Category Archives: Uncategorized

Conservational Conservatism

Real conservatives are also conservationists.  Liberals, of course, will scoff at this, but Prudence tells us that this is a logical relationship.  The nature of true conservancy can illuminate the right thinking of true conservatives.

Those who fight for conservation of nature have drawn political lines mainly along economic – often anti-economic – lines.  The in-group of conservationists tends to view all those who are not as rabid about conservation as they as somewhat backward, perhaps rapacious exploiters who care about only profit… even if it will “destroy” our home planet.  Planetary destruction is a tall order, but humans have been quite industrious about modifying our environments, plural, although the greatest, planet-wide climatological changes have occurred with no human input whatsoever.  Still, our increasing need for energy has changed the lower atmosphere, at least, making humans ever more suspect.

As defined by conservationists, conservatives are all greedy, overweight and driven by profits; very conservative people, however, see such people as enemies of honest capitalism similar to their being enemies of conservation.  Real conservatives are not in favor of unregulated, monopoly capitalism, like that which results from close connections to politicians and their overreaching governance.

Real conservatism is not reactionary, but it does desire to conserve good philosophies and, with them, the best of ethics for organizing and governing our society.  This also means conserving the best of our culture, not plural.  It is, viewed without hate, not all bad.

Some conservationists would sacrifice human civilization to preserve a pristine habitat for every other form of life, or at least, white Anglo-Saxon Protestants wouldn’t be missed, especially if snail-darters would then thrive.  Once enthralled by being smarter and more sensitive than everyone else, rabid conservationists tend to ally with others who are equally so convinced.  Political power follows.  Now, the very overreaching government that makes so-called capitalism an enemy of vast majorities, is seen as the one force needed to assure adherence to their beliefs – whether conservationist, abortionist or racist (anti-white).

True conservatives can discern which of these causes should be opposed and which are worth working with.  We oppose abortion-on-demand and racism of all colors.  We believe in non-wastefulness, non-pollution, and clean environments.  We tend to be religious and we do NOT seek for the government(s) to enforce our beliefs, but to protect them.  We oppose globalized, monopolistic crony-capitalism since it tends toward organized theft of both wealth and sovereignty.  We trust individuals to perfect themselves, yet we insist on firm application of laws and sanctions for wrongdoing… for everyone.

Conservatives believe in balance and in courtesy toward all.  We tend to accept others as good or, at least, right-motivated until proven wrong.  To true conservatives, what someone feels is not nearly as important as what one DOES.  That is, anyone who is willing to ACT like an American, including respect for our laws and for other people, is welcome to live in America.  It’s fairly simple.  Respect for other people includes respect for their environment – everyone’s environment, while enabling economic opportunity and private property rights that make it possible for individuals to be FREE to the greatest degree possible… FROM GOVERNMENT.

The most passionate conservationists are well-advised to be conservatives, as well, and to recognize human nature as individual and not monolithic.  Conservationists seem to have fallen into encouragement of a police state that will enforce conservation as they see it; conservation that pits its desired ends AGAINST people, requiring, therefore, government to force compliance with conservationists’ corner on a part of science.  This ignores other parts of science, particularly that of human nature, yielding a somewhat fascist liberalism that has rendered America a rich-appearing debtor, barely able to afford conservation or even self-defense.

The success of the American experiment will be recognized in the shrinkage of government, not its growth, and in its honesty of education, not its bias.

The Most Powerful Organ

The most powerful organ in the body is not the heart, or the liver, or even the descending bowel!  Athletes might think the greatest power is in the “glutes” or the femoris and adductors.  In obese America even the stomach is way behind the greatest organ.

The organ we’re describing is the source of the greatest hatreds in the world.  It moves armies and populations to hatred and dehumanization of outside groups, so that they might be bombed and killed without conscience.  It is so powerful that it can change the meanings of words to the degree that murder is no longer murder and crimes are now “rights.”

The most powerful organ is the MOUTH!  I know, right?

The most comforting words of love and compassion can issue from a mouth connected to one’s heart – a phenomenally useful combination.  These can lead to love between friends… and even between strangers.  They can lead to procreation and great parenting, recognition of strengths in others and acknowledgement of heroism.  They can educate in great principles and improve one’s society, culture and public good.

The mouth is fairly close to the brain.  This doesn’t always mean there’s a connection, however.  A mouth can spew corrosive vitriol directly at people we love, even to the point of destruction of marriages, families, companies and governments.  Mouths sometimes, well… run off at the mouth, so to speak.  Friends of the mouth’s host will then ask, “What on Earth were you thinking?”

Nothing, probably.  Recently, for example, that great philosopher, Madonna Louise Ciccone, proclaimed for as large an audience as she could find, that she had thought about blowing up the White House (based, apparently, on its legal resident).  One would hope that her mouth had spewed with no forethought, but she claims there was some.  She should know, no?

World-famous deep thinker, Stephen Colbert, said on broadcast TV that the mouth of the president of the United States was good only for holding the penis of the president of the Russian Federation.  That was scripted, evidently, and probably practiced, but it still is not evidence of a connection between the Colbert’s mouth and his brain… hmmnn, unless, Lordy, maybe it is!

I wonder if that is where the term, “Full of (euphemism for turd)”  came from?

Social media provide ways to “speak” by typing, and those who enjoy the process seem to act as though typing out text makes one an “author” or some sort of “journalist” and not a “speaker.”  Verbal crap that people – most people – would never say face to face, might be magically insulated by virtue of social-medium “publication.”  This is proof that there is often no more brain-connection to peoples’ hands than to their mouths.

This is true for Presidents and paupers, liberals and conservatives.  One need only be able to discern unfounded – or unbounded – hatred in texted speech, as opposed to reasoned criticism, to gauge the connection of brains to much of modern “speech.”

 

 

 

Minimum Wage hokum

PRUDENCE SAYS: I don’t like the concept of minimum wage. Why can’t a person agree to work for an amount of compensation? Why can’t a person offer an amount of money, or, say, ice cream, to get some wood chopped or something, and another free, sovereign citizen agree to accept two ice-cream cones of his or her choice in exchange for the chopping of that wood?
I’ll tell you why: governments can’t tax ice cream. The greatest beneficiary of “raising the minimum wage” is… wait for it… the government! You see, da’ gummints think employers are 1) greedy; 2) lying connivers; 3) stingy and miserly; 4) not to be trusted. Plus, they don’t like them. Everyone knows businesses all have a room in the back that’s full of cash – cash they are just too mean to share with their down-trodden, exploited employees.
What happens when the “minimum” wage is increased? Income taxes increase. Social Security contributions increase. Medicare taxes increase. State income taxes increase. Government types, because they have no understanding of business, freedom, free enterprise, profit and the multiplication of wealth, don’t grasp that all of those revenue increases they are hoping for, aren’t going to happen (with a key exception we’ll get to) and that, in fact, overall revenue will probably go down, as follows:
1) There will be fewer employees overall. Raising people’s pay doesn’t increase sales or profits; it only raises expenses for the employer, as in, raising the cost of goods and services he or she is trying to sell. Government types think the employer can just take less filthy lucre for himself and share it with the least productive, least profitable employees. The employer can only reduce the quality and value of what he sells, or reduce payroll some other way, usually by eliminating the least productive of the least productive employees, and then pay no taxes for them, at all. Indeed, the newly unemployed start collecting welfare from others’ taxes. 2) Lower taxes from less profitable businesses and, here and there, the end of businesses altogether.
Now, here’s the key exception: Many negotiated labor contracts are tied to multiples of the minimum wage. As a result, raising the minimum wage will eventually raise lots of higher wages and we’re back to the real reasons: 1) buying votes with other people’s money; and, 2) raising taxes. How benevolent can they get? People at the bottom are still out of work, of course, except now they are unemployed from a $12 or $15 job instead of a $9 one.
Here’s what may be the worst effect of mandating higher pay for less desirable workers: The cost of discriminating against them becomes LOWER. If a desirable, friendlier, neater, better-performing and acting employee now costs the same as a poorer, less-friendly, less manageable employee, there will be far fewer of the less-desirable actually employed. Prior to the mandate, less-desirable employees had a cost advantage that would encourage employers to hire them for less-valuable tasks. If that cost difference were $10, lots of less-desirable people would get a chance to work. If the difference is mandated to be $0, hardly any will get that chance. Did you know that this was the exact strategy of unions under apartheidt in South Africa? The unions “went to bat” for blacks by insisting that everyone’s wages be equal! Sounded great, but the purpose of it was to make sure fewer white unionists had to compete with black applicants.
Unfortunately, our government “… of, by and for the people…” is demanding that every employer be subject to racial and other quotas, regardless (almost) of abilities to function at a profit. Things are becoming less American bit by bit. I don’t like it.