Comments Posted By Frank
Displaying 1 To 8 Of 8 Comments

Jack Bauer's Lonely Crusade Continues

Great article.

I've only caught one other season, and that was a few years ago. This year I'm ready: the DVR is programmed!

(Spoiler Alert - from Monday, 1-19 episode)

Your reminder of the saving grace of the show, Jack himself, regardless of the underlying politics, is timely given the end of last seasons final episode (which I caught during it's encore presentation last Sunday) and Monday's closing moments. Looks like Bauer is going to be dealing with someone that has chosen his path but lacks his strength. Looks like it is going to be very interesting and, hopefully, engaging enough to counteract any political garbage that might get injected along the way.

Comment Posted By Frank On 19.01.2010 @ 12:07


Aren't these fundamental Conservative premises:

1. Government cannot be as efficient as free markets.

2. Government can have advantages over free markets in some cases. Unfortunately, the oblique consequences of empowering government to respond to such events can have unforeseen, and very negative results.

Compromise is not anathema to the conservative mind. Change is inevitable, but the Conservative is going to be skeptical of it. In those cases where Government has grown beyond it's proper borders shouldn't we strive to reign it in? Wasn't the Conservatives re-privatization of much of England's nationalized economy both admirable, from an idealogical standpoint, and beneficial from a National standpoint?

Perhaps part 2 will help me to understand just what it is that you're getting at. You did mention a handful of things that, apparently, Conservatives aren’t properly dealing with:
“health care, immigration, loss of industry, globalization, and adequate, sensible regulation of everything from financial institutions to the environment”

It seems to me that from the Conservative point of view there are sound reasons for vigorously opposing health care. Immigration (especially if you preface it with ‘illegal’, which I presume you implied) seems also to be an issue that Conservatives would naturally resist. “loss of industry”? Not sure how Conservatives might be fomenting that: thought at first you were harping against free markets, and resistance towards protectionism, but then Globalization was next on the list… Globalization? Yeah, I can see all kinds of reasons for Conservatives to be suspicious of Globalization: economic concerns, tradition, national identity, sovereignty under national law, on and on. Conservatives need to be extremely skeptical of certain aspect of globalization.

God knows what you meant by “adequate, sensible regulation”. Conservatives don’t accept the need for regulation? Who are the notable Conservatives suggesting that regulation is universally bad? Everyone, besides Communists, will disagree just what it is that needs regulating and the degree to which it should be regulated. Liberals will tend to want more, Conservatives will want less. I can’t recall any Conservative calling for none.

After looking at the examples you cite, with the exceptions/conditions I’ve noted, it seems obvious to me that the positions adopted by modern Conservatives are completely compatible with the positions that our conservative forefathers would have adopted. However, your claim is clear: modern conservatism has lost its way. Compared to what?

I’ll close with two points:

1. I don’t believe that Conservative positions on the issues that you have mentioned are unique to some sort of modern distortion of conservatism. Your implication that we have somehow lost our way , and should return to the conservatism of old, seems baseless.

2. You make the point that Conservatism must change to adapt to new conditions or suffer the consequences (irrelevancy, political marginalization?). That may be true. However, if our conservatism is in keeping with our forefather’s conservatism, with respect to the issues that you have cited, then what you’re actually suggesting is that conservatism change into something altogether different.

Comment Posted By Frank On 12.01.2010 @ 18:24


As a pagan-conservative (yeah, figure that one out), I would like to add that the idea of Yule, solstice celebration and the like is not far off from what we think of a Christmas celebration today.

It's about gathering the family, giving gifts usually made from the cast-offs of the harvest season, clothing woven from animal hair and hides slaughtered in the late fall. Feasting on the fruits of the harvest.
The fir tree was a symbol of fortitude, remaining green through a harsh winter.

These days, Christmas is about gathering with loved ones, having a large meal together, and enjoying company.

Surviving a cold winter together was paramount for the ancient people, and thus was something to prepare for and celebrate the ending of each year.

Comment Posted By Frank On 23.12.2008 @ 11:16


Obamathered sums up my thoughts on this matter. I'm 31, and just voted in my 4th Presidential election. In my short time paying attention to politics, I NEVER saw folks latch onto a candidate the way they did to Obama. I mean kids singing songs, the filled stadiums, it's all quite intimidating, and that was before he was elected! If this sort of zeal continues, those of us who dissent MUST be watchful, for protection sake. Who is to say if Obama will "go gestapo", but if there aren't any voices to the contrary, his presidency is going to be one of great distress to any who disagree with the way he sees America.

Comment Posted By Frank On 14.11.2008 @ 08:07


Get a grip, your sense of scale is askew. What was 9/11 compared to what Japan did in China, or what was done in the Congo? Pinochot killed more of his country's citizens. Drunk drivers killed more Americans and did more property damage in 2001, and every year since, than OBL. Our crappy health care system, with it's amazingly high child mortality rate, killed more people in 2001, and every year since, than OBL. Trillions for a b.s war against a b.s. enemy. Please, is the scarest threat you can find? In the grand scheme of things your bogey man is just a joke.

Comment Posted By Frank On 9.02.2007 @ 17:30


Speking of mythsss.
Does any one really believe the Civil War was about ending slavery?
Sorry, it was about states rights. In other words the southern states wanted the right to self determination; as outlined in the constitution. With almost a million dead frpm the Civil War did blacks have equal rights? Of course not. Shouldn't taht war have ended racism.If the textbooks in high school and college tell every one the war was about ending slavery and they do, why did it take another 100 years for Blacks to have equal rights. There is a period of enlightenment that society has to experience. Bussing and all the other attempts that govt. has undertaken has created white flight and too many other political backfires to mention-you get thepicture.
Did L.B.J conquer racism with all of his 'Rights Programs'. No! Emphatically 'No'!
The end of racism was an evolutionary process where the American people eventually saw the light and had enough.
It is magical thinking to see it otherwise.
The government cannot and have not ever molded society ( I do not include the liberal and forth estate bombardment to be 'good little boys' and girls'). The college teachers I had in the late 60's and early 70's did send forth a politically correct armada who ultimately became 'sensitive leaders' in academia and; surprise, surprise-corporate America. They had to be so careful in their hiring procedures that we have been and will continue to dumb down America. Read Bork's book 'Slouchig towards Gome'? . Don't know the spelling-but is garauteed to blow your mind.

Comment Posted By Frank On 11.09.2005 @ 14:56


Correct me if I'm wrong, here.

The crux of your argument, Rick, is that anyone suggesting that our response to the disaster was inadequate just needs to look to the inadequate initial response for proof otherwise.

Forgive me for thinking you're an unabashed apologist. To claim that criticisism is just leftist propaganda, is incredibly lame and clearly partisan. One just needs to turn on the television for 10 minutes, press the mute button, and look at the human toll to know this.

Comment Posted By Frank On 5.09.2005 @ 14:26


The Moorer Radford Affair is part of a spy ring that started in 1947 aimed at the CIA. When the Chilean operation came in 1970. the military re-activated it, and targeted Kissinger because CIA covert ops was transferred to Henry's control. The lack of investigation in the Nixon presidency was because of the fact that it would have come under the scrutiny of the Church Committee and revealed things that no one with ties to the Chilean operation would want exposed.

Comment Posted By Frank On 11.06.2005 @ 11:30

Powered by WordPress



Pages (1) : [1]

«« Back To Stats Page