What's "Left Wing" Anyway?

You guys have put up with me going on and on about the dangers of left-wing thinking. Well, I guess it's about time we explored exactly what "Left Wing" and "Right Wing" mean, and do some comparisons. But first comes first: Thank you all for tuning in to the blog and putting up with me.

The terms come from the French Nationalist Assembly (pre-revolution) in the late 1700's. The more conservative members sat on the right side of the chamber, led by the nobles. The left side was occupied by the more revolutionary and liberal members. The terms just kind of stuck throughout the years, and have come to generally mean the contrast between liberal and conservative schools of thought.

Conservatives in general desire less government involvement in business, fewer regulations and less government spending. In social circles, they favor a more pro-family stance, pro-faith (Judeo-Christian) and the values commensurate with those faiths. The accusations conservatives usually face are these: Being pro-Judeo-Christian values automatically means hatred of anyone not a Christian or a Jew. Being pro-business automatically means being desirous of environmental destruction. Being for limited government automatically means kids and old people starve and die from medical neglect, and being pro-family automatically means hatred of anything else.

Now, all you folks who define yourselves as liberal, feel free to correct me. I'm actually going to try to be fair in my analysis her (I know, I can hear the gasps). Liberals in general desire more government involvement in business, for purposes of "fairness." No one gets a Cadillac until everyone has a Prius. They call themselves the "Party of tolerance" and decry any definition of standards applied to the terms "family." Faith is something you either have or you don't. It doesn't matter; it's between you and your god or gods. Moral absolutes are outmoded and unenlightened. And Mankind is the worst thing that ever happened to Planet Earth. The accusations most often leveled at liberals are these: They are the "Party of Tolerance" for anyone except Jews and Christians, and anyone who doesn't forcefully agree with them. They are accused of being for "Big Government" regulations at the cost of individual liberty for the good of all.The Government is our "Sugar Daddy" who takes care of us, feeds us, gives us jobs, and makes sure Mother Nature is protected.

Here's the dangerous part of Liberal thinking: The roots of the Modern Liberal Movement originate in Communism.

I took the liberty of download and reading the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Freiderich Engels, and I found some disturbing parallels.

Communists have declared that a state of class warfare exists bewteeen two groups defined as "the proletariat" and "the bourgeoisie." The proletariat are anyone who works for a paycheck. The bourgeoisie are anyone who signs that paycheck.

They demand the abolition of personal property by "the bourgeoisie," again defining the bourgeois as anyone who strives to make more than anyone else. Any private property owned by the bourgeoisie are to be confiscated by The State. They don't specify what gets done with it after that. I wonder if Marx and Engels counted on becoming "The State."

Communists also stand for a steeply graded, progressive tax on income. It's not about simply supporting government, which our Constitution specifies. Taxation is about "making things equal." Let me ask you now, which American political party stands for this type of tax structure? Which party has declared class warfare?

Communists demand the dissolution of the traditional family. The State should raise children. Marriage is an outmoded tradition. No relational exclusivity need exist. All women are commonly available to anyone and everyone (How do you feel about that one, ladies?). "It takes a village to raise a child." That wasn't a quote from the Manifesto, but someone prominent in politics has said that. And our public school system has been steadily edging out parents as the final authority in children's' lives.

In fact, here are the ten points from The Communist Manifesto in bullet-point (I'm quoting directly from the manifesto):

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavily progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extensions of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form Combination of education with industrial production, etc, etc, etc.

Does anyone remember Pol Pot's regime? The Soviet Union? The Cultural Revolution under Mao? Not only is Communism a train wreck as an economic and political system (The Communists themselves claim that it is a political system, as the state "the struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie is a political struggle."

The only things that Communism breed are universal poverty and the deaths of millions. Stalin was responsible for 24 million deaths in his purges, but it was Hitler whom everyone remembers. Pol Pot's wonderful attempts at Point 9 were exposed in a book called The Killing Fields.

This is "The Left," folks. It's dangerous, it's wrong, and it's a miserable failure. It's just too bad we have so many in Washington who think it only failed because they haven't tried it yet.

Please, in our desire to serve the common good, can we simply use common sense and human compassion, and not worry so much that someone else makes more money than us? In other words, let's be Human beings.

Wait...What wing was that again?

Oh, people, please forgive me, but this won't stay in.

This week was a horrible one in U.S. history. On Wednesday, this article came up:
http://news.yahoo.com/whos-behind-boston-marathon-bombings-4-theories-070000129.html

Notice how everyone jumps on the "Right Wing Extremist" phrase? Notice there's no mention of "Left Wing Extremists" anywhere in the article?

Let's look at some of history's "Right Wing" favorites, and where they really stood:

Time McVeigh is everyone's first favorite "Right Winger." I mean, he was a member of the Michigan Militia, right? Aren't they "Right Wing Extremists?" Not so fast. McVeigh was kicked out of the MM. He also was a militant atheist and he quit the NRA because they didn't take a strong enough stance on guns. He supported the legalization of marijuana. How does any of that equate to a being a conservative?

Next favorite "Right Wing" Boogey-Man: The Tea Party. Yes, Tea Party people are conservative. But how many bombs have they planted? They stand and hold signs, pray, and stand for less government and less taxes. They've never shot anyone. The one time someone tried to label them as racists, it was later revealed that rabble-rousers had been deliberately planted in the crowd to shout racist slogans and call black people n*****rs in front of cameras. The Tea Party discusses the Constitution and works through the election process to achieve their goals. How is that extreme? Can anyone tell me what violence has been perpetrated by them? Anyone? Beuller?

Next in line are the Nazis. Right Wing? Seriously? Did you know that "Nazi" was short for Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (The National Socialist German Workers' Party)? Right Wing? Not as a socialist, you don't. These guys were on the left, very solidly so. So why do conservatives get called "Nazis?" Riddle me this, Batman. I think maybe it's because it's such a hateful term, and conservatives are accused of hating anything with which they disagree. Liberal socialists are never Nazis, are they? 

Has everyone forgotten the Weather Underground? The Earth Liberation Front? The Black Panthers? The Symbianese Liberation Army? The Sandanistas? The Communists under Lenin, Stalin, and
Khrushchev? These ain't "Right Wing" by any stretch of the imagination, folks.

So seriously, what "wing" is behind the most violent, murderous, hate-filled actions and rhetoric of the past century, and how is it that the conservative Right have to take the rap for it?

The Russian brothers who bombed the marathon simply did not fit the "Right Wing" mold. As a matter of fact, no one who would perpetrate such a horrid act would. But with the current propaganda machine rolling along, will enough people believe that to make a difference?

That's the question of the hour.

The Abdication of Leadership

This week there was a story on Yahoo! News that made my blood run cold. Here it is:

http://news.yahoo.com/dad-furious-finding-crayon-written-paper-florida-4th-124614291.html

For those who clicked on the link, skip to the next paragraph. For those who did not, the crux is this: A fourth-grader came home with a crayon-scrawled note in his own hand, dictated to him by his teacher: "I am willing to give up some of my constitutional rights in order to be safer or more secure."

Now, let's give the teacher in question the benefit of the doubt, and say she was just trying to make a point. Benjamin Franklin said, "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

He's right. Unfortunately, our current society is taking exactly the opposite bent. Don't have a job? The government has programs to provide your income. Welfare and unemployment insurance guarantee an income if you lose your job or are unable to work. There's also heating assistance for the winter months, utility assistance for electricity and gas if you can't pay your bills. There's WIC for food assistance, social security for when we get old, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, housing assistance, school lunch programs, Obamaphones... There's a government program for just about everything.

It's become so easy to just depend on our government. I mean, after all, they are there to give us a safety net, right? To make sure we all succeed? And anyone who doesn't support every one of these programs hates old people, and would throw their grandma off a cliff. They want to starve children and kick Aunt Martha out onto the street. Anyone who even voices a doubt about a single entitlement program wants people to get sick and die. Sure, some people are going to work the system simply because they are lazy or think the world owes them something, but those "safety nets" are so essential, it's worth selling your children and grandchildren into slavery just to keep them going.

Right?

Look at this from a common sense approach: No one wants to see people get sick and die. No one wants children to go hungry. We all care. We just don't all see the same solution.

But the fact is, when you sign on to to government program, you give the government one more degree of control over your life. Housing assistance? Sure, but you will live in a government housing project. And we all know those are high-quality buildings, well-maintained and in good neighborhoods with excellent schools. Like Cabrini Green. Anyone remember a show called Good Times? Food assistance? Sure, there's WIC (Women/Infants/Children). But you can only buy items that we (the government) approve. And let's look at something else: Those programs are so overburdened by fraud, waste and abuse, the benefits that actually get to the people who need them don't amount to a fart in a whirlwind. And that doesn't even account for the "administrative fees" that get siphoned off somewhere between the tax input and Aunt Martha's checking account. From the latest figures, only about 30 cents of each dollar actually does the job it's intended to do. That's a pathetic return of investment, not to mention the "robber baron" policies of uneven taxation involved to fund these worthless boondoggles.

Yes. I said "return of investment." After all, I can because Nancy Pelosi used the phrase "investment in our future" countless times in her campaign to raise taxes for her "balanced approach." Harry Reid cited the exact same talking point. So these programs are "an investment." Can someone tell me what the return is that these investments are reaping, besides more widespread poverty and dependence on programs? Right now, as I right this, 1/6 of our country is living below the poverty level. More people are on food stamps and WIC than any other time in our history. One in eleven eligible workers is unemployed or can't get enough work hours to pay their bills. And the government's answer is "Tax more, spend more!"

Why not? It worked in France, didn't it? It worked in Greece, and in England. I don't see what all those riots and demonstrations are about. I mean, all we lost was our international credit rating. Not to worry; China is buying our debt. Just because they are our potential deadly enemies and want to destroy us economically doesn't mean a thing.

When you owe someone, you become their servant. That debt hangs over your head like a club, and as long as you owe the other, you have to do what they tell you. Don't you think even for a second that those programs we depend on, that we receive from, are debt?

Our turn to pay the piper is coming, people. We'll be lucky if we only end up where Greece is. If you keep bleeding the host, sooner or later it dies. Then where are your programs? What good is then debating about the loss of our security vs our liberty, after we lose both?

Can we wake up before it's too late? I certainly hope so

When Plot Lines Attack!

I had a plot. I really did.

 

I had this awe-inspiring idea for a time-travel thriller about a guy who jumps back and pops Adolf Hitler, saving six million Jews in the bargain. Of course, then it would cause the Nazis to win WWII and then I would have to send him back in time to stop himself from killing Hitler, and it would be this killer chase across time, and there would be tears and thrills and deep questions about whether we should be screwing around with the past.

But then, disaster struck.

My plot exploded.

It all started with a guy at work who asked me to use him in one of my books. He wanted to be a psycho serial murderer, and volunteered to get popped in grand fashion in the book. So I looks at 'im oncet' and I say, "Lemme see wut Ah kin do." It turns out, I happen to need a serial murderer to set up my anti-hero's character, you know. Just something to whet the plot line, so to speak.


So I start in on the chapter, and I stall. HARD. Weeks go by, and I can't get through what needs to get done. Just find the guy and kill him, already. But no. The line won't just run from Point A to Point B.

Now, I', basically a Plotter. I usually come up with a rough outline, not like Point A, B, C, etc. More of a Point A, Point F, Point M, Point T, and Point Z, and I give the plot some freedom in the middle to do what it wants. The main thing is, I try to keep the line going through my main points, and end at Point Z.

This time, it turns out, my muse rebelled.

 

 Now my secondary character has taken over and declared itself The New Boss. I fought to out it back in the box, all to no avail. At least I get to keep my title: Tempus Fugitive will now feature the chase in a more traditional order, but with fewer sociopathic tyrants, and more serial killers. One less World War, to be replaced by one more personal.

Sure, I could force the book back in line. But would it be anything close to acceptable? The best I could hope for in that case would be two hundred or so pages of sheer drivel. Real writing, to me, is a cooperative effort between me and my muse. I think most you you may agree.

 

So my book is turning into something other than what I originally intended. At this point, I need to rethink my real aim: to write the story I set out to write, or let the story become its own definition of brilliant?

I think you know the answer.

At least my muse hasn't demanded I shave the beard.