a joke, or feel that it is wrong, but in no way should we let it be an excuse to limit freedom of speech.

Sacrificial Lamb?

Photo credit: Don Imus-WFAN Pediactric Center For Tomorrow's Children

Freedom requires responsibility and that includes freedom of speech. When one person exercises his or her individual rights in a way that trespasses on the rights of others, it is no longer an expression of freedom, but of aggression.
Don Imus' statements, in actuality, hurt nobody except himself.. What he said, and the backlash to what he said, should not be used as an excuse to limit freedom of speech or expression, but as a warning that there may be consequences in what we say and do. Imus was wrong to say what he said, but he had every right to say it. It is conceptually erroneous to point out the apparent hypocracy that some are allowed to use language that others aren't. Offense is a relative concept that must include context, meaning, and scope, or sphere of influence. We would do well to see an example in the entire incident that respect for others is the best way to protect our individual freedoms, and it all comes down to personal responsibility. However, what we do see is a sacrificial lamb that negates the conscious of others who will continue to use unfounded and hateful terms such as "Nazi," "Chickenhawk," and, in the context it is often used, "neocon."
We should remember that our First Ammendment rights also give us the freedom to choose to listen or not to listen, and that includes the choice to or not to be offended. We have, at our disposal, a high tech device called the "on-off switch." Rather than using offensive speech to limit the rights of others, it is better to just ignore it.

Whose Ally Is Egypt, Anyway?

To those Americans who think your freedom of speech is being suppressed, you should be glad you aren’t living in Egypt. Read what is happening to an Egyptian blogger who was convicted of insulting religion and insulting the government of Egypt here.
He received four years in prison, which is a death sentence for him because he “insulted Islam” which, to the members of the Muslim Brotherhood who will be his fellow inmates, is punishable by death. They will invoke Sheria law and take it upon themselves to administer the death penalty.
In America we may write and publish anything we want. Those who insult the President, and their fellow Americans who voted for the President, are free to do so without fear of arrest. You may insult other people’s religion, no matter what religion it is you are insulting, you may insult people for believing in that religion, and you may insult people for not believing in that religion. It is all protected under the First Amendment. It is even legal to criticize people for exercising their First Amendment rights, and to shout them down in public so no one, not even those who paid to hear them speak, can hear what they have to say.
Basically, we Americans are allowed to make up our own rules about what constitutes freedom of speech.
The Egyptian Government has ostensibly imposed sanctions on free speech in the name of stability. As in any tyranny, the government fears that critical voices will weaken the government by causing unrest. It is perfectly legal, in Egypt to refer to non-Muslims as “Infidels,” because that is not, according to Egyptian law, as that is not considered to be anti-Egypt or anti-religion. Certainly, freedom of speech would allow such opinions to be aired, but, when that freedom is used to incite violence, that is trespassing on the rights of others, and is no longer covered under free speech. Even in the U.S., where we enjoy First Ammendment protections, it is illegal to incite violence.
Because the government has declared the radical Muslim political party, the Muslim Brotherhood illegal, the United States sees Egypt as an ally against Islamist terrorists. However, the ban is not against the MB as a terrorist organization, it is as a political party. Egypt is actually appeasing the radicals in this way, allowing them to speak against Christians and Jews, and to foment their brand of Islam in their mosques and schools to incite violence against non-Muslims and Muslim secularists. The so-called “cartoon demonstrations” last year were legal, because they were not against the Egyptian government or Islam, but Christian rights and secular free speech demonstrators are immediately taken to jail and beaten. In further appeasement of the Islamofascist movement, Egypt defied the UN sanctions against the Hamas led Palestinian government by attempting to transfer funds to that government. They also apparently released Abu Ayoud al-Masri from prison to facilitate his taking the leadership of Al Qaeda in Iraq after the death of al-Zaquarwi.
Al Jawraa is a television broadcast company based in Syria that telecasts anti-American, anti-Shiite, anti-Israeli, anti-Iraqi government, and pro Al Qaeda propaganda programming. The Egyptian government provides an up-link for Al Jawraa to the government owned Nilesat telecommunications satellite, facilitating world wide broadcast.
Egypt is seen as an ally against terrorism, and receives at least 2.3 billion dollars a year in foreign aid from the United States. You read that correctly--we taxpayers are supporting an oppressive government, which, in turn supports terrorists. The State Department has applied some pressure on Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to relax sanctions against Egypt’s citizens, and has even aided in obtaining the release of some political prisoners. This pressure is usually very light, however, and it seems that the more we give Mubarak, the more he uses it to support Islamofascism. The foreign aid provided by U.S. taxpayers could be used as leverage to ensure that Egypt get in line on human rights and stop supporting terrorism, but, so far, such aid has not been tied to human rights or anti-terrorism. It is time we, as American citizens, pressure our own government to better scrutinize what it is doing with foreign aid money to Egypt.

Speaking Out: An Interview with an American Muslim

One of the reasons for this blog is to exercise freedom of speech, not just for the author of the blog and his views, but for others who do not have a voice in the media. All too often, the media covers the leaders of radical movements, and the leaders of State, which often leads to misunderstanding among the rest of us. The following interview is with a young woman named Tikyra "Tiki" Angelique, who is the daughter of an American military family and is a devout Muslim. She speaks with the ferver and convictoin of the Converted, and the earnestness of a fresh college education. Her political views do not reflect those of the author of this blog. In the interview, Tiki expresses her distrust of the current Administration and its policies, while at the same time clears up some questions we had about Islam and religious tolerance. This interview is presented in the interest of freedom of speech, and therefore is unedited, except to recover text from a formatting incompatibility. Remember--"Open debate makes our country great!"


Do non-Muslim people generally respect you for your religion?

Well, my experience has been that there are different kinds of Americans. There are those who are political
and either sympathize with Arabs, Palestinians and Muslims and understand our political views that differ
with what most of the media puts out, and there are Americans who go along with most of what the media
puts out against Arabs, Palestinians and Muslims.
I think most Americans are good hearted people who are being mislead and misused by an International war
criminal named Bush. I think the media has let down most Muslims and Jewish groups who disagree with America's and Israel's foreign policies; I believe the true job of a reporter is to impartially report both
sides of any issue and let people decide for themselves.
I see something new happening lately because of the military conflict in Iraq, more and more Americans
are asking why do they (different groups or countries in the world) hate us? And others are approaching me and other Muslims who wear religious clothing and ask us, what is your religion about?

What difficulties, if any, do you face being a Muslim woman in America?

That's funny because recently I got a job at McDonalds. I told them why we wear the scarf and even though
their corporate policy says they don't discriminate based on religion, they would not let me wear it. I did
what a lot of Muslim women facing this situation have done, I wore a baseball cap and put my hair up
under it instead. Most employers don't understand that the scarf is not a fashion statement saying that I am
a Muslim woma--it is part of our religion. I am hiding my beauty including my hair, that I will only show at home with my family and my future husband ( I am not married ).They also don't understand that our loose clothing is also about modesty, not revealing the shape of
your body, so it does not allow others to be sexually attracted to you based on your body or hair. The loose
clothing is also a dress code for Muslim men. They also have problems with employers who don't allow
having a long shirt outside the pants so the hip area is not easily revealed.

What do you see as the biggest misunderstanding of Islam in America?

People think blowing ourselves up is part of our religion, it isn't, LOL. I cherish being alive, thank you.
There is (a religious teaching) which says "If you know of an injustice, change it by your hand, if
you are prevented from doing that, speak out against it, if you can't do that, write against it, if you are not
allowed to do any of those things, you MUST, pray against it."
In other words GOD never told any of us to just do nothing about injustice, that is part of what JIHAD is, fighting against injustice. JIHAD can also be the inside your own self for things like your struggle with an addiction or sinful behavior, your JIHAD to make yourself not do it.

Do you come from an Islamic family, or did you convert to Islam?

I converted to Islam. It was easy for me to become Muslim because my family is Christian in name only. I respect the teachings of Jesus but technically they are not Christian because they do not believe He is
the Son of GOD, they love and revere him as a human prophet (peace be upon him), they do not believe he died for forgiveness of anyone's sins, they believe you can only be forgiven by asking GOD directly to
forgive you for your sins, and they do not believe He rose from the dead and became alive again. When they celebrate Christmas and Easter it is for celebrating a holiday, but, Christmas is important to my family
Jesus was a wonderful prophet (peace be upon him) whose wonderful message has taught all beings how to treat all people with peace and respect.

Many of us believe that Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are different ways of worshiping the same God. We see religion as a personal attribute, meaning that the right way for a person to worship God is the way each person chooses. Can you see it that way?

We say there is no GOD except the ONE true GOD. To us, GOD, who we call Allah, is the same GOD
in all 3 religions. HE is the GOD worshiped by Abraham (the Jews), Jesus (the Christians) and
Mohammad (the Muslims), peace be upon all the prophets. We share the same history and prophets with a few exceptions, the Jews (with the exception of Jews for Jesus) do not accept Jesus as a prophet, peace be upon him, the Christians do not accept Muhammad as a prophet, peace be upon him, and we accept all the
prophets and believe that Muhammad, peace be upon him, is the last prophet and messenger of GOD.

Muslims call Jews and Christians "the people of the book," which is written in the Quran.There are people
who know about GOD but who have consciously decided to live sinful lives. If a person does not know GOD but is a good person who lives a good life, he or she can go to heaven.

Many Islamic scholars and Imams have written that violence and murder of innocents is not a part of Islam. Do you agree?

I think that is one of the hardest questions to answer in any religion, when is killing a person self defense or of one's home or country murder, and when is it justified defense. Military chaplains run into this
dilemma when talking to conscientious objectors, but also when considering possible crimes
against humanity committed by soldiers.

Is there a clash between the cultured and the uncultured in Islam?
In the previous question, Tiki and I discussed the question of the fine line between religious duty and
Civil duty. There are some who feel as though their religion requires them to kill, and my understanding is that the "unclultured," those who use religion as an excuse to kill are misrepresenting their religion. This is a follow-up question addressing the extension of some religious ideas to government and law.

We talk about this all the time at the Mosque and at college. There are things that Islamic governments do that they say are dictated by Islam, but those laws violate Islam, they are doing things based on culture
of Islam. For example, when the Taliban closed all the schools for girls that was a violation of
Islamic law, because the Quran specifically states that women have a RIGHT to education. What the Taliban did was to act on it's own feeling about how to treat women based on the new culture they wanted to impose on Afghan women. I have even talked to men who were angry about what the Taliban did because what a lot of people don't realize is that many Muslim women including myself, have college degrees and honestly don't want us to help with the family's finances by working. Actually deciding to help pay the bills is a problem for me as a Muslim woman the Quran says I can keep my money for myself and not pay any bills, but most of us love our families and do contribute.

Can Islam thrive in a free society?

There are 12 million of us Muslims living in America and the number of new converts is increasing.
The irony of the soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan is that, day after day they are living among
Muslims in middle east countries, they will bring back knowledge about Arab culture and Muslim religion.
Most of them will see us as human beings who just want to live our lives like you do.

Can a free, democratic society exist in the Islamic world?

To be honest, Israel is not a Democracy, it is a blatant open Apartheid, compare it to the "Democracy" of South Africa before Nelson Mandela became President. Why doesn't anyone ask questions about Zionist
terrorism against mostly unarmed Palestinian and Arab civilians in Palestine and the "occupied zone."
Why doesn't anyone question the violation of the rights of the people of Iraq when Bush
through a dictator put on them, named Bremmer (probably spelling his name wrong)?? What about the press Bush and his regime closed in Iraq because they wrote articles against Bush and his puppet
imposed on the Iraqi people? Is that the freedom of the press democracy is about?? What about
American soldiers who shot at Iraqi protestors is that the right to peaceful assembly Democracy
Does Abu Graib ring a bell??? How about when America tortured and killed prisoners there, their families visitation, denied the prisoners lawyers„ what kind of Democracy are you bringing to ignorant Arabs and Muslims??

Do you, personally, get involved in the political process in America?

It's really funny you asked, because I protested against Israel for 1 year in Lexington Massachusetts.
While Bush has been so busy destroying the Constitution and violating the most basic rights Arabs, Palestinians, and Muslims who are American citizens have, that all he has to do is call me an enemy combatant and the power hungry idiots who support him would imprison me in Guantanamo Bay, without evidence, witnesses or charges, just like they did to Jose Padilla. He is an American citizen who was imprisoned there for 3 years. When the government finally admitted there was no evidence that he made or had anything to do with "dirty" bombs. He should have been released from Guantanamo prison, but he is still being held as the government creates new charges to keep him imprisoned to indefinitely await a military trial for a civilian. Talk about destroying the most inherent spirit of the law under which the nation
was founded, the right of anyone accused of a crime to have due process, and a "speedy" trial, to
avoid making the imprisonment while waiting for a trial, a punishment based solely on being accused not as a result of a guilty verdict. In other words if an innocent man is accused of a crime and the jury finds that he was "not guilty," then the time of imprisonment, his loss of freedom, damage to his and finances is in itself a punishment.

The following video is in response to a follow-up question by the author, as the question of Isreal came up during the interview, and we felt that this answer was thoughtful, thought-provoking, and interesting, as well as controversial.

Click here if you can't see the video.

Afterward--my thoughts:

It is interesting to note that Tiki's political views are very much in line with the opinion of many who are politically on the far left of the spectrum, yet Tiki could be considered a "conservative" Muslim, who believes, among other things, that it should be a punishable offense for a woman to smoke while with child. It is easy to see how policy missteps--particularly those made during the interim administration of Paul Bremmer--can become an indictment against the entire policy.
It should also be noted that, although Tikyra does not recognize the right of Israel to exist, she strongly believes in religious freedom, and recognizes and respects the religion of others.
In response to the political point of view expressed in this interview, all I can say is that our beliefs--that is the belief of each individual--is exactly that; an individual belief, and that belief is indelable, based upon each person's life experience and education. The result of the practice of many university level teachers to indoctrinate rather than educate is evident here, but I know that I can disagree and argue until I'm blue in the face, but it will not change Tiki's beliefs any more than she can change my beliefs. This is Tiki's opportunity to state her case, and I am grateful to her for granting this interview and allowing me permission to publish it on this blog. Comments and questions in the "comments" section here are solicited and encouraged, and Tikyra can be contacted here, via email.

Can We Talk?

In a free society, rational discussion is an important part of the political and social process. Rational discussion means to be able to present one's views, in a way it is heard by an opposing view, and can be countered by a similar presentation. We may never agree--there are as many opinions as there are people--but it is important to us to let our point of view be heard. Meaningful questions must be asked, and meaningful answers must be presented in a rational manner. If we resort to attacking those we don't agree with, those persons will stop listening to our point of view, and we will end up "preaching to the choir."
Preaching to the choir is usually counter productive to the formulation of new ideas. Rather, it feeds a consensus among those who agree, and shuts out those who disagree. A politician who loses track of a rational discussion and begins preaching to the choir is merely seeking votes based on ideology and not on performance--that politician is no longer an effective representative of the electorate. This is happening way too often these days.
Important issues that desperately need new ideas are basically ignored, except to create headlines and sound bites. Where there is no rational discussion, the end of reaching a rational solution is lost.
There are many issues on which many disagree, and which, in the present state of affairs, have been reduced to sound bites, or worse, ignored, due to an absolute refusal to debate them. Prohibition is one example of this. Anyone who wishes to speak out against prohibition is accused of being on drugs themselves, or otherwise being dismissed as "disingenuous." Yet, without reasonable discussion, the status quo remains, and the results are often not desirable to anyone except the criminals who ultimately get the money.
My policy on "Lift That Torch. Ring That Bell," is to avoid, or to attempt to avoid, digressing into personal attack on those with whom I disagree. There are some bloggers whom I want to flame, but, so far, I have avoided doing that. Instead, I try to present my views in a non-confrontational manner. For example, in my article, “Winning Iraq,” I largely avoided political arguments, and presented my views from a military viewpoint of strategy and tactics. I hope that there would be some who would care to discuss my presentation, without attacking me for my point of view. Otherwise, I would just be preaching to the choir, and, in relation to “Liberal,” “Conservative,” “Republican,” or “Democrat,” I don't think my choir is all that big.