Whose Fault is it, Anyway?

One of the things you learn very quickly when you're thrust into a leadership position (if you're going to be successful, anyway) is that blame fixing and fault finding are wastes of time and energy, and ultimately are destructive.  For too long, however, our culture in general and our leaders - governmental, cultural, ideological - have focused on exactly this.

In a business environment, when you think someone is "at fault" for something, you can discipline them.  In a voluntary endeavor, you can confront them.  But what do you do when the environment is just life?  What if you think that "whites" or "cops" are targeting black men for assassination (more or less)?  What if you think that "blacks" are "thugs" or "Muslims" are vile monsters?  Especially when your frame of reference makes you see the government's non-reaction to most incidents as condoning violence, whether implicitly or explicitly?

If you really, really believe - deep in your bones - that the whole of society and the government is against you, what options do you have? 

You can surrender, certainly.  You can go about your life afraid at every moment that "they" are going to do something to you.  The problem with this option is it breeds cowardice and starts stratifying castes and classes.  We fought a war about that sort of thing about 240 years ago.

You can bury your head in the sand.  You can pretend that you believe other than you do.  In some cases, this may even be the optimal choice.  Certainly it isn't true that "cops" are "targeting black men."  In the vast majority of cases, there's not even questionable behavior.  In those cases where the behavior is questionable, quite frequently full knowledge of the circumstances makes it clear that the behavior was defensible, even if not fully justified.  So we're left with a minority of cases which are sensational and therefore repeated over and over.  Similarly, it certainly isn't true that "Muslims" are terrorists.  Mohammedanism most certainly is an evil death cult (read the book), but the vast majority of Mohammedans in this country are simply here because we're more free than they would be in the lands of their ancestors.  It certainly isn't true that "blacks" are "thugs."  Again, while some indeed are, the vast majority are not.

The problem with that choice, however, is two-fold.  First, it is very difficult to deprogram oneself.  Asking people to do it is asking them to give up part of their identity, and many are simply unwilling to do so.  Second, it can make it so that you are slower to react when there really is a systemic problem.  The unwillingness of many to acknowledge that Mohammedanism - as written - is an evil death cult makes it harder to support those who are not into the evil death cultishness and to oppose those who love blowing up the infidel.

Or, finally, you can oppose the injustice you perceive.  This can be either the best, most moral choice, or the worst, most monstrous.  It is very hard, before the fact and subjectively, to determine which any given act of opposition may be.

I do not know the motives of the murderer last night in Dallas.  I understand he told police that he wanted to kill police, and specifically white police.  One presumes this is because of recent events where two black men have been killed by police.  One case appears (though I don't know the details, so I can make no judgement) to have been a horrible event wherein an innocent man was killed.  One case is already becoming more "nuanced" as we find out more about the history of the victim and the immediate events leading up to his shooting.  Nevertheless, they feed into the balkanization of our nation.  Those who wish to see all blacks as thugs can do so.  Those who wish to see all cops - especially white cops - as racists hunting black men can do so.

This must stop.  It will stop.  What cannot continue, won't.

The problem with it stopping is that it can only stop one of two ways.

The better way is for it to stop because our leaders - governmental, cultural, ideological - stop feeding it and start opposing it.  If he hasn't already (if he has, I haven't seen it) Wayne LaPierre needs to get in front of cameras TODAY and say how horrible the shooting of Philando Castile appears.  No condemnation is necessary, simply the acknowledgement that - based on facts as currently known - this looks like a "bad shoot" and that all citizens should be secure in their second amendment rights.  Similarly, Al Sharpton needs to get in front of cameras TODAY and say how horrific the murders of 5 Dallas police officers last night were - especially if they were based on race.  Again, he does not need to indict everyone in the #BLM movement, simply acknowledge the evil of last night.  The head of CAIR needs to get in front of cameras TODAY and explain how the Islamic community rejects acts of violence and will turn its back on terrorists.

This would help healing begin.  People would be able to back down from this cliff.

The other way, the way I think more likely, is horrific.  There are over 300 million residents in the United States of America.  According to this source, as of 2015, at least 41% of households (2 out of every five) owned guns that the government knows about.  It is safe to assume, when illegal or unregistered (for whatever reason) weapons are taken into account, half the nation is armed.  There are more guns in private circulation in the United States than there are people.

If we do not back off the cliff, if we don't start seeing each other simply as humans and Americans, then the other way for this balkanization to stop is a literal civil war.  The War Between the States was not a civil war (civil war is one where one or more factions are vying for control of a government, the War Between the States was one where one group of states wanted to be out from under the control of the central government).  It was also relatively "clean" (one Northern General's March to the Sea and resulting war crimes notwithstanding).  Civilian populations (exception noted) were generally considered off limits.  Prisoners were generally treated with respect and relative care.

What will come next, if we don't stop it, will be a civil war and it will not be clean.  The only populations will be civilian populations.  Simply being a non-combatant will not grant you safety from being targeted.  Blood will quite literally run in the streets.  This great nation that (I hope) we all love will tear itself apart, and the light and freedom she represents will be extinguished, possibly never to return.

I'm not a child.  I know that Al Sharpton and I will likely never see eye to eye on most issues.  I know that Mohammedanism (world wide) will not reject terrorism overnight.  I know that police are not going to cease making mistakes - some of them quite horrible - just because we "want it real hard."

I also know that if we don't start trying to fix this now, my children will not know the relative peace and freedom that I have known.  I know that if we don't find some way to realize that we are all human, Created Equal and endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, we're going to lose everything we hold dear.

Pray for America.  Pray for reconciliation.  And then act to achieve it.

#Brexit and Donald Trump

First: Congratulations to the People of Great Britain for their courage and commitment to self-rule and local governance.  I'm glad they voted to leave the European Union; it's in their best interests.  The days ahead will be hard, and at every bump in the road talking heads will tell them how "it's their own fault" for choosing independence.  To a degree they're right: independence, self-rule, these things are hard and not without difficulty.  But they are worth far more than the fake "security" of being ruled from afar.

As the English withdrawal from the European Union is analyzed and constantly second-guessed, let me submit to you that it was inevitable, and it shows that Donald Trump has a much better chance to win in November than the Talking Heads would have you believe.  See, I believe that Brexit and the Rise of Trump are both based on the same thing - the realization by the People that their so-called leaders have failed in their actual duties.

National governments have basically two jobs - ensure a "level playing field" inside their borders and protecting their citizens from non-citizens.  That's it.  Both of these are predicated on one foundational idea that the West seems determined to abandon: "Us First."  A nation's government should always, as its first priority, put the well-being and interests of its citizens over the well-being and interests of non-citizens. 

Whether that's non-naturalized immigrants living within its population, foreign threats, foreign business, or even just healthy old international competition, a national government's first priority should be "what is in the best interests of my citizens?"

That's a harder question to answer sometimes that it might seem.  Are trade terriffs on imports good?  How about a lax or strict immigration policy?  What about (any given) war?  Not always easy.

Sometimes, however, it is easy.  Is illegal immigration good for a nation's citizens, or bad?  Bad.  There's not even a question here.  Is unchecked immigration from majority muslim countries good, or bad?  Bad.  Again, not even a question - when your best answer is "we don't know they're a threat," you're not arguing that it's good, just that it might not be as bad as feared.  Ergo: bad.

Now, most people don't even think of these things in these terms.  I'm pretty sure the average Englishman doesn't think in terms of terriffs and duties, or immigration policy.  What they do think of is: how easy it is to find a job (harder with lax immigration, and even harder with massive illegal immigration)?  How good is my standard of living (worse with poor trade policy and massive immigration)?  How safe am I in my home (worse with Muslim Terrorists moving easily about the globe, worse with illegal immigrants)?

And that brings us back to our own shores and Donald Trump.  Donald Trump resonantes with people because he understands* these things.  He understands them in his bones.  Look at his campaign slogan: "Make America Great Again."  That says it all in four words.  America was great "before."  What is "before?"  Well, that's up to the individual.  But it's not great now.  So let's make it great again. 

Let's put Americans first.  Let's say that the well being of American businesses, the American worker, is more important to us than the well being of Iraqis, Afghans, Israelis, Austrialians, the British, Canadians, or anyone else.  Let's get control of our borders - all four of them, and stop importing unskilled workers to compete with our own unskilled workforce (what, you think we didn't have one?  Everyone starts "unskilled").  Let's stop immigration from majority Muslim countries - we owe them nothing - until either Mohammedanism can tamp down on its more violent tendencies or we can find a way to screen out the terrorists.  Let's stop engaging in wars to benefit others and not ourselves.  If American boys and girls are going to die, let's make it to the benefit of the country they serve, and not just someone else.

And that's where the leaders of Great Britain (not the EU) and the United States have failed.  By allowing massive immigration (usually without requiring assimilation), we import unskilled workers to compete with our own unskilled workforce.  The EU member nations are importing terrorists - and it won't be too long before one gets over here.  The so-called leadership of Great Britain and the United States has failed to put their own citizens first, and the citizens are crying "no more."

Of course, they also said (as late as yesterday), that the Brexit would fail.

Will Donald Trump win in November?  I don't know.  People are saying he has no chance.


* - Understanding is not the same as agreeing with or supporting.  Personally, I believe he does both, but whether or not he agrees with or believes in "America First," it is clear that he - unlike the talking heads and Washington Establishment - at least understands it.

Don't Give in to the Lie

In a famous episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, Captain Picard is taken prisoner by the Romulans and subjected interrogation and attempted brain-washing.  The brain-washing attempt is fairly direct and simple and, I'm given to understand, is actually more or less how brain-washing works - get the victim to agree to something they know to be false.  Get them to agree to a lie.

Eventually, he responds one last time (just before being rescued): "There... are... FOUR... lights!"

Well, America is being brain-washed right now.  As I type this, you are being asked - even coerced - to agree to a lie: that a man can be a woman, or that a woman can be a man.

And I am here to proclaim- there are four lights.

Honestly, I'm not even sure why this is an issue, but suddenly it seems you can't turn around without tripping over someone decrying how it's unfair that men can't use women's restrooms.  It's unfair, we're told, that transgender people are "barred" from using the restroom "of the gender they identify with."  And if you bring up the idea that, hey, maybe some pervs will use reduced scrutiny to engage in their pervishness, you'll get two responses:  1) "Oh, that won't happen."  and 2) "Pervs are going to be perverted anyway, our rules can't bend to them."

Without addressing either of these responses directly (because they're both stupid and I don't have time to waste on such stupidity), it is important to see the hidden premise behind them - that transgender people really ARE transgender.  That is, that they're really in the "wrong" body.

This is absolute nonsense.  To explain, we first have to clear some things up.

First off, there is the fact that "gender" really is a social construct, and it is mostly tied to masculinity and femininity.  That is why in many Latinate languages, nouns have a gender (and the rules seem weird to us).  Gender has nothing to do with your biology, and really has nothing directly to do with any specific human.  Humans do not have a "gender."  Humans, being sexual beings (that is: we reproduce sexually) have a sex.

Which leads into the next part: you can't be the wrong sex.  Sex is a biological constant.  With such few exceptions that I'm offended I have to mention them, humans are born with two sex chromosomes - the X chromosome and the Y chromosome.  These can be paired in two ways - XX or XY.  If you have two X chromosomes, you're what we call "female" and if you've got an X and a Y you're what we call "male."  This is a biological fact which does not change in our lifetime.  If you believe you are the wrong sex it is your belief - not your sex - which is wrong.

Now, there is nothing inherently evil or immoral about having a mistaken belief about your own biology.  There's not even anything inherently evil or immoral about dressing as though you were the opposite sex.  Assuming you are someone who has a mistaken belief about your own biology and who dresses as though you are the opposite sex, there is nothing inherently evil or immoral about using the restroom of the opposite sex.

I don't think any conservative will disagree with the above statements.  What a conservative says is this:  "I should not be bound by your mistaken belief."  It should be obvious that anyone with such a mistaken belief is not viewing the same reality as the rest of us.  If you have a penis and you think you're a girl, you're not wrong in the way that someone who thinks the earth is flat is wrong (though you're not far off); you're wrong in the way that someone who thinks they're a duck is wrong.  You, in short, have a delusion.

And it is no kindness for society to indulge your delusion.  Deluded people are crazy; who knows what they'll do next?  I would be as uncomfortable in a restroom with a girl who thinks she's a guy as I would be in a restroom with some dude who was talking to the sky about how the aliens were never going to take him alive again.

So tell me, why does the deluded person's "comfort" trump my own?  Why does he (or she) get to be "comfortable" while I must be uncomfortable?  Why must objective reality comport itself to his (or her) subjective unreality?

By the way, the secret that the Progressives don't want you to realize?  Real "passing" transvestites have been using the restroom of their choice without molestation or objection for decades.  With the possible exception of random bigots no one harassed them, and even then, the bigots could only harass them if they knew.  So this isn't about them.  This isn't about "Elsa" who was born John but has been passing as a woman for five years and you never knew.  This is about "Fran" who has more hair on "her" back and arms than a gorilla and whose wang hangs out of "her" micro-miniskirt.

A Once Proud Organization

I am the Committee Chair of a Cub Scout Pack.  I knew this was coming.  Nevertheless I find myself saddened not only by the decision, but by the fact that the decision was made public before it was disseminated to local Scout Leadership.  Whether this lack of communication is a failure at the National Council or my local council I do not know, but I do know that it is a failure.

The bigger failure, however, is the decision itself.

On my Honor, I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country, to obey the scout law, to help other people at all times, to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.

A Scout Is: Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean, and Reverent.

Whatever you believe about homosexuality, it is clear that homosexual behavior (separated by act of free will from homosexual urges or proclivities) is sin.  Indeed, being “openly gay,” is an active choice to live in sin – to engage in that homosexual behavior.

Whatever you believe about homosexuality, you cannot be doing your duty to God, you cannot be morally straight, and you cannot be reverent if you are choosing to engage in homosexual behavior.

Whatever you believe about homosexuality, those three things: duty to God, morality, and reverence are part of being a Scout.  It is one thing to allow openly homosexual children.  I believe it is sick on many levels to assume that children of 12 or 13 can *be* homosexual in any meaningful way, but allowances can and should be made for Scouts.  They are, after all, still learning about that duty to God.  Leadership, however, must be held to the strictest standards.

The Scouts do not allow consumption of alcoholic beverages at scout functions.  Why?  Is it because alcohol is morally wrong?  Is it because duty to God or Country requires one to abstain from drinking?  Certainly not.  The Scouts do not allow consumption of alcoholic beverages because it is unwise.

Openly homosexual leadership is beyond unwise.  It is undermining the very Oath and Law we expect these boys to uphold.  It is proving to them, in a way words will never be able to overcome, that the Oath and Law are “just words,” and have no meaning.  It is proving to them that morality is based on convenience, and duty to God ends at doors of the church building.

What is worse about this decision is this: the homosexual lobby will not stop with this success.  We already have proof of this.  It will not be enough that religious charter organizations can decide about their own leadership.  Ask Sweet Cakes in Oregon.  Ask Memories Pizza.  Ask any of dozens of photographers, bakers, and caterers who have been forced by the homosexual lobby with the assistance of the government to act in ways contrary to their consciences.  Ask the homosexual lobby itself- the lobby already calling for the end of tax-exempt status for churches which do not support homosexual unions.

The Boy Scouts of America had won in court many times – as a private organization, they were under no requirement to accept homosexual leadership.  Now they have thrown that away.  Obviously the Boy Scouts of America no longer find it necessary to their charter to restrict homosexual parents to non-leadership roles.  How much defense will local charter organizations and local packs have when the homosexual lobby comes again demanding acceptance?

Banning History

 

After the Colonies rebelled against England and won their independence, they operated for a time under the Articles of Confederation.  This first attempt at founding an association of free states proved unworkable, and a new Constitution was created.  That Constitution enshrined slavery, counted slaves as 3/5 of a person, and would not have been passed if it had not.  At the time of its passage, the issue of slavery was already contentious, and one of the compromises necessary to see its adoption was that for a certain period, the new Federal government would not address the issue.

As time progressed, the northern states- largely industrial- became even less dependent upon slave labor (though many prominent Northerners still had slaves) and the South – largely agrarian – did not.  As slavery became more repugnant to more people, it is perhaps not surprising that this caused a schism between the two groups.  And perhaps this would have been handled diplomatically, but, for various reasons, it was not.

Now, it is important to understand that the Civil War did not start over slavery.  Read the words of the people who were there.  Even those in the North did not believe slavery was the reason for the war.  Certainly it was a reason for the war.  Certainly had slavery been abolished voluntarily by all parties, there would have been less reason for the war.  But there still would have been reason for it.

The Southern States, already skeptical of the Federal Government, had 50 years of grievances about what they saw as Federal Overreach.  The election of Abraham Lincoln and the still new Republican party – on a forced abolition platform – was a sign to the Southern States that the North no longer respected their sovereignty.  They seceded.  A war between the states was waged.

Now, this little history lesson is not a defense of slavery, which was and is a hateful institution.  It is not a defense of the Republican party, which is and has been the party of Liberty and Union.  It is a defense of Honor.  Whatever you think of their motives – and, again, slavery in and of itself was not at issue – the Confederates were noble, honorable, and courageous.  We in the south venerate those heroes who were willing to die for what they believed.

Fast forward to today.  A crazy racist killed nine men and women in Charleston, South Carolina.  A picture was found with him holding the flag commonly referred to as the Confederate Flag, more accurately referred to as the Confederate Battle Flag, and most accurately referred to as the Virginia Army Flag.  And Progressives, some looking for anything to blame other than the criminal, others seizing main chance, immediately blamed the flag for the despicable act.

Showing an unfortunate lack of historical knowledge, Mitt Romney called for the removal of the flag from the South Carolina State House grounds.  Reacting, I must hope, more on fear than on principle, South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley called for its removal.

Were that all that had happened, this post would not exist, but it is not all that has happened.  Since those two misguided announcements, the furor over the flag has grown.  Stores like Wal-Mart and Amazon stopped selling renditions of the flag.  Apple removed all games which contain the now-hated symbol from it’s app store.  Apparently representing history is now a hate crime.  People have called for the destruction of statues and monuments to Confederate figures.

This is sad and amazing to me.  Forget the flag itself – the history lesson was only to show that there is proper reverence which can be shown for it – this “Ban All the Things” mentality is dangerous and un-American.  Capitulation to these demands is even more dangerous and un-American.  It sets a precedent – one I do not believe we wish to set.

Today it is a symbol which can honestly be viewed as a symbol of hate and racism (I do not deny that the flag has picked up those connotations).  But more than that, it is calls to erase history.  The Gettysburg museum has removed all of its merchandise with the symbol.  Where does it stop?

For Progressives, it doesn’t.  Today it is the flag and some monuments.  What will it be tomorrow?  There are already calls for more “gun control” laws, as though they would have done anything to stop this horrific crime.  Karl Rove has said that the only gun control strong enough would be complete confiscation – and he is wrong, even that would not be enough.

They want to ban our Right to act on our beliefs.

They want to ban our Right to say what we think.

They want to ban our Right to defend ourselves – both from criminals and from tyrants.

The longer we wait to tell them, “no,” the harder it will be to do, and the more likely we will either be forced into silence, or be forced into violence.

On Virtue

We make men without chests and expect from them virtue and enterprise.  We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst 

--C.S. Lewis The Abolition of Man

It is often said that Conservatives can't simply be "against" things, we have "to have a positive message."  Many Conservatives then protest that we *do* have a positive message, it just gets drowned out because we have to oppose all the cultural rot, or the Progressive agenda, or whatever.

While there is a point there, it must be said that our message *does* get drowned out.  So it is good, from time to time, to remember what it is we are for.  But what are Conservatives for?  What do we want to "conserve?"

I would suggest that Conservatives are for Virtue.  Honor, Courage, Justice, Thrift, Sobriety, and Industry are character traits seemingly in short supply.  Anyone who argues against government expansion, but does argue for personal virtue is arguing for chaos.

John Adams is quoted as saying "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

We have fallen into the trap C.S. Lewis mentioned in The Abolition of man.  Every "advancement" of the progressive era has served to remove virtue.  Welfare has assaulted industry and thrift.  The Left's assault on self-defense (see also: Martin, Trayvon) is an assault on courage.  Every HBO or Showtime show seems to be an assault on sobriety, and often justice.

The results have been predictable.  A society which will not maintain its own virtue will require an ever growing government.  A People which does not practice Honor and Justice will become a police-state.  A People which does not practice Thrift, Sobriety, and Industry, will become one constantly on the verge of economic disaster.

Conservatives seek to promote Virtue.  A People of Personal Virtue are a people who do not need a big government.

An American Movie

So I finally got to see American Sniper on Friday (I have an awesome wife: she took me for Valentine’s day).  A lot of ink has been spilled, and a lot of pixels lit about this movie, so there’s not a lot I can add.  But I do think there’s one thing- a something at the back of all the hate on one side, and love on the other, for this movie.

This is an exceedingly American movie.  Heck, you could almost imagine it was John Wayne playing Chris Kyle.  Okay, Bradley Cooper is a better actor than John Wayne really was (no offense to the Duke, but he cycled through about 3 characters), but the point stands.  This wasn’t a “war movie,” it was a warrior movie.  This was not about a soldier in Iraq.  It was about a soldier in Iraq.  And at home.

I think this is simultaneously what repels the Left and draws the Right.  Chris Kyle is not portrayed as a good man.  He is not some D&D Paladin.  He is not Galahad.  If anything he is Lancelot.  And I think he’s more Gawain.

There were more “fucks” in the first ten minutes of the movie than I think I’ve heard in a year.  Kyle is portrayed as the worst kind of cowboy (early on, at least), and later his violent nature overcomes him at a family picnic.  No, Chris Kyle was not portrayed as a good man.  He was, however, absolutely portrayed as a man on the side of Good.

It was clear in the movie, and is even more so in the book, that Chris Kyle took threats to his fellow servicemen, and to his country, very personally.  He was a hero in every sense that mattered.  And the Left hates the movie for it.

To the Left it lacks “nuance.”  It lacks “even handedness.”  It is “black and white.”

To the Right it lacks nuance, even handedness, and it is black and white.

In many both sides are separated by a common sense of the movie.

The Greatest Command

He answered, "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"

I've been think about this, the Greatest Commandment, a lot recently.  What does it mean?  How do we obey it?  How are heart, soul, and mind different?

We get a lot of advice on how to love one's neighbor as one's self, but not a whole lot on how to love God with all our heart, soul, strength, and mind.  And, while I was thinking about that, I realized something.  I'm fat.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not confined to a chair or anything.  Many people would probably not give my weight a second thought.  Sure, I look overweight, but in modern America, who notices that?  We notice when people aren't far more than we notice when people are.  Fat is just how things are, right?

But God recently hit me with the clue-bat.  See, I have a family history of diabetes so I happen to know that one of the warning signs is being constantly thirsty, especially when you've been drinking water anyway.  And this is where I find myself right now.  Which is kind of scary.

But that got me thinking, in light of the Greatest Commandment, how have I been loving God with my strength?

And the answer came back: I'm not.

I will here stipulate that I do not think I can "lift weights for God."  I don't think getting ripped like a certain Australian actor in a certain comic book movie about a certain Norse god is the objective.

Nevertheless I am convicted that being fat, unable to climb or descend stairs without breathing heavily, and so out of shape that even thinking of walking down to the park is exhausting is *not* what God intended.

I have already told some that I'm starting on a journey of small steps to a new me.  This is a slow life-style change that I hope will get me into better shape.  I had decided that before the clue-bat struck. 

I want to challenge you to think on the same thing.  I'm very cerebrial.  I live in my own head a lot.  Loving God with my mind is not difficult for me.  I'm still not completely sure on the difference between heart and soul, but I find my passion for God growing every day, lately, so I'll chalk that up as a win.  But in modern America, with our computers and cell phones and tablets and cars and... well, that whole "strength" thing doesn't mean as much to us anymore.

So I am committing to love God with my strength by first *building* my strength.

How are you loving God with your strength?

NBC - "Charity is Bad"

Apparently, to the intellectual vapor-weights at NBC, Government Welfare is good, but private charity is bad.  That is the only take-away I can get from this piece about the West, TX fertilizer plant explosion.  You see, since Texas is a low tax, low spending, low regulation state, most of the victims of the blast are having to *gasp* rely on relatives, friends, and their community to get back on their feet.

Some of them -prepare yourselves, this is shocking- may even receive charitable (that is: "free") health care.

If only there were some way that taxpayers could involuntarily be put on the hook for... these things... that... they're already getting?

Seriously, I don't get what NBC (or the "experts" they sought out) thinks is wrong here.  Why should people in Beaumont or Amarillo be on the hook (involuntarily) for a fertilizer plant explosion in West?  Charitable contributions are pouring in.  Even NBC acknowledges that.  No one is going to the State with their hand out and being turned away- no one is going to the State with their hand out.  By way of example:

“I haven’t had any calls requesting assistance,” said Eva Cruz Hamby, who heads health services for McLennan County.

No.  Calls. For.  Assistance.

And somehow this is bad?

Of course it is.  If the nation heard about this in a positive light- a community, state, and nation coming together without any appreciable government assistance, people might get the idea that the Government shouldn't be in the charity business.  We can't let the Knights of Columbus and the Red Cross take care of everything; people might decide that those taxes that are going to various offices of emergency management, or paying for FEMA might be being wasted or something.  Heaven forbid that the American people be self-reliant and able to take care of their own affairs without Government intervention.

In its breathless reporting that nearly 1/4 of Texans don't have health insurance, it simply glosses over the fact that 100% of them have access to health care.  Every county has a county hospital which will provide care regardless of ability to pay.  Even most private hospitals (not-for-profit or otherwise) will do the same.  For the times when that isn't enough, other charities pay for people, neighbors help neighbors.

But to the idiots at NBC, this is a bad thing.  Because it proves the lie that the Government must be responsible for taking care of you.

Where We're Headed

CNBC has a story about the EU "saving the banks but losing a generation."  It's a stark and startling insight into how they got where they are, and where we are headed if we don't fix things.

Forget the debt crisis.  Forget the austerity riots.  One quote sums up all the problems they're having, and that we will have:
"We saved the banks but are running the risk of losing a generation," said Martin Schulz, a German socialist who has led the European Parliament, the EU's only directly elected institution, since January last year.

"One of the biggest threats to the European Union is that people entirely lose their confidence in the capacity of the EU to solve their problems. And if the younger generation is losing trust, then in my eyes the European Union is in real danger," he told Reuters in an interview.

Think about that for a moment.  "One of the biggest threats to the European Union is that people entirely lose their confidence in the capacity of the EU to solve their problems."

Let's break this down.
First: His statement assumes that the EU could solve anyone's problems anyway.  No government can solve people's problems.  The EU less than most, since it is not really a government in any meaningful sense anyway.  Even if the government could solve your problem, it could only do so by causing someone else a problem.

Second: His statement completely ignores where people got this fallacious idea in the first place: the Statist policies of Marx and others who believed that Government should "do something."  The idea of Government "doing something," is one that says the Government should be your parent, your nanny, and your boss.  Nothing you do can escape government control.

If the EU wants to fix its unemployment crisis it must take the opposite tack.  Get government as far out of people's lives as possible.  Yes, the lesson will be painful- as many such lessons are.  But it will be better for them in the long run if people realize that it is their job to care for themselves, not the government's job to "solve their problems."

And we are on the same path.  This same theory that the government should "solve [our] problems" is what drives the Democrat party.  It is the theory that says we must take from those who have succeeded and give to those who have failed.  It is the theory that says the Government can, let alone should, mandate that people engage in a specific economic activity.  It is the theory that says people chosen for government service are somehow more special, more qualified, more Human than everyone else, and so only they should be allowed the right to defend themselves.

We must return to the individualism of our past.  We must return to that pioneer spirit that said, "I'll take care of myself.  If I absolutely can't, my family will help."  We must return to the ideas of self-reliance and self-sufficiency.

And we will.  One way or another it will happen.  Either we will change voluntarily and relatively painlessly, or we will change reluctantly and very painfully.  In either case, reality will not be denied. 

We're like a house of cards built on an earthquake generator, and someone's hand is on the switch.  Either we unplug the generator, or we'll all come crashing down.

Liberal Locusts

No, not grasshoppers.  Locusts.

Yesterday, I talked about liberals being the prison guards (and sometimes willful prisoners) in Socrates' Cavern.  Today, I want to look at the idea of Liberals as Locusts.

What do I mean?  Well, like Locusts, Liberals (especially Rich Liberals, but all of them really) like Big Government.  They vote for big government, and a huge welfare state.  As a result, the government then hikes taxes, and institutes all kinds of nanny-state regulations, strangling business.  Eventually (sometimes slowly, sometimes quickly) the state begins to fail, all of the resources have been exploited, and Liberals move on to the next state.

For instance: in the 60's, California was a relatively Conservative state.  Ronald Reagan was Governor there beginning in 1967 (elected in 66).  He enacted welfare reform (which increased benefits, but decreased recipients).  Reagan was then succeeded by Jerry Brown (yes, that Jerry Brown) in 1974.  Thus began the swift decline of California.  Taxes went up, services went up, taxes went up some more.  And now businesses and "the rich" are fleeing California in droves.

If this were the only example, it might be accepted as an anomaly.  It is not the only example, however.

In the 1990s and early 2000s (and probably before) Colorado was a fairly conservative state.  They voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004, for example.  However, during those years many of those same Californians fleeing the decline of their State saw Colorado as a prosperous state, and decided they wanted some of that.  So they moved there.  Lucky for Colorado, they had already passed a Constitutional Amendment capping growth in Government Spending.  Nevertheless, Colorado, once a reliable Red State, is now reliably blue.  They voted overturned their Republican majorities in 2006.  In 2008 and 2012 they voted for Barack Obama. 

The amount of damage Colorado can suffer (currently) is fairly low.  Because of that prior law, there's only so much money the State has to spend, which limits the monkeying with their taxes somewhat.  All it takes, though, is a repeal of that Amendment, and the Democrats will be truly loosed on the State.

We can look to the East as well.  New York Liberals are fleeing to Florida, making it more Liberal as well.

In both of these cases, when they finally use up all the resources there, they will look elsewhere.  Perhaps my own Texas.  Perhaps Oklahoma.

This is part of the Liberal Ideology.  I don't believe there is any specific plan, here, but it is inherent in how Liberals think.  They believe they are entitled to all of these "services" and so force the Government (really: other taxpayers) to provide them.  When there is no more wherewithal to provide them, or the cost to themselves gets too high, they move on.  And they never learn that the only thing not changing in all of this is their own policies.

Federalism FTW!

Ace links this Meade piece about the Republicans new "Red State Model" strategy.  The idea seems to be that Red States should (hold on to your seats, you won't believe the radicalness of this idea)- act like Red States.

If Conservatives in Red States really believe that lower taxes, lower regulations, and less government interference are good for the economy, they should try it and see.  I believe we call that "Federalism," and I believe it was the idea behind having a Federation of States, rather than a single National Government. 

Commenter Toby928 over at the HQ has this to say:

I want something even more radical, let Texas or some other red state go full 10th Amendment and refuse both Federal largess and Federal mandates. Secede in place, as it were.

I agree there, too.  Push actual Federalism.  Refuse Federal funds along with the strings they have attached.

Yes, it would suck.  It would suck because that money is going to DC anyway, and it's going to be spent anyway.  It would suck because we'd see more DC Politicians getting rich off our money.  It would suck because more of our money would be diverted to other states (someone explain, again, why a man in Texas is responsible for the health care of someone in New York?).  It would suck because people here would scream when some of their free stuff got taken away.

Nevertheless it would be right.  And if Texas led the way, other states may well follow.  And if enough States followed, we might see some actual change at the Federal Level, and a shift back to the Federalist System the Founders prescribed.

Another I Told You So

Hmmm... what could possibly be wrong with diagnosing "grief and anxiety" as mental illnesses?  I mean, beyond the fact that's just stupid?

Oh, and over here I remember that the SCOAMT promised that his administration would crack down on the mentally ill getting guns.  Apropos of nothing, of course.

My mother often calls me a pessimist.  She says I look on the bad side of things and should really endeavor to see the good instead.  I tell her that Endeavour doesn't fly anymore.  After she rolls her eyes, I tell her that I'm not a pessimist.  It's not that I look at things as they are and say "Doom, gloom, and agony on me," rather I'm a cynic in that I always expect people to act in their own self-interest (that is: selfishly), and a realist in that I realize that is never going to change.

When I wrote that piece, I said this:

Do you know how easy it is for the DSM-V to be modified based on politics?  Congratulations, owners of multiple guns.  You can now be diagnosed as mentally-ill.

Okay, I know that diagnosing children as mentally ill is not exactly the same as calling any owner of multiple guns a psychopath, but they end up with the same result.  People who are not sick (most of them) being forever branded as "mentally ill."  Oh, and incidentally denied their second amendment rights as a result, at least potentially.

I do neither deny nor doubt that mental illness really exists, is a real thing, and that people with mental illnesses need treatment.  What I do reject is any so obviously fuzzy realm of science being given the authority of canon by way of a "manual."  Too many people look at the DSM-V as writ gospel regarding mental health, when we really know nothing about the brain.  We don't know why some medications work for some people, and not others.  Some medications for depression, if given to the wrong person, can actually make their depression worse.  Yet we are told by these same people that grief and anxiety (normal reactions to, say, the death of a loved one) are reason to be concerned about mental illness.

I'm not even going to say that there aren't times that someone's "grief" can go on too long and become a chronic thing that needs real help (though I'm guessing the times it needs to be treated with medication are few and far between).

What I am going to say is that this is proof that the DSM-V is a highly political manual.  It doesn't always and exclusively change because of advances in science; it frequently changes based on "best guesses" and, not infrequently, politics and a social agenda.

Which makes the SCOAMT's Imperial Pronouncements last week especially troubling.

Causal Confusion

You've probably heard or seen commercials from the National Association of Realtors about "the benefits of home ownership."  These include better grades for kids, more cohesive family units, higher employment, and unicorns (I think I made that last one up).  To hear them tell it, if everyone just bought a house, everything would be better. 

Even granting them the best of motives, this is irresponsible advertising and giving people false expectations.  And I don't grant them the best of motives.

You see, the premise of these commercials is a fallacious conflation of causal relationships.  For my Liberal readers: it gets cause and effect backwards.

In the early days of my blog, I addressed it this way: frugality fosters wealth, not the other way around.  You see, the fact is that couples who are committed to each other and their children, who work hard and save money, and who have the personal habits associated with those things will tend to own homes.  It is not owning the home that makes them committed and hard working.  Exactly the opposite, it's the commitment and hard work that makes them good candidates for home ownership.

Unfortunately, this disease does not simply effect the NAR.  It seems to have spread everywhere.  Colleges tell you that getting a degree will enhance your prospects, when the truth is (especially in this age of degrees in Underwater Basket Weaving), that the kind of people who are likely to be successful are the same ones who will tend to get college degrees.  More over, they will tend to get STEM degrees, not Liberal Arts degrees.

This really gets to the heart of our "because I deserve it!" society.  We have ceased being a society of personal responsibility and liberty- the society that built this nation into the greatest on earth- and have become a society of "steps to success" and "easy money."  Our grandparents and great-grandparents did not believe that there were certain steps that would lead to wealth and prosperity.  Rather they realized that accomplishing certain goals would require certain steps.  Our parents, for various reasons, began getting that backward, and they imparted that to my generation. 

Now, people believe that if they go to college, they are owed a job when they graduate.  They believe that once they sign to purchase a house, they are owed prosperity and a good school and a job.

It's completely backwards, and it will change.  The only question is if it will change because we, as a society, set out to change it, or if it will change because the gods of the copy-book headings will force it on us.

#CultureWar: Madison Rising

Welcome to the first in a new post category for Dedicated Tenther.  #CultureWar will focus on Conservatives in the trenches in the Culture War.  Mostly this will focus on music, because that's where we're best represented.

If you have tips about any #CultureWar soldiers (that would be: entertainers who are conservative, and not shy about it) please send them my way.

****

Madison Rising is a Conservative Rock (yes, apparently this is a genre) band.  You've probably heard or seen their version of the Star Spangled Banner.  That's only the tip of their rock and roll iceberg.  You can buy their music (please do) via the iTunes store or CD Baby, or you can just donate to the band via Pay-Pal (but why, when they're music is so good?).

I've listened to some of their music, and I have to say it's good.  This is not a case of a band receiving praise because they're trying to fill a niche I see needs to be filled, but because they fill it well.  Just as conservatives can listen to liberal weenies like (insert band here) and just enjoy the music, anyone can just listen to Madison Rising for some good hard rock and roll.

Their Star Spangled Banner is below the fold.  Go check 'em out and send them some of your coin.

Beware Liberals Bearing Newspeak

I normally pay the amount of attention to Cory Booker that one would more readily associate with one's appendix function.  However, when FotB tsrblke sent me this on twitter, I just couldn't help myself.

Time to mock a self-important liberal douche mercilessly.

Let's start where he does:

This morning, I will begin living on a food budget of $30 a week / $4.32 per day.  This is the financial equivalent of the budget provided to people participating in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as food stamps, in the State of New Jersey.  I will live only on a SNAP equivalent food budget for the next seven days.

Okay, first off, what part of "supplemental" didn't you understand, Mr. Booker?  The assumption is that SNAP will not be the only way you're paying for your groceries.  The assumption is that you will have some other form of income- a job, disability, or some other form of government assistance.  Proving that you'll have a hard time living on an amount you were never intended to live on proves precisely nothing, you self-important sub-moron.

Next:

A Twitter user tweeted me her opinion that "nutrition is not the responsibility of the government".  This comment caused me to reflect on the families and children in my community who benefit from SNAP assistance and deserve deeper consideration.  In my own quest to better understand the outcomes of SNAP assistance, I suggested to this specific Twitter user that we both live on a SNAP equivalent food budget for a week and document our experience.

So are you saying that nutrition is the responsibility of the government?  You do realize, do you not, that anything that is the government's "responsibility" is also theirs to withhold?  Also, I sincerely doubt that anyone in Cory Booker's "community" relies on SNAP for their groceries.  Whether or not they receive it is a different matter, but I sincerely doubt anyone around him relies on $30/week for their food.

My goals for the #SNAPChallenge are to raise awareness and understanding of food insecurity; reduce the stigma of SNAP participation; elevate innovative local and national food justice initiatives and food policy; and, amplify compassion for individuals and communities in need of assistance.

This just might be his most ignorant quote.  And that's saying something.  First off, "food insecurity" is something dreamt up by the loony left.  The idea of 21+ meals a week is due directly to American affluence.  Most cultures in the world still get by on one or two meals a day.  I don't wish that on anyone, but let's not pretend that starvation is some big problem in America.  It's certainly not a big enough problem that Government needs to get involved.

As for reducing "the stigma of SNAP participation?"  Seriously?  We want to reduce the stigma of living off the government teet?  How about we increase the stigma?  How about people who have to rely on forcing their neighbors to provide their meals have a little bit of shame?  Relying on the benevolence of others should be humbling, at least, and "shaming" is not going too far.

"Food justice initiative?"  Seriously, now he's just throwing random words together.  What the heck is "food justice?"  Is everyone now entitled to a pound of Swish Shard per week?  Is having a rib eye the new desegregation?

As for compassion, hows this?  Give to food banks.  Give to local charities.  Cory Booker is not a poor man.  The Tarrant County Food Bank can feed three people for a dollar.  How about, instead of this stupid "#SNAPChallenge," he uses that $30/week to feed 10 people per week?  How does that sound?  But, of course, it's not about charity and compassion, it's about an ever-growing government, and the need that Liberals have for Government to "take care" of people 24/7/365 from cradle to grave.  Nevermind the resulting loss of Liberty.

We'll end here:

We have much work to do at the local level to address a legacy of structural inequities in the American food system.  As more and more working people and families - many holding down more than one job - face greater and greater challenges to juggle housing, medical, and transportation costs, meeting nutritional needs becomes a serious problem and a social justice issue.

What "legacy of structural inequities?"  Unless he really does mean that everyone should be entitled to their weekly rib eye, I have no idea what he's talking about.  As for those "working people and families" that are "holding down more than one job," don't they, by definition, have more income than just $30/wk to buy groceries?  And before I cry about their challenges to juggle "housing, medical, and transportation costs," I think I want an accounting of where their money goes.  Do they have ipads?  Iphones?  Is Mr. Booker perhaps unaware that health insurance premiums have gone up $2,500 per year for families since the very beginnings of Obamacare, and that they'll be going up any more?  I wonder about Mr. Booker's take on repealing ObamaCare so that those "working people and families" might be able to keep that $2,500/yr for themselves?

Let. It. Burn.

House Republicans are already preparing to capitulate to Barack Obama on tax increases.  When he rejects that offer, then they'll come back with tax increases and another increase to the debt ceiling, providing him everything he wants.  In addition, John Boener and GOP leaders are removing fiscal conservatives from their places on House committees.  This is all just more evidence that the GOP is dead as a conservative party.  So let it burn.

But what does "let it burn" mean?  Well, I think it means different things to different people, so I'll explain what I mean, and you can chime in in the comments (hint, hint).

First, "let it burn" does not mean a complete disengagement.  If it looks like things really can be turned around, we have to be willing to rush to the point of conflict to turn things around.  However, it does mean not spending one more minute defending the Republican party.  Not one more dime sent to the RNC or any Republican incumbent. 

It also means disengaging, as much as possible, from the coming economic collapse.  Taxes are going to go up.  Growth is already anemic, and higher taxes will just cripple the economy further.  This means a collapse is very seriously nigh, and we must be prepared.

We must be prepared for the collapse itself.  This means making as sure as possible that you have the means to take care of your family during the collapse.  Form informal groups and cooperatives with others, banding together to see your families through the tough times ahead.  I have a family farm I hope to have operational before the collapse, if it holds off long enough.  Food, shelter, and clothing are the most important things you can secure.  If you can do that through a job that pays well enough, that's fine.  If you can't, then you need to find a way to provide those things.

We must be prepared for the possible societal collapse.  That sounds alarmist, but it is an entirely possible consequence.  Over 51% of the voting public in the United States voted for Barack Obama, who promised them no end to their free stuff.  Once the economic collapse comes, their free stuff goes away anyway.  With luck, enough progress will be made politically that "the masses" will be willing to wait for economic relief.  If there isn't, then our Society, with 60+ years of class warfare rhetoric, 40+ years of racial warfare rhetoric, and an especially divisive President is ripe for societal unrest.  Part of being prepared for that unrest is the same as being prepared for the economic collapse.  Food, water, shelter.  Add physical safety and you're okay.  Another part, though, is being ready to lead.  Which leads us to the third thing we have to prepare for.

We must be prepared to rebuild.  Whether "just" an economic collapse, or a complete societal collapse, those who have prepared are most likely to come out of the trouble in a better situation.  Their preparations will give them advantages over their unprepared neighbors.  This means those unprepared neighbors will look to them for relief.  Those neighbors will either look to the prepared as leaders, or as targets.  If properly prepared, we can be seen as leaders and guide the rebuilding.

Let it burn is as much a path and strategy as anything.  It requires preparation and commitment.  It is not simple resignation and a complete disengagement from the economy, society, and culture.  It is an acknowledgement that "it" is going to burn anyway, and a prioritization of limited resourced based on that realization.

Bob Costas: Idiot

So, during his spot in last night's Sunday Night Football game between the Dallas Cowboys, who should still fire their GM, and the Philadelphia Eagles, Bob Costas decided to wax eloquent on Gun Control.  In a spot in which he quoted heavily from noted intellectual light-weight Jason Whitlock, Mr. Costas essentially blamed the existence of guns for the deaths of Kansas City Chiefs Line Backer Javon Belcher (suicide) and his live-in girlfriend (and mother of their child) Kasandra Perkins.

If they hadn't owned a gun, Costas opined with Whitlock's words, they might still be alive.  Yes, Mssrs-Highly-Paid-Media-Personalities-Who-Live-In-Very-Safe neighborhoods, because there is no way on earth a six foot tall, or taller, man weighing well north of 200 pounds (and probably not far south of 300) could possibly have killed his girlfriend with, say, a knife.  Nicole Brown Simpson was unavailable for comment.  Failing a knife, he could have used his hands and feet- a means by which you are much more likely to die than any firearm. 

Whatever happened that night, Javon Belcher attacked and murdered his girlfriend.  He then drove to his team's offices, where he shot himself in front of whitnesses.  A man so out of his mind is not suddenly going to reach clarity just because he has to grab a knife, a pipe, a rope, or use his bare hands instead of a gun.

You want to talk about "gun culture?"  Let's look at Virginia, where high fire-arms sales correspond (just coincidentally, I'm sure) with dropping violent crime rates.  Let's look at Texas, Oklahoma, and Arizona, where a "gun culture" of routine ownership has not, somehow, lead to mass murders and the streets running with blood.  Let's look at Michigan, with it's own open-carry law where, excepting the cesspools of Flint and Detroit, you don't exactly have to be afraid to walk to your car at night.

Guns do not cause violence.  Guns do not cause us to "escalate confrontation."  Whatever your beliefs about the Wild West, it wasn't like the movies.  A well armed populace actually decreases violence.  This is especially true when the nature of those weapons is that of the gun- the great equalizer.  As written by Robert E. Howard "Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing."

So spare me your holier-than-thou pontifications about the state of our "gun culture."  Don't try to tell me that violence and murder never existed before the firearm.  Don't try to lay the blame of young Mr. Belcher's actions on the tool he used in their commission.  The blame lies solely with Mr. Belcher, who, for whatever reason, killed the mother of his child, and then himself.

Fighting Back

Okay, so let's assume we're not just going to surrender.  Let's assume we either want to actively attack, or make a strategic retreat to shore up our defenses.  What do would our goals be?  How could we accomplish them.

Goal 1 - Reform Education
This has a couple of different fronts, and we should work on all of them.  Whether we're attacking into Blue areas, or just shoring up the Red, the tactics are largely the same.

1- Run, baby, run.  Are you clean and articulate?  Do you have the fortitude to pound the pavement for several months out of the next year?  Then let me recommend getting plugged in with both your local Tea Party and local GOP groups, then run for a spot on the School Board or your City Council.  It's hard to think much bigger than that, for most people, so let's work on making our local governments as conservative as possible.

Then, support current local politicians who are solidly conservative for State-wide positions, including your State Board of Education.  Let's get Conservative ideas taught in schools. 

2- Let those who can, teach.  Are you moderately successful in your profession, and have a degree?  Are you now unemployed?  Let me recommend an alternative teacher's certification.  Not all States have these, but I'm pretty sure that most do.  This is a teachers certification for people who did not get education degrees.  Different states handle them differently. 

Remember that liberal Government and Economics teacher you had?  Imagine if he had been conservative.  How many high schoolers could have learned solid conservative economic lessons?  Remember when you had to read "Of Mice and Men" in High School?  Imagine if your teacher had been a Conservative using it to teach lessons about personal responsibility and the need of a society to protect itself?

How many times have Conservatives complained about the liberal bent of education?  Well, it won't change if we don't change it.

Goal 2- Reform the Culture
I've mentioned this a couple of times recently, but we really need to get into the culture war and start fighting.  If we want to be taken seriously, we have to act seriously.  Again, I don't think these tactics change much no matter whether you're on the strategic retreat, or the attack side.

1- Conservative culture warriors. We have a plethora of conservatives in entertainment.  Many of them are afraid to 'come out' as conservatives because of what it would mean to their careers.  We need them to step up despite their fear.  We need conservative leaning action movies, dramas, and romantic comedies.  We need conservative TV shows and music.  In return, we need to vociferously defend any entertainer who comes out as conservative, and support them monetarily.

2- Get in the local game.  Your city has a Fourth of July festival.  Your local GOP and/or Tea Party group should sponsor a float and a booth.  Make sure the name of your local GOP or Tea Party group is on the list of sponsors of Christmas toy drives, or Thanksgiving food drives.  Make sure their names show up as sponsors of local 5Ks and bike races.

I think if we could focus on these two goals, using these four tactics, we could make great strides.  Think, if you're a "strategic retreat" type of deep, deep Red States churning out conservatives from their education systems, backed with a culture with which people can identify.  Eventually we would be big enough to attempt the Diaspora without losing our strongholds.  If you're an "attack" type, imagine Purple states turning Pink, and Pink states turning Red as the next generation is reared with conservative ideas.

But whichever side you're on, none of this works if you don't get in the game.

The Culture Wars

Okay, I know I'm screaming into the wind on this one, but I've got to get it off my chest.  Heck, maybe someone who can do something about it will even read it and something might happen.  Stranger things have, after all.  It's rained frogs.

One of the reasons America appears to be a "50/50" nation or a "Center-Right" or (now) "Center-Left" nation is that Conservatives surrendered in the culture wars.  Before they surrendered, they weren't fighting it very well to begin with.  When the culture is Liberal, the electorate will be predisposed to be Liberal. 

Now, I'm not going to waste time saying that the culture is "courser" now than it was.  I'm not going to say we need to return to shows like "Leave it to Beaver," or "Father Knows Best."  For one thing, that horse has already left the stable.  For another, I'm not sure I would recommend it even if it weren't.

No, what we need to do is subvert the culture from within.  We need to take back the schools.  We need to take back music, TV, and movies.  And we need to do it well.

Taking the schools back over is a very tall order, and will take a minimum of 30 years to accomplish.  We need to be encouraging our children to become teachers, and then teach conservative values in the classroom.  I'm not talking about the question of Intelligent Design vs. Evolution, either.  I'm talking focusing on a Conservative take on History.  Were you aware that most factory owners and mine owners were already undertaking to shorten the work week and make things safer for workers before unions came into the picture?  Probably not, because that's not taught.  But it's true.  I'm talking about a Conservative curriculum in the first place- more emphasis on "real-world" math and economics, for instance.  Not everyone needs to learn trigonometry.  Everyone needs to learn how to write, and stick to, a budget.

Interestingly, I believe that taking back music, TV, and movies will actually prove easier than taking back the schools.  For one thing, we already know we have some heavy-weights (and middle-weights) in show-business.  Clint Eastwood is such an icon in Hollywood that he is unassailable even when he talks openly about conservatism.  There are others as well.  They might not be quite as iconic, but there are enough of them that they'd be fine if they'd band together.

Currently, conservative entries in pop-culture (which will eventually just become "culture") are some combination of badly done, poorly funded, and under-exposed.  We need to fix all of those.

The typical "Conservative" film in Hollywood is usually a "film" in every since of the word.  It's usually some high-minded concept piece that few will watch.  Or it's some way-too-sappy movie that, again, few will watch.  What we need are not films, but movies.

We need action movies with explosions, and bad guys dying in impressive ways, and a good guy who is definably conservative.  The Governator has made a few of these, but we need more.  We need zombie movies where stereotypical examples of the things we don't like die in gruesome and inventive ways, while stereotypical examples of things we support win the day through self-sacrifice and teamwork.  We need romantic comedies where the main characters epitomize purity and kindness and all of those things, and the conflict comes from something other than one of them lying to the other, or assuming the worst about the other.

We need to promote bands like Madison Rising who sing a conservative message and do it well.

We need Drama TV shows that follow the ups and downs of (just spit balling here) a corporate investment firm.  We could watch them agonize over decisions and find the best way forward for their own employees.  Or maybe a TV show that follows a small business owner, trying to balance a life at home with family against the needs of the business to make it succeed.  We need comedies where the affable, relatable character is a Conservative, with conservative answers to problems.

I can't do this.  That's not the kind of writing at which I'm any good.  I acknowledge this.  But there are those out there who can do that writing, and who should do that writing.  There are those out there who can fund and produce that kind of entertainment, and they should.  There are those out there who can act, or sing, or whatever- and should.

Start fighting back in the culture, it may be the most important battleground between Liberalism and Conservatism.