By now, you have no doubt seen, heard, or otherwise have been made aware of the now-infamous "$10,000 bet" that Mitt Romney offered Rick Perry during the most recent GOP debate. If you missed it, whoomp, here it is:
In the aftermath of this comment, Romney has taken a lot of heat for being "out of touch with "regular Americans". Media members, Democrats, and even a number of Republicans (including Rick Perry) have castigated Romney for this remark.
Now, let me be clear, I'm not a fan of Mitt Romney. I couldn't warm up to him if we were cremated together. I think he's a Moderate (something that is practically a four-letter word among modern Conservatives), a flip-flopper, and the epitome of the word "RINO". You probably won't find anyone on the planet who is more eager to find a criticism--any criticism--of Romney and play it to the hilt more than I am. I'm the first guy to look for anything that could possibly derail the Romney campaign and milk it for all it's worth...
...and even I think the this criticism is ridiculous.
Since when has the GOP been the party of leveling criticism at a man merely for having been successful and attaining wealth during his lifetime? Since when has the GOP been the party that characterizes free-spending of private funds as a "character flaw"? The GOP hasn't been that party--at least not during my lifetime--and we never should become that party.
Note to Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich, both of whom have taken some jabs at Romney because of the "bet": Knock it off. You both are sounding like the President and the party that we are trying to remove from power. Placing a $10,000 bet with your own money (or spending $10,000 of your own money on any other thing you wish to spend it on) is nothing to be criticized, is none of your damn business, and is no reason to think less of any man.
Two weeks ago, I was playing poker in a local casino. While I played in my low-buyin No Limit Hold 'em game (a game where, at best, a few hundred dollars was on the line at any given point), the next table over housed a Pot Limit Omaha game. Now, for those of you unfamiliar with the finer points of poker, Pot Limit Omaha is, generally speaking, a "bigger" game than No Limit Hold 'em. Omaha is wilder, more action-packed, and with many more "swings". To make a long story short, it takes a lot more money to play Omaha than it does Hold 'Em...and at the next table over from me was one of the biggest Pot Limit Hold 'Em games ever seen in a Missouri casino.
I'll admit it, I was curious...I glanced over at the Omaha table. I noticed several stacks of chips that ranged from $10,000 up to nearly $20,000 in front of one player. It was far and away more money than I've ever played poker for (and more money than I likely ever will play poker for). And with such a wildness and aggressiveness that typically surrounds your average Pot Limit Omaha game, there's no doubt that many of those $10,000+ stacks were "all in" at various points.
Now ask yourself a question, as I glanced over at the Omaha table, what should I have thought of those players who had $10,000...$15,000...even $20,000 in chips in front of them? Should I have viewed them in a negative light? Should I have considered those $10,000 stacks of chips in front of them to be indicative of some sort of deeper character flaw? Should I have thought that anybody who would have $10,000 in play during a poker game would therefore be "out of touch" with many Americans?
To me, the answer is an obvious, "No!" The only thing I know about any of those players is the stack of chips they had in front of them--hardly enough information to make any type of reasonable judgement about any of them, character-wise. For all I know, they could have all been wonderful, church-going, family men. Or, for all I know, they could have been criminals. Or they could have been charitably-active, civic-minded individuals. Or they could have been wife-beaters. The bottom line is that I have no idea the character of any of those individuals at that table, and the amount of money that any of them had in play could do absolutely nothing to lead me towards any sort of character judgement about any of them.
There's a ton of reasons to oppose Mitt Romney (Romneycare for one. His inconsistent positions on, well, everything, for another. His lack of Social Conservatism for yet another...), but I don't see where his ability or willingness to place a bet of $10,000 with his own money should be listed among those reasons. Is Romney "out of touch" with the poor? How should I know? Heck, I have a lot less money than Mitt Romney, and I'd say that I'm "out of touch" with the poor. And given the criminal behavior, the constant "gaming of the system", and the lack of family structure that we see out of large swaths of the poor, I hope I remain "out of touch" with those people.
Perry, Gingrich, and the rest should focus their criticism of Romney on the important issues (and there's plenty of red meat there with which to combat Mitt). The discussion and criticism of how wealthy someone is--or what they choose to spend that wealth on--should have no place in a Republican primary season.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to do a couple of shots of Pepto Bismal...all this defending of Mitt Romney makes me feel a bit sick to my stomach...
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Monday, October 31, 2011
My initial thoughts on Herman Cain's "Sexual Harrasment"
So the Democrats...or other jealous GOP candidates...or the media...or somebody...decided to drop the dime on Herman Cain today with claims of sexual harrasment against him. I've been a pretty voiceferous supporter of Cain up to this point, so will these accusations affect my view of him? Well, unless there's something much deeper to these allegations than what has come out to this point (what I've heard so far--while perhaps fitting the legal definition of "sexual harrasment"--seem to be little more than "normal behavior of a healthy male"), I can't say that it will. The allegations as I understand them at this point (some sexually suggestive--but unclear--conversation and physical gestures) make this seem as though this is, at best, a misunderstanding (or, at worst, perhaps an attempt at "gold digging" by a female co-worker...something we see all to often by "professional harrasment victims" that populate much of the modern workplace environment). Unless there's a much more pervasive (or perverted) pattern of behavior here, I don't see how this would dissuade me from the reasons that I have supported Cain up to this point.
Below is a post I made on the topic over at stltoday.com which further expounds on my thoughts regarding this matter (please note that within this thread, several Liberals were attempting to compare Cain's allegations with Bill Clinton's behavior while in office):
From what I've seen so far, the allegations are little more than the following (quoted from the Politico piece: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/67194.html )
"conversations allegedly filled with innuendo or personal questions of a sexually suggestive nature" and "descriptions of physical gestures that were not overtly sexual but that made women who experienced or witnessed them uncomfortable and that they regarded as improper in a professional relationship."
Um...that's it? I'd say that, if most of us men are brutally honest about it, we probably engage in similar behavior multiple times a day. Now, I'm sure that most of us (myself included) do what we can to keep our natural behavioral instincts from coming into play in a professional environment, but nevertheless, sometimes things like that happen, and they get misinterpreted (particularly if the accuser in question is a gold digger who is *looking* for a harrasment settlement. Of course, we don't know that this is the case with Cain's accuser yet, but it happens so often in the workplace these days that one certainly can't discount the possibility out of hand).
Would such behavior cross the line of the "legal" definition of sexual harrasment? Probably...but only becuase the current legal definition of sexual harrasment in the workplace is one of the more ridiculous and backwards definitions of anything that we have on the law books (and a debate over what the proper definition of sexual harrasment should be would likely be an interesting topic on it's own). Essentially, if a wealthy or unattractive male makes a female uncomfortable in the workplace for any reason, ever, it's considered harrasment.
The bottom line is that, as a Cain supporter, if nothing more comes of this than the allegations we've seen (even if those allegations end up having some truth to them), I would still support Cain as the behavior alleged here would be pretty "minor" in nature as far as I'm concerned. Now, if more comes out and it turns out he was stalking some of these girls or forced himself on them, then certainly I would turn away from him. But at this point, the allegations seem to be little more than "a guy being a guy".
No trysts in the Oval Office, no Blue Dresses, no cigars, no lying under oath, no participation in the worst scandal ever undertaken by an American President (and yes, I'm including Watergate in that definition). The allegations against Cain as they stand now--even if there turns out to be some level of truth to them--aren't even a drop in the bucket compared to what "Slick Willie" did in the Oval Office.
Below is a post I made on the topic over at stltoday.com which further expounds on my thoughts regarding this matter (please note that within this thread, several Liberals were attempting to compare Cain's allegations with Bill Clinton's behavior while in office):
From what I've seen so far, the allegations are little more than the following (quoted from the Politico piece: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/67194.html )
"conversations allegedly filled with innuendo or personal questions of a sexually suggestive nature" and "descriptions of physical gestures that were not overtly sexual but that made women who experienced or witnessed them uncomfortable and that they regarded as improper in a professional relationship."
Um...that's it? I'd say that, if most of us men are brutally honest about it, we probably engage in similar behavior multiple times a day. Now, I'm sure that most of us (myself included) do what we can to keep our natural behavioral instincts from coming into play in a professional environment, but nevertheless, sometimes things like that happen, and they get misinterpreted (particularly if the accuser in question is a gold digger who is *looking* for a harrasment settlement. Of course, we don't know that this is the case with Cain's accuser yet, but it happens so often in the workplace these days that one certainly can't discount the possibility out of hand).
Would such behavior cross the line of the "legal" definition of sexual harrasment? Probably...but only becuase the current legal definition of sexual harrasment in the workplace is one of the more ridiculous and backwards definitions of anything that we have on the law books (and a debate over what the proper definition of sexual harrasment should be would likely be an interesting topic on it's own). Essentially, if a wealthy or unattractive male makes a female uncomfortable in the workplace for any reason, ever, it's considered harrasment.
The bottom line is that, as a Cain supporter, if nothing more comes of this than the allegations we've seen (even if those allegations end up having some truth to them), I would still support Cain as the behavior alleged here would be pretty "minor" in nature as far as I'm concerned. Now, if more comes out and it turns out he was stalking some of these girls or forced himself on them, then certainly I would turn away from him. But at this point, the allegations seem to be little more than "a guy being a guy".
No trysts in the Oval Office, no Blue Dresses, no cigars, no lying under oath, no participation in the worst scandal ever undertaken by an American President (and yes, I'm including Watergate in that definition). The allegations against Cain as they stand now--even if there turns out to be some level of truth to them--aren't even a drop in the bucket compared to what "Slick Willie" did in the Oval Office.
Sunday, October 23, 2011
The 2012 GOP field--Where does everybody stand?
It would be an understatement to say that the run up to the 2012 GOP Presidential Nomination has been one of the most eventful, interesting, contentious, thought-provoking, surprising, and wacky buildups to a primary season that America has ever seen. Whatever you might say about the run for the 2012 Nomination, you certainly can't say that it's been dull.
So with all of the ups and downs, ins and outs, comings and goings...where exactly does the field stand right now. Has anyone come out of nowhere to impress me? Has anyone fallen well short of expectations? Are there candidates in the field who make me think, "WTF is that guy doing here? The answer to all three of those questions is "Yes". As such, I thought it would be appropriate to take a step back and gauge exactly what I think of each remaining candidate at this point in time. Who would I emphatically support? Who could I vote for, despite having some misgivings? Who's in the field that I would never, ever support under any circumstances? While such judgements are always open to change over time (at least to some extent), let's take a quick look at where all of these candidates presently stand in my twisted, demented, over-developed, genius of a mind:
(In the spirit of fairness...or perhaps it's "laziness"...I'm presenting the candidates in alphabetical order)
Michelle Bachmann: Despite the media's constant refusal to take Bachmann seriously, she's someone I could easily and proudly vote for. She's a Fiscal Conservative in the mold of the Tea Party movement, but hasn't sacrificed her Social Conservatism to get the that point (the way many "Conservatives-come-lately" have). She's right on most of the fiscal issues, she's right on most of the social issues, and (given her answer in the last debate regarding the danger of a nuclear Iran) she's proving that she's right on most of the foreign policy issues. While her method of communication doesn't always resonate as well as it could, and while her campaign certainly looks to be running on fumes at this point, I'd still say that--strictly in terms of her fitness for the office--I'd be happy to vote for her. Of the current candidates, I'd say she's my second choice right now (but a strong second choice).
Herman Cain: Right now, Cain is my favored candidate. If you put a gun to my head and forced my to select my choice for nominee today, it would be Cain. Of all the candidates, he has the best combination of experience, accomplishment, and straightforwardness of any candidate out there. Some would point to his lack of political experience as a negative, however I don't agree with that. There's tons of people out there with "political experience", but very few with any significant "positive accomplishments" in the world of politics. As such, give me someone who has succeeded at a high level elsewhere in life, someone who created and built things, someone who is smart enough to know what he doesn't know...instead of another political retread who has tons of "experience" but has accomplished nothing.
Newt Gingrich: I'll admit it, the more of these debates that happen, the better Newt Gingrich sounds. The guy just flat-out makes a lot of sense most of the time. However, there is a glaring problem: Gingrich has a career spanning several decades where he has played the political game. Where he has tried to say or do whatever was "popular" at the time in order to win an election or keep his name out there. Remember that ad where he was sitting on a park bench with Nancy Pelosi touting the evils of so-called "Global Warming"? I like a lot of what Newt is saying...but there's still this gut feeling that it's "Newt the Politician" saying all of it, as he knows it's the easiest way to keep himself relevant in the 2012 political climate. I can't dismiss Newt...but I'm not sure I can trust him either. However, at this point, I might be tempted to consider him for a VP role...and three months ago, there's no way I would have said that.
Jon Huntsman: Jon Huntsman is not a Conservative. Quite frankly, he's competing for the nomination of the wrong party. Huntsman never got the memo that "moderates" are no longer welcome in the GOP. It should tell you something when Liberal commentators such as Rachel Maddow constantly talk about how Huntsman is the only GOP candidate that sounds sensible...it should tell you that he's not one of us after all. If Huntsman really wants to be President one day, his best bet would be to leave the GOP, join the Democratic party, and run in 2016 (portraying himself as a "Clintonian Moderate"). If he were to do that, he might actually be a tough opponent for an incumbent Republican President in 2016.
Gary Johnson: Isn't this charade over yet? Johnson is a younger, more nervous, more fidgety version of Ron Paul. Take Ron Paul, subtract the name recognition and the "crazy grandpa charisma" and you have Gary Johnson. Speaking of Paul:
Ron Paul: My initial assessment of Paul hasn't changed: Great on fiscal issues, brings up topics that nobody in either party wants to talk about, but looney as a tune on foreign policy. To put it bluntly, Paul's foreign policy (or the lack thereof) is flat-out dangerous. The Paul Doctrine of "Withdraw from military conflict around the world and hope our enemies just go away" is a foreign policy that will literally result in the death of our nation and it's people. The more I hear Ron Paul talk, the less I see him as a Conservative, and the more I see him as a frustrated pacifist ex-hippy who just doesn't like paying taxes. Nevertheless, I like the fact that he's still in the race because he does bring up those pesky domestic and fiscal issues that some other candidates wish to avoid. Still, every time he opens his mouth on the rest of the world, I'm reminded that this crackpot must never be allowed within shouting distance of the Oval Office.
Rick Perry: Will the real Rick Perry please stand up? He's been touted as the complete Conservative...as someone who is tailor-made for the Tea Party. But is this really so? Nobody's quite sure. He made some scathing comments about Social Security in his book (comments that some of us have been waiting for a major politician to say for years), yet he backed down from those comments when challenged on them. Is that the sign of a Conservative who will stand on his principals? Then there's the controversies over the HPV vaccine and in-state tuition for Illegal Aliens--positions that no real Conservative could ever take. We were told that Perry was one of us, but an examination of the facts certainly calls that assessment into question. His debate performances have been anything but inspiring (or, for that matter, anything but "alert"), but I'm not one who wraps up a lot of my judgement of a candidate in things like debates or communication abilities--so this doesn't bother me the way it does some other voters. Instead, what bothers me about Perry is that I don't know if we're dealing with "Perry the Conservative" or "Perry the Politician".
Buddy Roemer: Who?
Mitt Romney: Quite frankly, Romney is the epitome of all that is evil in the current GOP. The typical "focus group candidate" that the party leadership has shoved down our throats for years. Looks good in a suit, performs well in debates, had nice hair, and is just liberal enough that the party leadership (incorrectly) assumes he can win independent voters (while pissing off Conservatives, resulting in their staying home). In other words, Romney is John McCain v2.0. He has never tried to appear as a "dyed-in-the-wool Conservative" (partially, I surmise, because he *can't*...and partially, I surmise, because the very thought of real Conservatism revolts him). Think about it, Romney has never apologized for Romneycare or really even backed off of it. He's just droned on and on about how it's "different" from Obamacare. I don't care how "different" it is--government run health care is an idea that should NEVER be considered, no matter how you implement it. If Romney cannot get that simple but critical concept through his head, then he must not become the GOP candidate--or else the GOP may see a mass walkout the likes of which it's never seen.
Rick Santorum: Of the candidates out there, I think Santorum is far and away the best on social issues. And he's not half-bad on foreign policy, either (though people rarely talk about his foreign policy views). However, he does come off as a bit too "big government" for me. He seems to have some of the trappings of the typical "Compassionate Conservative" of the 2000's (and no, that's not a good thing). Santorum has continually defended Medicare and Social Security (and, for that matter, Medicare Part D...something that never would have happened had the Tea Party been a force in American Politics back in the 2000's). When arguing against Herman Cain's "999 Plan", Santorum continually argued that the plan wouldn't do anything for the poor. And that's the problem with Santorum, the modern (and younger) Conservatives realize that it's not the government's job to "do anything" for anybody--poor or not. Santorum still believes in the concept of an active Federal Government, and that's what makes me a bit uncomfortable with him.
So there's where they stand right now in terms of my support--I'm behind Cain first and foremost, and could be behind Bachmann if she were to end up the nominee. The jury's still out on Perry, Gingrich is starting to sound good (but I don't trust him). Romney's the epitome of all that's evil, and the rest of the candidates...well, they're essentially jokes at this point. That being said, the only potential realistic outcome of this contest that I fear would be that Romney would somehow win. Take note GOP Leadership: If you allow Romney to win this thing, some serious s%$# is going to hit the fan.
It might be the only way you can blow the 2012 election.
So with all of the ups and downs, ins and outs, comings and goings...where exactly does the field stand right now. Has anyone come out of nowhere to impress me? Has anyone fallen well short of expectations? Are there candidates in the field who make me think, "WTF is that guy doing here? The answer to all three of those questions is "Yes". As such, I thought it would be appropriate to take a step back and gauge exactly what I think of each remaining candidate at this point in time. Who would I emphatically support? Who could I vote for, despite having some misgivings? Who's in the field that I would never, ever support under any circumstances? While such judgements are always open to change over time (at least to some extent), let's take a quick look at where all of these candidates presently stand in my twisted, demented, over-developed, genius of a mind:
(In the spirit of fairness...or perhaps it's "laziness"...I'm presenting the candidates in alphabetical order)
Michelle Bachmann: Despite the media's constant refusal to take Bachmann seriously, she's someone I could easily and proudly vote for. She's a Fiscal Conservative in the mold of the Tea Party movement, but hasn't sacrificed her Social Conservatism to get the that point (the way many "Conservatives-come-lately" have). She's right on most of the fiscal issues, she's right on most of the social issues, and (given her answer in the last debate regarding the danger of a nuclear Iran) she's proving that she's right on most of the foreign policy issues. While her method of communication doesn't always resonate as well as it could, and while her campaign certainly looks to be running on fumes at this point, I'd still say that--strictly in terms of her fitness for the office--I'd be happy to vote for her. Of the current candidates, I'd say she's my second choice right now (but a strong second choice).
Herman Cain: Right now, Cain is my favored candidate. If you put a gun to my head and forced my to select my choice for nominee today, it would be Cain. Of all the candidates, he has the best combination of experience, accomplishment, and straightforwardness of any candidate out there. Some would point to his lack of political experience as a negative, however I don't agree with that. There's tons of people out there with "political experience", but very few with any significant "positive accomplishments" in the world of politics. As such, give me someone who has succeeded at a high level elsewhere in life, someone who created and built things, someone who is smart enough to know what he doesn't know...instead of another political retread who has tons of "experience" but has accomplished nothing.
Newt Gingrich: I'll admit it, the more of these debates that happen, the better Newt Gingrich sounds. The guy just flat-out makes a lot of sense most of the time. However, there is a glaring problem: Gingrich has a career spanning several decades where he has played the political game. Where he has tried to say or do whatever was "popular" at the time in order to win an election or keep his name out there. Remember that ad where he was sitting on a park bench with Nancy Pelosi touting the evils of so-called "Global Warming"? I like a lot of what Newt is saying...but there's still this gut feeling that it's "Newt the Politician" saying all of it, as he knows it's the easiest way to keep himself relevant in the 2012 political climate. I can't dismiss Newt...but I'm not sure I can trust him either. However, at this point, I might be tempted to consider him for a VP role...and three months ago, there's no way I would have said that.
Jon Huntsman: Jon Huntsman is not a Conservative. Quite frankly, he's competing for the nomination of the wrong party. Huntsman never got the memo that "moderates" are no longer welcome in the GOP. It should tell you something when Liberal commentators such as Rachel Maddow constantly talk about how Huntsman is the only GOP candidate that sounds sensible...it should tell you that he's not one of us after all. If Huntsman really wants to be President one day, his best bet would be to leave the GOP, join the Democratic party, and run in 2016 (portraying himself as a "Clintonian Moderate"). If he were to do that, he might actually be a tough opponent for an incumbent Republican President in 2016.
Gary Johnson: Isn't this charade over yet? Johnson is a younger, more nervous, more fidgety version of Ron Paul. Take Ron Paul, subtract the name recognition and the "crazy grandpa charisma" and you have Gary Johnson. Speaking of Paul:
Ron Paul: My initial assessment of Paul hasn't changed: Great on fiscal issues, brings up topics that nobody in either party wants to talk about, but looney as a tune on foreign policy. To put it bluntly, Paul's foreign policy (or the lack thereof) is flat-out dangerous. The Paul Doctrine of "Withdraw from military conflict around the world and hope our enemies just go away" is a foreign policy that will literally result in the death of our nation and it's people. The more I hear Ron Paul talk, the less I see him as a Conservative, and the more I see him as a frustrated pacifist ex-hippy who just doesn't like paying taxes. Nevertheless, I like the fact that he's still in the race because he does bring up those pesky domestic and fiscal issues that some other candidates wish to avoid. Still, every time he opens his mouth on the rest of the world, I'm reminded that this crackpot must never be allowed within shouting distance of the Oval Office.
Rick Perry: Will the real Rick Perry please stand up? He's been touted as the complete Conservative...as someone who is tailor-made for the Tea Party. But is this really so? Nobody's quite sure. He made some scathing comments about Social Security in his book (comments that some of us have been waiting for a major politician to say for years), yet he backed down from those comments when challenged on them. Is that the sign of a Conservative who will stand on his principals? Then there's the controversies over the HPV vaccine and in-state tuition for Illegal Aliens--positions that no real Conservative could ever take. We were told that Perry was one of us, but an examination of the facts certainly calls that assessment into question. His debate performances have been anything but inspiring (or, for that matter, anything but "alert"), but I'm not one who wraps up a lot of my judgement of a candidate in things like debates or communication abilities--so this doesn't bother me the way it does some other voters. Instead, what bothers me about Perry is that I don't know if we're dealing with "Perry the Conservative" or "Perry the Politician".
Buddy Roemer: Who?
Mitt Romney: Quite frankly, Romney is the epitome of all that is evil in the current GOP. The typical "focus group candidate" that the party leadership has shoved down our throats for years. Looks good in a suit, performs well in debates, had nice hair, and is just liberal enough that the party leadership (incorrectly) assumes he can win independent voters (while pissing off Conservatives, resulting in their staying home). In other words, Romney is John McCain v2.0. He has never tried to appear as a "dyed-in-the-wool Conservative" (partially, I surmise, because he *can't*...and partially, I surmise, because the very thought of real Conservatism revolts him). Think about it, Romney has never apologized for Romneycare or really even backed off of it. He's just droned on and on about how it's "different" from Obamacare. I don't care how "different" it is--government run health care is an idea that should NEVER be considered, no matter how you implement it. If Romney cannot get that simple but critical concept through his head, then he must not become the GOP candidate--or else the GOP may see a mass walkout the likes of which it's never seen.
Rick Santorum: Of the candidates out there, I think Santorum is far and away the best on social issues. And he's not half-bad on foreign policy, either (though people rarely talk about his foreign policy views). However, he does come off as a bit too "big government" for me. He seems to have some of the trappings of the typical "Compassionate Conservative" of the 2000's (and no, that's not a good thing). Santorum has continually defended Medicare and Social Security (and, for that matter, Medicare Part D...something that never would have happened had the Tea Party been a force in American Politics back in the 2000's). When arguing against Herman Cain's "999 Plan", Santorum continually argued that the plan wouldn't do anything for the poor. And that's the problem with Santorum, the modern (and younger) Conservatives realize that it's not the government's job to "do anything" for anybody--poor or not. Santorum still believes in the concept of an active Federal Government, and that's what makes me a bit uncomfortable with him.
So there's where they stand right now in terms of my support--I'm behind Cain first and foremost, and could be behind Bachmann if she were to end up the nominee. The jury's still out on Perry, Gingrich is starting to sound good (but I don't trust him). Romney's the epitome of all that's evil, and the rest of the candidates...well, they're essentially jokes at this point. That being said, the only potential realistic outcome of this contest that I fear would be that Romney would somehow win. Take note GOP Leadership: If you allow Romney to win this thing, some serious s%$# is going to hit the fan.
It might be the only way you can blow the 2012 election.
Sunday, October 9, 2011
A Primer for the Protesters--Explaining Economics and "Fairness"
While it would be easy to dismiss the "Occupy Wall Street" protesters as little more than hippies, druggies, and union thugs, the fact remains that there are some younger folks in these mobs who might very well have the mental capabilities to one day become solid contributing citizens. The only problem is that they've been negatively influenced by popular culture, by their "education", and yes, by those hippies, druggies, and union thugs who have shown up at these protests. Frankly, we have allowed these young people who would otherwise have so much potential to have their views of fairness and capitalism to become corrupted by those to whom their ultimate goal is to remove capitalism and fairness from America.
Therefore, since there are some young people within these mobs who have some "potential" in life--if only they could be exposed to common sense viewpoints on capitalism and fairness--I've decided to do my part to help these few among the mobs who have that potential. These unfortunate victims of popular culture and the educational establishment have likely never been exposed to people like Milton Friedman. They've likely been repeatedly told that the "New Deal" of FDR ended the Great Depression, when in fact it prolonged it. They've likely been told that LBJ's "Great Society" was the catalyst for tremendous growth within the minority community, when in fact these types of social programs have done far more harm than good to those of minority persuasion and those who are poor.
In other words, these kids have been lied to all of their lives--how can you possibly expect them to recognize the truth when they finally hear it?
It is with this in mind that I'm providing some video clips of some of the great thinkers that our nation has ever known when it comes to these topics. I know this won't "turn around" these misguided youth overnight--but it may provide those initial seeds of thought within their minds which hopefully will lead to a further examination of their opinions of capitalism and fairness. One doesn't undo a lifetime of miseducation in one blog post--but one can at least open the door towards challenging those misguided beliefs about America, Capitalism, and our Culture that so many young people have been poisoned by.
So with that in mind, set down your protest sign, pick up your laptop (for all the protests against capitalism, there sure seems to be a high number of laptops and other mobile communication devices at these protests, amiright??), and watch these great thinkers discuss many of the ideas and institutions you are "protesting" against.
Let's start with legendary economist Milton Friedman discussing the very idea of Greed. In this appearance on The Phil Donahue program back in the 1970's, Friedman is asked a series of questions by Donahue that are likely quite similar to the questions many of you are asking of society through these protests. You might find Friedman's take on the concept of "greed" to be surprising and a bit enlightening:
Along similar lines, here is noted professor, economist, and writer Walter E. Williams discussing the fact that greed does not work against social responsibility, but instead that our greed usually leads us to take the most socially responsible actions:
What about the concept of "fairness"? Isn't it--according to those in these protests--somehow "unfair" that the rich have what they have, while others don't? Perhaps it is...but it is only because *nature* is "unfair" in how we are created. And it is this unfairness that defines the talents and capabilities that each of us have as individuals. Milton Friedman explains:
So, since nature is unfair in terms of what our talents are or what our capabilities are (and since the differences and inequities of wealth that we see are largely a result of this), shouldn't it fall to the government to redistribute wealth so that we can all have "equality"? Walter E. Williams doesn't think so, and here he explains why such government-mandated wealth re-distribution (an increase in which is exactly what the Wall Street protesters are advocating) is nothing more than theft, and therefore is deplorable:
Not to be outdone, here is a clip of Friedman discussing wealth redistribution--specifically his argument about what would happen if a 100% inheritance tax were established, and all incentive to accumulate wealth and pass it on to future generations were destroyed (and again, notice how similar the young man's question in this video is to the rhetoric you are hearing out of the protesters today):
And here, Friedman specifically discusses whether government has any sort of responsibility towards the poor:
So what if you are poor? The position of most of the Wall Street protesters is that those in poverty (or even in the middle class) are somehow trapped on a treadmill of poverty from which they can never escape. But is this really so? Walter E. Williams doesn't think so, and in this clip, he provides a fairly straightforward plan for how anybody can avoid poverty:
So, protesters, there you have it. A different (and I would argue, a more sensible) viewpoint on economics, "fairness", wealth redistribution, and poverty. You won't hear this from the hippies, druggies, or union thugs protesting alongside you. You won't hear it from your teachers or college professors (many of which have been misguided over the years by those who wish to punish and vilify success, just as they have tried to do with you). There is no shame in wealth, or even in greed. The government has zero responsibility to insure any level of fairness or equity. And no matter how poor or disadvantaged you are, you--and you alone--can change that aspect of your life. Now put down your protest sign, join the rest of us in "Capitalist America", and realize your full potential at last!
Therefore, since there are some young people within these mobs who have some "potential" in life--if only they could be exposed to common sense viewpoints on capitalism and fairness--I've decided to do my part to help these few among the mobs who have that potential. These unfortunate victims of popular culture and the educational establishment have likely never been exposed to people like Milton Friedman. They've likely been repeatedly told that the "New Deal" of FDR ended the Great Depression, when in fact it prolonged it. They've likely been told that LBJ's "Great Society" was the catalyst for tremendous growth within the minority community, when in fact these types of social programs have done far more harm than good to those of minority persuasion and those who are poor.
In other words, these kids have been lied to all of their lives--how can you possibly expect them to recognize the truth when they finally hear it?
It is with this in mind that I'm providing some video clips of some of the great thinkers that our nation has ever known when it comes to these topics. I know this won't "turn around" these misguided youth overnight--but it may provide those initial seeds of thought within their minds which hopefully will lead to a further examination of their opinions of capitalism and fairness. One doesn't undo a lifetime of miseducation in one blog post--but one can at least open the door towards challenging those misguided beliefs about America, Capitalism, and our Culture that so many young people have been poisoned by.
So with that in mind, set down your protest sign, pick up your laptop (for all the protests against capitalism, there sure seems to be a high number of laptops and other mobile communication devices at these protests, amiright??), and watch these great thinkers discuss many of the ideas and institutions you are "protesting" against.
Let's start with legendary economist Milton Friedman discussing the very idea of Greed. In this appearance on The Phil Donahue program back in the 1970's, Friedman is asked a series of questions by Donahue that are likely quite similar to the questions many of you are asking of society through these protests. You might find Friedman's take on the concept of "greed" to be surprising and a bit enlightening:
Along similar lines, here is noted professor, economist, and writer Walter E. Williams discussing the fact that greed does not work against social responsibility, but instead that our greed usually leads us to take the most socially responsible actions:
What about the concept of "fairness"? Isn't it--according to those in these protests--somehow "unfair" that the rich have what they have, while others don't? Perhaps it is...but it is only because *nature* is "unfair" in how we are created. And it is this unfairness that defines the talents and capabilities that each of us have as individuals. Milton Friedman explains:
So, since nature is unfair in terms of what our talents are or what our capabilities are (and since the differences and inequities of wealth that we see are largely a result of this), shouldn't it fall to the government to redistribute wealth so that we can all have "equality"? Walter E. Williams doesn't think so, and here he explains why such government-mandated wealth re-distribution (an increase in which is exactly what the Wall Street protesters are advocating) is nothing more than theft, and therefore is deplorable:
Not to be outdone, here is a clip of Friedman discussing wealth redistribution--specifically his argument about what would happen if a 100% inheritance tax were established, and all incentive to accumulate wealth and pass it on to future generations were destroyed (and again, notice how similar the young man's question in this video is to the rhetoric you are hearing out of the protesters today):
And here, Friedman specifically discusses whether government has any sort of responsibility towards the poor:
So what if you are poor? The position of most of the Wall Street protesters is that those in poverty (or even in the middle class) are somehow trapped on a treadmill of poverty from which they can never escape. But is this really so? Walter E. Williams doesn't think so, and in this clip, he provides a fairly straightforward plan for how anybody can avoid poverty:
So, protesters, there you have it. A different (and I would argue, a more sensible) viewpoint on economics, "fairness", wealth redistribution, and poverty. You won't hear this from the hippies, druggies, or union thugs protesting alongside you. You won't hear it from your teachers or college professors (many of which have been misguided over the years by those who wish to punish and vilify success, just as they have tried to do with you). There is no shame in wealth, or even in greed. The government has zero responsibility to insure any level of fairness or equity. And no matter how poor or disadvantaged you are, you--and you alone--can change that aspect of your life. Now put down your protest sign, join the rest of us in "Capitalist America", and realize your full potential at last!
Monday, September 26, 2011
Law & Order: A Winning Strategy for 2012
Sometimes I'm just too damn charitable.
Every four years, there's an entire industry of political strategists that make millions of dollars devising strategy, tactics, and carefully sculpted messages for prospective political candidates. It is the job of these people to come up with that perfect strategy that will resonnate with the voters while both highlighting the candidate's strengths and downplaying his weaknesses. And there's serious money involved for those who prove to be adept at devising such gameplans. To put it another way, a winning electoral strategy is worth it's weight in gold.
So why in the Hell am I about to give away the perfect strategy for winning the 2012 Presidential Election away for free?
Well, before I come to my senses, hit the "delete" button, and sell this idea to a bunch of Republican suits for a few million bucks, here's the skinny: Everybody who's anybody in politics right now is talking about jobs and the economy...and well they should, as it's something that impacts nearly every American in some way. However, while the economy is an extremely important issue, it's not the only issue that's out there. I think there's a "secondary" issue that--if paired with a sensible economic plan as the primary issue--could be what some GOP candidate needs to seperate himself/herself from the rest of the pack.
That issue is the idea of "Law & Order". If you are a regular, normal, law-abiding American, chances are that you look around you and wonder if our laws even apply anymore...much less if the very concept of "right vs. wrong" even exists in American society. You see illegal immigrants who are lauded instead of castigated, Terrorists who are afforded rights and legal protections (while Christians who dare express their faith in public are shut down at the earliest opportunity), inner cities that have become literal war zones, people who don't even think twice about scamming government welfare and other programs, miscrents (with ambulance-chasing attorneys following close behind) who sue everybody in sight in hopes of "hitting the legal lottery", and criminals publicized and glorified by an all-to-eager media.
As that legendary pro wrestler and philosopher, "Classy" Freddie Blassie once opined, "What the Hell ever happened to the Human Race?"
Society seems to be bursting apart at the seems, and a lack of Law, Order, and Moral Clarity is at the center of it. And yet, at times, our sitting President seems to be on the side of those who would tear down American Society. Giving speeches where he identifies and sypathizes with Illegal Aliens. Openly advocating for more welfare and government "help" for the lower classes (which in the past has only resulted in the destruction of the family unit among poorer Americans...and the crime, violence, and lawlessness that goes with it). Speaking in conciliatory tones towards our enemies both overseas and domestically. It would not be difficult to portray Obama as--if not a President who is openly on the side of the criminal and immoral--at least a President who is ill-equipped to deal with our national "lack of character" crisis.
I'm certainly not saying that "Law & Order" could usurp the economy as the main issue, but instead I'm saying that there is a significant group of people out there (and I'm certainly among them) who view the rampant lawlessness in our society as a key issue--right alongside the economy. And these votes are up for the taking...if one of the GOP candidates spoke openly and with candor about bringing Law & Order back to American society, it would resonnate, and possibly be enough to nudge them in front of the other candidates.
Several months ago, I did an edition of my videoblog in which I discussed Obama's cowtowing to Illegal Immigrants. And while it's a small (perhaps even insignificant) sample size, I can tell you that, of the 31 "America's Evil Genius" episodes we've done to date, it was that episode that got the most views and the most feedback--the vast majority if it majorly positive. That tells me that this is an issue that is on the forefront of the minds of a lot of voters. Yet, nearly all the GOP candidates talk about it in measured tones--ever fearful of "offending" moderates and perhaps some Hispanics. If just one candiate would take a (pardon my French) "Take No Shit" position on Illegal Immigration, Conservatives, many Independants, and otherwise concerned Americans would get behind them in a hurry!
What, you didn't see my piece on Obama's glad-handing of Illegal Aliens? Whoomp! Here it Is!
But Illegal Immigration isn't the only area where people are seeking an uncompromising, "say what you mean and mean what you say" approach. Recently, during one of the GOP debates, Texas Governor Rick Perry's record of executing more criminals than any other state was brought up by the moderator...and was met with racaus applause by the gallery. And while both the Left and the Mainstream Media castigated that crowd for their reaction ("OMG! They're cheering death!!!" exclaimed the usual Liberal suspects), they missed the point of the meaning of that response. That crowd (and, I must admit, myself watching the debate in my living room) cheered not out of some bloodthirsty sadism, but they (or, shall I say, "we") cheered because Texas' use of "Ultimate Justice" indicates that--unlike many other places--they place a higher priority on the protection of the lives and property of law-abiding citizens than they do on the protection of those who would do us harm. We've seen nearly a century of criminals being "understood", "excused", "explained", or otherwise coddled, and yet law-abiding citizens are no safer than they were before the 20th Century started. A more basic, sensible, and dare I say "Draconian" approach to crime and punishment is what a lot of us believe to be neccesarry in terms of protecting ourselves, our families, and our property.
Given the reactions of many Conservatives on issues of Illegal Immigration, Capital Punishment, or many other issues of Law Enforcement and Crime (as opposed to the stances of Obama and the Left on the same issues), it stands to reason that a candidate who would make "Law & Order" a major theme of their campaign could potentially do quite well. And it wouldn't be without precedent...just go back to 1968. At that time--somewhat similar to today--America seemed to be coming apart at the seems. There was violence and rioting in the streets, a youth culture that was turning their backs on the ideals that built America, and political assassinations had nearly become the norm. Richard Nixon succesfully positioned himself as the "Law & Order" candidate and easily won both the 1968 & 1972 Presidential elections. By appealing to those normal, traditional, law-abiding citizens (which Nixon referred to as the "Silent Majority"), Nixon had great electoral success.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not a Nixon fan (Between things like Price Controls and the establishment of the EPA, Richard Nixon was about as Conservative as Lindsey Lohan is cellibate). However, speaking strictly in terms of political strategy, Nixon proved that an appeal to Law & Order during a time of cultural chaos can be a rather succesful way to win an election or two. Much like '68, America is in a time of cultural chaos once again. And once again, there is a "Silent Majority" of normal, traditional, regular, law-abiding Americans who not only can be reached, but are chomping at the bit to go to the ballot box and correct this situation (The only difference is that, today, that "majority" is not as "silent" as it used to be).
A secondary focus on Law & Order (combined with a solid primary focus on the economy) could be just what the doctor ordered for one of these myriad of GOP candiates to break out of the pack, overtake Mitt Romney, and go on to beat Obama and get our nation back on the right track. The time is ripe for one of you to emerge.
Every four years, there's an entire industry of political strategists that make millions of dollars devising strategy, tactics, and carefully sculpted messages for prospective political candidates. It is the job of these people to come up with that perfect strategy that will resonnate with the voters while both highlighting the candidate's strengths and downplaying his weaknesses. And there's serious money involved for those who prove to be adept at devising such gameplans. To put it another way, a winning electoral strategy is worth it's weight in gold.
So why in the Hell am I about to give away the perfect strategy for winning the 2012 Presidential Election away for free?
Well, before I come to my senses, hit the "delete" button, and sell this idea to a bunch of Republican suits for a few million bucks, here's the skinny: Everybody who's anybody in politics right now is talking about jobs and the economy...and well they should, as it's something that impacts nearly every American in some way. However, while the economy is an extremely important issue, it's not the only issue that's out there. I think there's a "secondary" issue that--if paired with a sensible economic plan as the primary issue--could be what some GOP candidate needs to seperate himself/herself from the rest of the pack.
That issue is the idea of "Law & Order". If you are a regular, normal, law-abiding American, chances are that you look around you and wonder if our laws even apply anymore...much less if the very concept of "right vs. wrong" even exists in American society. You see illegal immigrants who are lauded instead of castigated, Terrorists who are afforded rights and legal protections (while Christians who dare express their faith in public are shut down at the earliest opportunity), inner cities that have become literal war zones, people who don't even think twice about scamming government welfare and other programs, miscrents (with ambulance-chasing attorneys following close behind) who sue everybody in sight in hopes of "hitting the legal lottery", and criminals publicized and glorified by an all-to-eager media.
As that legendary pro wrestler and philosopher, "Classy" Freddie Blassie once opined, "What the Hell ever happened to the Human Race?"
Society seems to be bursting apart at the seems, and a lack of Law, Order, and Moral Clarity is at the center of it. And yet, at times, our sitting President seems to be on the side of those who would tear down American Society. Giving speeches where he identifies and sypathizes with Illegal Aliens. Openly advocating for more welfare and government "help" for the lower classes (which in the past has only resulted in the destruction of the family unit among poorer Americans...and the crime, violence, and lawlessness that goes with it). Speaking in conciliatory tones towards our enemies both overseas and domestically. It would not be difficult to portray Obama as--if not a President who is openly on the side of the criminal and immoral--at least a President who is ill-equipped to deal with our national "lack of character" crisis.
I'm certainly not saying that "Law & Order" could usurp the economy as the main issue, but instead I'm saying that there is a significant group of people out there (and I'm certainly among them) who view the rampant lawlessness in our society as a key issue--right alongside the economy. And these votes are up for the taking...if one of the GOP candidates spoke openly and with candor about bringing Law & Order back to American society, it would resonnate, and possibly be enough to nudge them in front of the other candidates.
Several months ago, I did an edition of my videoblog in which I discussed Obama's cowtowing to Illegal Immigrants. And while it's a small (perhaps even insignificant) sample size, I can tell you that, of the 31 "America's Evil Genius" episodes we've done to date, it was that episode that got the most views and the most feedback--the vast majority if it majorly positive. That tells me that this is an issue that is on the forefront of the minds of a lot of voters. Yet, nearly all the GOP candidates talk about it in measured tones--ever fearful of "offending" moderates and perhaps some Hispanics. If just one candiate would take a (pardon my French) "Take No Shit" position on Illegal Immigration, Conservatives, many Independants, and otherwise concerned Americans would get behind them in a hurry!
What, you didn't see my piece on Obama's glad-handing of Illegal Aliens? Whoomp! Here it Is!
But Illegal Immigration isn't the only area where people are seeking an uncompromising, "say what you mean and mean what you say" approach. Recently, during one of the GOP debates, Texas Governor Rick Perry's record of executing more criminals than any other state was brought up by the moderator...and was met with racaus applause by the gallery. And while both the Left and the Mainstream Media castigated that crowd for their reaction ("OMG! They're cheering death!!!" exclaimed the usual Liberal suspects), they missed the point of the meaning of that response. That crowd (and, I must admit, myself watching the debate in my living room) cheered not out of some bloodthirsty sadism, but they (or, shall I say, "we") cheered because Texas' use of "Ultimate Justice" indicates that--unlike many other places--they place a higher priority on the protection of the lives and property of law-abiding citizens than they do on the protection of those who would do us harm. We've seen nearly a century of criminals being "understood", "excused", "explained", or otherwise coddled, and yet law-abiding citizens are no safer than they were before the 20th Century started. A more basic, sensible, and dare I say "Draconian" approach to crime and punishment is what a lot of us believe to be neccesarry in terms of protecting ourselves, our families, and our property.
Given the reactions of many Conservatives on issues of Illegal Immigration, Capital Punishment, or many other issues of Law Enforcement and Crime (as opposed to the stances of Obama and the Left on the same issues), it stands to reason that a candidate who would make "Law & Order" a major theme of their campaign could potentially do quite well. And it wouldn't be without precedent...just go back to 1968. At that time--somewhat similar to today--America seemed to be coming apart at the seems. There was violence and rioting in the streets, a youth culture that was turning their backs on the ideals that built America, and political assassinations had nearly become the norm. Richard Nixon succesfully positioned himself as the "Law & Order" candidate and easily won both the 1968 & 1972 Presidential elections. By appealing to those normal, traditional, law-abiding citizens (which Nixon referred to as the "Silent Majority"), Nixon had great electoral success.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not a Nixon fan (Between things like Price Controls and the establishment of the EPA, Richard Nixon was about as Conservative as Lindsey Lohan is cellibate). However, speaking strictly in terms of political strategy, Nixon proved that an appeal to Law & Order during a time of cultural chaos can be a rather succesful way to win an election or two. Much like '68, America is in a time of cultural chaos once again. And once again, there is a "Silent Majority" of normal, traditional, regular, law-abiding Americans who not only can be reached, but are chomping at the bit to go to the ballot box and correct this situation (The only difference is that, today, that "majority" is not as "silent" as it used to be).
A secondary focus on Law & Order (combined with a solid primary focus on the economy) could be just what the doctor ordered for one of these myriad of GOP candiates to break out of the pack, overtake Mitt Romney, and go on to beat Obama and get our nation back on the right track. The time is ripe for one of you to emerge.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
What's *really* deplorable about Jimmy Hoffa Jr.'s Rhetoric
By now, most of you are familiar with the comments of Teamster's President Jimmy Hoffa Jr. who recently stated in reference to The Tea Party, that he'd like to help Barack Obama "...take these sons of bitches out". Now, almost every Conservative within the last couple of days has taken offense to these comments, and has pointed out the irony and hypocrisy of the Left using rhetoric of this nature after trying to paint the Right with the same brush during the Gabrielle Giffords tragedy.
However, I might be the one Conservative you'll meet who wasn't offended by the statement...at least not entirely.
I've never been one of these people who gets hung up on the need for a "Civil Tone" in politics. I would rather that people (whether they are politicians, commentators, or just regular folks such as you and I) be up front about what they believe and what they think, and not feel the pressure to stifle or qualify their words simply to fit into some opaque idea of "civility". Rather than pretending that we have some level of respect for each other that really doesn't exist, I'd rather that people "say what they mean and mean what they say" when it comes to politics. To do anything less is nothing more than dishonesty.
So Hoffa hates the Tea Party and wants to take us out (perhaps in an elective sense, perhaps in a physical sense...it really doesn't make a difference either way). So be it, the feeling is mutual, Mr. Hoffa. At least you're coming out and saying it as opposed to so many other Liberals who pretend that there is some sort of common ground from which we can all work...all while secretly thinking exactly what you have said. Let's be blunt on both sides here: You hate our guts. We hate your guts. At least we all have an honest starting point for the debate and the fight.
However, there is a pattern of Hoffa's rhetoric that I do take great offense to. Hoffa--in a pattern that has been echoed over the years by many other Union bosses as well as Liberal politicians up to and including Barack Obama--continually claimed to be speaking on the behalf of "The American Worker". Very rarely do Union leaders (or Democratic politicians) refer to Unions, instead they use words like "The American Worker", "Workers", or "The Middle Class" when they are talking about Unions. And it's that interchange of terms when talking about Unions that greatly offends me.
Mr. Hoffa, you DO NOT represent the American Workers. You represent the Unions. There is a tremendous difference between the two.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm), the percentage of wage and salary workers who are members of a union is, according to numbers taken in 2010, a mere 11.9%. In other words, only 11.9% of American Workers are part of a Union...that means that 88.1% of American Workers are not involved in a Union. In addition, when you take into account the many polls that show Americans have a more negative view of Unions than they have at any point in our nation's history, it stands to reason that a good number of that 88.1% have no interest or desire in joining a Union.
To put it bluntly, the vast majority of American Workers do not belong--and do not care to belong--to a labor Union.
Therefore, when a union thug like Hoffa claims to represent the "American Worker", it is nothing more than a lie. You do not represent the American Worker...you only represent a small (and shrinking) fringe sub-group within the American Workforce (a sub-group in which, truth be told, many of their own members would not belong to if only they had a choice in the matter). You represent a small fringe that has taken repeated actions to bankrupt, extort, and harass the job creators in our society--and in doing so have caused countless jobs to go overseas.
Mr. Hoffa, The Tea Party is not at war with the American Worker--we are at war with Unions. The two groups are very distinct.
However, because you are advocating for and speaking for Organized Labor, you are representing the very group that--if they haven't declared out and out war on the American Worker--have at least been responsible for much of the economic issues that they face.
Mr. Hoffa (and for that matter, other Union leaders and Democratic politicians), you have no right to compare yourself to the American Worker, or claim that you speak for any of us. You do not. You are one of the primary reasons that we face the challenges we do.
And for that, sons of bitches like you should be taken out.
However, I might be the one Conservative you'll meet who wasn't offended by the statement...at least not entirely.
I've never been one of these people who gets hung up on the need for a "Civil Tone" in politics. I would rather that people (whether they are politicians, commentators, or just regular folks such as you and I) be up front about what they believe and what they think, and not feel the pressure to stifle or qualify their words simply to fit into some opaque idea of "civility". Rather than pretending that we have some level of respect for each other that really doesn't exist, I'd rather that people "say what they mean and mean what they say" when it comes to politics. To do anything less is nothing more than dishonesty.
So Hoffa hates the Tea Party and wants to take us out (perhaps in an elective sense, perhaps in a physical sense...it really doesn't make a difference either way). So be it, the feeling is mutual, Mr. Hoffa. At least you're coming out and saying it as opposed to so many other Liberals who pretend that there is some sort of common ground from which we can all work...all while secretly thinking exactly what you have said. Let's be blunt on both sides here: You hate our guts. We hate your guts. At least we all have an honest starting point for the debate and the fight.
However, there is a pattern of Hoffa's rhetoric that I do take great offense to. Hoffa--in a pattern that has been echoed over the years by many other Union bosses as well as Liberal politicians up to and including Barack Obama--continually claimed to be speaking on the behalf of "The American Worker". Very rarely do Union leaders (or Democratic politicians) refer to Unions, instead they use words like "The American Worker", "Workers", or "The Middle Class" when they are talking about Unions. And it's that interchange of terms when talking about Unions that greatly offends me.
Mr. Hoffa, you DO NOT represent the American Workers. You represent the Unions. There is a tremendous difference between the two.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm), the percentage of wage and salary workers who are members of a union is, according to numbers taken in 2010, a mere 11.9%. In other words, only 11.9% of American Workers are part of a Union...that means that 88.1% of American Workers are not involved in a Union. In addition, when you take into account the many polls that show Americans have a more negative view of Unions than they have at any point in our nation's history, it stands to reason that a good number of that 88.1% have no interest or desire in joining a Union.
To put it bluntly, the vast majority of American Workers do not belong--and do not care to belong--to a labor Union.
Therefore, when a union thug like Hoffa claims to represent the "American Worker", it is nothing more than a lie. You do not represent the American Worker...you only represent a small (and shrinking) fringe sub-group within the American Workforce (a sub-group in which, truth be told, many of their own members would not belong to if only they had a choice in the matter). You represent a small fringe that has taken repeated actions to bankrupt, extort, and harass the job creators in our society--and in doing so have caused countless jobs to go overseas.
Mr. Hoffa, The Tea Party is not at war with the American Worker--we are at war with Unions. The two groups are very distinct.
However, because you are advocating for and speaking for Organized Labor, you are representing the very group that--if they haven't declared out and out war on the American Worker--have at least been responsible for much of the economic issues that they face.
Mr. Hoffa (and for that matter, other Union leaders and Democratic politicians), you have no right to compare yourself to the American Worker, or claim that you speak for any of us. You do not. You are one of the primary reasons that we face the challenges we do.
And for that, sons of bitches like you should be taken out.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
John Edwards was right (sort of)...there really ARE two Americas!
Remember John Edwards? He was the perpetual Democratic Presidential candidate who slept around on his cancer-stricken wife and knocked up a minimally attractive staffer. But, back before all of the scandal, he was a rising power in the Democratic party...many saw him as a future "face" of the Democratic party, and perhaps even the heir apparent to Bill Clinton (which, in retrospect, should have been our first clue that he'd end up sleeping around on his cancer-stricken wife and knocking up a minimally attractive staffer...hindsight really is 20/20, I suppose).
Anyhow, as he ascended the Democratic ladder, Edwards made his reputation by essentially drafting one campaign speech, learning how to deliver it really well, and then giving that one speech over and over and over (and over...and over...and over) at every appearance he made. It was his "Two Americas" speech. In this one speech (which Edwards gave at least a couple thousand times, rarely going off his comfortable "script") the fair-haired South Carolinian made the case that America was essentially divided into two separate nations--at least in terms of experience--and that individuals on either side of this unseen "dividing line" between the "Two Americas" had very little in common and were essentially in competition.
Now, Edwards' version of the "Two Americas" was to divided by level of wealth, and was little more than a blatant attempt at class warfare--pitting "rich" against "poor"--and as such, his definition of the "Two Americas" is something I could never agree with. Edwards usual speech was the typical mythology that the Left has pushed for the better party of 75 years--albeit a version of that mythology that was easier on the ears and more appealing aesthetically than many Liberals who came before him. But at it's root, the central theme of Edwards' speeches--that theme of "Two Americas" separated by income and wealth--was really no different than what FDR, LBJ, JFK, Woodrow Wilson, Karl Marx, Mao Tse Tung, and many other dangerous leftists had advocated before Edwards came along, despite Edwards making it sound a bit more palatable than some of his predecessors.
However, while Edwards variation on the "Two Americas" theme was simplistic, laughable, and perhaps even dangerous, I don't think that we can completely dismiss the basic idea of America divided into two separate nations in terms of experience and point of view, and that these two separate entities are in constant competition. As I look around at our current political, social, and cultural environment, I really am starting to see "Two Americas".
It's just that the "two Americas" that I'm seeing aren't separated by wealth.
So if these "Two Americas" that I'm seeing aren't separated by wealth, then what are they separated by? Are they simply separated by political party? Republican vs. Democrat? I don't think so--while the fight between the two political parties is as heated as it's ever been, I don't think that most Americans view life in general through that prism...so the division in our nation goes deeper than political party. Is it an ideological battle between Conservatives and Liberals? Well, that's getting closer to the heart of the separation, but even then, I believe there are a lot of people who don't readily identify themselves on one side of that divide or the other (although they might have opinions, morals, and viewpoints that could easily fit within one ideological side or the other, I'm not sure that most people think of it in these terms).
No, no...the real separation between the "Two Americas" is, on one hand, much deeper than the suggestions mentioned in the previous paragraph...and on the other hand, is much more simple than those suggestions. The "Two Americas" we see today are not a Republican America and a Democratic America. They are not a Rich America and a Poor America. The are not a Conservative America and a Liberal America...
...instead, the "Two Americas" we see today are best summed up as one America where people take a level of responsibility and pride in working hard and making a livelihood for themselves...opposed by another America where people feel they are entitled to a livelihood whether they go out and earn it or not. One America where people strive to earn a living...opposed by another America where people believe their living should be taken from others on the basis of some "unfairness", "inequality", multi-generational "grudge" against those who possess the wealth that they desire. One America where we protect our lives and property from those who would come here illegally and take them from us...opposed to another America where people feel the desire to make life easier for those who would steal from us and attempt to destroy our nation and culture from the inside. One America where people believe that all should be held responsible for their decisions--suffering the consequences or reaping the benefits of the decisions they make...opposed by another America where people believe some entity (the government, their employer, their school) should ensure a positive outcome regardless of what decisions the individual makes. One America where the moral absolutes of our parents and grandparents continue to rule the day...opposed by another America where moral absolutes simply don't exist, and all actions and activities are justifiable and are to be "appreciated" and "understood" instead of criticized.
In short, the battle of "Two Americas" we are seeing right now is a battle between "Productive America" and "Non-Productive America".
Both of these Americas contain both rich and poor. Both contain both Republicans and Democrats. The key difference is in the outlook on life (which, on a lesser level, translates into politics) between these two Americas. And it is this difference in outlooks that is the root of all political battles we see, all major issues we see, and which will be at the heart of the 2012 Presidential Election.
Barack Obama represents "Non-Productive America"--his views on taxation, fiscal (ir)responsibility, and Illegal Immigration are proof of this.
Which America do you belong to?
Anyhow, as he ascended the Democratic ladder, Edwards made his reputation by essentially drafting one campaign speech, learning how to deliver it really well, and then giving that one speech over and over and over (and over...and over...and over) at every appearance he made. It was his "Two Americas" speech. In this one speech (which Edwards gave at least a couple thousand times, rarely going off his comfortable "script") the fair-haired South Carolinian made the case that America was essentially divided into two separate nations--at least in terms of experience--and that individuals on either side of this unseen "dividing line" between the "Two Americas" had very little in common and were essentially in competition.
Now, Edwards' version of the "Two Americas" was to divided by level of wealth, and was little more than a blatant attempt at class warfare--pitting "rich" against "poor"--and as such, his definition of the "Two Americas" is something I could never agree with. Edwards usual speech was the typical mythology that the Left has pushed for the better party of 75 years--albeit a version of that mythology that was easier on the ears and more appealing aesthetically than many Liberals who came before him. But at it's root, the central theme of Edwards' speeches--that theme of "Two Americas" separated by income and wealth--was really no different than what FDR, LBJ, JFK, Woodrow Wilson, Karl Marx, Mao Tse Tung, and many other dangerous leftists had advocated before Edwards came along, despite Edwards making it sound a bit more palatable than some of his predecessors.
However, while Edwards variation on the "Two Americas" theme was simplistic, laughable, and perhaps even dangerous, I don't think that we can completely dismiss the basic idea of America divided into two separate nations in terms of experience and point of view, and that these two separate entities are in constant competition. As I look around at our current political, social, and cultural environment, I really am starting to see "Two Americas".
It's just that the "two Americas" that I'm seeing aren't separated by wealth.
So if these "Two Americas" that I'm seeing aren't separated by wealth, then what are they separated by? Are they simply separated by political party? Republican vs. Democrat? I don't think so--while the fight between the two political parties is as heated as it's ever been, I don't think that most Americans view life in general through that prism...so the division in our nation goes deeper than political party. Is it an ideological battle between Conservatives and Liberals? Well, that's getting closer to the heart of the separation, but even then, I believe there are a lot of people who don't readily identify themselves on one side of that divide or the other (although they might have opinions, morals, and viewpoints that could easily fit within one ideological side or the other, I'm not sure that most people think of it in these terms).
No, no...the real separation between the "Two Americas" is, on one hand, much deeper than the suggestions mentioned in the previous paragraph...and on the other hand, is much more simple than those suggestions. The "Two Americas" we see today are not a Republican America and a Democratic America. They are not a Rich America and a Poor America. The are not a Conservative America and a Liberal America...
...instead, the "Two Americas" we see today are best summed up as one America where people take a level of responsibility and pride in working hard and making a livelihood for themselves...opposed by another America where people feel they are entitled to a livelihood whether they go out and earn it or not. One America where people strive to earn a living...opposed by another America where people believe their living should be taken from others on the basis of some "unfairness", "inequality", multi-generational "grudge" against those who possess the wealth that they desire. One America where we protect our lives and property from those who would come here illegally and take them from us...opposed to another America where people feel the desire to make life easier for those who would steal from us and attempt to destroy our nation and culture from the inside. One America where people believe that all should be held responsible for their decisions--suffering the consequences or reaping the benefits of the decisions they make...opposed by another America where people believe some entity (the government, their employer, their school) should ensure a positive outcome regardless of what decisions the individual makes. One America where the moral absolutes of our parents and grandparents continue to rule the day...opposed by another America where moral absolutes simply don't exist, and all actions and activities are justifiable and are to be "appreciated" and "understood" instead of criticized.
In short, the battle of "Two Americas" we are seeing right now is a battle between "Productive America" and "Non-Productive America".
Both of these Americas contain both rich and poor. Both contain both Republicans and Democrats. The key difference is in the outlook on life (which, on a lesser level, translates into politics) between these two Americas. And it is this difference in outlooks that is the root of all political battles we see, all major issues we see, and which will be at the heart of the 2012 Presidential Election.
Barack Obama represents "Non-Productive America"--his views on taxation, fiscal (ir)responsibility, and Illegal Immigration are proof of this.
Which America do you belong to?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)