Thomas Paines' "Common Sense" certainly helped to ignite the firestorm that made the Revolutionary War successful, and for that he deserved a great commendation; however, like with most radicals, his ideas were relevant for a specific task and were not easily applied in a broad-spectrum governance. Thankfully, the founding fathers exploited his prose and rhetoric for the specific task of casting away the tyrannical bonds that tied them and then heeded not his advice on how to form a Republic.

As with any bully, they are frequently the minority in society desperately striving for recognition.

Who's the Real Kook Fringe? A quantitative analysis of political ideology:

http://bit.ly/4KN8wm

www.IsThisTheChangeWeNeed.com

Agreed. As with most government regulation, their premise is flawed. They see complications and errors not as a result of the increasingly complicated geometry of the structure of government, but by the those who attempt to use the structure. This results in a positive feedback of more and more regulation to increasingly strangle the individual into a preceived dependence on "The Government Way". Tax returns for 90% of the population are not that hard, especially today--even without Turbo Tax... They should just do it themselves.

But, yes, the flat/fair tax would be so much less complicated; however, think of all those poor IRS workers whose only job skill is a vague ability to navigate the tax code--they would be out of a job...

www.IsThisTheChangeWeNeed.com

The Obama Administration's Cap and Trade legislation is tantamount to the indulgences issued by Pope Leo X, which of course led Luther to post his 95 theses on the blog--er, door--of the church at Wittenberg.

Read more at: http://www.isthisthechangeweneed.com/webblog/admi...

I agree there were a lot of things wrong with NY-23, but it was more the procedure that was faulty rather than any person. Had there been a legitimate primary, Scozzafava would never have made it.

That being said, had Mr. Steele done "The Conservative" thing and refused to support Dede on ideological grounds, it would have still caused a divide within the party, especially with that local chapter. It would have been more fodder for the liberal media to portray the GOP as disunited and disorganized. I may not agree with HIS [Mr. Steele's] decision to endorse her, but I can understand and appreciate why a leader would support the judgment of a localized issue.

We must at times flee from emotion and evaluate at a pragmatic level.

Well, if this sort of thing persists it won't be long before "plea bargains" are considered torture, since it is clearly a form of psychological manipulation designed to extract information from an otherwise unwilling source...

www.IsThisTheChangeWeNeed.com/Webblog

About the best thing I've read today. Great piece!

Can't wait to see how good things get in Year Two...

www.IsThisTheChangeWeNeed.com

Of course, industry will try to serve their better interests, but their ultimate interest is the consumer and if the consumer fails to purchase, whether out of conviction or a competing solution, that industry will fail. But to say that all dissenters of climate change legislation are industrial shills is as invalid as saying that all proponents are communists and anti-American.
Finally, the facts are not in. The evidence that supports a certain theory has been accepted. As has been seen recently by the hacked emails, this evidence must now be in question—and has been in question for quite some time. To say to someone to accept a proposal simply because someone else has accepted it is absurd and a denial of TRUE liberal principles.

As for the Oil Industry’s alleged fear-mongering, I am sure they would prefer not to have their own industry harmed, but as far as I know, they have never forced any legislation that has required the consumer to purchase their product. Environmentalists, on the other hand, have created legislation that not only forces a consumer to purchase their product—carbon—but also restricts consumers from purchasing other products.

Your second comment makes the assumption that all dissenters of climate change are cronies of industrial corporations. No one I know who disagrees with theories of leftist environmentalism is in any way associated with corporate or industrial influence on the matter. Rather, they have seen the alarmism that has been used by that movement to limit economic and social freedoms.

While Silent Spring brought an alarm that caused legislation to limit freedom that was in place, Luther's 95 theses attacked the authority that was restricting individual choice and freedom (cf. Thesis #20: Therefore, by "full remission of all penalties "the Pope means not actually "of all," but only of those penalties imposed by himself.) The assumption that industry--in a Capitalist market--has any control of an individual is really to say that the individual has imposed upon himself a dependence on industry. In a capitalist environment I could survive without any modern appliance or service if that were my priority; Communism instead demands that I participate in a certain agenda.

Thank you for the comments. Pleasantries being said, your assertion that plenary indulgences were a capitalistic force, while an interesting notion, is absolutely absurd. Capitalism does not demand a monopolized dependence on a product; rather, it negates that demand. The Roman Catholic Church had monopolized their product--absolution--and refused to allow any competition.

Using your argument, one could logically assert that Stalin's product--national security--was a capital venture and the market price was loyalty and subservience.

As a matter of fact, it was Luther who truly practiced capitalism in his Protestation. When he shed the bonds of monopolization he created competition for the market of salvation. His brand came at an infinitely lower price--salvation by grace, not by works. Perhaps this is why Protestantism was so successful even in the shadow of an autocratic marketplace.