Stranger In A Foreign Land

Wednesday, June 27, 2007

How Huckabee "Has A Chance"

I've been away for a few days. Today, I read the report at http://lonestartimes.com/2007/06/26/huckabee-blogger-press-conference/#comment-172884 on the Mike Huckabee blogger conference call. The writer was very positive. But, the responding comments were typical…and exasperatingly old. I’ve seen the same thing for my entire life. Either, “He has no chance…What’s the point” or “You’re probably right, but I’ll support him for the primaries, anyway.”

12 years ago, newly online on the then-young Internet, I imagined a day when this alternative media would end the mass mind-control of the traditional media. Now, the facilities are all there: we can communicate text, graphics, audio and video. We can learn more of candidates than we once could have imagined. There would not have even been the positive thoughts in places like Lonestar Times, 12 or more years ago.

But, old habits die hard. We still allow traditional media to define our outlook and our social potential. For God’s sake, STOP IT! I posted this response at Lonestar Times, and I’ll post all of this at my blog, http://larryperrault.blogspot.com/

------------------------------------------------------------------------

PLEASE LISTEN UP, ALL POP-CULTURE-MARINATED PESSIMISTS! Think about what you are doing: I've been watching this nonsense for MANY years. Conservatives, who supposedly don't trust the so-called "mainstream media” (they are really non-mainstream, their thoughts representing a minority of the public), nevertheless allow this element to determine who "has a chance," etc.

Why does Fred Thomson have a chance? Because they say so. You are told that the media only reports public sentiment, but they shape public sentiment before they report it. AND WE BUY IT!

But, the public shouldn't speculate on who has a chance, as though it were a horse race or roll of the dice. The public DETERMINES who has a chance. Mike Huckabee doesn't need a pass from the media. He WILL win, if he gets the most votes of people who have free will. Moving people isn't the job of the media. It's OUR JOB! THINKING OTHERWISE IS NOT MERELY MISGUIDED. IT'S PATHETIC!

I'm on board. The only permission I need is God's.

Larry Perrault

Saturday, June 23, 2007

Christians Must Take Responsibility

The below was posted today, at http://mikehuckabeepresident2008.blogspot.com/

If Christians don’t spread word this way, they can be assured that the Republican Party will serve up from what a clueless media anoint as viable or “top tier” candidates. And, Christians will continue to complain that things never go rightly. There is plenty of material in print, audio, and video available on the web. If only the traditional media defines your reality, unawareness is not the media’s fault. It’s YOURS.

Other Bloggers on Mike Huckabee

Want an example of how an AUTHENTIC Christian conservative's message is spread? Consider this post from Southern California blogger "Tom" of Brooktown Blog.

Tom says: "My sister directed my attention to this YouTube clip of presidential candidate Mike Huckabee answering a question during the Republican debate ... the main thing is how he articulates his position on evolution versus the biblical account of creation. Before today, I had barely heard this guy's name. Now I'm hoping he makes it to the election so I can vote for him."

Huckabee's answer to the evolution question was described by a CNN analyst as "breathtaking." You can watch it on Tom's blog. Click HERE.

Larry Perrault

Wednesday, June 20, 2007

Obviously, today isn't June 29th, as the typo says.

Huckabee Overtakes McCain In Mason-Dixon Iowas Sraw Poll

Today, June 29, at http://mikehuckabeepresident2008.blogspot.com/ , reports that Huckabee has surpassed McCain in a Mason-Dixon Iowa poll. It also reports that Huckabee has gained and McCain dropped in New Hampshire and South Carolina polls . Giuliani is also sagging. I would speculate that Romney is on top in Iowa based on what, whether they it is or not, appears to be poll-driven positioning and big media spending. That would unexpectedly be very effective. But, Huckabee is spending time on the ground, personally, ably, and naturally engaging people personally with longstanding conviction about such issues. On an individual basis, this method will surpass media crop-dusting. So, the question is: How many individuals can Huckabee reach? Keep working at it, governor!

A new Mason-Dixon poll shows that Governor Mike Huckabee has overtaken "front runner" John McCain in Iowa. Huckabee received 7% support in the poll, his highest poll ranking to date.

Larry

Tuesday, June 19, 2007

Tommy Thompson's Debate "Heresy" - Pop-Culture Orthodoxy Vs. Clear Principles

I like Tommy Thompson better than the media-anointed “top tier” Republican presidential candidates, and better than two or three of the rest. He has shown the ability to innovate and propose unique solutions, both as Wisconsin governor and as Secretary Of Health And Human Services. I suppose we should cut the man some slack, being just a politician and grasping for media air. But, I was unimpressed to learn of his support for stem cell research. It tells me that he has swallowed the buzz that embryonic stem cell research poses a unique potential for curing diseases. I would oppose it, regardless, refusing to make human life our tool. But the buzz isn’t true, besides. Other stem cells show superior promise and have demonstrated it, while embryonic stem cells have demonstrated nothing but harm.

I think all of the clatter is a ruse to establish a justification and precedent for disrespecting the sanctity of human life. Anyway, looking to read more of Thompson’s position on stem cell research, I was reminded of his recent debate controversy and aggravated by both the knee-jerk reaction and Thompson’s unimpressive scramble to correct himself for pop-culture sensibilities.

Thompson was asked in the New Hampshire debate by Wolf Blitzer about a business owner firing someone because that person was gay. Thompson’s response was the common-sense one: that that should be left to business owners. The pop-culture reflex was predictable. Comments on the Internet spoke of Thompson saying discrimination was “A-OK,” and having made an “anti-gay” statement. One spoke of a collective gasp at Thompson’s heresy. In correcting himself, Thompson blamed illness and hearing difficulty. Of course, we can’t say that that’s impossible. But, one is left with a similar scent of conformity to pop-culture orthodoxy which in this case would like to assume that government should not allow employers to set the terms of employment in their own business.

In the first place, why would people want to work somewhere where the owner dislikes people like them? Does that sound like the job you want? More likely than for securing or retaining a job, is the search for an opportunity to sue. But anyway, the implication of what Thompson said was neither that discrimination is fine or that Thompson is anti-gay. How about pro-freedom? People who want to administer a business should start their own!

It shows how distorted our thinking is that it is not obvious that an employer should determine the terms of employment at his/her own business. Whatever you and I judge to be right, it is none of our business! For myself, if I thought a gay person promised to be the best help for my business, I’d want to have that employee, though I would ask them not to make my business a display case for his/her lifestyle and keep it out of the faces of visitors and other employees. That wouldn’t be pro-gay or anti-gay. That would just be good business. But, as much as I have been informed of the practice, I would without being ugly, honestly inform that person of my belief that it is a restricting and destructive one. But, we might think it better that the issue was never raised.

In any case, the idea that government should direct the conduct of private commerce is a residue of an anachronistic and discredited presumption that government should direct social commerce. And, even more irritating than that presumption itself, is the sense that all must take the knee before such ignorant ideas. Doing so is one quick way to negatively impress me.

Larry Perrault

Monday, June 18, 2007

Illinoisans For RomneyPost Clear Questions About Fred Thompson

Illinoisans For Mitt Romney posted a long assessment of Fred Thompson’s “conservatism.” Re: Fred Thompson is shameless It’s not positive, needless to say.

Now, it’s possible that Romney is entirely genuine about all of his seemingly timely position changes, though I’m not at all convinced, at this point. Mike Huckabee is a candidate whose thoughts flow from a longstanding clear and consistent philosophical perspective. Even if Romney were serious, so many stark…errr…adjustments don’t typically occur within a lucid worldview. I have already said that Romney’s explanation of his abortion shift due to his contemplation of stem-cell research, which implies that the idea of farming humans to kill them was “going too far,” but aborting babies at any point of gestation had never provoked such revulsion, doesn’t make sense to me. Especially given his relative plethora of changes, political convenience in a campaign shift from Massachusetts governor to Republican presidential primaries, is a superior explanation to me.

But as for Thompson, it’s always nice to have someone else’s people do your work for you.

Larry Perrault

http://mikehuckabeepresident2008.blogspot.com/

http://mikehuckabeepresident2008.blogspot.com/

Sunday, June 17, 2007

Dennis Prager Interviews Rudy Giuliani On Abortion, And Misses The Important Point.

First, I should say that I absolutely love to read, watch, and listen to Dennis Prager, and have since my hair was not gray and his not white. I’ve always been a conservative, and used to listen to conservative talk-radio all day. In the last several years, most of them have come to bore me. Not so Dennis Prager, though I share a basic (mine isn’t just “basic” in any sense, but wholehearted) Christian disposition with some others, but not with the Jewish Prager. His considerations are almost always interesting.

Actually, this interview focused more generally on issues that, unlike Giuliani’s anti-terror, anti-crime, fiscally conservative relative strengths, conservatives might have a problem with. But, Prager lamented that conservatives might not support Giuliani because they did not like his position on things like abortion, despite the fact that a president has no effect relative to abortion, except to nominate judges and sign restrictions like the partial-birth abortion ban.

This is a concern about a simple falsehood, and I will tell you why it is an ill-founded one. You should understand that Prager is not insensitive to the sanctity of pre-born human life. But, I have no personal dislike for Rudy Giuliani and, in fact, rather like him in my superficial knowledge and experience of him. I needn’t dislike him to think that he misunderstands what should be a basic moral and American disposition toward human life, and that, not personal distaste, disqualifies him to serve as the nation’s chief executive, just as the finest lawyer or teacher or any non-surgeon is unqualified to remove a cancerous tumor. An individual who doesn’t understand the respect of human life should not be the chief executive of a nation founded on the confession of creator endowed rights (Declaration Of Independence) and central to its constitution. He looks great relative to many things, and he could be of great value at many tasks.. But interpreting American principles isn't one of them.

Prager declares that no “pro-life” (the parentheses don’t indicate insincerity as much as incompetence) president has ever done anything to stop the practice of abortion. And, he is correct. I am painfully aware of that and have made no secret of it. He also says that he would rather persuade than attempt to coerce, legally. Again, I agree completely. But, he also says that there is nothing a president can do. In light of the fact that he prefers persuasion to legislation, that is rather ironic.

Prager says that, therefore, you should consider a broader range of what is good for the country than merely an abortion position when considering whether to support a president. In fact, he says that if you would withhold your vote based on this single issue, you would have to be “emotionally retarded.” I would not vote for Rudy Giuliani, not because of my conjecture about legal consequences, but because of his demonstrated opacity about the one issue that may be of more gravity than the terrorist threat. I don’t call him evil. I don’t call him ignorant. I don’t call him stupid. I just say that he doesn’t understand what is at stake. And apparently, astute and morally sober as he generally is, Dennis Prager doesn’t, either.

What is at stake is not my feeling good in voting for someone who believes as I do, which is the primary animus that Prager mentions. What is at stake is not my ambitions about the law (not primarily, anyway). What is at stake is not even the specific obstruction of the injustice of the slaughter of tens of millions of human babies, horrible human atrocity though that may be. What is at stake is the dissolution of the moral sense at the foundation of the American creed that gives a special recognition to the integrity of human life, and what I believe is the attendant process of the degradation and ultimate demise of civil society.

A society that digests and assimilates the idea that human life (even its own offspring) is something to be deferred over on the basis of perceived convenience will manifest that selfish pathology in myriad ways in social conduct, and ultimately suffocate ordinary presumptions of civility.

Now, a federalist like me could wish that this long-established diversion of attention to Washington was not so in America, but largely owing to electronic mass-media, it is the case. It would be better if we were more focused and more affected by our state and local affairs. But, that is not the case. And what the president can and should do is constantly and clearly enlighten America about the moral and doctrinal abyss that it is sliding into. Unfortunately, I think the reason that the pro-life presidents that Prager speaks of have had so little effect is as much inability as indisposition.

While I am fervently pro-life and have worked with and contributed to pro-life efforts, I in fact do not favor a pro-life amendment to the US Constitution. I think it is not the province of the US Constitution, any more than is the protection against and prosecution of conventional murder. Such effort would be entirely impracticable and would more than likely be counter-productive. A constitutional amendment seems to be an entirely abstract fantasy, besides. As Prager says, the idea that you can repair a social dysfunction by legislation is a misguided liberal idea. But, like the frog in warming water, we passively have adapted to an ultimately destructive environment. Sadly, it appears to me that a president is best positioned to rap the American consciousness like the distorted picture on an old television set.

Larry Perrault

http://larryperrault.blogspot.com/

http://www.explorehuckabee.com/

Friday, June 15, 2007

George Will Bats Fred Thompson Balloon

I have said that I would never support Fred Thompson for the nomination or for president if he won the nomination. George Will cites the same consideration in reaction to the assertion that Thompson is “a conservative.” http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19140623/site/newsweek/page/0/

Thompson supported McCain in 2000, and advocated and voted for McCain-Feingold “Campaign Finance Reform.” He and McCain argue that they wanted to go after the influence of big, especially “soft” money. And, they may have. But, you don’t prescribe poison to cure an illness. Besides, at least that would stop the cold. McCain-Feingold has not perceptibly dented the influence of money, even while straight out steamrolling the First Amendment. The worst part of it is the residual precedent of conceding the power of government to regulate such things which power we can expect to be easily abused, later. I especially hate it when Republicans lay the foundation for liberals to construct atrocities upon, later.

Anyone care to guess what presumptions a (maybe near) future Democratic government will now totally incautiously impose upon politically organizing conservatives? McCain and/or Thompson may have had perfectly good intentions, and I expect they did. But, that is why proper procedure follows sure principles, not hasty feelings. None of this is personal against anyone. I just won’t support a constitutional incompetent as the chief executive defender of The Constitution. It would be like employing my loving mother to perform my brain surgery.

Will also discusses the relative emptiness around which (clueless) media have anointed Thompson a “conservative” savior, and overall imagines the bursting of a “bubble” of poorly founded hopes and imaginings. Incidentally, I myself believe that abortion should be regulated by states and localities. Where I live, I would vote for it to be illegal and practicing doctors punishable. But, for your information, Thompson is historically, not as clear on this issue as most pro-lifers would like. Look it up.

Anyway, McCain and Thompson and unborn, 2^nd Amendment, and family-disrespecting Giuliani are right out. And Romney has too many near 180 degree turnabouts in different races in different places. Who’s next? What about this guy, Huckabee?

Larry Perrault

Thursday, June 14, 2007

Rednecks And Bluenecks

A term of disparagement, usually implying ignorant, narrow-mindedness is “redneck.” Often, people who fancy themselves “progressive,” rather than disputing them, scorn and scoff at “rednecks” or “redneck ways of thinking.” An online dictionary definition:

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source

red·neck /ˈrɛdˌnɛk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[red-nek] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation Informal: Often Disparaging.

–noun

1.	an uneducated white farm laborer, esp. from the South.

2.	a bigot or reactionary, esp. from the rural working class.

–adjective

3.	Also, red-necked. narrow, prejudiced, or reactionary: a redneck attitude.

The “progressive” people I speak of are often imagined to be the opponents of bigotry and the concomitant hatred. But observing either television or worse, online discussions, bigotry and hatred is exactly what you see them expressing. They demonstrate hatred against political opposition, and bigotry toward people of a different philosophy: usually Christians. Christianity is what they consider the “oppressive majority” religion in America, unlike other faiths.

The adversary will be talked about as though uneducated, as in the 1^st definition, regardless of the actual relative education of the subject and the object of the discussion, in history, science, or whatever is relevant to the topic. If you haven’t seen more than enough of it on television, I invite you to explore the liberal blogosphere and observe the purely visceral disparagement and ad hominem abuse. A precise definition of “ad hominem”:

American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition - Cite This Source
ad hominem [(ad hom-uh-nem, ad hom-uh-nuhm)]

A Latin expression meaning “to the man.” An ad hominem argument is one that relies on personal attacks rather than reason or substance.

See if you can describe these criticisms as anything other than the bigotry of the 2nd definition. As for the 3^rd definition, that this behavior is “narrow” and “prejudiced” is…well, a no-brainer. It doesn’t anger me, anymore. However uninformed or inexperienced these critics may be, I believe they are genuine about their feeling, which you at least have to appreciate. But then again, so are “rednecks.”

Now, neither side of these discussions is always hateful and mean, though some plainly are. Those who are angry and hateful, of course get all of the attention. But, it would be decent to confine using the pejorative sense of the term “redneck,” to that hateful slice of one perspective, but not to mere philosophical foreigners. Yes, of course there are such hateful and mean people. But, that is endemic not to geography or philosophy, but rather to human nature, itself. After watching the corresponding animosity on the other side, and given the cultural connotation of “redneck,” I thought that we might call their similarly hateful counterparts, “bluenecks.” Rednecks and bluenecks both react emotionally to a contradiction to their training.

As an example, the visceral disparagement was great when some candidates at the Republican debate indicated that they did not believe in evolution, which we can assume specifically meant that they didn’t believe that an unguided series of random mutations across species is the ultimate explanation of all of life on earth. Sure, there are very literate people who believe that. But, the scoffing and guffawing that took place in public discussions was conducted by empiricist acolytes who knew little or nothing of what they were talking about. Heck, I’m not a scientist. But, I don’t believe evolution explains all of life, and I clearly know more of the literature on both sides of the debate than did these bleacher-sitting hecklers. I could make their arguments far better than they could. The point is not to compare and evaluate educations. The point is to highlight an irresponsible and ungracious lack of modesty. As I am well aware that many educated people make an evolutionist confession, they should be well-aware that many educated people do not. But, no: The sneering people who participated in such crude supercilious parties disdained dissenters as “ignorant of science,” “small-minded,” “stupid,” or…”redneck.” These mindless scoffers are “bluenecks.”

Similarly today, many of the same sort of people who know only the gospel of philosophically segregationist textbooks, Time and Newsweek magazines, and a myopic popular television culture, scorn in a similar way those who question the dogma of “global warming.” No matter the education or occupation of dissenters, they are dismissed as biased by philosophical, political, or financial interests. There is no basis for rational conversation. “There’s no debate?” There is educated and credentialed information all over the web on both sides of the matter. This highlights a perspective that is philosophically blinkered: a “religious” faith. Renecks and bluenecks should both work on inspecting the conclusions of others from within the context of their given assumptions. They should learn the perspective of their philosophical strangers

The “blueneck” expressions I’m speaking of are plainly ill-informed and reactionary, to use a term they often use, themselves. The difference in this case is only in the people to whom the term is applied, not in the animus and nature of the charge. I’m talking about people who react emotionally and judgmentally from the relative ignorance of a cultural dogma: a naked provincialism, if you will, rather than from knowledge and experience.

My point is not to disparage them. What good does it do to disparage people for ignorance of your own experience? None, at all. In fact, it quite more reliably serves the contrary purpose of steeling their resentment and resolve. And, I’m not saying that the other side or either side is necessarily the consequence of stupidity. Academic knowledge is no rescue from either perspective. I’m reading Christopher Hitchens’ “god Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.” Hitchens sees all manifestations of worship of a transcendent reality as fanciful delusion. And he is manifestly not stupid or uneducated. He is rhetorically erudite and exceptionally studied in history and literature. Unfortunately, he is deprived in terms of experience and awareness of God, the very subject of his book, whose confessors are the target of his derision.

That is the point: It is the rare individual who is philosophically moved by argument. In fact, while I believe it to reflect an accurate judgment, someone who adopts a belief in God merely on the basis of information and argument does not experience and understand the essence of what it is to know God. I have compared arguing this point to trying to convince a foreign government that you are married, without the sort of documentation that they recognize. A description of your relationship will carry more weight than stories of your wedding and travels. What a doubter of God needs to judge is not the soundness of an argument, but the savor of the character of God, whether by direct intervention or the example of a transformed life. This essential factor is often missing in not just those who viscerally react, but also in the conduct of genuine debate. God does not judge the exactness of confession or the exercise of debate. Of course, we would all fail such a test. You have only been of use in engaging another when you have submitted yourself as an instrument of God’s character.

On a social level, my point is that neither side serves a productive purpose while they confine themselves to the solace and affirmation of like-minded people. Quite the opposite of spurning and sniggering at rival viewpoints, we should work together on advancing the liberty, charity, and human brotherhood that all should approve. When someone rejects that, that is their problem. When we offer only animosity in the absence of that, that is ours.

Larry Perrault

Tuesday, June 12, 2007

Huckabee On Hardball - Hard-headed Journalists

I watched the Hardball video on the web. WATCH VIDEO It cut off, but I found the rest of the interview at the Hardball website. As usual, Chris Matthews was boorish, telling the guest and the viewers what he believes the guest thinks, before the guest can finish an answer.

The "against science" business is ignorant nonsense. If we see God as the creator, we should see science, the examination of nature, as exploration of his work. Belief in the God of The Bible does not conflict with exploration of his creation with the empirical tools that God has given us.

The problem is that some people of an a priori naturalist disposition have conflated naturalist conjecture with science. The conclusion that all of life descended from an arbitrary appearance of a microbiological life form is not an empirical observation (not science). It is the conjecture of a process that would in principle (though not in fact, obviously) be empirically testable, if it were true. As conjecture, it is not science, but philosophy. Philosophy should not be dictated in the science classes of local communities by distant governmental compulsion.

Mike Huckabee gave an appropriate truthful response: If empirical experience is the standard, none of us were there to know by that standard. Beliefs are just that: beliefs.

It was amusing that Matthews included human-produced, CO2-caused climate change as another example of "science." If evolution and C02 caused global-warming are both science, how can professional scientists disbelieve in both? Science is what emprical experience dictates, not what ill-informed popular media organs repeat. The problem with presidential campaigns is that candidates have to engage discussions of poorly conceived questions with ignorant (not stupid; ignorant) journalists.

Larry Perrault