I cleaned out comment spam targeted mainly at the Who Owns You post and next thing you know I see the question, presented as the bottom line of political philosophy, in a book I’m reading. By Dawn’s Early Light has turned out to be fantastic. I did put it down briefly to finish something else, at a point where I couldn’t fathom how things could ever improve for the POV character, but that turned out to be just as the adventure was about to explode. At around 80% through, I’m looking forward to the sequel that has yet to be published. For what it’s worth, the character’s offhand answer to that question was nobody, but that’s close enough to the same as you do, you own yourself.
2016? Really? That was the last post? Wow!
I missed so much, not blogging politics and such here in that time. I’m only here today because the places got swamped with comment spam all of a sudden. I meant to blog the entire runup to the 2016 election, which of course was quite a ride. I didn’t start out supporting Trump. I wasn’t a rabid Never like some who completely lost their moral compass over what they perceived as an icky demeanor. I didn’t start out supporting or in favor of him, however, going more with people who did seem more presidential while also being likely to pursue decent policies. Never Hillary? Absolutely! He year was 2008 and we, especially the spouse, perceived her then as having reasonable potential as president. Her corruption and crazy was no doubt there, but hadn’t been unleashed, and might have stayed in check had black not trumped female in a runoff of superficial factors. One might say we are where we are now because Obama got selected instead of her at that time. Stable Evil beat Crazy Neutral, or something along those lines.
I never expected Trump to be arguably the best president since Van Buren. Coolidge? Reagan? Take your pick if you don’t know enough to understand mine. Ironic that Van Buren had been the brains behind Jackson’s election, and Jackson was the Trump of the day. I believe an honest history decades hence would rank Trump in the best handful of presidents. Not one of those bizarre rankings by “historians” with agendas.
Then the crazy 2020 election, which was a wonderful culmination of years of preparation on the part of progressives. We are currently living in the relative end game of things that started in the 1800s with the aim of a takeover by progressives/socialists/communists/lovers of pure power at any price. This would have been happening anyway, regardless of any meddling or influence that may or may not have come from the CCP. Ditto for whether or not our tech overlords had existed on schedule. I could go on at length. Maybe in five years…
I have become a fan of Carly, but Fiorina supported an individual mandate in 2013. Not the same mandate. A more sensible mandate. However, it is wrong either way. No matter what the NSA has and allowed Obama to use on Justice Roberts to get a decision that says otherwise, the mandate is unconstitutional.
I’m not convinced this destroys her chances utterly, and it’s going to be hard to do more than modify ObamaCare no matter who wins, but it certainly looks bad. You cannot, by definition, support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America if you support and pursue unconstitutional policies.
The problem may be a corporate background informing her views. The trouble with Republicans is that it’s OK if a corporation does it, the way a Democrat considers it good if the government does it, but then that extends to it being OK if the government does something of benefit to corporation(s). If you see an individual mandate as somehow benefiting business, especially big business, you are more likely to support it as a Republican. No principles need apply.
Perhaps it’s already time to bring back Rick Perry. He has the problem of invoking Jesus, but not to the extent of being a Christian theocrat as some Republicans might be.
So you’ve got this manmade global warming thing that not only hasn’t remotely been proven, but arguably the opposite. At minimum, the “evidence” has been subject to fraud or error. It’s more a money game than anything, for “scientists” pursuing it, and a power game for politicians and organizations pursuing it. Powerful motivators, those. Not like truth and accuracy for their own sake, and the sake of a clear conscience.
Now we have someone proposing to use RICO to bludgeon scientists who disagree! Seriously? Are you sure we aren’t living in a Randian dystopia, complete with a State Science Institute run amok?
I’m extremely pleased it will be playing in Bellingham, Massachusetts on opening weekend! That’s not super close, but it’s an easy drive, not utterly absurd for an event movie, and not in the city. I didn’t want to be tempted to go downtown to Boston or Cambridge.
On that note, I like the latest scene that has been released to pique our interest. Yeah, I do worry a little that this is not my reading mind’s Dagny, but it’s also not going to match the book in other ways, and that’s not all bad. It could always have made the point more briefly. As I recall, when I realized Terry Goodkind was channeling Rand in Faith of the Fallen (oddly, the first time it had been obvious to me, however obvious it may be seeing the entire list of Wizard’s rules ), I described it as Rand, in a fantasy novel, but succinctly. Which is funny, since Goodkind is hardly a fountainhead of brevity, overall.
The previously released scene was arguably even better, perhaps more directly from the book, perhaps better cast. Lillian is easy to hate, as cast and acted, much as she was in the book, as written. I fear I have encountered too much, if subtle, Lillian treatment in my life.
If you haven’t seen it, check out the Atlas Shrugged trailer. I know I embedded it here and there when it came out, but why risk anyone missing it…