<D <M <Y
Y> M> D>

[Comments] (2) Wed Oct 04 08:45:09 MST Last Night on the O'Reilly Factor:

Bill O'Reilly: Is there any scenario that you can envision you supporting the Democrat candidate for President in '08?

Ann Coulter: If Zell Miller were running against John McCain.

O'Reilly: Ya, you're not a big McCain fan are you.

Ann: No, actually I dont really like any of our frontrunners.

O'Reilly: Really? Right.

Ann: I think that it's going to be someone else.

O'Reilly: I think that it's going to be Mitt Romney.

Ann Coulter: Actually of the ones that they talk about he's my favorite. But there could be somebody out of the blue.

Bill O'Reilly: I think that Mitt Romney is the guy on the inside track that very few people know about.

Two conservatives (alright, one "independant" and one "neo"conservative) who think Mitt has a chance. Lets hope they are right.

Wed Oct 04 08:55:19 MST It must be hard to be a talk show host:

There is somewhat of a firestorm that has brewed in the "Religious Right" camp surrounding the statements of James Dobson. To be fair, I think Dobson was just speculating about the future, and I doubt that it was a statement based in bigotry. Here is what one blog said about the statement:

"The good news is, many evangelicals are apologizing for Dobson, even excoriating him. At the very least they are trying to explain away what he said. Because they all remember what Dr. Dobson apparently forgot:

Anyone who divides the religious majority in America for whatever reason carries a spear for the secular left and ensures the right’s defeat in the most imminent battles of the culture war.

'A house divided against itself cannot stand, and must fall.'

Dr. Dobson would do well to focus on his family; to figure out once and for all just who his family members are." --Mitch Davis of runmittrun.org

I say so many questionble things which may be taken so many ways that I sympathise with James Dobson. I think his support will be strong if Mitt becomes a strong contender.

Wed Oct 04 10:10:35 MST Survival of the Unfittest--The Will to Power:

I have been thinking about what makes a person successful in Politics, Hollywood, Sports, and Buisness (thank goodness I have entered the meritocricy of academics). I am reminded of Raspinokov in Crime and Punishment who understood this and was tormented by the desire to help people by the use of raw force and power (Democrats may take a lesson from this), and the resulting negation of Moral Law that the will to power denies a priori, and therefore the negation of the very purpose for which one uses force--for the common Good (with a capital G).

Dosteovsky put it in a way that is interesting. People who will to power, who have a modicum of intelligence, need only stoop down to pick it up. Not too hard, right? The problem is that you get all kinds of people who are not-so intelligent, not-so talented, incompetent, etc. (you may say--yeah, Bush!, and I agree with you to a degree). The irony is that those who thrive in a "will to power" environment are not those who are integritous, moral individuals.

Napoleon was able to "stoop" down to power and pick it up as did Hitler. What made them better than Raspinokov? The Answer, Dosteovsky tells us is this: Raspinokov's principles weakened him in a world ruled by the will to power, and as a result he turned himself in for the murder of the pawn broker. Raspinokov's moral judgement bought him a prison cell in Siberia, while Nepoleon's abandonment of his moral judgement bought him an Empire. Those who succeed in a will to power must shed themselves of cumbersome values, morals, and principles. The same may be said of the powerful in Hollywood about whom Mitch Davis wrote:

"I developed a societal model I called, 'Survival of the Unfittest.' It grew out of my observation that the success of an individual in Hollywood often didn’t seem to derive from their level of intellect or innate talent. Rather, success often seemed to be determined by an individual’s willingness to fight dirtier and stoop lower than his or her peers." Mitch Davis Continues: "The unfortunate result was that all too frequently (although not always) people in seats of power in Hollywood seemed to be individuals who led unbalanced, miserable lives and who then foisted their lack of balance and misery on the world they were paid to entertain. In short, the lunatics were running the asylum."

Sound a bit like Congress?

No wonder Hollywood has become more and more unpalatable to my discriminating tastes. Those who do not have such taste, however, are like the senior citizen who orders sharp blue cheese salad dressing because their aesthetic tastes buds have progressively atrophied by the abandonment of the Good. Society needs become more eccentric, edgy, evocative, poignant as they become deadened to the joys of simple ordinary life. Hence the rise in homosexuality, the multi-Billion (with a B) dollar pornography "industry," and the rise in violence in TV, movies and the roadways of American Cities.

That was Clinton's great tragic trait, I believe. He fell in a will to power mentality (including using his power to coerce young interns to gratify his lusts), and that dulled his capacity and quality.

I think that is why people of principle (the meek) will never rule the earth until the earth no longer sustains the type who are willing to "stoop" to power or "slouch toward Gomorrah" to coin a phrase from Robert Bork.


[Main]

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.