Wednesday, May 18, 2005

Paradigm Post -- What Is Not Debatable

I am trying to work up some paradigm issues. One is I would like to define what is, and what is not, debatable. We are told constantly by the left that the problem with most conservative types, which I would roughly be, is they look at the world in black and white when in fact everything is shades of gray. This statement is utter hooey.

Moreover, the statement ignores the fact that we could distinguish the shades. I am reminded of an old bigoted joke I heard growing up from older members of my family. The white and black bus patrons were arguing about where they should, and should not, be allowed to sit on the bus. Finally, the bus driver got fed up, stood up and said, "Everybody shut up! From now on, there are no more black and white people on my bus! From now on, everybody is green! ... OK?! Good. Now, light green up front, dark green in the back!"

The politically incorrectness of the joke aside, the point is that if the bus driver can distinguish shades of green, we can distinguish shades of gray in political discourse.

That said, I firmly believe that most things are black and white -- right and wrong. The politics of what to do about them may be debatable at times -- there are lots of public policy issues about how to achieve something. What should not be debated most often is what we are trying to achieve.

I want to start a list of those things that are not debatable-- that are black and white and no further discussion is really needed. I welcome (actually, I want and beg for) your input. I have no real idea where this is going to go, but I will try to get us started and add as I think of stuff.

1. NAMBLA and its members do not have a right to exist or be recognized as a legitimate organization.
2. The attacks of 9/11 were acts of war.
3. The war in Afghanistan as a response to 9/11 was justified and just.
4. O.J. is guilty of double murder.
5. The U.S. Constitution does not have anything to say about the concept of recognizing "gay marriage."
6. There is no constitutional right or public policy reason to allow the Intact Dilation and Extraction (D&X) abortion procedure, commonly known as "partial birth abortion," or an abortion of a clearly viable fetus, absent a threat to the life of the mother. [I leave all other abortion issues open for debate.]
7. Jesus Christ was an historical figure.
8. The holocaust happened.
9. If you are in this country illegally under Federal law, you should not be allowed by any sub-government of the United States to (a) acquire a drivers license, or any other govt. issued license, (b) acquire a state subsidy for college education, and (c) be released by a police agency without first being reported to INS.
10. Barry Bonds is a jerk.


11. Evil exists in the world. The only way to defeat it is to confront it.
12. Centralized, controlled economies are neither free nor equitable.
13. No tax is ever temporary.
14. Phrance, Iran, and North Korea suk.
15. People are inherently self interested, which results in them seeking either money, power or prestige.
16. Discrimination on the basis of race, in all things, is wrong. [No other category should be included in this absolutism, though I welcome any efforts to explain why this statement may have exceptions.]
17. Envy does not justify political action.
18. Unequal results should result in unequal rewards.

Keep them coming.


At 5:16 PM, Blogger Jehane said...


I did not think anyone could make me laugh today, but you have managed what I thought was an impossible feat.

Thank God for friends :) God bless you.

At 5:26 PM, Blogger Masked Menace© said...

That there is such a thing as evil.

At 5:38 PM, Blogger Pile On® said...

Power corrupts.

Collectivist economic systems lead to widespread poverty.

There are numerous economic laws we could go into, I will just throw out one.

Price controls fail. If prices are set to low supply dries up. If they are set to high you have a glut of product no one will pay for.

At 5:44 PM, Blogger tee bee said...

A seriously fun list like this begs for additions, but I have a question about #7. Is it in there to catch people out? Everything else should be agreeable. I think it's a swing at the lately hyped theocrats, but it swings too wide. Else, why not Buddha or Mohammud or Ghandi? I think there's something more specific you're getting at, but I'm not sure.

If allowed to suggest additions, I'd want to add something about Iraq not being the reincarnation of Vietnam, then I'd want to point out that Vietnam wasn't the incarnation of Vietnam and that Kerry was not the incarnation of Vietnam, but I may already be kicked out for questioning the list. And I'd want to add that the government is not a special diety, it's people just like your next-door neighbor.

At 5:56 PM, Blogger Masked Menace© said...

Tee Bee,
I don't think it was KJ's intention to say that Jesus was only a historical figure. Just that he was at least a historical figure. This is something that figures like Buddha, Ghandi, and Mohammed don't have to contend with. Their historical existance has never been under dispute.

At 5:59 PM, Blogger Masked Menace© said...

I also agree that the gov't isn't a special diety, but it is not just people like your next door neighbor.

My next door neighbor cannot take my property and give it to someone else because it makes all my other neighbors happy.

At 6:13 PM, Blogger tee bee said...

Aaahhhh... I think I get it. Thanks, masked menace - after the Terri Schiavo thing, a lot of rhetoric was so creepily anti-Christian that I've got my radar kinked - it was like anyone who didn't want to pull the plug was an evil slavering Jerry Falwell theocrat. I guess some people do still question the historic fact, but revisionism is what academia is made of.

And the part about your next-door neighbor was meant to be sort of scary - don't you think your neighbor might like to take your property, deep down?

At 6:28 PM, Blogger Masked Menace© said...

Point taken about the desire. The problem is, the gov't can give them the authority to actually do it.

At 6:42 PM, Blogger Pile On® said...

No, but government can do it for your neighbor, provided he is a developer who will increase the value of your property and thereby increase property tax revenue.

I'd keep an eye on that neighbor...shifty bastard.

At 8:14 PM, Anonymous Joatmoaf said...

Except for #10 which I don`t know enough to base a decision on, I can`t dis-agree with any of it.

Here`s another if I may.
#11. Phrance Sux.

At 9:12 PM, Blogger KJ said...

tee bee,
What MM said.

Didn't you read the link? He has partnered with Al Qwayyduuhhh! :-D

Pile On,
True enough. I might add your first one when I have time. I don't want to get into A, then B, then C. I am looking for clean sound bites. But you won't get any argument from me or anyone educated on the subject. Except former-Enron advisor Paul Krugman.

At 8:53 AM, Blogger Pile On® said...

From an article that was e-mailed to me anonymously by someone I think might have been joat.

When some do-gooder says "for the children" hold onto your wallet.

At 10:06 AM, Blogger Masked Menace© said...

There is no such thing as a temporary tax.

At 10:54 AM, Blogger Jehane said...

Do it "for the children".

I double-dog dare you.

At 2:43 PM, Anonymous Joatmoaf said...

Yes it was me and it`sight up your alley.

At 5:38 PM, Anonymous Rocky Mtn. Lioness said...

I'm not convinced about #4. [although that headstone pic is classic]

I'll leave a little bit of wiggle room for doubt, however, I have it from credible sources (of which 3 degrees of separation in, included OJ's own mom!!) that OJ's son was the killer. This was told to me probably 2 or 3 years ago by a trustworthy friend who knows the guy who spoke at OJ's mom & sisters church where they allegedly confided that in him.

Son as killer is something I can't say I didn't myself strongly suspect shortly after the murders. I had a strong sense at times that dad was possibly covering for son.

I was told that OJ's elder son as well as Ron Goldman is/was of the 3 lettered pink (Thurs. 5/19 blog entry) persuasion and had been involved w/one another. Jr.OJ was evidently spurned (no, I didnt mean spermed) by Goldman...yada yada yada....possibly a crime of (pink) passion.....??

No comment on #19, though! It's just not worth risking a flame war.

At 6:54 PM, Blogger KJ said...

If his son is named OJ, I'm still right. Either way, his blood was there.

At 7:16 PM, Anonymous Rocky Mtn. Lioness said...

I seriously doubt his son's named OJ. ...or Orenthal, or whatever helk name belongs to that punk.

That comment was so...oh...I dunno....uhm...John Kerryish of you. [actually more "typical male" HA! (~;)

According to your theory then, Uday & Qusay are still actually ALIVE!!!!!...and in a jail in somewhere planet earth.

At 9:32 PM, Blogger KJ said...

Somehow, you know my theory better than I do. Where does my theory put Liberace?

Hey, I think I have next weeks Gay Thursday.

At 2:35 AM, Anonymous Rocky Mtn. Lioness said...

Ya got me on that Liberace thing. Just a guess would be your theory puts Liberace somewhere in a paradigm of Elton John offspring....??...or perhaps it puts him in Joannes Fabrics or Hobby Lobby. [all those sequins, ya know]

Now I'll have to make it a point to check in here Thursday.

I was actually blog hopping to gather some of y'alls TOB Alumnis URLs to send to BigTimeSublime, so he might drop in on y'all,...BUT....the last e-mail addy I had for him (it's been a while) is no longer any good. The cyber postmaster returned my e to me. Bummer.


Post a Comment

<< Home