I met Mike Sylvia a couple of years ago now. Being a Big “L” Libertarian, his outlook on the size and role of Government is different than mine (not in direction but in a matter of degree; same page, different paragraph). Which, however, puts him in the cross-hairs of the local Hobbessian believing scribbler Michael Kitch (not same page, not just different paragraph – a completely different book) who has a major problem with anyone that doesn’t acknowledge the Primacy of Government in the smallest affairs of individuals (lots of samples of similar behavior after the jump). He has this thing for anyone that attacks his belief that only Big Government can maintain peace AND demand equality (including redistribution of political and financial capital).
Now in this case, reporting on how the Belknap County NH House reps voted on the rules that have now reversed the ability of people to protect themselves (and now have to rely on the State – a Liberal denial of the Right to self-defense), could Kitch just have reported the news (which would have been just the vote count)? Sure. Did he? Nope. He decided that he had to take a poke at Micheal Sylvia, who sits on the side of Natural Rights (including that of self-defense). Did Kitch add anything of like manner from any of the Democrats? Nope – not even a whisper (and I bet there would have been an opposing view).
But he did about Mike – a big “L” libertarian that truly believes in individuals as opposed to Kitch’s absolute belief in Big Government. Mike S., in my talks with him over the past couple of years, wants more freedom for individuals (along with the corresponding responsibility from them as well) but he also takes the words and the original intent of the US and NH Constitution seriously – and Kitch would be happy without either (See Examples 10 & 13 below).
If you take that the most Fundamental Law(s) of the Land are the Constitutions and are to remain inviolate, then Mike S. has the right to call into question those actions by legislators that result in laws that infringe upon those documents. Else, why bother to have those documents at all (something, I am betting, that Progressive Kitch would be fine and dandy with)?
I would say this – many folks just sigh when a new law comes down “from above” as in “what little can I do – it’s no longer worth the effort”. Some speak up (like your’s truly). I will say this – if I was a Powerball winner of an extravagantly large prize, I’d probably be challenging, in court, many of these misbegotten ideas from legislators that are clueless of basic founding philosophy – or totally are against it and wish to aid Obama in “fundamentally transforming” America”. Mike S. is in a position to do something about it – so Kitch is acting like Obama and trying to Alinsky Mike: personalize, freeze, and demonize.
Of course, Kitch will probably just shake his head as he thinks – “you fool; you can’t stop Progress”.
My response is simple: Progressing towards WHAT, Kitch – what is the Progressive end goal and how subservient will an individual end up being in a Progressive Utopia? Neither Hobbes or Rousseau’ Utopias are places in which I would want to live – nor, I feel, would Michael Sylvia.
I do feel sorry for Ed Engler, publisher of the Laconia Daily Sun, up here in the Lakes Region; but he’s ultimately responsible for the quality and correctness of the reporting and writing of his reporters. He knows this blog post is going up because I just got off the phone with him.
While Ed is going to check to make sure, it seems that, even with the lack of a byline, the article above was written by (OF COURSE!) Mike Kitch – the guy with whom I’ve had words, most famously when he called me cold-hearted.
He called me cold-hearted for not taxing Gilford residents even more and then sending that “excess” tax money to places like California and Illinois where voters elected wacko officials who can’t manage their own tax-fed budgets (“but there are still people who are hurting and need that money!!!” he said, still knowing that the same wondertwits that spent them into the abyss would be spending anything that Gilford would send – yeah, that’s the ticket!).
…The words that are beyond “Basic Reporting 101? pale simply because Mike Kitch couldn’t even bother to pick up the phone and ask the simple question:
That would be “…Cormier is closely aligned with both the TEA Party and the Free State Project.” In with respect to both organizations, the answer is “nope!”. How do I know that? Gee, I’m just a lowly blogger, and even I know that a professional reporter needs to ask the basic question – which he didn’t. How do I know that? I called Jane
Example 2: Earlier, he couldn’t be bothered to contact me about basic information when I was awarded Americans for Prosperity’s Activist of the Year Award for 2011
Example 3: He also is quite snobbish about the NH Advantage in theory and practicality. He’s all about that any income or material advantage of some be quickly dealt with by Government to “level the field” – a redistributionist of the Obama Socialist level!
Yet, there are those that DO believe fiscal basket cases like NY and CA should be bailed out. Mike Kitch, intrepid reporter for the Laconia Daily Sun, and I had quite the “discussion” a while ago over this. Essentially, I had made my point that we watched every penny that was spent and that our budgets were carefully overseen and managed; we stayed within reasonable limits and did not spend either to the limit of what could be possible or over that limit. My jaw dropped, however, to the asphalt when he looked me in the eye and stated “Yes, Gilford SHOULD be made to give of taxpayer funds to other towns less fortunate – you are all rich compared to them!”. I asked “Does that mean to towns, and states like CA, that have totally “mismanaged their budgets?” (thinking that the word mismanaged” would give him an exit, that outright stupidity should not be rewarded.
He let me know, in no uncertain terms, that I was cold-hearted and selfish for not wanting to help. I could only shake my head, got in my car, and our conversations have dwindled to pretty much nothing ever since.
I guess he couldn’t understand that taxpayer money was not mine to give! As a conservative, one of my core political beliefs is self-responsibility – you are responsible for the decisions you make and for the outcomes stemming from those actions. These are not my kids that need bailing out – these are adults that have voluntarily NOT been acting fiscally responsible for quite some time. If those elected officials HAD been responsible, they wouldn’t be in the situation(s) they are now. Ditto for the voters in a second-order review – they voted these fools into office, thus, they bear the responsibility of their elected representatives.
Example 5: The Quote from Jerry Pournelle that started some of this ideological unblinkering from Kitch rolling – he does not believe that the “gimmes” can bankrupt a nation (guess he’s not watching Greece too carefully)
Example 6: I take Kitch to task in HOW an article is written – words matter and words slant the view that the reader takes of the issue – and Kitch definitively swings the viewpoint to his Big Government / Leftist view
Example 7: Where I really get to the meat of the problem: “Simply, this “journalist” has decided that his is not to merely report the news but to shape it – and he hates to see Government spending cut”
Example 8: Kitch denigrates a small biz owner struggling against the onslaught of Government policies and the realization that Govt will demand he pay for it (see comment).
Example 9: Another one of those “words mean stuff, and Kitch means them to put a Conservative in a bad light”
Example 10: Where Kitch finally comes right out and states that our Rights are merely what lawmakers give us (A Hobbes accolyte) vs Rights bestowed upon us from our Creator (comment)
Example 11: Unclassy behavior towards a penitent Conservative. Love making fun of religion much?
Example 12: another rephrasing of Kitch’s Redistributionist mantra:
And with that phrase of “Emry’s locked in on Obama” is no surprise – this has NEVER been about any “war on women. This has just been about the advent of yet another Democrat special interest group – yet another constituency that says that it’s hand out for freebies provided by the sweat of other’s brows is their Right and those that refuse to go along with this are just mean and cold-hearted. And it is electing Democrats (go here and scroll to the bottom of the page – it is ALL about turning the country Blue.
This reminded me of another example – different, but the same. A few years ago, this behavior was modeled by Laconia Daily Sun reporter Michael Kitch on what turned out to be an argument as his Progressive side burst out of his chest on the topic of fiscal town management. In short, he maintained (much to my aghast) that we in my hamlet were those cold-hearted people because we managed our municipal budgets well but wouldn’t tax our citizens more to send it to others that needed it more (like California, Illinois – where their elected officials mis-spent all that high tax money and have run up huge deficits). His ire was that I refused to acknowledge that there were still people who were in need and it was beside the point that those they had elected had failed was entirely beside the point – their needs still had to be filled!
My argument was “and I would send MY money to those fiscally irresponsible to be wasted as well is…..why?”. But again, it truly was illustrative of the Progressive mantra: it is the INTENTIONS that matter, and not the RESULT. If fact, the result is pretty much immaterial – it’s just the outward perception of caring that’s important.
Yes, as being part of a society, I am obligated to follow its laws, and certainly Obama is trying to pass this new Leviathan of a law known as “healthcare reform”. However, in this case, Obama is trying to use the moral imperative persuasion to conflate the collective need (as he sees it) with the individual sense of responsibility. Forget the argument that most use in saying that this is an unconstitutional mandate – while I agree with that sentiment, it is not the focus of my post. What is the focus is that once again, language is being bent to advance an agenda that really is in direct opposition to that language. In direct opposition to the ideals to which this country was birthed, he places the collective need (in his Progressive eyes) above the freedom of the individual to decide for him or herself to decide whether to select that responsibility for him or herself. He masks the Founders vision of providing for oneself (as being part of the price of freedom is being self-responsible) for the
Sidebar: wanna annoy a Progressive that believes only through Government intervention in all things can each reach true freedom in a Heaven on Earth Utopia? Ask them why, in order to achieve such freedom, why are they so willing to restrict everyone else’s rights to other matters? How does the taking of freedom from one actually give it to someone else?
This Hobbes choice of Big Government, this dereliction of self to the group a la Rousseau (both who demanded a Leviathan of a large centralized government who would then dole out Rights, favors, and needs), by Obama is the end game of the Progressives.
As with Mike Kitch of the Laconia Daily Sun (who seemingly is a devotee of both Hobbes and Rousseau and is of the persuasion that America is bad from the beginning when he is wont to rant or deigns to speak to me on Big Government or in leaving a comment here from time to time), he basically believes that no good can ever come from the rugged individualism and expression of self-governance. Indeed, for Progressives, when bad things happen, it is never the fault of Big Government, thus the charge of a loss of individual freedom or of local self-government is nothing more than caterwauling by the likes of me and other Conservatives and Libertarians.
Example 14: Again, using words to put out a negative outlook on a Conservative who believes a budget is too big (“IMHO, Mike Kitch is nothing but an ass who does his readers a HUGE disservice”)