Medary.com

The horrific murders in Arizona, in a sane world, would have been an occasion for most of us--those of us with no direct connection to the victims (or the alleged perpetrator)--for sober reflection. Reflection on the tenuous nature of our existence on this world, how quickly a comfortable, easy life can turn into a horrible ordeal, or worse. Reflection on the fundamentally flawed nature of all humans. Reflection, perhaps, on how we have dealt and continue to deal with those troubled souls among us.

What we have been treated to instead is the spectacle of one politically-obsessed group using the event to yet again attack the very humanity of another group.

I'm talking about people like Markos Moulitsas, figurehead of the "progressive" Daily Kos web site, and other "progressives" who rushed to use inflammatory rhetoric to accuse their political opponents of causing the shooting by using inflammatory rhetoric. I'm talking about people like "redheadonfire2" who on Twitter spewed "I think Sarah Palin should get shot instead of Gifford!!!"

The goal is consistent: to dehumanize conservatives as political opponents.

People who do not speak out to denounce this behavior, at this time, are indeed guilty of a kind of blood libel--or at best, guilty of being a silent accessory to blood libel. Does it surprise you to know that a law professor was the first to use the term "blood libel" in a major media outlet--not Sarah Palin? Why haven't you been told that? Could it be that there might just possibly be a slight . . . bias against Mrs. Palin in the media outlets you're depending on?

It's become a cliche to trot out the Martin Niemoeller quote ("First they came for the Communists, but I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist . . ."). But consider: are there, just maybe, certain, special times in history when the quote rings particularly true?

One effect of the blood libel against conservatives is that they, the conservatives, have been denied the ability to join with the rest of the country in properly grieving and reacting to the Arizona shootings. Denied by those very people who self-righteously claim that they simply care more about people than the rest of us. The "progressives" have, essentially, stolen a piece of humanity from the conservatives that they are attacking. An objective person must at this point ask: how much do "progressives" really care about their fellow citizens, and how much of their posturing and rhetoric is just a cloak for a naked lust for raw political power?

Those on the left pointing fingers should go off and do some serious soul-searching, and remember another cliche my mother was fond of quoting: "When you point a finger at someone else, three fingers are pointing back at you."

As Richard Fernandez notes, Hezbollah has withdrawn from the Lebanese coalition government after the radical Islamic group, allied with Iran, received indications that it was about to be implicated in the murder of Rafik Hariri.

Little good can come of this . . .

As a general principle, I am opposed to killing people. I think it sets a bad precedent, for one thing (after all, somebody else might get it into their head to kill me). Then there's that whole Sixth Commandment thing, although many scholars allow as how it should most properly be read as "Thou Shalt Not Murder," not "Thou Shalt Not Kill."

Generally, the doctrine of "live and let live" pretty much sums up one major pillar of my personal philosophy. If you combine that with "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" you have, I think, a pretty even-handed--dare I say . . . liberal philosophy of life that would stand almost everyone in good stead in almost every situation.

Leave people alone who want to be left alone; help people who want to be helped; offer help to those who need it but maybe aren't ready to accept it yet, but don't press them to take help they do not want. How much better a world would we live in if everyone lived that way?

Unfortunately, the world is filled with people who do not want to leave other people alone, who want to help people who do not need or want help, and are willing to do almost anything to justify their behavior after the fact.

This is dangerous behavior.

In short, it pisses people off.

At some point, you have the problem of people who will not take "no" for an answer. "No, you can't have my goat." "No, you can't have my wallet." "No, you can't have my house." "No, you can't have my daughter." "No, you can't have sex with me right now."

What do you do with people who don't take "no" for an answer? What can you do? They won't let you "live and let live." They quite obviously do not believe in "doing unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Maybe, somewhere, in their own minds, they think they're helping you. They've convinced themselves that they know better than you how you should run your life, spend your money, use your belongings, conduct your sexual relations.

There comes a point where a man--or a woman--of peace will draw the line. That line is the one between the killing of another human as an act of evil, and an act of self-defense.

Where should that line be?

Should a woman, in imminent danger of being raped, be held guilty for killing her assailant? Should a man, seeing another man pull a pistol up to shoot him, feel guilty in pulling the trigger of his shotgun?

It seems to me that the line is the certain and imminent physical danger to you or to someone near you--then and then only are you justified in taking the life of the person who is offering that certain, imminent physical threat.

Anything less than that should be the domain of law, and of politics.

"Live and let live" goes both ways. It does not however require anyone to meekly acquiesce in being beaten, abused, of slaughtered by another person. Some people, and some acts, require a violent, deadly response.

And afterwards, people of good conscience will have to struggle with the aftermath, console the survivors and the friends and relatives of those who did not survive, and meditate upon the flawed and imperfect nature of the human animal.

And we will all go on. Somehow.

Positive freedom is simply the freedom to . . . Freedom to do . . . whatever you want to do. Freedom of action.

Negative freedom is, then simply freedom from . . . Freedom from . . . whatever might negatively impinge on the above positive freedom. So, negative freedoms would include two of Franklin Roosevelt's "Four Freedoms:"

Freedom of speech and expression;
Fredom of religion;
Freedom from want;
Freedom from fear.

Taking this view of the two faces of freedom, "The Left" tends to be willing to sacrifice positive freedoms for negative freedoms--especially positive freedoms having to do with economic issues. Paradoxically perhaps, "the left' then turns around and sacrifices negative freedoms in the social sphere--religious and sexual mores, artistic and cultural norms--for positive social and artistic freedoms. "The Right" on the other hand tends to uphold positive economic freedoms over negative ones--the freedom to earn, keep, and use personal property--over negative freedoms such as "freedom from want;" while upholding the negative social freedoms represented by traditional social and cultural institutions and mores over "living on the edge" of expressing positive social/cultural freedoms.

I read through quite a few of the articles I found on the internet regarding positive freedom and negative freedom and quickly found myself wandering into the tall grass of Marxist muddle-headed self-contradictory pseudo-intellectual mush.

It will (I suspect) astonish absolutely no one that the mainstream philosophical definition (i.e. the Marxist definition) of positive and negative freedom is exactly the opposite of what I define above. Thus you discover mind-bending statements like this one earnestly offered up for your consideration:

In hitherto existing Socialist states, like the Soviet Union and China, “negative freedoms” were severely restricted, while “positive freedoms” were advanced.

Got that? In the Soviet Union, in Communist China--the two states that together killed more human beings than any other two nations in the history of mankind--"'positive freedoms' were advanced."

This is why socialism--"progressivism"--communitarianism--Marxism--is extremely, EXTREMELY dangerous bullshit. It is a seductive siren song for overly intelligent intellectuals with too much time on their hands and too many drinks in front of them on the table in the cozy bar adjacent to the campus where they happily study their philosophies in isolation from the real world where most of us live.

Now, consider that one of those intelligent intellectuals is now President of the United States, and famously stated that he considers the Constitution of the United States a "charter of negative liberties."

The spin embedded in the careful use of the terms "positive" and negative" by the Marxists is--or should be--transparent. They believe in the freedom of the community (of which, oddly enough, they tend to always be the ones in charge) over the freedom of the individual, who tends to be rather difficult to control without guns and jails and massive health care programs and total control of the news media and gulags and concentration camps and pogroms against the Jews . . .

That's what the Democratic Party of the United States in the year 2011 is all about. That's what Obamacare is about. It's about ensnaring you, the American people in a velvet net of "positive" negative freedoms, so that their betters--lead by Obama--can "take care of you."

For your own good, of course.

Do you like your freedom?

Are you positive?

(crickets chirping)

Naw. No media bias here. Just remember, it's all totally beyond the Democrats' control. Remember that especially come next election time in 2012, whether gasoline prices are $5/gallon or higher and they're blaming the Republicans, or whether the economy has gone from critical to serious condition and they're crowing about how they've "saved the economy." Because, occasionally, the Democrats do blunder into the truth. It is totally beyond their control. But they keep trying to control it, anyway. And it doesn't matter what "it" is. The more they try to control things, the worse things get screwed up. (And the current Republican leadership isn't much better. William F. Buckley was right--the first 535 names in the phone book would probably constitute a better Congress than what we've been sending to Washington lately. Everyone should fervently hope that the Tea Party Republicans can give the finger to Establishment Washington and break the mold.)

But I digress. This is a rant about energy prices.

Lift the bans and loosen the regulations preventing Americans from getting economical power. Open up ANWR, drill more, drill now. Build nuclear power plants. Put serious money backing behind Polywell fusion. Cheap Energy For Everyone should be a major national policy goal. For one thing, Cheap Energy will mean that fewer elderly people will freeze to death in their homes (or on the streets) every winter. See? Humanitarian. You might even say . . . "progressive." As in "promoting progress."

This is the front page for our journal of our Europe trip and trans-Atlantic cruise on Holland America's ms Prinsendam from October 26 through December 1, 2010.

Here are the individual posts, collected all in one handy location for your reading pleasure. As we travel, we'll be adding posts so you can follow our journeys.

(Click the Read More to see all the post links . . .)

The 21-Day Mediterranean & Atlantic Explorer Cruise (And more!), October 26-December 1, 2010, Holland America Prinsendam

Text by Snookums, Pictures by Filbert

Part Nine

(Remember to click "read more" if you're looking at this from the main medary.com page to get the whole article!)

November 22 (Monday, Day 28, At sea) -

Rainbow!

Snookums woke up and read in bed while Filbert showered and went to breakfast. Snookums fell back asleep and finally got up for good around 11:30 AM. Snookums loves sea days! While Snookums was being lazy, Filbert went to the “Christopher Columbus: A Man and His Dreams” lecture by historian Dave Levesque. He thought it was pretty good.

The ocean was pretty choppy and there were a lot of white caps and it was cloudy and in the high 60s.

At 5:30 Snookums went to the gym to teach Fran, one of her dinner tablemates, the machines. Snookums and Fran started with 20 minutes on the bike and then hit the weight machines and finished with floor work. Fran is a retired Ph.D. nurse and was a professor prior to retiring. Fran enjoyed it and said it was the first time she had ever sweated. She said that teaching and writing don’t work up a sweat. She wants to work out with Snookums every afternoon.

More after the jump . . .

The 21-Day Mediterranean & Atlantic Explorer Cruise (And more!), October 26-December 1, 2010, Holland America Prinsendam

Text by Snookums, Pictures by Filbert

Part Eight

(Remember to click "read more" if you're looking at this from the main medary.com page to get the whole article!)

November 20 (Saturday, Day 26, At sea) -

Filbert ate breakfast while Snookums read in bed. She ultimately decided to get up and went to the gym. After lunch outside on the back of the ship, Filbert read on the balcony, with his back to the sun, while Snookums read at various locations around the ship. At 5 PM Snookums attended the Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz movie, “Knight and Day”. She was glad she didn’t pay to see it. (But the ship’s popcorn was very good!)

We turned our clocks back an hour before going to sleep which left us with five more hours to gain before docking in Ft. Lauderdale. No jetlag for us!


November 21 (Sunday, Day 27, Funchal (Madeira), Portugal) -

We woke up and got ready for our shore excursion that Gary and Charlotte did the last time they were here and insisted that it was great and that they were going to do it again. Of course we had to do it, too! We took a bus for a short tour of Funchal, population 120,000, and got off at the cable car place. We boarded the cable car for the 10-minute, 2-mile scenic trip up to the town of Monte and had about 30 minutes to explore Monte.

Cable car

More after the jump . . .

Has anybody noticed that nobody really cares one way or another about "Don't ask, Don't tell?"

It's a completely manufactured issue. Manufactured by Democrats, I'm afraid.

The original policy is Bill Clinton's. He was, if I recall correctly, a Democrat. It has now been rescinded by a utterly, completely, totally Democrat-dominated Congress.

Mission Accomplished.

The 21-Day Mediterranean & Atlantic Explorer Cruise (And more!), October 26-December 1, 2010, Holland America Prinsendam

Text by Snookums, Pictures by Filbert

Part Seven

(Remember to click "read more" if you're looking at this from the main medary.com page to get the whole article!)

November 16 (Tuesday, Day 22, Barcelona, Spain) -

Mercats de Barcelona

We got off the ship at 9:30 AM and took the shuttle bus to the Monument Colom. The forecast was for a sunny day and around 55 degrees. We walked to the nearest metro station and paid €1.40 each for a metro ticket. We got on and rode for 15 minutes to Avda. Diagonal which is one of the main streets in Barcelona. We decided to just walk a lot today so we walked from Av. Diagonal to Placa de Catalunya and then down Las Ramblas to the shuttle. During our 4-hour walk we stopped at El Corte Ingles department store to use the bathroom. Its basement had a full grocery store so we looked there, too. Later on in the walk Snookums went in a bakery and bought a €0.80 cookie that was about 4 inches across and very flat and kind of looked like pie crust or a very thing sugar cookie. It had pine nuts sprinkled on it and was glazed with a clear glaze that tasted like citron. It was okay and like nothing she had seen before. Further on in our wanderings we found the “Mercats de Barcelona”. It looked like a temporary building (but it wasn’t) in the empty lot next to the hospital and it housed all sorts of independent food vendors. Lots of locals were buying the meats, fish, and produce and Spaniards certainly like tripe based on the number of butchers selling it. We bought a can of some kind of fish (salted cod?) for a Christmas present.

More after the jump . . .