Recent Posts

Most Used Categories

Tag: Libertarianism

You are Here :
Perspective, Poetry, Political, , , ,

June 25 – Political lunacy NY style and Lunatics All Around Me by Ryszard Riedel

A few comments and observations:

Lunacy 101a — Tell them you’re a what?

I work with a lot of very reasonable, hard working, excellent folks. They put their heart and soul into their work and are not beholden to the political elite. It is one wonderful aspect of the civil service merit system (there’s a lot of bad too), i.e., a glaring lack of hacks. The same is true of the people at the top, while appointed politically, they generally serve with dignity and do so responsibly, carrying out the mission of the agency.

In studying the sociology of bureaucracy you learn that those at the top can do little to change the bureaucracy, and what they can do is often on the fringes, externals as it were. The best leaders enable the workers in the bureaucracy, providing them with the means to carry out the mission more efficiently and effectively. They don’t shy away from change, but make change organic. The bad leaders are the ones who take advantage or who actually think they can rule with an iron fist.

Interestingly, the bureaucratic system often changes the leader to a far greater extent than the bureaucracy is changed by them. The leaders take an ownership interest, and the best leaders meld in, adopt the bureaucracy, because the bureaucracy adopted them.

All that being said, somewhere near the top lie the “true believers,” the hacks, political mercy hires, and other assorted hangers on. If you want to have fun with these folks, tell them what you believe. The true believers proudly carry the “conservative” or the “egalitarian” card with honor (their brand). It is their badge of courage.

When engaged in conversation I love to mention my libertarian streak. This sort of pronouncement takes folks completely off guard because they either don’t know what it means, or they only know it as a caricature. The twisted facial expressions are priceless. It’s really great with the egalitarian crowd because they so believe that they know what’s best for each person and culture. That comes with so much baggage, so many preconceived notions (prejudice really), that their heads practically explode when you say that people are best off when left to determine their own fate.

Lesson One: Begin your adventures in New York’s political lunacy by telling everyone you’re a libertarian.

Lunacy 101b — Use the bigotry of power.

As you may know, New York’s Senate is split with 51 Republican/Republican sympathizer votes and 51 Democrats. Both sides are vying to control the Senate floor. There is no tie breaking vote because we do not have a lieutenant governor. He became governor when the last one resigned, and New York’s Constitution make no provision for replacing the lieutenant governor.

The struggle for control is best exemplified in the fight over the Speaker’s Chair. In the past few days the Democrats snuck in and took control before the Republicans could get there. The reverse happened in the days prior. The Democrats made a big show of placing females in the Speaker’s chair, they being guarded in their position by the Sergeant-At-Arms.

I don’t think anyone noticed this angle, or at least I haven’t read it anywhere, but isn’t that simple bigotry and prejudice on display. They placed women in the spot because the other side wouldn’t dare to physically push them out of their position at the rostrum. They basically determined that “traditional” deference to a woman (and aren’t the Democrats supposed to be the party of equal rights and so forth) would win the day. So to Senators Andrea Stewart-Cousins and Diane Savino, thank you for your portrayal of the “weaker-sex” and for allowing the nice burly Sergeant-At-Arms to protect you.

Lesson Two: Enhance New York’s political lunacy through the exploitation of a person’s sex for political gain.

Lunacy 101c — Agree that you’re a libertarian too.

I actually love what’s happening in the State Senate for several reasons. First, it has created a lot of rubrical fun in relation to parliamentary procedure. The geeky parliamentarians (or here) among us are in heaven and have been weighing the relative merits of Mason’s Manual of Legislative Procedure versus Robert’s Rules of Order. Second, and most importantly, nothing is getting done.

Casey Seiler of the Times Union writes in Hitting bottom? Senate sessions go from bad to worse:

I kept waiting for some distinguished veteran lawmaker — somebody who knows that this will be his or her final term in the chamber — to burst into tears, collapse to the floor and call out for heaven’s punishment to fall on the chamber immediately.

I include that for the sheer humor, and because it would be interesting to see (both the call and the actual punishment), but more to the point:

So that was bad. But what happened in Thursday’s faux session was even worse — rock bottom.

Instead of a procedural rugby match, we witnessed a much more genteel flouting of the governor’s renewed call for a productive special session. The Democrats gaveled in and gaveled out in three minutes, and then left the chamber. Then the Republicans and breakaway Democrat Pedro Espada Jr. arrived, and repeated the exercise in about 150 seconds. Amazingly, no legislation was passed.

It wasn’t “A Chorus Line” or “Cats,” but it was a carefully choreographed show designed not for value or entertainment but to allow both sides to avoid another car-crash spectacle. This elaborate gavotte was obviously worked out in advance by both parties, who have otherwise failed to agree on anything in two and a half weeks.

To be clear: As time-sensitive legislation languishes, the only matter that both sides can find common ground onNot necessarily true. Both sides signed the necessary paperwork to assure that legislators continue to get paid. Priorities you know. is that they don’t want to look like bozos. When their collective vanity is at stake, they’re willing to take immediate and decisive action.

That’s really the best part in all of this. Not “Amazingly, no legislation was passed,” but ‘Thankfully, no legislation was passed.’ Nothing is happening. No more freedoms are being taken away and the so called “time-sensitive legislation,” which is merely authorization for local tax increases (because in New York the State has to grant authority to local governments to do local business), isn’t getting passed.

The euphemisms for authorizing tax increases is wonderful. They call it “home rule messages” or “noncontroversial pieces of legislation.” It should be controversial and failure to do these things means that hard choices will have to be made. I hope they argue forever, and in true New York form are returned to office to keep arguing. Government would do nothing, no tax increases, no more invasive legislation for the common good, and then…

Lesson Three: New York’s political lunacy would be best enhanced through the forcible conversion of everyone into libertarians.

The Polish musical group Dżem as a song from their album Lunatics entitled “Lunatics All around Me” which I have translated for you. Enjoy….

Evil dreams have no illusions
The dreams all men fear
Blackest night, the city sleeps
No one can wake up
A cat on the roof, a rat in the gutter
The moon tempting in a white garment
No green light

Ref: The lunatics surround me Ooo!

Apartment buildings casting black shadows
and like a white tear, an empty open window
The Lunatics flee
The Lunatics flee
In love with you
From around that same window
I see nothing, hear nothing, feel nothing

Translated by Dcn. Jim

Sen to zło, nie ma złudzeń
Sen ogarnął wszystkich ludzi
Czarno wokół, miasto śpi
Nikt nie może się obudzić
Kot na dachu, szczur w kanale
Księżyc kusi mundurki białe
Zielonego światła brak

Ref: Lunatycy otaczają mnie O, o, o !

Bloki czarne cień rzucają
A z otwartych, ślepych okien jak łzy białe
Lunatycy uciekają
Lunatycy uciekają
Zakochani w sobie
Wokół same lustra otaczają ich
Nie widzą nic nie, nie słyszą nic, nic nie czują

Perspective, Political,

I agree with Bishop V. Gene Robinson? Yep.

From the Los Angeles Times: Gay Episcopal bishop visits Studio City

In response to a question about how the parish should respond to the passage of Proposition 8, the bishop suggested that churches could begin mending the split on same-sex marriage by having clergy get out of the civil marriage business altogether.

Robinson, who supports gay marriage, said he favors the system used in France and other parts of Europe in which civil marriage — performed by government officials — is completely separate from religious vows.

In the U.S., the civil and religious are often combined, with the cleric signing the government marriage license.

“In this country, it has become very confusing about where the civil action begins and ends and where the religious action begins and ends, because we have asked clergy to be agents of the state,” he said.

Last summer, Robinson and his longtime partner had their civil commitment ceremony blessed in the church. He said that “untangling” the roles of clergy and government in this country would focus the discussion of same-sex marriage on civil rights rather than religion.

“The church is infringing on the secular society and trying to enforce its beliefs onto the entire culture,” he said. “If we can get these two things separated, we can assure every religious group, no matter how conservative, that they will never have to bless these marriages.”

“I think we could actually gain some support from our detractors if we could make this separation clear,” he said…

The one statement I disagree with is: “…we can assure every religious group, no matter how conservative, that they will never have to bless these marriages.” No Church has to do anything the government demands of it as it is, nor can they be forced to, even under penalty of law. If Church is true to its faith — faith in God, not government, adherence to God’s commandments, not man’s, then it will reject falsehood whatever the penalty. A long line of martyrs and confessors attests to that.

To that point, I have commented on the Church’s complicity with government in prior posts and won’t re-cover that territory. In short, the co-mingling of faith, politics, and governmental administration is in-and-of-itself a wrong. The Church should encourage the good that governments do, but should do so without acquiescence to an agenda beyond that immediate good. Churches must use care so as not cloud their message. Yoking themselves with unbelievers’ (2 Corinthians 6:14) agendas detracts from the Church’s mission.

Reading Bishop Robinson I am reminded of a post by former blogger, the Rev. Jim Tucker (unfortunately his posts are no longer publicly available), in which he discusses marriage and the motivations of young couples who appear in church for the pomp and circumstance, never to cross the threshold again once married. Bifurcating civil co-habitation contracts from ecclesiastical marriages would do a lot to end the extravagance and expense associated with “marriages for show.” Do couples come to church intending to embark upon a life of faith, or do they come intending to embark on a one night party? In many cases I fear the later. They are caught in a moment blinded by expectation and rarely consider the consequences. That unthinking action, that type of marriage, is more harmful to the institution of marriage than any myriad of civil co-habitation contracts.

Do civil co-habitation contracts open the slippery slope which posits that once “gay marriages” are allowed all evil will break loose, to wit: polygamous marriages? From my perspective the same rules apply. If people want to enter into a civil co-habitation contract of any form then let them. The problem with such arrangements as practiced by fundamentalist Mormons is that they are a.) abusive and b.) an excuse for latching onto the public dole via welfare and Medicaid fraud. A good civil co-habitation contract and the enforcement of current laws would rule those options out. I don’t see many willing to enter into such a contract if it forces them to give up X% of their estate should the contract fail.

In the end a person who believes is required to subject themselves to the teaching of the Church. That choice, one we each must make with our God given freedom, doesn’t make life easy and demands sacrifice, but is essential to our call to be faithful. We are all called to make the choice, not “a” choice, but the choice.

The recent Miss USA controversy is a case in point. Miss Prejean stood by her Church and its teaching. For that she was ridiculed by those who do not believe in freedom of conscience or expression — the new communists and overlords. The words of Keith Lewis, Co-Executive Director of K2 Productions (the sponsor of the Miss California USA) in the organization’s Official statement regarding Miss CA USA 2009 final answer controversy better reflect the attitude of those who love and respect freedom (emphasis mine):

I am proud of Carrie Prejean’s beauty and placement at the 2009 MISS USA pageant. I support Carrie’s right to express her personal beliefs even if they do not coincide with my own. I believe the subject of gay marriage deserves a great deal more conversation in order to heal the divide it has created.

Freedom is beautiful. The overlords…not so much.

Miss California - Carrie Prejean Perez Hilton

All Right Reserved © 2005 - 2023