How to Tell a Conservative from a Progressive

I had an interesting discussion with my college-age grandson last night. It centered mainly on the 2 different ideologies in our country, how they differ, and is there any reconciliation. I asked him to explain to me his understanding of the difference between Conservatism and Progressivism.

His answer ran along the lines that Conservatives don't want change, preferring the status-quo or what worked in the past; while Progressives are for change, the change needed to fix what is wrong.

He was correct in explaining the definition of the terms according to Webster, but he did not understand the differences in their ideologies. Here is how I see the differences.

Conservatives believe:

1. The Individual is the backbone of society,
2. In the power and goodness of the Individual; that left to themselves, the Individual will try to better themselves and society,
3. That Individuals are best able to choose their destiny, what is best, and can collectively govern themselves successfully,
4. That Individuals should be rewarded for their productivity and value to the society.
5. That there are eternal truths and laws that never change, that obedience to these truths will always bring the same results.

Progressives believe:

1. The  Individual only exists to strengthen and promote the good of the Society,
2. That Individuals can not be trusted to choose what is right; that left to themselves, the Individual will lie, cheat, and steal from others and the Society,
3. That Society must monitor and regulate the Individual to prevent abuses, (corporations are now Individuals, as well,)
4. That Society should reward all individuals equally, regardless of their productivity or value to society.
5. That all truth is relative and changeable; that situations, circumstances, and desires dictate what is truth.

Using these definitions, we can see that Conservatives are generally found in:

1. The Republican, Tea Party, Libertarian and Independent political parties,
2. Countries where democracy exists, such as; The United States, Switzerland, Germany and maybe England, France, Spain and Italy.

While Progressives are generally found in:

1. The Democrat, Socialist and Communist political parties,
2. Socialist, Communist and other totalitarian governments, such as; Russia, China, Cuba, Iran, Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah, The Taliban, etc.

So, taking these things into consideration, we can see that it is fairly difficult to form any compromises with such extreme positions. 

1. Either the Individual is the backbone of society or they are the fodder that feeds society.
2. Individuals have innate goodness and can be trusted or they can never be trusted. If they can only be trusted some of the time, who decides when they can be trusted and when they can't?
3. If we have bee-watchers watching the bee-watcher, who is watching the bee-watcher, who is watching the . . . who will be left for the bee-watchers to watch?
4. If you reward everyone equally, regardless of their value or performance, won't the productive individuals loose their ambition to succeed and how can we ever motivate the under-productive to pull their own weight?
5. Without definable, unchanging truths, how can faith be established in laws or governments?

We also find Progressives slandering the Conservatives, labeling them as; greedy, selfish, stingy, and hoarders, while they applaud their idealistic goals of equal distribution of wealth, health and happiness. The Progressive motto, "the greatest good for the greatest number" sounds very great and good, but what about "the smallest group that is sacrificed for the good of the largest group"? Do they have a voice in the matter?

All people have an obligation to help those less fortunate than themselves, but Conservatives believe that is a choice for the Individual to make, not a mandate from the Government who will take what they think is needed to invest in a cause whether the Individual supports the cause or not.

Wait, who are "they"? In a Progressive Society, who governs, who decides, who controls the money and the people? 

Those who instigated the system. Individuals. 

But Progressives don't believe that Individuals can be trusted to make the right choices and it looks like they may be right. There has never been a Progressive/Socialistic/Communistic/Totalitarian government where the leaders have not stolen, conscripted, taxed, or taken everything they possibly can from the Society. Russia, China, Nazi Germany, Vietnam, Columbia, England, France or the United States of America, the story is all the same. Take as much as you can as fast as you can.

Every deposed dictator left office with hundreds of millions of dollars in their personal bank accounts. Who was the King of Graft?

The Palestinian Liberation Organization had been given billions of dollars to help them establish a homeland in the Middle East. When Yassar Arafat, the leader of the PLO, died, it was discovered that he had over $2 BILLION US DOLLARS socked away in Swiss bank accounts. His posterity is still fighting with the PLO over who has the rights to the money.

Leaders in our own country enter the Congress or other government service with modest incomes and retire as multi-millionaires, with millions more accumulated as they dance around the speaking circuits. Hillary Clinton stated that when she and her husband left the White House, they were so deep in debt they were paupers, but 14 years later, they have a net worth of over $80 MILLION dollars. Bill Clinton even received $500,000 for a speech he never gave.

Well, these are all just facts. You, the reader will need to determine whether our country will be better off with the Progressive path or the Conservative course. 

Choose wisely or someone else will choose it for you.

Photos courtesy: http://lonelyconservative.com/2013/12/saturday-funnies-137/

Warren Buffet, If You Want To Pay More Taxes, What's Stopping You?

I just found John Hayward's article in Human Events published 08-31-2011 entitled:

Warren Buffet May Owe A Billion Dollars In Back Taxes.

In the article he quotes Warren Buffett in a New York Times op-ed piece.

"OUR leaders have asked for “shared sacrifice.” But when they did the asking, they spared me. I checked with my mega-rich friends to learn what pain they were expecting. They, too, were left untouched.

"While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as “carried interest,” thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they’d been long-term investors.

"These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It’s nice to have friends in high places."

Bill Wilson of Americans for Limited Government also has an article today entitled:

Buffett’s Billion-Dollar Tax Hypocrisy

Here Mr. Wilson outlines the more than $1,005,000,000.00 ($1.005 Billion) Warren Buffett's companies owe the federal government in back taxes. Mind you, these figures come from Berkshire Hathaway's own accounts, not from the IRS or another sleuth tank. So while Warren Buffett pleads for the President to tax him more, he employees hundreds of accounts and lawyers and millions of dollars to keep him from doing so.

My advise to Mr. Buffett and other rich liberal leaning Hollywood types that have asked for a greater share of the tax burden, "Put your money where your mouth is."

If Warren Buffett wrote a check for $1,005,000,000.00, and add an additional $10,000,000.00, the IRS would not even bat an eye. They would accept it graciously. There is no law that says you can't pay more than you owe.

If they didn't feel the Federal Government knew the best way to use these additional funds, they always have the option to donate to worthwhile charities and foundations that will help the poor and destitute. Rather than being listed with the rest of the liberal bunch and known as the stingiest contributers to charities, they could go down as super philanthropists and be revered for centuries.

Hollywood Can Now Dictate What You Watch

Hollywood has fought forever against the government censuring or dictating what they could say, but the tables have turned and Hollywood can now dictate what we watch.

A sad commentary emerged from the Denver Federal Courts on July 7, 2005. In an Associated Press story entitled Court Rules Against Sanitizing Films, U.S. District Judge Richard P. Matsch said that

". . .editing movies to delete objectionable language, sex and violence is an "illegitimate business" that hurts Hollywood studios and directors who own the movie rights."

"Their (studios and directors) objective ... is to stop the infringement because of its irreparable injury to the creative artistic expression in the copyrighted movies," the judge wrote. "There is a public interest in providing such protection." (Italics added)

I don’t know what planet this judge just arrived from, but he hasn’t been playing in my sandbox lately. Generally speaking, the public doesn’t care whether or not the “creative artistic expression” of film makers is injured or nurtured. They are only interested in the final outcome, and according to the decline in theater attendance over the past few years; the public is disappointed, if not nauseated, with the current trend of films.

The only people in this country concerned about piracy and intellectual protection are those who produce works worth pirating. The position of the Studios can not actually be about preserving the artistry of their work or the purity of their presentation. The fight really boils down to two points, ownership and Hollywood's hypocrisy.

Ownership
Several years ago there was a great deal of consternation among many of the directors of the early black and white films when Ted Turner began to colorize their films. The lighting and filming techniques differ so much from black and white to color, that many of the effects done specifically in the original films were ruined when change to color. Turner’s trump card in this situation was that he owned the films. This allowed him to modify them without permission and in spite of the objections of the creators. His objective was to make them more appealing to his current, color friendly audience and thereby reap a much larger revenue.

Ownership is the key to the editing done by CleanFlicks, Play It Clean Video and CleanFilms. To have access to any of the “sanitized films,” a person must purchase a membership and become a member of the co-op that actually purchases copies of the film. (This is the very same method used by Private Clubs to restrict membership and circumvented discrimination laws.) As an owner, you have the right to modify the film any way you choose, because it is yours. You can rent or purchase these films from the organization, depending on your preference.

I personally have been a member of two different co-ops, and as a result have chosen to view several dozen sanitized R-rated films. Were it not for this program, I would not have watched or purchased any of these movies and the writers, directors and producers would not have earned the royalties they received. I even own a copy of the first generation of edited videos of Titanic.

The point that the film makers are ignoring is that once they offer their work for sale, the film or DVD no longer belongs to them. It is true that they own the intellectual property and it is wrong for someone else to profit from their work without the creator receiving compensation, but if I buy the Mono Lisa and spray paint a mustache and horns on her, no one has a legal position to prevent me.

Hypocrisy
The final point to be made is the hypocrisy of the plaintiffs. A quick example to illustrate:

James Cameron is one of the most successful and popular writers/directors/producers of our time. He is a creative, skilled and talented individual. He has directed and/or produced over a dozen theatrical releases, of which all but 2 or 3 have been R-rated. The R-rated films include: True Lies, Terminator2, Aliens, The Terminator, Piranha II, Strange Days & Point Break. Titanic was PG-13, but I don't know why.

Cameron was the initial victim of the sanitizing movement when Titanic became the first film to be edited and shown at the Towne Cinema, a small dollar theater in American Fork, Utah in 1998. Shortly there after, Sunrise Video, also in American Fork, began to edit and sell copies of the video. These were not bootlegged, but legitimately purchased copies that were edited and sold as edited copies. Neither Cameron nor 20^th Century Fox lost a dime, but actually made a lot more money than they would otherwise have done. In spite of this, Cameron was very vocal in his condemnation of the practice and nearly cried over the artistic damage done to his movie. Keep in mind that the only things deleted were the naked poses of Kate Winslet. Nothing was changed, only deleted.

According to my brief understanding of the law in these matters, the plaintiffs must show damage or a loss from the action of the defendents. There was no monetary loss, but increased revenue because of these acts. Their product was not damaged, because it was my video tape that was edited, not their master tapes. The fact that I can't see part of the film now is no different than if I looked away or fast forwarded through the objectionable portion.

It appears as though Judge Richard P. Matsch's ruling was not based on the law, but on his own personal beliefs. Bad form for a federal judge.

And now for the hypocracy. If Cameron was sincere about the purity of his films and dedicated to the dream that every person in the world had a right to see his vision as pristine as he created it, why did he allow nearly all of his R-rated films to be sanitized by the television networks and shown in their edited versions on national TV?

When all is said and done, it appears that art yields up its purity to greed and hypocrisy.