Tag Archives: Abraham Lincoln

You Cannot…

…bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong
You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away man’s initiative and independence.
You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they will not do for themselves.

Reverend William John Henry Boetcker

A concise description of the conservative viewpoint.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Star Fleck

The USS Enterprise in the 2009 Star Trek film
Image via Wikipedia

Apparently there are some people concerned that Star Trek isn’t truly “going where no man has gone before” by having openly homosexual (main) characters in the story line.

Set phasers to FABULOUS!

The above quote is not mine. It’s just funny.

My question is, and this seems to be a point of several people I found debating this, what would the story gain by having a character whose identity is based in their sexual preference?

First, campy feminine-male gayness will never, ever, fit in Star Trek amongst the main characters. The men on board the USS Enterprise are either cowboys, geeks, or logophiles, and Spock exclaiming “We’ve entered the Rainbow Nebula!” just isn’t Spock. (Again, that quote is not mine). Apparently there have been several lesbians throughout the series’ history. But for some reason our culture has generally been less repulsed by the idea of lesbianism than open gayness. I think it has to do, at least partially, with the difference in external aspects of male-male and female-female relationships. Women can hold hands without being necessary labeled homosexual. Men can’t.

Second, despite the protests otherwise by many people, a significant percentage of people will be upset by such a story arc, and will vote with their feet and their wallets. In the days of waning residual proceeds from films, the studios cannot risk such potential losses and will therefore not allow it.

Third, Star Trek is about so much more than sexuality. The people who make up the core of the homosexual movement are obsessed over sex. Theirs is a hyper-sexual existence in which every one and every thing has sexual connotations, overtones, and they project upon every body and every thing else their view of the world. This is where we get the spurious claims that because it was relatively common for men to share beds 200 years ago many of our founding fathers were homosexual. President Abraham Lincoln was no more homosexual than President Obama is pro-free-market. The sexuality in Star Trek serves to illuminate one aspect of the character, and, to put it crassly, to get the young degenerate males to come and cheer. To set a character such that a primary aspect of their being is their sexuality, regardless of whether they are heterosexual, homosexual, pan-sexual, whatever, is to artificially limit them to a mere foil, a depthless red-shirt best eliminated at the first planet-side encounter.

Oh, and apparently, because Proposition 8 was overturned by a questionable act of judicial fiat, that ruling will, of course, last for 300 years and inform the basis of the legal structure of the federation:

To boldly go where no man has gone before.” That was the mission the Enterprise set out on all those years ago, yet the show itself never went to one particular place – depicting gay characters on any of their television shows or films. With Proposition 8 having been overturned in California this week, one has to stop and think; if this is where we are in 2010, will Gene Roddenberry‘s near-Utopian future ever follow suit?

There is no chance the laws of the Federation preclude homosexuality? There is no possibility the utopia of the future doesn’t bear more resemblance to 1984 than the San Francisco that Star Fleet Academy is located in?

I don’t know what Star Trek universe some people live in, but didn’t Star Trek Generations prove mankind never really gets beyond it’s current problems?

Enhanced by Zemanta

On Government

UPDATE: This was not from Honest Abe.

You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.

Lax credit and easy spending policies are products of both Democrat and Republican leaderships in years past. The conservative movement has recognized the failures of this more so than their compatriots in the liberal movement. Calls for the privatization of Fannie and Freddie, two of the main contributors to the whole system of easy credit, are not likely to be heeded by the current elected leadership in Washington D.C. And Fed Chairman Bernanke believes such easy credit is the best policy, despite it’s contribution to the economic failures of the last several years.

You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.

Political correctness is losing favor across the ideological aisles. This false equality of outcome which relies on enforced restrictions on true equality, that is, the equality of potential, has been a pernicious evil in our country. But other perniciously evil policies continue to thrive here. Policies that drag down those who have achieved in order to not unnecessarily burden those who will not achieve with that natural and good desire to become something other than the abject failures. Except that’s not right, you can only fail if you’ve started at something. Many of these haven’t started anything and therefore aren’t failures but worse. Any system that encourages people in any way to remain nothings is evil for it robs them of their humanity as surely as Nazi extermination program robbed so many of their humanity.

You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.

In that iconic moment when Joe the Plumber‘s question drew out then Senator Obama‘s statement that we need to spread the wealth around, it revealed a misunderstanding of economic systems that time has not changed. If you want to grow jobs, you make it easier for companies to make and keep money. If you take what they make for your own wealth redistribution programs and to “spread it around” you hurt not just the business you wanted to stick it to, but all its employees and potential employees as well. This isn’t rocket science.

You cannot further the brotherhood of man by encouraging class hatred.

Ever since FDR, liberal leaders have been adept at pitting class against class. There is no inherent nobility in the individual man whose mind and heart must be won. There is only the group, the LGBT, the blacks, the whites, the lower class, the middle class, the upper class, the “them”, the “us”, the hispanics, the wage earners, the corporations, the haves, the have-nots. Targeted fiscal policy meant to assuage the ire of a particular class are unconstitutional as they do not benefit every American equally, which is a requirement of federal policy. It’s vote-buying and favor peddling. And the result is a torn and fragmented society beset by such tensions within it cannot unify to address situations without.

You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.

The poor will always be among us. This doesn’t free us from a responsibility to assist them. Instead it requires we develop consistent and repeatable patterns of assistance with several criteria. There must be a filter that prevents moochers and freeloaders from taking resources that would be better appreciated and taken advantage of by those deserving poor. And the money for such charity must be given willingly, not taken without recourse. A rich man who does not give to charity only illumines the shallowness of his own soul. He does not deserve theft of his goods, only the scorn of society.

You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn.

This is a failure of nearly everybody in leadership in Washington D.C. and a result of an uncareful electorate who do not take real pains to determine the true character of the candidate or who believe that character doesn’t matter.

You cannot build character and courage by taking away man’s initiative and independence.

Just as by helping a butterfly escape it’s chrysalid prison you doom it to a short, painful life and quick, ugly death, by taking away the responsibilities of a person or natural societal group, you end up with stunted and immature people who will continue all the ills aformentioned.

You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.

There are few things more evil than to do for someone else what they are capable of doing themselves. Particularly when they are not in dire need and what they need to accomplish is a task that would encourage or build in them traits of character not already full-fledged in their being.

Enhanced by Zemanta