Gorbie's Journal: Swing, Batter!

It's opening day at Fenway today, and as is typical of the mood surrounding the Red Sox season, the first game is being rained out. So, instead we get to listen to the fellowship of the miserable on our local sports radio station and have blog wars.

Blog^4 in our liberal/conservative conversation is a well swung shot and threatens to go "Way Back!" The problem with the statement is that for each item cited, there is a good refutation.

As I said in a previous post, the liberals in our country have proven to be the biggest opponent to racial equality over the last 30 years. They have used racial quotas and discriminatory measures to give preferrences to members of certain races and to women. It could be well argued that the lefties are the ones that gave the lionshare of awareness to the issue, and we should thank them for that. The approach of legislating what has been termed "reverse discrimination" and "reverse racism" has not worked. It is not reverse anything. These policies are direct practice of racial preference.

I believe wholly and firmly that the person that has earned recognition as the top candidate to any job, position, what have you, should get that position. Race should never, ever be a factor. All racial preferrence policies do is create animosity in the people thgat are affected negatively and make sure that the most qualified person doesn't get the job.

When your house is on fire, do you want the most able people to be there to save you, or the ones that filled the quota?

As far as immigration is concerned, our own dear Senator Ted Kennedy has personally architected the majority of our immigration policy. The Immigration policies of the United States give prefference to the schleps that avoid the immigration system and come into the country illegally. It gives them benefits including housing, food, healthcare and money, all as a thanks for breaking our laws. Our immigration system is awful, awful, awful (Thanks Teddie!), and if the Libs want credit, I'll give it where credit is due!

On gays in society, and just about any other special group you can name, the conservative view is very simple. Do what you want, but please keep it to yourself. I just don't want to know, watch, or be subject to it. Is this censorship? No more than is put upon us hets with regard to our public conduct. I also don't think you should get special laws, treatment, or anything else that every american citizen is entitled to. Should gay marriage be allowed? Uh...er....um...what can I say. I am born and raised catholic and it doesn't work for me. That doesn't make me right though, and somewhere down deep the sense that it doesn't make any difference to my life is working it's way upwards. If being a conservative means that something that challenges my basic values isn't immediately welcome, I'm guilty.

To say that conservatives don't care about the environment is an absolute falsehood, but to say that the leadership of the Republican party don't have it on their priority scope is very true. Then again if I compared all liberals to the leadership of the Democratic party, I'd have mutiny on my hands!!

And that brings me to the "fringe movement" that Josh mentions. It's not a fringe movement that is way out there. It is the leadership of the democratic party, and it always has been. They get caught up in the special interest lobby and that is how we get to things like racial preferrence. They have ideas that are so radically far left of the majority of the party AND country that they are almost firmly embedded in Socialism.

As far as 'we' are concerned, the theory of trickle-down economics is concerned, there can't be a lateral economic system. There is no model for economic success that is based on redistrobution of wealth. People with wealth pay other people to work for them. It's simple and it works. What is wrong with manditory sentencing? If someone commits a particular crime and is convicted of tham crime, they deserve an appropriate sentence. The reason we have tiered charges for offenses is that when someone commits a crime, the circumstances surrounding that crime dictate the level of charge. If you fit the bill, you should certainly serve a minimum sentence.

Abortion and drugs are issues that it would be unproductive to get into. Suffice to say I stated my opinion earlier.

The religion bit is a bit puzzling. Because someone is religious, does that mean that they allow religion to cloud their decisions? I don't think so. I don't think religion played a part, say, in the war on Iraq. I don't think it affects decisions on national economic policy. Don't know about Rod Paige's comments, and haven't heard anything about them.

Well...it took me all afternoon to piece that together. 5 on Friday...off the the raquetball court!