By now, you have no doubt seen, heard, or otherwise have been made aware of the now-infamous "$10,000 bet" that Mitt Romney offered Rick Perry during the most recent GOP debate. If you missed it, whoomp, here it is:
In the aftermath of this comment, Romney has taken a lot of heat for being "out of touch with "regular Americans". Media members, Democrats, and even a number of Republicans (including Rick Perry) have castigated Romney for this remark.
Now, let me be clear, I'm not a fan of Mitt Romney. I couldn't warm up to him if we were cremated together. I think he's a Moderate (something that is practically a four-letter word among modern Conservatives), a flip-flopper, and the epitome of the word "RINO". You probably won't find anyone on the planet who is more eager to find a criticism--any criticism--of Romney and play it to the hilt more than I am. I'm the first guy to look for anything that could possibly derail the Romney campaign and milk it for all it's worth...
...and even I think the this criticism is ridiculous.
Since when has the GOP been the party of leveling criticism at a man merely for having been successful and attaining wealth during his lifetime? Since when has the GOP been the party that characterizes free-spending of private funds as a "character flaw"? The GOP hasn't been that party--at least not during my lifetime--and we never should become that party.
Note to Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich, both of whom have taken some jabs at Romney because of the "bet": Knock it off. You both are sounding like the President and the party that we are trying to remove from power. Placing a $10,000 bet with your own money (or spending $10,000 of your own money on any other thing you wish to spend it on) is nothing to be criticized, is none of your damn business, and is no reason to think less of any man.
Two weeks ago, I was playing poker in a local casino. While I played in my low-buyin No Limit Hold 'em game (a game where, at best, a few hundred dollars was on the line at any given point), the next table over housed a Pot Limit Omaha game. Now, for those of you unfamiliar with the finer points of poker, Pot Limit Omaha is, generally speaking, a "bigger" game than No Limit Hold 'em. Omaha is wilder, more action-packed, and with many more "swings". To make a long story short, it takes a lot more money to play Omaha than it does Hold 'Em...and at the next table over from me was one of the biggest Pot Limit Hold 'Em games ever seen in a Missouri casino.
I'll admit it, I was curious...I glanced over at the Omaha table. I noticed several stacks of chips that ranged from $10,000 up to nearly $20,000 in front of one player. It was far and away more money than I've ever played poker for (and more money than I likely ever will play poker for). And with such a wildness and aggressiveness that typically surrounds your average Pot Limit Omaha game, there's no doubt that many of those $10,000+ stacks were "all in" at various points.
Now ask yourself a question, as I glanced over at the Omaha table, what should I have thought of those players who had $10,000...$15,000...even $20,000 in chips in front of them? Should I have viewed them in a negative light? Should I have considered those $10,000 stacks of chips in front of them to be indicative of some sort of deeper character flaw? Should I have thought that anybody who would have $10,000 in play during a poker game would therefore be "out of touch" with many Americans?
To me, the answer is an obvious, "No!" The only thing I know about any of those players is the stack of chips they had in front of them--hardly enough information to make any type of reasonable judgement about any of them, character-wise. For all I know, they could have all been wonderful, church-going, family men. Or, for all I know, they could have been criminals. Or they could have been charitably-active, civic-minded individuals. Or they could have been wife-beaters. The bottom line is that I have no idea the character of any of those individuals at that table, and the amount of money that any of them had in play could do absolutely nothing to lead me towards any sort of character judgement about any of them.
There's a ton of reasons to oppose Mitt Romney (Romneycare for one. His inconsistent positions on, well, everything, for another. His lack of Social Conservatism for yet another...), but I don't see where his ability or willingness to place a bet of $10,000 with his own money should be listed among those reasons. Is Romney "out of touch" with the poor? How should I know? Heck, I have a lot less money than Mitt Romney, and I'd say that I'm "out of touch" with the poor. And given the criminal behavior, the constant "gaming of the system", and the lack of family structure that we see out of large swaths of the poor, I hope I remain "out of touch" with those people.
Perry, Gingrich, and the rest should focus their criticism of Romney on the important issues (and there's plenty of red meat there with which to combat Mitt). The discussion and criticism of how wealthy someone is--or what they choose to spend that wealth on--should have no place in a Republican primary season.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to do a couple of shots of Pepto Bismal...all this defending of Mitt Romney makes me feel a bit sick to my stomach...
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Monday, October 31, 2011
My initial thoughts on Herman Cain's "Sexual Harrasment"
So the Democrats...or other jealous GOP candidates...or the media...or somebody...decided to drop the dime on Herman Cain today with claims of sexual harrasment against him. I've been a pretty voiceferous supporter of Cain up to this point, so will these accusations affect my view of him? Well, unless there's something much deeper to these allegations than what has come out to this point (what I've heard so far--while perhaps fitting the legal definition of "sexual harrasment"--seem to be little more than "normal behavior of a healthy male"), I can't say that it will. The allegations as I understand them at this point (some sexually suggestive--but unclear--conversation and physical gestures) make this seem as though this is, at best, a misunderstanding (or, at worst, perhaps an attempt at "gold digging" by a female co-worker...something we see all to often by "professional harrasment victims" that populate much of the modern workplace environment). Unless there's a much more pervasive (or perverted) pattern of behavior here, I don't see how this would dissuade me from the reasons that I have supported Cain up to this point.
Below is a post I made on the topic over at stltoday.com which further expounds on my thoughts regarding this matter (please note that within this thread, several Liberals were attempting to compare Cain's allegations with Bill Clinton's behavior while in office):
From what I've seen so far, the allegations are little more than the following (quoted from the Politico piece: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/67194.html )
"conversations allegedly filled with innuendo or personal questions of a sexually suggestive nature" and "descriptions of physical gestures that were not overtly sexual but that made women who experienced or witnessed them uncomfortable and that they regarded as improper in a professional relationship."
Um...that's it? I'd say that, if most of us men are brutally honest about it, we probably engage in similar behavior multiple times a day. Now, I'm sure that most of us (myself included) do what we can to keep our natural behavioral instincts from coming into play in a professional environment, but nevertheless, sometimes things like that happen, and they get misinterpreted (particularly if the accuser in question is a gold digger who is *looking* for a harrasment settlement. Of course, we don't know that this is the case with Cain's accuser yet, but it happens so often in the workplace these days that one certainly can't discount the possibility out of hand).
Would such behavior cross the line of the "legal" definition of sexual harrasment? Probably...but only becuase the current legal definition of sexual harrasment in the workplace is one of the more ridiculous and backwards definitions of anything that we have on the law books (and a debate over what the proper definition of sexual harrasment should be would likely be an interesting topic on it's own). Essentially, if a wealthy or unattractive male makes a female uncomfortable in the workplace for any reason, ever, it's considered harrasment.
The bottom line is that, as a Cain supporter, if nothing more comes of this than the allegations we've seen (even if those allegations end up having some truth to them), I would still support Cain as the behavior alleged here would be pretty "minor" in nature as far as I'm concerned. Now, if more comes out and it turns out he was stalking some of these girls or forced himself on them, then certainly I would turn away from him. But at this point, the allegations seem to be little more than "a guy being a guy".
No trysts in the Oval Office, no Blue Dresses, no cigars, no lying under oath, no participation in the worst scandal ever undertaken by an American President (and yes, I'm including Watergate in that definition). The allegations against Cain as they stand now--even if there turns out to be some level of truth to them--aren't even a drop in the bucket compared to what "Slick Willie" did in the Oval Office.
Below is a post I made on the topic over at stltoday.com which further expounds on my thoughts regarding this matter (please note that within this thread, several Liberals were attempting to compare Cain's allegations with Bill Clinton's behavior while in office):
From what I've seen so far, the allegations are little more than the following (quoted from the Politico piece: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/67194.html )
"conversations allegedly filled with innuendo or personal questions of a sexually suggestive nature" and "descriptions of physical gestures that were not overtly sexual but that made women who experienced or witnessed them uncomfortable and that they regarded as improper in a professional relationship."
Um...that's it? I'd say that, if most of us men are brutally honest about it, we probably engage in similar behavior multiple times a day. Now, I'm sure that most of us (myself included) do what we can to keep our natural behavioral instincts from coming into play in a professional environment, but nevertheless, sometimes things like that happen, and they get misinterpreted (particularly if the accuser in question is a gold digger who is *looking* for a harrasment settlement. Of course, we don't know that this is the case with Cain's accuser yet, but it happens so often in the workplace these days that one certainly can't discount the possibility out of hand).
Would such behavior cross the line of the "legal" definition of sexual harrasment? Probably...but only becuase the current legal definition of sexual harrasment in the workplace is one of the more ridiculous and backwards definitions of anything that we have on the law books (and a debate over what the proper definition of sexual harrasment should be would likely be an interesting topic on it's own). Essentially, if a wealthy or unattractive male makes a female uncomfortable in the workplace for any reason, ever, it's considered harrasment.
The bottom line is that, as a Cain supporter, if nothing more comes of this than the allegations we've seen (even if those allegations end up having some truth to them), I would still support Cain as the behavior alleged here would be pretty "minor" in nature as far as I'm concerned. Now, if more comes out and it turns out he was stalking some of these girls or forced himself on them, then certainly I would turn away from him. But at this point, the allegations seem to be little more than "a guy being a guy".
No trysts in the Oval Office, no Blue Dresses, no cigars, no lying under oath, no participation in the worst scandal ever undertaken by an American President (and yes, I'm including Watergate in that definition). The allegations against Cain as they stand now--even if there turns out to be some level of truth to them--aren't even a drop in the bucket compared to what "Slick Willie" did in the Oval Office.
Sunday, October 23, 2011
The 2012 GOP field--Where does everybody stand?
It would be an understatement to say that the run up to the 2012 GOP Presidential Nomination has been one of the most eventful, interesting, contentious, thought-provoking, surprising, and wacky buildups to a primary season that America has ever seen. Whatever you might say about the run for the 2012 Nomination, you certainly can't say that it's been dull.
So with all of the ups and downs, ins and outs, comings and goings...where exactly does the field stand right now. Has anyone come out of nowhere to impress me? Has anyone fallen well short of expectations? Are there candidates in the field who make me think, "WTF is that guy doing here? The answer to all three of those questions is "Yes". As such, I thought it would be appropriate to take a step back and gauge exactly what I think of each remaining candidate at this point in time. Who would I emphatically support? Who could I vote for, despite having some misgivings? Who's in the field that I would never, ever support under any circumstances? While such judgements are always open to change over time (at least to some extent), let's take a quick look at where all of these candidates presently stand in my twisted, demented, over-developed, genius of a mind:
(In the spirit of fairness...or perhaps it's "laziness"...I'm presenting the candidates in alphabetical order)
Michelle Bachmann: Despite the media's constant refusal to take Bachmann seriously, she's someone I could easily and proudly vote for. She's a Fiscal Conservative in the mold of the Tea Party movement, but hasn't sacrificed her Social Conservatism to get the that point (the way many "Conservatives-come-lately" have). She's right on most of the fiscal issues, she's right on most of the social issues, and (given her answer in the last debate regarding the danger of a nuclear Iran) she's proving that she's right on most of the foreign policy issues. While her method of communication doesn't always resonate as well as it could, and while her campaign certainly looks to be running on fumes at this point, I'd still say that--strictly in terms of her fitness for the office--I'd be happy to vote for her. Of the current candidates, I'd say she's my second choice right now (but a strong second choice).
Herman Cain: Right now, Cain is my favored candidate. If you put a gun to my head and forced my to select my choice for nominee today, it would be Cain. Of all the candidates, he has the best combination of experience, accomplishment, and straightforwardness of any candidate out there. Some would point to his lack of political experience as a negative, however I don't agree with that. There's tons of people out there with "political experience", but very few with any significant "positive accomplishments" in the world of politics. As such, give me someone who has succeeded at a high level elsewhere in life, someone who created and built things, someone who is smart enough to know what he doesn't know...instead of another political retread who has tons of "experience" but has accomplished nothing.
Newt Gingrich: I'll admit it, the more of these debates that happen, the better Newt Gingrich sounds. The guy just flat-out makes a lot of sense most of the time. However, there is a glaring problem: Gingrich has a career spanning several decades where he has played the political game. Where he has tried to say or do whatever was "popular" at the time in order to win an election or keep his name out there. Remember that ad where he was sitting on a park bench with Nancy Pelosi touting the evils of so-called "Global Warming"? I like a lot of what Newt is saying...but there's still this gut feeling that it's "Newt the Politician" saying all of it, as he knows it's the easiest way to keep himself relevant in the 2012 political climate. I can't dismiss Newt...but I'm not sure I can trust him either. However, at this point, I might be tempted to consider him for a VP role...and three months ago, there's no way I would have said that.
Jon Huntsman: Jon Huntsman is not a Conservative. Quite frankly, he's competing for the nomination of the wrong party. Huntsman never got the memo that "moderates" are no longer welcome in the GOP. It should tell you something when Liberal commentators such as Rachel Maddow constantly talk about how Huntsman is the only GOP candidate that sounds sensible...it should tell you that he's not one of us after all. If Huntsman really wants to be President one day, his best bet would be to leave the GOP, join the Democratic party, and run in 2016 (portraying himself as a "Clintonian Moderate"). If he were to do that, he might actually be a tough opponent for an incumbent Republican President in 2016.
Gary Johnson: Isn't this charade over yet? Johnson is a younger, more nervous, more fidgety version of Ron Paul. Take Ron Paul, subtract the name recognition and the "crazy grandpa charisma" and you have Gary Johnson. Speaking of Paul:
Ron Paul: My initial assessment of Paul hasn't changed: Great on fiscal issues, brings up topics that nobody in either party wants to talk about, but looney as a tune on foreign policy. To put it bluntly, Paul's foreign policy (or the lack thereof) is flat-out dangerous. The Paul Doctrine of "Withdraw from military conflict around the world and hope our enemies just go away" is a foreign policy that will literally result in the death of our nation and it's people. The more I hear Ron Paul talk, the less I see him as a Conservative, and the more I see him as a frustrated pacifist ex-hippy who just doesn't like paying taxes. Nevertheless, I like the fact that he's still in the race because he does bring up those pesky domestic and fiscal issues that some other candidates wish to avoid. Still, every time he opens his mouth on the rest of the world, I'm reminded that this crackpot must never be allowed within shouting distance of the Oval Office.
Rick Perry: Will the real Rick Perry please stand up? He's been touted as the complete Conservative...as someone who is tailor-made for the Tea Party. But is this really so? Nobody's quite sure. He made some scathing comments about Social Security in his book (comments that some of us have been waiting for a major politician to say for years), yet he backed down from those comments when challenged on them. Is that the sign of a Conservative who will stand on his principals? Then there's the controversies over the HPV vaccine and in-state tuition for Illegal Aliens--positions that no real Conservative could ever take. We were told that Perry was one of us, but an examination of the facts certainly calls that assessment into question. His debate performances have been anything but inspiring (or, for that matter, anything but "alert"), but I'm not one who wraps up a lot of my judgement of a candidate in things like debates or communication abilities--so this doesn't bother me the way it does some other voters. Instead, what bothers me about Perry is that I don't know if we're dealing with "Perry the Conservative" or "Perry the Politician".
Buddy Roemer: Who?
Mitt Romney: Quite frankly, Romney is the epitome of all that is evil in the current GOP. The typical "focus group candidate" that the party leadership has shoved down our throats for years. Looks good in a suit, performs well in debates, had nice hair, and is just liberal enough that the party leadership (incorrectly) assumes he can win independent voters (while pissing off Conservatives, resulting in their staying home). In other words, Romney is John McCain v2.0. He has never tried to appear as a "dyed-in-the-wool Conservative" (partially, I surmise, because he *can't*...and partially, I surmise, because the very thought of real Conservatism revolts him). Think about it, Romney has never apologized for Romneycare or really even backed off of it. He's just droned on and on about how it's "different" from Obamacare. I don't care how "different" it is--government run health care is an idea that should NEVER be considered, no matter how you implement it. If Romney cannot get that simple but critical concept through his head, then he must not become the GOP candidate--or else the GOP may see a mass walkout the likes of which it's never seen.
Rick Santorum: Of the candidates out there, I think Santorum is far and away the best on social issues. And he's not half-bad on foreign policy, either (though people rarely talk about his foreign policy views). However, he does come off as a bit too "big government" for me. He seems to have some of the trappings of the typical "Compassionate Conservative" of the 2000's (and no, that's not a good thing). Santorum has continually defended Medicare and Social Security (and, for that matter, Medicare Part D...something that never would have happened had the Tea Party been a force in American Politics back in the 2000's). When arguing against Herman Cain's "999 Plan", Santorum continually argued that the plan wouldn't do anything for the poor. And that's the problem with Santorum, the modern (and younger) Conservatives realize that it's not the government's job to "do anything" for anybody--poor or not. Santorum still believes in the concept of an active Federal Government, and that's what makes me a bit uncomfortable with him.
So there's where they stand right now in terms of my support--I'm behind Cain first and foremost, and could be behind Bachmann if she were to end up the nominee. The jury's still out on Perry, Gingrich is starting to sound good (but I don't trust him). Romney's the epitome of all that's evil, and the rest of the candidates...well, they're essentially jokes at this point. That being said, the only potential realistic outcome of this contest that I fear would be that Romney would somehow win. Take note GOP Leadership: If you allow Romney to win this thing, some serious s%$# is going to hit the fan.
It might be the only way you can blow the 2012 election.
So with all of the ups and downs, ins and outs, comings and goings...where exactly does the field stand right now. Has anyone come out of nowhere to impress me? Has anyone fallen well short of expectations? Are there candidates in the field who make me think, "WTF is that guy doing here? The answer to all three of those questions is "Yes". As such, I thought it would be appropriate to take a step back and gauge exactly what I think of each remaining candidate at this point in time. Who would I emphatically support? Who could I vote for, despite having some misgivings? Who's in the field that I would never, ever support under any circumstances? While such judgements are always open to change over time (at least to some extent), let's take a quick look at where all of these candidates presently stand in my twisted, demented, over-developed, genius of a mind:
(In the spirit of fairness...or perhaps it's "laziness"...I'm presenting the candidates in alphabetical order)
Michelle Bachmann: Despite the media's constant refusal to take Bachmann seriously, she's someone I could easily and proudly vote for. She's a Fiscal Conservative in the mold of the Tea Party movement, but hasn't sacrificed her Social Conservatism to get the that point (the way many "Conservatives-come-lately" have). She's right on most of the fiscal issues, she's right on most of the social issues, and (given her answer in the last debate regarding the danger of a nuclear Iran) she's proving that she's right on most of the foreign policy issues. While her method of communication doesn't always resonate as well as it could, and while her campaign certainly looks to be running on fumes at this point, I'd still say that--strictly in terms of her fitness for the office--I'd be happy to vote for her. Of the current candidates, I'd say she's my second choice right now (but a strong second choice).
Herman Cain: Right now, Cain is my favored candidate. If you put a gun to my head and forced my to select my choice for nominee today, it would be Cain. Of all the candidates, he has the best combination of experience, accomplishment, and straightforwardness of any candidate out there. Some would point to his lack of political experience as a negative, however I don't agree with that. There's tons of people out there with "political experience", but very few with any significant "positive accomplishments" in the world of politics. As such, give me someone who has succeeded at a high level elsewhere in life, someone who created and built things, someone who is smart enough to know what he doesn't know...instead of another political retread who has tons of "experience" but has accomplished nothing.
Newt Gingrich: I'll admit it, the more of these debates that happen, the better Newt Gingrich sounds. The guy just flat-out makes a lot of sense most of the time. However, there is a glaring problem: Gingrich has a career spanning several decades where he has played the political game. Where he has tried to say or do whatever was "popular" at the time in order to win an election or keep his name out there. Remember that ad where he was sitting on a park bench with Nancy Pelosi touting the evils of so-called "Global Warming"? I like a lot of what Newt is saying...but there's still this gut feeling that it's "Newt the Politician" saying all of it, as he knows it's the easiest way to keep himself relevant in the 2012 political climate. I can't dismiss Newt...but I'm not sure I can trust him either. However, at this point, I might be tempted to consider him for a VP role...and three months ago, there's no way I would have said that.
Jon Huntsman: Jon Huntsman is not a Conservative. Quite frankly, he's competing for the nomination of the wrong party. Huntsman never got the memo that "moderates" are no longer welcome in the GOP. It should tell you something when Liberal commentators such as Rachel Maddow constantly talk about how Huntsman is the only GOP candidate that sounds sensible...it should tell you that he's not one of us after all. If Huntsman really wants to be President one day, his best bet would be to leave the GOP, join the Democratic party, and run in 2016 (portraying himself as a "Clintonian Moderate"). If he were to do that, he might actually be a tough opponent for an incumbent Republican President in 2016.
Gary Johnson: Isn't this charade over yet? Johnson is a younger, more nervous, more fidgety version of Ron Paul. Take Ron Paul, subtract the name recognition and the "crazy grandpa charisma" and you have Gary Johnson. Speaking of Paul:
Ron Paul: My initial assessment of Paul hasn't changed: Great on fiscal issues, brings up topics that nobody in either party wants to talk about, but looney as a tune on foreign policy. To put it bluntly, Paul's foreign policy (or the lack thereof) is flat-out dangerous. The Paul Doctrine of "Withdraw from military conflict around the world and hope our enemies just go away" is a foreign policy that will literally result in the death of our nation and it's people. The more I hear Ron Paul talk, the less I see him as a Conservative, and the more I see him as a frustrated pacifist ex-hippy who just doesn't like paying taxes. Nevertheless, I like the fact that he's still in the race because he does bring up those pesky domestic and fiscal issues that some other candidates wish to avoid. Still, every time he opens his mouth on the rest of the world, I'm reminded that this crackpot must never be allowed within shouting distance of the Oval Office.
Rick Perry: Will the real Rick Perry please stand up? He's been touted as the complete Conservative...as someone who is tailor-made for the Tea Party. But is this really so? Nobody's quite sure. He made some scathing comments about Social Security in his book (comments that some of us have been waiting for a major politician to say for years), yet he backed down from those comments when challenged on them. Is that the sign of a Conservative who will stand on his principals? Then there's the controversies over the HPV vaccine and in-state tuition for Illegal Aliens--positions that no real Conservative could ever take. We were told that Perry was one of us, but an examination of the facts certainly calls that assessment into question. His debate performances have been anything but inspiring (or, for that matter, anything but "alert"), but I'm not one who wraps up a lot of my judgement of a candidate in things like debates or communication abilities--so this doesn't bother me the way it does some other voters. Instead, what bothers me about Perry is that I don't know if we're dealing with "Perry the Conservative" or "Perry the Politician".
Buddy Roemer: Who?
Mitt Romney: Quite frankly, Romney is the epitome of all that is evil in the current GOP. The typical "focus group candidate" that the party leadership has shoved down our throats for years. Looks good in a suit, performs well in debates, had nice hair, and is just liberal enough that the party leadership (incorrectly) assumes he can win independent voters (while pissing off Conservatives, resulting in their staying home). In other words, Romney is John McCain v2.0. He has never tried to appear as a "dyed-in-the-wool Conservative" (partially, I surmise, because he *can't*...and partially, I surmise, because the very thought of real Conservatism revolts him). Think about it, Romney has never apologized for Romneycare or really even backed off of it. He's just droned on and on about how it's "different" from Obamacare. I don't care how "different" it is--government run health care is an idea that should NEVER be considered, no matter how you implement it. If Romney cannot get that simple but critical concept through his head, then he must not become the GOP candidate--or else the GOP may see a mass walkout the likes of which it's never seen.
Rick Santorum: Of the candidates out there, I think Santorum is far and away the best on social issues. And he's not half-bad on foreign policy, either (though people rarely talk about his foreign policy views). However, he does come off as a bit too "big government" for me. He seems to have some of the trappings of the typical "Compassionate Conservative" of the 2000's (and no, that's not a good thing). Santorum has continually defended Medicare and Social Security (and, for that matter, Medicare Part D...something that never would have happened had the Tea Party been a force in American Politics back in the 2000's). When arguing against Herman Cain's "999 Plan", Santorum continually argued that the plan wouldn't do anything for the poor. And that's the problem with Santorum, the modern (and younger) Conservatives realize that it's not the government's job to "do anything" for anybody--poor or not. Santorum still believes in the concept of an active Federal Government, and that's what makes me a bit uncomfortable with him.
So there's where they stand right now in terms of my support--I'm behind Cain first and foremost, and could be behind Bachmann if she were to end up the nominee. The jury's still out on Perry, Gingrich is starting to sound good (but I don't trust him). Romney's the epitome of all that's evil, and the rest of the candidates...well, they're essentially jokes at this point. That being said, the only potential realistic outcome of this contest that I fear would be that Romney would somehow win. Take note GOP Leadership: If you allow Romney to win this thing, some serious s%$# is going to hit the fan.
It might be the only way you can blow the 2012 election.
Sunday, October 9, 2011
A Primer for the Protesters--Explaining Economics and "Fairness"
While it would be easy to dismiss the "Occupy Wall Street" protesters as little more than hippies, druggies, and union thugs, the fact remains that there are some younger folks in these mobs who might very well have the mental capabilities to one day become solid contributing citizens. The only problem is that they've been negatively influenced by popular culture, by their "education", and yes, by those hippies, druggies, and union thugs who have shown up at these protests. Frankly, we have allowed these young people who would otherwise have so much potential to have their views of fairness and capitalism to become corrupted by those to whom their ultimate goal is to remove capitalism and fairness from America.
Therefore, since there are some young people within these mobs who have some "potential" in life--if only they could be exposed to common sense viewpoints on capitalism and fairness--I've decided to do my part to help these few among the mobs who have that potential. These unfortunate victims of popular culture and the educational establishment have likely never been exposed to people like Milton Friedman. They've likely been repeatedly told that the "New Deal" of FDR ended the Great Depression, when in fact it prolonged it. They've likely been told that LBJ's "Great Society" was the catalyst for tremendous growth within the minority community, when in fact these types of social programs have done far more harm than good to those of minority persuasion and those who are poor.
In other words, these kids have been lied to all of their lives--how can you possibly expect them to recognize the truth when they finally hear it?
It is with this in mind that I'm providing some video clips of some of the great thinkers that our nation has ever known when it comes to these topics. I know this won't "turn around" these misguided youth overnight--but it may provide those initial seeds of thought within their minds which hopefully will lead to a further examination of their opinions of capitalism and fairness. One doesn't undo a lifetime of miseducation in one blog post--but one can at least open the door towards challenging those misguided beliefs about America, Capitalism, and our Culture that so many young people have been poisoned by.
So with that in mind, set down your protest sign, pick up your laptop (for all the protests against capitalism, there sure seems to be a high number of laptops and other mobile communication devices at these protests, amiright??), and watch these great thinkers discuss many of the ideas and institutions you are "protesting" against.
Let's start with legendary economist Milton Friedman discussing the very idea of Greed. In this appearance on The Phil Donahue program back in the 1970's, Friedman is asked a series of questions by Donahue that are likely quite similar to the questions many of you are asking of society through these protests. You might find Friedman's take on the concept of "greed" to be surprising and a bit enlightening:
Along similar lines, here is noted professor, economist, and writer Walter E. Williams discussing the fact that greed does not work against social responsibility, but instead that our greed usually leads us to take the most socially responsible actions:
What about the concept of "fairness"? Isn't it--according to those in these protests--somehow "unfair" that the rich have what they have, while others don't? Perhaps it is...but it is only because *nature* is "unfair" in how we are created. And it is this unfairness that defines the talents and capabilities that each of us have as individuals. Milton Friedman explains:
So, since nature is unfair in terms of what our talents are or what our capabilities are (and since the differences and inequities of wealth that we see are largely a result of this), shouldn't it fall to the government to redistribute wealth so that we can all have "equality"? Walter E. Williams doesn't think so, and here he explains why such government-mandated wealth re-distribution (an increase in which is exactly what the Wall Street protesters are advocating) is nothing more than theft, and therefore is deplorable:
Not to be outdone, here is a clip of Friedman discussing wealth redistribution--specifically his argument about what would happen if a 100% inheritance tax were established, and all incentive to accumulate wealth and pass it on to future generations were destroyed (and again, notice how similar the young man's question in this video is to the rhetoric you are hearing out of the protesters today):
And here, Friedman specifically discusses whether government has any sort of responsibility towards the poor:
So what if you are poor? The position of most of the Wall Street protesters is that those in poverty (or even in the middle class) are somehow trapped on a treadmill of poverty from which they can never escape. But is this really so? Walter E. Williams doesn't think so, and in this clip, he provides a fairly straightforward plan for how anybody can avoid poverty:
So, protesters, there you have it. A different (and I would argue, a more sensible) viewpoint on economics, "fairness", wealth redistribution, and poverty. You won't hear this from the hippies, druggies, or union thugs protesting alongside you. You won't hear it from your teachers or college professors (many of which have been misguided over the years by those who wish to punish and vilify success, just as they have tried to do with you). There is no shame in wealth, or even in greed. The government has zero responsibility to insure any level of fairness or equity. And no matter how poor or disadvantaged you are, you--and you alone--can change that aspect of your life. Now put down your protest sign, join the rest of us in "Capitalist America", and realize your full potential at last!
Therefore, since there are some young people within these mobs who have some "potential" in life--if only they could be exposed to common sense viewpoints on capitalism and fairness--I've decided to do my part to help these few among the mobs who have that potential. These unfortunate victims of popular culture and the educational establishment have likely never been exposed to people like Milton Friedman. They've likely been repeatedly told that the "New Deal" of FDR ended the Great Depression, when in fact it prolonged it. They've likely been told that LBJ's "Great Society" was the catalyst for tremendous growth within the minority community, when in fact these types of social programs have done far more harm than good to those of minority persuasion and those who are poor.
In other words, these kids have been lied to all of their lives--how can you possibly expect them to recognize the truth when they finally hear it?
It is with this in mind that I'm providing some video clips of some of the great thinkers that our nation has ever known when it comes to these topics. I know this won't "turn around" these misguided youth overnight--but it may provide those initial seeds of thought within their minds which hopefully will lead to a further examination of their opinions of capitalism and fairness. One doesn't undo a lifetime of miseducation in one blog post--but one can at least open the door towards challenging those misguided beliefs about America, Capitalism, and our Culture that so many young people have been poisoned by.
So with that in mind, set down your protest sign, pick up your laptop (for all the protests against capitalism, there sure seems to be a high number of laptops and other mobile communication devices at these protests, amiright??), and watch these great thinkers discuss many of the ideas and institutions you are "protesting" against.
Let's start with legendary economist Milton Friedman discussing the very idea of Greed. In this appearance on The Phil Donahue program back in the 1970's, Friedman is asked a series of questions by Donahue that are likely quite similar to the questions many of you are asking of society through these protests. You might find Friedman's take on the concept of "greed" to be surprising and a bit enlightening:
Along similar lines, here is noted professor, economist, and writer Walter E. Williams discussing the fact that greed does not work against social responsibility, but instead that our greed usually leads us to take the most socially responsible actions:
What about the concept of "fairness"? Isn't it--according to those in these protests--somehow "unfair" that the rich have what they have, while others don't? Perhaps it is...but it is only because *nature* is "unfair" in how we are created. And it is this unfairness that defines the talents and capabilities that each of us have as individuals. Milton Friedman explains:
So, since nature is unfair in terms of what our talents are or what our capabilities are (and since the differences and inequities of wealth that we see are largely a result of this), shouldn't it fall to the government to redistribute wealth so that we can all have "equality"? Walter E. Williams doesn't think so, and here he explains why such government-mandated wealth re-distribution (an increase in which is exactly what the Wall Street protesters are advocating) is nothing more than theft, and therefore is deplorable:
Not to be outdone, here is a clip of Friedman discussing wealth redistribution--specifically his argument about what would happen if a 100% inheritance tax were established, and all incentive to accumulate wealth and pass it on to future generations were destroyed (and again, notice how similar the young man's question in this video is to the rhetoric you are hearing out of the protesters today):
And here, Friedman specifically discusses whether government has any sort of responsibility towards the poor:
So what if you are poor? The position of most of the Wall Street protesters is that those in poverty (or even in the middle class) are somehow trapped on a treadmill of poverty from which they can never escape. But is this really so? Walter E. Williams doesn't think so, and in this clip, he provides a fairly straightforward plan for how anybody can avoid poverty:
So, protesters, there you have it. A different (and I would argue, a more sensible) viewpoint on economics, "fairness", wealth redistribution, and poverty. You won't hear this from the hippies, druggies, or union thugs protesting alongside you. You won't hear it from your teachers or college professors (many of which have been misguided over the years by those who wish to punish and vilify success, just as they have tried to do with you). There is no shame in wealth, or even in greed. The government has zero responsibility to insure any level of fairness or equity. And no matter how poor or disadvantaged you are, you--and you alone--can change that aspect of your life. Now put down your protest sign, join the rest of us in "Capitalist America", and realize your full potential at last!
Monday, September 26, 2011
Law & Order: A Winning Strategy for 2012
Sometimes I'm just too damn charitable.
Every four years, there's an entire industry of political strategists that make millions of dollars devising strategy, tactics, and carefully sculpted messages for prospective political candidates. It is the job of these people to come up with that perfect strategy that will resonnate with the voters while both highlighting the candidate's strengths and downplaying his weaknesses. And there's serious money involved for those who prove to be adept at devising such gameplans. To put it another way, a winning electoral strategy is worth it's weight in gold.
So why in the Hell am I about to give away the perfect strategy for winning the 2012 Presidential Election away for free?
Well, before I come to my senses, hit the "delete" button, and sell this idea to a bunch of Republican suits for a few million bucks, here's the skinny: Everybody who's anybody in politics right now is talking about jobs and the economy...and well they should, as it's something that impacts nearly every American in some way. However, while the economy is an extremely important issue, it's not the only issue that's out there. I think there's a "secondary" issue that--if paired with a sensible economic plan as the primary issue--could be what some GOP candidate needs to seperate himself/herself from the rest of the pack.
That issue is the idea of "Law & Order". If you are a regular, normal, law-abiding American, chances are that you look around you and wonder if our laws even apply anymore...much less if the very concept of "right vs. wrong" even exists in American society. You see illegal immigrants who are lauded instead of castigated, Terrorists who are afforded rights and legal protections (while Christians who dare express their faith in public are shut down at the earliest opportunity), inner cities that have become literal war zones, people who don't even think twice about scamming government welfare and other programs, miscrents (with ambulance-chasing attorneys following close behind) who sue everybody in sight in hopes of "hitting the legal lottery", and criminals publicized and glorified by an all-to-eager media.
As that legendary pro wrestler and philosopher, "Classy" Freddie Blassie once opined, "What the Hell ever happened to the Human Race?"
Society seems to be bursting apart at the seems, and a lack of Law, Order, and Moral Clarity is at the center of it. And yet, at times, our sitting President seems to be on the side of those who would tear down American Society. Giving speeches where he identifies and sypathizes with Illegal Aliens. Openly advocating for more welfare and government "help" for the lower classes (which in the past has only resulted in the destruction of the family unit among poorer Americans...and the crime, violence, and lawlessness that goes with it). Speaking in conciliatory tones towards our enemies both overseas and domestically. It would not be difficult to portray Obama as--if not a President who is openly on the side of the criminal and immoral--at least a President who is ill-equipped to deal with our national "lack of character" crisis.
I'm certainly not saying that "Law & Order" could usurp the economy as the main issue, but instead I'm saying that there is a significant group of people out there (and I'm certainly among them) who view the rampant lawlessness in our society as a key issue--right alongside the economy. And these votes are up for the taking...if one of the GOP candidates spoke openly and with candor about bringing Law & Order back to American society, it would resonnate, and possibly be enough to nudge them in front of the other candidates.
Several months ago, I did an edition of my videoblog in which I discussed Obama's cowtowing to Illegal Immigrants. And while it's a small (perhaps even insignificant) sample size, I can tell you that, of the 31 "America's Evil Genius" episodes we've done to date, it was that episode that got the most views and the most feedback--the vast majority if it majorly positive. That tells me that this is an issue that is on the forefront of the minds of a lot of voters. Yet, nearly all the GOP candidates talk about it in measured tones--ever fearful of "offending" moderates and perhaps some Hispanics. If just one candiate would take a (pardon my French) "Take No Shit" position on Illegal Immigration, Conservatives, many Independants, and otherwise concerned Americans would get behind them in a hurry!
What, you didn't see my piece on Obama's glad-handing of Illegal Aliens? Whoomp! Here it Is!
But Illegal Immigration isn't the only area where people are seeking an uncompromising, "say what you mean and mean what you say" approach. Recently, during one of the GOP debates, Texas Governor Rick Perry's record of executing more criminals than any other state was brought up by the moderator...and was met with racaus applause by the gallery. And while both the Left and the Mainstream Media castigated that crowd for their reaction ("OMG! They're cheering death!!!" exclaimed the usual Liberal suspects), they missed the point of the meaning of that response. That crowd (and, I must admit, myself watching the debate in my living room) cheered not out of some bloodthirsty sadism, but they (or, shall I say, "we") cheered because Texas' use of "Ultimate Justice" indicates that--unlike many other places--they place a higher priority on the protection of the lives and property of law-abiding citizens than they do on the protection of those who would do us harm. We've seen nearly a century of criminals being "understood", "excused", "explained", or otherwise coddled, and yet law-abiding citizens are no safer than they were before the 20th Century started. A more basic, sensible, and dare I say "Draconian" approach to crime and punishment is what a lot of us believe to be neccesarry in terms of protecting ourselves, our families, and our property.
Given the reactions of many Conservatives on issues of Illegal Immigration, Capital Punishment, or many other issues of Law Enforcement and Crime (as opposed to the stances of Obama and the Left on the same issues), it stands to reason that a candidate who would make "Law & Order" a major theme of their campaign could potentially do quite well. And it wouldn't be without precedent...just go back to 1968. At that time--somewhat similar to today--America seemed to be coming apart at the seems. There was violence and rioting in the streets, a youth culture that was turning their backs on the ideals that built America, and political assassinations had nearly become the norm. Richard Nixon succesfully positioned himself as the "Law & Order" candidate and easily won both the 1968 & 1972 Presidential elections. By appealing to those normal, traditional, law-abiding citizens (which Nixon referred to as the "Silent Majority"), Nixon had great electoral success.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not a Nixon fan (Between things like Price Controls and the establishment of the EPA, Richard Nixon was about as Conservative as Lindsey Lohan is cellibate). However, speaking strictly in terms of political strategy, Nixon proved that an appeal to Law & Order during a time of cultural chaos can be a rather succesful way to win an election or two. Much like '68, America is in a time of cultural chaos once again. And once again, there is a "Silent Majority" of normal, traditional, regular, law-abiding Americans who not only can be reached, but are chomping at the bit to go to the ballot box and correct this situation (The only difference is that, today, that "majority" is not as "silent" as it used to be).
A secondary focus on Law & Order (combined with a solid primary focus on the economy) could be just what the doctor ordered for one of these myriad of GOP candiates to break out of the pack, overtake Mitt Romney, and go on to beat Obama and get our nation back on the right track. The time is ripe for one of you to emerge.
Every four years, there's an entire industry of political strategists that make millions of dollars devising strategy, tactics, and carefully sculpted messages for prospective political candidates. It is the job of these people to come up with that perfect strategy that will resonnate with the voters while both highlighting the candidate's strengths and downplaying his weaknesses. And there's serious money involved for those who prove to be adept at devising such gameplans. To put it another way, a winning electoral strategy is worth it's weight in gold.
So why in the Hell am I about to give away the perfect strategy for winning the 2012 Presidential Election away for free?
Well, before I come to my senses, hit the "delete" button, and sell this idea to a bunch of Republican suits for a few million bucks, here's the skinny: Everybody who's anybody in politics right now is talking about jobs and the economy...and well they should, as it's something that impacts nearly every American in some way. However, while the economy is an extremely important issue, it's not the only issue that's out there. I think there's a "secondary" issue that--if paired with a sensible economic plan as the primary issue--could be what some GOP candidate needs to seperate himself/herself from the rest of the pack.
That issue is the idea of "Law & Order". If you are a regular, normal, law-abiding American, chances are that you look around you and wonder if our laws even apply anymore...much less if the very concept of "right vs. wrong" even exists in American society. You see illegal immigrants who are lauded instead of castigated, Terrorists who are afforded rights and legal protections (while Christians who dare express their faith in public are shut down at the earliest opportunity), inner cities that have become literal war zones, people who don't even think twice about scamming government welfare and other programs, miscrents (with ambulance-chasing attorneys following close behind) who sue everybody in sight in hopes of "hitting the legal lottery", and criminals publicized and glorified by an all-to-eager media.
As that legendary pro wrestler and philosopher, "Classy" Freddie Blassie once opined, "What the Hell ever happened to the Human Race?"
Society seems to be bursting apart at the seems, and a lack of Law, Order, and Moral Clarity is at the center of it. And yet, at times, our sitting President seems to be on the side of those who would tear down American Society. Giving speeches where he identifies and sypathizes with Illegal Aliens. Openly advocating for more welfare and government "help" for the lower classes (which in the past has only resulted in the destruction of the family unit among poorer Americans...and the crime, violence, and lawlessness that goes with it). Speaking in conciliatory tones towards our enemies both overseas and domestically. It would not be difficult to portray Obama as--if not a President who is openly on the side of the criminal and immoral--at least a President who is ill-equipped to deal with our national "lack of character" crisis.
I'm certainly not saying that "Law & Order" could usurp the economy as the main issue, but instead I'm saying that there is a significant group of people out there (and I'm certainly among them) who view the rampant lawlessness in our society as a key issue--right alongside the economy. And these votes are up for the taking...if one of the GOP candidates spoke openly and with candor about bringing Law & Order back to American society, it would resonnate, and possibly be enough to nudge them in front of the other candidates.
Several months ago, I did an edition of my videoblog in which I discussed Obama's cowtowing to Illegal Immigrants. And while it's a small (perhaps even insignificant) sample size, I can tell you that, of the 31 "America's Evil Genius" episodes we've done to date, it was that episode that got the most views and the most feedback--the vast majority if it majorly positive. That tells me that this is an issue that is on the forefront of the minds of a lot of voters. Yet, nearly all the GOP candidates talk about it in measured tones--ever fearful of "offending" moderates and perhaps some Hispanics. If just one candiate would take a (pardon my French) "Take No Shit" position on Illegal Immigration, Conservatives, many Independants, and otherwise concerned Americans would get behind them in a hurry!
What, you didn't see my piece on Obama's glad-handing of Illegal Aliens? Whoomp! Here it Is!
But Illegal Immigration isn't the only area where people are seeking an uncompromising, "say what you mean and mean what you say" approach. Recently, during one of the GOP debates, Texas Governor Rick Perry's record of executing more criminals than any other state was brought up by the moderator...and was met with racaus applause by the gallery. And while both the Left and the Mainstream Media castigated that crowd for their reaction ("OMG! They're cheering death!!!" exclaimed the usual Liberal suspects), they missed the point of the meaning of that response. That crowd (and, I must admit, myself watching the debate in my living room) cheered not out of some bloodthirsty sadism, but they (or, shall I say, "we") cheered because Texas' use of "Ultimate Justice" indicates that--unlike many other places--they place a higher priority on the protection of the lives and property of law-abiding citizens than they do on the protection of those who would do us harm. We've seen nearly a century of criminals being "understood", "excused", "explained", or otherwise coddled, and yet law-abiding citizens are no safer than they were before the 20th Century started. A more basic, sensible, and dare I say "Draconian" approach to crime and punishment is what a lot of us believe to be neccesarry in terms of protecting ourselves, our families, and our property.
Given the reactions of many Conservatives on issues of Illegal Immigration, Capital Punishment, or many other issues of Law Enforcement and Crime (as opposed to the stances of Obama and the Left on the same issues), it stands to reason that a candidate who would make "Law & Order" a major theme of their campaign could potentially do quite well. And it wouldn't be without precedent...just go back to 1968. At that time--somewhat similar to today--America seemed to be coming apart at the seems. There was violence and rioting in the streets, a youth culture that was turning their backs on the ideals that built America, and political assassinations had nearly become the norm. Richard Nixon succesfully positioned himself as the "Law & Order" candidate and easily won both the 1968 & 1972 Presidential elections. By appealing to those normal, traditional, law-abiding citizens (which Nixon referred to as the "Silent Majority"), Nixon had great electoral success.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not a Nixon fan (Between things like Price Controls and the establishment of the EPA, Richard Nixon was about as Conservative as Lindsey Lohan is cellibate). However, speaking strictly in terms of political strategy, Nixon proved that an appeal to Law & Order during a time of cultural chaos can be a rather succesful way to win an election or two. Much like '68, America is in a time of cultural chaos once again. And once again, there is a "Silent Majority" of normal, traditional, regular, law-abiding Americans who not only can be reached, but are chomping at the bit to go to the ballot box and correct this situation (The only difference is that, today, that "majority" is not as "silent" as it used to be).
A secondary focus on Law & Order (combined with a solid primary focus on the economy) could be just what the doctor ordered for one of these myriad of GOP candiates to break out of the pack, overtake Mitt Romney, and go on to beat Obama and get our nation back on the right track. The time is ripe for one of you to emerge.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
What's *really* deplorable about Jimmy Hoffa Jr.'s Rhetoric
By now, most of you are familiar with the comments of Teamster's President Jimmy Hoffa Jr. who recently stated in reference to The Tea Party, that he'd like to help Barack Obama "...take these sons of bitches out". Now, almost every Conservative within the last couple of days has taken offense to these comments, and has pointed out the irony and hypocrisy of the Left using rhetoric of this nature after trying to paint the Right with the same brush during the Gabrielle Giffords tragedy.
However, I might be the one Conservative you'll meet who wasn't offended by the statement...at least not entirely.
I've never been one of these people who gets hung up on the need for a "Civil Tone" in politics. I would rather that people (whether they are politicians, commentators, or just regular folks such as you and I) be up front about what they believe and what they think, and not feel the pressure to stifle or qualify their words simply to fit into some opaque idea of "civility". Rather than pretending that we have some level of respect for each other that really doesn't exist, I'd rather that people "say what they mean and mean what they say" when it comes to politics. To do anything less is nothing more than dishonesty.
So Hoffa hates the Tea Party and wants to take us out (perhaps in an elective sense, perhaps in a physical sense...it really doesn't make a difference either way). So be it, the feeling is mutual, Mr. Hoffa. At least you're coming out and saying it as opposed to so many other Liberals who pretend that there is some sort of common ground from which we can all work...all while secretly thinking exactly what you have said. Let's be blunt on both sides here: You hate our guts. We hate your guts. At least we all have an honest starting point for the debate and the fight.
However, there is a pattern of Hoffa's rhetoric that I do take great offense to. Hoffa--in a pattern that has been echoed over the years by many other Union bosses as well as Liberal politicians up to and including Barack Obama--continually claimed to be speaking on the behalf of "The American Worker". Very rarely do Union leaders (or Democratic politicians) refer to Unions, instead they use words like "The American Worker", "Workers", or "The Middle Class" when they are talking about Unions. And it's that interchange of terms when talking about Unions that greatly offends me.
Mr. Hoffa, you DO NOT represent the American Workers. You represent the Unions. There is a tremendous difference between the two.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm), the percentage of wage and salary workers who are members of a union is, according to numbers taken in 2010, a mere 11.9%. In other words, only 11.9% of American Workers are part of a Union...that means that 88.1% of American Workers are not involved in a Union. In addition, when you take into account the many polls that show Americans have a more negative view of Unions than they have at any point in our nation's history, it stands to reason that a good number of that 88.1% have no interest or desire in joining a Union.
To put it bluntly, the vast majority of American Workers do not belong--and do not care to belong--to a labor Union.
Therefore, when a union thug like Hoffa claims to represent the "American Worker", it is nothing more than a lie. You do not represent the American Worker...you only represent a small (and shrinking) fringe sub-group within the American Workforce (a sub-group in which, truth be told, many of their own members would not belong to if only they had a choice in the matter). You represent a small fringe that has taken repeated actions to bankrupt, extort, and harass the job creators in our society--and in doing so have caused countless jobs to go overseas.
Mr. Hoffa, The Tea Party is not at war with the American Worker--we are at war with Unions. The two groups are very distinct.
However, because you are advocating for and speaking for Organized Labor, you are representing the very group that--if they haven't declared out and out war on the American Worker--have at least been responsible for much of the economic issues that they face.
Mr. Hoffa (and for that matter, other Union leaders and Democratic politicians), you have no right to compare yourself to the American Worker, or claim that you speak for any of us. You do not. You are one of the primary reasons that we face the challenges we do.
And for that, sons of bitches like you should be taken out.
However, I might be the one Conservative you'll meet who wasn't offended by the statement...at least not entirely.
I've never been one of these people who gets hung up on the need for a "Civil Tone" in politics. I would rather that people (whether they are politicians, commentators, or just regular folks such as you and I) be up front about what they believe and what they think, and not feel the pressure to stifle or qualify their words simply to fit into some opaque idea of "civility". Rather than pretending that we have some level of respect for each other that really doesn't exist, I'd rather that people "say what they mean and mean what they say" when it comes to politics. To do anything less is nothing more than dishonesty.
So Hoffa hates the Tea Party and wants to take us out (perhaps in an elective sense, perhaps in a physical sense...it really doesn't make a difference either way). So be it, the feeling is mutual, Mr. Hoffa. At least you're coming out and saying it as opposed to so many other Liberals who pretend that there is some sort of common ground from which we can all work...all while secretly thinking exactly what you have said. Let's be blunt on both sides here: You hate our guts. We hate your guts. At least we all have an honest starting point for the debate and the fight.
However, there is a pattern of Hoffa's rhetoric that I do take great offense to. Hoffa--in a pattern that has been echoed over the years by many other Union bosses as well as Liberal politicians up to and including Barack Obama--continually claimed to be speaking on the behalf of "The American Worker". Very rarely do Union leaders (or Democratic politicians) refer to Unions, instead they use words like "The American Worker", "Workers", or "The Middle Class" when they are talking about Unions. And it's that interchange of terms when talking about Unions that greatly offends me.
Mr. Hoffa, you DO NOT represent the American Workers. You represent the Unions. There is a tremendous difference between the two.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm), the percentage of wage and salary workers who are members of a union is, according to numbers taken in 2010, a mere 11.9%. In other words, only 11.9% of American Workers are part of a Union...that means that 88.1% of American Workers are not involved in a Union. In addition, when you take into account the many polls that show Americans have a more negative view of Unions than they have at any point in our nation's history, it stands to reason that a good number of that 88.1% have no interest or desire in joining a Union.
To put it bluntly, the vast majority of American Workers do not belong--and do not care to belong--to a labor Union.
Therefore, when a union thug like Hoffa claims to represent the "American Worker", it is nothing more than a lie. You do not represent the American Worker...you only represent a small (and shrinking) fringe sub-group within the American Workforce (a sub-group in which, truth be told, many of their own members would not belong to if only they had a choice in the matter). You represent a small fringe that has taken repeated actions to bankrupt, extort, and harass the job creators in our society--and in doing so have caused countless jobs to go overseas.
Mr. Hoffa, The Tea Party is not at war with the American Worker--we are at war with Unions. The two groups are very distinct.
However, because you are advocating for and speaking for Organized Labor, you are representing the very group that--if they haven't declared out and out war on the American Worker--have at least been responsible for much of the economic issues that they face.
Mr. Hoffa (and for that matter, other Union leaders and Democratic politicians), you have no right to compare yourself to the American Worker, or claim that you speak for any of us. You do not. You are one of the primary reasons that we face the challenges we do.
And for that, sons of bitches like you should be taken out.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
John Edwards was right (sort of)...there really ARE two Americas!
Remember John Edwards? He was the perpetual Democratic Presidential candidate who slept around on his cancer-stricken wife and knocked up a minimally attractive staffer. But, back before all of the scandal, he was a rising power in the Democratic party...many saw him as a future "face" of the Democratic party, and perhaps even the heir apparent to Bill Clinton (which, in retrospect, should have been our first clue that he'd end up sleeping around on his cancer-stricken wife and knocking up a minimally attractive staffer...hindsight really is 20/20, I suppose).
Anyhow, as he ascended the Democratic ladder, Edwards made his reputation by essentially drafting one campaign speech, learning how to deliver it really well, and then giving that one speech over and over and over (and over...and over...and over) at every appearance he made. It was his "Two Americas" speech. In this one speech (which Edwards gave at least a couple thousand times, rarely going off his comfortable "script") the fair-haired South Carolinian made the case that America was essentially divided into two separate nations--at least in terms of experience--and that individuals on either side of this unseen "dividing line" between the "Two Americas" had very little in common and were essentially in competition.
Now, Edwards' version of the "Two Americas" was to divided by level of wealth, and was little more than a blatant attempt at class warfare--pitting "rich" against "poor"--and as such, his definition of the "Two Americas" is something I could never agree with. Edwards usual speech was the typical mythology that the Left has pushed for the better party of 75 years--albeit a version of that mythology that was easier on the ears and more appealing aesthetically than many Liberals who came before him. But at it's root, the central theme of Edwards' speeches--that theme of "Two Americas" separated by income and wealth--was really no different than what FDR, LBJ, JFK, Woodrow Wilson, Karl Marx, Mao Tse Tung, and many other dangerous leftists had advocated before Edwards came along, despite Edwards making it sound a bit more palatable than some of his predecessors.
However, while Edwards variation on the "Two Americas" theme was simplistic, laughable, and perhaps even dangerous, I don't think that we can completely dismiss the basic idea of America divided into two separate nations in terms of experience and point of view, and that these two separate entities are in constant competition. As I look around at our current political, social, and cultural environment, I really am starting to see "Two Americas".
It's just that the "two Americas" that I'm seeing aren't separated by wealth.
So if these "Two Americas" that I'm seeing aren't separated by wealth, then what are they separated by? Are they simply separated by political party? Republican vs. Democrat? I don't think so--while the fight between the two political parties is as heated as it's ever been, I don't think that most Americans view life in general through that prism...so the division in our nation goes deeper than political party. Is it an ideological battle between Conservatives and Liberals? Well, that's getting closer to the heart of the separation, but even then, I believe there are a lot of people who don't readily identify themselves on one side of that divide or the other (although they might have opinions, morals, and viewpoints that could easily fit within one ideological side or the other, I'm not sure that most people think of it in these terms).
No, no...the real separation between the "Two Americas" is, on one hand, much deeper than the suggestions mentioned in the previous paragraph...and on the other hand, is much more simple than those suggestions. The "Two Americas" we see today are not a Republican America and a Democratic America. They are not a Rich America and a Poor America. The are not a Conservative America and a Liberal America...
...instead, the "Two Americas" we see today are best summed up as one America where people take a level of responsibility and pride in working hard and making a livelihood for themselves...opposed by another America where people feel they are entitled to a livelihood whether they go out and earn it or not. One America where people strive to earn a living...opposed by another America where people believe their living should be taken from others on the basis of some "unfairness", "inequality", multi-generational "grudge" against those who possess the wealth that they desire. One America where we protect our lives and property from those who would come here illegally and take them from us...opposed to another America where people feel the desire to make life easier for those who would steal from us and attempt to destroy our nation and culture from the inside. One America where people believe that all should be held responsible for their decisions--suffering the consequences or reaping the benefits of the decisions they make...opposed by another America where people believe some entity (the government, their employer, their school) should ensure a positive outcome regardless of what decisions the individual makes. One America where the moral absolutes of our parents and grandparents continue to rule the day...opposed by another America where moral absolutes simply don't exist, and all actions and activities are justifiable and are to be "appreciated" and "understood" instead of criticized.
In short, the battle of "Two Americas" we are seeing right now is a battle between "Productive America" and "Non-Productive America".
Both of these Americas contain both rich and poor. Both contain both Republicans and Democrats. The key difference is in the outlook on life (which, on a lesser level, translates into politics) between these two Americas. And it is this difference in outlooks that is the root of all political battles we see, all major issues we see, and which will be at the heart of the 2012 Presidential Election.
Barack Obama represents "Non-Productive America"--his views on taxation, fiscal (ir)responsibility, and Illegal Immigration are proof of this.
Which America do you belong to?
Anyhow, as he ascended the Democratic ladder, Edwards made his reputation by essentially drafting one campaign speech, learning how to deliver it really well, and then giving that one speech over and over and over (and over...and over...and over) at every appearance he made. It was his "Two Americas" speech. In this one speech (which Edwards gave at least a couple thousand times, rarely going off his comfortable "script") the fair-haired South Carolinian made the case that America was essentially divided into two separate nations--at least in terms of experience--and that individuals on either side of this unseen "dividing line" between the "Two Americas" had very little in common and were essentially in competition.
Now, Edwards' version of the "Two Americas" was to divided by level of wealth, and was little more than a blatant attempt at class warfare--pitting "rich" against "poor"--and as such, his definition of the "Two Americas" is something I could never agree with. Edwards usual speech was the typical mythology that the Left has pushed for the better party of 75 years--albeit a version of that mythology that was easier on the ears and more appealing aesthetically than many Liberals who came before him. But at it's root, the central theme of Edwards' speeches--that theme of "Two Americas" separated by income and wealth--was really no different than what FDR, LBJ, JFK, Woodrow Wilson, Karl Marx, Mao Tse Tung, and many other dangerous leftists had advocated before Edwards came along, despite Edwards making it sound a bit more palatable than some of his predecessors.
However, while Edwards variation on the "Two Americas" theme was simplistic, laughable, and perhaps even dangerous, I don't think that we can completely dismiss the basic idea of America divided into two separate nations in terms of experience and point of view, and that these two separate entities are in constant competition. As I look around at our current political, social, and cultural environment, I really am starting to see "Two Americas".
It's just that the "two Americas" that I'm seeing aren't separated by wealth.
So if these "Two Americas" that I'm seeing aren't separated by wealth, then what are they separated by? Are they simply separated by political party? Republican vs. Democrat? I don't think so--while the fight between the two political parties is as heated as it's ever been, I don't think that most Americans view life in general through that prism...so the division in our nation goes deeper than political party. Is it an ideological battle between Conservatives and Liberals? Well, that's getting closer to the heart of the separation, but even then, I believe there are a lot of people who don't readily identify themselves on one side of that divide or the other (although they might have opinions, morals, and viewpoints that could easily fit within one ideological side or the other, I'm not sure that most people think of it in these terms).
No, no...the real separation between the "Two Americas" is, on one hand, much deeper than the suggestions mentioned in the previous paragraph...and on the other hand, is much more simple than those suggestions. The "Two Americas" we see today are not a Republican America and a Democratic America. They are not a Rich America and a Poor America. The are not a Conservative America and a Liberal America...
...instead, the "Two Americas" we see today are best summed up as one America where people take a level of responsibility and pride in working hard and making a livelihood for themselves...opposed by another America where people feel they are entitled to a livelihood whether they go out and earn it or not. One America where people strive to earn a living...opposed by another America where people believe their living should be taken from others on the basis of some "unfairness", "inequality", multi-generational "grudge" against those who possess the wealth that they desire. One America where we protect our lives and property from those who would come here illegally and take them from us...opposed to another America where people feel the desire to make life easier for those who would steal from us and attempt to destroy our nation and culture from the inside. One America where people believe that all should be held responsible for their decisions--suffering the consequences or reaping the benefits of the decisions they make...opposed by another America where people believe some entity (the government, their employer, their school) should ensure a positive outcome regardless of what decisions the individual makes. One America where the moral absolutes of our parents and grandparents continue to rule the day...opposed by another America where moral absolutes simply don't exist, and all actions and activities are justifiable and are to be "appreciated" and "understood" instead of criticized.
In short, the battle of "Two Americas" we are seeing right now is a battle between "Productive America" and "Non-Productive America".
Both of these Americas contain both rich and poor. Both contain both Republicans and Democrats. The key difference is in the outlook on life (which, on a lesser level, translates into politics) between these two Americas. And it is this difference in outlooks that is the root of all political battles we see, all major issues we see, and which will be at the heart of the 2012 Presidential Election.
Barack Obama represents "Non-Productive America"--his views on taxation, fiscal (ir)responsibility, and Illegal Immigration are proof of this.
Which America do you belong to?
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Explaining England's Riots...and those coming to America
Some quotes from some of the hoodlums that are currently rioting in England:
"This is the uprising of the working class. We're redistributing the wealth,"
"There's been tension for a long time. The kids aren't happy. They hate the police,"
"It's us versus them, the police, the system,"
"The people that run this country, they got money, they are rich, they got nice houses. They don't care about poor people."
(Quotes taken from the following articles): http://moneywatch.bnet.com/economic-news/news/uk-pm-recalls-parliament-for-london-riot-crisis/6274372/#ixzz1UlmMc7Bl
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/08/09/uk-britain-riot-contrast-idUKTRE7785XQ20110809
Class warfare. Disrespect for mainstream Society and Authority. Vilification of the Wealthy. A misplaced sense of entitlement that the "haves" somehow owe something to the "have nots", simply because those have nots are breathing are and taking up space.
All are the stated reasons of the rioters in England this week. All are also among the primary tenants of the American Left for the better part of the last century (tenants that have been reinforced by Academia, Intelligentsia, and Popular Culture for as long as any of us have been alive).
Can America be far behind England?
When people begin to believe that wealth is seen as a badge of nefariousness and not accomplishment...when people begin to believe that they are owed an education or an opportunity...when people believe that they are entitled to health care or other basic needs not because they themselves have worked for it and earned it, but instead because it's the "duty" of someone "more fortunate" to provide it for them while receiving nothing in return...when these types of attitudes gain traction in a society, then that society faces it's biggest threat. The very pillars and structure that have girded the society for centuries, that have fueled achievement, innovation, and success, and that have helped to protect the world from evil, are under assault internally any time that these attitudes begin to take hold.
Am I talking about England, or America?
I'm talking about both.
We have a President and a Democratic party who refers to the wealthy as "those most fortunate among us" rather than "those most accomplished among us". A President and a Democratic Party who continues to promote the myth that the wealthy need to "pay their fair share" in taxes, despite the fact that the top half of our earners pay 97% of our taxes. A President and a Democratic Party who's main strategy in all elections is to pander to that half of the nation who pay no taxes, take advantage of our social programs, and contribute nothing to our society--all while justifying the victimhood claimed by those to whom they are pandering.
A President, a Democratic Party, and a Left-Wing machine that has promoted, encouraged, and fanned the flames of the very destructive attitudes that have England currently engulfed in flames. After multiple generations during which the American Left has fostered and grown these destructive attitudes, one must look to situations like the recent attacks at the Wisconsin State Fair (not to mention the rampant crime in our urban areas) and ask one logical question:
How much longer before similar ideals and attitudes engulf America in flames?
"This is the uprising of the working class. We're redistributing the wealth,"
"There's been tension for a long time. The kids aren't happy. They hate the police,"
"It's us versus them, the police, the system,"
"The people that run this country, they got money, they are rich, they got nice houses. They don't care about poor people."
(Quotes taken from the following articles): http://moneywatch.bnet.com/economic-news/news/uk-pm-recalls-parliament-for-london-riot-crisis/6274372/#ixzz1UlmMc7Bl
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/08/09/uk-britain-riot-contrast-idUKTRE7785XQ20110809
Class warfare. Disrespect for mainstream Society and Authority. Vilification of the Wealthy. A misplaced sense of entitlement that the "haves" somehow owe something to the "have nots", simply because those have nots are breathing are and taking up space.
All are the stated reasons of the rioters in England this week. All are also among the primary tenants of the American Left for the better part of the last century (tenants that have been reinforced by Academia, Intelligentsia, and Popular Culture for as long as any of us have been alive).
Can America be far behind England?
When people begin to believe that wealth is seen as a badge of nefariousness and not accomplishment...when people begin to believe that they are owed an education or an opportunity...when people believe that they are entitled to health care or other basic needs not because they themselves have worked for it and earned it, but instead because it's the "duty" of someone "more fortunate" to provide it for them while receiving nothing in return...when these types of attitudes gain traction in a society, then that society faces it's biggest threat. The very pillars and structure that have girded the society for centuries, that have fueled achievement, innovation, and success, and that have helped to protect the world from evil, are under assault internally any time that these attitudes begin to take hold.
Am I talking about England, or America?
I'm talking about both.
We have a President and a Democratic party who refers to the wealthy as "those most fortunate among us" rather than "those most accomplished among us". A President and a Democratic Party who continues to promote the myth that the wealthy need to "pay their fair share" in taxes, despite the fact that the top half of our earners pay 97% of our taxes. A President and a Democratic Party who's main strategy in all elections is to pander to that half of the nation who pay no taxes, take advantage of our social programs, and contribute nothing to our society--all while justifying the victimhood claimed by those to whom they are pandering.
A President, a Democratic Party, and a Left-Wing machine that has promoted, encouraged, and fanned the flames of the very destructive attitudes that have England currently engulfed in flames. After multiple generations during which the American Left has fostered and grown these destructive attitudes, one must look to situations like the recent attacks at the Wisconsin State Fair (not to mention the rampant crime in our urban areas) and ask one logical question:
How much longer before similar ideals and attitudes engulf America in flames?
Monday, August 1, 2011
A new addition to the America's Evil Genius empire!
Since February, I've produced and hosted the "America's Evil Genius" political webcast on Youtube. The webcast has spurred lots of conversation, debate, and controversy, and has been quite successful in terms of being on the forefront of Conservative thought in America. Therefore, as a bit of a "supplement" to the web series, I'm launching this companion written blog in which we can continue the discussions that we start on the web series.
Also, some of you may be familiar with my work via another blog I've had for nearly a year entitled "Ask A Conservative White Guy". In the interest of alleviating any confusion or redundancy, I will slowly but surely be scaling back the "Conservative White Guy" blog and will be concentrating my efforts to the America's Evil Genius web series as well as this blog. But fear not--I've imported the best of my columns on the "Ask a Conservative White Guy" blog right over here. So this will serve as your "one stop shop" for the best in Conservative thought and analysis!
Check out the "America's Evil Genius" webcast at www.youtube.com/americasevilgenius
Also, some of you may be familiar with my work via another blog I've had for nearly a year entitled "Ask A Conservative White Guy". In the interest of alleviating any confusion or redundancy, I will slowly but surely be scaling back the "Conservative White Guy" blog and will be concentrating my efforts to the America's Evil Genius web series as well as this blog. But fear not--I've imported the best of my columns on the "Ask a Conservative White Guy" blog right over here. So this will serve as your "one stop shop" for the best in Conservative thought and analysis!
Check out the "America's Evil Genius" webcast at www.youtube.com/americasevilgenius
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Missouri considers amendment to require photo ID at the voting booth--I'm in favor!
With all of the major national stories going on right now (Obama producing a birth certificate, Osama Bin Laden being killed, Snooki showing up at Wrestlemania and *not* blowing half the locker room), we sometimes overlook some very important and thought-provoking local stories. So I wanted to highlight such a story today--My home state of Missouri (properly pronounced "Missour-uh", for those of you who are not natives of the "Show Me State") is considering a Constitutional amendment which will require photo ID to be presented when voting.
Link to news story: http://www.kmov.com/news/local/Missouri-House-OKs-photo-ID-constitutional-amendment-121144369.html
A bit of background here--back in 2006, a similar law was passed which would have required the photo ID at the voting booth. However, the Missouri Supreme Court struck the law down as being "unconstitutional". Therefore, the State Legislature is going about the business of making such a statute into a Constitutional Amendment, which would keep the State Supreme Court from getting their grubby little hands on it. As of today, the amendment had passed the Senate, passed the House with some changes, and now has to go back to the Senate, and if they pass the amendment in changes, it would appear on the ballot for Missouri voters in 2012.
I'm tremendously encouraged by the prospect of this amendment. Americans are more aware than they've ever been about the possibility of voter fraud--the exposures of ACORN and like-minded organizations has proven that the old phrase, "In Chicago, they say vote early and vote often!" isn't just a joke, it's a reality in many parts of the nation. In addition, we see cases of identity theft each and every day--it seems to me that it wouldn't be a stretch similar politically-motivated thieves could use stolen documentation (presently in Missouri, you can vote with "proof" as insignificant as a utility bill or a bank statement) to "stuff the ballot box". Has it happened in Missouri? Not that I'm specifically aware of--but ACORN and the like have proven that the possibility is out there, and I think it makes sense for a state to take action to prevent such a problem before it occurs. In addition, there is a rising concern within our state regarding Illegal Immigration (Interstate 44 which runs through the state has long been a major artery for trafficking both illegal drugs and Illegal Immigrants, and there are pockets of the state where such Immigrants have settled), so such an amendment may be a necessity to keep these Illegals from wrongly voting in our elections.
The Democrats are opposing this amendment (shocking, ain't it?), arguing that such an amendment would adversely affect minorities and the poor from voting. Now, given how minorities and the poor usually vote, my initial (half-joking/half-serious) reaction to that argument is, "Good". However, in taking the argument on it's own merits, I don't see where it holds water. Driver's Licenses aren't exactly uncommon in Missouri, even among minorities and the poor. Unlike some other places in the country, most people in Missouri--even the poorest of the poor--either have a car or have access to some kind of transportation. It's nearly a necessity to be able to drive in this state, because of the large area that both major cities are laid out over, and the large percentage of the population that live in rural areas. In this state, it's extremely rare to run into someone who doesn't drive (even among the poor and the minorities).
I remember about 12 years back or so, I was doing some work for a marketing firm which had a client who had come to Missouri to do some survey work for an upcoming home equity line of credit project. The clients came from San Francisco, and were shocked to find two things about Missouri--first, that homes (and in some rural areas, some very nice homes) could be purchased for under $100,000, and secondly, that even the poorest people and those with the lowest incomes (including our own employees) owned some form of transportation. The look on their faces when they saw our parking lot filled with the cars of our employees--many of which made $7 or $8 an hour in those days--was amazing to me. And their shock was backed up as they moved forward with the survey work around the state. In San Francisco, where the clients had come from, it was rather common for upwardly mobile people--making well over $100K a year--to never own a car and to take either public transportation or taxis wherever they needed to go. However, Missouri isn't like San Fransisco or New York...it's not nearly as compact, therefore the ability to drive is virtually a necessity for anybody who lives here so that they can hold down a job, get their groceries, and undertake the ordinary tasks of life.
So I've told that long story to make the point that a very low number of the "poor" do not have a Driver's License. And for those few that do not, a State-issued Photo Identification card is not difficult to get. So the "inconvenience" that the poor and the minorities might undergo with such an Amendment is negligible, at best. On the other hand, such an amendment would better insure the integrity of Missouri's elections, and help prevent the fraud that exists (and is even prevalent) in other parts of the nation. When you take the partisan rhetoric out of the equation, I do not see what Missouri could possibly "lose" by enacting such an amendment. The alleged disenfranchisement of the poor and minorities put forth by the Democratic party is a red herring--most of them who are legitimate citizens already have driver's licences, and the few that are left can easily get a photo ID that will be acceptable. The potential risk of voter fraud far outweighs the "risk" of disenfranchised voters in Missouri.
Link to news story: http://www.kmov.com/news/local/Missouri-House-OKs-photo-ID-constitutional-amendment-121144369.html
A bit of background here--back in 2006, a similar law was passed which would have required the photo ID at the voting booth. However, the Missouri Supreme Court struck the law down as being "unconstitutional". Therefore, the State Legislature is going about the business of making such a statute into a Constitutional Amendment, which would keep the State Supreme Court from getting their grubby little hands on it. As of today, the amendment had passed the Senate, passed the House with some changes, and now has to go back to the Senate, and if they pass the amendment in changes, it would appear on the ballot for Missouri voters in 2012.
I'm tremendously encouraged by the prospect of this amendment. Americans are more aware than they've ever been about the possibility of voter fraud--the exposures of ACORN and like-minded organizations has proven that the old phrase, "In Chicago, they say vote early and vote often!" isn't just a joke, it's a reality in many parts of the nation. In addition, we see cases of identity theft each and every day--it seems to me that it wouldn't be a stretch similar politically-motivated thieves could use stolen documentation (presently in Missouri, you can vote with "proof" as insignificant as a utility bill or a bank statement) to "stuff the ballot box". Has it happened in Missouri? Not that I'm specifically aware of--but ACORN and the like have proven that the possibility is out there, and I think it makes sense for a state to take action to prevent such a problem before it occurs. In addition, there is a rising concern within our state regarding Illegal Immigration (Interstate 44 which runs through the state has long been a major artery for trafficking both illegal drugs and Illegal Immigrants, and there are pockets of the state where such Immigrants have settled), so such an amendment may be a necessity to keep these Illegals from wrongly voting in our elections.
The Democrats are opposing this amendment (shocking, ain't it?), arguing that such an amendment would adversely affect minorities and the poor from voting. Now, given how minorities and the poor usually vote, my initial (half-joking/half-serious) reaction to that argument is, "Good". However, in taking the argument on it's own merits, I don't see where it holds water. Driver's Licenses aren't exactly uncommon in Missouri, even among minorities and the poor. Unlike some other places in the country, most people in Missouri--even the poorest of the poor--either have a car or have access to some kind of transportation. It's nearly a necessity to be able to drive in this state, because of the large area that both major cities are laid out over, and the large percentage of the population that live in rural areas. In this state, it's extremely rare to run into someone who doesn't drive (even among the poor and the minorities).
I remember about 12 years back or so, I was doing some work for a marketing firm which had a client who had come to Missouri to do some survey work for an upcoming home equity line of credit project. The clients came from San Francisco, and were shocked to find two things about Missouri--first, that homes (and in some rural areas, some very nice homes) could be purchased for under $100,000, and secondly, that even the poorest people and those with the lowest incomes (including our own employees) owned some form of transportation. The look on their faces when they saw our parking lot filled with the cars of our employees--many of which made $7 or $8 an hour in those days--was amazing to me. And their shock was backed up as they moved forward with the survey work around the state. In San Francisco, where the clients had come from, it was rather common for upwardly mobile people--making well over $100K a year--to never own a car and to take either public transportation or taxis wherever they needed to go. However, Missouri isn't like San Fransisco or New York...it's not nearly as compact, therefore the ability to drive is virtually a necessity for anybody who lives here so that they can hold down a job, get their groceries, and undertake the ordinary tasks of life.
So I've told that long story to make the point that a very low number of the "poor" do not have a Driver's License. And for those few that do not, a State-issued Photo Identification card is not difficult to get. So the "inconvenience" that the poor and the minorities might undergo with such an Amendment is negligible, at best. On the other hand, such an amendment would better insure the integrity of Missouri's elections, and help prevent the fraud that exists (and is even prevalent) in other parts of the nation. When you take the partisan rhetoric out of the equation, I do not see what Missouri could possibly "lose" by enacting such an amendment. The alleged disenfranchisement of the poor and minorities put forth by the Democratic party is a red herring--most of them who are legitimate citizens already have driver's licences, and the few that are left can easily get a photo ID that will be acceptable. The potential risk of voter fraud far outweighs the "risk" of disenfranchised voters in Missouri.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
My reactions to the Libyan situation (and some kudos for Obama???? WTF???)
Well, *that* was certainly an eventful weekend, wasn't it?
The world finally decides it has had enough of Libyan leader Momar Kadafi (or however he's spelling his name this week...I swear, in the last 40 years this guy has gone through more versions of his name than "The Artist Formerly Known As Prince"!) and launches a military strike. And Barack Obama--who up until now has been disgustingly doveish in his approach to "The War on Middle Eastern Culture"--was right in the middle of it. Obama made the call to authorize America's portion of military intervention in Libya. Obama ended up getting some level of criticism from both sides of the political aisle, with some of the "peaceniks" on the extreme Left (those that oppose any military action, for any reason, ever) saying the action was unjustified, and some on the Right opposing the decision because of the cost and (in some cases at least) simply because Obama authorized it.
My reaction to the events of this weekend? It might surprise some of you, considering how anti-Obama I am on most issues...but I support Obama's decision and believe he made the right call. Kadafi is one of many Middle Eastern despots who has advocated the anti-Western mentality that resulted in 9/11 and the subsequent war between Western Civilization and The Middle East. Once he started firing on his own people, his removal could wait no longer. Kadafi's regime is emblematic of the type that routinely springs up when an anti-Western, anti-Christian philosophy is allowed to take root. As such, the Libyan people, the American people, and the entire world is better off without it.
So I'm on board with Obama--all is well, right? Well, not quite. While I agree with Obama's decision, I'm a bit worried about how he arrived at that decision. Think back to your high school or college days, when you took an Algebra course. If your Algebra course was anything like mine, it wasn't enough to simply produce the correct answer on your homework or an exam, you also had to "show your work" as well. The idea being that your mastery of the process was as important as the actual answer you arrived at. After all, you could sometimes get the right answer by guessing, but "showing your work" made it clear that you fully understood the mathematical processes that you were being taught. Back when I was in high school, if you got the right answer on your Algebra homework, but didn't show your work (or if the work you showed was incorrect), then you only got half-credit (or sometimes, no credit) for your response.
And so it is with Obama's response to the Libyan issue. He came up with the correct answer, but when he "shows his work" in terms of how he got there, it's not impressive at all. At no point was Obama out in front marshalling the world's forces against Kadafi...indeed, he barely reacted at all until the United Nations and Europe made it clear that they were going to respond. He did not take the bull by the horns and shape the situation to our advantage, but instead was almost goaded into the situation. For the first time in our lifetimes, America is involved in a military conflict, yet we're not calling the shots. Such a result is inexcusable for an American President and the leader of the Free World. To take such a lackadaisical entry into the conflict compromises America's traditional (and rightful) role as the leader, the trend setter, and the catalyst for freedom loving nations everywhere. Obama did not lead the nation or the World in this matter--instead, he reacted and "followed".
America leads. It does not follow.
So the lack of leadership shown by Obama is quite worrying, indeed. It's difficult to compare hypothetical situations between Presidents, but I suspect that if a Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush would have been confronted with this situation, they would have been out in front, making the case for military involvement, would would have been clear about the need for Kadafi to be deposed. Obama--while authorizing military action, which is a positive--has not made the clear case for military involvement nor has he made it clear that the continued reign of Kadafi will not be tolerated.
To do so would require strong language, and as the BP Oil Spill, the Egyptian situation, and now the Libyan conflict have illustrated, strong, straightforward, from-the-gut, clear leadership is not a trait that Barack Obama has. I've always suspected that this deficiency is rooted in the academic cocoon that he has come up in--and that his disconnection from the "real world" throughout his life leaves him looking for "consensus" and "input" when when clear and obvious decisions are right in front of his face.
Obama managed to back into one good decision. And for that he deserves a small amount of credit. But one decision does not make a leader.
The world finally decides it has had enough of Libyan leader Momar Kadafi (or however he's spelling his name this week...I swear, in the last 40 years this guy has gone through more versions of his name than "The Artist Formerly Known As Prince"!) and launches a military strike. And Barack Obama--who up until now has been disgustingly doveish in his approach to "The War on Middle Eastern Culture"--was right in the middle of it. Obama made the call to authorize America's portion of military intervention in Libya. Obama ended up getting some level of criticism from both sides of the political aisle, with some of the "peaceniks" on the extreme Left (those that oppose any military action, for any reason, ever) saying the action was unjustified, and some on the Right opposing the decision because of the cost and (in some cases at least) simply because Obama authorized it.
My reaction to the events of this weekend? It might surprise some of you, considering how anti-Obama I am on most issues...but I support Obama's decision and believe he made the right call. Kadafi is one of many Middle Eastern despots who has advocated the anti-Western mentality that resulted in 9/11 and the subsequent war between Western Civilization and The Middle East. Once he started firing on his own people, his removal could wait no longer. Kadafi's regime is emblematic of the type that routinely springs up when an anti-Western, anti-Christian philosophy is allowed to take root. As such, the Libyan people, the American people, and the entire world is better off without it.
So I'm on board with Obama--all is well, right? Well, not quite. While I agree with Obama's decision, I'm a bit worried about how he arrived at that decision. Think back to your high school or college days, when you took an Algebra course. If your Algebra course was anything like mine, it wasn't enough to simply produce the correct answer on your homework or an exam, you also had to "show your work" as well. The idea being that your mastery of the process was as important as the actual answer you arrived at. After all, you could sometimes get the right answer by guessing, but "showing your work" made it clear that you fully understood the mathematical processes that you were being taught. Back when I was in high school, if you got the right answer on your Algebra homework, but didn't show your work (or if the work you showed was incorrect), then you only got half-credit (or sometimes, no credit) for your response.
And so it is with Obama's response to the Libyan issue. He came up with the correct answer, but when he "shows his work" in terms of how he got there, it's not impressive at all. At no point was Obama out in front marshalling the world's forces against Kadafi...indeed, he barely reacted at all until the United Nations and Europe made it clear that they were going to respond. He did not take the bull by the horns and shape the situation to our advantage, but instead was almost goaded into the situation. For the first time in our lifetimes, America is involved in a military conflict, yet we're not calling the shots. Such a result is inexcusable for an American President and the leader of the Free World. To take such a lackadaisical entry into the conflict compromises America's traditional (and rightful) role as the leader, the trend setter, and the catalyst for freedom loving nations everywhere. Obama did not lead the nation or the World in this matter--instead, he reacted and "followed".
America leads. It does not follow.
So the lack of leadership shown by Obama is quite worrying, indeed. It's difficult to compare hypothetical situations between Presidents, but I suspect that if a Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush would have been confronted with this situation, they would have been out in front, making the case for military involvement, would would have been clear about the need for Kadafi to be deposed. Obama--while authorizing military action, which is a positive--has not made the clear case for military involvement nor has he made it clear that the continued reign of Kadafi will not be tolerated.
To do so would require strong language, and as the BP Oil Spill, the Egyptian situation, and now the Libyan conflict have illustrated, strong, straightforward, from-the-gut, clear leadership is not a trait that Barack Obama has. I've always suspected that this deficiency is rooted in the academic cocoon that he has come up in--and that his disconnection from the "real world" throughout his life leaves him looking for "consensus" and "input" when when clear and obvious decisions are right in front of his face.
Obama managed to back into one good decision. And for that he deserves a small amount of credit. But one decision does not make a leader.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Todd Akin--recipient of the CWG "Atta Boy" trophy!
It's rare that I find it within myself to compliment a member of Congress. Between the Liberal Do-Gooders and the Moderate "Anything to get me re-elected" gang, it's difficult many times to find anybody on Capital Hill who has the guts to, you know, actually *represent* the beliefs and interests of their constituents. For that reason, the approval rating of Congress is normally fairly low at any point in history--and it's positively circling the commode as of late. As a result, the general impression that most Americans have of Congress is not far off from what "The Poet Laureate of Television", Nipsey Russell, stated nearly 30 years ago:
So it's extremely out of the ordinary that I can look at a member of Congress and say "Atta Boy!" But today is one of those days. Todd Akin made the people of Missouri proud--and indeed, echoed the sentiments of many Americans, when grilling Timothy Geithner. In reference to budget increases that could result in the IRS adding more employees, Akin commented upon the need for this when such energy might be better spent streamlining or simplifying the tax code, he went on to say “Not to mention the fact that it’d make us all look better if we don’t have a goon squad of 5,000 IRS agents tromping around the country with the economy the way it is,” (Source: http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/144633-republican-congressman-calls-irs-agents-a-qgoon-squadq )
Hell yes!!!
It's about time that somebody on capital hill called the IRS out for the thugs and criminals that they are (and in case you think that's an overstatement--the entire concept of progressive taxation is legalized theft. Look up Walter E. Williams thoughts on the matter--you can find them in his many books and on Youtube--for a complete explanation). Of course, when the truth is stated on Capital Hill, it will only infuriate those who side with the criminals and liars. And so it was with Oregon Representative Earl Blumenauer (Democrat--like that's any shock) who characterized Akin's comments as "offensive on so many levels".
There you have it--some idiot in Oregon thinks it's "offensive" to call out theft when one sees it. Bite me, Blumenauer.
Representative Akin, please be aware that you have spoken well for we, the People of the Sovereign State of Missouri. I wish you were my Representative so that I could vote for you when given the opportunity--however I'm unable to do that because my Rep is one the biggest wastes of space in recorded history, Lacy Clay. However, as a Missourian, I'm proud that you have so sternly communicated the message advocated by Missourians on this matter--communicating it in a way not unlike the straightforward and matter-of-fact way that we Missourians communicate with each other on a variety of issues each and every day. We're not a group of people that wastes time on superlatives or flowery rhetoric--we'll tell you what we think without compromise or apology. You have reflected this quite well in your statements to Congress on this matter.
There is one way I could have the opportunity to vote for Todd Akin...how about a Presidential run? :)
So it's extremely out of the ordinary that I can look at a member of Congress and say "Atta Boy!" But today is one of those days. Todd Akin made the people of Missouri proud--and indeed, echoed the sentiments of many Americans, when grilling Timothy Geithner. In reference to budget increases that could result in the IRS adding more employees, Akin commented upon the need for this when such energy might be better spent streamlining or simplifying the tax code, he went on to say “Not to mention the fact that it’d make us all look better if we don’t have a goon squad of 5,000 IRS agents tromping around the country with the economy the way it is,” (Source: http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/144633-republican-congressman-calls-irs-agents-a-qgoon-squadq )
Hell yes!!!
It's about time that somebody on capital hill called the IRS out for the thugs and criminals that they are (and in case you think that's an overstatement--the entire concept of progressive taxation is legalized theft. Look up Walter E. Williams thoughts on the matter--you can find them in his many books and on Youtube--for a complete explanation). Of course, when the truth is stated on Capital Hill, it will only infuriate those who side with the criminals and liars. And so it was with Oregon Representative Earl Blumenauer (Democrat--like that's any shock) who characterized Akin's comments as "offensive on so many levels".
There you have it--some idiot in Oregon thinks it's "offensive" to call out theft when one sees it. Bite me, Blumenauer.
Representative Akin, please be aware that you have spoken well for we, the People of the Sovereign State of Missouri. I wish you were my Representative so that I could vote for you when given the opportunity--however I'm unable to do that because my Rep is one the biggest wastes of space in recorded history, Lacy Clay. However, as a Missourian, I'm proud that you have so sternly communicated the message advocated by Missourians on this matter--communicating it in a way not unlike the straightforward and matter-of-fact way that we Missourians communicate with each other on a variety of issues each and every day. We're not a group of people that wastes time on superlatives or flowery rhetoric--we'll tell you what we think without compromise or apology. You have reflected this quite well in your statements to Congress on this matter.
There is one way I could have the opportunity to vote for Todd Akin...how about a Presidential run? :)
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Jim Moran plays Race Card--and obscures what would have been a good point
Virginia Representative Jim Moran (or is that "Moron"?) recently used the primary play in the Liberal playbook--accusing those of us who oppose Barack Obama of racism:
Link: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/28/rep-moran-dems-lost-dont-want-governed-african-american/?test=latestnews?test=latestnews
Ok, so a Democrat falsely accusing Conservatives of racism isn't exactly something new, and indeed is something that happens so frequently that it's hardly newsworthy at this point. Sort of the political equivalent of "crying wolf"--the Democrats use this tactic so often that it starts to lose it's effectiveness, as I believe the majority of the American people are starting to recognize the baselessness of most of these attacks. But if Liberal cries of "racism" have become so common that they are largely ineffective, then why am I taking the time to point this particular case out?
Well, to answer that question, let's look specifically at the text of Rep. Moran's remarks:
"In this case a lot of people in this country, it's my belief, don't want to be governed by an African-American, particularly one who is inclusive, who is liberal, who wants to spend money on everyone and who wants to reach out to include everyone in our society. And that's a basic philosophical clash"
What strikes me as different about these remarks (as opposed to most other playings of the "race card" by the left), is that after Moran makes the baseless accusations of racism, he actually goes on to make a pretty reasonable and salient point. Never mind that the salient points he end up making have zero connection to his accusations of racism (and as we all know, in modern America, when you bring race into the discussion, then the discussion will usually be dominated by race--and all other aspects of the conversation will normally be overlooked).
Did you read that right? Did you just read that I said Moran made a decent point? Yes, and I know you can't believe it...I can hardly believe that I wrote it. In order to explain my point, allow me to take the liberty of editing out the accusation of racism from Moran's remarks, and illustrating what would have been "left over" had he not played the race card. In mathematical terms, (Moran's Statement) - (Racial accusations) = this:
"In this case a lot of people in this country, it's my belief, don't want to be governed by....one who is inclusive, who is liberal, who wants to spend money on everyone and who wants to reach out to include everyone in our society. And that's a basic philosophical clash"
Looking at the above statement--and after having edited out the false accusations of racism--I'm struck by something rather astounding...I agree with it!!!! There ARE a significant number of Americans who do not want a President to be inclusive, to spend money on everybody, and/or to reach out to everyone in our society. To put it bluntly, many of us on the Right do not believe that it is government's prerogative to make sure people are "included" in society or to provide them with income/needs/wants...instead, we believe that those tasks should fall to the individual themselves. The Modern Conservative believes that it is not the job or the prerogative of the government to prop anybody up--instead that it is the job of each of us to prop OURSELVES up to the point that our talent, drive, motivation, and intelligence will allow us to do so.
Likewise, we do not believe that it is government's job to determine what groups of people should be "included" in society and who shouldn't be--instead, we believe that task falls to society itself (and make no mistake, most Conservatives believe that "government" and "society" are two separate entities--while I suspect most Liberals believe these entities to be intertwined, redundant, or even one in the same). Most of us believe and understand that the beauty of the Free Market is that even those who believe they are--in terms of society and culture--on the "outside looking in"--can work their way into society over time based on their contributions...without the government forcing society to "include" them. To put it in blunt terms, It doesn't matter if you are gay, a minority, a female, or have any other characteristic that you feel is a "disadvantage"--if you show that your contributions can fulfill a demand in society (in other words, if you can generate revenue for yourself and others), then society will include you. After all, in the end, the love of money always trumps the disdain people might have for other characteristics.
So you see that the last two-thirds of Moran's statement is actually spot-on in terms of the opposition to Obama and Liberalism in general. He is correct to state that this is a "basic philosophical clash" that is occurring within America today--in that sense, I couldn't agree with him more. Had he just stuck to the statements in the latter portion of his remarks, my reaction would have been "Finally! Somebody on their side understands exactly where we are coming from!" While--in such a fictitious case--Moran certainly wouldn't have been in agreement with the motivations and ideals of the Modern Conservative, it would have at least demonstrated an understanding and grasp of what we stand for that is far beyond what many other Liberals possess. In short, it could have been a magnificent starting point for the discussion that we need to have in America--the discussion of what specific roles do Americans wish for the government to take in their daily lives, and how large (or small) do Americans wish for their government to be.
But he just had to throw that Race Card out there, didn't he?
Moran--by leading off his statements with charges of racism--completely obscured those latter points which could have greatly contributed to the political discussion in 2011. On one hand, it's almost encouraging that someone on the Left comes so close to "getting it" in terms of what we on the Right stand for (as Moran sort of did in the latter part of his comments). But on the other hand, his mischaracterisation of the alleged and virtually non-existent "racism" in the American Right is yet another example of the Left purposely damaging racial relations and inspiring suspicion and distrust among the various ethnicities in America simply to keep themselves in power.
It's a disgusting ploy from the left--and one that they rely on far too often.
Link: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/28/rep-moran-dems-lost-dont-want-governed-african-american/?test=latestnews?test=latestnews
Ok, so a Democrat falsely accusing Conservatives of racism isn't exactly something new, and indeed is something that happens so frequently that it's hardly newsworthy at this point. Sort of the political equivalent of "crying wolf"--the Democrats use this tactic so often that it starts to lose it's effectiveness, as I believe the majority of the American people are starting to recognize the baselessness of most of these attacks. But if Liberal cries of "racism" have become so common that they are largely ineffective, then why am I taking the time to point this particular case out?
Well, to answer that question, let's look specifically at the text of Rep. Moran's remarks:
"In this case a lot of people in this country, it's my belief, don't want to be governed by an African-American, particularly one who is inclusive, who is liberal, who wants to spend money on everyone and who wants to reach out to include everyone in our society. And that's a basic philosophical clash"
What strikes me as different about these remarks (as opposed to most other playings of the "race card" by the left), is that after Moran makes the baseless accusations of racism, he actually goes on to make a pretty reasonable and salient point. Never mind that the salient points he end up making have zero connection to his accusations of racism (and as we all know, in modern America, when you bring race into the discussion, then the discussion will usually be dominated by race--and all other aspects of the conversation will normally be overlooked).
Did you read that right? Did you just read that I said Moran made a decent point? Yes, and I know you can't believe it...I can hardly believe that I wrote it. In order to explain my point, allow me to take the liberty of editing out the accusation of racism from Moran's remarks, and illustrating what would have been "left over" had he not played the race card. In mathematical terms, (Moran's Statement) - (Racial accusations) = this:
"In this case a lot of people in this country, it's my belief, don't want to be governed by....one who is inclusive, who is liberal, who wants to spend money on everyone and who wants to reach out to include everyone in our society. And that's a basic philosophical clash"
Looking at the above statement--and after having edited out the false accusations of racism--I'm struck by something rather astounding...I agree with it!!!! There ARE a significant number of Americans who do not want a President to be inclusive, to spend money on everybody, and/or to reach out to everyone in our society. To put it bluntly, many of us on the Right do not believe that it is government's prerogative to make sure people are "included" in society or to provide them with income/needs/wants...instead, we believe that those tasks should fall to the individual themselves. The Modern Conservative believes that it is not the job or the prerogative of the government to prop anybody up--instead that it is the job of each of us to prop OURSELVES up to the point that our talent, drive, motivation, and intelligence will allow us to do so.
Likewise, we do not believe that it is government's job to determine what groups of people should be "included" in society and who shouldn't be--instead, we believe that task falls to society itself (and make no mistake, most Conservatives believe that "government" and "society" are two separate entities--while I suspect most Liberals believe these entities to be intertwined, redundant, or even one in the same). Most of us believe and understand that the beauty of the Free Market is that even those who believe they are--in terms of society and culture--on the "outside looking in"--can work their way into society over time based on their contributions...without the government forcing society to "include" them. To put it in blunt terms, It doesn't matter if you are gay, a minority, a female, or have any other characteristic that you feel is a "disadvantage"--if you show that your contributions can fulfill a demand in society (in other words, if you can generate revenue for yourself and others), then society will include you. After all, in the end, the love of money always trumps the disdain people might have for other characteristics.
So you see that the last two-thirds of Moran's statement is actually spot-on in terms of the opposition to Obama and Liberalism in general. He is correct to state that this is a "basic philosophical clash" that is occurring within America today--in that sense, I couldn't agree with him more. Had he just stuck to the statements in the latter portion of his remarks, my reaction would have been "Finally! Somebody on their side understands exactly where we are coming from!" While--in such a fictitious case--Moran certainly wouldn't have been in agreement with the motivations and ideals of the Modern Conservative, it would have at least demonstrated an understanding and grasp of what we stand for that is far beyond what many other Liberals possess. In short, it could have been a magnificent starting point for the discussion that we need to have in America--the discussion of what specific roles do Americans wish for the government to take in their daily lives, and how large (or small) do Americans wish for their government to be.
But he just had to throw that Race Card out there, didn't he?
Moran--by leading off his statements with charges of racism--completely obscured those latter points which could have greatly contributed to the political discussion in 2011. On one hand, it's almost encouraging that someone on the Left comes so close to "getting it" in terms of what we on the Right stand for (as Moran sort of did in the latter part of his comments). But on the other hand, his mischaracterisation of the alleged and virtually non-existent "racism" in the American Right is yet another example of the Left purposely damaging racial relations and inspiring suspicion and distrust among the various ethnicities in America simply to keep themselves in power.
It's a disgusting ploy from the left--and one that they rely on far too often.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
GOP pursues Healthcare repeal--White House begins playing "Roll out the Victims"
With the GOP beginning the follow-through of their campaign promise to attempt to repeal Obamacare (an effort that passed the House and will now go to the Senate), the Democratic party--and more specifically the White House--has gone into overdrive with their favorite play in their playbook. Rolling out the victims!
Link: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2011/0119/Pre-existing-conditions-at-forefront-of-White-House-s-response-to-health-care-repeal
As they have done throughout American History, the Left--when advocating an idea or program that will result in the Federal Government moving beyond the specific enumerated powers that The Founding Fathers intended--attempts to use what can best be described as a combination of Sally Struthers commercials and old Queen For A Day episodes. Just as they did with The Great Society, The New Deal, and pretty much every other government intrusion that they have advocated throughout history, the Left answers criticisms of potential government over-reach by responding with tear-jerking stories of people who will be "deprived" if we stand in the way of the Left's "Do-gooder" efforts.
Some of you who are older might remember an infamous cover of the magazine, "National Lampoon". On that cover, a cute little puppy dog was pictured with a gun pointed at it's head. The caption read "If you don't buy this magazine, we'll kill this dog!." On wonders if a similar cover is used for the portfolio of every Democratic strategy. They figure that if they can bring a tear to our eye with some sob story of someone who is going to be "affected" by these decisions, then we'll just stand aside and allow them to continue destroying our freedoms.
And you know something--for most of the 20th Century, it worked. Time and again, Conservatives, Republicans, and otherwise ordinary American people would stop the argument when the Left would start rolling out the victims. They'd show a senior citizen or a wide-eyed child on the TV screen, and we'd back off and allow the Left to continue the destruction of America. However, in 2011, this particular Conservative, at least, is standing up and saying "No More!"
You on the Left can roll out all the old people, single mothers, children, handicapped, and whatever others you can find to attempt to defend (or at least distract from) your deplorable policies...but when you do, I and other Conservatives will finally start saying the three words that you've been betting all along that we'd never come out and say:
I don't care.
Or more to the point, it's not the government's job to "care" if somebody has health care, or if somebody has food or water, or if somebody has enough income. It is not the government's job to make sure that people have an education (not that the government has done a particularly good job of providing education anyhow, even if it *were* they're prerogative to do so), if somebody is given an "opportunity" in life, or if somebody has "self-esteem". And it's certainly not the government's prerogative to steal money from me so that these actions--none of which were ever intended to be undertaken by government--can become a focus area for them.
On the other hand, it is the government's job to defend us from our enemies, defend our property, and enforce property rights--and that's pretty much it. Everything else, they're supposed to leave to us.
So no, I DON'T care if somebody's pre-existing condition won't be covered (which, in and of itself, would completely screw up the concept of what "insurance" is supposed to be to begin with--but that's another topic). I DON'T care if somebody else has health insurance or not. And more to the point, Mr. Obama, as President of the United States, IT'S NOT YOUR JOB TO CARE EITHER!!!! Contrary to your beliefs and the beliefs of much of the Left, people CAN take care of themselves without government influence or interference. People can--and should--undertake the task of making sure their own needs are met rather than waiting for a someone else to do so for them. To deny people this opportunity is to stifle their growth and keep them from realizing their true potential in life.
If you want to "care" about something so damn bad, then start "caring" about putting China and the Middle East back in their place. Start "Caring" about securing our borders or getting a handle on crime. In other words, "care" about what the American People actually "care" about!
Link: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2011/0119/Pre-existing-conditions-at-forefront-of-White-House-s-response-to-health-care-repeal
As they have done throughout American History, the Left--when advocating an idea or program that will result in the Federal Government moving beyond the specific enumerated powers that The Founding Fathers intended--attempts to use what can best be described as a combination of Sally Struthers commercials and old Queen For A Day episodes. Just as they did with The Great Society, The New Deal, and pretty much every other government intrusion that they have advocated throughout history, the Left answers criticisms of potential government over-reach by responding with tear-jerking stories of people who will be "deprived" if we stand in the way of the Left's "Do-gooder" efforts.
Some of you who are older might remember an infamous cover of the magazine, "National Lampoon". On that cover, a cute little puppy dog was pictured with a gun pointed at it's head. The caption read "If you don't buy this magazine, we'll kill this dog!." On wonders if a similar cover is used for the portfolio of every Democratic strategy. They figure that if they can bring a tear to our eye with some sob story of someone who is going to be "affected" by these decisions, then we'll just stand aside and allow them to continue destroying our freedoms.
And you know something--for most of the 20th Century, it worked. Time and again, Conservatives, Republicans, and otherwise ordinary American people would stop the argument when the Left would start rolling out the victims. They'd show a senior citizen or a wide-eyed child on the TV screen, and we'd back off and allow the Left to continue the destruction of America. However, in 2011, this particular Conservative, at least, is standing up and saying "No More!"
You on the Left can roll out all the old people, single mothers, children, handicapped, and whatever others you can find to attempt to defend (or at least distract from) your deplorable policies...but when you do, I and other Conservatives will finally start saying the three words that you've been betting all along that we'd never come out and say:
I don't care.
Or more to the point, it's not the government's job to "care" if somebody has health care, or if somebody has food or water, or if somebody has enough income. It is not the government's job to make sure that people have an education (not that the government has done a particularly good job of providing education anyhow, even if it *were* they're prerogative to do so), if somebody is given an "opportunity" in life, or if somebody has "self-esteem". And it's certainly not the government's prerogative to steal money from me so that these actions--none of which were ever intended to be undertaken by government--can become a focus area for them.
On the other hand, it is the government's job to defend us from our enemies, defend our property, and enforce property rights--and that's pretty much it. Everything else, they're supposed to leave to us.
So no, I DON'T care if somebody's pre-existing condition won't be covered (which, in and of itself, would completely screw up the concept of what "insurance" is supposed to be to begin with--but that's another topic). I DON'T care if somebody else has health insurance or not. And more to the point, Mr. Obama, as President of the United States, IT'S NOT YOUR JOB TO CARE EITHER!!!! Contrary to your beliefs and the beliefs of much of the Left, people CAN take care of themselves without government influence or interference. People can--and should--undertake the task of making sure their own needs are met rather than waiting for a someone else to do so for them. To deny people this opportunity is to stifle their growth and keep them from realizing their true potential in life.
If you want to "care" about something so damn bad, then start "caring" about putting China and the Middle East back in their place. Start "Caring" about securing our borders or getting a handle on crime. In other words, "care" about what the American People actually "care" about!
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
NBC: Connecting Right-Wing rhetoric to assasinations since 1963 (footage included)
As most of us have discussed until we're blue in the face, the Left and their stalwarts in the media have trumpeted a supposed "connection" between allegedly vitriolic Right-Wing rhetoric and the assassination attempt on Representative Gabrielle Giffords.
But what if I told you that wasn't the first time the media tried to play this card? You'd probably say, "Ok, you're going to go through the media's reaction to the Oklahoma City bombings, aren't you?" I could do so--and it certainly be relevant. However, the meme goes back even further!
The following footage is from the NBC live coverage of the assassination of John F. Kennedy back in 1963. This particular piece includes a series of "Man on the street" interviews (remember, we didn't have blogs back then!). The interviews start at 2:02 in the clip--but at the 2:38 mark the reporter begins asking two questions that perfectly set up the interviewee to speculate and place blame for the assassination--tasks he is only too happy to undertake:
Notice the first gentleman's answer to the question--he's extremely quick to blame "ultra-conservative groups" that he accuses of "spreading hate".
Does this sound familiar at all?
The reporter doesn't challenge the man's accusations, he just quickly says "of course no one knows if these people are, indeed responsible" (the journalistic version of "covering one's own backside"). But that's not all--after all, the "ultra-conservative groups" (aka. "Goldwater Republicans", a group of people in 1963 who were essentially the "original" Tea Party), were not the only political enemies of JFK--therefore there was more mud to spread around. Next, the reporter goes onto a lady and directly asks her to speculate if Kennedy's racial policies were connected to the assassination. And again, the lady is only too happy to place blame at the feet of the segregationists (not that I'm a fan of segregationists...but of all the things you could accuse them of, I'm pretty sure assassinating a sitting President isn't one of them).
So the pattern of the Leftist media fueling unwarranted speculation upon political enemies after an assassination is certainly nothing new. The only difference was that back then, they disguised it a bit better.
Rather than sticking to the facts during the breaking story (something that the Left would tell you *all* journalists used to do back in the "good ol' days") or perhaps restricting his questions to the feelings of the "man on the street" or specifics about how they heard the news, this reporter chose a line of questioning that did little but attempt to establish a speculative connection to polticial enemies of the Left of that era.
But what if I told you that wasn't the first time the media tried to play this card? You'd probably say, "Ok, you're going to go through the media's reaction to the Oklahoma City bombings, aren't you?" I could do so--and it certainly be relevant. However, the meme goes back even further!
The following footage is from the NBC live coverage of the assassination of John F. Kennedy back in 1963. This particular piece includes a series of "Man on the street" interviews (remember, we didn't have blogs back then!). The interviews start at 2:02 in the clip--but at the 2:38 mark the reporter begins asking two questions that perfectly set up the interviewee to speculate and place blame for the assassination--tasks he is only too happy to undertake:
Notice the first gentleman's answer to the question--he's extremely quick to blame "ultra-conservative groups" that he accuses of "spreading hate".
Does this sound familiar at all?
The reporter doesn't challenge the man's accusations, he just quickly says "of course no one knows if these people are, indeed responsible" (the journalistic version of "covering one's own backside"). But that's not all--after all, the "ultra-conservative groups" (aka. "Goldwater Republicans", a group of people in 1963 who were essentially the "original" Tea Party), were not the only political enemies of JFK--therefore there was more mud to spread around. Next, the reporter goes onto a lady and directly asks her to speculate if Kennedy's racial policies were connected to the assassination. And again, the lady is only too happy to place blame at the feet of the segregationists (not that I'm a fan of segregationists...but of all the things you could accuse them of, I'm pretty sure assassinating a sitting President isn't one of them).
So the pattern of the Leftist media fueling unwarranted speculation upon political enemies after an assassination is certainly nothing new. The only difference was that back then, they disguised it a bit better.
Rather than sticking to the facts during the breaking story (something that the Left would tell you *all* journalists used to do back in the "good ol' days") or perhaps restricting his questions to the feelings of the "man on the street" or specifics about how they heard the news, this reporter chose a line of questioning that did little but attempt to establish a speculative connection to polticial enemies of the Left of that era.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Reflections on the Assasination attempt on Gabrielle Giffords
The horrible events of last weekend in Tucson, Arizona, when Representative Gabrielle Giffords was the target of an assassination attempt. And while everybody--whatever side of the proverbial aisle they stand on--certainly hopes for the fullest of recoveries for Rep. Giffords and mourns for those that died as a result of this tragedy, we still have had some spirited debates over the last several days on issues brought up after this tragedy. What follows are my reactions and opinions on a few of these issues:
**On the Sarah Palin Factor: Upon initially hearing the breaking news of this tragedy, I (along with millions of other Americans, I'm sure) went onto the internet to see what information was out there, and also to see what the "pulse of the nation" was at that moment among the message boards and opinion sites. I was sickened (though not surprised) to see that almost immediately upon the breaking of the story--when information was just starting to trickle in from Arizona and we didn't yet know who the gunman was or even how many gunmen there were--a full-blown attempt was on to link Sarah Palin to the tragedy. From "mainstream" Leftists like Paul Krugman, down to your everyday left-wing bloggers and message board posters, the assumption was quickly made that this tragedy was somehow the manifestation of Palin and the Tea Party's "chickens coming home to roost". You can go to any number of websites (one great example is the message board at www.stltoday.com) and see the anti-Palin and anti-Tea Party venom coming out in earnest--but do yourself a favor and check the timestamps of many of the original posts on those thread...you'll notice that these accusations were being written within the first hour after the news started to come in--in other words, well before we had *any* information on the nutjob that perpetrated these acts.
At the risk of sounding like some conspiracy theorist--it almost seemed like the left had a "plan" for whenever some public shooting spree or other such tragedy took place--link it to Palin and the Tea Party. Within minutes of the tragedy, the "Palin is responsible" meme was all over the internet and the media. Now, of course I know it wasn't an organized gameplan by the Left (after all, in this day and age, one person can lie on the internet and within minutes, 5 million others will swear to that lie...and it's a phenomenon that the Left has mastered), but the speed and consistency of this meme--unfounded and untrue as it was--was simply stunning in swiftness with which it permeated both the cyber and traditional medias. I suppose it just goes to show you that when these sick bastards decide to tell a lie, and stay consistent with that lie--they can get that lie out there in the public eye with lightning speed. We on the Right must never underestimate the pervasiveness, redundancy, and effectiveness of the Left-wing spin/lie machine--when it's running on all cylinders, it can get misinfomration out there with a frightening level of speed and effectiveness. Give the Devil their due, the Left does an excellent job of saturating both the internet and the "traditional" media with their story, spin, and interpretation of events. It would be a huge mistake for the Right to ever underestimate the Left's mastery of publicity and communication (and what happened the last time we underestimated their effectiveness in this area? Obama got elected. I rest my case.)
***On the "Political Vitriol" Factor: Once it became apparent that the shooter, Jared Loughner, couldn't be linked with Sarah Palin, The Tea Party, or any other political movement currently residing on planet Earth, the Left shifted their smear towards the idea that the "Level of Political Vitriol" in America was somehow responsible--either partially or fully--for the tragedy. As the afternoon of the tragedy went on and the news of Loughner's Youtube channel became public (and accordingly, millions of Americans--myself included--immediately went to that channel), it became clear that this guy could have been set off by as little as a strong gust of wind. There was (and still is) no evidence that the level of political discourse in America contributed--either directly or indirectly--to Loughner's heinous actions. However, this didn't stop the Left from ratcheting up this storyline on the Sunday Morning panel shows, and continuing with it through the week.
So why would the Left stick with such a meme if it has no connection to the reality of the situation? My take on it is that they see this tragedy as an opportunity--for Liberalism to get a stronghold in a nation, there must be some level of apathy or non-attention on the part of the public--which enables the Left to put their big government agenda in place over time, piece by piece. After all, if they were to attempt to execute all of their radical ideas at once, the populace would be horrified and put a stop to it. However, if the public is apathetic, distracted, or just simply not paying attention, then "bits and pieces" of government can be put into place and--after a generation or two--people won't question those government programs because, after all, "hadn't they always been there?" During much of the 20th Century, the Left had--with some short interruptions--the apathetic environment they needed in order to do their dirty work. However, the 21st Century is different--the public (and particularly the Tea Party movement) is no longer apathetic, and this interferes with what the Left wishes to do. Passing Obamacare was political suicide for many of the Democrats who supported it, and other extreme Leftist measures such as Cap & Trade and Card Check didn't see the light of day in the last Congressional session because of the public pressure against those ideas. The Left knows that for all the things you can say about vitriol and anger, you can't say those concepts are apathetic. Therefore, they need Americans to lose the vitriol and anger, and resume their apathetic slumber of previous generations, if they are to resume implementing their dangerous and over-reaching ideas. As a result, I believe many on the Left felt (and still feel) that last weekend's tragedy was a profound opportunity to attempt to lower the nations tone, and in doing so inspire the apathy that the Left desperately needs in place.
***On the "Violent Imagery and Rhetoric" Factor: On offshoot of the "Political Vitriol" meme has been the complaints of the Left of "Violent Imagery and Rhetoric" that they claim is used by the Right--despite (again) having no information or evidence supporting a claim that such imagery or rhetoric had anything to do with this tragedy. Soon after the shooting, the Left was saturating the internet with the Sarah Palin Pac ad where certain Congressional districts--which had been targeted for possible pickups in the 2008 election--had been marked with crosshairs. Also, there were cries from the left about speeches calling for "Second Amendment Solutions" (and if they're complaining about that statement, then by definition, aren't they complaining about the Constitution as a whole?) among other things. "This type of rhetoric and speech should have no place in politics" many of the Liberal Do-Gooders whined. Pretty quickly, Conservatives were able to come up with just as many examples of "violent" imagery (a map showing districts targeted by Democrats with bullseyes) and speech (among many others, Obama's remarks about "not bringing a knife to a gunfight")
So now that it's been established that such imagery and speech has come from both sides, let's tackle the question--does such speech and imagery have any place in the political arena? I don't see why not. Since the beginning of our nation, speech and imagery referring to combat, gunfire, or items of a military nature (now deemed by the Left to be "Violent Imagery") have long been used as illustrative devices in the political process--just as they have in almost every other aspect of life. We use them when talking about sports, about business, about personal relationships, or darn near anything else you can think of. It's a natural part of our speech because such things are examples that most all of us can relate to on some level--hence why they are such excellent illustrative tools. So the Left wants us all to stop using violence in our speech? To do so is so natural to most people that the Left would have more success asking us not to use verbs or adjectives in our speech!
***The "Politicization" Factor: From about Sunday on, I've seen much sniping about how crass it is to politicize this tragedy. Now, on the surface, I agree with that criticism. However, many who have leveled such a criticism have objected to *both* the Left and the Right participating in this politicization--and that's just flat-out wrong. It is quite true (as illustrated in the examples contained in the above paragraphs) that the Left started politicizing this tragedy from the first moments that the nation heard about it. However, from what I've seen, the Right's participation in the politicization has been simply to defend ourselves from the unfounded and ridiculous accusations that the Left has levied over the last several days. Beginning on the Sunday shows, The Left began throwing the accusations at the Right mentioned above--that our "tone" and "vitriol" were somehow responsible for this. On Monday, when some Conservative commentators responded to those charges, the Left criticized us merely for responding.
So let me get this straight--the Left somehow has the authority to connect the Right to this tragedy by way of accusing us of mythical actions that had zero to do with tragedy--and when people on the Right had the gall and temerity to *gasp* respond to those accusations, the Left somehow had the authority to criticize us a second time merely for attempting to respond to their accusations? Bullshit. At the risk of sounding like a 5-year old in a sandbox screaming "He started it!", the truth is, in this case, the Left really did start it. And their accusations--unfounded though they might have been--were so egregious, off the mark, and potentially damaging that we had no alternative but to respond and set the record straight. To those of you who would criticize the Right's part in the politicization of this issue, ask yourself this question--what should the Right have done instead? Once we were falsely accused of having some kind of connection or responsibility for the actions of Jared the Nutjob, could you have really expected us to turn the other cheek and ignore the falsehoods and lies being spread--and thereby allow those falsehoods and lies to take root in the public and potentially come back and hurt us at election time? Should we have allowed the Left to have Carte Blanche to make any accusation and tell any lie that they wanted without challenging them? And if so, how on earth would we go about undoing the damage that such lies, falsehoods, and connections would surely result in?
We did not want to engage in this political pissing match--we were dragged into it kicking and screaming. If you're disgusted with the politicization of this tragedy (and on some level, you certainly should be), then be disgusted with the Left. After all, they are the ones the saw this tragedy as political opportunism, and launched baseless political attacks accordingly.
Many times, you'll hear some Conservatives (and certainly myself) talk about how sick, demented, and morally bankrupt the modern American Left is. And I realize that many people chalk these statements up to just "partisan political rhetoric". But if this week has illustrated anything, it has illustrated that our characterization of the American Left--as a disconnected, evil, sick, soulless group of morally and spiritually bankrupt people masquerading as human beings--is all too real.
**On the Sarah Palin Factor: Upon initially hearing the breaking news of this tragedy, I (along with millions of other Americans, I'm sure) went onto the internet to see what information was out there, and also to see what the "pulse of the nation" was at that moment among the message boards and opinion sites. I was sickened (though not surprised) to see that almost immediately upon the breaking of the story--when information was just starting to trickle in from Arizona and we didn't yet know who the gunman was or even how many gunmen there were--a full-blown attempt was on to link Sarah Palin to the tragedy. From "mainstream" Leftists like Paul Krugman, down to your everyday left-wing bloggers and message board posters, the assumption was quickly made that this tragedy was somehow the manifestation of Palin and the Tea Party's "chickens coming home to roost". You can go to any number of websites (one great example is the message board at www.stltoday.com) and see the anti-Palin and anti-Tea Party venom coming out in earnest--but do yourself a favor and check the timestamps of many of the original posts on those thread...you'll notice that these accusations were being written within the first hour after the news started to come in--in other words, well before we had *any* information on the nutjob that perpetrated these acts.
At the risk of sounding like some conspiracy theorist--it almost seemed like the left had a "plan" for whenever some public shooting spree or other such tragedy took place--link it to Palin and the Tea Party. Within minutes of the tragedy, the "Palin is responsible" meme was all over the internet and the media. Now, of course I know it wasn't an organized gameplan by the Left (after all, in this day and age, one person can lie on the internet and within minutes, 5 million others will swear to that lie...and it's a phenomenon that the Left has mastered), but the speed and consistency of this meme--unfounded and untrue as it was--was simply stunning in swiftness with which it permeated both the cyber and traditional medias. I suppose it just goes to show you that when these sick bastards decide to tell a lie, and stay consistent with that lie--they can get that lie out there in the public eye with lightning speed. We on the Right must never underestimate the pervasiveness, redundancy, and effectiveness of the Left-wing spin/lie machine--when it's running on all cylinders, it can get misinfomration out there with a frightening level of speed and effectiveness. Give the Devil their due, the Left does an excellent job of saturating both the internet and the "traditional" media with their story, spin, and interpretation of events. It would be a huge mistake for the Right to ever underestimate the Left's mastery of publicity and communication (and what happened the last time we underestimated their effectiveness in this area? Obama got elected. I rest my case.)
***On the "Political Vitriol" Factor: Once it became apparent that the shooter, Jared Loughner, couldn't be linked with Sarah Palin, The Tea Party, or any other political movement currently residing on planet Earth, the Left shifted their smear towards the idea that the "Level of Political Vitriol" in America was somehow responsible--either partially or fully--for the tragedy. As the afternoon of the tragedy went on and the news of Loughner's Youtube channel became public (and accordingly, millions of Americans--myself included--immediately went to that channel), it became clear that this guy could have been set off by as little as a strong gust of wind. There was (and still is) no evidence that the level of political discourse in America contributed--either directly or indirectly--to Loughner's heinous actions. However, this didn't stop the Left from ratcheting up this storyline on the Sunday Morning panel shows, and continuing with it through the week.
So why would the Left stick with such a meme if it has no connection to the reality of the situation? My take on it is that they see this tragedy as an opportunity--for Liberalism to get a stronghold in a nation, there must be some level of apathy or non-attention on the part of the public--which enables the Left to put their big government agenda in place over time, piece by piece. After all, if they were to attempt to execute all of their radical ideas at once, the populace would be horrified and put a stop to it. However, if the public is apathetic, distracted, or just simply not paying attention, then "bits and pieces" of government can be put into place and--after a generation or two--people won't question those government programs because, after all, "hadn't they always been there?" During much of the 20th Century, the Left had--with some short interruptions--the apathetic environment they needed in order to do their dirty work. However, the 21st Century is different--the public (and particularly the Tea Party movement) is no longer apathetic, and this interferes with what the Left wishes to do. Passing Obamacare was political suicide for many of the Democrats who supported it, and other extreme Leftist measures such as Cap & Trade and Card Check didn't see the light of day in the last Congressional session because of the public pressure against those ideas. The Left knows that for all the things you can say about vitriol and anger, you can't say those concepts are apathetic. Therefore, they need Americans to lose the vitriol and anger, and resume their apathetic slumber of previous generations, if they are to resume implementing their dangerous and over-reaching ideas. As a result, I believe many on the Left felt (and still feel) that last weekend's tragedy was a profound opportunity to attempt to lower the nations tone, and in doing so inspire the apathy that the Left desperately needs in place.
***On the "Violent Imagery and Rhetoric" Factor: On offshoot of the "Political Vitriol" meme has been the complaints of the Left of "Violent Imagery and Rhetoric" that they claim is used by the Right--despite (again) having no information or evidence supporting a claim that such imagery or rhetoric had anything to do with this tragedy. Soon after the shooting, the Left was saturating the internet with the Sarah Palin Pac ad where certain Congressional districts--which had been targeted for possible pickups in the 2008 election--had been marked with crosshairs. Also, there were cries from the left about speeches calling for "Second Amendment Solutions" (and if they're complaining about that statement, then by definition, aren't they complaining about the Constitution as a whole?) among other things. "This type of rhetoric and speech should have no place in politics" many of the Liberal Do-Gooders whined. Pretty quickly, Conservatives were able to come up with just as many examples of "violent" imagery (a map showing districts targeted by Democrats with bullseyes) and speech (among many others, Obama's remarks about "not bringing a knife to a gunfight")
So now that it's been established that such imagery and speech has come from both sides, let's tackle the question--does such speech and imagery have any place in the political arena? I don't see why not. Since the beginning of our nation, speech and imagery referring to combat, gunfire, or items of a military nature (now deemed by the Left to be "Violent Imagery") have long been used as illustrative devices in the political process--just as they have in almost every other aspect of life. We use them when talking about sports, about business, about personal relationships, or darn near anything else you can think of. It's a natural part of our speech because such things are examples that most all of us can relate to on some level--hence why they are such excellent illustrative tools. So the Left wants us all to stop using violence in our speech? To do so is so natural to most people that the Left would have more success asking us not to use verbs or adjectives in our speech!
***The "Politicization" Factor: From about Sunday on, I've seen much sniping about how crass it is to politicize this tragedy. Now, on the surface, I agree with that criticism. However, many who have leveled such a criticism have objected to *both* the Left and the Right participating in this politicization--and that's just flat-out wrong. It is quite true (as illustrated in the examples contained in the above paragraphs) that the Left started politicizing this tragedy from the first moments that the nation heard about it. However, from what I've seen, the Right's participation in the politicization has been simply to defend ourselves from the unfounded and ridiculous accusations that the Left has levied over the last several days. Beginning on the Sunday shows, The Left began throwing the accusations at the Right mentioned above--that our "tone" and "vitriol" were somehow responsible for this. On Monday, when some Conservative commentators responded to those charges, the Left criticized us merely for responding.
So let me get this straight--the Left somehow has the authority to connect the Right to this tragedy by way of accusing us of mythical actions that had zero to do with tragedy--and when people on the Right had the gall and temerity to *gasp* respond to those accusations, the Left somehow had the authority to criticize us a second time merely for attempting to respond to their accusations? Bullshit. At the risk of sounding like a 5-year old in a sandbox screaming "He started it!", the truth is, in this case, the Left really did start it. And their accusations--unfounded though they might have been--were so egregious, off the mark, and potentially damaging that we had no alternative but to respond and set the record straight. To those of you who would criticize the Right's part in the politicization of this issue, ask yourself this question--what should the Right have done instead? Once we were falsely accused of having some kind of connection or responsibility for the actions of Jared the Nutjob, could you have really expected us to turn the other cheek and ignore the falsehoods and lies being spread--and thereby allow those falsehoods and lies to take root in the public and potentially come back and hurt us at election time? Should we have allowed the Left to have Carte Blanche to make any accusation and tell any lie that they wanted without challenging them? And if so, how on earth would we go about undoing the damage that such lies, falsehoods, and connections would surely result in?
We did not want to engage in this political pissing match--we were dragged into it kicking and screaming. If you're disgusted with the politicization of this tragedy (and on some level, you certainly should be), then be disgusted with the Left. After all, they are the ones the saw this tragedy as political opportunism, and launched baseless political attacks accordingly.
Many times, you'll hear some Conservatives (and certainly myself) talk about how sick, demented, and morally bankrupt the modern American Left is. And I realize that many people chalk these statements up to just "partisan political rhetoric". But if this week has illustrated anything, it has illustrated that our characterization of the American Left--as a disconnected, evil, sick, soulless group of morally and spiritually bankrupt people masquerading as human beings--is all too real.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)