It is pretty amazing to read liberal writings about conservative values. It's like men discussing pregnancy and childbirth. There's familiarity with the concepts but no understanding.

Looking to the GOP or neocans as exemplars of conservativism is ignorant. At a recent party, a guy fresh back from iraq asked "Am I safe to assume everyone here is republican?" The consensus was "No, were mostly conservatives here." Why?

Thomas Paine wrote in "Common Sense" that by its very nature government is evil, but that it is a very necessary evil.

That's a pretty good cornerstone for conservatism.

Is individualism in conflict with valuing communities? Not really. It's in conflict with government control of individuals and communities. Want to enjoy a gay life style? Perhaps you'd be more comfortable in a gay community. Same with christians.

Traditional values? We'll sure, but don't codify your traditional values into law. For most of history, traditional values have been starvation, xenophobia, murder, and infant mortality. Hmmm, the GOP seems to be advancing those values nicely. Yuck.

Social contract? As far as it being an actual contract, it is another necessary evil. Given the choice between bread riots and food banks, it is the food banks that keep chaos at bay. A starving mob at the door impunes individualism more than feeding the poor does. So, individualism is tempered by the realization that while people should be allowed to fall, they should fall into a net. Liberals and conservatives disagree only over the height of the net.

I mostly agree with you. The authoritarian mindset is a huge problem. You accurately point out that authoritarians exist on the far left (stalinists, communists) and the far right (fascists, nazis).

However, you then go on to claim that american conservatives are authoritarian while open minded people are liberal. On that, I call shenanigans.

Conservatives are open minded but tend not to embrace change for the sake of change. Reactionaries, not liberals or progressives, are the opposite of conservatives. The GOP and the neocons are reactionaries.

For clarity, consider the phrases "pre 911 mindset" and "911 changed everything". Us conservatives really raised our eyebrows at that one. Terrorism was not invented in 2001. Looking back, we recognize that terrorism is a many millenia old tactic. Can you wage war on a tactic? Why the reactionary need to send soldier evangelists around the globe to spread democracy?

Many liberals, on the other hand, are very closed minded about many things. Read the letters in this thread and you'll note many with very closed minds regarding who and what conservatives are. They seem to think we're all tobacco chewing, beer drunk, rootin tootin middle school dropouts.

No matter, every movement needs its brown shirts.

Every successful movement should be prepared to someday declare victory. Sadly, it rarely happens. I wonder what kind of special interest group will emerge from feminism after parity is established.

Hey, thanx for plugging utilikilts. Very functional and amazingly comfortable. The only sad part is that they made me give an accurate waist size. I used measuring tape and discovered that my jeans had gone all relaxed fit on me. Depressing.

Regardless, you can carry an amazing amount of beer in a utilikilt.

On the not so good side, kilts were invented before barbed wire. Men are trepidatious at best about unhooking another man's sack. Also, beware sticks. Sticks rejoice at taking an unencumbered poke.

Back to the bright side, it is shocking how many women will lift a kilt to appraise the junk. A little pruning keeps the wincing down.

Chill

Women rarely just walk up and lift the kilt unless they know me (as in, y'know, "know"). Otherwise, they usually ask what I'm wearing under the kilt and I respond that a gentleman doesn't tell. Hijinks unsue.

Sure, women I don't know have (rarely) walked over and lifted. However, friends have always instigated the situation to the point that she knew it was OK to be mischievous.

I was worried that fascist piece of shit albuquerque mayor martin chavez would get the dem nomination and perhaps make it to DC. Thereby extending his corrupt political career.

He's the guy responsible for all our red light cameras and other ordinances whereby the city automatically finds citizens guilty of various infractions and demands a pay off lest they put liens on personal property. The city makes a lot of money off these schemes.

The red light cameras are the worse. A ticket written by a traffic cop costs less than a third of the automated ones. The company contracted to issue the tickets gets a portion of each fine. It's a civil offense, so the city's burden of proof is a preponderance of the evidence (aka more likely than not). The hearings themselves are a crap shoot because some of the judges are professional while others ignore the law. Finally, the appeals process is very shakey.

Basically, chavez is kind of like giulianni but registered dem.

If those women are priests, then that guy on the bus with the aviators cap and goggles really is the governor.

I agree that they should just call themselves protestant and see to their congregations.

"Accepting lefty creative types..."

Why not just "accepting types"?

I've found most lefty types to be very unaccepting of righty types. I've found most "creative" types to limit their definition of creativity to a few activities or to pursuits that preclude profit. I've found "lefty creative types" often scorn anyone that doesn't dress and act like a hippy.

For example, most lefty creative types would immediately say that mathematicians and physicists are not creative. Until you tie in a name like Einstein, Hawking, or Godel. Then they say those are exceptions - even though they don't understand what those guys said or what made them great.