Having formulated a plan to solve my previous dilemmas, I’m ready to point you to my new site. I’ve given it, I hope, an objective broad enough to keep your interest(s) yet specific enough that I won’t lose focus.
I call it Tennessee Conservative, a blog about Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Holiness.
See you there?
Readers who have followed me since the Fishkite days know I’ve been writing at this address for about two and a half years. Well, it’s about time for me to move again.
Since most of my posts are political, I’m switching to a politically-themed site. Despite the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – inspired tagline at top, this blog never really had much focus. I’ll link to the new site when it’s ready.
I’m also trying to figure out what to do with the old content at this domain (the “morgue”). I’m pretty sure I don’t want to haul it all to the new place, as I did last time. Why? 1. It’s a frustrating process; 2. I don’t have time to re-size all the images and fix all the broken links, even if I wanted to; and 3. starting fresh might be good. At the same time, though, it’s nice to have a record, so I’ll probably leave this site’s archives untouched.
Last, I’m trying to decide whether I will continue to write more personal-oriented stuff here, save that for Facebook, or post it at the new location — things like Eden & Freckles updates, etc.
What do you think? Feel free to add your $0.02 in the comments.
Recently my post on TIME’s “endangered species” article was linked and quoted at the Nashville Post’s Politics blog.
As is often the case when that happens, the Post’s Left-leaning readership skimmed the excerpt and submitted reactionary comments there, rather than visiting this site, picking up the context and discussing the issue directly.
I find this repeated display of laziness and incuriosity as illuminating as the actual content of their remarks. By leaving these hit-and-run messages, they rob themselves of any greater understanding, prevent an informed discussion from developing and fail to engage the original author in dialogue. The post is buried three pages deep by the time anyone has a chance to respond, and by then nobody is interested in clicking back through to see what might have developed.
In this case, I find sufficient cause to transplant the comments here, if only for the benefit of myself and this site’s regular (and often woefully neglected) visitors. I bring no assumption that those quoted will necessarily discover this post, nor that they’ll particularly care if they do eventually happen upon it.
First we have the profoundly absurd comments of Steve Steffens, aka LeftWingCracker, who wrote that if the Republicans “do that, well… the Democrats will be in power in perpetuity.” (emphasis mine)
Steffens doesn’t specify what he means by “that,” but he is responding to an excerpt where I argue that Republicans should “hold fast to the things that made this country great” and suggest that they “educate Americans about the history of their government, launch a discussion about Natural Law, and explain to voters why our party is best prepared to defend their rights to Life, Liberty and Property.”
Steffens believes that if the Republicans do these things, Democrats will gain indefinite power? Are Americans so averse to national greatness, historical education, civil discussion and the defense of their natural rights that they would reject the party that presents them? If so, they deserve each other, but I don’t think that’s the case.
Next we have “spaz,” who objects to my use of the term “liberal” and my reference to our rights of “Life, Liberty and Property.”
He says, “Tell me how you define ‘liberty’ and how the evil liberals (which is where the term derives from, btw) are taking away your liberty,” and later, “Liberals (again, the root for the word ‘liberty’) are the ones who have pushed forth with promoting a truly free society.”
Had “spaz” taken a moment to click the link and actually read my post, he might have gathered much of the information he feigns interest in.
But he’s right about the word liberal — the term’s conventional use is erroneous, which is why I only use it when my preferred term “Leftist” seems inappropriate or might confuse the reader.
Mark Levin, author of the bestseller Liberty and Tyranny has seized upon a different label, saying “it is more accurate… to characterize the Modern Liberal as a Statist.”
But while the adopted term of reference may be Leftist, statist, liberal, progressive, Democrat or socialist, the authoritarian policies to which we refer remain unchanged — and they by no means advance Liberty.
Last, here’s “spaz” on our supposedly non-existent right to property:
There is no constitutional right to property, Mick. I think there should be, but there’s not. And I’m starting to see the connections here.
Conservatives like you seem to equate “freedom” with money and property. All other forms of freedom, to them, are either secondary to obtaining said money or property or they’re unimportant altogether. Unfortunately, no such definition of freedom exists in our Constitution, which is why many on the left really do believe that conservatives are inherently anti-American. Can you blame us?
First of all, in my post, which “spaz” hasn’t read, I do not argue that there is a right to property explicitly stated in the Constitution — although I could have, and now will.
“Spaz” may assume that I was instead referencing that “inherently anti-American” document, the Declaration of Independence, and further that I had at had truncated its phrase “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”
First, the Declaration says these three are “among” our God-given, inalienable rights, meaning we have others.
Second, the Virginia Declaration of Rights, adopted prior to Jefferson’s document, includes “the means of acquiring and possessing property” along with these three.
Third, Thomas Jefferson’s phrase “the pursuit of happiness” was well understood to include property rights, as described by John Adams: “All men are born free and independent, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.” Adams also said, “property must be secured or liberty cannot exist.”
Fourth, variations on the Declaration’s statement of rights found its way into various state constitutions, including Pennsylvania’s: “All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property…”
Fifth, U.S. Supreme Court Justice George Sutherland said, “the individual — the man — has three great rights, equally sacred from arbitrary interference: the right to his LIFE, the right to his LIBERTY, the right to his PROPERTY… The three rights are so bound together as to be essentially one right.”
Sixth, James Madison (principal author of the Constitution) said, “Government is instituted to protect property of every sort… This being the end of government.”
Finally, we would do well to actually consult the Constitution itself.
Here’s the Fifth Amendment, part of what “spaz” might call the “inherently anti-American” Bill of Rights:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
And from the 14th Amendment to the Constitution:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
So yes, there is a Constitutional right to property — both implied and explicitly stated.
“Spaz” asks, can I blame “many on the left” if they “believe that conservatives are inherently anti-American?”
Not if we fail to educate you, “spaz,” which is what I propose that the GOP attempt to do, and what LeftWingCracker paradoxically claims will lead to perpetual Democratic rule.
Perhaps when the student is ready, the teacher will appear.
It’s time once again to round up the best comments, hatemail, discussions and posts of the year. This was a year of change, from Bush to BRCK BM, and from pet-free apartment to dog-infested house. Along with that change came fewer posts, of significantly reduced quality. Still, you kept coming back for puppies, politics and another round of (delightfully) vicious comments from readers. This year I endeavored to tinker with more multimedia, so I’ve added a category for the year’s “best collateral.” I enjoyed blogging this year, and that’s the main thing. So I hope you enjoy this look back at The Best of 2008 at MickWright.net. (more…)
Do you have a favorite MW.net post or comment from 2008?
If so, you know the drill: leave a comment below, send smoke signals, build a monument or release an animal into the wild. Then I will read, divine and interpret your nominations, summarily ignore them, draft my best-of-2008 post, mock Robert Barnett, and call it a year.
Left Wing Cracker writes: “When I grow up / I want to write just like The Rude Pundit. I have wanted SOMEBODY to say this since 1981…”
Since 1981, Left Wing Cracker has wanted a Democratic Presidential candidate, in a televised debate, to encourage the Republican candidate to concede defeat prior to the election, to preemptively claim a landslide victory, to refer to the opponent’s anticipated defeat as a beheading, to repudiate the service of Vietnam War veterans, to reject any mention of left-wing domestic terrorists, to reveal perverted ideations about public exposure and necrophilia, to describe sexual encounters with the skulls of public servants (both living and dead), to detail homosexual acts to be performed on him and his running mate, and to describe plans to have his administration sodomize a Governor and members of her family?
I’m about to do some work on the back end, so this site may disappear for a bit. But it will return, in full. Unless I mess it up.
In his July 4 post, Independency and Dependency, Josh Ross presents something that’s part straw man argument and part false dichotomy.
After acknowledging that Independence Day will be celebrated for “as long as the US remains the US” and noting ways in which our nation has changed, Ross says what the U.S. actually commemorates on this holiday is “independency.” By using this variation of the term, he suggests Americans are paying tribute to a generic condition of self-sufficiency, rather than a specific, political Independence.
Having defined the holiday as such, Ross then goes on to indicate his prayer that we instead seek dependence upon God.
What we remember on Independence Day is not self-sufficiency, but instead our nation’s birth, our deliverance from tyranny, our political freedom, our equality and our mutual interdependence. The signers declared that they had mutually pledged to each other their “lives,” their “fortunes,” and their “sacred honor.”
And our celebration of Independence is certainly not in conflict with our dependence upon God. The founders wrote that we were entitled by God with political equality, and that our Creator had endowed all men “with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Furthermore, the signers wrote that our Declaration of Independence was supported “with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence.” John Adams wrote that this occasion “ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty,” celebrated each year with a “great anniversary festival.”
It’s clear that Ross misunderstands the nature and character of this great holiday, if not the nation itself, which may help explain why he believes “we need people who will refuse to be defined by American values and principles.”
Should we refuse to be defined by our reverence for the equality of mankind? Should we refuse to be defined by our understanding that our rights come from God? Or by our unique system of checks and balances that protect the people from tyranny? Or by our religious and political freedoms? Or by our representative democracy, our exhaustive justice system and transparent governance? By our history of defending liberty at home and abroad?
Should we be ashamed by our nation’s exploration, innovation, industry, diversity, opportunity and tolerance? Or by our dedication to diplomacy, philanthropy and justice? Should we be ashamed of our people’s generosity and optimism? By our eagerness to forgive our enemies, offer aid and amnesty to the destitute or stand as a beacon of freedom around the world?
I will never refuse to be defined by my belief in these uniquely American values and principles.
Each year, I strive to offer a certain number of blog posts purely as a public service; this is one of those posts. Below are just a few of the things I have learned as a conservative blogger, and I’d like to share them with you, so that won’t make these mistakes:
You are not allowed to criticize Jon Stewart, because his show is classified as “fake news.” It’s perfectly fine to lie, misrepresent and distort if you’re a “comedian.” Stewart never claimed to be a credible journalist, so his political commentary cannot be expected to adhere to any measure of honesty or responsibility. So long as there’s the expectation of a punchline at the end of his monologue, he is free to invent facts, strip quotes from their context, make totally slanderous statements and distort the news items under discussion.
You are not allowed to criticize the Memphis Flyer, because that organization has never considered itself an objective, straight news source. It’s perfectly fine to lie, misrepresent and distort if you’re a “decidedly liberal” alternative newsweekly. So long as every word printed or posted serves the Leftist agenda, its authors are free to invent facts, strip quotes from their context, make totally slanderous statements and distort the news items under discussion.
You are not allowed to criticize socialist Christians who declare themselves “non-partisan.” Jim Wallis, Tony Campolo and other Christian leaders of the radical Left have not officially accepted the Democratic label and accordingly should be considered forever above the fray of partisan politics, no matter how consistently they adopt and circulate Democratic rhetoric.
You are not allowed to criticize global warming alarmism, unless you happen to be a meteorologist, climatologist, atmospheric chemist or geophysicist. If you are a scientist with a degree in one of these fields, you are still not allowed to criticize global warming alarmism because it is already a settled consensus. You are also not allowed to criticize global warming alarmists who have no degree in science, whether or not you have more expertise and/or credibility in the field than they do.
You are not allowed to criticize Darwinism, unless you happen to be a biologist, chemist, physiologist, paleontologist or zoologist. If you are a scientist with a degree in one of these fields, you are still not allowed to criticize Darwinism because to do so would somehow violate the separation of church and state, or would in any case reveal you to be an authoritarian Christian fascist.
You are not allowed to criticize anti-war, anti-American radicalism unless you have served in the military. If you have served in the military, you are still not allowed to criticize anti-war radicalism because you are a war-monger whose character has been thoroughly compromised by the Bush administration propaganda machine and whose hands are forever bloodstained by the illegal war in Iraq.
You are not allowed to criticize Leftist political figures who publicly stump for political causes or candidates if they can conceivably be classified as “victims” or if they happen to be married to the candidate. You are also not allowed to mention that candidate’s middle name or display photos that reveal the candidate in a less than heroic light.
You are not allowed to criticize any Leftist with an advanced degree and a funny hat, particularly if you currently live, or have ever lived, in a suburban area that is primarily inhabited by one demographic group, maintains traffic cameras at certain busy intersections and hosts an annual horse show. It goes without saying that this holds true regardless of your own educational level, your particular socioeconomic status or your feelings on horses and traffic cameras.
I recently spent what seems like hours examining the stylesheet behind this Wordpress theme, “2Exquisite,” as well as the code for each page, trying to get the theme fully customized with my new design. The one sticking point has been getting the sidebar to load properly on the category and archive pages. On those pages, the sidebar would load beneath the posts, rather than resting to the side (as sidebars typically do).
When I couldn’t locate the source of the problem, I sifted through several forum pages and help pages, only to find people with similar problems but nobody with a valid answer. But when I looked at the code with fresh eyes just a minute ago, I finally discovered the ONE TINY LINE that was throwing everything off. I can’t tell you how satisfied I feel at this moment.
For anyone who may be experiencing this same problem with the Wordpress 2Exquisite theme, make sure “< ?php mytheme_sidebar();?>” is copied on EVERY PAGE, including “date.php,” “search.php”* and “category.php.”
I also had to create a new style to make the background color consistent and without breaks, which I placed around the “content” div. If you stumbled on this post out of Wordpress theme frustration, and you can’t figure it out, leave me a comment; I’ll be glad to help.
*Updated after finding a third page without the proper code.