Time for a new re-curring feature on your friendly neighborhood blog: "Your WTF Moment of the Day"! These are intended to be "quick hit" commentaries and reactions about a particular news item of the day (as opposed to the long-form articles I've been writing here...don't worry, those aren't going away, but the WTF Moments are desinged to add another dimension to this, the greatest blog on teh interwebs)
Today's topic: Senate Democrats show off their agenda for the remaining weeks of this Congressional session, and appear to be intent on doing as much substantial damage as possible before Capitol Security throws them out.
Link to Washington Post story with the details: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/14/reid-threatens-keep-congress-next-year/
So despite the utter rejection of the American People during the 2010 mid-terms, the Dems are committed to playing the role of the psycho ex-girlfriend who won't go away no matter how many times we don't return her phone calls, sleep with her best friend, or otherwise humilate her. Instead of taking a hint, understanding that the meaningless fling was just that, and moving on, they are instead convinced that we the people would fall madly in love with them if we would just come to our senses and realize how good they are for us. Instead, they simply don't realize that we have completely rejected everything they stand for, see them for the skank that they are, and refuse to put up with their proverbial "psycho ass" any longer.
As the legendary band Motley Crue once sang: "Girl, don't go away mad...Girl, just go away!"
The American people don't want $1.1 Trillion in spending, an arms reduction treaty with Russia, repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell", or additional pork any more than a single guy wants to hear some chick (who he only banged because he was drunk) drone on about feelings, commitment, Twilight, or any of that other shit they talk about the next morning when you're trying to come up with some excuse to get them out of your house.
Note to Dems: I believe I speak for the American People when I say: "Bitch...Get Da Fuck Out!!!!"
...and put my shirt back in the closet where you found it! Psycho bitch, trying to take my shit...
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Why we must declare war on intellectualism
It almost goes without saying that a massive change has occured in the values, beliefs, and behaviors of Americans living today and the values, beliefs, and behaviors of our grandparents and great-grandparents. When one examines this change in our culture (and the mostly negative consequences that arose from the actions generated by this cultural change), it can lead one to the rather daunting questions of "How in the Hell did we allow our nation to get to this point? Where did we wander off the trail?"
There are many potential scapegoats, of course. We could spend post after post laying blame on the media, the Democratic Party, or the entertainment industry (and who knows, perhaps at some point I will spend post after post doing this), but the fact is that none of those entities could have had as much influence over our beliefs and actions as they have unless we had somehow allowed them to do so. But if that is the case, then how on Earth did we allow these entities to co-opt and corrupt us?
One of the key answers to that question might surprise some of you--indeed, it might be something you've never considered or thought about. Indeed, when I mention what it is in the next few lines, it might seem counter-intuitive--or perhaps even flat-out crazy--to you. But if you think about it, and look back at the 20th Century, I think you'll see where I'm coming from.
It is our trust in Intellectualism and Academia that has done untold damage to our society through the 20th century.
To put it in most simple terms, we as a society have abandoned our own knowledge, observations, judgement, understanding of human nature and yes, common sense...and have instead deferred to the pontifications of those who have spent their lives in our Colleges and Universities, but have produced little of actual value. Through the 20th century, we have been told that "the smartest guys in the room" have all the answers, and that those of us who don't have the "Ivy League Seal of Approval" should feel compelled to defer to whatever comes out of the mouths of the Intellectual Elite--no matter how ridiculous those words or ideas might be. Forget that many of the ideas that Intelligensia has backed over the last 100 years or so have been counter-intuitive to any sort of basic understanding of human nature, psychology, or sociology--we have somehow determined that those counter-intuitive ideas must somehow have more value than our own instincts and understanding, simply because these "new" ideas are coming from those who have a particular sheepskin on their wall or certain letters after their name.
In short, we have confused edcuation for intelligence.
What is the difference between education and intelligence? Think back to your childhood--if you're anywhere near my age (mid-thirties...though I'm not above claiming an age of 27 when speaking with a lovely lady), then you likely remember growing up around people in your childhood who always seemed to have the right answer or solution, regardless of what problem or situation arose. It might have been a parent, grandparent, neighbor, uncle, aunt, pastor...chances are, there was someone around early in your life (and perhaps, many someones) who had the ability to "figure out" the right solution or answer to whatever life handed them. Now, think a bit further--how many of those people were college educated? Of that group, how many had a Master's Degree? How many had a Doctorate?
For most of us, maybe a few of those influences had a college education. Perhaps one or two had a master's degree. And beyond your pediatrician or dentist, you probably didn't know anybody who had a doctorate. Speaking for myself, I grew up in an area where very few adults had anything beyond a High School education (and many didn't even have that)--but yet many of the adults I knew back then understood how do deal with people, understood how to teach them when necessary, understood when you should give people a helping hand (and perhaps more importantly, the knew when you shouldn't give a helping hand). They understood how to run a business, how to manage risk, invest, and grow money, and how to protect the interests of themselves and their families. All without the "Ivy League Seal of Approval".
These uneducated adults understood that you cannot prepare a child for adulthood without instilling discipline in him (but the intellectuals of the same era would argue that you have to be your child's best friend and not take an authoritative role in their lives). These uneducated adults knew that putting money away and spending responsibly would put you in good stead later in life (as the intellectuals claimed that one must spend, spend, spend with little regard for fiscal responsibility in order to keep the economy moving). These uneducated adults taught us that it is not acceptable to steal, lie, or kill in life (but the intellectuals of that era told us that if someone is economically, socially, or racially disadvantaged, then such actions must be understood, not criticized)
In short, most of the "uneducated" adults I grew up around had more intelligence and better judgement than many of the allegedly "educated" people I've met in the ensuing years since I left my hometown.
But how can this be? Shouldn't those with hours upon hours, and years upon years of education have the ability to make better judgements or come up with better answers than those without such education? One would think so...but there's one key element missing in mondern academia. The missing element is the connection of that education (and the theory it entails) to the realities of the world we live in. So much of what passes for modern education isn't proven, but is instead theorectical in nature. It is not meant to relate to how humans really behave in live, but instead is meant to relate to how those within the cocoon of intelligensia feel that humans should live.
Where the uneducated "rubes" that I grew up with made judgements, analysis, and decsions within the realm of reality (if I do X, then I know Y will happen next), much of intelligensia make their judgements, analysis, and decisions based outside the realm of the world that currently exists ("If we understand the terrorists, perhaps we could connect with them and make everybody more safe!"...despite the fact that World History would indicate this has never happened with this group of people).
This is not to say that education--in and of itself--is a bad thing. Heck, I have a bachelor's degree myself. However, it is to say that education is not the be all and end all of intelligence. The education one receives must be based in the practical, not the theoretical, in order to be of any value. Think back to LBJ's Great Society--a series of programs that the Intellectuals told us would level the playing field for poor Americans and give them opportunities that they were allegedly being deprived. The result? Cities that are in a shape as bad--or in many cases, worse--than they were before the meddling of LBJ and the intellectuals in his ear, not to mention a creation of a Welfare Class that burdens us to this day. The intellectuals never saw this coming--but the "good ol' boys" would have told you that giving money to people without having them work for it would do nothing more than encourage those people to remain unproductive and lazy (and indeed, they have).
It's high time that we start trusting in our own judgement again. The 20th Century has proven that the judgement of the Intellectuals is no more superior or less flawed than our own. Each of us has the power to analyze a situation or a problem, look at the facts avaliable, and use our own experience and knowledge of human beings to take proper action--we do not need an "educated" class of people to make those decisions for us or to try to influence our decisions. An education should be used to supplement what you already know and understand about the world, not to replace it.
If an intellectual tells you something that just doesn't make sense in your gut--then trust your gut, chances are that it has a better track record than the intellectual. When an intellectual tries to feed you come cockamamie theory that doesn't pass the "smell test" of reality (you know, like telling you we can provide health insurance to all Americans without raising the cost or comprimising the availability of that insurance), reject them! Their judgement-steeped as it is in the trappings of intelligensia--is no better than yours.
Remember, the "intellectuals" led us to failed ideas such as Keynsian Economics, The Great Society, Social Security, and The Community Re-Investment Act (and it's bastard offspring, Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac), all of which have contributed to the financial problems that we experience today. With that type of track record, perhaps it's high time that we sat Academia in the corner, and put the Dunce Cap upon their collective head.
There are many potential scapegoats, of course. We could spend post after post laying blame on the media, the Democratic Party, or the entertainment industry (and who knows, perhaps at some point I will spend post after post doing this), but the fact is that none of those entities could have had as much influence over our beliefs and actions as they have unless we had somehow allowed them to do so. But if that is the case, then how on Earth did we allow these entities to co-opt and corrupt us?
One of the key answers to that question might surprise some of you--indeed, it might be something you've never considered or thought about. Indeed, when I mention what it is in the next few lines, it might seem counter-intuitive--or perhaps even flat-out crazy--to you. But if you think about it, and look back at the 20th Century, I think you'll see where I'm coming from.
It is our trust in Intellectualism and Academia that has done untold damage to our society through the 20th century.
To put it in most simple terms, we as a society have abandoned our own knowledge, observations, judgement, understanding of human nature and yes, common sense...and have instead deferred to the pontifications of those who have spent their lives in our Colleges and Universities, but have produced little of actual value. Through the 20th century, we have been told that "the smartest guys in the room" have all the answers, and that those of us who don't have the "Ivy League Seal of Approval" should feel compelled to defer to whatever comes out of the mouths of the Intellectual Elite--no matter how ridiculous those words or ideas might be. Forget that many of the ideas that Intelligensia has backed over the last 100 years or so have been counter-intuitive to any sort of basic understanding of human nature, psychology, or sociology--we have somehow determined that those counter-intuitive ideas must somehow have more value than our own instincts and understanding, simply because these "new" ideas are coming from those who have a particular sheepskin on their wall or certain letters after their name.
In short, we have confused edcuation for intelligence.
What is the difference between education and intelligence? Think back to your childhood--if you're anywhere near my age (mid-thirties...though I'm not above claiming an age of 27 when speaking with a lovely lady), then you likely remember growing up around people in your childhood who always seemed to have the right answer or solution, regardless of what problem or situation arose. It might have been a parent, grandparent, neighbor, uncle, aunt, pastor...chances are, there was someone around early in your life (and perhaps, many someones) who had the ability to "figure out" the right solution or answer to whatever life handed them. Now, think a bit further--how many of those people were college educated? Of that group, how many had a Master's Degree? How many had a Doctorate?
For most of us, maybe a few of those influences had a college education. Perhaps one or two had a master's degree. And beyond your pediatrician or dentist, you probably didn't know anybody who had a doctorate. Speaking for myself, I grew up in an area where very few adults had anything beyond a High School education (and many didn't even have that)--but yet many of the adults I knew back then understood how do deal with people, understood how to teach them when necessary, understood when you should give people a helping hand (and perhaps more importantly, the knew when you shouldn't give a helping hand). They understood how to run a business, how to manage risk, invest, and grow money, and how to protect the interests of themselves and their families. All without the "Ivy League Seal of Approval".
These uneducated adults understood that you cannot prepare a child for adulthood without instilling discipline in him (but the intellectuals of the same era would argue that you have to be your child's best friend and not take an authoritative role in their lives). These uneducated adults knew that putting money away and spending responsibly would put you in good stead later in life (as the intellectuals claimed that one must spend, spend, spend with little regard for fiscal responsibility in order to keep the economy moving). These uneducated adults taught us that it is not acceptable to steal, lie, or kill in life (but the intellectuals of that era told us that if someone is economically, socially, or racially disadvantaged, then such actions must be understood, not criticized)
In short, most of the "uneducated" adults I grew up around had more intelligence and better judgement than many of the allegedly "educated" people I've met in the ensuing years since I left my hometown.
But how can this be? Shouldn't those with hours upon hours, and years upon years of education have the ability to make better judgements or come up with better answers than those without such education? One would think so...but there's one key element missing in mondern academia. The missing element is the connection of that education (and the theory it entails) to the realities of the world we live in. So much of what passes for modern education isn't proven, but is instead theorectical in nature. It is not meant to relate to how humans really behave in live, but instead is meant to relate to how those within the cocoon of intelligensia feel that humans should live.
Where the uneducated "rubes" that I grew up with made judgements, analysis, and decsions within the realm of reality (if I do X, then I know Y will happen next), much of intelligensia make their judgements, analysis, and decisions based outside the realm of the world that currently exists ("If we understand the terrorists, perhaps we could connect with them and make everybody more safe!"...despite the fact that World History would indicate this has never happened with this group of people).
This is not to say that education--in and of itself--is a bad thing. Heck, I have a bachelor's degree myself. However, it is to say that education is not the be all and end all of intelligence. The education one receives must be based in the practical, not the theoretical, in order to be of any value. Think back to LBJ's Great Society--a series of programs that the Intellectuals told us would level the playing field for poor Americans and give them opportunities that they were allegedly being deprived. The result? Cities that are in a shape as bad--or in many cases, worse--than they were before the meddling of LBJ and the intellectuals in his ear, not to mention a creation of a Welfare Class that burdens us to this day. The intellectuals never saw this coming--but the "good ol' boys" would have told you that giving money to people without having them work for it would do nothing more than encourage those people to remain unproductive and lazy (and indeed, they have).
It's high time that we start trusting in our own judgement again. The 20th Century has proven that the judgement of the Intellectuals is no more superior or less flawed than our own. Each of us has the power to analyze a situation or a problem, look at the facts avaliable, and use our own experience and knowledge of human beings to take proper action--we do not need an "educated" class of people to make those decisions for us or to try to influence our decisions. An education should be used to supplement what you already know and understand about the world, not to replace it.
If an intellectual tells you something that just doesn't make sense in your gut--then trust your gut, chances are that it has a better track record than the intellectual. When an intellectual tries to feed you come cockamamie theory that doesn't pass the "smell test" of reality (you know, like telling you we can provide health insurance to all Americans without raising the cost or comprimising the availability of that insurance), reject them! Their judgement-steeped as it is in the trappings of intelligensia--is no better than yours.
Remember, the "intellectuals" led us to failed ideas such as Keynsian Economics, The Great Society, Social Security, and The Community Re-Investment Act (and it's bastard offspring, Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac), all of which have contributed to the financial problems that we experience today. With that type of track record, perhaps it's high time that we sat Academia in the corner, and put the Dunce Cap upon their collective head.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Diversity in Conservatism Part Deux: Why don't affluent African-Americans flock to Conservatism?
Writer's block is something that many great authors and thinkers--such as myself--are forced to deal with from time to time. Once the mid-term elections came and went, a certain calm--ok, maybe not "calm" but "chance to step back and at least take a breath"--seemed to descend over those of us in the realm of Conservative Commentary. The passionate energy and fervor with which we wrote over the last two years seemed to subside, at least on a temporary basis. I can tell you that, at least speaking for myself, I've actually had a hard time trying to find something to write about for the last couple of weeks.
But then the grind starts again, the calm of the mid-term election goes by the wayside, the victory parties and back-slapping start to level off, and the post-mortems finish up. And those of us in the Conservative blogosphere turn our attention to the day-to-day news, and we start to see things worth writing and talking about again. The TSA starts enforcing airline security measures which seem to have been devised by Larry Flynt. Barack Obama refuses to admit that his policies were the reason for the ass-kicking taken by the Democrats in the mid-terms. An internal battle within the GOP between the traditional powers (read: "RINO's") and the Modern Conservative/Tea Partiers is threatening to break loose. I've gone from having nothing seemingly worthy of a post for the last couple of weeks to having multiple things that I'm chomping at the bit to discuss. Where to start? Where to start?
Well, before pontificating on any of these current issues, I want to re-visit a topic from August and speak in more detail about one key aspect of that topic. Back in August, I wrote a piece on who should be "blamed" for the lack of diversity in the Tea Party movement. While I would encourage anybody who has not done so to read the ariticle, the Cliffs Notes version of it are that Tea Partiers and Conservatives are not to blame for the lack of "diversity" at Tea Party events, as we've done our dead level best to get the message of Conservatism out to all Americans. Instead, if anybody is to blame for the lack of "diversity", it is those members of the minority community who have heard our message, and continue to reject it. Specifically, the blame should be pointed to those Minority-Americans (is that even a real "Hyphanated-American" term?) who would rather accept the silent slavery of "group politics" and "social justice" advocated by the left than to accept the freedom and individual oppurtunity that Capitalism--as advocated by the Right--affords.
But what I want to do in this piece is to go beyond the basic question of "Why aren't minorities supporting Conservatism", and break the discussion down even further. Specifically, why aren't affluent African-Americans flocking to the Conservative movement?
This question was raised in a discussion with a Conservative friend a couple of weeks ago--and the more we discussed the question, the more difficulty we had in coming up with a compelling answer. I mean, let's face it, Conservatism is about the individual being allowed to reap the rewards of his own effort and hard work. So, with that in mind, it is somewhat understandable that those among the poor and middle classes who refuse to take responsibility for their own position in life (whatever ethnic persuasion they might be) would have a difficult time converting to Conservatism. For people of that mindset, Conservatism is a tough sell, and I acknowledge that. But what about those--of any ethnic group--who have worked hard and have been succesful (or are on their way to doing so)--why wouldn't they identify with Conservatism?
There are plenty of African-Americans who are business owners or executives, who are affluent, and have worked incredibly hard to place themselves in the upper classes of society--a place that these individuals have earned their place in. Yet, a large percentage of affluent African-Americans share much of the same poltical slant that poorer African-Americans have. And I find this rather curious--there is, by virtually any measure--a significant difference in poltics between wealthy whites and poorer whites (and also between older whites vs. younger whites). Why do we not see a similar difference within the African-American community?
While a significant amount of this phenomena involves the "generational politics" that I disucssed back in August, and certainly, the false chages of racism that the Left has consistantly lobbed at the Right over the last 50 years (and that the media have accepted on face value) plays a significant role as well. However, I think there is an additional explanation as well...an explanation that really isn't discussed much. There is something peculiar to African-American culture that we see in few other cultures, and certainly not in--for lack of a better term--"white culture". (Brief aside: Please note that I'm talking about CULTURE--that is, the particular characteristics voluntarily adopted by a particular group of people--and I'm NOT talking about race or ethnic makeup. A typical "Liberal Mind Trick" is to talk about those terms interchangeably...but there is a clear difference between the two. Questioning the characteristics of a particular >culture is completely acceptable and is not an act of racism, despite what the Left will tell you).
As my friend and I discussed the question, we arrived at the conclusion that the major difference seems to be that in the culture adopted by many African-Americans, there is an unhealthy expectation of community that doesn't seem to be nearly as present in some other cultures. In other words, when a member of the African-American community becomes succesful or affluent, there seems to be an expectation that the succesful person is to "share" that success with others in the community who have not had such success. This viewpoint is expressed in African-American writings, entertainment, and music (Take this line from the iconic Public Enemy song "Shut 'Em Down": "I like Nike's but wait a minute/the neighborhood supports so put some money in it"). Contrast that to the cultural viewpoint shared by many Whites (and particularly Conservatives)--while many affluent Whites or Conservatives donate freely and generously to charity, the culture they subscribe to does not make the assumption that those who are affluent have any particular responsibility to support or prop up others who have not "made it".
To put it another way, it is not uncommon to hear of affluent African-Americans who feel they have some sort of duty or expectation to invest some of that wealth back into poor, urban areas--and to not do so is to be accused of "forgetting where you came from" or in some way becoming "disconnected" with the rest of the community or culture. In a way, affluent African-Americans are held hostage by the expectations of others within their culture. On the other hand, when Whites become affluent, that same burden of cultural expectations doesn't seem to be there. In a manner of comparison, while many African-Americans feel the need to give money to help crackheads in the ghetto, very few affluent Whites feel the burden of being expected to give money to help methheads in rural areas. The burden and expectation simply isn't there among many affluent Whites, as the culture they subscribe to emphasizes the achievement and responsibility of the individual over that of the larger group. The culture subscribed to by many African-Americans seems to emphasize the opposite mentality.
This is not to say that affluent people of any race or culture refrain from donating to charitible causes or using their wealth to help others--instead it is to say that some cultures place a higher expectation on their members to do so than other cultures do. If more African-Americans who currently subscribe to the dominant culture within their community would begin to question--and eventually disregard--the unhealthy emphasis on "community" within that culture, then many more African-Americans would begin to see the light of Conservatism. But as long as affluent African-Americans continue to handcuff themselves with the burdens of "community", then it will continue to be quite difficult for them to accept Conservatism as a political philosphy.
On the other hand, when succesful African-Americans realize that they have been taken advantage of by the leeches within their community who would prefer to take from their wealth without contributing to it (and that they have been taken advantage of by the American Left who has perpetuated this cultural hoax within the African-American community for decades), when they begin to look at themselves and their familes as individuals as opposed to a part of a larger "community", then they will begin to flock to Conservatism. It won't happen overnight--significant change in cultural values (or even rejection of them) does not happen quickly--but when it does, I believe affluent people (and people who are on their way to becoming affluent) of all races and ethnicities will find that they have a suitable political home within the Conservative movement.
But then the grind starts again, the calm of the mid-term election goes by the wayside, the victory parties and back-slapping start to level off, and the post-mortems finish up. And those of us in the Conservative blogosphere turn our attention to the day-to-day news, and we start to see things worth writing and talking about again. The TSA starts enforcing airline security measures which seem to have been devised by Larry Flynt. Barack Obama refuses to admit that his policies were the reason for the ass-kicking taken by the Democrats in the mid-terms. An internal battle within the GOP between the traditional powers (read: "RINO's") and the Modern Conservative/Tea Partiers is threatening to break loose. I've gone from having nothing seemingly worthy of a post for the last couple of weeks to having multiple things that I'm chomping at the bit to discuss. Where to start? Where to start?
Well, before pontificating on any of these current issues, I want to re-visit a topic from August and speak in more detail about one key aspect of that topic. Back in August, I wrote a piece on who should be "blamed" for the lack of diversity in the Tea Party movement. While I would encourage anybody who has not done so to read the ariticle, the Cliffs Notes version of it are that Tea Partiers and Conservatives are not to blame for the lack of "diversity" at Tea Party events, as we've done our dead level best to get the message of Conservatism out to all Americans. Instead, if anybody is to blame for the lack of "diversity", it is those members of the minority community who have heard our message, and continue to reject it. Specifically, the blame should be pointed to those Minority-Americans (is that even a real "Hyphanated-American" term?) who would rather accept the silent slavery of "group politics" and "social justice" advocated by the left than to accept the freedom and individual oppurtunity that Capitalism--as advocated by the Right--affords.
But what I want to do in this piece is to go beyond the basic question of "Why aren't minorities supporting Conservatism", and break the discussion down even further. Specifically, why aren't affluent African-Americans flocking to the Conservative movement?
This question was raised in a discussion with a Conservative friend a couple of weeks ago--and the more we discussed the question, the more difficulty we had in coming up with a compelling answer. I mean, let's face it, Conservatism is about the individual being allowed to reap the rewards of his own effort and hard work. So, with that in mind, it is somewhat understandable that those among the poor and middle classes who refuse to take responsibility for their own position in life (whatever ethnic persuasion they might be) would have a difficult time converting to Conservatism. For people of that mindset, Conservatism is a tough sell, and I acknowledge that. But what about those--of any ethnic group--who have worked hard and have been succesful (or are on their way to doing so)--why wouldn't they identify with Conservatism?
There are plenty of African-Americans who are business owners or executives, who are affluent, and have worked incredibly hard to place themselves in the upper classes of society--a place that these individuals have earned their place in. Yet, a large percentage of affluent African-Americans share much of the same poltical slant that poorer African-Americans have. And I find this rather curious--there is, by virtually any measure--a significant difference in poltics between wealthy whites and poorer whites (and also between older whites vs. younger whites). Why do we not see a similar difference within the African-American community?
While a significant amount of this phenomena involves the "generational politics" that I disucssed back in August, and certainly, the false chages of racism that the Left has consistantly lobbed at the Right over the last 50 years (and that the media have accepted on face value) plays a significant role as well. However, I think there is an additional explanation as well...an explanation that really isn't discussed much. There is something peculiar to African-American culture that we see in few other cultures, and certainly not in--for lack of a better term--"white culture". (Brief aside: Please note that I'm talking about CULTURE--that is, the particular characteristics voluntarily adopted by a particular group of people--and I'm NOT talking about race or ethnic makeup. A typical "Liberal Mind Trick" is to talk about those terms interchangeably...but there is a clear difference between the two. Questioning the characteristics of a particular >culture is completely acceptable and is not an act of racism, despite what the Left will tell you).
As my friend and I discussed the question, we arrived at the conclusion that the major difference seems to be that in the culture adopted by many African-Americans, there is an unhealthy expectation of community that doesn't seem to be nearly as present in some other cultures. In other words, when a member of the African-American community becomes succesful or affluent, there seems to be an expectation that the succesful person is to "share" that success with others in the community who have not had such success. This viewpoint is expressed in African-American writings, entertainment, and music (Take this line from the iconic Public Enemy song "Shut 'Em Down": "I like Nike's but wait a minute/the neighborhood supports so put some money in it"). Contrast that to the cultural viewpoint shared by many Whites (and particularly Conservatives)--while many affluent Whites or Conservatives donate freely and generously to charity, the culture they subscribe to does not make the assumption that those who are affluent have any particular responsibility to support or prop up others who have not "made it".
To put it another way, it is not uncommon to hear of affluent African-Americans who feel they have some sort of duty or expectation to invest some of that wealth back into poor, urban areas--and to not do so is to be accused of "forgetting where you came from" or in some way becoming "disconnected" with the rest of the community or culture. In a way, affluent African-Americans are held hostage by the expectations of others within their culture. On the other hand, when Whites become affluent, that same burden of cultural expectations doesn't seem to be there. In a manner of comparison, while many African-Americans feel the need to give money to help crackheads in the ghetto, very few affluent Whites feel the burden of being expected to give money to help methheads in rural areas. The burden and expectation simply isn't there among many affluent Whites, as the culture they subscribe to emphasizes the achievement and responsibility of the individual over that of the larger group. The culture subscribed to by many African-Americans seems to emphasize the opposite mentality.
This is not to say that affluent people of any race or culture refrain from donating to charitible causes or using their wealth to help others--instead it is to say that some cultures place a higher expectation on their members to do so than other cultures do. If more African-Americans who currently subscribe to the dominant culture within their community would begin to question--and eventually disregard--the unhealthy emphasis on "community" within that culture, then many more African-Americans would begin to see the light of Conservatism. But as long as affluent African-Americans continue to handcuff themselves with the burdens of "community", then it will continue to be quite difficult for them to accept Conservatism as a political philosphy.
On the other hand, when succesful African-Americans realize that they have been taken advantage of by the leeches within their community who would prefer to take from their wealth without contributing to it (and that they have been taken advantage of by the American Left who has perpetuated this cultural hoax within the African-American community for decades), when they begin to look at themselves and their familes as individuals as opposed to a part of a larger "community", then they will begin to flock to Conservatism. It won't happen overnight--significant change in cultural values (or even rejection of them) does not happen quickly--but when it does, I believe affluent people (and people who are on their way to becoming affluent) of all races and ethnicities will find that they have a suitable political home within the Conservative movement.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
An open letter to the soon-to-be-elected Republican members of Congress
Dear Freshman GOP Congressional Class of 2011:
As I pen this letter to you, we are less than 48 hours away from one of the most watershed mid-term elections of our nation's history--during which all of you will be swept into office. At the risk of doing so prematurely, allow me to express my heartfelt congratulations to you on your election, and my deepest appreciation for stepping to the poltical forefront during one of the most challenging times in American History. You are taking office at a truly challenging and volitile time in our nation--and your willingness to step forward and serve at such a critical time in our nation speaks quite highly of your character.
As you are no doubt aware, you are stepping into an veritable hornets nest in Washington DC. You will be dealing with a President, a news media, and a very loud minority of the American people who will be working against you, and who will stop at nothing (and I mean absolutely nothing) to destroy your poltical career. By measure of what you stand for right now, you represent a threat to them--not only to their individual careers, but to their flawed worldview and institutions. You represent a dagger in the heart of everything they believe, everything they stand for, and everything that they regard (incorrectly) to be truthful about this world...and as such, they will attempt to destroy you just as they are attempting to destroy this great nation.
In the past, when previous generations of first-term Republicans have found themselves in your shoes, many of them have capitulated and fallen prey to the "Inside the beltway" culture of Washington. They have forgotten their constituents, and have instead worked for the approval of the Washington Insiders, the Intelligensia, and the Media. They're willpower, in many cases, has been worn down by the seductive lure of "establishing themselves" into the Washington culture. In short, many of them have moved away from the values and beliefs that they had prior to being elected.
I know that you do not wish for the same to happen to you, and neither do we--the Conservative American Majority who elected you. We want you to excel where those who came before you failed. You no doubt recognize the shortcomings of your predecessors, as do we who elected you. With that in mind, here are some areas for you to focus on that might help in keeping touch with your Conservative roots, and with what is really important in America:
Focus Area #1--Stop the Bleeding: Your primary job on your first day of duty is to oppose anything and everything--both in word and in deed--that is a part of the dangerous Obama agenda. You are unlikely to have a Veto-proof majority, but even so, make Obama use that veto. Make certain that any Liberal agenda items that slip through can only be attributed to the Democratic party. Force them to go on the record for what little they might "accomplish". Do not get lulled into "cooperating" with them on anything-to do so will put your name on a bill or on a program that you do not wish to be associated with. Stay unified in Conservatism--do not allow those on the side of Evil to divide you with promises or pork or favoritism. They will say anything and do anything to destroy us..do not believe one solitary word that any Democrat says--and that includes the President. They do not have the interests of the American People at heart, and they certainly do not have your best interests at heart--regardless of what they might tell you at a cocktail party or in a back room of the Capitol.
Focus Area #2--Publicly stand for Conservatism at every opportunity: Do not sway your public comments based on what some polls say, or what the media is reporting that the American People supposedly think. Do not try to open up a "big tent"--instead realize that the better alternative is a "small tent" that is very crowded. Do not worry about coming up with the "safe" answer to a reporter's question--instead, give the CORRECT answer. The Liberal Media does not have the unchallenged monopoly on communication in this country that they used to--so even if they try to castigate you for saying something "controversial" (read: "something that does not coincide with a Liberal worldview"), WE WILL HAVE YOUR BACK! We got you elected once, we'll get you elected again, so long as you stay with your Conservative princeples.
Focus Area #3--Think "Long-Term" instead of "Short-Term": At the risk of sounding disheartening, many of the things that we in the Conservative movement want are unlikely to be accomplished during one election cycle. For example, we want Obamacare repealed--but even the most enthusiastic Conservative understands that this cannot happen with a Democratic President in office unless we have a solid, veto-proof majority. So while actually accomplishing this is likely far off, it won't be accomplished during this term. Nevertheless, keep your eyes on the prize and consistently advocate the many long-term goals of Conservatism. This is not about winning elections and staying in power--it is instead about reclaiming our nation and our culture from those who have perverted it over the last half of the 20th Century. Such a reclaimation cannot take place overnight...it will instead be a "life's work" for all of us. Do not allow the daunting nature of this worthwhile task to take your eyes off the ball. Understand that you are making a difference that will be felt 40 or 50 years from now, even if it might not be readily apparent today.
Focus Area #4--Realize that the Grass Roots Conservatives (the "Tea Party" etc.) now run the GOP, not the traditional party "leadership": For 20 years, much of the problem with the GOP has been the established leadership who have been more concerned with winning elections, being invited to Washington social functions, and getting the plum spot on the Sunday Morning panel shows than they have been with getting America back on the right track. Make no mistake, this "leadership" had very little to do with the 2010 Congressional gains--it was the grassroots Conservatives...people like the "Tea Partiers" and the younger Conservatives who are just now taking a day-to-day interest in politics...who swept you into office. As a result, this marks (rather profoundly) a generational shift in the GOP. We who elected you are Conservatives first, Republicans second. We are much more concerned with repairing our nation than we are abount winning an election, or having some artifcial majority of (R)'s vs. (D)'s in Congress. We are not under the control of the GOP leadership, instead we act on our own, and you have now seen the power that we possess. The GOP leadership might talk a good game, but never forget, you work for US...not for them. If you stay true to our expectations and principles--if you keep Conservatism first--then you will have our unquestioned loyalty. But be warned--if you turn on us, if you sell us out for the lure of "bi-partisanship" and "cooperation"--we'll drop you quicker than Britney Spears drops her panties. We WILL continue to be involved in the primary process, and we will not hesitate to destroy you in your next primary if you turn your back on Conservatism. Don't force us to do this.
Good luck to you, and Godspeed--a nation depends on you to implement what we the voters have instructed you to do.
Sincerly,
The American People
As I pen this letter to you, we are less than 48 hours away from one of the most watershed mid-term elections of our nation's history--during which all of you will be swept into office. At the risk of doing so prematurely, allow me to express my heartfelt congratulations to you on your election, and my deepest appreciation for stepping to the poltical forefront during one of the most challenging times in American History. You are taking office at a truly challenging and volitile time in our nation--and your willingness to step forward and serve at such a critical time in our nation speaks quite highly of your character.
As you are no doubt aware, you are stepping into an veritable hornets nest in Washington DC. You will be dealing with a President, a news media, and a very loud minority of the American people who will be working against you, and who will stop at nothing (and I mean absolutely nothing) to destroy your poltical career. By measure of what you stand for right now, you represent a threat to them--not only to their individual careers, but to their flawed worldview and institutions. You represent a dagger in the heart of everything they believe, everything they stand for, and everything that they regard (incorrectly) to be truthful about this world...and as such, they will attempt to destroy you just as they are attempting to destroy this great nation.
In the past, when previous generations of first-term Republicans have found themselves in your shoes, many of them have capitulated and fallen prey to the "Inside the beltway" culture of Washington. They have forgotten their constituents, and have instead worked for the approval of the Washington Insiders, the Intelligensia, and the Media. They're willpower, in many cases, has been worn down by the seductive lure of "establishing themselves" into the Washington culture. In short, many of them have moved away from the values and beliefs that they had prior to being elected.
I know that you do not wish for the same to happen to you, and neither do we--the Conservative American Majority who elected you. We want you to excel where those who came before you failed. You no doubt recognize the shortcomings of your predecessors, as do we who elected you. With that in mind, here are some areas for you to focus on that might help in keeping touch with your Conservative roots, and with what is really important in America:
Focus Area #1--Stop the Bleeding: Your primary job on your first day of duty is to oppose anything and everything--both in word and in deed--that is a part of the dangerous Obama agenda. You are unlikely to have a Veto-proof majority, but even so, make Obama use that veto. Make certain that any Liberal agenda items that slip through can only be attributed to the Democratic party. Force them to go on the record for what little they might "accomplish". Do not get lulled into "cooperating" with them on anything-to do so will put your name on a bill or on a program that you do not wish to be associated with. Stay unified in Conservatism--do not allow those on the side of Evil to divide you with promises or pork or favoritism. They will say anything and do anything to destroy us..do not believe one solitary word that any Democrat says--and that includes the President. They do not have the interests of the American People at heart, and they certainly do not have your best interests at heart--regardless of what they might tell you at a cocktail party or in a back room of the Capitol.
Focus Area #2--Publicly stand for Conservatism at every opportunity: Do not sway your public comments based on what some polls say, or what the media is reporting that the American People supposedly think. Do not try to open up a "big tent"--instead realize that the better alternative is a "small tent" that is very crowded. Do not worry about coming up with the "safe" answer to a reporter's question--instead, give the CORRECT answer. The Liberal Media does not have the unchallenged monopoly on communication in this country that they used to--so even if they try to castigate you for saying something "controversial" (read: "something that does not coincide with a Liberal worldview"), WE WILL HAVE YOUR BACK! We got you elected once, we'll get you elected again, so long as you stay with your Conservative princeples.
Focus Area #3--Think "Long-Term" instead of "Short-Term": At the risk of sounding disheartening, many of the things that we in the Conservative movement want are unlikely to be accomplished during one election cycle. For example, we want Obamacare repealed--but even the most enthusiastic Conservative understands that this cannot happen with a Democratic President in office unless we have a solid, veto-proof majority. So while actually accomplishing this is likely far off, it won't be accomplished during this term. Nevertheless, keep your eyes on the prize and consistently advocate the many long-term goals of Conservatism. This is not about winning elections and staying in power--it is instead about reclaiming our nation and our culture from those who have perverted it over the last half of the 20th Century. Such a reclaimation cannot take place overnight...it will instead be a "life's work" for all of us. Do not allow the daunting nature of this worthwhile task to take your eyes off the ball. Understand that you are making a difference that will be felt 40 or 50 years from now, even if it might not be readily apparent today.
Focus Area #4--Realize that the Grass Roots Conservatives (the "Tea Party" etc.) now run the GOP, not the traditional party "leadership": For 20 years, much of the problem with the GOP has been the established leadership who have been more concerned with winning elections, being invited to Washington social functions, and getting the plum spot on the Sunday Morning panel shows than they have been with getting America back on the right track. Make no mistake, this "leadership" had very little to do with the 2010 Congressional gains--it was the grassroots Conservatives...people like the "Tea Partiers" and the younger Conservatives who are just now taking a day-to-day interest in politics...who swept you into office. As a result, this marks (rather profoundly) a generational shift in the GOP. We who elected you are Conservatives first, Republicans second. We are much more concerned with repairing our nation than we are abount winning an election, or having some artifcial majority of (R)'s vs. (D)'s in Congress. We are not under the control of the GOP leadership, instead we act on our own, and you have now seen the power that we possess. The GOP leadership might talk a good game, but never forget, you work for US...not for them. If you stay true to our expectations and principles--if you keep Conservatism first--then you will have our unquestioned loyalty. But be warned--if you turn on us, if you sell us out for the lure of "bi-partisanship" and "cooperation"--we'll drop you quicker than Britney Spears drops her panties. We WILL continue to be involved in the primary process, and we will not hesitate to destroy you in your next primary if you turn your back on Conservatism. Don't force us to do this.
Good luck to you, and Godspeed--a nation depends on you to implement what we the voters have instructed you to do.
Sincerly,
The American People
Thursday, October 21, 2010
The Most Destructive Phrase in the English Language
There is one phrase in the English language that I absolutely despise. I mean, I reeeeaaallly hate it. Can't stand it. Makes my skin crawl whenever I hear it.
And it's not "Last Call".
That offending phrase is "You just can't say those things!"
It's usually a phrase that is used when something controversial--but true or reasonable--is stated in a public forum. It is the epitome of Political Correctness--a retort indicating that while the "offending" comment might have some validity, it's still a comment that somehow shouldn't enter into public debate as it's just too "offensive". It is usually generated by the unspoken notion that it is better to be polite and inoffensive in public debate as opposed to being truthful.
Suppose you're having a conversation with a group of friends, and you say "There's more violent crime in poor, black areas than their are in the suburbs". You're likely to get at least one person in the group to pipe up with the "You just can't say that!" phrase. They won't dispell your point--anybody who would attempt to do so simply could not be taken seriously in light of what human beings see and observe every day--but there is something about that particular piece of truth that doesn't jive with the worldview that they subscribe to, and as such, they cannot tolerate that type of fact into the discussion.
National Public Radio perpetrated perhaps the biggest "You just can't say that!" moment of all time by firing Juan Williams for his comments on the Bill O'Reilly show. Williams "controversially" said that he gets nervous or worried when he goes on an airplane and sees other people wearing Muslim garb.
Well, Duh! After 9/11 who among us doesn't do a double-take when seeing these kind of people in an airport or on a bus?
However, NPR evidently decided that Williams didn't do a suitable job of pretending that the threat of Muslim Terrorism doesn't exist, the way that NPR wants their employees to do so. In the PC world of NPR, the fact that Williams had a reasonable reaction to seeing people in an airport wearing Muslim garb, and dared to be truthful and admit it, was somehow beyond the bounds of good taste. Likewise, I've heard many people since that time say that you just can't say what Williams said, though they would admit that his reaction was somewhat natural and understandable.
Are you fucking serious?
Williams never impuned Muslims as a whole in his comments (and in fact, later in the interview, cautioned Bill O'Reilly that we as a nation should be careful not to view all Muslims in the same vein--a statement that I don't exactly agree with Williams on). All he said was that, after the events of 9/11--when, might I remind you, WE WERE ATTACKED BY RADICAL MUSLIMS--he gets a tad nervous when seeing Muslims on a plane. He didn't say he interferes with them, or that he takes any action against them, or that they shouldn't fly, just that he is a bit more "aware" of them than he might have been previously.
Nobody is suggesting that all Muslims are terrorists--but it is clear, based on recent history, that there is a percentage of them that are. We've also learned that it doesn't take many radical Muslims to cause large amounts of damage (remember Ft. Hood? All done by only one radical Muslim). Therefore it is only logical that a human being who is concious of his own safety would give an extra look towards those who may potentially be among a group that would pose a threat--particularly when in a vulnerable environment such as an airplane.
So it's certainly reasonable that one would take extra precautions with this group of people when you consider the events of the last nine years (and longer if you count the destruction that they have wroght worldwide). The stand of NPR (and those who agree with their decision) gives the appearance that we are to ignore the threat of radical Muslims, by forcing us to "pretend" that such a threat doesn't exist, or is, at worst, minimal.
It is my view that we can't fully address and and solve the problem of radical Islam (or many other problems for that matter) if we are not allowed to honestly discuss them--with no restrictions placed on what we say for "political correctness". See #10 on the CWG list of key Conservative concepts--"The truth hurts, but that's ok." In other words, ignoring an issue, or refusing to acknowledge it because doing so would force us to overturn the unrealistic worldview of those who naively believe that human beings of all races, religions, and nationalities can somehow live in peace (World History shows us that this is, indeed, impossible), will only lead to more problems, and the issue will remain unsolved.
If you have a relative with a drug problem, does insisting that nobody mention it make it go away? Of course not. If you are having financial problems, do they get solved by never looking at your bank statements? Certainly not. It should go without saying--but I suppose it doesn't--that problems cannot be solved when they are ignored. Those problems just fester, grow, and become unmanageable if they are not attacked at first site.
I'm going to say something now that will offend many of you Liberals who read this blog (and I know you're out there): Radical Islam is a problem in America and the World at large. It is not a philosophy to be understood or contained, it is not the result of any group of people having a legitimate gripe with the United States or Western Culture, and it is not a result of the favorite buzzword of the Left--"unfairness". These people hate our culture and our nation, have already attacked us multiple times, and have made it clear that they intend to keep attacking. We must do all we can--on a personal level as well as on a national security front--to address this problem and eliminate it. Our survival depends upon it.
There is never a time where Americans should sacrifice their safety and security merely for abstract and high-minded concepts like "fairness" and "understanding". If protecting our safety crosses the line into bigotry or even racism, then so be it. I hope the American Left can learn this lesson before their inaction results in the demise of us all.
And it's not "Last Call".
That offending phrase is "You just can't say those things!"
It's usually a phrase that is used when something controversial--but true or reasonable--is stated in a public forum. It is the epitome of Political Correctness--a retort indicating that while the "offending" comment might have some validity, it's still a comment that somehow shouldn't enter into public debate as it's just too "offensive". It is usually generated by the unspoken notion that it is better to be polite and inoffensive in public debate as opposed to being truthful.
Suppose you're having a conversation with a group of friends, and you say "There's more violent crime in poor, black areas than their are in the suburbs". You're likely to get at least one person in the group to pipe up with the "You just can't say that!" phrase. They won't dispell your point--anybody who would attempt to do so simply could not be taken seriously in light of what human beings see and observe every day--but there is something about that particular piece of truth that doesn't jive with the worldview that they subscribe to, and as such, they cannot tolerate that type of fact into the discussion.
National Public Radio perpetrated perhaps the biggest "You just can't say that!" moment of all time by firing Juan Williams for his comments on the Bill O'Reilly show. Williams "controversially" said that he gets nervous or worried when he goes on an airplane and sees other people wearing Muslim garb.
Well, Duh! After 9/11 who among us doesn't do a double-take when seeing these kind of people in an airport or on a bus?
However, NPR evidently decided that Williams didn't do a suitable job of pretending that the threat of Muslim Terrorism doesn't exist, the way that NPR wants their employees to do so. In the PC world of NPR, the fact that Williams had a reasonable reaction to seeing people in an airport wearing Muslim garb, and dared to be truthful and admit it, was somehow beyond the bounds of good taste. Likewise, I've heard many people since that time say that you just can't say what Williams said, though they would admit that his reaction was somewhat natural and understandable.
Are you fucking serious?
Williams never impuned Muslims as a whole in his comments (and in fact, later in the interview, cautioned Bill O'Reilly that we as a nation should be careful not to view all Muslims in the same vein--a statement that I don't exactly agree with Williams on). All he said was that, after the events of 9/11--when, might I remind you, WE WERE ATTACKED BY RADICAL MUSLIMS--he gets a tad nervous when seeing Muslims on a plane. He didn't say he interferes with them, or that he takes any action against them, or that they shouldn't fly, just that he is a bit more "aware" of them than he might have been previously.
Nobody is suggesting that all Muslims are terrorists--but it is clear, based on recent history, that there is a percentage of them that are. We've also learned that it doesn't take many radical Muslims to cause large amounts of damage (remember Ft. Hood? All done by only one radical Muslim). Therefore it is only logical that a human being who is concious of his own safety would give an extra look towards those who may potentially be among a group that would pose a threat--particularly when in a vulnerable environment such as an airplane.
So it's certainly reasonable that one would take extra precautions with this group of people when you consider the events of the last nine years (and longer if you count the destruction that they have wroght worldwide). The stand of NPR (and those who agree with their decision) gives the appearance that we are to ignore the threat of radical Muslims, by forcing us to "pretend" that such a threat doesn't exist, or is, at worst, minimal.
It is my view that we can't fully address and and solve the problem of radical Islam (or many other problems for that matter) if we are not allowed to honestly discuss them--with no restrictions placed on what we say for "political correctness". See #10 on the CWG list of key Conservative concepts--"The truth hurts, but that's ok." In other words, ignoring an issue, or refusing to acknowledge it because doing so would force us to overturn the unrealistic worldview of those who naively believe that human beings of all races, religions, and nationalities can somehow live in peace (World History shows us that this is, indeed, impossible), will only lead to more problems, and the issue will remain unsolved.
If you have a relative with a drug problem, does insisting that nobody mention it make it go away? Of course not. If you are having financial problems, do they get solved by never looking at your bank statements? Certainly not. It should go without saying--but I suppose it doesn't--that problems cannot be solved when they are ignored. Those problems just fester, grow, and become unmanageable if they are not attacked at first site.
I'm going to say something now that will offend many of you Liberals who read this blog (and I know you're out there): Radical Islam is a problem in America and the World at large. It is not a philosophy to be understood or contained, it is not the result of any group of people having a legitimate gripe with the United States or Western Culture, and it is not a result of the favorite buzzword of the Left--"unfairness". These people hate our culture and our nation, have already attacked us multiple times, and have made it clear that they intend to keep attacking. We must do all we can--on a personal level as well as on a national security front--to address this problem and eliminate it. Our survival depends upon it.
There is never a time where Americans should sacrifice their safety and security merely for abstract and high-minded concepts like "fairness" and "understanding". If protecting our safety crosses the line into bigotry or even racism, then so be it. I hope the American Left can learn this lesson before their inaction results in the demise of us all.
Monday, October 11, 2010
The Rebellion of the Responsible--How the "$75 Tennessee Housfire" points to a changing attitude regarding "Safety Net" government
First, before we get into the topic at hand in this post, a bit of housecleaning: As you may be aware, I'm a bit new to this "blogging" thing--so I'm learning what I'm doing as I go. As you likely are aware, comments on this blog are moderated by yours truly (only for the reason that I don't want this to turn into the typical AOL comments section filled with nothing of consequence). Tonight, when I logged in, I noticed a comment waiting for moderation that I had somehow missed for nearly a month. This is my fault, as I didn't notice the comment waiting for moderation, and I take full responsibility for the oversight. I assure you, faithful readers, that this shall not happen again. The comment has been published (It was in response to the "Gays and Kiss Cams" post), along with my response to it. My sincere apologies, particularly to the poster who originally made the comment...this type of oversight on my part shall not happen again, so sayeth the CWG!!!
Now onto today's topic--the "$75 Tennessee Housefire" and how it relates to the overall poltical climate in our nation today. By now, many of you are aware of the recent situation in which a homeowner in rural Tennessee was denied firefighting assistance because he had not paid a $75 annual subscription fee for such services. The homeowner called the fire department when his house caught fire, the fire department came out, discovered he had not paid the subscription fee, and refused him service, allowing his home to burn to the ground--though they did provide service for his neighbor (who had paid the appropriate fee) when the fire threatened to jump to his property.
The story became national attention when Keith Olbermann tried to use it to attack Conservatives, and the Tea Party in particular. Olbermann made the claim that this type of service was indicative of how the "pay as you go" principals of providing services advocated by many Tea Partiers would function in practice. Olbermann attempted to use this story to illustrate how (in his mind) a system where services are funded by taxes, then provided to everyone is "superior" to a system in which services are funded by a voluntary subscription basis, and only those who buy in for the service are covered.
Keith summoned up all the crocodile tears that he could when delivering this story, even interviewing the homeowner (not once, but twice) sitting in front of his burned out home. Olbermann's reports on this were melodrama worthy of a Sally Struthers "Feed the starving African kids" commercial or a Jerry Lewis Labor Day Telethon. He used these interviews to blame the fire chief for not putting out the fire, blaming the municipality for having a subscription-based service to begin with, and blamed the voters of the county for not approving a measure that would increase taxes in order to provide fire protection across the board...but of course, he never bothered to blame the one person who was actually responsible for the lost home--the homeowner himself.
After his intial report on his "Countdown" program, Olbermann brought the story up again later in the week (along with another exploitation...erm..."interview" with the homeowner who wasn't responsible enough to protect his own property) and expressed incredulousness at the reaction in many quarters that, essentially, the homeowner "had it coming". How could we be so callous, Olbermann wondered aloud? It would appear that what Olbermann found even more shocking than the deadbeat homeowner's house being allowed to burn down was the fact that many Americans essentially agreed with the Fire Chief's decision.
But should Olbermann (or other Liberals--when I read other interactions on the web about this topic, the shock and sadness from the Left--feigned or otherwise--regarding reaction to the homeowner was farily consistent) really be all that surprised? In my view, they really should not be surprised at the reaction against the homeowner here. There seems to be a growing chasm in America between Responsible Americans and Irresponsible Americans. In other words, there is a growing disparity between that group of Americans that work hard, follow the rules, and pay their own way in life and that group of Americans who feel that they should not have to work or produce, should not have to be responsible for their own lot in life, and who feel they are entitled to live off of the spoils produced by those in the other group who are responsible.
For over 60 years (or even longer, if you really want to go back into history) Responsible Americans have been expected to foot the bill for the Irresponsible Americans in society. Under the guise of "fairness", "equality", or just plain old tugging at emotion, heartstrings, and the attempted imposition of guilt, Responsible Americans are expected not only to carry their own weight, but to carry the weight of those who refuse to contribute to society or their own well-being. For many years, well-meaning Conservatives (particularly those in the 1960's, 70's, 80's, and even 90's--remember that "Compassionate Conservative" garbage?) fell right into this trap--falling for the age-old argument of "Well, we have to do something for them, after all, they're suffereing!" So from Social Security, to Medicare, to the "War on Poverty", to attempts to woo Conservatives over on disasterous policies like Universal Health Care and Amnesty for Illegal Immigrints--the Left has consistantly used the tactic of "we can't just let them fall through the cracks" to shame the some on the Right into supporting programs which the government should never undertake.
However, I'm noticing a different type of reaction starting to come from Conservatives (particularly younger Conservatives) that I speak with every day--a reaction of "To Hell with the Irresponsible Americans". Many of us within this group of "New Conservatives" realize that drastic cuts to government must be made, and we are seriously questioning the entire concept of the government-maintained "safety net" that is practically gospel to Liberals. We look back at the last century of American History--during which billions of dollars have been thrown at the "problem areas" of society...only to provide no return on investment. We've seen money thrown at inner city schools for decades--yet graduates of such schools are no more prepared to function in society than they were earlier in the 20th Century. We've seen different social programs set up to help poor and single mothers--only to see a continual increase in the number of single mothers and children without two parents (as well as a decrease in the number of responsible fathers in America...after all, if the government--and by extension the Responsible Americans who actually pay taxes and fund it--will fund the raising of your illegitimate kids, then why should you do it?). Time and again, Americans are told that it's a "moral responsibility" to help those who are "disadvantaged" (igoring the fact that in most cases, those people are the source of their own disadvantages), despite such "help" never resulting in the eradication of the problems that it is supposed to address.
We see our own history, and we know that a change must be made. We see the destruction that the "safety net" form of public policy has wroght, and we want no part of it going forward. We understand that those who refuse to take responsibility for their lives should have to deal with the reprecussions of their choices (such as the Tennessee homeowner who opted not to subscribe to the fire service) without Responsible Americans having to take up the slack for the Irresponsible. We realize that coddling the parasites who wish to subsist off of Responsible Americans only retards the development and the human potential of those who are currently Irresponsible. In other words, they'll never have develop the skills to prosper in American society if they aren't cut off from the teet of society, and forced to learn those skills and provide for themselves.
If you look back at the Healthcare debate--most of the objection to Obamacare from the Right was on this basis. A growing number of Americans are putting their foot down and saying "Not one more motherfucking dime!!" We want to pay for our own healthcare...not yours. We care if our child gets educated...not yours. We will do what it takes to put food on our table and a roof over our heads...but we will no longer provide food and a roof for those of you who don't feel the need to do so.
A new generation of Conservatives is hell-bent on stopping the gravy train that the dregs of American society have lived off of for most of the 20th Century. Not only do we realize that, as a nation, we can no longer afford to provide this gravy train--but more importantly we realize the destructive effect that such "safety nets" have on the lives of those individuals who choose to spend their entire existence trapped in those nets. You need look no further than your nearest inner city to get an eye-opening picture of the destructiveness to human potential that occurs when government tries to fill the void of personal responsibility and the nuclear family. Are some people going to "fall through the cracks" if we continue to pursue the dismantling of the "safety net"? Probably so..but I suspect it will be a lot less than many people think. Reason being: the human instinct for survival will take over, and those who are currently contributing nothing to society will start, because if they do not, they'll starve.
Man acheives his greatest successes when he has no choice but to achieve, and when failure is simply not an option. We must remove the "safety net" in society, and in so doing, remove the option of failure from those Irresponsible Americans in society.
The Responsible Americans must continue to rebel...our nation and our culture depends upon it.
Now onto today's topic--the "$75 Tennessee Housefire" and how it relates to the overall poltical climate in our nation today. By now, many of you are aware of the recent situation in which a homeowner in rural Tennessee was denied firefighting assistance because he had not paid a $75 annual subscription fee for such services. The homeowner called the fire department when his house caught fire, the fire department came out, discovered he had not paid the subscription fee, and refused him service, allowing his home to burn to the ground--though they did provide service for his neighbor (who had paid the appropriate fee) when the fire threatened to jump to his property.
The story became national attention when Keith Olbermann tried to use it to attack Conservatives, and the Tea Party in particular. Olbermann made the claim that this type of service was indicative of how the "pay as you go" principals of providing services advocated by many Tea Partiers would function in practice. Olbermann attempted to use this story to illustrate how (in his mind) a system where services are funded by taxes, then provided to everyone is "superior" to a system in which services are funded by a voluntary subscription basis, and only those who buy in for the service are covered.
Keith summoned up all the crocodile tears that he could when delivering this story, even interviewing the homeowner (not once, but twice) sitting in front of his burned out home. Olbermann's reports on this were melodrama worthy of a Sally Struthers "Feed the starving African kids" commercial or a Jerry Lewis Labor Day Telethon. He used these interviews to blame the fire chief for not putting out the fire, blaming the municipality for having a subscription-based service to begin with, and blamed the voters of the county for not approving a measure that would increase taxes in order to provide fire protection across the board...but of course, he never bothered to blame the one person who was actually responsible for the lost home--the homeowner himself.
After his intial report on his "Countdown" program, Olbermann brought the story up again later in the week (along with another exploitation...erm..."interview" with the homeowner who wasn't responsible enough to protect his own property) and expressed incredulousness at the reaction in many quarters that, essentially, the homeowner "had it coming". How could we be so callous, Olbermann wondered aloud? It would appear that what Olbermann found even more shocking than the deadbeat homeowner's house being allowed to burn down was the fact that many Americans essentially agreed with the Fire Chief's decision.
But should Olbermann (or other Liberals--when I read other interactions on the web about this topic, the shock and sadness from the Left--feigned or otherwise--regarding reaction to the homeowner was farily consistent) really be all that surprised? In my view, they really should not be surprised at the reaction against the homeowner here. There seems to be a growing chasm in America between Responsible Americans and Irresponsible Americans. In other words, there is a growing disparity between that group of Americans that work hard, follow the rules, and pay their own way in life and that group of Americans who feel that they should not have to work or produce, should not have to be responsible for their own lot in life, and who feel they are entitled to live off of the spoils produced by those in the other group who are responsible.
For over 60 years (or even longer, if you really want to go back into history) Responsible Americans have been expected to foot the bill for the Irresponsible Americans in society. Under the guise of "fairness", "equality", or just plain old tugging at emotion, heartstrings, and the attempted imposition of guilt, Responsible Americans are expected not only to carry their own weight, but to carry the weight of those who refuse to contribute to society or their own well-being. For many years, well-meaning Conservatives (particularly those in the 1960's, 70's, 80's, and even 90's--remember that "Compassionate Conservative" garbage?) fell right into this trap--falling for the age-old argument of "Well, we have to do something for them, after all, they're suffereing!" So from Social Security, to Medicare, to the "War on Poverty", to attempts to woo Conservatives over on disasterous policies like Universal Health Care and Amnesty for Illegal Immigrints--the Left has consistantly used the tactic of "we can't just let them fall through the cracks" to shame the some on the Right into supporting programs which the government should never undertake.
However, I'm noticing a different type of reaction starting to come from Conservatives (particularly younger Conservatives) that I speak with every day--a reaction of "To Hell with the Irresponsible Americans". Many of us within this group of "New Conservatives" realize that drastic cuts to government must be made, and we are seriously questioning the entire concept of the government-maintained "safety net" that is practically gospel to Liberals. We look back at the last century of American History--during which billions of dollars have been thrown at the "problem areas" of society...only to provide no return on investment. We've seen money thrown at inner city schools for decades--yet graduates of such schools are no more prepared to function in society than they were earlier in the 20th Century. We've seen different social programs set up to help poor and single mothers--only to see a continual increase in the number of single mothers and children without two parents (as well as a decrease in the number of responsible fathers in America...after all, if the government--and by extension the Responsible Americans who actually pay taxes and fund it--will fund the raising of your illegitimate kids, then why should you do it?). Time and again, Americans are told that it's a "moral responsibility" to help those who are "disadvantaged" (igoring the fact that in most cases, those people are the source of their own disadvantages), despite such "help" never resulting in the eradication of the problems that it is supposed to address.
We see our own history, and we know that a change must be made. We see the destruction that the "safety net" form of public policy has wroght, and we want no part of it going forward. We understand that those who refuse to take responsibility for their lives should have to deal with the reprecussions of their choices (such as the Tennessee homeowner who opted not to subscribe to the fire service) without Responsible Americans having to take up the slack for the Irresponsible. We realize that coddling the parasites who wish to subsist off of Responsible Americans only retards the development and the human potential of those who are currently Irresponsible. In other words, they'll never have develop the skills to prosper in American society if they aren't cut off from the teet of society, and forced to learn those skills and provide for themselves.
If you look back at the Healthcare debate--most of the objection to Obamacare from the Right was on this basis. A growing number of Americans are putting their foot down and saying "Not one more motherfucking dime!!" We want to pay for our own healthcare...not yours. We care if our child gets educated...not yours. We will do what it takes to put food on our table and a roof over our heads...but we will no longer provide food and a roof for those of you who don't feel the need to do so.
A new generation of Conservatives is hell-bent on stopping the gravy train that the dregs of American society have lived off of for most of the 20th Century. Not only do we realize that, as a nation, we can no longer afford to provide this gravy train--but more importantly we realize the destructive effect that such "safety nets" have on the lives of those individuals who choose to spend their entire existence trapped in those nets. You need look no further than your nearest inner city to get an eye-opening picture of the destructiveness to human potential that occurs when government tries to fill the void of personal responsibility and the nuclear family. Are some people going to "fall through the cracks" if we continue to pursue the dismantling of the "safety net"? Probably so..but I suspect it will be a lot less than many people think. Reason being: the human instinct for survival will take over, and those who are currently contributing nothing to society will start, because if they do not, they'll starve.
Man acheives his greatest successes when he has no choice but to achieve, and when failure is simply not an option. We must remove the "safety net" in society, and in so doing, remove the option of failure from those Irresponsible Americans in society.
The Responsible Americans must continue to rebel...our nation and our culture depends upon it.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
On Gay's, Lesbians, Kiss Cam's, and Sporting Events
If you've been anywhere near the St. Louis area in the last 24 hours, you've undoubtedly heard the controversy (fueled mainly by the fact that it was, indeed, a slow news day): Gays and Lesbians feel they are being discriminated against at St. Louis Cardinal baseball games because they aren't included in the "Kiss Cam" that goes around prodding unsuspecting couples into not-so-spontaneous liplocks at dull points in the game.
I'll get to my opinion about this in a second, but first, some full disclosure: I generally don't have much love for any of the bizarro scoreboard stuff that we get force-fed at your typical American sporting event these days. I don't need a scoreboard to tell me to "get loud" or to "pump it up". I don't really care which of the three hats the animated baseball is hiding under. I don't need the Jumbotron to "entertain" me...after all, that's what the damn game is for, isn't it? Over in England, soccer fans don't have to be prompted by a scoreboard to begin singing "In The Liverpool Slums"--they do so out of pure passion,(and also, because there's a lot of truth to the song as well!)
As an aside, here's a site with many anti-Liverpool soccer chants...you never know when these might come in handy: http://www.prideofmanchester.com/sport/mufc-songs-liverpool.htm
As you might be able to ascertain, the concept of the "Kiss Cam" itself isn't exactly something that I would consider a necessary (or even entertaining) part of any sporting event. I paid $80 to scream at referees, watch the Rams offensive line miss blocks, witness Blaine Gabbert scramble into trouble, or see the Cardinals blow another insurmountable lead. I'm not paying that money to watch complete strangers (and mainly unattractive ones at that) slobber all over each other.
So I've got a bit of a bad taste in my mouth (pun intended) as far as "Kiss Cams" go to begin with. Therefore, you can probably imagine that I'm even less inclined to sympathize with the comments of a few gay people that they are being "excluded" in some way. The argument on their side is that they should be allowed the priveledge of appearing on the Cam just as straight people are (wait...appearing on that thing is a "priviledge"? I'd put good money on the statement that at least half of the people appearing on the damn thing would rather not show up on it!) Here's the problem I have with that idea--the Kiss Cam (and assorted other scoreboard crap) is ostensibly presented as a part of the overall entertainment at the stadium...never mind that it really isn't all that entertaining, the idea is that it is supposed to be entertaining. Therefore, one would think that the emphasis would be on presenting "entertainment" that would be palatable to the majority of people in the stadium. I hate to break this to all the gay/lesbian/transmorphified/whatever groups, but the majority of the people in the stadium *don't* want to see you smooching (heck, a good number of us don't want to see the straight people doing it either), therefore, since it wouldn't be palatable entertainment for the paying customers, you can't expect to be "included".
Besides, what do they think would actually happen if the Kiss Cam did catch a gay couple in mid liplock? The crowd would react one of two ways, neither of which would be what the Gay Community wants: If the smoochers were two guys or two unattractive women, the crowd would likely boo or groan. On the other hand, if the smoochers where two attractive lesbians, you'd instead hear an uproar of catcalls and other assorted testosterone-inspired comments (I'll be the guy yelling: "Take her shirt off!!!"). Would either reaction be what the Gay Community is looking for? I doubt it.
Don't get me wrong, there probably are some cities in America where such a display wouldn't be offensive to the paying cusotmers (San Fransisco for example...of course, they also serve Sushi at their sporting events, so I've lost all respect for San Francisco sporting culture right around the time that Ray "The Crippler" Stevens left town). If we're talking about one of those towns, go for it, knock yourselves out, whatever. But here in the midwest, the vast majority of people don't want to see such behavior. The Gay groups that are pushing this out here are trying to do one thing and one thing only, they want some quick publicity by trying to push something onto the public that they want no part of. Most straight people have no problem with gays doing whatever they want to do in the privacy of their own homes...but that doesn't seem to be good enough for many spokespeople in that community. They wish to force mainstream society to "accept" their behavior and change our definitions of what an acceptable family structure is. And that's where I have the problem with it all. I'd have much more respect for the Gay Community (and perhaps some empathy) if they were focused on assimilating into society...instead, they seem to be focused on changing society, and I think that's where they are crossing a line that shouldn't be crossed.
Remember #8 on my list of my "12 Key Conservative Concepts": "I don't care what you do in your bedroom...but I do care whe you expose my kids to it". Gays have made the decision to live a lifestyle outside the norm of society. That's fine, I've got no problem with that. But when they try to force mainstream society to accept or appreciate that decision, then that is what cannot and should not be accepted.
I'll get to my opinion about this in a second, but first, some full disclosure: I generally don't have much love for any of the bizarro scoreboard stuff that we get force-fed at your typical American sporting event these days. I don't need a scoreboard to tell me to "get loud" or to "pump it up". I don't really care which of the three hats the animated baseball is hiding under. I don't need the Jumbotron to "entertain" me...after all, that's what the damn game is for, isn't it? Over in England, soccer fans don't have to be prompted by a scoreboard to begin singing "In The Liverpool Slums"--they do so out of pure passion,(and also, because there's a lot of truth to the song as well!)
As an aside, here's a site with many anti-Liverpool soccer chants...you never know when these might come in handy: http://www.prideofmanchester.com/sport/mufc-songs-liverpool.htm
As you might be able to ascertain, the concept of the "Kiss Cam" itself isn't exactly something that I would consider a necessary (or even entertaining) part of any sporting event. I paid $80 to scream at referees, watch the Rams offensive line miss blocks, witness Blaine Gabbert scramble into trouble, or see the Cardinals blow another insurmountable lead. I'm not paying that money to watch complete strangers (and mainly unattractive ones at that) slobber all over each other.
So I've got a bit of a bad taste in my mouth (pun intended) as far as "Kiss Cams" go to begin with. Therefore, you can probably imagine that I'm even less inclined to sympathize with the comments of a few gay people that they are being "excluded" in some way. The argument on their side is that they should be allowed the priveledge of appearing on the Cam just as straight people are (wait...appearing on that thing is a "priviledge"? I'd put good money on the statement that at least half of the people appearing on the damn thing would rather not show up on it!) Here's the problem I have with that idea--the Kiss Cam (and assorted other scoreboard crap) is ostensibly presented as a part of the overall entertainment at the stadium...never mind that it really isn't all that entertaining, the idea is that it is supposed to be entertaining. Therefore, one would think that the emphasis would be on presenting "entertainment" that would be palatable to the majority of people in the stadium. I hate to break this to all the gay/lesbian/transmorphified/whatever groups, but the majority of the people in the stadium *don't* want to see you smooching (heck, a good number of us don't want to see the straight people doing it either), therefore, since it wouldn't be palatable entertainment for the paying customers, you can't expect to be "included".
Besides, what do they think would actually happen if the Kiss Cam did catch a gay couple in mid liplock? The crowd would react one of two ways, neither of which would be what the Gay Community wants: If the smoochers were two guys or two unattractive women, the crowd would likely boo or groan. On the other hand, if the smoochers where two attractive lesbians, you'd instead hear an uproar of catcalls and other assorted testosterone-inspired comments (I'll be the guy yelling: "Take her shirt off!!!"). Would either reaction be what the Gay Community is looking for? I doubt it.
Don't get me wrong, there probably are some cities in America where such a display wouldn't be offensive to the paying cusotmers (San Fransisco for example...of course, they also serve Sushi at their sporting events, so I've lost all respect for San Francisco sporting culture right around the time that Ray "The Crippler" Stevens left town). If we're talking about one of those towns, go for it, knock yourselves out, whatever. But here in the midwest, the vast majority of people don't want to see such behavior. The Gay groups that are pushing this out here are trying to do one thing and one thing only, they want some quick publicity by trying to push something onto the public that they want no part of. Most straight people have no problem with gays doing whatever they want to do in the privacy of their own homes...but that doesn't seem to be good enough for many spokespeople in that community. They wish to force mainstream society to "accept" their behavior and change our definitions of what an acceptable family structure is. And that's where I have the problem with it all. I'd have much more respect for the Gay Community (and perhaps some empathy) if they were focused on assimilating into society...instead, they seem to be focused on changing society, and I think that's where they are crossing a line that shouldn't be crossed.
Remember #8 on my list of my "12 Key Conservative Concepts": "I don't care what you do in your bedroom...but I do care whe you expose my kids to it". Gays have made the decision to live a lifestyle outside the norm of society. That's fine, I've got no problem with that. But when they try to force mainstream society to accept or appreciate that decision, then that is what cannot and should not be accepted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)