Measuring Man

The ultimate computer is now playing Half Life 2 and other games on the 50” Sony attached with DVI. While the text is disappointing, the games are quite impressive. So far, it seems to be very smooth. Mysteries remain … slow boot, some difficulties in getting some games to run, but the bag of parts has become a computer. It is always rewarding to see that happen.

In looking back at my “initial 3”, I realize that rather than produce an extended list of characteristics, I’m going to consider a set of things as derivative to those and discuss them in more depth to see if other distinctions are really required, or if the wily liberal can be defined in only three characteristics. There is some significant chance of less characteristics being required, because many branches of liberal would declare themselves to be “soulless” in the sense that they have no belief in higher power of life after death, so it would seem that there would be less complexity in a creature with no soul.

The whole “consistency issue” tends to go back to that “belief in a higher power”. While some liberals will attend a church, most will fall back on the idea that “whatever you believe is OK as long as it is sincere” (I assume that conservatism is excluded from that marvelous freedom). It is often said that a liberal doesn’t care if you believe in God, as long as it is clear that he doesn’t make any difference. He didn’t create anything, he isn’t going to pass any judgments on right and wrong, and he pretty much just loves everyone with no expectations or consequence of failing to even recognize his existence, let alone seek him.

The bottom line of this way of thought is pretty much summed up by the Greek philosopher Protagoras in the statement “Man is the measure of all things”. There may be some strict materialist scientific truth that may be “out there” even if no human is around to measure it, but on the key issues … the “life, love, death, purpose, good, evil, etc” … the kind of issues that science clearly can’t help with, since it must be “value free”, Man is the measure.

If man is the measure, then the question comes down to “which man”? Since most liberals feel there is nobody more qualified to make moral distinctions than themselves (often times their wives disagree with them), then THEY are the “moral measure”, or “individual God”. On the economic front, they are almost universally agreed that the universe has failed to be just by failing to provide each individual liberal with unlimited wealth. The ones that have unlimited wealth realize that their other fellow liberals would want to remove that wealth from that if they didn’t immediately make themselves hugely valuable by suggesting that they are “champions of the poor” and prove it by suggesting that OTHERS, with much less money, improve the situation by doing the “fair thing” and providing the funding to some vast re-distribution scheme.

Meanwhile of course, the Kennedy’s, Soro’s, Kerry’s, Gates, Dayton’s, etc need to be allowed to keep their vast wealth. The people that ought to pay are those grubbers that are TRYING to build up “fortunes” of say a million or two so they can consider not working someday. Those are the “evil ones”, and it is they who need to pay the high taxes. We need to protect our liberal elite as a great national resource.