The principles that rule this blog

Principles that will govern my thoughts as I express them here (from my opening statement):


  • Freedom of the individual should be as total as possible, limited only by the fact that nobody should be free to cause physical injury to another, or to deprive another person of his freedoms.
  • Government is necessary primarily to provide those services that private enterprise won't, or won't at a price that people can afford.
  • No person has a right to have his own beliefs on religious, moral, political, or other controversial issues imposed on others who do not share those beliefs.

I believe that Abraham Lincoln expressed it very well:

“The legitimate object of government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done, but cannot do, at all, or cannot
so well do, for themselves — in their separate, individual capacities.”


Comments will be invited, and I will attempt to reply to any comments that are offered in a serious and non-abusive manner. However, I will not tolerate abusive or profane language (my reasoning is that this is my blog, and so I can control it; I wouldn't interfere with your using such language on your own!)

If anyone finds an opinion that I express to be contrary to my principles, they are welcome to point this out. I hope that I can make a rational case for my comments. Because, in fact, one label I'll happily accept is rationalist.

Friday, July 25, 2008

Obama dēlendus est!

In the early history of Rome, there was a famous statesman, Marcus Porcius Cato (known as Cato the Elder), who is reputed to have ended every speech with the phrase "Carthagō dēlenda est" ("Carthage must be destroyed"). I'm beginning to feel tempted to end every post with the phrase, "Obama dēlendus est!" (Note the change, appropriate to the masculine subject, which I had planned to make, but which would I'm sure be approved by N. S. Gill, whose blog has a post, "Delenda est" shouldn't be destroyed, about getting the Latin right in using this phrase.)

People have given me many reasons for their support of Obama, just about all of which make me more inclined to oppose him:
  1. His steady pursuit of "change," to the point of its becoming the #1 theme of his campaign. There is a lot about this country that I love and do not want to change. Perhaps some things need to be fixed, but I want most things about the U. S. to stay as they are!

  2. His popularity in Europe: Well, I'm sorry. One difference between the U. S. and Europe is the great popularity of socialism there. While in this country, even the Democratic Party, which favors a lot of socialistic ideas, denies anyone's characterization of it as a socialist party, in Europe, openly socialist parties thrive. And Obama's extreme-left ideas (endorsed by the New Party, after all!) would (not surprisingly) appeal to socialistically-inclined Europeans (and to those who, though perhaps not socialists themselves, are not as unalterably opposed to socialism as Americans are).

  3. This morning someone actually pointed to Obama's being a lawyer as a favorable thing. As if we do not already have enough lawyers in places of high power. One thing about lawyers is that they can argue in favor of anyone and anything, as long as it supports their client; no consideration to whether it's good for their city, state, or nation. That is not the kind of person I want to see leading the country!

  4. And of course, people like his youth and vigor. But this goes with a serious inexperience. Hey, four years ago the man was an obscure Illinois State Senator. And now he wants to be President of the United States? Most presidential candidates spend a bit more time as governors, United States Senators, corporate executives, or military leaders before trying for the highest office in the land. Is three years in the U. S. Senate enough? I think not.


I don't really intend to put it in every post between now and November, though I feel as if I should.


Obama dēlendus est!
  • Monday, July 07, 2008

    Obama is for principle -- except when it hurts his cause!

    I hope that the people who have been thinking that Barack Obama is any more principled than the average politician have really studied his record in this campaign. He felt that he could not disavow Jeremiah Wright — until he realized that unless he did so, he'd lose a lot of votes who were turned away by Wright's bigotry. He embraced public financing — until he realized that he was bringing in more cash privately than he could publically. Similarly, he favored denial of immunity to ISPs in those surveillance cases — until he realized that there was political risk in doing so, and abandoned his position when it actually came to a Senate vote. So much for principle!