WHAT'S NEW

About
My Other Blog
Blog Schedule
Activism
Past Blog Posts
Various &
a Sundry Blogs
Favorite
Websites
My Stuff
On The Web
Audio-Visual
Library
Favorite
Articles
This Month's Scripture Verse:

Whoever loves money never has enough;
whoever loves wealth is never satisfied with their income.
This too is meaningless -- Ecclesiastes 5:10

SEARCH THIS BLOG

Wednesday, January 22, 2014

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For Jan 22, 2014


Jan 16

To R. Scott Clark's posting of a video of Ben Stasse criticizing obamacare



I could take what ben says if he was consistent. What about how the gov't forces us to pay for wars and policies that not only kill babies, both born and unborn, but kills adults and invites revenge.

And though I agree with Ben in opposing the use of tax dollars to fund abortions, where was his voice of protest for those who either chose not to see a doctor because they had no insurance or went bankrupt regardless of having insurance. Where was his outrage about the millions who had no insurance at all?

If you want to criticize Obamacare, and many of us on the Left do just that, then criticize the context that gave birth to Obamacare. Otherwise, the criticism strongly appears to be nothing more than a opportunistic, partisan attack. And what is worse is that when Christians conduct such an attack, the reputation of the Gospel is sullied to many nonConservatives who need to hear it. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jan 20

Below is a comment that eventually led to me being blocked on the Acton Blog. I made a general comment about the "basic conservative message" to the poor. One of the moderators demanded that I apologize for my "lies" against conservatives. I asked if he could show why my interpretation of the conservative message was unfair. So he blocked me instead. The conversation regarding the blocking was post on the threads of different posts.

To Joe Carter's blogpost on what auto racing in Finland can teach us about poverty.


Chilean economist, Manfred Max-Neef, says that there is only one way to understand poverty. That way is to be poor, to live in poverty. And since the poor are not a monolith, then to understand poverty, one needs to be poor in more than one way. Max-Neef compares understanding poverty to understanding love. He says that one can know about love, but unless one falls in love, one will never understand it. And he says the same is true about poverty and so he lived among the poor to get an education from them.

And yet, the Conservative perspective, and that perspective is expressed in many places in addition to this blog, tries to understand poverty from the perspective of the haves. Thus, the basic conservative message to the poor becomes, "Poverty is your fault. And if you want to escape poverty, you have to change because we aren't going to." That is the premise on which all other the conservative messages to the poor is based. And the preaching of that message is no more loud and clear than when Conservatives talk about minimum wage. For they say that if you make our business people pay you any more than we do now, we must fire some of you and not hire others. Why? It is because business people aren't going to change from maximizing their own profits. They are not going to change regardless of how their actions affect others.

All of this is important since we are coming up to Martin Luther King Jr. day. It is important because on that day, we will describe King as someone who has jumped on the bandwagon of our concerns and causes rather than the person who is constantly preaching repentance to us by saying that we need a revolution of values because the three problems of racism, economic injustice, and militarism are inextricably linked. Remember that when he was assassinated, King was working for higher pay and some degree of economic injustice for Memphis garbage collectors. Having said that, what do you think King would be saying about our minimum wage debate?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following are the blocked messages that followed an Acton's blog moderator had with me.


To Marc Vander Maas on Joe Carter's what auto racing in finland can teach us about poverty


Marc,


I understand the emotional reaction. But at some time, the emotions behind the reaction must be logically explained. If my analysis is so wrong, please tell me how conservatives have understood poverty from the have-not perspective when they never criticize the system. Whether it is the minimum wage debate or using auto racing as an analogy, when will conservatives speak from the position of the have-nots. In fact, when have conservatives first lived with the poor and then written about poverty like the person I cited above? Max-Neef actually lived with the poor because he knew that the economics language he was so fluent in meant nothing to those who were poor. So he lived with them to learn from them. And lest you think I am picking on Conservatives, the same goes for many liberals? We might say that though liberals do love to foster dependence, at least they are willing to modify the current system.

For both, the answer always revolves around how to get the poor to make use of the system. And the system is presented as physical science with fixed laws that act regardless of what kind of economy is employed. 

Finally, yes, I am a religious conservative and a former political conservative. Before 2004, I had never voted for a Democrat. I strictly hold to the 5 fundamentals of Christian Fundamentalism. And what I am writing here is simply a reflection of what I have and heard from conservatives both here and elsewhere. The answer to the poor is to become like the haves so you can work the system. But people on Left, such as Howard Zinn, saw too many others who worked hard and were never lifted out of poverty.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------



But aren't a multiplicity of cars a cause for environmental concern?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jan 21

To Marc Vander Maas on family values and  minimum wage post on why acton is banning my comments


Marc,
Answering questions with questions is not evasive, it is a way of dialog, of thinking about what was said. I didn't do that all of the time, but when asked, I explained how my questions related to the questions being asked. But that didn't satisfy you because you wanted to dictate how I was suppose to answer your simple, direct questions. I gave you the content but not the form.

But look at the attitude expressed at my ideology, let alone me. It is as if you have nothing to learn from those on the left. I wouldn't say the converse of that. I think both sides have something to learn from the other. In addition, I haven't expressed the disdain toward conservatives that has been expressed against me. Yes, I have criticized conservative reactions to specific subjects. For example, when conservatives repeatedly say that jobs will be lost if the minimum wage is increased without being willing to criticize the system that allows for that, such behavior deserves criticism. 

As for my ideological cousins, what you have minimized the significant differences such as authoritarianism and elite-centered between the Leftism I follow and that old elite-centered Leftism. You dismissed those differences in favor of magnifying the role of collectivism in the tyrannies of the Soviet Union and Red China. And even when I cited examples of my ideological cousins who strongly criticized the tyrannies you wished to associate me with, you seemed to have ignored the examples. 

And why I interpreted the blocking of my comments because you don't your readers to read them is because you really didn't offer a logical challenge to my comments. I have seen other conservatives logically challenge my comments, but not here.

You are right, yous guys have the right to ban who you want and for whatever reason you want. But how we treat others is a reflection on us. I wanted give-take and too many times that was met with more emotion than logic. That doesn't mean that I was never too emotional, but note how in the auto-racing comments, I asked for specifics as to why my interpretation of the Conservative position was wrong. What I got in return, that is after the accusations, was silence That goes back to the previous paragraph. And I understand that. I was like that in defense of conservatism back in the 90s and before. Group loyalty does that to us whether we are Conservatives, Liberals, or Leftists and regardless of age. What really helped me shy away from that kind of group loyalty is the realization that that kind of loyalty is from tribalism or a gang mentality. What also helped me shy away from that was the Occupy Movement. That is because while many people were looking to us for ideological answers, we were saying that the solution is found methods that foster participatory economics and politics. And we weren't pure in how we did things. We showed internal violence from our own tribalism to the police and we sought to conquer the 1% rather than to include them by winning them over. And our future correction of those mistakes depends on whether we will read people like Martin Luther King. 

So I will continue to comment and whether you wish to include them is your business.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No comments: