We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
But is Maggie's a "conservative" website? I think we're centrist. Speaking only for myself, in my link collections I just try to link info, events, and perspectives that the MSM tends to overlook or desires to insulate us from for their own political reasons. Perhaps "contrarian" would be a word.
She's wrong, I think. Rich or poor, there will always be rotten people who work any system and use any system for freebies. Shame on them all, whether Welfare Queens, lazy jerks with aching backs, or Jon Corzines. They are more deserving of pity than of scorn. Throw them some money, and the heck with them.
The problem is how you define "centrist". I wish I could find it, but somewhere around ten years ago or so I read a treatise on defining political positioning by a PoliSci Prof from the University of Florida.
He maintained that a definition of political "centrist" could not be determined in any rational way. Normal political views are not subject to one dimensional thinking - meaning that if you look at a flat plane and define what you regard at right or left political orientations, you can average political positions or issues in a X/Y graphic and come up with an orientation that indicates if you are in the right, middle or left.
The problem is that the definition is only one dimensional. He came up with a 3D graphical model asking the standard questions with additional probing questions so that you could get an idea of the subtleties in political thought. What he found that there isn't anything that can be closely related to the concept of "centrist". The data points showed up all over the 3D space and what he found was rather curious - with the exceptions of outlier positions, that a globular cluster gathered around the center data point with very few in close orbit to the center.
I'm rambling - sorry, but I thought it was interesting. I don't know if any further work was done on this theory of his and I can't find a reference to it on the web.
Why do people still deny climate change?
Because they can't see any evidence of it in their daily lives and are sick and tired of seeing money being pored down the drain in pursuit of technologies that may only become viable in the future. The average Joe or Jane may not have a Harvard economics degree or a PhD in Atmospheric Science from Penn State, but they know when they are being baffled with bullshit instead of dazzled by brilliance.
I also agree- Climate does change, its called the seasons. Some are colder, some warmer, always changing.
I don't think its an issue with Deniers\skeptics, but with those whom present the data, give the conclusions, and "expect" it accepted as rit. Problem is, people are naturally skeptical, and will find fault, even if its just syntax. The AGW people cannot deal with that, since their 3-card monte depends upon blind faith, slight of hand, and keeping the cards moving.
The science maybe settled in the AGW minds, but for the rest of us, its still open, since we didn't get the memo...
It's a sad day now that Christopher Hitchens has died. He had such a way of rhetorically devastating an ideological opponent. But from his writing about his death, he was much deeper than just a critic of one thing or another.
Today he seems to be described as a British leftist who turned to the right after 9/11, but I first remember him as a critic of Clinton during and after the Monica Lewinsky unpleasantness.
While I enjoyed his skill at skewering his opponents and he made me think many times, I am also sad because it is the loss of another life.
Oh boy--so you want clean elections? You want to clean up the electoral process in the Congo? Why don't you folks (we actually) have the courage to clean up Seattle's electoral process? How about cleaning up WA state first?
Your worried about Chinese influence in politics? How about the Senators (both female, both democrats) from WA state? The senior senator Patty Murray is married to the man who controls shipping in and out of one of the world's most important ports. You want to know about Chinese influence--whose interests do you think she represents? I wonder what her demands were in the now defunct committee to come up with a budget? Awww, you wanna make bets? Buddy wish you would go live in Seattle some time--just give it a try for about a year or two. You will be stunned how the pretty little city, in the clean,pretty little environment--how really dirty it is!
from 2007 --which, looking back, along the lines of your comment has gotten pretty far away from what was already too far away from where we the people want to be.
"Throw them out!"
Start with Kerry. His bunch started the collapse of our winning position in the mideast, date it from the 2006 election and associated Pelosi tour of Sicily and Syria. Kerry's recent campaign for Sec of State in Obama II carried him not long ago to a publicized 'secret mission' to Pakistan that also marks the beginning of bad times for our friends in that split country. And that's not to mention the not-well-known work on behalf of Daniel Ortega (and his pal Leonid Brezhnev) in what amounted to the set-up-for-collapse of the second Reagan Administration agenda via the 'Iran/Contra' scandal. Now the sorry SOB is busily tying a noose for Israel --and may not even know it. But stoopid is no excuse.
More evidence that the ADA is junk law, but I disagree that the US giverment will be sued if an epileptic has a seizure and kills a bunch of kids. It will only be the company who was forced to hire him. The fact that he was legally required to hire him will not matter and the company will have to pay - dearly.
The giverment was trying to help people so will not be held accountable, the company was trying to make money (they are greedy) so they will be punished.
The definitions of right/left, liberal/conservative are so muddy, they are almost not even useful anymore.
Our founding fathers saw the scale in a very useful way: On the left, too much government or tyranny; on the right, too little government or anarchy; and true liberty being the fine balance point in the middle.
... so to call yourselves centrist, with the love for liberty that I have observed from your links and musing, I think is completely rational.
Your blog is the first one I visit each day. Love it!