Michael Maiello's picture

    Things To Like About Conservatives

    Playing Diogenes, good ol' jollyroger asked us to name some respectable conservatives.  It's a tough game because they all have sins.  I used to cite William Buckley as a personal favorite for his general tone and writing style, but would always be confronted with the crass and ignorant things the guy said about homosexuals in response.  From our lens, none of them are perfect.

    I could name a whole host of conservatives who I have debated with, worked for, worked with or just plain been friends with, who I think are sincere, honest people who aren't bigots.  But, naming names tends to confuse the issue. Instead, I'll go with the things I like about conservatism, which is really just part and parcel to the modern liberalism that we all engage in and can be useful to the left.

    1) True conservatives are humble.  Conservatism accepts that man's ability to alter man's conditions is limited and it wants to err on the side of not causing more harm than good.  We can argue the specifics here, but I like this as a moral statement even though I believe we are capable of much more than they do.

    2) They're freedom loving.  Go hug  social libertarian today, even if they also want to privatize the fire department.  People who have things half right are, at least, half way there!

    3) They're America loving.  Patriotism causes a lot of problems but we do sometimes need the right to remind us that America actually has done good in the world, as well as bad.  If you engage these people, you might even be able to convince them to cut the Pentagon's budget.

    4)  True conservatives value small businesses over large ones because they realize that transferring power to large corporations is worse than handing power to the government.  We need to find and engage these types.  They will not always be anti regulation.

    5) They scare the government.  The left doesn't.  And somebody has to.

    Topics: 

    Comments

    One thing I like at times about those adorable conservatives is their tough stance on crime.  I am putting aside the death penalty debate off to the side when I say this, as well as the nature of our penal and released prisoner re-entry system, not to mention the drug policies.  But with all that aside, the need to deal toughly with repeat offenders*, especially the violent ones is something the conservatives have going for them.

     

    *As a side note, I just felt the need to mention that I can't see the term "repeat offender" without thinking of the parole hearing scene in Raising Arizona, one of the great American films.  And this has me thinking about the end scene, where HI dreams (the liberal/conservative dream) into the future about him and Edwina, "years and years away, but I saw an old couple being visiting by their children, and all their grandchildren, too. The old couple wasn't screwed up. And neither were their kids or their grandkids. And I want to know.  You tell me. This whole dream.  Was it wishful thinking? Was I just fleeing reality as I am normally likely to do?  But me and Ed, we can be good, too. And it seemed real.  It seemed like us. And it seemed like, well,...our home. If not Arizona, then a land not too far away.  Where parents are strong and wise and capable.  And all children are happy and beloved.  I don't know. Maybe it was...Utah."


    Conservatives, still living, who I like (sort of) or whose opinions I respect (sometimes):

    Ramesh Ponnuru

    Ryan Douthit

    Former Senator Chuck Hagel

    Senators Mark Warner and Jim Webb of Virginia

    Former Defense Secretaries William Cohen and Robert Gates

    Former President Bill Clinton

     

     


    I'd agree with your list, Destor, except, they DON'T hate government. They only hate government when it's helping people--and not "people" the way Romney defines the term.


    Agree, Destor seems to believe the supporters of the Party that brought us the Saddam Getter and self-proclaimed Decider, the PATRIOT Act, trillions wasted and tens of thousands of US casualties, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives ruined, handing over Iraq to the mullahs of Iran, death panel talk, near default, birther believing congressmen, etc etc are a humble and patriotic lot. These people have put into office those who have done more damage to this country than any enemy. They are too often people who are both morally and intellectually bankrupt.


    "They are too often people who are..."  The operative phrase here is "too often."  What you are doing is looking at the overall impact of the conservative/Republican pack on the government and country.  Nothing wrong with that in and of itself.  But the question here is whether there is some notions of redeeming quality that exist with the paradigms included under the broad term "conservative."

    Moreover, you tend to be equating conservative with Republican.  As Barth points out, some of the best conservatives wear a D on their lapel.  So we are discussing conservatives and their thoughts that do not necessarily manifest itself within the Republican party.


    There aren't too many liberal Republicans these days, all the rest call themselves conservatives, I call them what I said above.


    Well, Gallup says there are still about 3% of the Republicans who self-identify as being liberals.  So I guess there are still a few out there in the shadows somewhere.

    Now of course we have decide whether we are just talking about the self-identified conservatives or the ones when one examines the totality of their view on socio-political and economic issues, would be classified as being conservative.  And before that whether we have an either/or grouping  - either liberal or conservative - or the other common grouping of conservative, moderate, and liberal.

    Moreover, many conservatives do not identify with the Republican party.  There is the Libertarians, obviously, who vote for their candidate when they get their opportunity, and then there is the ever growing group conservatives who identify themselves as independent.


    Hey, I'd have a tough time with a conservative who tried to explain to me why they supported Bush, of all people.  Bush was no conservative.  He's just a legacy kid with friends in the right places.


    They only decided he wasn't conservative when the bottom fell out of his wars and his 'ownership' economy, and when it was obvious, to even the most reality challenged member of the conservative voting public, that his 8 years was a huge fiasco.


    I'm curious about your #3 and #5.   Are you talking about the GOP fondness for blind love of country?  I find the 'America - Love it or leave it' mindset to be a phony display of patriotism that is calculated to dismiss all dissent as un-American. I don't call that Patriotism, and most GOPs I know seem to prefer this form of 'America can do no wrong' kind of love of country, to a genuine affection for America, warts and all.  Most people love this country, some choose to love it blindly others love it unconditionally. 

     

    As for #5... What do you mean somebody has to scare the government?  Why exactly?  What POSITIVE benefit comes from scaring the government? You mean scare them like in the debt ceiling debacle?  That was a real good scare wasn't it?  If that's what you mean, then I respectfully disagree with your assertion.  Do you think fear tactics will keep government in check?  You think it's acceptable to run a government through fear and intimidation designed to completely thwart the process?  The GOP 'scares' government because they want to destroy it; to 'drown it in the bathtub.'  The left doesn't want to scare government, but that doesn't mean we want to have a bloated government or because we are tax and spend Liberals or any of that phony crap that the radical right always ascribes to us in order to discredit our motives.  We don't want to scare government because most Progressives believe that government, contrary to what that prick Reagan said,  CAN sometimes be the solution. It is NOT always the problem and government can be made to work properly when both sides agree to engage in the process rather than having one side determined to destroy or dismantle government at every turn.   Sorry, but I think #5 is complete bullshit.

     


    I don't mean to sound like a broken record, but again the problem here is equating conservatives with the GOP and its hardcore supporters.  We can't have decent discussion on conservatism and why it continues to have the pull and resonance that it does as long as we continue this.

    Regarding the patriotism, there many conservatives who support America in the same Democrats support Obama.  They will acknowledge there are blemishes, but these are in the end outweighed by the positive, and in general will choose to focus their comments on those positives rather the blemishes when they feel America is being unduly criticized (let alone out and out attacked).

    It is this dynamic that allowed Bush to achieve 80%+ approval rating after 9/11.   Which means even some liberals were approving of him at this point.


    The pull and reasonance of Conservatism ... is that what this thread is about?  I thought it was an attempt to tell us we're wrong for thinking all Conservatives are bastards and that some are actually nice, reasonable folks, who can discuss issues with intelligence.  I can appreciate that there are some Conservative worth listening to and learning from.  I've listened to a number of Conservatives that were articulate and intelligent enough not to make me wish ill of them, even if I disagreed with their ideas.  They are, however, getting harder and harder to find, in my opinion.

    Using 9/11 as an example is misleading, it seems to me, Trope.  That was a unique time and a unique set of circumstances. America came together after 9/11 in a profound and unprecedented way and Bush and company then completely abused that emotional uniting of the country for their own petty political purposes.  Do you think if Obama had been President when 9/11 happened that he would have achieved an 80%+ approval rating? He got Osama Bin Laden and only achieved about 61% approval.


    I think the thread is about: are the facets to the paradigms which fall under the banner of conservativism (and the people who advocate those facets) which have redeemable value?  That there are only 36,789 or 1000 or 452 or 5 of them is irrelevant.  The ultimate outcome is that we don't have some kneejerk response based on the idea that if we the individual views the world in a way that one would label them conservative, that we also jump to the conclusion this person is concentrated evil. 

    So even if they are harder and harder to find, they are there to find.

    The first place that I lived on my own when I was 17 was a little triplex.  The individual next to me was a nun who spent most of her time in Central America helping the oppressed people down there.  At the time, I would call myself a militant atheist (it was my duty to convince people that all spiritual beliefs were a form of delusion or worse, no matter what it took).  There was few who attracted my wrath more than the Catholic Church (no one expects the Spanish Inquisition).  Those few occasions that I had to talk with her had a fundamental change in how I saw those guided by spiritual imperatives to work good in the world. 

    I could go on but I guess I would just mention At Play in the Field of the Lord and Romero.

    9/11 was a special time, but not unique.  Pearl Harbor shows that.  What is showed was the fundamental sense of people's identity as Americans.  It didn't matter if I lived in Topeka or San Francisco or Chicago or Bumfuck, Arizona.  An attack on NYC and the DC was an attack on me and my family and all of us. People rallied around the president because that is what Americans do when America is under attack.  If Obama had been president, it would have happened as well.


    Thanks, Trope. That is what I'm getting at. Too often, it's as if our opponents are aliens and we share no common language.  But we're not THAT far apart.


    Was it not G.W.Bush who said "I hear the word "paradigm" and I reach for my gun"? No? Who? Oh, Goebbels. "Culture"?. Same thing, different guy...

    Going forward then I shall say pair-a-dig-em. 

    And are you implying Bush = Goebbels = all those who identify themselves as conservative = all those with conservative viewpoints?


    Don't overthink it. (sincerely, Trope. this could be the best advice you get this year....)

    Telling me not to overthink something is like telling W. not to mangle the English language, it ain't gonna happen.


    Republicans scare the begeesus out of the public.

    Drones of death, WMD, color coded terror alerts, duct tape safe rooms, shock and awe, torture, illegal wiretapping, horse show guys to run FEMA, illegals, death panels, mooselims, mosques, gays, universal health care (scary!), taxes, unions and labor rights (unAmerican), deficits (only when a Democrat is Prez) ....they want to privatize the government to ensure it doesn't ever do anything for the people, just turn it over to for-profit GOP backing corporations and Wall Street.


    For the umpteenth time:  This isn't about Republicans.

    The blog is one of most depressing blogs I have read in a long time because as the comments indicate we can't get beyond conservative/Republican and liberal/Democrat binary (which one is pure evil?).


    Getting beyond Party labels, would you consider a President Bachmann administration to have a more liberal or conservative character, and why?


    I think that's kind of like asking what color the number seven is. She's too crazy to apply either a liberal or a conservative label to.


    Poppycock. Ms. Bachmann believes she is a conservative, the 'tip of the spear', and so do many Republican voters.  Being 'crazy' may be an essential prerequisite to run for office as a conservative Republican.


    Which may be why many self-identified conservatives affiliate themselves with the Democratic Party or as independent.


    Obviously it would have more of a conservative character.  I could spend some time giving my opinions as to why I think this, but given the context of this blog that would be pointless.  If all conservatives were cut from the identical mold, then maybe there would be a point.  But they are not.

    From my position over here on the liberal bank of the river, the only way I can see that we're going to make any significant progress as a nation is if those on the other bank are willing to acknowledge that maybe, just maybe, some of the ideas from the liberal paradigm has redeeming value and worth further investigation.  On the flip side of this, those on this side of the river need to be willing to look over to the other side without discounting everything beforehand.  Maybe we will find that we aren't standing on two sides of the river, but rather on the same side.  Or maybe we're in the river together.

    We and the river are one...

    Otherwise all we have are people believing they are sole possessors of the truth, of the only right and true conclusions to flood of information.  Which doesn't mean there aren't times to draw lines in the sand, to stand up for one's principles, etc etc. 


    Re:#3: I fear we conflate patriotism as practiced with the Tom Paine version,  (patriotism as rebellion against tyranny, "the sunshine patriot...etc")

    In practice patriotism instructs me to value the lives of adult Navy Seals over infant afghans.

    Thus stated, patriotism is tribalism, and tribalism sucks.


    Of course this type of conflation occurs.  That isn't the issue. 

    And of course one can find point to one set of manifest examples of conservatives and apply it globally. Patriotism, nationalism, etc etc will always rear an ugly side.  And it is part of the thing that brought the people to streets in Prague and Egypt and....

    Maybe in that uberideal world, we just see ourselves as part of the human race, no better yet, we see ourselves as interdependent living manifestations of the universe, co-dependent and part of the same whole...

    But back in the real world....

    Is there a value in a sense of community, which by its nature says I am of this community and not those communities?  There are few things that have undermined liberalism in this country than the disparaging of everything America, as if it was the root of all evil in the world.

    And I can't not not say it - that such sentiments is wrapped up in some poem with a line like "I believe that those tits might be real" is what makes the NEA a constant target of conservatives.  That this comes just after a line like "I believe that all kids are my kids" is just perfect. 

    And what of those Navy Seals who are trying to fight the individuals who would throw acid on the face of those female infant afghans who had the audacity to think they deserved an education?  Where does that fit into your moral compass?


    1. Lighten up! 2. NEA?! 3. ok, the tits are probably fake-call me a hopeless optimist 4. Wherein is patriotism NOT tribalism?

    This is me lighten up.  Just kidding.  But you're the one bringing up Seals and Afghan infants.  Not exactly uberlight stuff. 

    I bring up the NEA because the attacks on the NEA is symbolic of the rise of the social right wing of the party in political affairs.  Pieces like Piss Christ were symbolic to those folks of what liberalism stood for, or where liberal policies would lead.  That liberals stood up in defense of such works just proved their point.

    Patriotism is a form of tribalism, to use that term.  Both can be seen as an extension of the family.  It is in our DNA.  It is our nature.  Making patriotism a sin is like the Church making sex a sin.  (just watch sports fan if you doubt this) The quest is how does one channel one's patriotism and sex and the desire to see one's team win the championship into a force for good, not evil.


    Be assured, no tax dollars were harmed in the production of that poem.

    But be assured there were pinkos in the bushes wanting to spend your tax dollars on that poem, which is exactly why they want to end the Bush tax cuts.  So they can go into mass production of poems just like this. If you care about common decency, if you care that your children grow up wholesome and pure and the way our founding fathers intended, vote Republican.


    Yes, yes!  I see it clearly now.  Will no one think of the children?  Precious Blood of the Sweet Baby Jesus, what about the children??  Shall they not have pie?



    Parenthetically, and to no particular point here apposite, I thought  Piss Christ was brilliant.


    Here was my take on Piss Christ in my first blog here at Dagblog: Koran Burning and other Performance Art.  It isn't the full story on how view it, but it is one of a (infinite?) numerous starting points.


    A brief tour of the post explains why there was no fuss from you over "the infinite redemptive power of lysergic acid"...

    And after the tour, knowing my intake of lysergic acid between 1976 and 1981, I suppose it would provide a good case why it might not be a good idea.


    Excuse me, if I inject myself into this little side conversation.  The fact that the NEA is attacked by the radical right does not mean their arguments are valid and defending a work of art has nothing to do with the rightness or wrongness of Liberal values. That's the point about where this whole radical right idiocy has lead us;  we cower in fear, afraid to do the right thing and support artistic freedom, we worry that maybe their points are going to make us look bad simply because the radical right shouts them over and over again and we let their accusations go unanswered.  But no matter how many times they scream about the NEA or Piss Christ or lesbians smearing chocolate sauce on themselves while shoving sweet potatoes up their various orifices, their argument in support of intimidation and denying the rights of artists to self-expression is not the American way and even acceptance of their argument by a large segment of the population does not make it correct.  A group which wants to take away choice and deny freedom needs to be fought. The biggest mistake Liberals made was not shutting this idiocy down from the get go..  They're wrong to attempt to undercut artistic institutions simply because they disagree with the artistic content. That's censorship and America is not supposed to be about censorship. And if being on the correct side of this issue makes us look bad, while that may be our fault for not making an equally strong and proper counter-argument and insisting that what the right was doing in forcing their minority view on the general public was, and is, un-American.   Personally, I didn't care for Piss Christ as a work of art, because I thought it was a mediocre piece of work, not particularly clever nor artistically interesting, but it certainly did stimulate a lot of discussion, and that's what art should do; make people think.  So, I'll defend the artist's right to make his artistic statement. And instead of putting our tails between our legs and letting the radical right frame the argument as a sign that Liberal philosophy was un-American and/or a demonstration of the paucity of Liberal moral values, Liberals should have repeated every waking minute of every day for as long as it took, that America is about tolerance of other viewpoints even ones with which we disagree and an artist's right to self-expression is part of what makes America great. We're not like Communist countries, we don't censor our artists, and any group that wants to do so,  should be anathema to REAL Americans.  Shame on the God-damned bastards that want to take away your right to choose for yourself what is or isn't art.  That's how you fight back against cultural bullies.  Call them out for being against freedom and liberty and wanting to take away the rights of the individual to make up their own minds. Paint them as being what they are, un-American.


    First off, it is my personal belief that everyone should feel totally free to inject their selves into whatever side conservation is going on.  If someone wants a private conservation between his or herself and another commenter, then they need to exchange email addresses.

    With that said...

    intimidation and denying the rights of artists to self-expression is not the American way

    So you say.  And I would say, too, and strongly so. But saying it, even it saying it strongly doesn't make it so.  Unfortunately we don't have some tablet handed down by God which explains in unambiguous means what is exactly is the American way.

    even acceptance of their argument by a large segment of the population does not make it correct

    True. Doesn't make it correct in the ultimate sense.  But culturally speaking, it is true.  I could bring up a lot of indigenous populations and their spiritual beliefs about the universe, and while I don't believe them, I also choose to respect them.  I also choose to respect their claims on burial grounds, etc which interfere on the projects of those who do not believe their particular concept of the universe.

    In the end, concepts like all humans are created equal are still concepts.  Their "rightness" or "correctness" depends solely on the majority of the culture agreeing on the concept.  We depend on a collective agreement on moving forward on the majority view.  At times, the minority view may feel compelled to confront the majority.  All the power to them.  But it is not in the quest to achieve the goal that minority view achieve the status of dominant view (ie the Queen of England is an collaborator with aliens from outer space, and using cocaine money to fund the descendants of the Illuminati in their attempt to achieve world domination.)

    A group which wants to take away choice and deny freedom needs to be fought. The biggest mistake Liberals made was not shutting this idiocy down from the get go..

    Yes. I agree with you, because I know what you mean.  But the fact is we do accept limitations.  We are not free to say, do, or express anything.  For good reason.  It is all too easy to provide examples which even the most liberal, biggest supporter of the ACLU would not sign on to. 

    The ACLU is best example of where the liberal and conservative mindset rests.  That a true liberal, in my opinion, fights for the right of the KKK to march in a parade in spite of the disgust their view engender shows the true depth of where their values lay.  

    That's censorship and America is not supposed to be about censorship. And if being on the correct side of this issue makes us look bad, while that may be our fault for not making an equally strong and proper counter-argument and insisting that what the right was doing in forcing their minority view on the general public was, and is, un-American

    Who says America is not about censorship. What if the pursuit of happiness goes through censorship. Do we not have the liberty to censor, or the freedom to censor?  Do we want our children exposed to all the various views of life at particular moment?  

    The minority view is not always righteous.  Being a liberal in America, it is sometimes easy to fall into the trap that it is.  If there was negative to the 60's it was the over embracement of the anti-hero, the anti-establishment idol.  And for every Billy Jack there was a Dirty Harry. 

    Personally, I didn't care for Piss Christ as a work of art, because I thought it was a mediocre piece of work, not particularly clever nor artistically interesting, but it certainly did stimulate a lot of discussion, and that's what art should do; make people think.  So, I'll defend the artist's right to make his artistic statement.

    And so will I defend.  At the same time I will respect the offended individuals.  If it was Jewish star, or an image of Chief Joseph, or a Buddhist statute that was dunk in piss, would you be more willing to listen to those offended?

    And instead of putting our tails between our legs and letting the radical right frame the argument as a sign that Liberal philosophy was un-American and/or a demonstration of the paucity of Liberal moral values, Liberals should have repeated every waking minute of every day for as long as it took, that America is about tolerance of other viewpoints even ones with which we disagree and an artist's right to self-expression is part of what makes America great.

    So the problem is that you claim a loyalty to the concept that one should be tolerant to other viewpoints, but not the viewpoint that has an issue with the work of art. 

    We're not like Communist countries, we don't censor our artists,

    But like the Communist countries, you are asking the government to suppress the majority opinion because you personally don't like what the majority believes because it goes against your values.

    Democracy is messy and the People don't always go the way you want them to go.

    Shame on the God-damned bastards that want to take away your right to choose for yourself what is or isn't art.  That's how you fight back against cultural bullies.  Call them out for being against freedom and liberty and wanting to take away the rights of the individual to make up their own minds. Paint them as being what they are, un-American.

    Okay, I'll ignore your request for the God above to damn your enemies.  But let me ask you - if some "artist" wants to call his child pornography art, will you defend him or her, or will you draw a line between the right of free expression and decency?


    Okay, this is all my fault. I apologize for not writing more clearly. What I was clumsily attempting to offer was what I thought would have been a more aggressive pushback to the radical right's attempt to impose their views on the general public.  Liberals allowed the issue to be framed as either you are offended by the art piece or you agree with the artist's 'perverted' point of view.  I'm saying that shouldn't have been the question and if we allowed it be offered as the question, Liberals should have fought back more aggressively. Not doing so was, in my opinion, a mistake.  The poles should not have been either you're offended or you're a sick Liberal that supports perverted artists, the issue would have been better framed by Liberals as do you support freedom of expression or do you want artistic 'death panels'?  I'm not making the argument that people have the right to yell fire in a crowded theater,   I was trying, (badly evidently), to articulate a way that Liberals might turn the tables and flip the argument on its head. Not because what I'm saying is the absolute truth or how I feel personally, (just as the arguments the radical right uses are seldom, if ever, wholly true), but because it's a tactical way to reverse the direction of the discussion and put the right into a position of defending their actions rather than us always rolling over when they aggressively attack Liberals as bed-wetting molly-coddlers that want to let perverts destroy America.

    " So the problem is that you claim a loyalty to the concept that one should be tolerant to other viewpoints, but not the viewpoint that has an issue with the work of art." 

    No, that's NOT what I'm saying. I have no problem with their objection to the work of art, I object to their imposing their views on everyone else.  Why do they get to decide for me what I find offensive? I'm perfectly capable of deciding that for myself. They have their right to decide for themselves, not for the rest of society.

    It offends me that standing up for artistic freedom has degenerated to such a point that it is now framed as whether or not you defend perverts. 

    Speaking of which, I think your use of the child pornography argument was a bit of a cheap shot.  Of course I wouldn't endorse child pornography and would not support an 'artist' using it.  Obviously free expression comes with a certain level of responsibility.  I have not questioned your decency in this conversation, why do you question mine? 

    By the way, when did you stop beating your wife?  (Okay, that was a joke, not a real question. It just seemed like a good cheap comeback to your child pornography question. and a good way to end my posting.) 

     

     


    Feel free to consider the poem as a primer in the avoidance of self importance...("let him who has ears...")

    Patriotism is definitely tribalism.

    But I have to be honest, I value the lives of Navy SEALS over the live of Taliban fighters.  I could tell you otherwise, and might well someday if I forget having written this, but it'd be dishonest of me.

    None of that means that I am any less in support of getting out of Afghanistan, you understand.  But if I'm honest about how I feel?  Yep.  SEAL lives over Taliban.  One of those two sides served up to preserve my way of life, the other won't even live and let live about it.  Hugely difficult for me not to pick sides.


    Seals over Taliban is easy-I said Seals over babies. Let's complicate things-Shall we value American babies over Afghan babies? Despite The scorn of the trope, I say that both kids are my kids & I will cheerfully throttle the motherfucker who threatens to harm my kids.

    But that is part of the messaging - the Taliban threaten those kids for the long haul, and the Seals are there to throttle them for you, to do what you would do if you were there.  I'm not saying that justifies it, just the greyness in the sentiment in which one can begin to understand how the conservative might not just be the ignorant freakoid.  In fact the very notion of throttling the motherfucker who threatens my kids is one of the fundamental emotional basis for the conservatives case to impose the death penalty.  Hmmm.  Maybe Jollyroger is one of those conservatives afterall.


    The Nato spokesman expressed regret that the airstrike, called in by a unit under enemy fire incinerated the children who were unfortunate collateral damage... DISCLAIMER:GENERIC STATEMENT

    And your point is what?  The regret is insincere?  That only the liberals grieve over these children?  America likes to kill little children?  This kind of statement makes a conservative's day?


     More along the lines of "we think the price is worth it" (from a non conservative sec/state)


    The conservative knows exactly which side of his butt is buttered!

    ha!


    I find conservatives do a very good job keeping their lawns mowed and their hedges trimmed.


    and thereby reducing incidents of deer ticks passing along lyme disease.


    Yeah, they hire illegals to do the yard work.


    I would add to your list the conservative  defense of the status quo.Certainly there are things that should be changed,But not everything.

    The world wasn't created yesterday.Lots of things people use to do have been changed. For the better. And now those are the status quo. Change may mean going back to the old bad ways.

     

     

    Always keep a hold of nurse for fear of getting someone worse.


    Absolutely. To me "defense of the status quo" is the defining characteristic that makes someone a conservative. I include conservationism as part of that, although most soi disant conservatives seem to want nothing to do with it. By that definition, I consider myself inherently a conservative, although as you say there are certainly things that should be changed.


    Analog watches, for example, are superior to digital ones as my eyes get worse and worse...nurse.


    Some of those digital running watches have incredibly big numbers.


    Latest Comments