Redirection

A tweet from @meredithdake brought a funny thought to my head. Her tweet was:

Rather than focusing on Obama, anchors are forcing GOPers to explicitly talk about their nuanced theology on homosexuality.

I thought a good response would go something like this:

Anchor Dave: So tell me, would you rather see homosexuals interned in prison camps, or just outright slaughtered?

GOP Candidate: Well, personally, I don't care if you're gay, Dave, but President Obama does. He wants to treat you differently from everyone else. He wants to create special programs and grant special favors to you. That is, if you're gay, Dave.

Use the Power of Language

I was reading recent posts on The Gormogons' site today, and this one by GhettoPuter got me thinking about the terms we use.

I realize that the media have to a large degree established a standard vocabulary for political discussion, and it's easy to use that familiar vocabulary. However, I advocate breaking free of the warped definitions they promote.

I'd like to suggest that we stop using the word "government" at all. What we really mean by that is usually one of two things: either the State Bureaucratic Apparatus (SBA), or the people of the United States. (After all, as my former boss likes to say, we are the government.)

Therefore, when referring to the agencies who execute the powers of government, I suggest using the word "bureaucracy", if not "SBA". When referring to who pays for the execution of those powers, including sending checks to beneficiaries of subsidies and social programs, I suggest the phrase "the rest of us."

For instance, the phrase "it's the non-taxpayers who receive government benefits" would become "it's the non-taxpayers who receive benefits from the rest of us." The later paragraph about "government-run economies" would instead speak of "SBA-run economies".

One advantage of using "SBA" would be its connotation of a gargantuan, unresponsive, corrupt, heartless entity. An advantage of using "the rest of us" would be to drive home the fact that it is each and every one of us who do not receive more than we pay, who are paying for that "more" going to those who do.

Now could you all just go back and edit all your blog posts to conform to these suggestions? I'd really appreciate it.

Chris Christie: Man of the People, or Ruling Class?

Many praises have been heaped on New Jersey Governor Chris Christie by liberty lovers and opponents of the Obama administration. I'm beginning to suspect, though, that what attracts people to him is his blunt and unyielding manner in dealing with critics in the press and other generally left-leaning groups.

Christie drew fire recently for using a State-owned helicopter to travel to his son's baseball game. While family is important, his son was happy he could come, and a State spokesman said the helicopter would be in use for training at the time anyway, it still has the appearance of impropriety.

Now there's a report that Christie has ordered flags in the State of New Jersey to be flown at half-staff on Thursday, to honor deceased saxophonist Clarence Clemons's contributions to the state and its people. Personally, I don't mind honoring Clemons as a great and popular musician. On the other hand, such an order is beyond the provisions of federal law.

The federal law regarding "Position and manner of display" of the United States flag is contained in Title 4 USC, Ch. 1, Sec. 7. Subsection (m) lists the situations in which the President or a Governor may issue a half-staff proclamation. Note that "death of a popular musician" isn't one of them.

Of course, the report doesn't say that the US flag will be flown at half-staff. It may be only the New Jersey State flag, and that may be entirely consistent with law.

After all, isn't a consistent application of the rule of law something all lovers of liberty would want?