William F. Buckley, Jr.

A conservative....a genuine conservative...has departed this life.

Americans [except for me and a few others, of course!] consistently misuse the term "conservative." Usually the term is applied [again, erroneously] to people like the George Bushs, Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan and the like. But these people are LIBERALS! Yes, liberals! They are "Classical Liberal" or "Nineteenth Century Liberals" in the vein of Adam Smith -- the veritable founder of the modern liberal movement. [Classical vs. 19TH Century versions depend on whether some notion of Social Darwinism is added to the mix.]

Americans [the same exceptions as above apply] consistely misuse the term "liberal" too -- by limiting it to one type of liberalism. They apply it to people like FDR, most of the Kennedys, Jimmy Carter, and of course, Obama and the "HillBilly" duo. But these people are UTILITARIANS [a.k.a. welfare liberals -- and "welfare" should not be have any negative connotations attached to it]! Utilitarians modified liberal thinking so as to focus attention on everyone and not only the self. [John Stuart Mill, Jeremy Bentham, etc.]

All liberals reason exactly the same way: the right course of action is determined -- primarily -- by how much of a desired goal is likely to be achived. The " net balance of good over evil" is the major consideration. For Classical Liberals the basic "goal" is to maximize individual freedom. For Welfare Liberals the basic "goal" is to maximize the distribution of food-clothing-shelter [the welfare triad] and such other things as job and education opportunities, etc.

Needless to say, Welfare Liberals require more government than Classical/19Th Century Liberals.

Genuine Conservatives??

Good question...glad you asked!

Genuine Conservative reason in many different ways -- but ALL AGREE that a devotion to "doing good" is NOT the essence of moral/political reasoning. A devotion to doing what is RIGHT is rather the essence! How the "right" is determined is what distinguishes one GENUINE CONSERVATIVE from others.

Edmund Burke [the veritable founder of the modern Conservative movement] appealed to divinely created Natural Rights [like Justice Thomas, for example]. Others appeal to "Reason" or "God's Will" or "Nature" [Social Biology] or "History" [Marx -- that's right, folks, Marx was a GENUINE CONSERVATIVE].

OK...enough of this pedantic prattle....

But do keep in mind....we've lost a genuine thinker as well as a genuine conservative. He died at his desk...still thinking and writing.

"Is" vs. "Ought" -- Ethics 101

Hey, commentators, pundits and assorted blatherers [and some of my best friends are C's P's and AB's!]

There really is a difference between the two, as everybody learns in "Day One" of Ethics 101.

For example:

IS racism still a pox on our society?
YES

OUGHT it be?
NO

IS sexism still a pox on our society?
YES

OUGHT it be?
NO

IS there a difference between the way Clinton is being treated by the press because of her gender?
YES

OUGHT there be?
NO

IS race a factor in the consideration people give to Obama's candidacy?
YES

OUGHT it be?
NO

IS there a confusion over these to concepts?
YES

OUGHT there be?
NO

IS this now clear?
NO??

OUGHT IT BE?
YES!!!

Debate? That's Debatable!

Ok.

There are rules for defining what a "debates" is!

And there are rules for how to conduct a debate.

For both, go here: http://www.triviumpursuit.com/speech_debate/what_is_debate.php
And here: http://www.uwc.ac.za/Societies/debate/page6.html

Oh...if, after reading all of this, you are still confused, it's no wonder. THERE ARE NO HARD AND FAST RULES!

So, did HRC or BHO win?

Hahahaha.....don't you get it! IT DOESN'T MATTER! THERE ARE NO RULES!

Next Tuesday we'll find out.

BTW -- both seemed pretty good to me!

AND...I loved that ass-hole preacher who was a "crowd warmer" for McCain! LOVED him!! I know now why I'm an atheist!!! [Thank god!]

The Super Delegate Dilemma?? Huh???!!!

What's the dilemma, SD's??

You exist to cast your vote however you see fit?!

So DO it!!

Those of you who want to fall in line with your electoral base...vote accordingly!

Those of you who want to disagree with your electoral base...vote accordingly!

In either case, it's your choice...by the decree of the DMC [de jure]...AND in fact [de facto].

Did you forget what the word "choice" means? If so, let me remind you: it mean's YOU decide on the criteria on which to base your decision.

Dilemma - shlilemma.....!!

Turning the Page: Racism vs. Sexism.....Hmmmm...

Hey Super Delegates!! [Et Al]

Electing Hillary would, indeed, help bring about an end to much of the fetid core of sexism -- and that is one reason to consider voting for her.

And electing Obama would, indeed, help bring about an end to much of the fetid core of racism -- and that is one reason to consider voting for him.

But....which fetid core needs the most work??

As many observers have commented, "slavery" is America's "original sin" -- the vestiges of it are still with us today and show no signs of leaving of their own accord.

Sexism has existed in one form or another for millenia. BUT we seem to be getting a grasp on this "thing" by its neck.

To this [obviously partial] observer, the choice of which to act on is obvious...

Marxist Libertarianism? Is This Possible?!

Think about it...

1. Both Karl Marx and Adam Smith felt that governments were inherently suspect, useless or counter-productive. [Don't confuse Marx with "Marxist-Leninsim" -- there's a reason for that dual name, you know!]

2. Both of them believed in the virtues of captialism. [For Marx it was a necessary stage for all nations to go through.]

3. Both of them presuppose the "Labor Theory of Value." [The worth of something is directly proportional to the labor invested in it.]

4. Both acceted the same fundamental notion of a just distribution: From each according to h/h abilities; to each according to h/h wants or needs.

5. Both had the same ideal of each individual seeking h/h own ends or goals.

6. Both believed in the desirability of people helping others in need.

7. Both affirmed a realm of privacy and freedom for each person.

Sure....they may have supported these things for different reasons, but, nevertheless....there's a lot of commonality here.

Differnces, ah yes, there were a few:

1. Marx assumed that humans were social beings ["socialist" -- get it!] and Smith rejected this idea [societies are human constructs, not natural].

2. Marx was more optimistic about humans behaving nicely together without external direction. He saw all governments eventualing "withering away." Smith was not so optimistic; he felt a small government would always be necessary.

Most important:

3. Marx had a beard...