Conformity vs. Non-Conformity: A Brief Exposition

I began politalk with the bold statement that liberals are quote "far more conformist than conservatives", so I'd like to continue on this train of thought for a moment.  Conformity, as a cliche, is generally frowned upon.  But what I'd like to say is that often conformity is neither inherently negative nor positive, neither pragmatic nor abstract, neither an opposition nor a opposition to the opposite (i.e. counter-culture).  What I would like to note, however, is that conformity can be the failed fail-safe of Individualistic Democratic Ideology (I.D.I.) - which is sort of a heavy handed way of saying that conformity can lead to fascism on a collectivistic level - especially when the conformity is imposed upon people rather than chosen.  I'm currently finishing up George Bush's "Decision Points", and one of the ideological/philosophical presuppositions/decisions he makes central to his thesis is people must "choose freedom", I.E. - you can't force freedom upon a peoples, they have to choose it for themselves.  I rather like that as a basic, almost primordial if I'm permitted to say so, theological distinction.  Obviously, primordial is a word used extensively in Heideggerian philosophy, along with words like 'basic' and 'coping'.  What I'd like to say is that the relevance of Heidegger within contemporary American society is, in fact, notorious radio-personality Glenn Beck's opposition to Heidegger and ilk.  He frequently, and I think this is an important point, derides neo-Heideggerians within America as being a force for Evil - however, I do seem to remember one crucial distinction he made - The basis of his dislike of Heidegger was, and this often seems to be the case, the implications and influence not of Heidegger 'the man', but of those who take his teachings and use them for the groundwork for their academic philosophy/ideology.  I think this is important, especially as it relates to my most loved philosophy - the philosophy of G.W.F. Hegel.  Hegel is acknowledged to be the most influential philosopher of all time in terms of the impact of a thinker on various disciplines and vocations.  However, on the back cover of his Philosophy of Right (written by Robert Solomon), he is credited with begetting (and when I say influential, yes - I literally mean 'beget') both socialism and democracy.  So what I'd like to enter into the formula for a moment is the traditional philosophical distinction between judging a philosophy by the life the philosopher lived and the works themselves - and what I'd liek to say is this may, in fact, not be an important distinction - however, it is crucial to note that some judge a philosophy by the content and others by what amounts to polemics.  If you think about other important distinctions related to this subject, one that I think we all sort of know is the distinction between the worldviews that deem philosophy itself to be invalid due to the ethical inconsistencies of the society which spurned the philosophy, the person who derived the philosophie etc., and those who respect the validity of the works themselves.  So what we see here, in a sense, the way in which polemics play a role in conformity, with the end result being a dismissal by students and others of relevant content without inquiry - and this, I want to say, is conformity.  I'm loathe to compare G.W. Bush's ideology/philosophy/theology to an 'unrepentant Nazi', which obviously Heidegger was; but there is a single phrase in seminal and in need of adequate analysis work Zein und Zeit that is basically exactly the same theological position of George W. Bush (take it for what it's worth) - and that is the turn of phrase or theological formula that runs thusly - "Fear is Forgetting", and George Bush in his "Decision Points" makes a great deal out of the distinction between 'Fear' and 'Hope' - not to mention the monumental turn of narrative that I'll simply say we all remember.  In terms of repenting, personally, for my knowledge of Heidegger - I'll sum up briefly by referencing an old noir film about two Englishmen who end up in Germany riding a train right as the war of the world number two breaks out.  One of them has a copy of 'Zein und Zeit' and the other questions him on it - he responds very casually - "I figure I'd better figure out what this Hitler fellow is going on about".  Anyhow - conformity, which I've never defined, can be seen as, within the context of the Greatest Generation, the ability for people to ardently agree with an ideology/philosophy/theology they are not ardently familiar with.  Thanks for reading.

Why Do We Remember the Villains, not the Heroes?

Hitler.























Al Capone.



























Bill Ayers.
































Sound Familiar?







Now try this name.




Waverly Brown



















There is no need to fill you in on the names and ideologies of those mentioned previous to Waverly Brown - you already know who they are, what they stood for, what they look like.  You should be capable, fully, of summoning a mental image almost immediately of the first three persons to varying degrees of accuracy.  We know them.  They are not only familiar, not only notorious, but oft glamorized in such a way that we may not even be conscious that such figures are being held to be by many, especially within counter-culture, as virtuous.  Why?  My answer shouldn't be explicated.

The New Romney Ad which features Hillary Clinton: A foregone conclusion

After the myriad of attack ads leveled at businessman and presidential hopeful Mitt Romney's bid for the oval office, his campaign more or less responded with a single jab directly to Biden's chin:  A commercial featuring Hillary Clinton, now Secretary of State and former 'Bama Hussein 2008 POTUS run opponent, saying quote "Barack Obama has spent millions perpetuating falsehoods (etc)... Shame on you Barack Obama."  More than simply a play for Clinton sympathizers, the ad shows how a thunderstorm of manifold messages can be undone by a simple flutter of Mormon cricket wings.  Obviously a play for female voters, this counter punch hits the "forward" ads directly where they are most vulnerable while remaining overwhelmingly above the belt.  I'd assume my international readers are unfamiliar with this advertisement in what 'Bama Hussein and his Regime o' Scum-Powered-Automobile's have turned into a divisive political climate all throughout U.S.A. U.N. Disctrict #103.  This understated bit of pole-tested political big tent advertising by the Romney campaign gives voters the signal that Mitt won't be coming off the ropes swinging blindly as the 'forward' initiative by 'Bama Hussein has done.  With this comparably sole response to the slew of attack ads leveled at Mitt containing the invocation of Hillary Clinton and her seemingly visceral dislike of 'Bama during the last POTUS election cycle, the Romney Campaign's tone can be surmised thusly;  Less is More.  Obama, on the other hand, has been making appearance after appearance on Cable/Satellite television during press conferences apparently issued directly from Lucifer's laptop.  The amount of 'acting' by 'Bama is thickly 'transparent' as he reads issued teleprompter snippets as if it were casual friday at the middle America cliche factory.  I mean, as famed Mustachio John Stossel once said - 'Give Me A Break'.  It's so funny to see the dems put on their best conversion suit, trying shamelessly to pander to potential voters whilst going ardently 'off-message' by airing ads about Mitt's lack of support for planned parenthood.  That's certainly a revelation of major consequence... a Repub candidate who dislikes abortions... wow.  And then the punchline of this particular attack ad - 'Planned Parenthood provides mammograms - why does Romney hate women?'  Clearly.  Anyhow, the ad in which the Romney Campaign sort of officially dips it's cane into the political dialectic is so massively effective it's almost a cursory, forgone conclusion.  It presents something that undecided voters sympathetic to 'Bama Hussein will not likely be able to extract from their conscience when casting their ballot - The 'I supported Hillary Clinton' sentiment they themselves explicated back in 2009.  I certainly hope they ultimately take the foregone conclusion to it's utmost implications for the country; that Barack Hussein Obama is 'hurting America'.

Obamatax - The Road to Death Panels

As we as a nation begin our slow climb towards the actual implementation of Death Panels in the United States of America, we should pause briefly to acknowledge Obamatax's devious design.  Packed and sold to the public as a cure-all for those obese cigarette smokers who cost us approximately 20 more dollars a month for our insurance, Obamatax hides beneath a web of technicalities the framework for all kinds of nefarious abuses of power down the road; and Romney is right to put repeal of Obamatax first and forefront in his recent campaign advertisements.   Scoffed at the idea of Death Panels?  That is, a department of pulling the plug on granny?  That's just the start of the potential ramifications of Obamatax and similar legislation.  With this, we as a society move from deifying science to deifying health; as no one can deny that the body is the temple for the soul and calls for increasing the health of said 'temple' certainly must be the most prescient need for our ailing and waning country.  Perhaps we should re-enlist Arnold Schwarzenegger to sell government programs to our children whilst mocking their belly fat!  It certainly would have the right tone for creating an entire leg of government honed to quantifying health, finances, and who to spend resources on.  If you posit that given an adequate length of time for the potential effects of given legislation to come to fruition then much is possible, surely you could see that imposed sterilization, restricted healthcare access, imprisonment of the uninsured, and forced abortions are all distinctly possible permutations of Obamatax type legislation.  Obamatax is a federal monstrosity which will consume what Washington elite's refer to as 'Fly-Over Country', and could have a number of unforeseen consequences in which the freedom of individuals takes a backseat to charts and graphs indicating probabilities.  The idea of death panels, as properly understood, seems foreign and improbable to many.  The fact that this was first advanced by Sarah Palin, who other than being lampooned by Katie Couric was a rogue tea party republican with problems with the establishment, shows that the conservative movement didn't want the public to be capable of 'looking away' or 'sticking their heads in the sand' when it came to reckoning with the main problematic of Obamatax - Loss of Life.  I'd suppose the issue splits right down the middle between the 'right to life' crowd and the 'right to choose' crowd, further solidifying the 'choice' movement's connections with planned parenthood and eugenics.  Obamatax IS the implementation of the ideology of eugenics - if not repealed, Obamatax WILL result in quantifiable loss of life.  These are certainties.   Now one would probably be better off weighing the potential effects of Obamatax on the pragmatic realities of simply receiving healthcare, and this too, I'm certain, will suffer from the Obamatax legislation.  It's not unheard of in some places with socialized medicine for people to be unable to receive care for periods of days or weeks; and while this might not happen tomorrow or the next day, one has to wonder - what about the children?

Inside Scoop - The Fracking over-ride vote

So the big news in NC this morn' is that the Fracking Veto made by Bev Perdue was over turned last night in a late session vote in the state legislature, much to the chagrin of dems statewide.

Well, I'm blogging this very quickly as I have an inside scoop on the over-ride vote from inside the legislature.  A reliable inside source has informed me that during the vote last night, a single dem representative named Rep. Carney mistakenly cast her vote incorrectly by quote "pushing the wrong button".  Not only is this a fact from inside the legislature, apparently - if the vote had not been made incorrectly, the over-ride of the fracking veto would not have gone through; meaning it was this single mistakenly cast vote that led to the fracking veto being over-turned.  Apparently, during the vote someone (presumably Rep. Carney) was heard to shout, "Oh no, I pushed the wrong button!"


I'll leave this piece of breaking news as a testament to Politalk's politcal cahone's and simply say, "Insert Misogynistic Punchline Here".