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.

Sunday, June 10, 2012

Even "progressives" are spotting Obama's fraudulence

Thanks to Tom Bowler's “Libertarian Leanings” blog, I saw a blog post by a “progressive” named Taylor Marsh:

… What is Pres. Obama fighting for besides himself, the only cause that makes him rise up to do anything?

The guy can’t even find a slogan, stuck with We’re Not Done Yet.

God help us all.

Barack Obama didn’t find the cause of unions important to fight for or the need to make the election results, even in a loss, an important reason for people to rise up and protect the place where the middle class was born. A living wage came about through unions, with Scott Walker continuing the gutting of them begun by Ronald Reagan, on behalf of corporations, the place behind which Barack Obama stands as well. If you’re not standing with the unions manning the barricades you’re no good to them, which Obama proved conclusively through Wisconsin.


The line “What is Pres. Obama fighting for besides himself…?” evinces that Ms. Marsh finally gets it: Pres. Obama has no cause except more power for himself. He will embrace “progressive” causes if he thinks they will advance the chances of his re-election, and eschew them if they would not. And thus, she says, a bit further down in her blog post:

I remain fascinated that anyone pretending to have Democratic, progressive, let alone liberal, political views cares whether Pres. Obama wins or loses. What it’s going to take for people to understand he’s not fighting any of your battles, but only waging his own for himself, is unknown at this point, but maybe when he shoots for legacy on the “grand bargain” fence of history people will tune in and, perhaps, wake up. Then it will be too late, though it already is and was a long time ago.


And Ms. Marsh is pro-union — that whole blog post just drips with comments about how great unions are. She and I may agree on very little, but she's found out what I saw years ago — President Obama is “only waging his own [battle] for himself.”

Back to Tom Bowler. You really should read that post of his. Because he makes it clear that the same applies to that “progressive” icon who is Taylor Marsh's heroine — Elizabeth Warren. Bowler says:

Warren is a working class hero who railed against the bank foreclosures, but who also made hefty profits flipping foreclosed homes in Oklahoma. I suppose that's pretty typical of today's heroes of the proletariat.

(Elizabeth Warren purchased this Oklahoma City home at 200 NW 16th Street for $30,000 in August 1993, then sold it for $145,000 five months later.)


I don't always agree with Tom Bowler's posts — but this time it's a home run for him.

No comments: