The Large Hadron Collider will end us all! Black holes at 4 o’clock!

I wrote this response to a blog over at www.americasright.com, a website I quite enjoy.  Unfortunately, I’ve seen this skepticism too many times to keep quiet on it, so I’ve included some information that I hope will show why this experiment is not something we should concern ourselves with.  Arguing against the LHC shows a couple things, ignorance of science, and a lack of ability to accept science and math as strong evidence.  This could be used to severely weaken any argument against global warming on the basis of a lack of science to back it up.  If we are unwilling to accept science and math in this case, then why should Democrats be willing to accept science and math with AGW?  The result of both cases is the same: detsruction of earth (if the non-science and hype is to be believed).  The stakes are the same, the amount of scientific evidence is roughly the same (actually, the LHC is probably even better supported than the case against AGW).  We need to take a moment, educate ourselves, and not buy into the buzz around words like black-hole until we understand what a black hole actually is.

Jeff, love the page, and I agree with you on many things.

This, however, is not one of them.  The fear from the LHC comes from a combination misunderstanding of physics, and the baggage associated with the term “black hole.”

Black hole basics:  Black holes are a collection of mass crunched into a small enough space that “nothing” can escape.  This includes matter, and light, hence the black…

Now, there’s a lot of math involved in this, which I won’t get into, but it’s pretty much like this:  For any given mass, there is an “event horizon”(schwarzchild radius, technically) which is the size of space that mass needs to be crammed into to become a black hole.

for reference: The Shwarzchild radius for a 1kg black hole is ~1.5 x 10^-27 m, or 12 orders of magnitude smaller than radius of the nucleus of an atom

12 orders of magnitude is such a vast number…it’s literally the difference between 1 dollar and 1 trillion dollars. It’s the difference between having 1 gallon of water, and having the all the water in lake superior 4 times over.  It’s almost unimaginably vast.

Now that we’ve covered that, think of a 1 kg object (roughly 2.2 lbs).  Stand by that object and see how long it takes the gravity fom that object to pull you into it.  See how long it takes the gravity of that object to pull dust into it…It’s a ludicrously small amount of force.

Ok, so that’s a 2.2lb object, how heavy are the particles being collided by the LHC?  Well, the LHC is expected to produce a higgs boson particle (and is the primary purpose for the collider)  Go look up why it’s important, if you care, to find this particle, that’s not relevent to this discussion of danger.  Anyway, a Higgs Boson should weigh about as much as 138 protons, or roughly 69  molecules of hydrogen…  It’s hard to imagine how small this is, but I’ll try and compare…

A water molecule is H2O, which contains 10 protons (and 8 neutrons, plus some electron change, but for the sake of ease, we’ll say 69 molecules of Hydrogen gass = 6 molecules of water in weight (it’s probably more like 3, but it doesn’t matter.))  A water drop contains 1.67 10^21 molecules of H20.  again, we’re talking magnitude…this is a greater difference than 1 gallon of water and all of the water on the earth (and that’s short by 5 orders of magnitude still….)  It’s MORE than the difference between the width of a strand of DNA and the distance from the earth to the sun.

So, you take a mass that is 21 orders of magnitude smaller than 1 drop of water, and determine how much gravity it produces…Then you smash that mass down to a size smaller than anything I’ve mentioned so far, and you’re near the planck length…the smallest unit of measurement.  If you know anything of string theory, a plank length is the theoretical distance between strings.  It’s so ridiculously small that it’s the distance between two things that exist, it’s as close as two things can be to each other, the space between them is merely representing the fact that two things cannot occupy the same spot.  It borders on being 1 dimensional.  This black hole would only be slightly bigger than that.  IF a black hole existed from this, it would be so monumentally small that it could pass through the empty space in a molecule.  It doesn’t matter if it exists for a second, an hour, a year…the likelyhood of it absorbing mass is so small that it cannot sustain, grow, or destroy the earth.

The problem is that people hear about black holes and how they consume everything etc etc etc.  It’s simple gravity; at our earth’s core, gravity is enough to crush rock into a molten liquid center, but we’re not afraid of combustion engines.  They operate on the same principle, they force liquid gasoline into a small enough space to heat up, vaporize and then ignite.

To get a sustainable black hole that we observe in space, you would need roughly 3 times the mass of our sun.  It is impossible, in the truest sense, to create that scale of black hole in our solar system.  And for reference, the diameter of a black hole of that size is about 60 km.  That 60km black hole doesn’t eat planets, or the galaxy around it.

60 km is only 16 orders of magnitued smaller than our GALAXY.  so, the likelihood of an LHC-produced black hole eating planet earth is SMALLER than the likelihood of the black holes that we observe consuming the earth.  it’s 5 orders of magnitude smaller…the difference between a centimeter, and a kilometer.

In summary, it is 10,000 times more likely that a black hole being observed by nasa will consume the earth than a black hole produced by the LHC will.

Sorry to prattle on, but this aversion to scientific discovery is comparable to the aversion to fossil fuels on the basis of global warming (a patent hoax in its own right)  We conservatives ask scientists to use science to back up global warming, but then we ignore the math and science behind this experiment.

 

Moderating conservatives

Last night, I read this Freedom Of Choice Act article from the National Catholic Reporter.

I disagree with this article.  I’m not so sure complacency is the right attitude towards this act. I understand the realities he’s expressing, but I also understand the current political environment and that although unlikely, the coming administration is one of the most likely times for a bill like this to pass.

With executive support, it’s possible that they could sway moderate-conservatives with deal sweeteners to override filibuster. Dems are likely to pick up seats in the committees that would need to ratify and reconcile the bill. Also, without a line-item veto, bills often get attached to important pieces of legislation that are “must-haves” for the opposition. For example, Demint has a bill pending to “Drill here, Drill now” that would limit drilling litigation andaccelerate drilling to the second half of 2009 instead of the 5 year horizon we always hear about, it would also radically change the leasing-system for oil companies drilling off-shore. This is good legislation for republicans, tacking on FOCA would give democrats a reason to vote for it, and fiscal conservatives (as opposed to social…) would be able to self-justify a vote for that bill, if abortion wasn’t high on their political radar.

There’s also a ludicrous notion that the Right should moderate as a result of the election (which is silly since we sent a moderate and he didn’t put up much of a fight). If enough of them believe that moderating will get them re-elected, it could change the voting dynamic to something unpredictable…it only has to be a handful of republicans to swing the senate…and the house can’t filibuster (I don’t think).

It’s an interesting viewpoint, but there’s this big call for the right to reel back and gear up quietly for the next cycle…for the conservatives to quiet down a little bit, but I worry about that. Democrats didn’t quiet down over the past 8 years, the vehemently and venomously rabble-roused their base from day 1 of GWB. I don’t agree with the tone of their demagoguery, but the method worked. They got someone elected who shouldn’t have had a chance. They got someone elected over a much more viable candidate (in my opinion Hillary is a much better option, strategically speaking) and they did so by painting the conservative as an icon of evil.

If the conservatives give up their voice now, they won’t get it back. This has been displayed throughout the past century. The Christians have given ground in the public forum, moderating in small ways on small issues. Since that time, Christianity has been weeded out of the public forum on almost every major issue, they gave ground, and the secular ran with it, and established their message of equality as paramount. If Conservatives moderate themselves on this issue, they will lose their voice, and the FOCA will pass. It may not be next year, but it will pass if the opposition quiets down.

Moderating is not the avenue for conservatives.  Conservative extremism is a comical notion, and really deserves to be looked at.  Conservative extremists are people who believe in preserving the family.  They spread hate by defending the bonds of marriage between a man and a woman.  Never mind that Marriage is an institution of God, not of man, never mind that secular and non-Christian societies have historically defined marriage as man and woman.

Conservative extremists plague the world by attempting to grant life to unborn children.  They blanket the world with the ridiculous notion that a completely innocent child has a right to emerge from its mother’s womb and live.

They further their offensive, oppressive, vengeful agenda by insisting that we teach children that NOT having sex is the only way to guarantee they don’t get pregnant or get STDs.  They even go so far as to insist that contraceptives are not an ideal method of birth control.  This extremism is patently absurd, as you can see.

Conservative extremism is bent on preserving the family, strengthening marriages, promoting life, procreating (pro create…weird).  Conservative extremists tendto reject this notion that people are beyond help, and so they need rescue instead of direction.  Conservative extremists believe that you should steer people toward success, not give them the medicine to cope with their inevitable failure.

If you want to get biblical, teach a man to fish.  Moderates and liberals don’t see how tooling people to fail will steer them toward failure.  If you give up on teenagers and say “Well, they will have sex, not matter what, so just throw a bag of condoms at them…” Then of course they will.

We will not have 100%, but the saying is “aim for the stars.”  I’ve never seen an inspirational poster that tells me to dig a hole because I’m going to die.  If we assume people will never get a job, and pay them not to work, they won’t work.  If we assume teenagers are going to copulate, so we tell them how to do it “safely” then they will copulate, copiously.

As a conservative “extremist” it’s my duty to get out there and push the hate by preserving human life.  It’s my job to say that God created everyone with the ability to succeed, but not the ability to do it without Him.  People have crosses to bear, struggles to overcome, and a path to follow.  It doesn’t always mesh with what they plan, but if they submit to the idea that God’s plan is made for them, specifically, then they will find a happiness they didn’t know.

The LAST thing we should do is concede ground on core issues.  If conservatives are the only people defending the unborn, and we suddenly quiet down, or weaken our defense, why WOULDN’T they legislate?  If the defense of the unborn is their only support, and that defense wanes, then the unborn will lose.  Once we lose them, we won’t be going back.  Christians have not regained the ground they’ve given up.  Giving up ground allowed their opponents to use precedent to further alienate Christians.

God never says to back down in the face of adversity.  Jesus didn’t tell us to blind ourselves to evil because it was “unlikely.”  We are told to spread the truth of God, not to fall into political complacency.

-Demablogue

 

An Open letter to Texasdarlin

TD (texasdarlin.wordpress.com),

You are what this conservative considers to be a light at the end of the democrat tunnel.  We will not agree on every issue out there (nor should we) but you, and others have recognized this farce candidate for what he is, rather than what his shiny mask claims.

I implore you not to silence your own voice.  The coming four years bring potential for thug-imposed silence, if this election has been any indication, and bloggers must maintain numbers if we have any wish to have our voices heard in the future.  The fewer we are, the weaker we will be, collectively.

Today could either be the first day of a shiny, united America (and I will pray fervently for this to be the case) or the darkest day in a generation.  The candidate we have elected has a sketchy past, and has run a campaign that is 100% contradictory to his own record. 

For the first time in recent memory, we have elected a candidate based on what we think he will do, and ignored what he has done when making that decision.  We have allowed a candidate to rise to office in light of innumerable vagaries(spelling?) and an unacceptable level of association with criminals, racists, and terrorists.  Before 2008, a Jeramiah Wright would cost a candidate the election.  Before 2008 a Bill Ayers would cost a candidate the election, and possibly put him on some “interesting persons” watch list with various federal agencies.  Before 2008.

Before 2008, Michelle Obama would cost any candidate their chance at the White House.  I can’t help but remember 1996 (though I was too young to vote or care) I remember my parents specifically saying, “If this were Elizabeth vs Hillary, Dole would be the next president.”

There was a time when it wasn’t “dishonorable” to question a man’s character based on the company he keeps.  To quote scripture: 1 Cor 15 v33 – Don’t be fooled by those who say such things, for “bad company corrupts good character.”  There was a time when bringing up a man’s company wasn’t a smear, it was simply a revelation.

I fear for the integrity of future candidates because of the outcome of this election.  Many are saying (and I agree) that the public financing option will never again be elected by a presidential candidate.  I expect in 2012 the republican candidate will shatter the funds raised by Obama this election.  Campaigns are about to become billion-dollar plus enterprises.

Incidentally, campaign financing in the 2008 election may be the moment when the world collectively looks back and says realizes that Obama’s outright lie (when he pledged to accept public financing along with McCain) should have alerted them of what was to come.

We have elected a man who has outright, openly, and flatly lied to the faces of all Americans.  There is no apology, there is no remorse for that action, there is no explanation.  He simply lied, straight faced, and was given a complete pass.  Luke 16 v10 says, “One who is faithful in a very little is also faithful in much, and one who is dishonest in a very little is also dishonest in much.”

I don’t mean to preach, but I am a Christian, and we have elected someone who has proved that they will lie, to our faces, while asking for our vote.

Our vote has been cast.

Demablogue

 

Abortion: A single voter issue.

Please follow the link to the video.  Please understand that this is a graphic video, it’s about 5 minutes long, I would suggest watching it at home, not at work.

 

http://www.durarealidad.com/

 

It’s time for us to start becoming one issue voters until this is fixed.  I urge you to watch every second of this video.  It’s one of the hardest things I’ve ever done.  When you go to the voting booth, there’s ONE issue to consider, and honestly, there is nothing else.  This has to stop NOW.  You can blab on about economy, war, whatever ridiculous assertions you want.  This is the fact, every single issue facing our country today, boils down to THIS.  Nothing further.  The next president will likely appoint two justices to the supreme court.  John McCain has said that he will appoint judges to uphold the constitution, and that is the only qualification.  Barack Obama has said that he will appoint judges to uphold Roe vs. Wade.  You can’t cut it any other way, there’s no dancing around it, those are his nationally televised words, and they are sickening.

 

Do you get it yet?  HIS ACTIVE AGENDA IS TO KEEP ABORTION, AT ALL STAGES OF PREGNANCY, LEGAL.  There’s nothing else to it, that’s his agenda.

 

Here are some realities, not the watered down nonsense that you get at a lie-laden debate.

 

Barack Obama:

 

1990: Wrote law article that that fetus cannot sue mother. (Aug 2008)

We can find common ground between pro-choice and pro-life. (Apr 2008)

Undecided on whether life begins at conception. (Apr 2008)

Voted against banning partial birth abortion. (Oct 2007)

Trust women to make own decisions on partial-birth abortion. (Apr 2007)

Opposed born-alive treatment law because it was already law. (Oct 2008)

Supports Roe v. Wade. (Jul 1998)

Voted NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)

Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)

Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)

 

Quote:

I’ve got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.
Barack Obama

 

Why he opposed the Born Alive act…HIS WORDS…not phony conjecture from his lies at the debate, read HIS WORDS:

Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a – child, a nine-month-old – child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place.

 

And

 

What we are doing here is to create one more burden on women, and I can’t support that.

 

And

 

would have taken away from doctors their professional judgment when a fetus is viable

 

And

 

[W]e live in a pluralistic society, and that I can’t impose my religious views on another

 

And

 

If I am opposed to abortion for religious reasons but seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

 

 

These are from an article which covers the 10 reasons he didn’t vote on Born Alive.  It also points out his BLATANT LIE about it encroaching on Roe vs. Wade being the reason he opposed it.

 

http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2008/01/top-10-reasons.html

 

I hope you watch the video, I hope you read this.  Some of you are Christians, some of you are not.  If you are Christian, and you support this atrocity, you are a liar.  If you are not Christian, you should still see how this violates a core principal sacred to every American, and every Person:  Life.

 

If you can watch this, and understand that Barack Obama will work to uphold Roe vs. Wade as president, that is your prerogative.  However, I will personally no longer speak to you.  And I mean it.  I’m not bribing you to see the world in my way, but I can no longer accept inaction.  I imagine the number one cause of pro-choice is ignorance of fact, since you’ve watched the video, and read the words from Obama himself, you no longer have any excuse.

 

Google 2001

Post racial:

http://web.archive.org/web/20011125172745/www.aclu.org/news/1999/w120799a.html

“New Party” associations:

New Party members and supported candidates won 16 of 23 races, including an at-large race for the Little Rock, Ark., City Council, a seat on the county board for Little Rock and the school board for Prince George’s County, Md. Chicago is sending the first New Party member to Congress, as Danny Davis, who ran as a Democrat, won an overwhelming 85% victory. New Party member Barack Obama was uncontested for a State Senate seat from Chicago

http://web.archive.org/web/20010724081433/www.populist.com/11.96.Edit.html

From wikipedia under “new party”

Some of these chapters — such as those in Chicago and Little Rock — had their main bases of support in the low-income community organizing group ACORN, along with some support from various labor unions (especially ACORN-allied locals of the Service Employees International Union).

No ties to ACORN of course…

Obama on “school choice”

This is an article written about the Joyce Foundation…Board of Directors member: Barack Obama.

http://web.archive.org/web/20011126174837/www.capitalresearch.org/fw/fw-0796.html

Endorsement of BO by Chicago Democratic socialists of America

http://web.archive.org/web/20010906162143/www.chicagodsa.org/ngarchive/ng45.html

Obama and Ayers:

Ayers will be joined by Illinois State Sen. Barack Obama, Senior Lecturer in the University of Chicago Law School, who is working to block proposed legislation that would throw more juvenile offenders into the adult system; Randolph Stone, Director of the Mandel Legal Aid Clinic at the University of Chicago; Alex Correa, a reformed juvenile offender who spent 7 years in Cook County Temporary Detention Center; Frank Tobin, a former priest and teacher in the Detention Center who helped Correa; and Willy Baldwin, who grew up in public housing and is currently a teacher in the Detention Center.

http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/97/971104.juvenile.justice.shtml

But, they’ve never associated, really.

This stuff took like 15 minutes to find.  Enjoy!

 

The Wealthiest Nation on Earth

After the drudgery of last night’s debate, I can’t help but feel a little dissatisfied.  McCain got a free-ride on the debate.

Yes, I’m a McCain supporter, but it is increasingly being more rejection of Obama than embracing McCain.  McCain supported the bailout, yes “my friends” it’s a bailout, not a rescue.  I see a bailout, but I still see stocks falling faster than the male protagonist of a Nicholas Sparks novel.  In fact, since this cute, little bill has passed, the decline has increased darmatically.  Of course, since it’s the market, no one has the answer or knows how it will react. (hint, hint government)  However, I am fairly certain it has something to do with the 96% of the market that is NOT in the financial industry looking less attractive than the quasi-government funded institutions that are on the horizon.

Think about it, if the government is going to buy into the market in the near future…would you buy company stock right now?  Whatever big-G decides to buy into will surely skyrocket in value as it degrades into an undying cesspool of wasteful production and bad decisions.  Why make good decisions with Uncle Sam footing the bill?  Well, Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac made plenty of good decisions, but they are the exception, right?

Back on topic: If I were Obama, I would have ground McCain into dust.  He promised to cut spending…700billion (to start) later, and he’s now proposing up to 300 billion MORE to buy up bad mortgage.  That sounds like a great investment!  What about the responsible people?  Are you going to renegotiate their mortgages?  Or do we have to fail to succeed in this country now?  He’s supposed to be the maverick, going against his own party…here he is touting the Bush administration plan.  Ridiculous.

Now, on spending.  Obama is pushing the meme “the wealthiest nation on earth” shouldn’t have these problems.  Let’s get some reality drilled in here: We are NOT the wealthiest nation on earth.  If the wealthiest nation on earth has a 10 TRILLION dollar DEBT, then that would imply that every nation has greater than that amount of debt.  Even per capita, this is bad (this would put China over 33trillion in debt, if we’re using per-capita)  Obviously, this isn’t true.

The truth is, we’re a nation of the wealthiest people on earth.  You can say I’m parsing words, you can say it’s the same thing, but this is a core issue in America, and we’re in danger of losing our individuality because of the lack of precision on this point. 

America is built on the individual, capitalism at its core.  America is about freedom, about choice, about wild success, and dramatic failure.  Americans have unified through good and bad times, but it is ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS in the interest of preserving our individual freedom.  Everytime we have emerged triumphant, is when our individual freedom is threatened.  Every time we have failed, we have been acting in the interest of someone who is not American.  That someone includes the American Government.  For when the government forgets that we are a collection of individuals who value our own freedom to succeed or fail, they become unAmerican.

I’m not commenting on the validity or nobility of these pursuits, but Americans have always stood for one thing: Freedom.  It is the word most loftily associated with America.  Our politicians lose sight of this about every three minutes.

The problem is, our dear government talks a big game about the gluttony of Americans, our incessant greed and the corruption of wealth.  However, the greediest, most gluttunous American resident is the government itself.  They perpetuate a system of overborrowing and overspending.  They have been the worst fiscal managers in the history of the world because we have a system that relies on confidence(fiat currency) rather than physical commodity(such as gold).  This is a good system, but opens up for abuse by the top dog.  The way to solve the problem with our government is to cut spending, and let people prosper as individuals.  That’s what America is about, it’s not about having a giant G-shaped safety net, it’s about working hard, having the right ideas and the right talent and earning your dream.

What happened to that?

Let’s get our heads in the right place.  Some people think phrasing isn’t very important, but phrasing dictates mindset.  We need to get our minds back on Americans.

 

A response to “Leading Off” by Wick Allison

First, here is a cute e-mail forward I received:

A Conservative’s View of Obama

Leading Off By Wick Allison, Editor In Chief

 

My party has slipped its moorings. It’s time for a true pragmatist to lead

the country.

 

THE MORE I LISTEN TO AND READ ABOUT “the most liberal member of the U.S.

Senate,” the more I like him. Barack Obama strikes a chord with me like no

political figure since Ronald Reagan. To explain why, I need to explain why

I am a conservative and what it means to me.

 

In 1964, at the age of 16, I organized the Dallas County Youth for

Goldwater. My senior thesis at the University of Texas was on the

conservative intellectual revival in America. Twenty years later, I was

invited by William F. Buckley Jr. to join the board ofNational Review. I

later became its publisher.

 

Conservatism to me is less a political philosophy than a stance, a

recognition of the fallibility of man and of man’s institutions.

Conservatives respect the past not for its antiquity but because it

represents, as G.K. Chesterton said, the democracy of the dead; it gives the

benefit of the doubt to customs and laws tried and tested in the crucible of

time. Conservatives are skeptical of abstract theories and utopian schemes,

doubtful that government is wiser than its citizens, and always ready to

test any political program against actual results.

 

Liberalism always seemed to me to be a system of “oughts.” We ought to do

this or that because it’s the right thing to do, regardless of whether it

works or not. It is a doctrine based on intentions, not results, on feeling

good rather than doing good.

 

 

But today it is so-called conservatives who are cemented to political

programs when they clearly don’t work. The Bush tax cuts—a solution for

which there was no real problem and which he refused to end even when the

nation went to war—led to huge deficit spending and a $3 trillion growth in

the federal debt. Facing this, John McCain pumps his “conservative”

credentials by proposing even bigger tax cuts. Meanwhile, a movement that

once fought for limited government has presided over the greatest growth of

government in our history. That is not conservatism; it is profligacy using

conservatism as a mask.

 

Today it is conservatives, not liberals, who talk with alarming bellicosity

about making the world “safe for democracy.” It is John McCain who says

America’s job is to “defeat evil,” a theological expansion of the nation’s

mission that would make George Washington cough out his wooden teeth.

 

This kind of conservatism, which is not conservative at all, has produced

financial mismanagement, the waste of human lives, the loss of moral

authority, and the wreckage of our economy that McCain now threatens to

make worse.

 

Barack Obama is not my ideal candidate for president. (In fact, I made the

maximum donation to John McCain during the primaries, when there was still

hope he might come to his senses.) But I now see that Obama is almost the

ideal candidate for this moment in American history. I disagree with him on

some issues. But those don’t matter as much as what Obama offers, which is

a deeply conservative view of the world. Nobody can read Obama’s books

(which, it is worth noting, he wrote himself) or listen to him speak

without realizing that this is a thoughtful, pragmatic, and prudent man. It

gives me comfort just to think that after eight years of George W. Bush we

will have a president who has actually read the Federalist Papers.

 

Most important, Obama will be a realist. I doubt he will taunt Russia, as

McCain has, at the very moment when our national interest requires it as an

ally. The crucial distinction in my mind is that, unlike John McCain, I am

convinced he will not impulsively take us into another war unless American

national interests are directly threatened.

 

“Every great cause,” Eric Hoffer wrote, “begins as a movement, becomes a

business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.” As a cause,

conservatism may be dead. But as a stance, as a way of making judgments in

a complex and difficult world, I believe it is very much alive in the

instincts and predispositions of a liberal named Barack Obama.

Write to

wicka@dmagazine.com

 

 

 

 

 

mailto:wicka@dmagazine.com?Subject=Leading+Off>

 

And here is my reponse:

Wick Allison, I’m writing this in response to your article is because you make a bold attempt to assert a viewpoint, however, make the mistake of trying to argue in the context of terminology. Whenever you shove someone into a construct or archetype you officially limit their ability to be anything beyond the confines of the terminology that is used to describe them. The convenient baggage associated with these terms can paint people in a positive or negative light. This is why there is such an importance to label your opponent before they can label themselves, and why something that happened months and months ago can haunt a candidate, even if the assertion isn’t entirely true.

You attempt to paint Mr. Obama as a conservative. You do this in an effort to rally support for him among disenfranchised conservatives who typically vote right. You even assert that you used to support McCain, which is a carefully crafted identifier to show that you’re not a traitor, per se, but simply breaking the mold of what it means to be conservative by supporting someone unconventional. You have an excellent persuasive method in your article, and I applaud you for that. However, as I have said, politics is a war of labels and constructs.

You have made the mistake of trying to shove a man into a construct to which he does not fit. Regardless of political preference, you make a fallacious claim, and here is why:

Conservativism is a term used to describe political philosophies that favour tradition, where tradition refers to various religious, cultural, or nationally defined beliefs and customs. -Wikipedia

Conservativism a political or theological orientation advocating the preservation of the best in society and opposing radical changes. -Dictionary.com

In short, no one touting themselves as a “progressive” can inherently be conservative. Especially one who espouses ideas of redistribution of income (or the less offensive term “fairness”) or touts any sort of social reparation. Unfortunately(fortunately?) any sort of social reparation is, by definition, not conservative. It advocates an immediate change in perspective without any possibility of a proven result. Changes toward civil and social “equality” are, in essence, a crapshoot. This is not to say that they are wrong, or even negative; what it does say is that we have no way of quantifying or even estimating the impact of a sweeping shift in social perspective.

There’s a disconnect with peoples’ idea of conservativism, and the reality of conservativism. That is the only valid point of this person’s article. However, the disconnect is that Conservativism is about not changing. There are also many different ways to be conservative. As long as 60% of people in this nation claim to be Christian (whether they are or not is irrelevant) anything that pushes Christianity farther from the public square is inherently not conservative. As long as we have lived in a society where the state doesn’t own private or public companies, any move to allow the state to buy into those companies is inherently not conservative. As long as we have been a country based on this dream that you can do it if you have the time talent and tenacity, any sort of social stimulants (welfare, stimulus packages, mandated employment quotas) cannot be conservative. As long as we have been allowed to carry our own weapons and defend ourselves from attack, any move to suppress that ability to defend yourself or your property cannot be conservative.

This covers a HUGE list of laws and changes. The past 8 years (4 years especially) have been far from conservative. The past month has taken conservativism to the local bar and slammed down 2 bottles of Comrade Vodka before shooting it in the face and marrying its widow. That’s not the point.

The point is simple, anyone running on a platform of “Hope and Change” (that includes you Mr McCain) by definition, cannot be conservative. Anyone running on a ticket with a woman, right or wrong, cannot be conservative. Anyone running for president who is black, is not conservative. None of the aforementioned conditions are wrong, but they are inarguably not the status quo. However, the one leap I don’t think our country is ready for is to have an inexperienced man who no vetting, no available history and a penchant for suppressiong his past and outright lying about his citizenship (and later admitting that he in fact WAS a dual citizen of the US and Kenya) to take the presidency. Dual citizenship is a troubling conflict of loyalty, and I may have been willing to overlook it, if he had actually been forthcoming in the beginning instead of LYING TO AMERICA for the past year about it.

Of course, lying politicians are the status quo…maybe he is conservative?

 

 

It’s over

BO for prez 2008. I’ve accepted reality. The anti-christ will ascend to his throne just in time to prep the world for the end in 2012…the freaking Myans were right.

I’m being melodramatic, yes….however, The house and senate have passed the most pork-laden, now-850 billion dollar bailout. All that’s left is good ol GW to sign it…and it was his administrations’ plan, so that’s about 99.999999% likely. McCain can no longer stand on the issues.

He had the chance to be a maverick and distance himself from Bush – Failed

He had the chance to oppose a bill loaded with more pork than a polish guy on thursday – Failed

He had the chance to take initiative and leadership in engineering a conservative, cautious approach – Failed.

He had the chance to show the people that Barack Obama follows while he leads in the time of crisis – Failed.

He had the chance to rally conservatives across the nation – Failed.

He had the chance to expose the corruption linking BO and Chris Dodd to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – Failed

What can he possibly argue about in the next debate? Obama would have to be an utter fool to lose this election. McCain has given him a full jar of ammunition. Obama technically reached across the aisle to work with the Bush Administration…not only that, but he can claim that he helped engineer some of the key reforms that allowed this to get passed.

Today is a dark day for the USA.

 

Let’s Talk Strategy

I’m going to keep this short.  Go read Ender’s Game by Orson Scott Card.  Done?  Good.  Now go read Ender’s Shadow, Shadow Puppets, Shadow Hegemon and Shadow of the Giant.

Ok, now that we’ve settled that I’m taking you on my personal quest to get people thinking again.  You see, Americans have changed.  It used to matter to people if we were on top of the world.  We’re currently stuck with this ridiculous idea that the whole world has to love us, and that we’ve done so much wrong that they don’t love us anymore.

Newsflash: The world has never loved America, or Americans.  Sure, we do some things here and there, make some friends, trade some coin, but we’ve never held this lofty, collective love of the world that our politicians and press keep musing over.  I want to help you understand we won’t ever be loved by the world, and raising geopolitical opinion should be about as low on our priority chain as it can get.  The nations who hate us currently will continue that hatred because it’s not based on image or action, it’s a principal hatred of the west.

The western nations that we’ve lost standing with over the past couple decades don’t matter.  Here’s why: They. Don’t. Do. War.  Do you get it yet?  France can be mad at the US…all day.  Germany? Ok.  Sweden? Do they actually get mad?  Canada? HAH!  Raising or lowering our standing with these nations is irrelevant because they A: Don’t fight and B: are slaves to their UN-system of perpetual inaction.

Since we’ve established that we can give the world the finger and it really won’t increase our threat level significantly, and raising our standing won’t make us significantly safer, then there’s really only one option.  Let’s be American!  Let’s focus on how WE feel about America.  Let’s be that guy that everyone grudgingly accepts because he’s just so dang useful.  We need to stop playing around with the world and pretending that it matters if Europe cares about our image.  That doesn’t help Americans. 

What helps Americans is to be a global economic giant.  Economics goes beyond principals and petty squabbles.  If your product is valuable, everyone will buy it…even those who hate you.  We go to ludicrous extent to prove this on a daily basis.  Look at how much oil we import.  We are doling out droves of dollars to archaic, barbaric quasi-governments across the globe.  Countries who bomb the country next to them on principal, countries who treat women like walking garbage.  Countries who will stone you to death for dissenting faith.  They don’t care about global standing, and they’re small enough to lose what they have if people are angry enough.

We have the same products, we can be that guy…after he comes home from rehab.  The point is, let’s drill some oil!  Let’s sell the heck out of it, globally.  Let’s run the prices of oil into the ground and put these petty little kingdoms to shame economically.  Let’s get fired up about being Americans.  I’m not talking about patriotism.  Patriotism is a bowl of trite that’s best served while reminiscing over those we lose.  Patriotism is the yellow umbrella of cowardice people hide under after tirelessly badmouthing Americans.  Patriotism has become literary device, fallacy. 

We need Americanism back.  We need the fire that drove us to Berlin.  We need the grit and iron-will of Iwo Jima.  We need the relentless passion that drove the USSR to bury itself.  We don’t need war, but we do need to stop all of this introspection and regret.  We make our decisions, but we can make them boldly.  We used to lead this world, now we’re led by it.

The best leaders know that they lead, and they know why.  The best leaders hear their subordinates, but they don’t have to listen.  The private doesn’t order the general, but the general may hear something useful in the endless babble of stupidity coming from the private’s mouth.

McCain hammers Obama with simple words, “Not ready to lead.”  Obama talks about raising our standing in the world.  Obama talks about his team of advisers.  Obama picked Joe Biden to open a foreign policy schoolhouse on the white house lawn.  McCain is not the best man to lead this country, let’s be clear on that, but he is certainly better than Obama.  He makes decisions, he sticks with them, and he tells everyone else (including his own party and his constituents) to screw off and get back in line.  He IS a leader, the rest of us have to deal with it.

My only hope is that he applies that leadership to the nation, and lights the fire we’ve been waiting for.  I’m sure Obama will be happy to spend four years categorically not leading our country.  I lied about keeping this short.  However, I made my decision and you dealt with it.

 

On Pigs and Politics

I want to make a brief post here about that well-groomed pig Sarah Palin.  If you haven’t heard, Obama gaffed pretty hard at a rally with the following quotes:

“You know, you can put lipstick on a pig,” Obama said, “but it’s still a pig.”

and

“You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called ‘change,’” Obama continued, “it’s still gonna stink after eight years.”

Now, republicans are snickering as Obama’s floundering becomes more apparent.  Clearly, Obama is referring to Sarah Palin as a pig with this statement.  It evokes her RNC acceptance speech about lipstick on a pit-bull.  With a little bit of a stretch, he is engaging in a little ageism with the stinky old fish for McCain; there isn’t a direct evocative link, so I won’t focus on that one.

Democrats are scrambling to defend BO’s use of this metaphor by saying McCain used it against Clinton in 2007.  Let’s get something clear, context.  McCain’s comment DIRECTLY relates to Senator Clinton’s PROPOSAL, not person.  Here’s the quote from a BO defender’s Blog:

McCain criticized Democratic contenders for offering what he called costly universal health-care proposals that require too much government regulation. While he said he had not studied Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton’s plan, he said it was “eerily reminiscent” of the failed plan she offered as first lady in the 1990s.
 
“I think they put some lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig,” he said of her proposal.

Let’s get real people.  This is referring to a “pork bill” which is a common saying on “the hill.”  Barry-O doesn’t cite policy, he doesn’t cite proposals or platform.  He allows the metaphor to be a direct attack at Palin’s character.

For a campaign that has constantly accused McCain of vague racial allusions, one would think that BO would be a little more careful.  Oh wait, he probably was careful, since he’s such an amazing orater and all.

Check out my post Policy over Plumbing for some thoughts on the reasons behind the floundering.