AmeriCAN-DO Attitude

Are you an AmeriCAN or an AmeriCAN'T?

One Less Idiot Please

I just saw that annoying “One Less” commercial for GARDASIL. It is a vaccine for HPV (HUMAN PAPILLOMAVIRUS), which sometimes can lead to cervical cancer. It shows a bunch of women and young girls being all proud of themselves for being “One Less” ‘victim’ of HPV by getting the GARDASIL vaccine.

I was sitting there thinking, “Isn’t HPV an STD (Sexually Transmitted Disease) which could be prevented simply by, oh I dunno, not having promiscuous sex?” But then I thought that I must be ignorant and it must not be an STD, otherwise they would be talking about being “One Less” ‘victim’ by practicing abstinence, right?

Well, I looked it up and my first instinct was correct.

HPV affects both women and men.

Anyone who has any kind of sexual activity involving genital contact with an infected person can get HPV — intercourse isn’t necessary.

Many people who may have HPV may not show any signs or symptoms, so they can pass the virus on without even knowing it.

HPV is easily transmitted. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that 20 million people in the United States are currently infected with HPV.

According to the CDC, the only way you can totally protect yourself against HPV is to avoid any sexual activity that involves genital contact. HPV Types 6, 11, 16, and 18 account for the majority of HPV-related clinical diseases.

Hmm, yet in all the commercials I have seen for this GARDASIL and HPV, never once have I heard or seen them talk about abstinence as the number 1 prevention technique against HPV and cervical cancer. Instead, the “One Less” campaign is about getting an unnecessary vaccine, which won’t give you 100% protection, so all these so-called strong, responsible women can still go around having promiscuous sex.

Wonderful message.

Cross-posted with further discussion HERE

March 1, 2008 , 1:17PM Posted by | Abstinence, GARDASIL, HPV, Liberalism, One Less, STDs | 1 Comment

All Across America, Idiots are Chanting: Hope! Change! Oh-Bah-Mah!

This is just ridiculous: Creepiest Celebrity Endorsement Ever

We live in the most prosperous nation in the history of the world. We live in the most properous nation with the best healthcare and best anything in the world right now. Yet, people out there still need “hope” and want “change” from this?

I’m at a complete loss. I think I now may have something in common with people with BDS. BDS sufferers are the type who, once they find out you are a supporter of President Bush, immediately lose all respect for you. That’s how I feel about Barack Obama supporters. At least the ones who cannot tell me anything about the man, except to chant “Hope! Change! Oh-Bah-Mah!”

How does a Presidential candidate who, along with his wife, espouses nothing, but rhetoric about how America sucks, inspire people?

March 1, 2008 , 1:16PM Posted by | 2008 Presidential Election, Barack Obama | Comments Off on All Across America, Idiots are Chanting: Hope! Change! Oh-Bah-Mah!

Left-wing Blogs 10 Times More Vulgar than Right-wing Blogs

This really does not mean anything beyond the fact that the Left uses vulgarity to make their points 10 times more than the Right. But I found it interesting: “Seven words you can never say on television”… but which are said on the Internet. A lot.

It would be interesting to see this done on MySpace blogs and compare to the results from the popular public blogs. In my experience, it seems that people tend to be more vulgar here on MySpace, since this is a private site, on which one must have an account to read the blogs. Therefore, people seem to feel more free to act and talk irresponsibly, knowing they won’t be held accountable for much.

March 1, 2008 , 1:14PM Posted by | Conservatism, Liberalism | Comments Off on Left-wing Blogs 10 Times More Vulgar than Right-wing Blogs

Liberalism vs Conservatism

The Maha Rushie: Buck Up Out There, Conservatives

[ … ] Liberalism is many, many things. There’s a report out this week from an actual clinical psychologist, that it’s a mental disorder. But it is totalitarian in nature. It is an effort to control everybody, or as many people as possible. It’s based on the assumption that most people are blithering idiots and haven’t the ability to lead responsible lives on their own. This is fostered by willing accomplices in the news media who are constantly beating the drum of doom and gloom and fatalism and pessimism, and they have a lot of power in creating these negative moods that people have, not so much about their own lives, but about everybody else’s. The overall effort here is to dispirit and to depress people and to make people give up in attempting to achieve. Listen to Michelle Obama in Zanesville, Ohio. She’s basically telling people to give up. She’s telling people who are poor to stay poor because there’s just too much trouble in attempt to go acquire wealth. You might have to go borrow money, go to college, student loan. She’s telling people to stay poor. She wants people to stay poor. Why? I don’t know if she has an inherent dislike for the country, she’s got some bitterness, but she’s also a liberal. She wants to be in charge of these people and their welfare.

This is how liberals get their votes. It really boils down to nothing more complicated than that, except it’s hideous what liberalism does to the human spirit, it attempts to destroy it, even to the point of making enemies out of people who have achieved something, out of people who have become successful. Even they are attacked, especially they are attacked. Conservatism, on the other hand, doesn’t seek to control anybody. Conservatism seeks to liberate. Conservatism believes that the human being, the United States of America citizen, is capable of anything he or she wants. Conservatism believes in the goodness and the greatness and the potential for such, in every human being and wants to get as much out of the way in terms of obstacles as possible. Conservatism wants to motivate those people. Conservatism wants to inspire those people. Conservatism wants happy, content people pursuing life and liberty. Conservatism believes that the greatest country we can have is where there is as much freedom as possible, as defined by the founding documents of this country when there is as little government as necessary, and when people are free to utilize their own desires and their ambitions, because conservatives believe in the basic goodness, the good-heartedness and the decency of every human. Liberals do not.

Liberals are filled with rage. They are filled with anger. They are filled with contempt for the very people that we love, for the very people that we hope and invest great things in. Liberals don’t want to risk that. You understand the more prosperous, the happier, the more content people are, the less there is need for liberalism. The more people accruing wealth, the more people acquiring assets, the more people succeeding in free market capitalism, the greater the threat to liberalism. So of course they are going to trash the very foundations of this country, and as Michelle Obama did, try to make as many people as possible think it’s not theirs, it’s not for them, it’s not intended for them. Only elites like Barack Obama and Michelle Obama have what it takes to overcome these rigors and so forth. Well, that’s a hell of a battle to try to fight. The problem that we’ve been having lately, John, is that rather than fight it, we’re trying to limit their growth. We’re trying not to stop liberalism; we’re trying to limit it a little bit. So when national crisis — of course, everything, according to the left is a crisis — so when we have a crisis, like the best health care system in the world is a crisis, we have to fix it.

So liberals come up with a fix that’s based on inherent liberalism, that it’s unfair, that some people aren’t insured, some people can’t get as good a coverage as somebody else. So we have to nationalize it, we have to put liberals in charge of it, we have to put people who have never run a business, wouldn’t know the first thing about it, in charge of it. Then we’re going to put in jail as many people who are in that business for screwing it up. Then what do we have? We have Republicans saying, “Well, I don’t think we should go that far,” but they accept the premise. Republicans are accepting too many premises advanced by the left and trying to tweak them and make ’em look less liberal and more conservative rather than rejecting the whole concept of liberalism out of hand, and that’s what has you frosted. You don’t see any warriors on your side of the aisle. You see appeasers; you see people who want acceptance; you see people who are afraid to stand up for the country when it’s trashed by people like Murtha and Dick Durbin and Ted Kennedy and so forth.

Believe me, you are not alone. But the solution is not to opt out. The solution is to stay engaged, live your life the way you do, and influence as many people with whom you come in contact; you will have more impact than you will know. It’s a presidential year. A lot of what I’ve said is going to be exposed. We don’t know where we’re going with this. We have no idea. Barack Obama says he’s a blank slate, he’s a canvas, you can write whatever you want him to be. This whole campaign is that, to tell you the truth. So hang in there, John. I’m glad you called. I appreciate it.

I gotta run.


RUSH: All right, folks, time to buck up out there. (That’s “buck” with a B.) What if those before us had given up? You think this is the first time people on our side of the aisle have taken every road possible, and seen a dead end in front of them? Of course they weren’t dead-ends. They just look like they are. What if those before us had given up? We’re always going to have to battle the forces that would deny us our God-given liberty. Take a look at the world! I know for deeply and devoutly religious people, it’s difficult to imagine. “Why would God create such evil people that want to take away basic freedoms from individuals?” Free will, it’s called. Bad, good, evil, what have you. Take a look at the world. Do you realize how preciously fortunate we are in this country, and to have survived as long as we have, as powerful as we are? It’s because we’ve beaten back these kind of forces all of these years, externally. Now, we’re having to fight them internally. It’s not the first time we’re having to fight these forces internally.

If you think there aren’t people in this country who want to take your freedom away, wake up! Open your eyes. The global warming hoax. What do you think it’s about? You see it inching away, and it doesn’t register, because you don’t think changing lightbulbs is a big deal because it’s all for “the good of the planet,” but you don’t see what’s really happening. Well, we do, and a lot of others do. Basic human liberty is always at stake. It’s the nature of humanity. Sadly, it’s the nature of some people to want to be controlled. It’s tough out there to assume responsibility for yourself. Do you realize how seductive it is when somebody tells you they’re going to take care of you? Look at these Obama rallies. You can say whatever you want about, “It’s about time we’re hearing this kind of thing” but Obama is essentially giving a sermon to a political audience on how to raise kids and he’s getting a standing ovation! People would much rather be told how to do something or have somebody else do it for them — including the major basic responsibilities of life — than to take them on themselves, because it’s hard.

Why do you think we so honor and revere pioneers, the people that struggle against the odds, the people that secure freedom for others who are oppressed? Why do we revere them? Because it’s hard, and because those people are great who do it — and where would we be if those who thought as we do gave up before we came up as adults ourselves? Bill Buckley never gave up. Ronald Reagan, in his life never gave up. His whole life. Barry Goldwater’s life. If it helps, remember that each generation of conservatives and Americans generally faces these forces and has to battle them. You’re not unique in thinking it’s over. You’re not unique in thinking it’s hopeless. You’re not unique in thinking your own team is letting you down. We have to defend liberty and freedom from foreign enemies, but from domestic agendas and ideologies that would destroy freedom as well. Imagine how conservatives felt during FDR. They could see what was happening around them, and they could not stop it. But we did, didn’t we? Don’t give up hope.


RUSH: Yes, yes, yes. I know. I screwed up. I said, “Don’t give up hope.” Don’t give up, period! Hope has nothing to do with this. Action, born of desire and commitment, that’s what you don’t give up. I apologize. See how easy it seeps into you, folks? Even me, with the steel boundaries. [ … ]

March 1, 2008 , 1:13PM Posted by | 2008 Presidential Election, Barack Obama, Barry Goldwater, Conservatism, Liberalism, Ronald Reagan, Rush Limbaugh, William F. Buckley | 1 Comment

Are They Socialists, Communists, Liberals, Conservatives, Progressives or Simply Ignorant?

Clay posted a good article, by his friend, entitled “Conservatism 101”. I responded with some of my thoughts on the issue.

My general feeling is that we are too quick to label others and ourselves based on political ideologies that we all may not completely understand. Thus the title of my blog post here. Some people may not fit the label of holding a certain ideology, but may just have an ignorant or not completely informed opinion on an issue.

Therefore, it is better to discuss issues and ideologies, rather than react in knee-jerk fashions by labeling people when they espouse their opinion on an issue.

Good post, Clay.

Only one complaint…

The author of the article started off with “Conservatism” and then moved to “Conservatives believe…” This then led to a commentor stating that “there is no one definition of conservatives…” There is one definition of conservatism. Period. BUT, many people do not agree with every part of conservatism. This is why the labels of “conservatives” and “liberals” are ridiculous. And then you get people calling themselves “moderates”, when there is no such ideology. A “moderate” is simply someone who either

(1) Just wants to be liked by everyone, so expresses no definitive opinion on any issues
(2) Actually has definitive opinions on issues, but doesn’t want to be thought of as a “winger” (right or left), so instead of actually talking about those definitive opinions on the issues, they call themselves “moderate” and are back to being liked by everyone, because they aren’t left/right-“wingers”

And this is really the core of the problem with most people involved with politics today. They don’t really understand most political issues or most ideologies regarding the political issues, and so instead they revert to labeling each other and themselves. This then serves right off the bat to divide people. “Ooooh he’s a rotten right-wing nutjob, so he believes….” or “oooh she’s an idiotic liberal, so she believes…” This gets people off the issues and simply throwing insults and labels at one another. Meanwhile, no one is doing anything to actually educate themselves on what matters: the issues.

I think the article you posted started off well, but then by switching from saying “conservatism is…” to “conservatives believe…” left it open for people to say “HEY! Not all conservatives believe that!” The fact is, people are not “conservatives” and “liberals”. People are individuals who have opinions on issues. Some of those opinions actually line up with Conservatism and some of those opinions sometimes line up with liberalism. But there is no redefining conservatism or liberalism. They are specific ideologies.

I like to compare it to religion. Catholicism is a religion that has as one of its cores an opposition to abortion, opposition to pre-marital sex and opposition to birth control. However, there are people who attend Catholic Church and call themselves Catholics who are in favor of all of these things. While these people attend Catholic Church and call themselves Catholics, they are not abiding by Catholicism. So, really, they are not Catholics.

The same thing applies to Conservatism. Conservatism is a set ideology with stances on numerous political issues and life issues. Taking the example of President Bush, he holds many opinions on issues which are aligned with Conservatism. However, he has many opinions on issues which are opposed to Conservatism. Therefore, he is not a Conservative, but rather a politician with some conservative views. That’s it.

Our society needs to stop with the labels and start focusing more on ideology and issues. This article does a good job of it, but needs to focus on defining “conservatism” not “Conservatives”.

The proper way to do this is to say “Liberalism states…” and “Conservatism states…” and then people need to say “My views on [Issues X, Y and Z] align with Liberalism and my views on [Issues A, B and C] align with Conservatism. [ie, someone can say that their stances on social issues align with liberalism, but their stances on foreign policy and fiscal issues align with conservatism. This person would probably be called a “Conservative”, but they really are simply a person who is socially liberal, but conservative fiscally and on foreign policy. There is no need to label this person a liberal or conservative at all, because they are neither. In fact, if we go back to the supposed father of Conservatism, Barry Goldwater, he held liberal positions on social issues and was very much hostile towards the religious.]

Posted by Michael in MI on February 29, 2008 – Friday at 12:55 PM


“The attitude that we should not call people, including themselves, for what they stand for is foolish and deadly.”

“SimpleParadox” made that comment earlier in response to what I wrote about not using labels for people. I stand by my opinion, but I will clarify it a bit…

The reason that I propose focusing on the opinions people hold on political issues, instead of labels for people is because most people really aren’t “liberals” or “conservatives” or “socialists”, etc. Most people have a very shallow grasp of any particular political issue – whether it be the economy or healthcare or United States Constitutional law, etc – and come to their opinions based on having very little knowledge, facts and historical perspective of the issues. Most people don’t logically think through all the consequences of a particular policy, and simply think of things on a superficial level and on what seems ‘fair’ or ‘right’.

Just take the economy for example. Socialism seems ‘fair’ and ‘right’ and capitalism seems ‘evil’ and not ‘fair’. Why not take from the rich to give to the poor? Only seems ‘fair’, right? Well, punishing the rich for working hard and earning their money and then rewarding the poor for doing nothing takes away incentives to work. You end up with the poor realizing they can live off the hard work of the ‘rich’ and the ‘rich’ losing motivation to work hard, because they know the harder they work, the more money is taken from them and given to someone who has not earned it. That is why socialism has failed everywhere it has been tried.

But not everyone understands all these details on the issues. So really, they are not truly “socialists” or “liberals” or “progressives”, but rather just people with an opinion on an issue. If we focus on their opinion on the issue and discuss the details, they may realize that they did not fully understand the issue and then change their opinion on it based on more info and education. But, just reacting to what someone says with “you’re a liberal!” or “you’re a socialist!” or even “you’re a conservative!” does nothing to further the education and knowledge of people on the issues.

Now, there are people who can actually be called Socialists and Marxists and Conservatives. They are people who fully understand Socialism and Marxism and Conservatism and are working to implement policy based on this full understanding of these ideologies. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton could be called fiscal Socialists/Marxists, because they understand Socialism/Marxism and still promote the policies.

But the average person, especially on MySpace, does not really fully understand most ideologies. So when they present their opinion on an issue, instead of reacting in the knee-jerk with “you’re a Socialist!”, the better reaction should be to engage them on the issue. A better response would be “Do you realize that you are espousing Socialism, which has failed everywhere it has been tried in history?” This could then lead to a discussion of Socialism and its failures, rather than an argument going “You’re a Socialist!”, “No I’m not!”, “Yes you are!” etc etc ad naseum.

The labels really are only good for generalizing and dividing people, instead of bringing people together to discuss issues. When it gets down to it, we are not “conservatives” and “liberals” and “Socialists” and “Marxists”, we are all Americans with opinions on issues, some which align with Conservatism, some which align with Liberalism, some which align with Socialism, some with Marxism, etc. Instead of dividing one another with labels, we should be working to help educate one another on the issues.

For example, instead of just saying “Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are Socialists who are going to destroy this country!!!”, the better approach would be to highlight the economic policies of Clinton and Obama and then explain how they would affect the economy. In the process, explain how what they are espousing is Socialism and how Socialism has failed in every other nation it has been tried in history. This will help educate people and help them think through the issue better. And having this understanding of the issue will prevent them from being taken in by another politician in the future who espouses Socialism. The goal should be to explain why we should reject the ideology, not why we should reject the politician. If we just work to reject individuals, this leaves it open for people to accept the same ideology from a different individual in the future who may explain the same failed ideology in a nicer-sounding way.

So anyway, this is why I say it would have been better for the article to focus on Conservatism and not “conservatives”. Conservatism is an ideology. “Conservatives” is just a label. It’s always better to understand the ideology, so we are not duped by the labels given to people.

Posted by Michael in MI on March 1, 2008 – Saturday at 1:37 AM

March 1, 2008 , 1:05PM Posted by | Conservatism, Liberalism | Comments Off on Are They Socialists, Communists, Liberals, Conservatives, Progressives or Simply Ignorant?