“Left” and “Right” Confusion

We keep hearing the terms “left” and “right”. I doubt most people even know where those terms came from when applied to political ideology. The terms “left” and “right” wing are based on the seating arrangements in the French National Assembly, which directly preceded the French Revolution. Some believe those terms represent certain beliefs, and they did in the beginning. The aristocracy sat on the right side of the Speaker, which was traditionally the seat of honor, and the commoners sat on the left. This gave birth to the terms “right-wing” and “left-wing” politics. The left had been called “the party of movement” and the right, “the party of order.”

Hypocritical Leftist Feminism

For centuries women were made to cover their bodies. From the 1400's to the 1940's it was shameful for a woman in America and much of the world to show her ankles. In the 1950's, women became bold and began to show their ankles, but even then if she showed her knees she was called a slut.

In the 1960's, women began to stand up to the the patriarchy and began wearing miniskirts and two piece swimsuits. This drove conservatives insane, not just right wing conservatives, but conservatives of all political ideologies. These are the types of things feminists fought for in the 60's and 70's.

Have you seen Catholic nuns in traditional habits? Their head and body must be covered at all times. They didn't look a lot different from the traditional Muslim dress codes of today for women. Feminists fought to free nuns from the religious restraints of their clothing. Eventually, this fight brought about the modified habit we seen nuns of today wearing.

The Approaching Death of Free Speech

Bundy Ranch, Nevada

We have all been watching the battle between the IRS and Tea Party groups. There is growing, and maybe clear evidence that the IRS has been holding up certain groups for political reasons. There is also evidence that some staffers campaigned for candidate Obama while at work. But there is much more at stake with this – and that is the 1^st Amendment. By giving one political group more power than another they can effectively control speech – and possibly elections.

I have been watching the battle between LGTB and Conservative groups over gay marriage. For the most part the battle is only over marriage. So far the process is working, if not at a snails pace. But this piece isn't about gay marriage, but the right to voice your opinion is being placed in danger. A recent headline grabbed my attention, Hate group leader Peter LaBarbera detained at Canadian airport. Until that moment I have never heard of the anti-gay group, Americans for Truth about Homosexuality.

After looking over the website I agree with LGBT groups that this is in part a hate group – not so much because of their stand on marriage, but for a stand against homosexuality in general. With that said, I will defend their right to exist as long as they don't physically harm people. Simply because a group or person might spout hate, that doesn't mean people should listen and act on that speech. Those who act on that speech already had those beliefs.

It scares me that in Canada a person can be arrested for simply speaking out about their beliefs. If they wish to deny entry to people, that's up to the Canadian people. There are those in this country who would love for government to allow only their speech – those people come from both the left and right political spectrums.

The Following

There is a television show titled The Following. The story begins when a college literature professor becomes enraptured by the works of Edgar Allan Poe. He teaches these many writings with such passion that students become as enthralled as their professor. In time, they become so consumed by their passion that they explore the dark world of murder. For these people it is not cold and ruthless, but emotional and calculated.

In time, those students grow into adults and become a part of everyday society. They are doctors, lawyers, police, and FBI agents. No matter their current lives they have this attachment to their old professor, Joe Carroll. They do his bidding without hesitation. These former students will gladly die for their leader. This former professor, simply because he had a passion for an author, unwittingly created a cult.

When is a Conservative liberal?

We have political liberals and political conservatives. We can break this down to liberals wanting more government with conservatives wanting less. Yet in life we find many conservatives who are very liberal in their life. Many conservatives are smokers, while we have liberals who are for smoking bans.

A political liberal might be more the party type, while at the same time calling for stricter laws on alcohol. A political conservative might or might not be a partier. Both conservatives and liberals are guilty of calling for bans, although each might call for the ban of books or movies on opposite ends of the spectrum.

We can be sure a political liberal isn't always liberal thinking and a conservative isn't always conservative in how they live their life. Some see conservatives as people who spend their lives in church and are teetotalers. You would think they didn't smoke, wear short skirts, or expose cleavage, but we find many conservatives that do these things. Not all conservatives are social conservatives.

Are you an Interventionist or a Non-Interventionist?

Some days a light goes on in your had and you begin to see things in a different way. Today is one of those days. For too long we have argued over who someone is politically. The Democrats say they are doing what's best for the country, while Republicans and libertarians say the same. Sometimes we get so wrapped up in a party that we forget to think. There is a simple solution.

We are all interventionist or non-interventionist. It doesn't matter if it's social politics or foreign events, the terms can be applied. Can it be this cut and dry? Can we be an interventionist on something and a non-interventionist on others? Remember the age old adage, “Mind your own business.” Our ancestors have passed those wise words along through the ages. The non-interventionist is simply the same thing.

The interventionist uses the power of government to do their bidding. They don't want other people to eat certain foods so they elect people who are also interventionist. Interventionist believe most people aren't capable of self governance. There are some people who are, and will always be, dependent on others. Even a non-interventionist believes in helping those who ask for help. The interventionist doesn't wait for them to ask for help, but forces help on those in need as well as those who aren't.

The lowercase libertarian

In today's political environment more and more people are identifying with libertarianism. This often confuses some when they look at the Libertarian party and it's members. To some extent the Libertarian Party has been hijacked by anarchist and communists. It would take an article unto itself to fully explain how communists find their way into the Libertarian Party. True communists believe they can create a libertarian styled society and replace government with some board of elders. They fail to see that the board of elders is simply government under a different name.

When we hear the term libertarian tossed around we must pause and look to see if they are a true libertarian. Capital 'L' libertarians are those who belong to the party and can have varying political beliefs. The lowercase 'l' are those like me who believe in all cases limited government is the best road to travel. We don't want the elimination of government or a major change in how government operates. We simply want less government and the right to self govern.

I believe the founders intended for society to operate on the edge of anarchy, but far enough from the line of chaos that it doesn't become only the strongest survive . Any society needs rules by which people must live, but there must be limits placed on those rules and rulers. We too often elect someone to power and then turn our backs as they pass regulation after regulation. We then are shocked when we receive a parking ticket for parking in our own driveway because of an ordinance that prevents anyone from parking within thirty feet of the road. You might think this sounds ridiculous, but it actually happened in a Pittsburgh neighborhood.

Liberalism or Greedism

This diatribe is one I have been hesitant to write. The thoughts from this one came about because of a personal conversation. With that said, I hope I can write this without revealing anything that was said to me in confidence.

The gentleman I was speaking with was an admitted liberal. It’s rare that a liberal admits to being one, so that is something at least. Throughout our conversation he often mentioned social conscience. That is, when he wasn’t complaining about President Bush and all conservatives.

Of course, when talking to a liberal, Iraq is going to come up. He said that all the money that was being spent on the war could be used to take care of the poor around the world. I’m not sure about the rest of the world, but I can’t argue the poor in the USA could use some help.

Reply to A Liberal’s Questions

There is so much in which to reply. Let’s start with the first amendment. You say in the spirit of the amendment there is separation of church and state. The Federalist Papers tell us the intent of our founders. They wanted to keep religion safe from government, not government safe from religion. In fact some of the founders expressed that states should declare a state religion, one state actually did, but I can’t remember which. We have to read the amendment exactly as it’s written, and it’s meaning is clear that congress shall not declare a state religion and people should be free to practice whatever religion they wish.

Personally I am happy with the separation of church and state, what I do hate is for people to wish something to be in a document, so therefore that’s what must be there. You said several times that O’Donnell made a mistake and was just technically right. She was right in every sense of the word.