You're Welcome

John McEnroe, world champion tennis player, was successfully baited by an idealistic interviewer a few days ago. One of the most often used traps employed by the political left is the "prove a negative" game in which the victim is baited into trying to prove a negative and when the victim fails he/she is ridiculed. When Mr. McEnroe told the interviewer that Serena Williams was the best woman's tennis player ever the interviewer baited him by asking him why not the best period? (Meaning regardless of gender) Unfortunately Mr. McEnroe took the bait and tried to prove "why not". He failed and was promptly ridiculed. Controversy ensued. What Mr. McEnroe should have done was make the presumption for the status quo and insist that the interviewer prove a positive i.e. "why" Ms. Williams is the best period.

The next time I hear a conservative pundit or caller say words to the effect:  "What if a Republican did that?" I think I'll scream.  Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and others constantly imply that they are jealous that the Democrats get away with doing bad deeds. The latest iteration of this is in regards to the Washington DC shooting that happened last week.  Both Rush and Sean asked if one could imagine what would happen if a Republican had done that.  This kind of rhetoric makes a person sound like they wish that they could do the same thing that the Democrats are doing.  Instead of whining they should say:  "No Republican would ever do such a thing because Republicans are better people.  Republicans exercise better judgement and have a sense of values."  You're welcome.

How about: Do as you see fit! It seems that the diktat to "never give up" is idealistic and a trend that will benefit the political left.  "Never give up" could be paraphrased as "down for the struggle" "dedicated to the struggle" or simply "dedicated".  Dedication is one of the demands that Marxism places on its followers.  It's a subtle psychological manipulation designed to recruit followers without their knowledge or permission.

It's a shame that President Trump attacked Syria yesterday.  The action that the President took yesterday (cruise missile attack on a Syria air base) was punitive.  President Trump punished the Syrians and President Assad for using chemical weapons in an attack on a small village a few days ago.  Since we are not at war with Syria the attack last night was illegal and unethical.  Illegal because the President is only allowed to engage in hostilities when the people have declared war.  Unethical because the action suggests that "might makes right" and " the ends justify the means".  Syria and Assad were never given due process of law which is something that we are supposed to revere in this country.  Another pressure on President Trump, and perhaps the real shame, is precedent.  Many other presidents have used military force without a declaration of war including former president Ronald Reagan.  A retired Lt. Colonel that was a guest on a talk...

I was going to start reading and critiquing Rush Limbaugh's book "The Way Things Ought to Be" for my Story Time podcast this morning.  I instead read an article in the current issue of Imprimis adapted from a speech by Tom McClintock.  I changed my mind about the content of today's show because I found Mr. Limbaugh's book to be deceptively titled, anti-conceptual and contradictory.  The book's title suggests that the reader will encounter a dissertation on various political concepts and abstraction from abortion to xenophobia. What the reader gets instead is a memoir. A recollection of life events from the early days of 'The Rush Limbaugh Show. A blurb from the inside of the book jacket informs us that Mr. Limbaugh explains his political philosophy via anecdote.  In other words he is communicating by telling stories and "painting" verbal pictures.  As Ayn Rand has discovered story telling and verbal picture painting are anti-concept...

I have finally figured out what really bothers me over all about the talk shows of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity et. al.  These shows concern themselves only with goings on in Washington DC.  With the policy makers, movers and shakers that none of us "butchers, bakers and candlestick makers" know or have any influence over.  What they should be discussing if they want to have any real impact is day to day social and cultural issues.  Like what should someone say to the question "Did you vote for Donald Trump?" "What do you think about abortion?" "You're not a conservative are you?"  These are the kind of questions that we hear each and every day at work, at the grocery store, at the soccer/baseball/football field from our co-workers, from strangers and even from our so-called friends.  These are the questions that Rush and his cohorts should be addressing.

I read with great interest the article in the December 2016 issue of Imprimis adapted from a speech given by Dr. Arnn titled "A More American Conservatism". Unfortunately Dr. Arnn fails to accurately define the concept "conservative" by attempting to define the term psychologically. Psychology is idealistic, emotional and therefore indefinite. Concepts are realistic, intellectual and therefore definitive. The better definit ion of the word "conservative" is "to make the presumption for the status quo". Making the presumption for the status quo is an intellectual, rather than psychological, exercise.  It is therefore a better definition than the one provided by Dr. Arnn in the Imprimis article.  The socialist is idealistic and idealism makes the presumption for change.  It makes the presumption for an "ideal" state, perfection.  Perfection is pluralistic and therefore imaginary. (It can only be implemented by manipulation, intimidatio...

Ayn Rand was right when she said that one cannot be friends with a person that is diametrically opposed to everything for which one stands.  One cannot claim to be conservative and also claim to be the friend of socialists.  One cannot be realistic and at the same time promote the idealistic.  One cannot do these things and hope to have maximum influence over events.  In order to have maximum influence one must have maximum credibility and in order to have maximum credibility one must have maximum integrity. You're welcome.