BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?

Subject: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: GUEST,Guest... music lover AND conservative (gasp)
Date: 04 Jan 03 - 05:45 PM

Are there any musicians of the conservative persuasion on Mudcat? I'm just seeing a bunch of "our way or the highway" type posts on here tonight. Good grief, people. Let's just talk music.
BTW, does anyone have chords to "Oh the Pain of Loving You" as recorded by Trio?

Subject: RE: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jan 03 - 05:49 PM

Guest MLAC:

There are a number of them who range from the center to the obsessively right-wing. Your best bet is DougR, who at least continues to communicate, and only gets rabid when he's off his meds.

If you wish to solely discuss music, of course, you won't see any political haranguing, because you won't be opening any BS threads or those with obviosuly political titles.

A

Subject: RE: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: mack/misophist
Date: 04 Jan 03 - 05:50 PM

You've been reading the wrong posts, Guest. You have company here. And some are intelligent. And some aren't. One of the smartest people I know is a conservative. He's a relative, though, so it's probably the result of tainted blood.

Subject: RE: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Jan 03 - 05:52 PM

Thanks for the quick responses. I was getting frustrated. Does BS stand for Barbra Streisand?
Ciao

Subject: RE: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Jan 03 - 05:53 PM

Yes

Subject: RE: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: Dead Horse
Date: 04 Jan 03 - 06:03 PM

I conserve energy, but then so do most of us communists.......

Subject: RE: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Jan 03 - 06:05 PM

Funny- most conservatives I know are good conservators of our resources and environment. Hence, the root "conserve". But surely you aren't buying into big media stereotypes of conservative people.

Subject: RE: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: vectis
Date: 04 Jan 03 - 06:23 PM

Do you mean Conservative or conservative. There is a Hell of a difference between the two.

Subject: RE: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: The Pooka
Date: 04 Jan 03 - 07:52 PM

As there is between Republican and republican.

Subject: RE: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 04 Jan 03 - 07:57 PM

My wife used to say I'm the most conservative man she's ever known. But I'm not "a Conservative".

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: michaelr
Date: 04 Jan 03 - 09:07 PM

"most conservatives I know are good conservators of our resources and environment."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

...oh sorry... you may not be American...

Cheers,
Michael

Subject: RE: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: Cllr
Date: 04 Jan 03 - 09:15 PM

I am a conservative UK county councillor hence the nick name Cllr

Subject: RE: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: Cllr
Date: 04 Jan 03 - 09:18 PM

Im also a member of the RWBFEOA (Right Wing Bast**d Folk Event Organiser Association) of wich there are sevral members one of which is also a mudcatter. Cllr

Subject: RE: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: Leadfingers
Date: 04 Jan 03 - 09:39 PM

Us socialists are sometimes worth talking to as well mate

Subject: RE: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 04 Jan 03 - 09:44 PM

Yes there are some conservative Mudcatters. I, for one, tend to regard them affectionately. Granted, it's the type of cautious affection that I have for my neighbor's pit bull dog. I know that if I ever get bitten by either one it's not really their fault. It's more likely due to faulty training way back in the puppy stage.

Bruce

Subject: RE: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: artbrooks
Date: 04 Jan 03 - 09:45 PM

Another label, eh? I'll try to answer the question if someone would would care to define the term.

Subject: RE: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: jimmyt
Date: 04 Jan 03 - 10:07 PM

Guest, I am a Conservative. I play in a folk group with t others, 2 Conservatives and a Moderate Democrat. It seems that somehow we can still ,play and enjoy the music somehow. I have met a lot of folks here many of them liberals some of them selfproclaimed socialists (LEADFINGERS) than I count as my friends. Jerry Rasmussin is not a conservative but somehow he doesn't feel like he needs to cross the street when we are approaching   (grin) I think, and I hope my liberal friends agree, that we are not enemies, we just have diffenent philosophies. Doesn't make me right or them wrong or vice versa. I have a good frient who is a folk musician in Denmark who is an ardent Socialist. He is a fascinating person who has passion about his idiology but he also will listen to and respect others as well.   Seems where we should all be striving for, whether over politics, economics or religion. Join in, don't have a chip on your shoulder, listen,contribute, but don't let folks'comments get to you. Enjoy the music!!!

Subject: RE: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: Uncle Jaque
Date: 04 Jan 03 - 10:32 PM

Ahoy, Mate!

Yes, I have found that I'm not the only Oxymoron ("Conservative Folkie") around these digs, but we are sort of a minority.

I'll tell you this, though; we are tolerated a whole lot better in here than we used to be. At least now the Socialists with an agenda to grind usually have the decency to confine their Marxist rantings to the "BS" threads, which unless you enjoy being vastly outnumbered in a debate and getting well flamed, you may do well to just avoid.

I was one of the first and the few to take a stand against the prevailing dominance and intimidation of the liberal majority on the 'Cat, and I've got the scorched shorts to show for it! I would like to think that I contributed somewhat to the improved level of civility in here, but thanks be a few good, articulate and well informed fellow Conservative Patriots came alongside to help level the playing field. I will admit that I encountered some of the most articulate, intellectually astute, and compelling champions of the political left in here as I have ever known, and I got quite an education from both contending sides.
That's particularly noteworthy as liberals are typically known not for their intellectual or pragmatic appeal, as much as for their routine knee-jerk emotional pitch; ie. "It's for the children!", "Tax breaks for the Rich", etc..

Conservatism, by the way, as I understand it, implies a system of belief in which it is the PEOPLE, NOT GOVERNMENT that make a Civilization work. People are created (usually by a Diety, although we are not all together on that yet) to live in a context of Community with Free Agency, within the structure of just Law, with concurrent Rights and Responsibilities. A Citizen should be free to reap the rewards of initiative and labor, yet liable for the consequences of negligence, incompetence, or the abuse of another's rights.
All participants in the Community are equally responsible under the Law and accountable to it and one another, as they are equally entitled to it's protection.

Conservatives beleive that the U.S. Constitution is the guiding, foundational document of our Nation, and must not be adulterated, modified, or truncated in the interest of "modernizing" it or making it a "living document". We resent politically motivated Judges creating Law from the bench without the consent of the American People or their duly elected Representatives - such as "seeing" a Constitutional "right" to prenatal infanticide (AKA "abortion")in our Constitution when it never was there to begin with, or ignoring rights which ARE enumerated - such as the 2nd Ammendment - in permitting confiscatory "gun control" legislation.

Most Conservatives I know would agree that a woman should have a "choice"... as to how much water she needs to flush her toilet, what kind of car she drives, where she invests her retirement funds, and which School in her locale should be entrusted with the education of her Children - even if she is not wealthy like all of the Politicians who deny her most of these choices yet whose Children are privately educated.

"Liberalism", on the other hand, assumes that the "little people" who wash the laundry and fix the cars, bake the bread etc. are incompetent to make significant decisions in their lives or to take care of themselves or their families adequately. They are "like children" (a similar assumption was made by the Plantation Owners in the South towards Blacks at one time) and need to be "looked out for" by a more enlightened, benificient elite; "The Government".
Since the peasants are obviously too stupid to be trusted with the money they earn, it must be confistcated "for safe keeping" by the Government and "shared" with those more worthy. Of course the "worthy" will be determined by the politcal elite.
Workers must be indoctrinated from an early age (that's what Public Schools are for, you know) to be completely passive and dependant on (and obedient to) "Massah" down in Washington DC, who will do all of their thinking for them, spend most of their money for them, tell them what to beleive in, who to vote for... and de Gubmint will take good care ob dem!
These in a nutshell, I think, are the assumptions of Liberalism.

Others will surely have alternative perspectives.

To my heart and mind, only in Conservatism are the priceless treasures of LIBERTY and FREEDOM to be found. Not without strife, labor and risk, to be sure - but there are yet a few of us old dinosaurs left in this America who are still really hooked on Liberty, and addicted to Freedom - such little as is left to us in our time.

And the chains of liberal / socialist dependancy and subjugation do not appeal to us at all.

Subject: RE: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: Uncle Jaque
Date: 04 Jan 03 - 10:57 PM

By the way; "Amen" to jimmyt's sentiments; Despite occasonal ruffled feathers here and there in the past, I am blessed to count as dear Friends many folks who subscribe to a distinctly alternative political perspective than I. It just so happens that not a few are fellow "Catters.
By and large, we get along just fine, and eventually learn where each others idealogical "buttons" are and have the decency not to go out of our way to push them.

(Ya wanna push buttons? Buy a Concertina!)

My Mother was a card-carrying Socialist at one time, and an avid Liberal Democrat for as long as I can remember. When my brother was serving in the Army over in Vietnam and I in Korea, she was getting busted in Washington DC for participating in a "Mother's March" anti-war demonstration!

Now that she has passed beyond the vail, the mantle of "my favorite Socialist" has passed to a dear friend and probably the most interesting man I know, who is well known to most Mudcatters in the Southern Maine area.

And the more I get to know some of these folks, the more apparent it usually becomes that our essential core values, hopes, dreams and aspirations are not all as far removed from one another as perhaps we once might once have assumed. Music really helps in that process of discovery, I opine - perhaps one reason I love it so.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: Richie
Date: 04 Jan 03 - 11:12 PM

Guest,

I consider myself to be a consevative on many issues but I am a registered independent. I am a full-time musician and I work hard to make ends meet.

I take issue with the comment about conservatives: "most conservatives I know are good conservators of our resources and environment. Hence, the root "conserve".

I thinks most liberals would diagree with that. The current line of thinking is that conservatives are "not" trying to conserve the natural resources. They are trying to drill for oil in Alaska etc., etc.

I believe that conservate/liberal is a ying/yang type of belief system. Those in power try to hold their power and beliefs, those not in power try to get more power. Many of the beliefs of each change over time and are held by the other.

Conservatives and liberals are defined by their politial agendas not by the words: conservative and liberal.

-Richie

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Jan 03 - 11:22 PM

Oh, Uncle J! Have you left yourself wide open... This will be fun.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: mack/misophist
Date: 04 Jan 03 - 11:22 PM

Let me explain something for non-Americans. Our POLITICAL conservatives are, for the most part, rabidly opposed to conservation. In fact, I don't think they'll be happy until the Potomac River bursts once again into flames. (Yes, it did happen once; back in the bad old days when, pound for pound, America's biggest export was pollution.)[No joke here people. It happened. I THINK the number was 250 million tons of pollutants in the air per year.] Our government wants the good old days back.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: jimmyt
Date: 04 Jan 03 - 11:26 PM

Are you sure that was flames on the potomac or just hot air crossing from congress across the tidal basin?   grin

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: Genie
Date: 04 Jan 03 - 11:29 PM

I'm with Art. Please define your terms.

When it comes to our Constitution, especially the Bill Of Rights, I consider myself pretty conservative -- a lot more than a lot of "right wingers" are. I'm hardly a Marxist (not because the ideal isn't worthy, but because I think it can't work in society at large). As others have said, I take a very conservative approach when it comes to the issue of the use of our natural resources. But if "liberal" means tolerance of diversity and freedom from unnecessary restrictions on personal behavior, I'm for that.

Why do we call someone "conservative" who wants to restrict who can be legally partnered with whom in a domestic unit, but who is quite ready to throw out the first and fourth Amendments for the sake of "national security" and to throw caution to the winds when it comes to dealing with potential global warming?

Just wondering.

Genie

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: GUEST,.gargoyle
Date: 04 Jan 03 - 11:31 PM

A childhood friend of mine, bumped into a college friend of mine.

The first was conservative, the later liberal.

In conversation about my peculiar personality....the college friend referred to me as being "right wing of Ghengis Khan." I took it as a compliment

Yes, I am, likewise, a musician and a conservative.

Sincerely,
Gargoyle

Don't worry about the wannabe "liberals" of the Mudcat, they lack both the voice and the values of one active conservative. For most, the Mudcat is their only forum>

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Jan 03 - 11:37 PM

That wasn't the Potomac, misophist. It was the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland Ohio...

Click

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: mack/misophist
Date: 04 Jan 03 - 11:52 PM

Dear CarolC,

Forgive me. I am of an age when senility is no longer a threat. What I mean is, I may be wrong, but I'm never wrong, you dig. As the great Fats Waller once said; "Your pedal extremities are simply outrageous". That explains everything.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Jan 03 - 11:55 PM

;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: GUEST,Fred Miller
Date: 04 Jan 03 - 11:58 PM

Not a conservative, but am addicted to hearing what conservatives think.

I had hoped somebody would post a characterisation of liberals on the What is a conservative thread, and here one is, cool. It's a little general, quite a bit slanted about the trendy, jerky, fad-liberalism, and I have to disagree.

There certainly is some liberal nannyish nonsense, but conservative stuff also. There's fashionable liberalism ready-made for people to priss around in.

We've had to amend the constitution because it wasn't understood the first time, it's expressed ideals could not be realised then, in regard to equality particularly. Documents and language, ideals and reality are like that. My favorite phrase is These truths we hold to be self-evident. That kills me.

A conservative friend of mine who lives to hunt manages to agree that some people shouldn't operate a gun, a competence test like driving a car doesn't bug him--he's been hunting with people he doesn't want out there. Others feel that it opens the door to further restrictions, but I don't think it's going to happen. Those "gateway" arguments don't make real sense. I know a guy who's been standing in the gateway to hard drugs for 30 years, smoking pot, doesn't even use legal drugs, no cigarettes, doesn't drink.

Maybe it's people, not government, but in government by the people--I'm not sure what you're saying. There aren't any kings. But liberals of my sort believe that responsibilities in regard to negligence, incompetence, abuse of the rights of others are undermined by demonstrable biases, by the legal doctrine of incorporation, which proposes a company is a living thing apart from those who make the decisions. And by selective enforcement of law, biased toward the wealthy. That when a company ceo is rewarded for running a company into the ground, something isn't working.

Things get complicated, despite what we'd prefer. Free enterprise has hidden costs, if you think about it. Was it liberals who knew better than everyone else and poured our money into nuclear power, which would never make it in free enterprise? Still hasn't?

The best conservative thinkers I've found finally throw up their hands and wonder why we are evil. Government can do a few things well, when it's composed of--people--who believe in it instead of people who don't and have nothing better in mind than to bend it to their own interests.

   As for abortion, I've never had to confront it personally, don't like to mouth around about it. But I see a disparity in the moral allowances we'll grant depending on who is making the decisions. Conservatives have been slow on all that, no matter what anyone says, they have, damn it. And now conservatives teach us the lessons of slavery. Well, if conservatives understood the ideals of the constitution the first time liberals wouldn't need to re-write it so they'd finally get it. Last I heard most people support abortion as a choice, rather than some lone self-appointed elite liberal judge foisting it on us, as you seem to think.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: mack/misophist
Date: 05 Jan 03 - 12:00 AM

And to Genie:

I neither jest not exaggerate. Conservatives have their place. Without TR there would be no national parks system. Too many conservatives, however, (such as Bush) think having a place for us all to live comes second to giving their cronies another tax break. I remember with fondness and fervor, the lines from 'The Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy': 'And when the revolution came, they were the first to be dragged to the wall'. Amen.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: GUEST,Fred Miller
Date: 05 Jan 03 - 01:17 AM

My post was meant to respond to UJ.

I can't agree about the humanising power of music, sad to say, must confess I'm cynical about it. Music can make you think you understand what you don't understand, think you feel what you don't really feel. It represents things to us through the backdoor of our awareness, despite what Plato thought, and must be good to be good.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: Genie
Date: 05 Jan 03 - 01:50 AM

Misophist (et al.), Lincoln was a "conservative," too, of sorts, I'd say -- but not a Reagan-Bush-Bush-Falwell-Robertson-Ashcroft type, I think.

Conservatives like TR I have a lot in common with.

I actually agree with a lot of what the current right wing commentators say in criticism of the tax-and-spend, big-government, excessive entitlements "liberals." Where they lose me as an audience and as a voter is their knee-jerk tendency to throw out any common-sense idea or proposal if it is espoused by "liberals." It is as though they care more about party and "wing" alliances than about ideas.

Genie

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: open mike
Date: 05 Jan 03 - 03:55 AM

why is it that many folks who do not
want women to be able to choose to end
an unwanted pregnancy (are they pro life or anti choice?)
are in favor of the death penalty
(why is it ok to kill if the victim is no longer a child?)
perhaps it should be a crime to force a child to grow up
unwanted and suffer all thru their lives.
I jsut always wondered how this couild be justified
and why it is often so that people who are
"pro life" also are "pro death"(penalty)
-it does not make sense to me.
just a comment

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: banjomad (inactive)
Date: 05 Jan 03 - 06:05 AM

Kolk music is SOCIALIST music, if conservatives want to sing it, why
not. They must remember that folk music and politics go hand in hand.
Dave

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: Ralphie
Date: 05 Jan 03 - 06:21 AM

A little observation from the UK.
I've been a socialist all my life.
I've always voted Labour in our elections.
And now.......I'm a Conservative!
My choice?.....I don't think so..
Excuse me, must go and stock up my bunker.
Happy New War...(Woops sorry...Year!!)
Ralphie

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: artbrooks
Date: 05 Jan 03 - 12:00 PM

Well, ok, let's use Uncle Jaque's definition:

Conservatism, by the way, as I understand it, implies a system of belief in which it is the PEOPLE, NOT GOVERNMENT that make a Civilization work. People are created (usually by a Diety, although we are not all together on that yet) to live in a context of Community with Free Agency, within the structure of just Law, with concurrent Rights and Responsibilities. A Citizen should be free to reap the rewards of initiative and labor, yet liable for the consequences of negligence, incompetence, or the abuse of another's rights. Good solid ninth-grade civics, and would be agreed with by any middle-of-the-roader and just about every intelligent person I've ever met that calls him/herself a liberal.

All participants in the Community are equally responsible under the Law and accountable to it and one another, as they are equally entitled to it's protection. Good, liberal, point of view. Nobody is above the law, regardless of their income or family connections.

Conservatives beleive that the U.S. Constitution is the guiding, foundational document of our Nation, and must not be adulterated, modified, or truncated in the interest of "modernizing" it or making it a "living document". Well, this is a bit short-sighted. The Constitution, or at least the original document and the first amendments to it (the Bill of Rights), were written 220 years ago by a group of individuals who were all white males and about half of whom owned and benefited from the labor of other human beings. Perhaps the original would have been different if Eighteenth Century society had been more representative. However, the Amendment system works fairly well. We resent politically motivated Judges creating Law from the bench without the consent of the American People or their duly elected Representatives - such as "seeing" a Constitutional "right" to prenatal infanticide (AKA "abortion")in our Constitution when it never was there to begin with, or ignoring rights which ARE enumerated - such as the 2nd Ammendment - in permitting confiscatory "gun control" legislation. More than a few loaded buzz-words here. What judge has permitted "confiscatory "gun control" legislation"? Judges don't legislate. If a law was passed that did so, than the peoples' "duly elected Representatives" are the ones that did so. The Liberal view of the 2nd Amendment is that that it is perfectly acceptable...as long as the beginning of it, where it says "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" is not ignored.

OK, I guess that I'm a conservative, or maybe I'm a liberal, or maybe anybody that concocts their own definition, one which has no relationship to the real beliefs of the individuals whom they are defining, and then indiscriminately applies it, is living off in their own little Cloud-cookoo Land.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: jimmyt
Date: 05 Jan 03 - 12:08 PM

You may have a point, Art.. I think by your definition, I am, and I suspect an awful lot of us are living off in "cloud cookoo" land. I think if folks will actually analyse their belief systems, we are mostly hybrids. I am pro choice, pro gun control, frightened by the moral majority mentality, OK with same sex partnership and the benefits I feel they should be given, but, on most otgher issues, I just can't agree with liberal economics. Again, as I stated before, I think there are more of us in this middle ground than you would suspect. Libertarians look better and better to me as a viable choice.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Jan 03 - 01:05 PM

liberals & conservatives are not cast from two specific molds. They have some widely divergent views within each group, so simplifed characterizations are dangerous.

Still, almost any steroetype has 'some' basis in fact, even if it is distorted by the opposition in practice. We all know that Ted Kennedy and Phil Donohue are 'different' from Rush Limbaugh and Pat Buchanan, but it is hard to explicate exactly what is at the basis of their attitudes and practices and positions on issues.

Did you ever ask yourself how two obviously intelligent, well-read people can look at the exact same issue and being given the exact same data and history, come to totally opposite conclusions? Obviously, the 'differences' are internal, and mostly amount to people trying to defend intelletually views that they 'feel' through their cultural/personal/psychological history.

It is truly amazing to me that the society's views on issues such as abortion are decided by close votes in a court which has been selected by the accidental political fortunes of years ago!

Surely 'voting', by either a court or the public at large, does not make abortion right or wrong? It seems to me that there is only ony way to approach law-making that is fair....and I admit that it will never be easy to do, even though I am convinced that it is sensible.

When an issue such as abortion comes up, the law should be written so as to allow each person to follow his/her own moral concience about it. As in, "if YOU do not like abortion, don't do it, but do NOT interfere with those whos basic belief system is different!"

Yeah, yeah....I know..."but it is MURDER of an innocent soul!!"...of course my suggestion will be shouted down by those who **believe** in souls and their sanctity, but the operative word here is 'belief', and it simply makes no sense to allow one religious system to dictate policy to those who are not adherents.

Now, I submit, THIS is what makes me a 'liberal'...that is, the very idea that there are few, if any, absolutes that can be imposed on people just because the current court, congress, or President wants to!

I also realize that just sorting out and defining what issues ARE fair game for voting, and to what level, would be almost impossible on a practical level, simply because the discussion would be carried on by people with agendas and vested interests in the 'morality' or the money involved.......................and....you see what happens? When attempting to define 'conservative', the issues of control of money and adherence to certain moral views arise over & over. No matter which side you are on, you MUST confront these issues, if only to deny that they are relevant......but if they need denying, then they ARE relevant!

Society NEEDS laws and rules in order to function--which is what our Constution was designed to provide the basis for.....but as good as it is, it cannot prevent individuals and groups from interpreting it to suit their own prejudices and emotional leanings.

I think that a major distinction (in my own not-so-humble view) between liberals and conservatives, is how they process their own internal thoughts and to what degree they employ subjective or objective analysis to come to their conclusions....Is this a useful distinction? Well......I think so....but you see, I am mostly a liberal, and.......

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Jan 03 - 01:07 PM

"Liberalism", on the other hand, assumes that the "little people" who wash the laundry and fix the cars, bake the bread etc. are incompetent to make significant decisions in their lives or to take care of themselves or their families adequately. They are "like children" (a similar assumption was made by the Plantation Owners in the South towards Blacks at one time) and need to be "looked out for" by a more enlightened, benificient elite; "The Government".

--Uncle Jaque

Being one who considers myself a liberal, I think I'll respond to this mischaracterization.

Liberals are realists. We know that free-market economics is a good system in theory. But we also know that the US has never actually had a free-market economic system, and that in the system we do have, those with the most power and money are the ones who get the preferential treatment.

We know that with the absence of a free-market system, with a system based on corporate welfare and the military-industrial complex, the little guys need someone who will help them make the playing field a little less uneven in order to simply survive.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: wilco
Date: 06 Jan 03 - 09:40 AM

Count me as one "conservative" in US.
    "Liberals" get a lot of mileage out of being biased and narrow-minded. They like to think that they are the fountain of all goodness in the world. That's a very convenient and immature perspective.
      I am a full-time volunteer housing developer, who develops hosuing programs for disabled people, most of whom are mentally ill.
I do this for non-profits, and I don't get paid a dime. I've been doing it for ten years. there are many, amny conservatives like myself, whose interests are the public good. That's not the exclusive domain of the "liberal."

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: GUEST,Geordie
Date: 06 Jan 03 - 10:00 AM

I tend not to think of myself in terms of political definitions> But one political thing I have observed , and I may be wrong or simply turn in a narrow circle; Many of the people I know who describe themselves as "liberal" seem to have swallowed others ideas, political correctmess and so on. They don"t seem to have the ability, often, to draw conclusions of their own. It is as though it were some kind of new age fad. Is it just me, or is there a grain of truth in this

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: GUEST,Fred Miller
Date: 06 Jan 03 - 10:25 AM

I think there's certainly fashionable liberalism, of course, because it's generally supposed to be forward-looking and all, and plenty of it makes no thought-out sense. It's ready to wear. I think you do see more of it, at least in my lifetime, than the same sort of thing in a conservative line, because, you know, that's your father's oldmobile, it isn't showy or rebellious or something. That's not to say that the conservative views you encounter are terribly thought out, it's just harder to market them that way to fashionable people.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: Kim C
Date: 06 Jan 03 - 10:37 AM

Libertarian. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Jan 03 - 10:40 AM

What a stupid question...

i guess it was an American who started it.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: Steve in Idaho
Date: 06 Jan 03 - 10:45 AM

Here I think I am a conservative and on the Marine Forum I'm a hard core liberal - go figure. I think it is perspective -

Steve

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: Uncle Jaque
Date: 06 Jan 03 - 12:34 PM

Aahh!; This is just like the good old days... sort of.

Before re-opening this thread I strapped on the Kevlar and Nomex boxers, just to be on the safe side - expecing the usual response after having pitched my "Conservative" pet skunk into the "Liberal" locker-room just for fun.

Actually, it hasn't been all that bad... so far.

So let's see, here;

Ebbie; are we having fun yet? Lord knows we used to, eh? I hope the term "Lord" does not overly offend you, Deah. };^{)~

Guest Fred; a thoughtfull response, and appreciated.
There is one "Conservative Thinker" whom I think you may have overlooked; Rush Limbaugh. OK; you can can the jeering, hissing and booing now, everybody - I'm well aware of the popular PC opinion of the man and need not be reminded. Yet in spite of his bellicose shtick and tounge-in-cheek arrogance, Rush is probably one of the most influencial and respected Conservative idealologists in America today.
I don't agree 100% with all of his opinions or ideas, but then he does not expect us to. He regularly encourages his listeners to observe, anylize, and think critically before arriving at any political conclusion. He espouses Conservatism not because it is popular, but because it makes sense to him. If you think that he is a shill for the Republican Party or President Bush, then you have not heard him question and critisize same for many of their actions of late, including the "Campaign Finance Reform" Act the President signed, despite serious questions as to it's compromise of the First Ammendment.
I might reccomend going to his Website:

RUSH LIMBAUGH:

...and give him a fair hearing before passing judgement.

My dissertation of distinctives represents my own understanding; I did not cut and paste it from anyone else, as C's are encouraged to do our own thinking as much as possible. They are ideals, not actuals;
how well I know that even under the most "C" Administrations, abuses and inequities abound, and still do. They are by no means universally accepted within the Republican Party; despite allegations that both Parties slavishly follow the Party line, we have it from a former Republican State House Majority Leader (does not happen very often here in Maine)that leading Republicans is like trying to direct "a herd of cats".

I would never accuse either of Maine's "Republican" Senators, for instance, of being the least bit socially "Conservative", although on a relative basis, they might be somewhat economicly conservative.


As to:

"...I jsut always wondered how this couild be justified
and why it is often so that people who are
"pro life" also are "pro death"(penalty)
-it does not make sense to me."

Don't wear a bald spot scratching your head, there, openmike.

It has to do with the concept of "Innocence". Can you think of any human being who could qualify for the status of absoloutly innocent?
How about those who have never seen MTV... never known or seen abuse; never heard a curse... because they have not even been born into this sortid World yet?

And yet you still advocate for the destruction of the innocent while extending clemency to the guilty? Now I'd really like to know how THAT "makes sense", Mate!

Now we can get off on this "Choice" thing all Month long, and no doubt there is a thread somewhere still raging on it. I have been admonished by Senior Officials in the Republican Party that as an Activist, I am not to even mention this issue, much less get into discussions about it.

Phooey!

Abortion is ripping the American culture and it's institutions right down the middle every bit as much as SLAVERY did in the early to mid - 1800s. I pray that it's resolution will not cost the lives of over 660,000 Americans as Slavery did, but we cannot be too certain.

Abortion is tearing apart, or seriously straining, the integrity of many of our most foundational institutions; our Government; Churches / Synagogs/Temples, and all too often, Families.

All right then; I haven't got all night to chase this around again; so let me put it to you this way:

I'm going to propose two hypothetical statements, both of which I think are fairly representative of the supporters of slavery during the 1850's and Abortion (err.. "Choice") today. You should be able to determine which is which.

1.: "You gots to treat dem Niggers like livestock; dey ain't really "Human", y' know.

2.: "Don't worry, Mary; it only a lump of "tissue"; it isn't a real "Baby" yet, you know."

Anybody see a corellation, here?

Yes; you in the back with the mandolion and the funny hat...

Very good!; The common denominator here is "Humanity".
Which is denied by others with power to the Slave as well as to the Unborn.

Can we really justify doing that?
Now I see that some of you here are not at all sure as to whether a fetus has a "Soul" or not... but my God, folks; do WE?

I've got to take a break, but will see if I have time later to address more of the issues raised here. In the meantime, keep thinking... keep searching.

UJ in ME

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: GUEST,Beccy
Date: 06 Jan 03 - 01:31 PM

Well, hellloooo Uncle Jacques.
I'll put a name to my post now. Thank you to everyone who responded to my post. You've been (for the most part) articulate and polite. To those of you who couldn't resist the cheap shot ("...What a stupid question... blah blah... American... blah blah...") I offer my pity.
I'd like to address the people who scoffed at the conservationist tendencies that I referenced. First, do you ever discuss this with conservatives? Do you REALLY think they would like to see all natural resources used up, sullied, plundered, mutated/mutilated, etc? Conservatism, I would posit, is based on the conservation of that which is good in humanity and the world at large. "Omnia probate quod bonum est tenete" to those of you for whom "Si Hoc Legere Scis Nimium Eruditionis Habes" holds meaning. For those of you who are now mocking me mercilessly, try everything and keep that which is good- to paraphrase loosely. We have a responsibility as humans not to turn a blind eye to history but to weigh what we have learned against the circumstances in which we find ourselves currently. I think Conservatives do a better job of this than do liberals.
As for Folk music being socialist intrinsically. I can't buy that. Does that mean that only Socialists can compose on the dobro? Nah. I would believe it if you told me that most folk musicians you know are decidedly not Conservative... but I do hold out hope.
Break out the G.K. Chesterton and keep the discussion going. I'm enjoying this!

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: GUEST,Beccy
Date: 06 Jan 03 - 01:39 PM

By the bye, Uncle Jacques. You'd best keep those Kevlar undies on for the responses to your last post. I think you're about to get a couple of punches delivered below the belt. Not only did you make a succinct argument about abortion being similar to slavery, you used the Robert Byrd word to make a point. Guard your vitals!

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Jan 03 - 02:37 PM

Here's a philosophical question for the ones putting themselves in the "conservative" camp.

Here's an article about former Chief Economist of the World Bank, Joe Stiglitz. My question is this: just for the sake of this discussion, let's say that everything that Mr. Stiglitz has said in this article is true. In such a circumstance, what would conservatives/Conservatives have to say about these types of practices?

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 06 Jan 03 - 03:58 PM

I seem to recall a quote from ol' "Senator Sam" (extra points for the last name) about conservatives and liberals:

"A Conservative will see a drowning man some fifty feet from the river bank, throw him twenty-five feet of rope and demand he swim the other twenty-five feet. The Liberal will throw him one hundred feet of rope, with both ends."

On a personal note; as a "compassionate conservative", I do believe I would throw him enough rope to reach the bank, then tie the rope to a large rock. However, if in the course of events, I found out the drowning man was a voting liberal, I'd throw him the rock also...

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: Kim C
Date: 06 Jan 03 - 04:12 PM

Well, I'd do whatever I could to save him. I think most people would, conservative, liberal, or otherwise.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Jan 03 - 04:32 PM

The fallacy of your argument is, of course, that a drowning man can swim.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Jan 03 - 06:23 PM

Looks like I forgot to include the link. Here goes one more time...

Here's a philosophical question for the ones putting themselves in the "conservative" camp.

Here's an article about former Chief Economist of the World Bank and 2001 winner of the Nobel Prize in economics, Joe Stiglitz. My question is this: just for the sake of this discussion, let's say that everything that Mr. Stiglitz has said in this article is true. In such a circumstance, what would conservatives/Conservatives have to say about these types of practices?

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=78&row=1

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Jan 03 - 07:26 PM

Uncle Jaque, I read your first post on this thread, and...I seem to have virtually all of those conservative values you espouse firmly implanted in my soul, with one or two small deviations on very particular matters of interpretation.

How 'bout that, eh? Who'da thunk it?

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: GUEST,lardingo
Date: 06 Jan 03 - 08:43 PM

I am a conservative on most issues, but I certainly do not want to deny liberals the right to run their lives as they see fit. However, I play mostly bluegrass, not folk, so if you're looking to find a folk musician that is liberal, you'd better not count me.

BTW, the way I see it, Republicans try to use their power to make me behave in a way that they think is moral. Democrats try to use their power to make me pay money for causes that they think I should be compassionate about. I disagree with both of them. I just want to be left alone with my bad habits, my lack of compassion for people who have chosen to wreck their lives, and my money. Oh yes, and my banjo...

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: John Hardly
Date: 06 Jan 03 - 08:46 PM

"I had hoped somebody would post a characterisation of liberals on the What is a conservative thread... --Guest Fred Miller

I assume you mean relative to my challenge to have a conservative characterize a liberal philosophically, a liberal characterize a conservative philosophically, and then see who knows who better?

I don't know if the "guest" moniker means you aren't logged on but I PM'd you my attempt at this. I thought it a bit too long to post (not to mention it would have been a hijacking of the thread). Anyway, if you log back on you can retrieve it on your personal pages.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Jan 03 - 12:04 AM

I would also be very interested to know what the people who consider themselves "conservatives" think about the Moonies owning the Washington Times newspaper:

http://www.rickross.com/reference/unif/unif74.html

Washington Times Owner Buys UPI
Washington Post, May 16, 2000
By Yuki Noguchi

excerpt:

"The Times, a 100,000-circulation daily newspaper that competes with The Washington Post, is one of a host of business holdings owned by the Unification Church, which is famous for marrying its followers in mass wedding ceremonies. In 1997, owners of the Times told The Washington Post they had lost $1 billion over 15 years"

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Jan 03 - 12:14 AM

Another interesting bit about the Washtington Times:

http://www.rickross.com/reference/unif/Unif9.html

Five resign from Washington Times
Washington Post/April 15, 1987

excerpt:

Washington Times editorial page editor William P. Cheshire and four of his staff members resigned April 14, charging that Times editor-in-chief Arnaud de Brochgrave had allowed an executive of the Unification Church to dictate editorial policy. The Times is owned by News World Communications, Inc., a corporation affiliated with the Rev. Sun Myung Moon's church.

"It is no longer possible, in my judgment, for the Times to maintain independence from the Unification Church under the editorship of Mr. de Borchgrave, if it is indeed at all," said Cheshire.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: leprechaun
Date: 07 Jan 03 - 01:46 AM

I have no idea what I am. When I was in college in my mid-thirties, I got real sick of the enforced liberalism, all the radical- fashionable psycho-babble, foaming-at-the-mouth socialism the professors and teaching assistants stomped down our throats with with their jack-booted birkenstocks. Every page of the campus rag was stuffed with shrill, petulant propaganda for militant vegetarian nose-ring wearing dredlock acid-head snots who bullied the entire town for the four or five years they were there spending their parents money on pot and micro-brews.

I had to listen to Rush Limbaugh on my way to school every day just to even things out.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: Uncle Jaque
Date: 07 Jan 03 - 02:37 AM

Well, Ahoy, Beccy! Welcome aboard!

It's gratifying to see another Conservative who has the proverbial "sand" to come out of their ideaological closet and not only admit, but celebrate it in this sort of environment. And we certainly appreciate all of the company we can get!

You are right; dropping the "A-Word" in any discussion is akin unto passing serious methane in a crowded steam-room; it's generally not considered to be proper manners, and some one is bound to be offended.. but sometimes it's just got to be done.
I find the brutal mutilation of tiny, innocent little babies who are denied first their sacred humanity, and then their precious lives, to be terribly bloody offensive. And passion, somewhat like methane, can be repressed only about so long, don't you see? So whenever one of these "Pro-Choice" advocates squeezes me a little much, they should not be terribly surprised to discover themselves getting summarily offended as well.

I'll bet a lot of folk never saw the demeaning, dehumanizing use of the dreaded "N-Word" reflected in the plight of the Unborn; yet if that's what it takes to shock an audience into making the connection, then pop it I shall; Conscience compells me to.

At one time Blacks in America, even "Free" Blacks, were considered some fraction of a "Person" for Census calculation weren't they? I forget just what percentage it was, but most of us find that ludicrous today... yes, virginia; even Conservatives!
(As a review; to which Party did Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederacy belong to? And which Party included the other President who signed the Emancipation Proclamation?)

The Unborn among us are not counted at all. Even the Chinese culture adds a year to a person's age to account for gestation.

Before a Soldier can kill, they have to learn to de-humanize. That's not a man in your rifle sights, nor men, women and children huddled beneath your bomb-bay doors; they are "targets". "Huns"; "Japs"; "Gooks" "Commies", "Infidels"... They are a lot easier to kill that way.

When Jesus admonished against "committing murder in your heart", I think that he was referring to this initial step of the grim process; ripping away the intended victim's humanity. That's certainly what ended up happening to him.
And when the "knights" of the white hood and burning cross were lynching the objects of their hatred, they were not killing a man; they were "stringing up a nigger".

So you see, before an expectant Mother can go into that Abortion Clinic, she has to first take away the title of "Human Being" from that tiny unique living being struggling to survive within her. She has to take that great "leap of faith" in order to believe what the nice folks down at Planned parenthood told her; that "IT" (not "he" or "she") is merely a gob of inconvenient "tissue" - sort of like a tumor - to be "removed" (killed).   

How a Woman can do that, or live with herself after having done it, is beyond me, folks.

And isn't it interesting how a majority of those most victimised by cultural dehumanization - Blacks and Women - seem to vote in the majority (in the case of Blacks about 93%) for the Party of infanticide and discrimination?

That's right; discrimination. That is what "Equal Opportunity" is all about; nothing "equal" about it; it's simply counter-discrimination.

And whose welfare-state policies have successfully kept a large segment of a certain Minority population dependant, poorly educated, familialy disintegrated, and compliant? (I'd call 93% voting majority pretty darned compliant!) Senator "Sheets" Byrd; wasn't he at one time a Member and "Kleagal" of the KKK? And which side of the Senate does he sit in, pray tell?   You will not hear this on CBS, NBC, or in a Public School; why? Because you're not supposed to!

Isn't it funny; the Champions of Civil Rights for the racial minorities are celebrated as Heroes, as well they should be, by the very same crowd who runs down and persecutes any fool who has the audacity to advocate for the "rights" of unborn Human Beings, who cannot picket, boycott, lobby, march, or get together in a mob and yell;

"Whadda we want?!"
"LIFE!!!"
"When do we want it?"
"NOW!!!".

They can't write and sing "protest songs" to a cheering audience of millions. Their wordless voices just cannot be heard among the teeming throng.
So a few of us who seem to have heard these unspoken little voices (proof positive that we are insane, of course)and give them utterance, and try to plead their cause, do so at our own peril and expense.

I suppose I've offended enough for now; perhaps I'll check back in tomorrow. I may just sit down and write my first protest song, darn it.

Keep the postings coming, Beccy; you are obviously a very articulate person, and I sense that you've a Heart as good as your mind. We need ye.

LittleHawk; I'm not surprised, Lad; per my second post.
There are a lot of myths and misconceptions regarding what conservatives are all about. And yes, there are a few loonies about who take up the banner, and we have a lot of damage control ahead of us. But through honest discourse like this, I'm hoping that we might continue to move towards a common undertanding, common sense, and a healthy communal conscience.

Civilization may depend on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: Richie
Date: 07 Jan 03 - 07:16 AM

Guest Becca,

As a generally conservative person, I'd like to know why you think concervatism is better concerning the environment, animal rights. Why specifically are conservatives accused of plundering the earth?

Uncle Jacque,

I couldn't agreed with you more on the abortion issue. Many folks in the US can't find babies to adopt.

-Richie

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: GUEST,Beccy
Date: 07 Jan 03 - 08:46 AM

Hey Richie- I see environmentalism as a thinly veiled social statement rather than an adherance to the Biblical command to be good stewards of the Earth and all Creation. Environmentalism has become a pseudo-religion what with the far reaching tentacles of the global warming crowd (regulate the heck out of everything because of environmental impact. No new homes, businesses, etc... because of suburban crawl, hey nonny nonny.) As for Animal Rights. I've been accosted by PETA activists whilst exiting my local grocery store. These women were dressed in bikinis and holding up "No Fur" or "Meat is murder" signs. Ummmm.... I have 3 sons. Shall I teach them to objectify women in order to make a political point? I don't think so.
Conservationism is almost a Hippocratic Oath type thing. "First do no harm..." Then you protect and beautify your little plot on the globe. Have you ever driven through an area that is just stinkin' ugly because of litter? Have you ever stepped in the middle of an ashtray someone has emptied in a parking lot? Those people are jerks and there is no power- legislative, judicial or otherwise- that will get them to behave in a way that beautifies their surroundings.
Why are Conservatives targeted? Well, because they're easy targets. When a liberal is questioned on policy he/she tends to respond by attacking the integrity and humanity of the questioner (most frequently Conservative) with statements like: "They want to take away Social Security" "They want to rape the environment" "They want to put up road blocks to a Patients' Bill of Rights" (by the way- is that a catch phrase or what! What IS a pb of r?") Or my personal favorite, from Master Carville "Drag a dollar bill through a trailer park and see what you get..."
I know it's anecdotal, but that's the best I can do with three babes in arms who want a snack.
A Bientot

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: Amos
Date: 07 Jan 03 - 09:20 AM

I thinks it's important to distinguish between Conservator -- one who seeks to preserve something, conservative -- lower case, a state of mind of cautiousness or a desire to keep things working the way they are -- and the political expression "Conservative" which once meant defenders of the status quo and now means anything the media and White House say it means. The hodgepodge of re-definiton has gotten very silly.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: GUEST,Fred Miller
Date: 07 Jan 03 - 09:35 AM

John Hardly, yes, that's what I meant, and yes, I am a member, but my cookie sent me in circles and I didn't know a reason to sort it out. Now I guess I do, thanks.

Uncle J, I'm a bit familiar with Limbaugh, but George Will is more my style. You can't count on Limbaugh to be informed, at all, imo.

   Abortion aside, for the moment, just as a general philosophical question, is a person (if you like) more innocent when they have never had to choose and act with a moral concience than someone who has? Really? Or is that a bottomless concept having no existential import--by which I mean not "existentialism" but simply that one can believe anything they want about something that doesn't demonstrably exist. Is it wrong to kill animals that have never had to make a concious moral choice, or it's okay because they aren't "human"? What does it mean to be human then.

I don't have a lot to say about abortion and have not had to face it, and never will as a woman might, but think there may be more to it than your take on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: John Hardly
Date: 07 Jan 03 - 10:20 AM

Fred,

So by your "existential" reasoning, does it not follow that an unborn child IS (not "could be") as good a guitar player as Rick Fielding?

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: Kim C
Date: 07 Jan 03 - 12:25 PM

Carol, I have looked at the first article you posted, and I'm still mulling it over. I must be honest, that I have little understanding of world economics, so I will have to read it again. However at first glance I will say, if everything he says is true, somebody needs to be hit over the head with a shovel, and I'm not exactly sure who that would be.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Jan 03 - 12:31 PM

Thanks Kim. I appreciate that you are trying to answer, even though you don't feel that you have much understanding of world economics. And I'm getting a kick out of how you've worded your initial response to what you've read. I think I would tend to agree with you on that one ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: GUEST,Beccy
Date: 07 Jan 03 - 12:36 PM

CarolC-
Believe it or not, we lost a family friend to the Moonies back in the late 70s. (By lost, I mean never heard from him again after he joined them.) I'm not one of the black helicopter folks, but the Moonies give me the heebie jeebies. As for UPI and the Washington Times, they do still employ Helen Chenowith Thomas, so I'm not a big reader anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Jan 03 - 12:42 PM

Sorry about your loss, Beccy. Thanks for answering.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: GUEST,Fred Miller
Date: 07 Jan 03 - 02:23 PM

John, um, no. By existential I only mean whether something exists in simply the usual sense, so that it can be sensibly described in some meaningful way, like "innocent" in regard to an unborn "child", or "hellacious" in regard to an unborn "guitar player". So one might decry the "murder" of all those utterly hellacious "guitar players." Just something I heard in a logic class, Existentialism gives me the heebie jeebies. And I don't quite mean to be reasoning something, just pointing to reasonable doubts about other reasons. So I would doubt the assertion that an unborn child is clearly a better guitar player than Rick Fielding just because it has never made a mistake, broke a string or a nail, missed a lick, dropped a pick in the soundhole, or played a 2-hour set out of tune. It seems a bottomless argument soley designed to demonise people dealing as best they know how in difficult and uncertain circumstances. Or they seem uncertain to me.

   Other reasons it's so hard to adopt, apart from any shortage of born babies, are a strong preference to get them young, and very conservative notions of who qualifies to be a good parent. I know when my kids were born I felt somebody was crazy to let me take them home, I doubt I could have passed an audition for them.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: tar_heel
Date: 07 Jan 03 - 04:52 PM

yes,i am.....so what?

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 07 Jan 03 - 05:52 PM

HOLLLLLY SHEEEITTT! I got a message from someone saying that my name was used twice on a "conservatives on Mudcat" thread.

Why in Heaven's name am I being compared to a 'guitar playing foetus'?

On the other hand, the first time I saw the Seldom Scene using an electric bass in a Bluegrass format, I WAS outraged.....so maybe I'm a conservative after all!

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton
Date: 07 Jan 03 - 06:56 PM

Hi,
I am grateful to see a kind of dialogue here. When it gets beyond the point of being adamant and close-minded, some understanding takes place and I think that's the beauty of the net.

It's so terribly dangerous to characterize liberals or conservatives or Liberals or Conservatives as being one-track-minded.

I am a socialist ideologically, and I know that my viewpoint might possibly differ radically from other socialists. BTW, it might be incorrect to equate Marxism (which is in it's strictest sense an economic theory, not necessarilly political) with socialism. For example, there are Marxist historians who are anything but communists or Communists. I don't think that Stalin was a true Marxist, for that matter. I do believe that Jesus was a communist, however. (I'm fairly positive he would have been investigated by the FBI or the House of Unamerican Activities committee..)

I think that I've learned the point that there is more than just one kind of C(c)onservative or L(l)iberal. There are those who will espouse a kind of party line regardless of their political labels and those who will think it through for themselves and not want to be imprisoned by other's characterizations or ideas.

When it comes to politics, I have no gods. I'm pretty much issue -oriented and I see politicians as just people who in my view agree with me or not.

The view of many anti-abortion activists operate on is the assumption that abortion is something that women really want.
I don't agree that anyone really wants abortion...I've seen it done and it's not a comfortable or easy thing.....but at the same time, there is still a question scientifically and ideologically as to when life officially begins. This is subject to interpretation. It's not really a fair comparison to slavery because the assumption is agreed upon usually by most people that those enslaved are alive human beings that have rights. The question with abortion is at what point does a fetus become a human being. This is subject to differing interpretations and until these varied perceptions are addressed, there can be no resolution to this issue.

In the meantime, in my view, a woman is not a slave and has rights to determine what happens to her body and is entitled to the right to believe in her interpretation of when life begins. It's not up to some white male bureaucrat to decide that for her.   A common medical view is that abortion occurs after the first trimester and before that considered miscarriage assisted or not.

But does this view make me pro-abortion? I don't think so.
Does it make me anti-abortion? Again, I don't think so.

Maybe I'm being conservative, here because I'm not going to jump to any ideological conclusions.

The question I have is are there any conservatives or liberals, Conservatives or Liberals who are original thinkers on Mudcat?

If so, I applaud you.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: John Hardly
Date: 07 Jan 03 - 07:15 PM

"The question I have is are there any conservatives or liberals, Conservatives or Liberals who are original thinkers on Mudcat?" --Frank Hamilton

What do you mean by this question? (an interesting one I admit). I assume you are including yourself in the implied dirth of originality?

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: Jeri
Date: 07 Jan 03 - 07:41 PM

I'd guess than anyone who applies an accross-the-board label to themselves isn't too original. "Here's the label - I believe all that stuff all those other whatsits believe." Tendencies to be liberal or conservative or agree with certain folks most of the time are another matter.

Oddly enough, Frank, we had socialized medicine in the military. Too bad the rest of the US can't do likewise.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: Ironmule
Date: 07 Jan 03 - 07:47 PM

Some of the ideas about dehumanizing an opponent mentioned above, are at the root of the conservative/liberal wrangling. It's an unfortunate truth, that forming a "Special Interest Group", gives more power to the spokesman for the group than he'd have had by himself.

To make the group bigger you need money. It's easier to gather contributions for your group by demonizing the opponent, than to raise money by praising your cause. Attack ad's work, unfortunately. Most people are lazy thinkers, and like an easy to follow slogan. And, the more money you have the more politicians you can buy, via campaign contributions. With more "bought" politicians, your group can dictate to your subhuman opponents how they will live their lives.

One of the most valuable courses I took in college was a "Theory of Small Groups" Sociology course, laid out so you could see these dynamics at work. Leaders and followers; self actualized thinkers and sheep. It was instructive and sad, because most were unable to see themselves as captive within the dynamic. Everyone thought they were above the "base" motives of the "Others".

To make a good decision, you need to think, rather than blindly follow. To think you need good data to think about. My rant about today's world is that whether it's the New York Times, or the Washington Times, slanted data is what is they're delivering. Entertainment value is more important in the media than anything close to the truth.

I'll end my rant by saying that both sides are more interested in control of the government pork barrel, than in the good of the people.

Jeff Smith

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: artbrooks
Date: 07 Jan 03 - 07:52 PM

And we are back to labels again. The extremists (eg, Uncle Jacque) would have us believe that anyone who calls himself a liberal must be pro-abortion and that all conservatives are, as a matter of course, "pro-life". This is a very troubling issue, and one that is hardly black-and-white. A true "liberal", according to Webster, is a person who is open-minded and tolerant of other points of view.

As a liberal who is pro-choice, anti-gun control (except for the personal ownership of assault rifles), pro-death penalty, anti-discrimination for any reason than ability and pro-draft, I believe that everyone has the right to their own opinion, and that this right ends where my right to the same begins.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Jan 03 - 08:01 PM

In general, terms like "liberal" and "conservative" (with or without caps) seem to be labels that some people slap on other people in an effort to try to invalidate their arguments without actually having to refute them point by point. My observation, anyway.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: GUEST,Beccy
Date: 07 Jan 03 - 08:08 PM

Jeri- Are you a vet? If so, I have a sidebar question for you regarding your comment on socialized medicine in the military. I have an uncle who is a retired lifer from the Navy, a sister-in-law who was in the Air Force and a brother-in-law who was Army. They were all disgusted with the quality of care they received from the military's socialized medicine. Was that your experience as well?
Just curious

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: Ironmule
Date: 07 Jan 03 - 08:14 PM

I think Art's application of the label "extremist" to Uncle Jacque is a symptom of the syndrome. If someone opposes your very reasonable position they must be an extremist. After all, you wouldn't hold such a position if it wasn't reasonable. ;^)

I'm not flaming Art. He's handy to illustrate the problem. Abortion is one of many questions where you can argue both sides very morally, intelligently, and emotionally. Both sides are right. The thorny problem is finding a middle ground when both sides draw lines in the sand, and both are right.

This is where I rant about the lack of unslanted data to use in finding the middle ground. Slogans abound, but information doesn't. How do you use the power to tax, when both sides throw "Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics" at you. ;^)

Jeff Smith

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Jan 03 - 08:32 PM

I call myself a liberal because I like to. Not because I see myself being like anyone else who calls themselves a "liberal". My husband calls himself a conservative because that's what he thinks he is based on his experiences of "conservative" and "liberal" where he comes from. Mostly, our political philosophies are very similar. I guess that just makes us average people who apply different adjectives to our political philosophies.

I used to refer to myself as a liberal who voted moderate. I would probably have voted for McCain had he gotten the Republican party nomination in the last presidential election. But that was before I learned a lot of things about the world that make me see everything politicians do in a whole new light. I have no idea how I'll be voting this next time around. I guess it depends on who they give us to choose from.

But I certainly don't base my sense of identity on my political philosophy. My political philosophy is an extension of who I am, not the other way around (ie: getting my sense of identity from whatever "group" I align myself with). I suspect this is the case for a lot of people who call themselves conservative as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: Jeri
Date: 07 Jan 03 - 10:18 PM

Beccy, I was in for 22 years, now retired. I had several surgeries and was otherwise treated for minor stuff. I thought I had very good care, and it was very good not to have to pay for cold medicine, casts, knee braces, antibiotics or anything else medical. I'd have my experiences then listen to my Mom talk about her civilian Dr and how she couldn't get a straight answer sometimes, was rushed, couldn't afford medicines, etc, and I'd see the sort of thing she'd go through in hospitals that were understaffed and focused on money. I guess lots of things contribute to bad experience. You get stuck with one boneheaded Dr or tech and it may shape your opinion on the whole. Sometimes the medical folks don't care, but sometimes the patients don't want to express their dissatisfaction.

I will say I'm not speaking from an entirely unprejudiced viewpoint. I worked in the hospital. I knew which doctors I would choose to see and which I wouldn't. While I knew the 'ropes' I also got to listen to a whole lot of complaints from patients who just wanted to unload. Most of the complaints were about perceived insensitivity or a lack of communication and not the actual medical treatments. I also think quality of care varies from service to service and from base to base.

Hey Unc, I wouldn't call myself a conservative, and I'm pretty well hooked on liberty.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: GUEST,bdatki
Date: 07 Jan 03 - 10:19 PM

Hi,

I am what most people would call a conservative. If I was running for office in Europe I probably would be assassinated, as I, like many American conservatives, are much further to the right then that poor man who was killed in the Netherlands.

As much as this forum has useful information when I ask questions on banjo techniques or the like, some of the opinions I read I find very insulting. But I guess most of you probably think that my opinions are revolting in some way, so I try to not read the BS topics (well named, I fear)

Ben

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: Uncle Jaque
Date: 08 Jan 03 - 12:11 AM

Tar Heel - ye still in here?
A Man (I assume) of few words, who I can immediately picture with dukes up and heels dug right in! It's all right, Friend; c'mon in! These folks might growl a little, but they don't really bite much to speak of. Besides; us "Extremists" could use all the company we can get! I'd like to hear what you think.

Alas, Rick; these bloomin' Liberals hae been dehumanizing ye in absentia again, I fear. We tried t' hold 'em back as long as we could, ye know, but we were so dreadfully outnumbered. It's good t' see that you got here in time tae defend yer'self!

Jeri Deah; I remember the Army Medical Services well, and have no complaints, really. Of course I'm getting a royal run-around from the VA up here in ME getting my zero-percent service-connected disability rating on my bum foot re-evaluated, but that's another story.

Much like socializm in toto, "Socialized Medicine" is, I concede, a reasonably good theory. I think that our Military pulls it off about as well as anyone could, and as such it pretty much "works".
Having said that, we both know from experience that the Military is a "Country Apart"; it's not like the Civilian version of America in a number of ways. The UCMJ is not the same as the Civil Court system; how many Civilians get thrown in jail for being late to work? Military Command Structure is not particularly "Democratic", is it?

I suppose that an argument could be made that the Military is almost a Socialist regime within a Democratic Republic; but having accountability to the Representative Republic (we are not really a "Democracy", according to the conventional definition of the term, are we?) this regime is about as benevolent a Dictatorship as one is apt to encounter, or at least that I know of. As such, it maintains a sufficient attachment to it's theoretical structure as to work - as does it's medical organization.

When I was in Korea I came down with both Hepititus and Mono at the same time. Spent about 3 weeks in the 121 EVAC Hospital, and damnear died. The Medics saved my life - no doubt about it - so I know it works.

My terror of the civil version, a-la "Hillary-Care" is, however, that the kind of corruption that ran rampant in Washington would rapidly infuse the socialized medical system, as it seems to have up in Canada. With no competition, patients have no options. No options, no freedom. Government beuraucracy = no accountability (such as we have, to a certain extent anyway, in the Military). Costs would continually climb as they do in the public indoctrination system (schools) as competence and quality declined. A good, loyal Union Member who pays her dues and "votes right" might get seen in a month or so to get treatment, while a troublesome dissident like your affectionate, albeit somewhat extremist Uncle Jaque here gets hauled in with his gizzard in a knot, and it's "Oh yes, Mr. clarke; Dr. KEVORKIAN will see you right away. Would you like to knaw on this bullet while you wait?"

A Hospital with all of the compassion of the IRS and the efficiency of the Post Office? Yikes!

And as to: "Hey Unc, I wouldn't call myself a conservative, and I'm pretty well hooked on liberty.";

Gosh; I knew we had something in common!
As to your reluctance to identify with a similar ideaology, I'm just gonna keep on liking ya just the same! Although I do take a modicum of pride in my title of "Extremist", I try not to get overly carried away with it, don't ye see?

G.-bdatki: Re. " If I was running for office in Europe I probably would be assassinated"; I sure know what you mean. That's why I have no intention of ever running for anything HERE!
I don't know about you, but people like me generally don't get to live to be as old as I am.

So I'm near played out - after Midnight - so sweet dreams, all.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: Jeri
Date: 08 Jan 03 - 01:02 AM

Jaque, I'm sure if socialized medicine happened and were run by current conservatives (right next door to the ice skating rink in Hell), you probably wouldn't last very long. Especially if it were funded by taxes. And you'd probably have to listen to them call you a social parasite who should be making enough money to buy a decent doctor. Then again, I can't see the current crop of conservative Republican politicians having enough basic compassion, and that's why health care reform has been stuffed. All o' them sick poor people is just whiners anyway.

Sorry, but that's how I see it. I watched public health (as well as most of the government) in Washington DC completely shut down for a couple of weeks in mid-90s because the turkeys couldn't agree on a budget. Middle of a re-surgence in TB and syphilis, HIV spreading like wildfire, and they were shut down because of a political pissing contest. I don't think compassion is very well demonstrated by most politicians, but at least the liberal ones seem to think it's important. It's not the political idealogy I dislike as much as the lack of compassion.

I do think the social medicine concept worked well in the military. There was competition from civilian doctors and between military medical facilities. There was oversight that, IMO, worked pretty well to ensure medical care was up to or above standards. Then some genius decided the civilian 'managed care' concept should be implemented and money instantly became god. I saw doctors deny specialist treatment to patients becuase it wasn't 'cost-effective'. One large medical center ran out of money and actually had to decide which cancer patients would get treated. I don't know what it's like these days - I've lost touch.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: GUEST,Fred Miller
Date: 08 Jan 03 - 11:38 AM

Apologies to Rick Fielding, I'm not sure why your name came up, I just tried to answer the question as posed.

I oppose abortion to the extent I'd be glad if it were rarer. I find it easy to love people who don't exist, a little harder with those who do. Easy to be cruel, and suppose it's motivated by deep love of boundless innocence. In my experience children grow toward, not away from a real moral innocence. At least until the teens.

   Others pull the half-drowned man onto shore, then comes somebody saying Let me through, I'm a Compassionate Conservative!

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: artbrooks
Date: 08 Jan 03 - 12:50 PM

IMHO, the basic problem with this sort of discussion is the delusion that there is, or should be, an "ideology" involved. Other than the artificial association of, for example, pro-gun control and anti-abortion with the mythological "liberals", the two issues really have nothing in common. In fact, one could easily argue that freedom to safely carry and use a firearm and freedom to control one's one body are two aspects of the same right to make free choices. Alternately, there is no essential difference between preventing a person from carrying a weapon that might be used to kill another and preventing a person from causing the death of an unborn human being.

A person has the obligation to make his or her own decisions about important issues without having to consider whether or not that opinion is ideologically consistent with decisions made on entirely separate topics, or worrying about what nitch that opinion falls into.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jan 03 - 01:16 PM

I have a nephew who was born with a severely deformed club foot while his parents were in the Navy. The level of care he received was incredibly high, and the treatment was so effective, you can't even tell which of his feet was the club foot. Now, his ortho doc was not exactly well versed in compassion or a bed side manner, and reduced BOTH parents to tears in the days after his birth. But they sure are appreciative of the care he gave their baby, who is now a Chicago paramedic.

As to the myths perpetuated by US politicians and private pay medical establishment about the lower standards of medical care claimed to exist in places like Canada, every Canadian I know thinks the US private pay system doesn't even constitute medical care, but legalized extortion.

And once we get that Bush tax package pushed through, along with the budget cutting going on at state levels (due to the previous state and federal tax cuts, combined with reduced revenues from the recession, and uncontrolled, spiralling drug and health technology costs), and we can all watch the so-called health care system in the US collapse.

But I'm sure those who believe socialized medicine to be one of the great evils of the world won't have a problem with the collapse of the private pay system--especially when they or their loved ones are denied treatment because they can't afford to pay for it.

We all know it is only the scum of the earth who can't afford private pay medical insurance.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: GUEST,Beccy
Date: 08 Jan 03 - 01:50 PM

Whoa, Anon Guest... No one has been name calling here. Who ever said anything about people unable to afford health care insurance being the "scum of the earth"? Disagreement on the health care system does not merit a demogogic dismissal of people's humanity. Do you really think that the fact that I believe in a competitive health care system means that I think anyone who can't afford the insurance that helps the system run is "SCUM"? Please. I simply believe that the quality of care is better in a competitive system (read: private pay system) than in a non-competitive one (read: single payer system). I personally went without health insurance for 3 years due to inability to pay for it. During that time, I had a child. My husband, the baby and I got health care. We worked out payments with the doctors and hospitals involved and everyone was healthy! This is stateside in our "so-called health care system." I also have experience with socialized health care having lived for some time in Europe. My distate for it runs as deep as does my preference for the competitive system in which we find ourselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jan 03 - 01:59 PM

Obviously you've never been refused treatment for medical care in an emergency room in the US because you had no insurance, Beccy. I have.

The scum of the earth is the way people without health insurance are treated in this country, by people with mindsets just like you. Anyone who believes that human beings should be denied adequate medical care to accomodate corporate competition is, in my view, a monster.

Demigogic? So be it.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jan 03 - 02:06 PM

And BTW Beccy, your experience was obviously with a healthy birth without complications. There really isn't any problems with a private pay system, so long as you are healthy. It is, after all, only sick people who are denied health care treatment. It is, after all, those doctors who refuse to use the single pay system for seniors and others on Medicare, who refuse to treat those patients because of their greed for the higher fees in the private pay system. That happened to my mother. After 25 years of seeing the same doctor, when she had to go on Medical Assistance because of her low income and inability to afford her private pay supplemental Medicare insurance any longer, he dropped her as a patient.

I've seen what "competitive" health care means. Rationed, intermittent, patchwork health care for the poor, and the best care that money can buy for those with enough wealth and access to "better" hospitals and doctors.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jan 03 - 02:16 PM

Anon Guest- As a matter of fact, you're right. I have never been REFUSED treatment despite being uninsured and unable to afford it, or perhaps you missed reading that part of my post. It is against the law to refuse someone lifesaving medical treatment in this country in ANY Emergency Room. There is not one hospital who wouldn't blanch instantly at the threat that a simple "Malpractice" utterance implies. Last time I was in the ER, they didn't run a credit check on me prior to treatment. You may face a little financial hardship post-procedure, but what's worse?   Death or taxes?
So I'm a monster because I think competition improves our system? Hmmm... touchy, touchy.
Are you aware of how much capital is involved in the creation of one single new effective drug therapy or treatment? To quote Uncle Jacques, here, I'm going to pull on my Kevlar undies now before I continue. The pharmaceutical companies (hack hack, gasp gasp, quit hitting me... I haven't even said anything yet...) have to keep above water in order to keep producing these uber wonderdrugs. In order to do that, they have to recoup their losses from some of the real stinkers they've pursued in the labs. In order to do this, some of the drugs are VERY expensive. If it is that particular drug that will save your life and you cannot afford it, most drug company representatives can work with your physician to get the drug at a vastly reduced cost or for free. Most people just don't know to ask.
And since nothing I say can convince you that I'm not a monster I might as well really drive the point home. I can't wait for that tax cut. That way I can afford to get curriculum for homeschooling next year. Ooop- someone grab some medical attention for Guest- I think I've just sent him/her into some apoplectic fits.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jan 03 - 02:18 PM

Oh yeah- guest. I forgot that you were omniscent. No- as a matter of fact, the baby was frank breech. I required a c-section and a week in the hospital due to surgical complications. Anything else you'd care to jump to incorrect conclusions about in my life?

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: GUEST,Beccy
Date: 08 Jan 03 - 02:19 PM

BTW, those last two posts were me.
Beccy

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: JedMarum
Date: 08 Jan 03 - 02:38 PM

GUEST has a rage burning, a hate, a self loathing that is manifested in his/her easy characterizations of those he/she does not know as loathsome. Some people might say our GUEST is a f*cking as*hole. I would, of course never make such a comment in a public forum.

I remember one of the Latin phrases we had to translate and discuss said, "a radical is someone who wishes to change the world because it is easier then chnaging himself."

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jan 03 - 03:04 PM

I was refused treatment in an suburban hospital emergency room for a broken leg. No x-ray, no temporary cast, brace, or ace bandage.   Just a "referral" (as the ER nurse called it) to see a private doctor. When I protested, I was wheeled to the door, and the nurse left us there. The uninsured are refused medical treatment all the time.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jan 03 - 03:13 PM

Yeah sure, Jed...after all, you are such a compassionate conservative, you claimed that Lott was "a good man assassinated by the press" as I recall...

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Jan 03 - 03:24 PM

I've never had GUEST's experience, thank God, but I have had a couple of occasions to go to an emergency room. I qualify for Medicare, but I'm insured through my wife's job, so I've never had a problem.

BUT—

The first thing they always ask, before they will touch me, is "Who's your insurance company?"

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jan 03 - 03:30 PM

If you think that's bad Don, you ought to hear the horror stories I have about trying to get my mother admitted to the hospital after her doctor dropped her as a patient. I never witnessed anything so inhumane as the treatment she received, in this fancy, inner city PRIVATE hospital. And she still had her supplemental health insurance at that time, just didn't have a doctor.

The trick we've learned is, try a Catholic hospital first. They rarely refuse to treat.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: Jeri
Date: 08 Jan 03 - 05:00 PM

The point is, the competition is for the MONEY. If you don't have money, you're a non-player. I don't think most of the care-givers give a rat's ass if you have money, but the system does.

Jed, I don't understand. I can't see what any guest said in this discussion (and I'm not counting one-liner throw-aways as discussion) that would have you (not) calling them a f*cking as*hole.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Jan 03 - 06:18 PM

"...a system of belief in which it is the PEOPLE, NOT GOVERNMENT that make a Civilization work" -

Sounds fine to me. Except I'd prefer to call that system of thought Anarchist. What's in a word though?

There's the old saying "whoever you vote for, the Gbvernm,ent always gets in"; and its corollary "if bvoting changed things, they'd abolish it."

My dream would be to live in a world where I could be against things changing, except in playful ways, because they'd be just about right. In the meantime I'm against any change that doesn't make things better; while having to recognise that there are one hell of a lot of things that need changing, wich is a drag, mostly to do with people being selfish about holding on to more than they need, and about being unwilling to take on an equal share of the work and an equal share of the troubles and difficuilties of the world.

As for abortion, since it's come up, I don't kow which seems stranger to me - people who defend the right to life and back the death penalty, or people who oppose the death penalty but think abortion is an OK thing to choose. They both seem pretty crazy combinations of views to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Jan 03 - 06:20 PM

"...a system of belief in which it is the PEOPLE, NOT GOVERNMENT that make a Civilization work" -

Sounds fine to me. Except I'd prefer to call that system of thought Anarchist. What's in a word though?

There's the old saying "whoever you vote for, the Government always gets in"; and its corollary "if voting changed things, they'd abolish it."

My dream would be to live in a world where I could be against things changing, except in playful ways, because they'd be just about right. In the meantime I'm against any change that doesn't make things better; while having to recognise that there are one hell of a lot of things that need changing, which is a drag, mostly to do with people being selfish about holding on to more than they need, and about being unwilling to take on an equal share of the work and an equal share of the troubles and difficulties of the world.

As for abortion, since it's come up, I don't know which seems stranger to me - people who defend the right to life and back the death penalty, or people who oppose the death penalty but think abortion is an OK thing to choose. They both seem pretty crazy combinations of views to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jan 03 - 07:03 PM

"I don't think most of the care-givers give a rat's ass if you have money, but the system does."

Agreed. But the reality is still that it is a person, usually a doctor or head nurse, who makes the decision to refuse to treat, and to refuse to admit, and the decision to discharge/patient dump.

People make those policies, and people carry out those policies. They do have the ability to choose not to work for inhumane health care systems, as many in the field choose to do every year. It isn't like there is a surplus of doctors and nurses, after all.

At the end of the day, if it is your job to deny treatment, then you are a monster too. And I don't use the word monster casually. I use it very specifically, to mean as in one of it's dictionary definitions (quoting here from my ole Funk & Wagnell's) "One who or that which inspires hate or horror because of cruelty, wickedness, etc."

There is no way to put a smiley face on the action of putting someone out of a hospital or clinic or doctor's office without treatment, because they can't afford to pay.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Jan 03 - 08:25 PM

Do they really do that kind of thing?

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jan 03 - 08:42 PM

Like I said, it is done all the time in the US. And with the regressive tax cut that Bush is proposing, along with the budget cuts being made by states (46 of them, I believe) who must balance their budgets, and we are going to see a lot more of it.

In Minnesota, the first cuts announced by the new Republican governor were cuts in health care coverage to the poor and the elderly, and to roll back the recent budgetary allowances to the state's nursing homes.

Yippee! No more welfare whores spending our tax dollars.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: Jeri
Date: 08 Jan 03 - 09:27 PM

McGrath, I don't know how widespread it is, but yes. I knew someone who worked in the emergency room in a hospital in Washington DC that saw a lot of patients with no insurance. Many of them were told to go there, or transported, from the more 'upscale' hospitals in the area. This was the routine, the standard procedure. Most of them didn't have life-threatening conditions since a lot of folks see emergency rooms as the only place they can get any care, but every now and then, I'd hear her raving about how some idiot had told a person who was having a heart attack to go to her hospital.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Jan 03 - 10:00 PM

Most people are conservative about some things and liberal about others, I find.

As far as the abortion thing goes, I think each case is unique. Therefore I don't think any one specific legal ruling will ever resolve what is finally decided in each individual human soul...and always has been since time immemorial.

In general I would be inclined to advise against abortion...but in some cases I might see it the other way. I basically do not feel I can decide for someone else in this matter.

I also believe that in any case the Soul cannot die. Only the body passes away, and the Soul continues and can easily be reborn. But that doesn't mean you have to believe the same...nor do I necessarily expect you to.

Accordingly, it's understandable that people defend life according to their own best understanding of what life is.

People are busy trying to control others. How well do they control themselves?

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Jan 03 - 10:02 PM

Now I didn't jump into this thread earlier because, heck, I know who the conservatives are on Mudcat so I didn't figgure I needed to check in but I just did and there seems to9 be some discussion about health care in America.

Well, it's great if you are part of the elite. It's good if you're a memebr of the upper middle class. But then it drops quickly.

MY dad died three months ago. He was a member of the middle class and at age 88 (Bless his heart...) he got cancer and spent 4 of his last 8 days on a gurney in then hall of the emergency room at the local hospital. Well, one could say, "Like, so what, Bobert? That's normal."

Well, my dad died in Luodoun County< Va. which is the 3rd richest county in the US! So, I'm thinking to myself: "Man, if this is the way in the cradle of prosperity, what's it like elsewhere?".

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jan 03 - 10:44 PM

Same kinda thing with my mother Bobert. The elderly the on duty refused to admit were lined up in the emergency room hallway on gurneys. At one point there were 15 elderly people on gurneys he was refusing to admit. He told us, after waiting 10 hours, that the only way he would admit our mother was if we declared in a written statement that we were abandoning her. The was supposedly the best hospital in St. Paul. Allina owned. Not long after that incident, several of their corporate executives were prosecuted for malfeasance, including taking wildly expensive trips on the company dime.

It was quite a night.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Jan 03 - 11:36 PM

Uh-huh. Now contrast that with Canada, where we still have universal government-funded health care for all citizens...but...where recent governments, both Liberal and Conservative, have mounted attack after attack upon the health system, eroding it away bit by bit, closing hospitals right and left, privatizing this that and the other thing which used to run great (but is now limping badly) while bleeding to death the municipalities at the same time...

And get this: the # 1 concern of the Canadian public is that our public Health system should be MAINTAINED!!! Every poll confirms that. It is only because of that very strong public voice that the fat cats at the top (who get their marching orders in Washington) have not completely dismantled our protections.

Now contrast that with Cuba, where there is 100% free and modern health care available everywhere for not only citizens but even visitors...and where the main problem in health care is an often critical lack of medicine and equipment due to the American embargo but there is no lack of highly trained and motivated doctors and nurses...

Now contrast that with Russia, where people used to have free medical care, but are now free to freeze to death in alleyways and apartments where they can't afford to pay their heating bill...unless they happen to be among the rich or in the mafia gangs...

And you will begin to grasp just what is afoot in the World today. The New World Order is a very old world order indeed, called: Feudalism. It is based on the very antithesis to sharing. It's based on hoarding and amassing wealth in the hands of a few, and hiring trained killers in uniforms to keep the rest at bay. It's main method of distracting the people while it robs them is to focus their fear and anger on some other group of people....divide and conquer tactics.

If it triumphs it will initiate a dark age of terror, poverty, and privilege in this world which even Hitler might have envied. Any your vote can't change it, because all the major political parties have been bought out some time ago. What shall we do?

Remember...the average North American has far more in common with the average Cuban or Iraqui than he does with the billionaires at the top who run the IMF, the CIA, the Pentagon, WalMart, Exxon, and the World Bank, to mention a few of their bigger franchises. Count on that.

Each one of us is indirectly under the gun...it's just a question of where the gun happens to be pointing at the moment. Right now it's pointing straight at Iraq. And after them, who? Iran? Venezuela? Lybia? Cuba? Canada? Albuquerque? Wes Ginny?

Hell, even Schenectady could be somewhere down that list eventually... (I can never resist mentioning Schenectady.)

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 09 Jan 03 - 12:27 AM

It really depends on why the man is drowning. If he fell in, or someone pushed him in, throw him a rope. If he's just too lazy to try treading water, you have to wonder if it's worth it.

As to Abortion=Slavery: Souls only enter into the equation if one makes decisions based on religion, which it is a standing governmental policy to avoid. If you want to argue that a fetus is a person, I find that to be a rather difficult argument to make. A fetus cannot operate independently of its mother in any way. No evidence exists to support the idea that a fetus, or indeed a newborn, is capable of rational thought. While the line of personhood is extremely hard to draw, it seems self-evident that it does not include an organism which can do nothing but absorb nutrients from its host in order to grow.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: artbrooks
Date: 09 Jan 03 - 09:11 AM

The US embargo doesn't cover the sale (or donation) of medical supplies and equipment to Cuba, although there are (probably unnecessary) controls. The information is here .

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: JedMarum
Date: 09 Jan 03 - 09:31 AM

Jeri - I just get p*ssed off at GUEST, GUEST, GUEST or GUEST subverting the forum for their own angry political perspective - even when I agree with them, I despise the "shouting from shadows" of their own political agenda, and their nearly universal demonization of opposing points-of-view. I don't usually talk to ghosts, for the reason of the above comment ... now, back to music, if I can find any!

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: Sam L
Date: 09 Jan 03 - 09:48 AM

Well, pro or con, it's an error of fact, at best a euphemism, to call it a "competetive health care system". There's no strong evidence to show that it's a system of health care, and when it has been studied as such it's been found a health care shambles. When studied as a profit driven industry it seems to run pretty smooth. One might be in favor of it, but there's no broad intensive support for calling it that.

   It does take a lot of research and testing to develop new drugs, and there's a constitutional purpose in having a patent office and a term-monopoly to reward the effort. There are drugs that mysteriously stop working when that monopoly expires. Since 4 members of my immediate family have been slated for expensive invasive proceedures they completely didn't need, I've taken to viewing doctors as sales-people. It's a system all right, and one that corrupts and terrifies otherwise good health-care providers.

When we hear of our beloved tax dollars going for research on such absurd-sounding things as, say, studying bread mold, it's a good idea to remember where penicilin came from. It's hard to know beforehand where good things are hidden.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: jimmyt
Date: 09 Jan 03 - 10:45 AM

I would love to see a better operating system than the US healthcare system. It has lots of flaws, but in my observation, it is better than anyone elses..Canada's? Forget it. It it weren't for the American doctors treating Canadian patients in American hospitals in that belt of areas right across the border from Canada plus the fact that Florida and I would bet other Sunbelt areas like Arizona see enormoius volumes of Canadian patients who have elected to have their surgeries performed in the good old USA, the whole Canadian health care system would collapse. Drugs? Expensive? sure they are, but someone's got to pay for the R and D of these products You guessed it, it is us. The rest of the world can get the benefits for the new drugs at a fraction of what we pay for them, but that's just the way it is. Maybe if we would realize how much we save here on cheap fuel, while the rest of the world is paying at least twice as much many times three times as much for a gallon of gasoline, we could put that savings toward the expensive drugs. Cost a lot to get treatment? Hell yes it does, when the young physician just getting out of his residency has to come up with a staggering $200,000 liability/malpractice premium before he sees his first patient. Incidently this young physician has been is school constantly for the last 10 to 11 years of otherwise wage earning years getting ready for his profession. Expensive?   Hell yes it is, and rightly so. Show me a healthcare system where there is no motivation for the provider to work hard, and I will show you a system that is grossly inefficient. My daughter had to go to the emergency room in Quebec City a few years ago when she got a sliver of steel in her eye from a ride at an amusement park. The place was like walking back into the 1950s. And they wouldn't see her until I produced CASH money, nothing else would do. Figure out a way that juries stop rewarding a lifelong smoker (is smoking bad for you? duh) A verdict of 28 billion dollars for a single malpractice case, and I will show you a system that can pass some savings back to the patient. Otherwise, I am afraid it is as good as it is going to get. I am a healthcare provider. It is always amazing the patients that will always tell me in the presence of my dental assistant or dental hygienist how "You need to give her a raise!! She is terrific," then promptly complain because my fee for a crown is outragiously high, (incidently before you flame me for wages and fees, I pay my people better than most of the other dentists and my fees are the lowest in the area.) I am amazed at the logic of people who think everything should be cheap, but By God , We are in America, and we will not stand in line for substandard healthcare like most socialized medicine becomes. I sympathize with the people who have written in about isolated situations and it is true, we should do our best for everyone, but by and large, the greater good is being provided to the greater mass of people here in the United States.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: Beccy
Date: 09 Jan 03 - 11:06 AM

"While the line of personhood is extremely hard to draw, it seems self-evident that it does not include an organism which can do nothing but absorb nutrients from its host in order to grow..." says Forum Lurker.
Hmmm... by that logic every human on life support is no longer a person. By that measure, every severly disabled human who needs regular assistance to continue living is no longer a person. There is a fatal flaw in the "parasitic" argument you posited.
If you think that a mother should be allowed to eliminate her unborn baby for various reasons, just say so. The American Heritage Unabridged Dictionary states "Life    1a. The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in fuctions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism."
By any application of that definition, life begins at the moment the egg is fertilized as the cells begin dividing immediately.
So where does that leave us? It leaves us at the point where we either agree that an unborn human may have its life stopped for whatever reason or we agree that an unborn human must be afforded the same protections by law as a previously born human. Its quite simple.
Now, before anyone says something again about the whole abortion/death penalty disconnect. I do not support the death penalty AND I do not support abortion.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: Beccy
Date: 09 Jan 03 - 11:22 AM

By the way, regarding Canada's sainted socialized medicine. My best friend's elderly mother was put on a waiting list for a simple cancer screening that would have saved her life. She eventually came to the states for the test and was told that if she had received the screening test when she originally went in to her doctor that her cancer would have been stoppable. So there's anecdotal evidence from both sides of the border. I don't believe that means that the Canadian healthcare system thinks the elderly are scum. I do believe that it illustrates the inability of a single payer system to accomodate all of the people (frequent flyers in ERs and real emergencies) that need to be accomodated. Competition has its disadvantages, but they are vastly outweighed by its advantages. Namely- the ability to go to someone else to plead your case if you have trouble getting the care you need/want. Incidentally, many churches will hep bridge the gap and get you the medical assistance you need. They have discretionary funds that they hold aside from tithes to help those experiencing need in the community. (Don't flame me about being a fundamentalist, either, please... 'Cause I'm not. I just know who helps people in our community and it's the churches.)

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: GUEST,Frank HamiltonThen
Date: 09 Jan 03 - 12:04 PM

John H, I made no such assumption. The "dearth" that you refer to is about the level of intelligent conversation which improved quite a lot when we got off the "party-line" dialogue. Remember, I asked the question and offered no judgement. And I responded that I applaud original thought.

Nationalized health care does benefit those who can't afford the technological advances of the medical profession. The States may have superior health care technology but only a rich minority can afford it here. We have uninsured people who can't. Then there is the question as to what constitutes health care. Is it drugs and medication, doctors being wooed by drug companies and insurance companies becoming wealthy because there isn't   enough available education for people to learn how to take care of themselves? And then the bureacracy of the HMO's that everyone is becoming familiar with? It seems to me that some health-care services work better for some people than others and a lot has to do with your level of income.

Regarding the comment about radicalism, in this world of party-lines....changing oneself is a pretty radical idea. Some would call Jesus a radical and would say that he changed himself as well as the world. Others, of course wouldn't.
As there are different "conservatives", there are different "radicals" as well. I guess Hitler was a "radical" as well as Dr. Martin Luther King.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: jimmyt
Date: 09 Jan 03 - 12:23 PM

Frank, Not enough available education? I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to know that smoking excessive alcohol and drugs, unprotected sex, and just plain damn eating too much junk food is not going to keep you a picture of health. I think it is time that people take the responsibilities for their own actions positive or negative. YOu cak lead a horse to water , but you can't make it read what is good or not good for itss own health, let alone make it drink. OK you have me talking about reading horses now. I better take a deep breath............

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Jan 03 - 12:38 PM

OK jimmyt smartass. Tell us what the best diet is for people who suffer from a wheat allergy? Or gall stones? Or what the side effects are for the myriad of drugs now prescribed to regulate blood pressure, and how those drugs interact with arthritis medication?

Gimmee a break. If health care were as simple as you are making it out to be, I think we'd all be healthy by now.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Jan 03 - 12:57 PM

But why not share things? We're all one family.
Why make life so complicated and mean, like an updated version of Gradgrindery. (And Gradgrind, from Dickens Hard Times, was a parody of the 19th century liberals who thought everything had a price.)

A society that doesn't see excessive inequality as fundamentally undesirable is fundamentally anti-human. That's the idea behind the ancient Judaic concept of having a process of Jubilee every few years, when all the debts are wiped out, and we all start out even again. Essentially that is a very conservative concept, asnd none the worse for that.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: GUEST,Conservatives Yuk !!!!!
Date: 09 Jan 03 - 12:59 PM

What an O'rrible lot they are....except for the delightfully sexy and intelligient Edwina Currie.....

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: jimmyt
Date: 09 Jan 03 - 03:43 PM

Guest, I am not saying that there aren't places for education, I am saying that on the VAST majority of the conditions caused by the excesses as I listed, education gets poor results. Like to stay and chat, but I am off to DONATE my time at the local health department. Ya see I don't just bitch about the situation, I actually put my time and money in to try to help make it better. also, it is kinda elementary school to name call, wouldn't you say? I guess not.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: Sam L
Date: 09 Jan 03 - 08:36 PM

Good for you Jimmyt, but don't you see that the same system that gives a baker an incentive to bake bread gives a doctor an interest in cutting off your leg. It's not all to the good. Four members of my immediate family of six seems like a lot of unnecesary surgeries that by sheer luck, procrastination, one by pig-headedness, were avoided. One was a complete mastectomy for absolutely no reason, another was a hysterectomy for the same reason, another was a steel rod implant in a foot, another was an unnecesary operation that would've compromised the possibility of child-bearing. Seems like a lot.

   It's a weak argument, Beccy, the question isn't life but particularly human life, personhood, and you know it. A goddamn sperm is alive. I'm not going to counter-argue it, because I'm just so tired of people insisting the questions are simple and clear when they damn well know better. It's cynical and dishonest. I'm also tired of people pretending you can get morals out of science, or hey, maybe a friggin dictionary. Why don't you admit you believe something, have a faith in regard to it, and try to be honestly persuasive, instead of bullying the question with b.s.? It makes me feel there's something wrong behind your whole take on it, and I suspect it has that effect on others too.

I really do think that opponents of abortion could've done much more about it if that was closest to their hearts. They've managed to make themselves seem like a cult of weirdos, which is quite an accomplishment, since anyone can see it's a serious question, nobody can be really pro-abortion. I guess the temptation to stomp around like Moses is just too great, to hold a high moral trump card is just too sweet.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: jimmyt
Date: 09 Jan 03 - 08:56 PM

Fred, I guess my point is that whether you believe in a woman's right to choice or not is not the point, whether you believe in total socialised medicine or a complete free market, you choose your physician, etc, again is not the point. To me it is whether you and I can have a discussion, I can hear your views, you can hear mine, we can disagree, but yet, I may have an infinite amount of respect for you as a person, because you are much more than your beliefs on that one issue. I know many many people whom I have great respect and admiration for that happen to have far different beliefs than I do. The thing that gets me is the evil, retched name calling, slander, talking down, etc that I see in this forum and especially this thread. It is from both sides of the political spectrum but I think anyone can see that it is much greater from the left. Seems the very word "liberal" connoted openmindedness. I don't see enough of that. McGrath has some strong points on the Jubelee idea, I think they are well said. I may not see the practicality of the idea, but By God his heart is right! Strange that the people who are the most venomous are not identified. Sorry, I am kind of a virgin to the internet, but I guess, now that I think about it, cowardice is not a new phenomana

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: mg
Date: 09 Jan 03 - 09:53 PM

I think that fortunately we are on the brink of throwing out some really stupid ideas about health care, diet etc. For one thing, we need to look much harder at drug prescriptions and their interactions. For another, we need to finally do studies on people with different metabolisms...your dietary needs vary considerably depending on your ethnic heritage etc. and most of us are quite mixed...read Metabolic Typing Diet or something like that..some of this research has been done by dentists...if you eat the wrong food for your type, which could be the right food for another type, you will be almost guaranteed to get diabetes preceeded by insulin resistance, which is associated with all sorts of heart catastrophes. Then they will give you all sorts of drugs to reduce the symptoms while your body continues to degenerate. You will exhaust either the country's finances or your own. Read also Dr. Schwarzbein on diabetes. Basically, some people, primarily of northern ancestry, evolved to eat heavier proteins and fats and fewer fruits and some vegetables. People of equatorial or mediterranean ancestry evolved to eat more vegetables, grains, fruits etc. Some people are more balanced. So people will say I feel so great on the Atkins diet and I am losing weight by the day..others will say it made me sick and I lost muscle mass. Because they have different needs. But people are starting to understand this..that Greek diets work great for Greeks and Chinese diets work great for Chinese etc. They don't quite yet understand why Eskimo diets work great for Eskimos or they don't want to believe it. And they keep studying those poor Pima Indians when they need to get them back on their ancestral diets and cure their diabetes.

There are more and more things you can do on your own. For one, find a good naturopathic doctor. For two, get a blood sugar monitor and test your reaction to various foods and your overall stability.   For three, get your insulin (not blood sugar) levels checked when you have a physical. For four, you can get your stress levels checked through Diagnostechs or Great Smokey Labs..all sorts of panels for various hormones. At least get some baseline stuff.

Get fresh air. Get sunlight. Don't use flourescent lights no matter how much energy you save. They are just foul. Feed your children real meals when they are hungry instead of telling them not to ruin their appetites before dinner. That is what an appetite is for. Never ever eat trans fats and either eliminate or greatly reduce white flour and sugar. Put any discretionary income into better foods for your family rather than a larger house, fancy clothes etc.

Well, that is all for now. Health revolutions are in sight.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Jan 03 - 11:19 PM

Umm...Jimmy. I noticed on recent visits to both Cuba (socialist) and Trinidad (capitalist) that the physical health of their population is generally far better than that of North Americans. Far more of them are slender, active, lively, and in good shape. They are more motivated, cheerful and idealistic. They have better skin. They eat better food...homecooked and fresh, rather than microwaved, processed, deep-fried, and frozen. And their mental/emotional health on the whole is noticeably better too.

They play sports instead of watching millionaire celebrities do it for them.

And their young people respect older people and have dignity and they still have extended families, instead of everyone living in isolation in his own little apartment full of expensive toys and seeing his relatives maybe at Thanksgiving and Christmas.

And their spiritual values are far stronger and realer.

Why do you suppose that is?

Oh, yeah, you're living in paradise aren't you, JimmyT... :-)

I've lived in both Canada and the USA for lengthy periods, and I thank God every time I cross that border going north...to a far more peaceful, rational, moderate, and reasonable society.

I'm not suggesting you're a bad guy, I'm just suggesting you've bought into a myth, and the possibility that it might not be entirely true really seriously bothers you. I could say the same of anyone who believes the Pope is infallible or the IRS cares about the people.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: Sam L
Date: 10 Jan 03 - 11:52 AM

Well, yes, I have to agree Jimmyt that you're right about the tone of of many posts, and particularly the anonymous ones. I regret the combative tone of my own, in places, especially since this is a thread for conservatives looking to see other conservatives here. Not the ideal spot for me and my ideas, maybe, but I get drawn into the topics.

John Hardly sent me a pm of a conservative attempt to respectfully characterise liberals, and it's really pretty darn good. Less ambitiously I'll try to say what I suppose UJ meant above, about conservatives. It's not so much Government vs. people, as he put it, but the culture of those people vs. a mere armature, or system of guidelines. So from a conservative pov it must seem that liberals are always jumping to propose new idealistic systems, when what's more important is the ways we as people work with the system, and even around the system, to humanise it. The problem with liberal proposals is that they introduce a new set of things to go wrong, favor arrogant abstract solutions over real living ones--am I getting warm? It's easy for anyone to think there's a better way, especially young people with little practical life experience.

   At one of my jobs I'm a scale model right-winger, my boss a loopy liberal elitist. Whenever anything goes wrong she thinks we need a new system, re-work everything to fix it. I can't quite explain that the reason for the glitch was that she was too stupid or lazy--yes, stupid or lazy, it's so fun to say this!-- to follow the system we have, and that changing it only makes it worse, in perpetuity. We've had 20 systems for tracking one thing, and the only system we've ever really used is for me to go physically dig around and see what we have on hand, right now.

   It's proven that generally the things we do to prevent tragedies in any of our systems, don't tend to make things better. They just introduce more flukey variables we can't predict in real life, and this is called Risk Homeostasis. There's a great truth in it, of human nature, of idealistic good intentions coming to nothing in practice.

But one study was of a country that switched from left-lane to right-lane driving, and everyone expected accidents to rise, but they fell, quite a lot. For awhile. So apparently if we wanted to reduce accidents, we'd change lanes every four years or so. Which is a chuckle, and of course, we'd never do that, even though it seems it would be better, would save lives. There's another truth somewhere in that, about staying careful, and watchful to what's going on, whatever our system is--which I guess brings me back to being a liberal when I get home from work.

   That's the best I can do, but I'm still trying to stay alert to conservative ideologies and positions, just to be on the safe side.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Jan 03 - 12:03 PM

jimmyt, a lot of the health problems people experience in the US are caused by poverty. I know this from personal experience.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: jimmyt
Date: 10 Jan 03 - 12:20 PM

Cross that border going north? It seems to me you would be moving to Cuba that great paradise. No, I don' purport the Usto be a paradise, but I still believe that the health care here is second to none. What I here is people giving testimonial information, ie the People there have healthier skin, active lively good shape, etc. hardly a scientific study. Carole C I also agree with you that lots of health problems can be related to poverty, but I also think that although we have poverty, it is more widespread in most other areas than here in the US

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jan 03 - 01:13 PM

Well, Jimmy, I'm not a scientist. What can I do but give testimonial information. :-) I've seriously considered moving to Cuba, simply because I like the specific people I met down there, and I like the climate, but the possible threat of destabilization of that society by the USA worries me enough to give me great pause about doing so. I think that the moment Castro dies, Cuba is in great danger of being thoroughly destabilized by very powerful forces, and ruined.

I'm also seriously considering moving to Trinidad. It's not as stable or safe a society as Cuba, but it's in a far safer location. There's a whole lot of street crime in Trinidad (and very little in Cuba), but that wouldn't be a problem in the area I would move to there...it's a problem in their cities mostly. Again, in the case of Trinidad, I would move there because of the particular people I know there.

In both cases, I am speaking of people who live in a cooperative spiritual community, and they are absolutely exceptional people.

I think the rather poor health of the present day American population is fairly well documented in a number of books at this point. You might check out "Diet For a New Planet", "Fit For Life", and quite a few other books on that. North Americans eat a godawful bad diet (generally) and don't get enough fresh air and exercise, and are under way too much stress (and loneliness). The obesity of Americans is remarked on all over the World.

Canada has far less poverty than the USA, but it's slowly getting worse here, and poverty is increasing. Canada's streets feel far safer, and always have. It's a less aggressive society. I like being in Canada quite a bit. I would probably like being in the USA if I could find the right group of people to live and work with. I would rather be in a warmer country with a simpler lifestyle, like Cuba or Trinidad, but one has to balance all the factors, such as...

Legal status, Visa, moving one's business activities to a new location, moving - period, earning a living, family connections, leaving one's culture behind and adapting to a new one, and so on.

It's complex. Living in any country can have its good points and its drawbacks.

I appreciate the reasonable tone of your last post. We're all conservative about one thing or another...the only question is - what?

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: Beccy
Date: 10 Jan 03 - 01:18 PM

Fred- Talk about combative. You said:
"   It's a weak argument, Beccy, the question isn't life but particularly human life, personhood, and you know it. A goddamn sperm is alive. I'm not going to counter-argue it, because I'm just so tired of people insisting the questions are simple and clear when they damn well know better. It's cynical and dishonest. I'm also tired of people pretending you can get morals out of science, or hey, maybe a friggin dictionary. Why don't you admit you believe something, have a faith in regard to it, and try to be honestly persuasive, instead of bullying the question with b.s.? It makes me feel there's something wrong behind your whole take on it, and I suspect it has that effect on others too. "
I DID admit that I have a faith in regard to it. I was attempting to illustrate how my faith jives with it. I don't think it's always enough to have a belief unless you can explain your belief. I get the impression that the only thing I could say that would be "honestly persuasive" to you is something with which you could agree. To me, this is unequivocal and I am passionate about it. Is there any dispassionate way to explain my passion about when "personhood" -as stated by several posters to this thread- begins? Maybe by someone who is more erudite and eloquent than I... Of course you think there's something wrong with my take on it if you disagree with me on the subject in general. I don't expect for you to instantly change my mind because of my persuasiveness or lack thereof. Would I like it if you agreed with me? You betcha! Do I expect that you will? No. Does that mean that my conclusions are invalid? Not by a long shot. I harbour no illusions that my passion will sway people. This is, however, a thread that I started to try to discuss issues with people of like and un-like mind. Keyword: DISCUSS... not inflame or namecall. I never said I refer to American Heritage Dictionary as a benchmark of morality. However, I think it is a fairly accurate source of precise language usage. I argue that life should be protected. I quoted the AHD to show precisely what I mean by life. And I DO believe that life, when discussing a human egg fertilized by a human sperm, is to be protected AS a HUMAN BEING. The fact that it is not able to survive outside of its mothers womb does not make a difference to me. It is a baby. I have had 3 babies. Does that affect my opinion on the subject of abortion? Probably. Do I think that it affects me to the detriment of my humanity and ability to reason? Absolutely not. I think it enhances my humanity and ability to reason on this subject. Again, I have loads of anecdotal evidence on either side... but most people have pretty firmly made their mind up on the subject. I hold out hope that those who are in favor of legalized abortion will have their hearts changed... but I am not holding my breath.
Rant Over.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Jan 03 - 02:09 PM

Strikes me that over my lifetime the people who have been most active in introducing doctrinaire changes based on ideologuical preconceptions have tended to describe themselves as "conservatives". For example Thatcher and her admirers. (Who now include Tony Blair, though he doesn't describe himself as a conservative, but uses that as an insult to throw at anyone who disasgrees, especially Socialists.)

I don't think that's an appropriate term for people who are really following the old 19th century liberal dogmas, and who seem completely lacking in what ought to be the central conservative quality of distrusting change unless it can be proved necessary.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: jimmyt
Date: 10 Jan 03 - 02:35 PM

LH Sorry if I have come off as a ranting pompous bastard in previous posts, but What I have a hard time dealing with is the sniping, the oversimplification of complex issues, and the undertone that whatever problems we have, be it health care issues, economy, world peace, even potholes in the road, it is all because of the fatcat Conservatives, and although I will assure you that there is an enormous amount of corporate greed, and many other things that are in large part caused by or contributed to by the right, I just would like the radicals, liberals, environmentalists, etc. to sometimes admit to sharing the blame. Healthcare is an issue that I am close to, and I will tell you, I have a good friend whom is a family practice physician, who rarely doesn't end up going back to the hospital, sometimes getting only a few hours sleep because in our society, the doctor is responsible for his patients....If he doesn't ,the patient has the choice and rightly so, to find someone who will be there for him. Jump ahead to a situation as we have here in the local health department. Physicians, trained the same way, from the same nation, but are on a salary that means 8am to 5pm. They get paid whether people are happy or sad. Do you think that guy is as likely to go to the hospital in off hours?? Well, by rights he should, but the reality is that as human beings, we tend to be a little lazy and we do what we have to and nothing more. I had disc surgery 3 years ago.Know how much time I took off? Less than a week. Why? Because I own my business and there were bills to pay. I took a hospital bed to my office, and was able to be in the building so my dental hygienists could work (they must have direct supervision in my state) So enough cash was brought in to keep the place afloat. Greedy ? no, I don't see it that way. You see I have 7 employees that depend on their paycheck so they can make ends meet. If I worked for a socialized system or for a government agency, you better bet your ass I would have been at home resting better than I was. Except for that hospital time I have missed about 3 days of work in 19 years. Greedy?   NO, I think I am acting responsibly to do my part. I am not trying to put myself on some kind of pedestal for being wonderful   Just telling you the way I see it. The local health department has a crisis in dentistry . they have a full time dentist drawing a salary of $80,000+/-, and the dentist does practically nothing except knows how to play the system to make it appear fabulous on paper. they asked me to be on a committee to deal with the crisis, how could they hire another dentist and solve the problem I said, simple, give the dentist a base salary and motivate him or her with a $$$ incentive to work hard. Oh that is impossible, can't be done in a government organisation like the health department. THey still have a problem, but I helped organise a program where most of the dentists in the area donate there time to see indigent patients for free. Human nature is the missing link from most liberal ideas (*Which by the way I normally agree with in theory) ir reality being effective People will develop a scheme to beat the system. I know there are lots of fabulous people who are liberals who truly live the life , helping others all they can. I am pretty sure that a lot more spend most of their efforts with rhetoric.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Jan 03 - 02:38 PM

Beccy, just a suggestion here. Using short paragraphs to break up your text makes it easier for us to read what your posts, and communicate with. When I see a huge block of text like your post above, I skip over it, because it is too hard to read online.

The art of using paragraphs is a bit different online than it is on paper.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: Beccy
Date: 10 Jan 03 - 02:50 PM

Guest... my bad- I hope I didn't make too many eyeballs sore with that last one. I looked at the post and saw precisely what you meant.   I shall try to improve.

I'm new to this whole online politico scene. Thanks for the advice. I cut, respaced and resubmitted my post.

Fred- Talk about combative. You said:
"   It's a weak argument, Beccy, the question isn't life but particularly human life, personhood, and you know it. A goddamn sperm is alive. I'm not going to counter-argue it, because I'm just so tired of people insisting the questions are simple and clear when they damn well know better. It's cynical and dishonest. I'm also tired of people pretending you can get morals out of science, or hey, maybe a friggin dictionary. Why don't you admit you believe something, have a faith in regard to it, and try to be honestly persuasive, instead of bullying the question with b.s.? It makes me feel there's something wrong behind your whole take on it, and I suspect it has that effect on others too. "

I DID admit that I have a faith in regard to it. I was attempting to illustrate how my faith jives with it. I don't think it's always enough to have a belief unless you can explain your belief. I get the impression that the only thing I could say that would be "honestly persuasive" to you is something with which you could agree.

To me, this is unequivocal and I am passionate about it. Is there any dispassionate way to explain my passion about when "personhood" -as stated by several posters to this thread- begins? Maybe by someone who is more erudite and eloquent than I...

Of course you think there's something wrong with my take on it if you disagree with me on the subject in general. I don't expect for you to instantly change my mind because of my persuasiveness or lack thereof. Would I like it if you agreed with me? You betcha! Do I expect that you will? No. Does that mean that my conclusions are invalid? Not by a long shot.

I harbour no illusions that my passion will sway people. This is, however, a thread that I started to try to discuss issues with people of like and un-like mind. Keyword: DISCUSS... not inflame or namecall.

I never said I refer to American Heritage Dictionary as a benchmark of morality. However, I think it is a fairly accurate source of precise language usage. I argue that life should be protected. I quoted the AHD to show precisely what I mean by life. And I DO believe that life, when discussing a human egg fertilized by a human sperm, is to be protected AS a HUMAN BEING. The fact that it is not able to survive outside of its mothers womb does not make a difference to me. It is a baby. I have had 3 babies. Does that affect my opinion on the subject of abortion? Probably. Do I think that it affects me to the detriment of my humanity and ability to reason? Absolutely not. I think it enhances my humanity and ability to reason on this subject.

Again, I have loads of anecdotal evidence on either side... but most people have pretty firmly made their mind up on the subject. I hold out hope that those who are in favor of legalized abortion will have their hearts changed... but I am not holding my breath.


Rant Over.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Jan 03 - 02:53 PM

You're just as likely to have bureaucracy screw up things in a "private" (which normally means "corporate") system as in a public one. It's quite possible to organise things in a system of common ownership without falling into that trap, and it's how communities all over the world operated for thousands of years.

As for health, it's always seemed to me fundamental that whatever incentives there are to encourage the health workers to do a better job should be based round keeping people healthy rather than treating them when they are sick. That is always being claimed as the underlying principle in traditional Chinese medicine - I don't know if that's true or not, but it makes sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: Sam L
Date: 10 Jan 03 - 03:07 PM

Well, Beccy, I was combative, because I feel your position is weighted with unspoken other issues, and merely pretends to explain your belief. But no, it's not something I've made up my mind about, not something I've had to make up my mind about, or ever will have to make up my mind about the way a pregnant woman might. I sweated bullets over the issue of circumcision, with my son, and still have mixed feelings. No, you can't sway me with something I agree with, because I'm not sure I'd know it if I saw it. But I sometimes know misdirection and evasiveness when I see it. I was completely justified in calling out your definition of life, because it doesn't go to the matter of your belief. Still doesn't.

It must be nice to have certain knowledge of what human life is, and when it begins. The best explanation of what constitutes human life that I've ever seen is Being aware of being aware of living. It's a lot to think about. Seems to neatly separate human life from other life, but doesn't clear up this question for me. How do you?

So abortion is "murder". Of babies. But even with murder we qualify degrees and moral uncertainties. Intent, the understanding that it is wrong, mental distress, uncertainties. Calling abortion murder is to posit not only that one knows for certain when human life begins, but that everyone else does, simply because you say you do.

Where is this explanation of when human life starts that you say you believe, unequivocally, and say you feel the need to explain? How do you know it? It's not a matter of eloquence, just plain direct sense on the topic. Or innate enlightenment if that's the case. But what is it, honestly?

   To me it is not unequivocal and yet I feel strongly about it. What bothers me is that organised opponents of abortion hurt their own case, and don't seem to mind much, they are needlessly, pointlessly cruel even when they aren't terrorists outright. They make me fear to judge as they do. As a political force they would rather be unequivocally righteous, than kind. If you know something I don't, I'd love to hear it. It needn't be science or poetry, just whatever it happens to be.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: Uncle Jaque
Date: 10 Jan 03 - 03:33 PM

Well now, Beccy; poke your stick into the old hornet's nest and give 'er a good stir, and see what happens!

Looks like we've got a live one going here; well done!

As previously mentioned, we used to have these jolly go-rounds pretty regularly on Mudcat. I'm talking , oh, 2 or 3 years ago.
They could be a lot of fun, but tend to become rather intensive in terms of intellectual energy and time.

The payoff is in this sort of discussion - at least for me - that I get to sample alternative viewpoints, experiences and perspectives from my own, as well as to be stimulated to examine and research the foundational structure of my own chosen values and ideaology. If those moral and idealogical tenets are consistantly and demonstrably practical, efficacious, and generally conducive to Life, development, and positive interaction, then my anchor points of belief are affirmed. On the other hand, if it can be rationally demonstrated that one or more of them is not, or may in fact be counterproductive, I remain open to the possibility of attitudinal modification as a function of personal growth.

Us "Conservatives", you see, may at times be a bit more open-minded than we tend to be given credit for.   

And while I'm throwing that "C"-term around, I think it's important to clarify that a "Conservative" in America may not mean the same thing that it might in Europe or other parts of the World.

One of the reasons, I suppose, that a lot of American Jews support the traditionally Liberal democratic Party, is that perhaps they equate or identify "Conservatism" with the Nazi Facists who persecuted and tried to exterminate them in the '30s and '40s in Europe. I can see where an ethnic Community could take that sort of personally.
At least that is the best rationalle I can come up with in contemplating the apparent paradox of why American Jews would predominantly support a Party which, over the past 20 years or so at least, has not been nearly as supportive of Israel's right to exist as has been Republican Administrations. And I would not carachterize all of those as being particularly "conservative" as I define the idealogy.

So when Beccy or I express the term, the mental image in our minds which we are trying to project may bear marginal, if any, relationship to that percieved in the mind of the reicpient. This sort of dialouge, hopefully, might help us to clear the air we all share of some misunderstandings and unsupported assumptions. At least I have found that to be the case in some of my personal interactions, and confess that a great deal of my agenda in here in strapping on my nomex Haines'giving the hornet's nest an occasional stir, is not so much to just create a little excitement, as it is to facilitate such dialouge.

Another observations from controversial threads past, is that all too often we just get some positive interaction going between ideological camps when some disgrundled and usually anonymous "GUEST" piles in starts spewing venom in all directions, and often succeeds in reducing a rational, intellectual discourse into an infantile, emotional flaming contest which can quickly break down the tenuous matrix of relationship that is being built between participants, and ultimately terminate the discussion. I get the impression that many of these "Guests" are not even Americans, have a distinct agenda to promote, and seem to hate nothing worse than to see people getting along together.

At one point it was mutually agreed that anonymous "guests" were to be summarily ignored, and that practice seemed to go a long way towards restoring civility to our discussions.
I'm not sure how far back our Archives go, but feel free to click on my "Handle" and trace my postings as far back as they go; perhaps you may find some examples.

So it is no surprise to Mudcat Veterans of many a "political" debate when our recent ghost/guest lurking in the shadows begins sowing hatred and discord from out the cover of darkness, to include a plethora of those "terms of dehumanization" earlier mentioned in this thread.
As far as I am concerned, such behavior is tantimount to self-impeachment.
Please respond to his dubious "contributions" accordingly, if at all.

Another connotation of the term "conservative/ism" previously speculated, is to keep or "conserve" all of the practices and ideas of the past, while resisting "progress" or innovation.
Correct me if I'm missing this, fellow Conservatives, but I see this as another popular myth about Conservatism.

Perhaps we need distinguish between "Absolute Conservatism" vs. Selective Conservatism" here; The kind of "Conservatism" that clings to a formerly accepted or practiced paradigm or standard, resisting any and all pressures induced by time or circumstance is seen not only in the political realm, but the religious as well. I think it would be safe to equate it with "Fundamentalism". Perhaps these neo-nazi whackkos might be somewhat "conservative" in that sense, although the very thought of such a connection to any of the "Conservatives" I relate with is utterly appalling. This myth alone may contribute significantly to much of the vitriol held by generally moral and decent people towards "Conservatives".   In some cases, true enough, it might be justified; but they are, I submit to you, the minority.

In "Selective Conservatism", which I see as the more humane and pragmatic approach, there must be a generally common or shared set of values or principles. Perhaps this is where the line between "religion" and "politics" becomes even more indistinct than it normaly tends to be, for in order to be consistantly selective, we must begin with a faily absolute structure of criterion. Am I making any sense, here?

All right then; let me endeavor to illustrate; a common term we hear in these ideological discussions is the term "fair".

Thus, a statement like;
"It is not FAIR for Executives of big corporations to take millions of dollars in profits from a failed company (like Enron, for example), while millions of Children starve in Biafra."
assumes some commonly held values.

Value #1: "Fairness" is a good thing; a positive state of affairs to be striven for and maintained by all of Humanity.

Value #2: "Executives" are bad, because they exploit people and have way too much power and money, which they do not share (sharing is a good thing of course)with those less fortunate.
Even that term "fortunate" implies that the access to or control of resourses has everything to do with "Fortune"; luck of the draw, capricious favor of some Diety, etc..

When we tug on one assumption, isn't it funny how it often telescopes out to include a host of sub-assumptions?
Perhaps we can call that one "Value 2-a.".

Value #3: Starving Children, in Biafra or anywhere else, is a bad thing. I think we pretty much aggree on that!

Now wait a minute!: One dear acquaintance of ours happens to be not only a devoted Environmentalist, but a competent and professional Biologist as well. When confronted with these pathetic images of famine and starvation, pestilence and war, she responds quite matter-of-factly that these are all indications that Planet Earth has reached "Carrying Capacity", and this is Nature's mechanism for self-correction. When the population exceeds the capacity of the environment to provide sufficient resources to sustain it, there is a phenomenon known as a "Die-Off". It happens with shrimp, rabbitts, and alas, people too. It's a natural thing. "Natural" is "good", right?

Whoah, now!!

Just what gives Miss Biologist the "right" to "impose" her values on you?

What gives you, or me, or anyone else for that matter, the "right" to impose OUR values on her? "Rights" are "Good",... right?

Do you see what I'm getting at, here, or do I have to confuse you even more?

So it seems from where I sit, that in order to have any sense of permanance, continuity, or cohesion in a civilized Community, be it a Family or a Nation, that there have to be some foundational, commonly shared values and beliefs with which to evaluate and guage that which is in the common interest. And when one is out shopping for commonly held values and standards, about the only place I know of to start looking for it is in the Religion store.

It is no accident or function of simplistic, superstitious thinking on the part of the Founding Fathers of Democracy that it was assumed, and accordingly documented that natural Human Rights were not the gift of a benevolent Dictator, King, or Government, but were bestowed upon Humankind by it's "CREATOR". Now THERE's an assumption for you... or could it be "Faith"?

Although not nearly the Constitutional Scholar that many other Mudcatters have aquitted themselves to be, I get the distinct impression that not all of the Founders were particularly "Christian" by any means; Jefferson, I think, was Agnostic, and I seem to recall reading that a few were even Athiests.
Yet in their collective scholarly and moral wisdom, it seems that they aggreed on at least one thing; if a free Nation or a Free individual in good conscience and free agency chose not to beleive in "God", then it would behoove him/them/us to PRETEND in one!

Civilization assumes a certain commanality of language (remember the Tower of Babel story? No common language: no community) as well as basic shared values. "Diversity" can be a wonderful thing, I conceed... up to a certain point.

Surely we all are familiar with the term "Judeo-Christian Ethic"; see the religious/political connection, here?

Despite what happened in Europe in the '30s and '40s, I think that "Jews" and "Christians" (both terms subject to alternative interpretations, of course) by and large get along, generally speaking. We both recognize a major portion of "The Bible" as well as certain common ethical standards, such as those mentioned in the "Ten Commandments".

Our Laws tend to be a reflection of those standards; they become the standard of acceptable behaviour in the context of our respective communities, and thus become a reflection of our Culture.

So in a nutshell, we are not only what we eat, but what we beleive.

Hopefully, this might explain my advocacy of "Selective Conservatism" while expressing a rather "Absolute" conservancy in regards to the Constitution. I get a little nervous when people take rather speculative license with Scripture, too; let the lobsters grow as they will, but meddle not with the guage. Mainers will be able to pick up on that metaphor!

To be honestly "Conservative", then, in my humble opinion, implies that we honestly evaluate all available options, then retain that which is "good"; ie. consistent with the "standard" of goodness as defined by our culturally established benchmark standards of goodness, and reject or modify that which is not, or is contrary to the common good.   Change the shutters and repaint as we will, or must; but frig not with the foundation, and remove not the Cornerstone.   

So, as I see it, one may be both a "Conservative" and a "Progressive" at the same time, as long as we have a proper understanding of what our sails are for, what our anchor is for, and apply them appropriately, and with Wisdom.

May your Sails be full, and your Anchors hold, all in due season;
May the star of Eternal Light shine clear before ye, by which to steer along the Journey;
And may yer holds be filled with Joy, the scuppers running over with Peace.

Amen.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: Beccy
Date: 10 Jan 03 - 03:42 PM

Fred- Calling someone out on a definition need not be combative. I am not trying to be combative. Perhaps I don't put my words together appropriately to express what I am trying to express. My belief on when life begins comes from the Bible.

Psalm 139:13 NKJV
       For You formed my inward parts;
       You covered me in my mother's womb.

I believe that we are all endowed with our lives and our abilities by God and thus are afforded protection from the moment of conception through the moment of our natural death (so don't get on me about the death penalty) by the common bond that is our brotherhood/sisterhood.

I don't know how much less evasive I can be. And I think my previous post DOES go to the matter of my belief. Now are you going to complain that I quoted the Bible in explaining my belief? I used both of those sources because I thought they neatly expressed my opinions. I don't think the words need be mine if I feel they speak my heart and mind on a matter. I'm no Stephen Ambrose or Doris Kearns Goodwin. I give credit where credit is due.


As for organised opponents of abortion hurting their own cases... no arguments there. Every time they open their mouths to the media, those of us with a quiet passion and a hope for change cringe. The problem is, and I think that most folks regardless of ideological bent will agree, that the loudest mouths get the most media attention. That holds for Raelians, Atheists, Christians, Liberals, Conservatives and Kennedys (sorry, couldn't resist...) So- I think it behooves us all not to fall into the trap of judging everyone of an opinion by those we are exposed to by the media juggernaut.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: Sam L
Date: 10 Jan 03 - 06:27 PM

Beccy, why would I complain that your belief comes from the bible, if that's where it comes from? Well, we don't know each other. I complained because I didn't think you were saying where you were coming from, whereby we don't get to know each other.

I never wanted to get going on this, and have rattled on about it. I'm sorry if I was unduly rude, but maybe I can be forgiven, someday. I'm glad you have something that works this out for you. For me there seem to be many things in the bible, which may strike people different ways. That's enough of my drifting in this poor soul's search for fellowship here. For now.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jan 03 - 07:30 PM

JimmyT - That's a pretty interesting tale you tell, and with a lot of good points I would strongly agree with. Good for you. People's laziness and irresponsibility can be as much a problem as their greed, and I agree that it can get out of hand in bureaucratic sytems. I've seen it get out of hand in big companies (who were ostensibly trying to make money), in this fashion: Each department always lobbies for the biggest yearly budget they can get, whether they need it or not! (greedy) They always try to get more than last year. (inflationary and often wasteful) They then make damned sure to spend every last penny of it by any means possible!!! (dishonest, unproductive, and again wasteful) It's hilarious and sad to watch this process repeat itself again and again. I suspect the very same thing happens in government.

The thing I like about the spiritual communities where I've stayed is that nobody can get away for long at all with playing those kind of deceitful games, and only a few ever even try. This is due to VERY good communication and mutual respect, based on equality...plus good leadership at the top.

Only one suggestion I have for you at this point, Jimmy. Break up your longer paragraphs with a few spaces between sections! :-) It's easier to read that way.

Beccy - Same suggestion about the paragraph breaks to you.

Cheers,

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Jan 03 - 07:41 PM

"I get the impression that many of these "Guests" are not even Americans".

Now nameless GUESTs get up my nose too - but that strikes me as a pretty irrelevant criticism. If someone had written "I get the impression that many of these 'Guests' are not even British" I'm sure people would be falling around laughing at whoever said it.

As for Executives and starving children and all that, I'd just say it's wrong to take and hold on to far more than we need when our brothers and sisters are starving.

And the only thing that stops us agreeing on that and acting on that is because we've been sold a whole bunch of modern ideas which started out being called liberal but have ended up being called conservative or progressive or even socialist in some places. Ideas to do with putting a distance between ourselves and others.

"Modern" in this context means quite a considerable stretch of history, but not that long in the lifetime of the human race. But if we don't recognise them for the poison they are that lifetime might not last that much longer.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 10 Jan 03 - 08:02 PM

I checked out on this thread a long time ago... surprised to see that it's still going and has gotten so nasty. What ever happened to tar and feathers?

Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 10 Jan 03 - 08:24 PM

Well jimmyt, I've got to say I like the cut of your jib. There are a lot of folks, especially in the MudCat community who live in the margins, primarily because that is where musicians who have not caught the gold ring live. Sometimes they vastly overstate what otherwise would be a compelling case.

Leaving old folks on gurney for four days? And what did they do after the patient took a crap? Leave him in the hallway as an example? Stick Post-it notes on his forehead? If you believe that, you may be too dumb to hold a job that will let you pay for health insurance...

Since the highest number quoted (from what source?) of Americans who are alleged to be without health insurance is 20 million, and we live in a nation of 235 million Americans, the comment that only the "rich" (who must be the top 5% who pay 60% of the total tax revenue) can afford heath care is basically stupid on it's face.

Since I work on a Federal Job Corps Center, I note that virtually every student we have has some form of a government-issued health card, whether state or federal. Then there are the employees who refuse to set aside money for matched-funds health insurance because it "cramps their style". Finally, and we are in a minority, are workers like myself who set aside some $50 a month for a single person (more for family care). Who the hell is paying for all of this except those "rich" 5%?

And within those 20 million Americans, a good number are lazy parasites (I know, I've made several arrests during my younger police career). Take a look at the number of persons now being arrested for false claims on the Sept. 11th victim funds.

Many years ago I was an EMT on a local rescue squad. You would be suprised how many "poor people" we would transport to an emergency room for things like the flu, because they knew that the state would pay for what otherwise would be a private bill from a local doctor. There were others who, when injured in an auto wreck, would try like hell to get arrested, so that their bills would get paid as part of "humane" jail treatment. Now many states have enacted "Hound to Death" laws which state that medical costs of prisoners are to be borne by the prisoners once they are released, and the state has formed collection agencies to "...you guessed it" for twenty years. Amazing how it cut down on medical problems in the jail.

Now how we got from Conservatives to Abortion to Health Insurance, I leave to others, but it was fun getting here, and now I must bid adieu.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Jan 03 - 08:50 PM

"rich" 5%

Why the quote marks, implying that somehow they aren't rich.

Though I supppose in a sense that's fair enough - the really rich organise their affairs so as to avoid paying taxes. In the words of that tax fraudster lady, "Only the little people pay taxes".

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Jan 03 - 08:50 PM

Hey Claymore. What do you think about the fact that the Washington Times is owned by the Moonies?

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 10 Jan 03 - 09:35 PM

A good portion of the other 80% of Americans are lazy parasites, too. The problem is that many people who are not lazy are forced into a life of parasitism, because they are given neither the incentive nor the ability to become self-sufficient.

While no perfect answer exists to most problems, I would suggest that fundamental education reform would go a long way towards solving both the issue of health care affordability and many other inequities in our society. A shift to cooperative methods, rather than competitive, would also be successful in solving many problems, but that sort of paradigm shift doesn't happen easily or quickly.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jan 03 - 09:47 PM

Laziness is a problem afflicting every level of society. That's why it's numbered among "the 7 deadly sins". A lot of people find lucrative criminal careers because they figure it's "easier" than working an honest job and it pays better. Way better.

In a society where millions are born into poverty while others around them are quite obviously well off, pushing drugs or stealing cars actually looks like the quick route to success among your peers. Ghettos produce crime.

So, if you want to reduce crime, reduce poverty. Governments have not generally had the vision or the wisdom to take that route, and as a result must spend a great deal of money on policing and maintaining prisons, etc.

This is not the way to go. But...it's the lazy, unimaginative way. Like I said, laziness afflicts every level of society.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: jimmyt
Date: 10 Jan 03 - 09:51 PM

Carol, who owns the Chicago Cubs? just about as relevant to this discussion

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 10 Jan 03 - 10:04 PM

Yeah, Carol, and all that chewing gum causes cavities, too...

jimmy's friend and liberal, Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Jan 03 - 11:01 PM

I'm asking Claymore in particular for reasons that I think he'll understand. He and I have known each other in the 3D world for several years. Used to be, if I wanted to ask him a question like that one, I could just bang on my livingroom wall and he'd phone me. These days, it's cheaper to ask in a thread like this one.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: mg
Date: 10 Jan 03 - 11:13 PM

back to health stuff..which will help our gnp..get rid of carpets. They are just mold and filth collectors. I bet the asthma rates would go down so much with just this step.

mg

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: Sam L
Date: 11 Jan 03 - 08:55 AM

Mary, I've heard of some of the health stuff you've mentioned, the diet of eskimos in particular. On top of that, the things that are known as causes of particular health problems aren't necesarily present in people who get those problems, if you look at it in reverse. Most heart attacks happen on monday mornings. How one feels about their job is a main indicator of health, generally.

   Whenever I need a fairly safe topic I advocate good work.

I got to call people lazy and stupid in my workplace parody of philosophical conservativism, which was great fun. When I was inducted as a liberal I had to pledge not to say things like that, before they gave me my card to carry. I have a geat sympathy with McGrath's opinions, admire his calm voice.

   It's easy to call the poor lazy and stupid, easy to find their abuses of help, and suppose it justifies everything. They have everything, those poor people. There is no free brunch. Laziness is sometimes a stunted imagination, in people who can't see things working out for them, can't imagine it. You don't have to like them to see that things get out of balance, and one needn't redistribute wealth beyond applying existing law to white collar abuse, to make a whopping difference. What is a rich person stealing compared to a poor one? We go light on it, they seem more like us than those scummy poor.

   I think if poverty were not so associated with such shame and taken for an outward sign of personal worth, if there was a respectable model of livable poverty, the wealthy might not be so terrified of losing their money that they horde and and scrimp and steal in feverish terror. And the poor might not feel so personally defeated they often don't know how to try. These are psycological factors apart from the fact that the poor pay more for everything, are kept "unlucky" systematically.

That "thinning the herd business". I've never seen a variant of that idea that wasn't gobbledygook. Whatever.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: Beccy
Date: 11 Jan 03 - 12:06 PM

Fred- No hard feelings, eh? Passion is a tricky thing. That combined with my hillbilly blood gets me going. BTW, in my last post to you I forgot to add one thing:
Jeremiah 1:5
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you.
Before you were born I set you apart."
I guess that about covers it for me. I'm off to my other thread to see if anyone has any good ideas about open tuning vs. standard tuning for a five year old (homeschooling musicians, take note!)
Thanks again for the lively discussion!

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: jimmyt
Date: 11 Jan 03 - 01:14 PM

Fred, A very good friend of mine is a physician who practices in Copenhagen. Socialized medicine, in fact lots of their whole philosophy is socialist. I have spent hours with him discussing it in a very open, nonconfrontational way. He explained (now mind you this is one person's testomony, so it has to be considered less than scientific) that he takes the bus to work everyday with other people, not a group of rich elite.

He says when he goes to a cocktail party, it is not necessarily all physicians, and the people you would normally expect at a party frequented with doctors, it has a broad cross section of folks; plumbers, factory workers, retail sales folks, etc. They have no feelings of people in socioeconomic strata. The one thing that is frowned upon, criticized, and ridiculed,though is people who do not work. You see there is pride in gainful employment. THe kicker is that it is a system that has to begin in the family unit. People are taught as small children that they are no better nor no worse than others, but there is great importance in contributing to society.

He makes far less money than his counterparts in the USA, but his overall lifestyle, lots of manditory vacation time, several weeks of personal development set aside in his schedule that is provided every year, just a no rat race existance. HIs taxes are extrordinary high, but there are many benefits that are provided, ie healthcare, childcare, everyone draws a check monthly from the time they are teenagers.

But somehow, this system works there because the people of Denmark are remarkable people in their value systems. If we had similar things here in the states, the corruption would be unbelievable, because we don't have the family systems they have. I know I am probably making more of this than it really is, but I wanted to say than even I agree with liberal philosophy On paper. It is just the reality of adding dishonest lazy people makes in impractical in my opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Jan 03 - 01:28 PM

There's a rather unkind proverb, possibly Spanish, or maybe Irish, to the effect that you can tell what God thinks of money when you look at the people he gives it to.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jan 03 - 02:10 PM

Jimmy - You hit on the crux of the matter right there..."somehow, this system (socialist) works there because the people of Denmark are remarkable people in their value systems. If we had similar things here in the states, the corruption would be unbelievable, because we don't have the family systems they have."

Right on! That is why I like to live at certain spiritual communities (which normally function in something rather like pure socialism)...because of the very high moral and ethical standard of the people. Their level of good conscious intention and taking full responsibility for their actions is remarkable.

Obviously, one has to establish a good consciousness in people from the time they are young children to achieve this. It requires parents who are already in that good state of consciousness. This can be done either within or outside of a "religion", but it isn't being done very much in general society. Rather, people are looking for how to "win" (often at someone else's expense). In a real community things are done in such a way that everyone wins, if at all possible.

It would be very hard to change American society as a whole...because inertia is such a powerful thing, and the dysfunctional past tends to repeat itself. My solution is to seek out particular groups of people whom I have more in common with, and to choose my friends on that basis as well. I get quite frustrated with mainstream society, as I think you know.

You see, a dishonest or lazy person wouldn't stay long at such a spiritual community as I've alluded to. He would feel very uncomfortable and he would leave...or he would avoid the place in the first place...or it would change him radically, if he chose to stay. I've seen the odd example of the latter case, but they are rare.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: TNDARLN
Date: 11 Jan 03 - 02:12 PM

I've managed to stay out of this 'til now, but the time's come, I 'spect. If this were purely a political thread, I would've stayed out of it, but as Uncle Jaque and Beccy have explained, it's about much More.

Whenever I hear the phrase "separation of Church and State" I cringe, because, as in the discussion of the term "conservative", there is much confusion over this phrase and its application. I confess to being lazy about attributions, but haven't I heard/read that this phrase does not even exist in the Bill of Rights or Constitution? Yet it's quoted like, well, ...Scripture!

(A phrase that does exist in these documents is "freedom of religion", yet it's often [these days] interpreted to mean "freedom from religion".)

For the sake of clarity, I'm going to make a distinction here between "organized religion" and "personal, relational, faith in God"; and the following addresses the latter.

If it were possible to remove that part of me that embodies my personal faith in God and desire to serve Him [and that, through serving others], my personhood would be greatly diminished and devalued, as would be my usefulness. If you extrapolate this to include everyone who professes that deep personal faith and desire to serve, then the result would be a catastrophic loss to society. Yet Those who would restrict freedom of religion screaming "separation of Church and State" would do exactly that. And if they can succeed at so devaluing the Born, how much more so the utterly defenseless Unborn?   This is a perversion of social "righteousness". Does anyone believe that God is pleased when that which He created in His Image is destroyed and called "choice"?   Me neither.

And if pleasing God has any priority in my life, it cannot be relegated to an hour-long time slot on Sunday mornings; it must spill over into the "secular" hours and avenues, including that of government. Since my trust is in God, and not the government; I need less government, especially if the government has shown itself to be so grossly inefficient. As a steward of what God has provided me, I am to be conservative in my wants, so that I can be liberal in helping others… And if I combine my efforts to help others with other like-minded Believers, then those efforts can be multiplied in order to bypass inefficiency.

Problems erupt whenever Servanthood collides with Selfishness. It is difficult to fund or compensate for situations that arise out of selfishness, especially if the selfishness is coupled with ignorance. And if the government's primary institution for addressing ignorance is itself an agency of that government's inefficiency and selfishness [ie, "you're violating my rights","that's not in my contract", "you gotta know how to play the system", "they're going to do it anyway", "politically correct", etc.] the problems are perpetuated. Perhaps this is an aspect of "Ye shall know the Truth…"

I'm sure that there are those of you who have gotten to this point and thought, well, that's just what she believes. I want you to understand that neither my belief , or your disbelief, has any effect whatsoever on what IS. The world was never flat, just 'cause folks believed it to be. One of my favorite quotes, paraphrased from C. S. Lewis, says "Either Christ is exactly who He says He is, or He is a liar." This is where radical faith comes in- "lukewarm" faith is not faith.

So there's the label "radical", and the faith is"fundamental"to our personhood, and we trust that we're "right" [the stakes are pretty high here].   If this is what constitutes being a conservative, then I'm guilty. There is really no other option for me.

And I agree with Beccy- many of us privately mourn the media bytes that spew unkindness and callousness made by those who are commanded to show mercy- but again, please don't confuse what you hear, with what IS.   

All I have said here is intended to shed Light, not to anger or offend.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: Sam L
Date: 11 Jan 03 - 05:57 PM

My kids just got home and I'll have to re-read this interesting stuff. But wanted to say Beccy, no hard feelings, we have hillbilly blood in common, what does the rest matter?

   Check out Harvey Reid's third-hand capos as an alternative to open tunings. They give an open chord but still in standard tuning, which is a neat middle ground. And I think they have some stuff prepared for kids too.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: artbrooks
Date: 11 Jan 03 - 09:34 PM

The term "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights...and neither does the expression "freedom of religion." What Article I of the Bill of Rights does say is that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." I suppose that the words "respecting" and "establishment" could be subject to interpretation, since many words do not have the same definitions today as they did in 1791.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: Sam L
Date: 12 Jan 03 - 02:25 AM

Jimmyt, well that's very interesting. For me conservative ideology works pretty well on paper, but conservative culture does the opposite of rounding it out into real life. Blaming the poor, believing that the market really knows anything about people, or cares--attractively simple survival of the fittest ideas convince us things are okay, on a gameboard, when they aren't okay, really. These ideas encourage the poor to give up on themselves as worthwhile people, this lingering notion that people are being rewarded, as if by heaven, mocks pride and every conceivable effort of the poor, and encourages maniacal self-regard, corruption and vanity in the wealthy.

   In the U.S. it's poignantly awkward for the wealthy to hang out socially with middling folks, and I think there's embarrassment on both sides. There are exceptions, sometimes because of shared interests, sometimes in arts, but it's strained by some sad force of degradation--the real world degrades the fantasy, I think, and we feel embarrassed by it all.

   TNDARLN, I never did understand how one could separate their belief in God and their practical life, but I think one can separate the part that rattles on about their belief in God, and look around them at other people, and try to make sense to them. Maybe believing or not believing doesn't change the truth, but then, maybe talking about believing doesn't either.
    In my very limited experience with gregarious out-going religious conviction it's ridiculously busy, always, diluting it's sacred texts to accord with how people are strong enough to live, and strident on some selected points to condemn how other people live. Can these gregarious religious people be known by their works is an interesting question. Can they understand their own beliefs to a point where they can communicate them without the ultimate form of name-dropping--I was out to dinner last night... with GOD. And guess who was at the next table... JESUS. Those guys! There are some other things in the bible than those that are mentioned on this thread.

   Our judgements of each other are provisional, cobbled together, best-we-can do, compromised and sickly things at best, not the judgement of Our Dear Friend God, not ever, stand back, high-tension, be careful, don't go there girlfriend, down boy.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: jimmyt
Date: 12 Jan 03 - 10:44 AM

Fred, I am not embarrassed. You see, I came from a long line of millworkers. My family and all my friends in high school had the same background. I have made changes in my life that have taken me from that economic situation, and I am always thrilled to see my old friends, my family, and I enjoy being able to play music with folks that aren't perhaps making the same amount of money as me. Are they uncomfortable? I don't know.

I have tried to find some commmon ground with you and other folks, but it seems you just aren't interested in alternate thinking from what you are comfortable with. So, I will say best of luck to you, hope you find true joy and happiness, and I will not bother your thread with my exotic thoughts and ideas any more.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton
Date: 12 Jan 03 - 12:17 PM

Jimmyt,
I agree with you but the level of information out there is not always accurate. It comes from the meat-packing industry, the dairy industry, the drug corporations, and the tobacco companies. This is what I meant by not enough information.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Jan 03 - 12:21 PM

As people always says about communism - "Conservatism might look OK in theory, but it doesn't work out in practice. It goes against Human Nature."

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton
Date: 12 Jan 03 - 12:28 PM

Artbrooks,

Although there is no specific wording "separation of church and states" it certainly is what the founding fathers had in mind. They saw that English laws were governed by religious institutions and were persecuting those who finally wound up in America for that reason.

Also, Thomas Jefferson was adamant on the subject of religion and the state. His idea of Christianity was something akin to what we think of as Unitariansim although that branch of religion had not yet been established.

The idea of the US being a "Christian" nation and the founding fathers wanted it that way is very murky. Jefferson would not have accepted what many fundamentalists view today as "Christian".

Tom Paine was an atheist, I believe.

We know about Ben Franklyn.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Jan 03 - 02:41 PM

And there were plenty of examples of religious persecution within the Colonies by the same people who had gone there to escape harassment at home, to serve as a warning. (And that same pattern continued, for example with the Mormons.)

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: artbrooks
Date: 12 Jan 03 - 02:47 PM

GUEST,Frank Hamilton: my point was not the positive or negative utility of "separation of church and state", but that there had been a misquote from a historical document.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: Sam L
Date: 12 Jan 03 - 03:18 PM

That's too bad Jimmyt, because I found your posts really interesting, though I might not call all of the ideas in them alternate or exotic. I don't happen to agree on some points, but think I largely do on some others. Sorry if I seem closed-minded. Even more sorry to have butted in so much to this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: JedMarum
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 09:14 AM

I hate to resurrect this discussion, but it's been festering in me since I posted to this thread ... while I may get irritated by the way some folks post anonymously, and demonize points of view opposed to their own from that anonymity - I am no better when I use the F word in defining the annonomous poster's character and liken them to our least attractive body part! My apologies to my fellow Mudcatters and GUESTS alike, for an argument very poorly phrased.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: Beccy
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 09:32 AM

Jed- Kudos....

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: jimmyt
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 09:41 AM

Jed, I can appreciate your apologies, but you only wrote what you did out of frustration, and it tended to crystallize my thoughts,as well as many others. I for one am getting tired of unidentified posters either trolling or taking another identity. Someone used my name as guest yesterday, posting inflammatory material. I can't imagine what people derive from intentionally hurting others, but I can't imagine what motivates vandalism either.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 12:59 PM

washingtonpost.com

Justice Scalia's Lament

Tuesday, January 28, 2003; Page A20

SPEAKING RECENTLY in Fredericksburg, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia made a remarkable
claim about the First Amendment's religion clauses. The "true tradition of religious freedom in America," he
said, was "a tradition of neutrality amongst religious faiths. The government will not favor Catholics,
Protestants, Muslims, Jews. . . . But the tradition was never that the government had to be neutral
between religiousness and nonreligiousness. That principle, however, has since been adopted by the
Supreme Court" over the past few decades. The justice attacked the Supreme Court's case law that has
sought to separate church from state more rigorously than the founders did as an example of what he
derisively termed the "living Constitution" -- "the new view . . . which says [the document] . . . means what
we think it ought to mean." Justice Scalia speaks passionately on this subject. But his history is
mischievous, and the principle he derives from it is dangerous.

In reality, the founding-era practice of religious neutrality was not one that even Justice Scalia today would
recognize as neutral. For while Justice Scalia's idea of government neutrality among religious groups had
some adherents at the time, it was not the principle that governed the early history of the American
republic. States retained established churches and religious tests for public service, for example. Congress
paid for missionary work among Native Americans. And many scholarly authorities emphatically did not
understand the First Amendment, as the justice now does, as putting Christianity on an even playing field
with other religions. Justice Joseph Story -- a celebrated early commentator on the Constitution -- wrote
in 1833, for example, that the point of the amendment was "not to countenance, much less to advantage
Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity," but to establish federal neutrality
between Christian sects and the states those sects dominated. "[I]t is impossible for those who believe in
the truth of Christianity as a divine revelation to doubt that it is the especial duty of government to foster . .
. it among all the citizens and subjects," he wrote. This sounds little like neutrality among religions. Justice
Scalia's Constitution, in other words, is just as "living" as the one he derides. He merely prefers to draw
the line in a different place.

The trouble is that he draws it in a place that would permit public religious exercises that endorse one
broad religious system -- Judeo-Christian monotheism -- at the expense of all other systems of belief and
would do so with the imprimatur of the state. Justice Scalia can pretend that certain school prayers, to cite
one example, are nondenominational, but any invocation of one God necessarily excludes Hindus as surely
as it excludes atheists. Protecting their consciences from state indoctrination may be, as Justice Scalia
laments, a deviation from the vision of religious freedom the First Amendment was originally intended to
enshrine. But America has changed since the 18th century, and the American understanding of the
principle the First Amendment stated -- Justice Scalia's understanding included -- has changed with it. In
contemporary America, governmental neutrality on religious matters should be true neutrality.

                         © 2003 The Washington Post Company

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: Jeri
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 01:11 PM

Jed, festering ain't nice! You're a good man for sticking to your own standards. Earning respect is better than scoring points any day.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: DougR
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 02:26 PM

McGrath: success in the eye of the beholder I guess. Right now, conservatism is alive and well in the U. S. As a matter of fact, the conservative philosophy is in the driver's seat in Washington. In the White House, the House, and the Senate. Right on, I say!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 02:34 PM

Well, Doug that's a bit like saying Socialism is alive and well and in power in England.

Just because the label is the same doesn't mean the goods are genuine.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 05:08 PM

I should think there are lots of conservatives in Mud Cat. Though Folk was highjacked by the Left during the Depression, it seems that it is now returning to the place Folk should call home. I am afraid some "give peace a chance" song chorded out on a guitar while someone sings simplistic lyrics off key doesn't count as folk. Besides the Left and it claim to PuesdoKnowledge and truth is as it looks - rediculious - Why a movement that has murdered at last count some 36 million of its own citizens is considered noble and enlightened ....... now that is the good subject of a song .... Ode to Joe, Pol, and Ho.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: Sam L
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 06:45 PM

I've often wondered how to call the politics in Sir Patrick Spens. I think yes, there are many conservatives on mudcat, enjoy hearing their views, and wind up thinking about them after I've said what I have to say, as I have here. But I still don't understand the anonymity--if you think something, why not sign it?

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 12:16 AM

Most of the Republicans in power now are rather far from conservatism. While it is true that their economic policy is in line with American conservativism, their policies on civil liberties are quite radical. The conservative philosophy is to leave well enough alone, and fix only what has been changed from its previous, better position. The current government doesn't think like that at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: DougR
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 12:22 AM

I don't see your logic, Lurker. Who is advocating development of hydrogen to run our vehicles? Reorganizing Social Security so that young people today might have a chance for a better return on their investment in the future? Leaving no child behind educationally? Allowing the working class to keep more of the money they earn rather than giving it to the government? It's certainly not the liberals! It is a moderately conservative Republican president!

Don't rely too much on the dictionary definition of conservative and liberal to define either. Mr. Webster is not always right.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 08 Aug 03 - 12:37 AM

Mr. Webster died long before the liberal agenda was put forth...by FDR 70 years ago. The book definition of liberal does not work when liberalism has been beating the same horse and fomenting the same class war for almost 3/4 of a century.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: Sam L
Date: 08 Aug 03 - 09:08 AM

Pdq it's a little saddening to imagine that you read through this entire old thread and came up with "beating a dead horse" and "class warfare". A lot of live liberal horses trotting around these days were born in that 70 years, and to reject them all would make for a pretty rare antique collection of views. Bet you could sell it on E-Bay.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 08 Aug 03 - 11:42 AM

Thanks, Fred, I do sell on eBay! The horses trotting around as liberals, born after Janis and Jimi died, are still being given the same battle plan from seventy years ago, even though most of it has been tried and most of it has not worked.

Anyway, Fred, it really isn't much of a Floor-wax!

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: Sam L
Date: 08 Aug 03 - 08:02 PM

It occurred to me later that you were probably just giving a shout out to your conservative homies, and I shouldn't intrude. Maybe I'd get to hear what y'all conservatives talk about amongst yourselves if I'd just shut up. I imagine things like "The bad news is my company is going to have to scale back on our illegal business practices, but the good news is we can downsize our legal department".

The horses I meant were the actual positive results of past liberal intitatives, which even most dyed in the wool conservatives today tend to appreciate the constructive value of. Even some of the most awful ones are lesser evils than doing without them.

Besides, did I mention it's also a dessert topping?

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 08 Aug 03 - 08:11 PM

Knew I would find you here. Saw a subject you can really get into on another thread:
             "The Banjo, birth control and existentialism"

Yes, this would be the place to sit back and learn what conservatives think, if it were not for one thing.
               RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
                                     No

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Aug 03 - 08:41 PM

Well...to address the original question posed by this thread...I am moderately conservative in both dress and sexual mores. For instance, I refuse to wear pink tutus in public, and I will not copulate with farm animals or the Bulgarian National Soccer Team.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: Sam L
Date: 08 Aug 03 - 09:05 PM

pdq, I feel your pain. But I guess that's not what you wanted to hear. Let's see--Any Conservatives on mudcat? Well, it depends what your definition of the word "any" is. ...I guess this isn't working.

Listen:

Crickets chirping.

Well, so, who are you? What're you doing lately ? I'm not a conservative on mudcat, but I like to think of myself as a Compassionate Liberal--I even supported the war. But why do people ridicule Al Gore "inventing" the internet and yet they give the president credit for "winning" a war? because in his role as a leader, Gore really did--wait--where are you going? LET'S TALK ABOUT MUSIC! PDQ?!?

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 08 Aug 03 - 10:26 PM

OK, pdq is Bach, er, back. If I told you I spent the last 1/3 of the twentieth century as a registered Democrat and voted solid Environmental, you would not believe me, and you would know how old I am. Did you notice that Amos can play "Ragged But Right" in a VI-II-V-I progression? Awsome, as the say in CA. Now that was about music, wasn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: Sam L
Date: 08 Aug 03 - 11:35 PM

oh yeah, I believe you. The sense of humor, the light touch. I would've guessed it. And--nobody is more convincingly disenchanted with "liberals" than a liberal. Full-blooded conservatives just snap at liberals the same way schoolboys pick on the girls they like. So, now are you going to be like one of those ex-smokers or recovered alcoholics and be mean to everyone else? I don't think so.

If you don't have more to add about yourself, would you mind if I invent your entire identity? It's fun for everyone, except the person who is being "deduced" from their posts (you). I do it at work a lot. That guy--is a rodeo clown. Whatshername--she makes chainsaw sculptures. In the movie of her life she would be played by Holly Hunter. Etc.

Hey Little Hawk--did you bring any beer? There are a couple other soccer teams don't look too bad, in the right lighting, you know.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Aug 03 - 01:15 AM

Well, yeah, there's the Brazilian team...not bad, eh? :-)

I'm also conservative about whitewater rafting. After viewing the video of "The River Wild" tonight I have no desire whatsoever to do it under any circumstances! I am no fan of hypothermia. I believe our rivers should be well regulated so as to dissuade young fools from killing themselves in the rapids. This makes me quite conservative when it comes to water sports.

Good movie, by the way...

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: jimmyt
Date: 09 Aug 03 - 10:01 AM

Well, I'll be damned!! I went looking for you space cadets in the old WIlco48 thread, alas you were gone.........I thought you had perhaps given up the thought, but alas, here you all are in the.. .of all places, another conservative threads!!! I am guessing some of you must have been kicked out of the liberal clubhouse.

Anyhow, Little Hawk, if that is true abour you refusing to wear a pink tutu or do ...whatever with Eastern European Soccer teams, you can forget the invitation to revive THE Odd Couple with me. ps I am a little hurt that you all left without telling me where to find you, am I to infer my own lack of welcome? I promise to bring beer (plus a lovely white Zinfandel for Little Hawk)

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 09 Aug 03 - 12:10 PM

In all fairness to the artists, chainsaw sculptue can be very impressive, at least from a distance. Got my eye on a lady Indian made of heartwood Alder right now.

Anyone realize that Barry Goldwater was the first man to lead a whitewater expedition down the Colorado River with a movie camera, mid 1930's. Now a liberal will say "that don't count 'cause only rich people can afford a movie camera and besides, he was from Arizona and could get there a lot easier than someone from, say, upstate New York."

Join in jimmyt, I need all the help I can get to educate these guys!

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: jimmyt
Date: 09 Aug 03 - 12:25 PM

Maybe the reason the Coorado runs through such desert is ole Barry had them drop those defoliant bombs to get rid of that pesky vegetation. Just a theory.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Aug 03 - 12:34 PM

Ha! We lost track of that Wilco thread somehow, Jimmy. Nothing more to it than that. You know how it is...you get an escaped gorilla from the zoo bursting into your house in search of bananas and other fruit (not to mention entertaining thoughts of slinging your "significant other" over his hairy shoulder and rushing off into the forest with her to do God knows what...!) and you can get a little bit distracted for awhile...

Anyway, the dust settled and here I am. The Zinfandel is a great idea. I don't care for beer much but I like Zinfandel. I drink a little bit for the taste but never overindulge. I believe this makes me conservative when it comes to drinking.

pdq - The liberal would actually say "That doesn't count, because only rich people can afford a movie camera and besides, he was from Arizona and could get there a lot easier than someone from, say, upstate New York."

It's blue collar and redneck conservatives who use bad grammar like "that don't" and "'cause", causing liberals to regard them and all of their know-nothing opinions with pitying disdain. You will never rate membership in the Liberal Clubhouse if you don't master these little nunances of language. :-)

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Aug 03 - 12:51 PM

"Nuances", I mean...

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 09 Aug 03 - 12:55 PM

Liberals always claim to represent the working people. That must just be on election day.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 09 Aug 03 - 07:43 PM

Oh Fred, just looked at "BS: What are liberals made of". There is a gramatical error. The thread title ends in a preposition. This is something normal people may notice, but only anal-retentive pedants will care about. I also notice that many times your last statement will kill a thread. I must assume that you are opposed to the death penalty, so what do you call this? Euthanasia or perhaps anesthesia?

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Aug 03 - 08:58 PM

Good, cogent points there, pdq. :-)

You know, the thing about the classic "liberal" is...he/she represents the working people (supposedly)...but...and this is a BIG but...he/she is clearly a class or two above them at the same time! It's a subtle matter indeed.

Interestingly enough, the classic big bucks, tough-guy, socialist-hating, self-made, Daddy Warbucks type conservative also represents (so he claims) the working people (and may have sprung from their ranks in a few cases)...but...is clearly a class or two above them at the same time!

Ironical, isn't it? The real truth of the matter is that both of those classic political types secretly have a certain measure of contempt for the working people, I believe...in most cases. I'm sure there are some notable exceptions to these broad rules I've drawn, however. Wherever they are, we need them!

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: jimmyt
Date: 09 Aug 03 - 09:26 PM

Little Hawk, at least have the good taste to drink a reisling or a pinot grigio! White zinfandel is so 80s yuppie! and I know that doesn't characterise you at all!ps is ironical a word? is it something that just surpasses ironic? just wondering. goodnight gracie!

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Aug 03 - 11:14 PM

You couldn't be more right, Jimmy. Oh, I am so humiliated! :-) Well, zinfandel is okay (had a girlfriend who loved it), but given my druthers I like Canadian and German white wines the best, but not too dry.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 10 Aug 03 - 12:44 AM

Little Hawk: Note that some of my posts are comical, some are thoughtful, some are silly, some are just intended to throw fat on the fire "to hear it sizzle". Fred Miller can see that, and you should be able to see it too. Conservative is a relative term, but it is never synonymous with cretin. Friends?

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: Sam L
Date: 10 Aug 03 - 09:40 AM

Hey Jimmyt, didn't you see the empty chair saved for you when you came in?
Gee, it's very kind of you pdq to point out my tendency to kill threads. I was hoping I was the only one who'd noticed that.

My liberal mother is still teaching english and when my grammar lapses I revel that she isn't around to correct me. "Of what are liberals made"?--bleah.

Represent working people? I am a working people. Granted, so are some conservative folks, but we strike certain deals together. I'm a liberal vegetarian artist and my buddy John is a conservative engineer deer hunter. He wants me to paint a big abstract expressionist picture for him in a camoflage pattern, to go with his other camo furnishings. It's so funny I might do it. But he doesn't want to believe me that the president of PETA is a nascar enthusiast.

Maybe Goldwater was the first, but I think I've heard that Clinton had some sort of notable whitewater experience too.

I'm sore and worn out. Work yesterday was so busy, we were so swamped, the boss said It's just like the old days. I said yeah, it feels like the Clinton administration. Not that I'm a clinton liberal--I think conservatives hate him so much because he's a conservative who traitorously talks liberal. You get the same hangover without the grand old party.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 10 Aug 03 - 12:02 PM

Did you know that the elephant is the only mammal that can't jump?

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: Alice
Date: 10 Aug 03 - 12:17 PM

What a long thread! Didn't have time to read it all, but I thought you may enjoy this web page:

Conservative or liberal? QUIZ
http://www.selectsmart.com/politics.html

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Aug 03 - 01:07 PM

I thought rhinoceroses couldn't jump either. And what about hippos? The makeup/mixture of your posts sounds exactly like mine, pdq. Yup, definitely friends.

Regarding Clinton, I think the main real reason the Republicans hated him was that he was so good at winning elections and staying in power.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: jimmyt
Date: 10 Aug 03 - 01:54 PM

I am a conservative who didn't hate Clinton! I kinda got a kick out of him!! Our stock in Europe certainly went up! I spoke with lots of folks while travelling who who admired him!!!I do not think as much of the missus, however!

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Aug 03 - 04:13 PM

She's a tough one. Did you see the thing about the tabloid headline concerning her supposed torrid nightly rendezvous(s) with the handsome alien gent aboard his UFO? Ha! Ha! The press asked her about it and she said something to the effect of: "That is untrue. We only went out to dinner once." LOL!!! Nice answer, Hilary.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 10 Aug 03 - 06:00 PM

On August 27th, 1,000 UFO's landed, all over the US. As each one opened it's door, out came 1,000 Hilary Clinton clones, each dressed in a polka dot dress...

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: jimmyt
Date: 10 Aug 03 - 06:41 PM

and????????????/ I feel a punch line coming on

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: GUEST,pdq
Date: 10 Aug 03 - 07:55 PM

1,000 X 1,000 = 1 Million Hilary clones, enough to fill every important political job on the country. There is no punch line coming. sorry jimmyt, but your defoliant crack was not primetime material either. Fred could help, but he is reconditioning his A-bomb shelter in preparation for Aug 27. Provisioned with lots of dried veggies.

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: jimmyt
Date: 10 Aug 03 - 10:12 PM

I guess the fact that August 27th hasn't arrived yet, and the polkadot dress made me think it was going to be like "a duck walked into a bar"   I didn't think much of my defoliant line either! Sorry, not good material!

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: Sam L
Date: 11 Aug 03 - 09:05 AM

I missed the defoliant line?

Musta been when I was posting some photos.

I liked Gore's line back when Bush Sr. was calling him Ozone, calling Clinton and Gore Crazy, and Bozos--Gore said "He seems to like 'z's".

Subject: RE: BS: Any conservatives on Mudcat?
From: jimmyt
Date: 11 Aug 03 - 10:09 AM

pretty good line.................but if I had discovered the internet, the possibilities would have been endless on how clever I could have been.