Wait, or is that "imitation"? I forget.
Friday, December 31, 2010
Monday, November 15, 2010
Didn't they do this on Futurama?
Or Total Recall? Scientists watch way too much TV.
Apparently scientists are proposing sending old people away, out into space, never to return.
Scientists, worried Earth will become uninhabitable due to the left's favorite existential threat, global warming, are suggesting one-way trips to Mars to colonize the Red Planet.
"'You would send a little bit older folks, around 60 or something like that'... That's because the mission would undoubtedly reduce a person's lifespan, from a lack of medical care and exposure to radiation. That radiation would also damage human reproductive organs, so sending people of childbearing age is not a good idea...
Still, [scientists believe] many people would be willing to make the sacrifice.
The Mars base would offer humanity a 'lifeboat' in the event Earth becomes uninhabitable."
It would be pretty wild to visit Mars, though.
Scientists Propose One-Way Trips to Mars
Apparently scientists are proposing sending old people away, out into space, never to return.
Scientists, worried Earth will become uninhabitable due to the left's favorite existential threat, global warming, are suggesting one-way trips to Mars to colonize the Red Planet.
"'You would send a little bit older folks, around 60 or something like that'... That's because the mission would undoubtedly reduce a person's lifespan, from a lack of medical care and exposure to radiation. That radiation would also damage human reproductive organs, so sending people of childbearing age is not a good idea...
Still, [scientists believe] many people would be willing to make the sacrifice.
The Mars base would offer humanity a 'lifeboat' in the event Earth becomes uninhabitable."
It would be pretty wild to visit Mars, though.
Scientists Propose One-Way Trips to Mars
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
And people wonder why we're freaked out about government spending...
Suppose your friends, Bob Frank and Larry Bean, started a business manufacturing sporting goods. Your friends started out small and grew their operation through hard work and intelligent business practices such as not taking out too many loans to build a factory addition or hire more employees before they were ready. They were smart. They waited until their business was a thriving, successful sporting goods manufacturer. They waited until their business had become profitable enough to reinvest those profits into building their business. Only then, when they could afford it, did they hire new workers and build a new wing of their factory dedicated to manufacturing basketballs.
Imagine, then, how their business would fare if Bob and Larry decided to hire dozens of new employees to do nothing but paperwork? Imagine how their business would fare if they decided to pay their dozens of new employees twice what the sporting goods manufacturer down the road pays their employees? Imagine how their business would fare if they took out loans to build twelve new factories in twelve different states, before they even had enough orders to fill the capacity of their first factory? And imagine your friends Bob and Larry ignored every single business consultant you referred to them and mocked every single piece of friendly advice you offered.
Common sense tells us your friends' ball company would fail. Common sense also tells us Bob and Larry are stupid.
Yet our federal government is behaving in the same way. USA Today reported today that federal salaries have skyrocketed. According to the report, "The number of federal workers earning $150,000 or more a year has soared tenfold in the past five years and doubled since President Obama took office." Yet while Social Security recipients are not receiving cost of living adjustment for the second straight year, the President plans a 1.4% pay increase for federal workers.
By comparison, private sector workers in comparable positions make half what federal workers are paid, according to a USA Today report from August.
And this is just one example. Instances of unbelievably reckless government spending are legion.
The difference is the federal government can print money, inflate our currency and devalue the dollar. Your friends Bob and Larry will be rewarded for their reckless stupidity by losing their company and possibly their fortune and putting their employees out of work. The federal government's reckless stupidity will hurt the poor whose money is now worth less.
Politicians must have some cojones to look the American people in the eye with a straight face and tell us they are concerned about spending and deficits. This is our tax dollars, our hard earned living, and our federal government gone off the rails.
This is one of the messages last week's election tried to convey. Republicans seem to be listening, Democrats are not. Democrats are like your stupid friends who screwed up so completely they had to sell their life long dream, Frank and Bean's Ball Company, to China.
Imagine, then, how their business would fare if Bob and Larry decided to hire dozens of new employees to do nothing but paperwork? Imagine how their business would fare if they decided to pay their dozens of new employees twice what the sporting goods manufacturer down the road pays their employees? Imagine how their business would fare if they took out loans to build twelve new factories in twelve different states, before they even had enough orders to fill the capacity of their first factory? And imagine your friends Bob and Larry ignored every single business consultant you referred to them and mocked every single piece of friendly advice you offered.
Common sense tells us your friends' ball company would fail. Common sense also tells us Bob and Larry are stupid.
Yet our federal government is behaving in the same way. USA Today reported today that federal salaries have skyrocketed. According to the report, "The number of federal workers earning $150,000 or more a year has soared tenfold in the past five years and doubled since President Obama took office." Yet while Social Security recipients are not receiving cost of living adjustment for the second straight year, the President plans a 1.4% pay increase for federal workers.
By comparison, private sector workers in comparable positions make half what federal workers are paid, according to a USA Today report from August.
And this is just one example. Instances of unbelievably reckless government spending are legion.
The difference is the federal government can print money, inflate our currency and devalue the dollar. Your friends Bob and Larry will be rewarded for their reckless stupidity by losing their company and possibly their fortune and putting their employees out of work. The federal government's reckless stupidity will hurt the poor whose money is now worth less.
Politicians must have some cojones to look the American people in the eye with a straight face and tell us they are concerned about spending and deficits. This is our tax dollars, our hard earned living, and our federal government gone off the rails.
This is one of the messages last week's election tried to convey. Republicans seem to be listening, Democrats are not. Democrats are like your stupid friends who screwed up so completely they had to sell their life long dream, Frank and Bean's Ball Company, to China.
Michelle Obama's going to be mad...
On the heels of First Lady Michelle Obama's recent campaigning to urge restaurants and food companies to offer healthier options and default menu items, fast food chain Wendy's announces new, better tasting, more sophisticated french fries.
Apparently they didn't get the message from Mrs. Obama and her patriarchal food police. Offer an apple or carrot sticks instead of french fries, she instructed them. Make customers specifically ask for fries, she chided. We're not telling you not to offer fries, she reassured the businesses whose business is to know what customers want, what customers will buy, and what will keep their businesses operating. We just want you to offer the choices that we think are better, she admonished. No, there's nothing wrong with a bit of gentle coercion, is there? Of course not. Consumers just don't know what's good for them.
Mrs. Obama's probably not going to be visiting Wendy's for her next double cheeseburger...
Wendy's sells new fries with potato skin, sea salt
Apparently they didn't get the message from Mrs. Obama and her patriarchal food police. Offer an apple or carrot sticks instead of french fries, she instructed them. Make customers specifically ask for fries, she chided. We're not telling you not to offer fries, she reassured the businesses whose business is to know what customers want, what customers will buy, and what will keep their businesses operating. We just want you to offer the choices that we think are better, she admonished. No, there's nothing wrong with a bit of gentle coercion, is there? Of course not. Consumers just don't know what's good for them.
Mrs. Obama's probably not going to be visiting Wendy's for her next double cheeseburger...
Wendy's sells new fries with potato skin, sea salt
Thursday, November 4, 2010
You've seen the butcher.
I'll let the regular news prognosticators prognosticate about the historic nature of Tuesday's election in which voters butchered Democrats, liberals and leftists all about the fruited plains. Here are some of the election lessons I think are important.
This election, while a monumental achievement for conservatives, or to more accurately describe voters -- Mainstream America -- is really just the opening salvo. To borrow a phrase, "There be no shelter
here."
Conservatives must keep up the momentum that's been building the past two years. This is really just the beginning of a long and very difficult war to subdue leftism in America and reverse the monumental damage progressives, liberals, socialists and communists have done to destroy the individual liberties and freedoms of American citizens and to dismantle the very structure of America. Progressives have been at it for a hundred years, trying to undo the principles of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, trying to squash the idea that a man can be free to govern himself. This is a process. It's taken a hundred years to take apart this much of America, how long will it take to put America back together again?
Having kept the Senate in Democrat hands, the president will not have any sort of legislative cover for his agenda that he might have believed he had losing both houses. He can't blame a Republican congress for obstructing his agenda when his party still controls the Senate and the White House. Though he will continue to blame Republicans, just as illogically as he did even with his party controlling the House, Senate and White House prior to the election, nobody's falling for it. But whoever said narcissism was logical?
It also keeps pressure from the American voters on Obama and especially on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who miraculously was able to retain his seat. He benefited from the very visible House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as an arrogant, flamboyant lightning rod for much of the voters' anger. Now the boot of the American electorate lands squarely on his neck. (Don't you just love those nice, friendly colloquialisms Democrats have introduced into mainstream political discourse?)
To be honest, conservative enthusiasm and momentum is the least of my worries. President Obama will not moderate his agenda. I think he is unable to move to the center and will continue to push his leftist agenda, only much more stealthily. Fully aware that he would lose the House and possibly even the Senate, the president threatened "hand to hand combat" after the election. Furthermore, in the weeks leading up to the election it was reported he would pursue his agenda via executive order and regulatory fiat. For two years he pushed his agenda fully aware he was sacrificing many of his own party members at the alter of a leftist authoritarian, paternal ideology. After two years of intense opposition to his policies by large majorities of Americans, why would the fully expected results of this election change his mind?
I fear it will only strengthen his resolve. After all, like most leftists, he knows better than us. The goal of conservatives, in fact, the mainstream of America, is to support the newly elected opposition to President Obama's agenda. They need us to be their backbone.
The president still seems to indicate he believes he has a communications problem. His agenda is good and wonderful, but his messaging is still not getting through to the American people. We should have loved and thanked him by now, but perhaps we are too hard headed, too ignorant, too unsophisticated to fully understand his magnificence. Being president is a hard job, he admitted.
Apparently the American people have a communications problem too. We're still not getting through to him.
This election, while a monumental achievement for conservatives, or to more accurately describe voters -- Mainstream America -- is really just the opening salvo. To borrow a phrase, "There be no shelter
here."Conservatives must keep up the momentum that's been building the past two years. This is really just the beginning of a long and very difficult war to subdue leftism in America and reverse the monumental damage progressives, liberals, socialists and communists have done to destroy the individual liberties and freedoms of American citizens and to dismantle the very structure of America. Progressives have been at it for a hundred years, trying to undo the principles of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, trying to squash the idea that a man can be free to govern himself. This is a process. It's taken a hundred years to take apart this much of America, how long will it take to put America back together again?
Having kept the Senate in Democrat hands, the president will not have any sort of legislative cover for his agenda that he might have believed he had losing both houses. He can't blame a Republican congress for obstructing his agenda when his party still controls the Senate and the White House. Though he will continue to blame Republicans, just as illogically as he did even with his party controlling the House, Senate and White House prior to the election, nobody's falling for it. But whoever said narcissism was logical?
It also keeps pressure from the American voters on Obama and especially on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who miraculously was able to retain his seat. He benefited from the very visible House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as an arrogant, flamboyant lightning rod for much of the voters' anger. Now the boot of the American electorate lands squarely on his neck. (Don't you just love those nice, friendly colloquialisms Democrats have introduced into mainstream political discourse?)
To be honest, conservative enthusiasm and momentum is the least of my worries. President Obama will not moderate his agenda. I think he is unable to move to the center and will continue to push his leftist agenda, only much more stealthily. Fully aware that he would lose the House and possibly even the Senate, the president threatened "hand to hand combat" after the election. Furthermore, in the weeks leading up to the election it was reported he would pursue his agenda via executive order and regulatory fiat. For two years he pushed his agenda fully aware he was sacrificing many of his own party members at the alter of a leftist authoritarian, paternal ideology. After two years of intense opposition to his policies by large majorities of Americans, why would the fully expected results of this election change his mind?
I fear it will only strengthen his resolve. After all, like most leftists, he knows better than us. The goal of conservatives, in fact, the mainstream of America, is to support the newly elected opposition to President Obama's agenda. They need us to be their backbone.
The president still seems to indicate he believes he has a communications problem. His agenda is good and wonderful, but his messaging is still not getting through to the American people. We should have loved and thanked him by now, but perhaps we are too hard headed, too ignorant, too unsophisticated to fully understand his magnificence. Being president is a hard job, he admitted.
Apparently the American people have a communications problem too. We're still not getting through to him.
Monday, November 1, 2010
It's time, son...
I remember when I watched the premier episode of the WB teen superhero drama Smallville
. Poor Clark Kent with all his new, frightening powers. He sulks, in a fit of confusion and ever-present angst, when his father approaches him and says, "It's time, son."
"Are you telling me I'm an alien? And you have my spaceship stored in the attic?"
"Actually, it's in the storm cellar."
Well, as unrelated to tomorrow's pivotal election as that story may be -- don't worry, it will all come together, give it time! -- this message is clear: It's Time.
It's time for traditional America to fight back the hundred year march of the progressive movement to socialism. It's not exaggeration, it's not hyperbole. It's actually very apparent when viewed with an open, reasoned mind.
While America was getting jobs, raising families, building businesses and living lives, progressives were entrenching themselves in every elemental facet of the structure of America. Business, education, the bureaucratic governmental complex, you name it, they dug in. Stop and think for a moment: Why do you think the federal government is the largest employer in the country? Why do you think the tax code is so incredibly, unbelievably, mind-explodingly complex? Why do you think government employee unions are so powerful and only support Democrats' campaigns? It's a generational assault in small steps against intrinsic American freedom and individual autonomy. The parasite comparison is actually pretty appropriate.
It's Time. The leftists have now removed all pretenses and have shown their intentions.
Shortly after President Obama was inaugurated, in an effort to boost support for his infamous "Stimulus" bill, he chastised his opposition. A lot of people say that it's just a spending bill, he acknowledged. Then, with as much smugness as any overly self-important, pretentiously intellectual urbanite could muster, he chided, voice raised to fever pitch, condescension and animus dripping from his razor sharp tongue, "Well what do you think a stimulus is?!"
Personally, I think that's when he lost half the country. The rest bailed when he suggested a woman should just give her elderly mother a pain pill, rather than the government suffer providing life saving heart surgery.
It's Time. Remember the tremendous power of We The People. It's more than just heat vision or the ability to fly. It's the power to tame a land and change the world. It's time for this generation to pick itself up, dust itself off and remember that what made this country great is the slogan found on its currency, even if it is just flimsy paper -- E Pluribus Unum. From many, One. This country is a nation of empowered individuals, working to achieve greatness separately and together, free to fail and free to succeed.
This election isn't just about a President and his party, it's about a country remaining free for generations to come. This is not just a referendum on a man, it is a referendum on an idea he holds -- that America is no longer great and that the concept of a constitutionally limited government is a relic from the past to be discarded. This should prove to be monumental in its rebuke of Leftism and an optimistic, beautiful affirmation of Americanism.
It's Time. Get out there and Vote.
. Poor Clark Kent with all his new, frightening powers. He sulks, in a fit of confusion and ever-present angst, when his father approaches him and says, "It's time, son.""Are you telling me I'm an alien? And you have my spaceship stored in the attic?"
"Actually, it's in the storm cellar."
Well, as unrelated to tomorrow's pivotal election as that story may be -- don't worry, it will all come together, give it time! -- this message is clear: It's Time.
It's time for traditional America to fight back the hundred year march of the progressive movement to socialism. It's not exaggeration, it's not hyperbole. It's actually very apparent when viewed with an open, reasoned mind.
While America was getting jobs, raising families, building businesses and living lives, progressives were entrenching themselves in every elemental facet of the structure of America. Business, education, the bureaucratic governmental complex, you name it, they dug in. Stop and think for a moment: Why do you think the federal government is the largest employer in the country? Why do you think the tax code is so incredibly, unbelievably, mind-explodingly complex? Why do you think government employee unions are so powerful and only support Democrats' campaigns? It's a generational assault in small steps against intrinsic American freedom and individual autonomy. The parasite comparison is actually pretty appropriate.
It's Time. The leftists have now removed all pretenses and have shown their intentions.
Shortly after President Obama was inaugurated, in an effort to boost support for his infamous "Stimulus" bill, he chastised his opposition. A lot of people say that it's just a spending bill, he acknowledged. Then, with as much smugness as any overly self-important, pretentiously intellectual urbanite could muster, he chided, voice raised to fever pitch, condescension and animus dripping from his razor sharp tongue, "Well what do you think a stimulus is?!"
Personally, I think that's when he lost half the country. The rest bailed when he suggested a woman should just give her elderly mother a pain pill, rather than the government suffer providing life saving heart surgery.
It's Time. Remember the tremendous power of We The People. It's more than just heat vision or the ability to fly. It's the power to tame a land and change the world. It's time for this generation to pick itself up, dust itself off and remember that what made this country great is the slogan found on its currency, even if it is just flimsy paper -- E Pluribus Unum. From many, One. This country is a nation of empowered individuals, working to achieve greatness separately and together, free to fail and free to succeed.
This election isn't just about a President and his party, it's about a country remaining free for generations to come. This is not just a referendum on a man, it is a referendum on an idea he holds -- that America is no longer great and that the concept of a constitutionally limited government is a relic from the past to be discarded. This should prove to be monumental in its rebuke of Leftism and an optimistic, beautiful affirmation of Americanism.
It's Time. Get out there and Vote.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Thursday, October 28, 2010
The Opposition
How nice of the leftists in this country to so clearly display why they are the fringe minority in political thought. They are, unfortunately, also some of the loudest voices. This is why conservatives must defeat them.
Here, America, is the Left.
"We have Democrats for one reason - to drag the ignorant hillbilly half of this country into the next century, which in their case is the 19th."
"...They're too stupid, they're like a dog."
Here, America, is the Left.
"We have Democrats for one reason - to drag the ignorant hillbilly half of this country into the next century, which in their case is the 19th."
"...They're too stupid, they're like a dog."
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Mean Girls
I wonder, is it possible for a woman to be a misogynist?
Esteemed New York Times writer Maureen Dowd does not like conservative women. “We are in the era of Republican Mean Girls,” she writes. “…Whether they’re mistreating the help or belittling the president’s manhood, making snide comments about a rival’s hair or ripping an opponent for spending money on a men’s fashion show, the Mean Girls have replaced Hope with Spite and Cool with Cold. They are the ideal nihilistic cheerleaders for an angry electorate.”
Interesting. What do psychologists call it, “Projection?”
The irony seems lost on her. Attacking so-called “Republican Mean Girls” with more meanness is pretty weak, coming from a celebrated intellectual New York Times columnist. Even if her accusations were true, the vibrancy of her “counterattack” (I guess you could call it?), is disappointing. I find the left’s unwavering belief that two wrongs do, in fact, make a right, fascinating and a little disturbing. Maureen’s a positively gleeful character assassin.
What is it about liberals that makes them so angry? Seriously? Especially liberal women? You’d think a liberal woman would be pleased as punch in summer to see successful women be successful. Instead it sounds like she wants to punch them in the head.
This sort of thing makes me suspect the feminist movement has more to do with advancing leftism than feminism. No – this sort of thing just reinforces that suspicion.
All this talk about conservative women – mothers and grandmothers, successful businesswomen and executives – hurling cafeteria insults or spray-painting lockers. Intellectually, socially, on some level, Ms. Dowd seems like she’s still stuck in high school.
Esteemed New York Times writer Maureen Dowd does not like conservative women. “We are in the era of Republican Mean Girls,” she writes. “…Whether they’re mistreating the help or belittling the president’s manhood, making snide comments about a rival’s hair or ripping an opponent for spending money on a men’s fashion show, the Mean Girls have replaced Hope with Spite and Cool with Cold. They are the ideal nihilistic cheerleaders for an angry electorate.”
Interesting. What do psychologists call it, “Projection?”
The irony seems lost on her. Attacking so-called “Republican Mean Girls” with more meanness is pretty weak, coming from a celebrated intellectual New York Times columnist. Even if her accusations were true, the vibrancy of her “counterattack” (I guess you could call it?), is disappointing. I find the left’s unwavering belief that two wrongs do, in fact, make a right, fascinating and a little disturbing. Maureen’s a positively gleeful character assassin.
What is it about liberals that makes them so angry? Seriously? Especially liberal women? You’d think a liberal woman would be pleased as punch in summer to see successful women be successful. Instead it sounds like she wants to punch them in the head.
This sort of thing makes me suspect the feminist movement has more to do with advancing leftism than feminism. No – this sort of thing just reinforces that suspicion.
All this talk about conservative women – mothers and grandmothers, successful businesswomen and executives – hurling cafeteria insults or spray-painting lockers. Intellectually, socially, on some level, Ms. Dowd seems like she’s still stuck in high school.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Proud to Be a Republican - Dennis Prager - National Review Online
"...every single Republican was prepared to fight the left, whatever the political cost."
Proud to Be a Republican - Dennis Prager - National Review Online
Proud to Be a Republican - Dennis Prager - National Review Online
T-Minus Two Weeks
It's an interesting time in the Land of the Still Mostly Free. America's been given a hefty dose of leftism and she's spitting it out like bad seafood.
With the November 2 election looming like a cartoon anvil over the heads of the president and the Democrats, the consensus is the Republican party will retake the House of Representatives with as many as 55 seats. The Senate may be in play as well, with the GOP at least lopping a limb off the Democrats' majority. Recent polling shows that 70 percent of the American people support the basic principles and ideas of the tea party movement -- drastic spending cuts, lower taxes and major reduction in the size of government.
Despite excuses from the president and his party, the problem is not a "communication" problem. The brick wall of opposition is not because he didn't explain his policies well enough, or because legislation the Democrat-controlled House and Senate (hurriedly and forcefully) passed was too difficult for the American people to understand. The opposition is in response to un-American policies and legislation that are understood all too well.
The president has taken to using quaint metaphors to convince the electorate to give his party more time to continue their agenda. You see, the Republicans were driving a car, and they drove it into a ditch. (Never mind that his party was in the passenger seat and switched a couple miles down the road. Remember when the Democrats took over Congress in 2007? Anyway, it's best not to be bothered by pesky details.) Now that he is in charge of the keys, he's pushing the car out of the ditch. And he's not going to give the keys back to Republicans. And he's going to put the gearshift into D for drive. Get it? D for Democrats! You know, everyone was totally right about him. He is brilliant! Anyway, while he wants to go forward, Republicans just want to shift to R for reverse, and go backwards, and drive back into the ditch. And maybe slash the tires while they're at it. Because Republicans hate everyone and everything.
Call me cynical, but this delightful metaphorical story might work a lot better if the unemployment rate weren't still at 9.6 percent.
Distrust of crushingly massive, centralized government was built into the foundation of America. The Constitution enumerates limited power for the federal government and checks on that limited power by distribution into three branches of government. Additionally, the press was at one time considered a fourth branch in its ability to check the power of the federal government and further ensure protection of Americans' individual liberty. At some point the press abjugated its responsibilities and, especially in the case of the current power structure, became a mouthpiece for leftist causes. Journalists vote Democrat en masse, to such an extent that the media's leftist bias has become fodder for the president's self-aggrandizing humor. As a result, a monolithic power bloc has built a monolithic power authority.
So, how big do you want your government to be? How important do you want your government to be? How important do you, the individual, want to be? The visceral recoil to Democrats' policies is a direct response to these elements -- Americans do not like Big Government.
This is just the beginning. This election is shaping up to be a very loud and very angry rebuke of an increasingly centralized, intrusive regime. Voters intend to elect representatives who remember that small government equals big individuals. Voters intend to elect representatives who will limit the power of an authoritative, centralized government. Representatives who will stand up for traditional American principles and protect Americans' liberty and freedom. The freedom to succeed, and the freedom to fail.
Let's hope America is still the Home of the Brave.
With the November 2 election looming like a cartoon anvil over the heads of the president and the Democrats, the consensus is the Republican party will retake the House of Representatives with as many as 55 seats. The Senate may be in play as well, with the GOP at least lopping a limb off the Democrats' majority. Recent polling shows that 70 percent of the American people support the basic principles and ideas of the tea party movement -- drastic spending cuts, lower taxes and major reduction in the size of government.
Despite excuses from the president and his party, the problem is not a "communication" problem. The brick wall of opposition is not because he didn't explain his policies well enough, or because legislation the Democrat-controlled House and Senate (hurriedly and forcefully) passed was too difficult for the American people to understand. The opposition is in response to un-American policies and legislation that are understood all too well.
The president has taken to using quaint metaphors to convince the electorate to give his party more time to continue their agenda. You see, the Republicans were driving a car, and they drove it into a ditch. (Never mind that his party was in the passenger seat and switched a couple miles down the road. Remember when the Democrats took over Congress in 2007? Anyway, it's best not to be bothered by pesky details.) Now that he is in charge of the keys, he's pushing the car out of the ditch. And he's not going to give the keys back to Republicans. And he's going to put the gearshift into D for drive. Get it? D for Democrats! You know, everyone was totally right about him. He is brilliant! Anyway, while he wants to go forward, Republicans just want to shift to R for reverse, and go backwards, and drive back into the ditch. And maybe slash the tires while they're at it. Because Republicans hate everyone and everything.
Call me cynical, but this delightful metaphorical story might work a lot better if the unemployment rate weren't still at 9.6 percent.
Distrust of crushingly massive, centralized government was built into the foundation of America. The Constitution enumerates limited power for the federal government and checks on that limited power by distribution into three branches of government. Additionally, the press was at one time considered a fourth branch in its ability to check the power of the federal government and further ensure protection of Americans' individual liberty. At some point the press abjugated its responsibilities and, especially in the case of the current power structure, became a mouthpiece for leftist causes. Journalists vote Democrat en masse, to such an extent that the media's leftist bias has become fodder for the president's self-aggrandizing humor. As a result, a monolithic power bloc has built a monolithic power authority.
So, how big do you want your government to be? How important do you want your government to be? How important do you, the individual, want to be? The visceral recoil to Democrats' policies is a direct response to these elements -- Americans do not like Big Government.
This is just the beginning. This election is shaping up to be a very loud and very angry rebuke of an increasingly centralized, intrusive regime. Voters intend to elect representatives who remember that small government equals big individuals. Voters intend to elect representatives who will limit the power of an authoritative, centralized government. Representatives who will stand up for traditional American principles and protect Americans' liberty and freedom. The freedom to succeed, and the freedom to fail.
Let's hope America is still the Home of the Brave.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
So how do you really feel?
Ohio Democrat Party chairman Chris Redfern does not like the tea party movement, apparently. CAUTION: explicit language is used.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
The Bearded Marxist vs. The Witchcraft Dabbler
Delaware is crazy.
There's actually a debate over voting for a marxist or a woman who messed around with witchcraft in high school. This is in the United States of America, a major party candidate who is a marxist!
There should be no debate like this in America. Marxism = bad. I think world history has pretty much proven that out. Of course if the public school system had not actually been taken over by stealth marxist, communist and socialist revolutionaries, perhaps people would still know that.
But just the fact that the modern Democrat party in America is fielding a marxist candidate should be evidence enough that something is very wrong with America. That's why the tea party movement is standing up to make the voices heard of regular, non-marxist Americans. You know, the true crazies who believe in crackpot notions of private property and individual autonomy.
You'd think people would be a little more wary of a political ideology responsible for subjugating and murdering hundreds upon hundreds of millions of people.
Plus, vampires are cooler than witches these days.
There's actually a debate over voting for a marxist or a woman who messed around with witchcraft in high school. This is in the United States of America, a major party candidate who is a marxist!
There should be no debate like this in America. Marxism = bad. I think world history has pretty much proven that out. Of course if the public school system had not actually been taken over by stealth marxist, communist and socialist revolutionaries, perhaps people would still know that.
But just the fact that the modern Democrat party in America is fielding a marxist candidate should be evidence enough that something is very wrong with America. That's why the tea party movement is standing up to make the voices heard of regular, non-marxist Americans. You know, the true crazies who believe in crackpot notions of private property and individual autonomy.
You'd think people would be a little more wary of a political ideology responsible for subjugating and murdering hundreds upon hundreds of millions of people.
Plus, vampires are cooler than witches these days.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Conservative or Republican? Questioning the "Buckley Rule"
There's a concept in electoral politics popular in modern mainstream Republican circles called the "Buckley Rule." Postulated by William F. Buckley, founder of National Review magazine, it suggests Republican voters ought to support the most conservative candidate who can win. Tuesday's primary in which conservative Christine O'Donnell defeated liberal Mike Castle for the Republican nomination for the United States Senate seat in Delaware, Joe Biden's old seat, seems to question that rule.
Going by the Buckley Rule, a liberal Republican like Castle is the better Republican choice in a blue state such as Delaware. Castle has enjoyed a long political career in Delaware, serving as governor and as a nine-term United States congressman. A well established politician, his victory seemed all but assured. But he is, in mainstream parlance, a moderate. The conventional wisdom is that conservative Republicans can't win over independent or even some Democrat voters like a moderate Republican can. Incidentally, moderate John McCain didn't seem to have any luck winning those independent voters in 2008. But I digress.
Democrats also have a rule: Elect the most liberal candidate.
The modern Democrat party is unabashedly leftist and feverishly ideological. It bears more similarity to European Social Democrats than to the traditional American Democrat party. The party has long ago excised moderate and conservative Democrats from their ranks. They support, vote for and often elect, occasionally dubiously, their most liberal candidates. How else can you explain Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, Bernie Sanders, and dozens of others who identify as liberal or even socialist? How do you explain Al Franken's election to the Senate? Or even the election of President Barack Obama, who as a Senator was known as having the most liberal voting record of all?
Leftism (progressivism in polite company) is predicated on radical and often revolutionary progress. The only way for Democrats to achieve their ultimate endgame is to elect leftists using, as hero of the left Saul Alinsky
was so fond of advocating, whatever means necessary. The ends justify the means.
The choice Delaware voters faced was between a true conservative Republican who would always vote Republican, and a liberal Republican who had often voted with Democrats. Castle supported the Democrats' massive energy taxation scheme "cap and trade." Republicans in Delaware chose conservatism, rather than Republicanism. Principle versus Party. As a result, the mainstream media talks about a civil war within the Republican party. The tea party versus the establishment. The Democrat civil war happened years ago. Their base is pure leftism, they've kicked their moderates and conservatives to the curb. Conservative Republicans just want to be recognized as the base of the Republican party and showed it in their primary votes.
O'Donnell may or may not be the best candidate, time will tell come November. She will certainly have a much steeper climb to pull out a victory. But she is now the Republican candidate, and the party must support her as vigorously as they would support Castle. There is wide agreement of the danger the Obama administration poses to the future of a constitutional, free America. Our endgame is a return to liberty, freedom and constitutionally limited government. Our argument is over the means to achieve it.
Democrats have no such argument.
Going by the Buckley Rule, a liberal Republican like Castle is the better Republican choice in a blue state such as Delaware. Castle has enjoyed a long political career in Delaware, serving as governor and as a nine-term United States congressman. A well established politician, his victory seemed all but assured. But he is, in mainstream parlance, a moderate. The conventional wisdom is that conservative Republicans can't win over independent or even some Democrat voters like a moderate Republican can. Incidentally, moderate John McCain didn't seem to have any luck winning those independent voters in 2008. But I digress.
Democrats also have a rule: Elect the most liberal candidate.
The modern Democrat party is unabashedly leftist and feverishly ideological. It bears more similarity to European Social Democrats than to the traditional American Democrat party. The party has long ago excised moderate and conservative Democrats from their ranks. They support, vote for and often elect, occasionally dubiously, their most liberal candidates. How else can you explain Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, Bernie Sanders, and dozens of others who identify as liberal or even socialist? How do you explain Al Franken's election to the Senate? Or even the election of President Barack Obama, who as a Senator was known as having the most liberal voting record of all?
Leftism (progressivism in polite company) is predicated on radical and often revolutionary progress. The only way for Democrats to achieve their ultimate endgame is to elect leftists using, as hero of the left Saul Alinsky
was so fond of advocating, whatever means necessary. The ends justify the means. The choice Delaware voters faced was between a true conservative Republican who would always vote Republican, and a liberal Republican who had often voted with Democrats. Castle supported the Democrats' massive energy taxation scheme "cap and trade." Republicans in Delaware chose conservatism, rather than Republicanism. Principle versus Party. As a result, the mainstream media talks about a civil war within the Republican party. The tea party versus the establishment. The Democrat civil war happened years ago. Their base is pure leftism, they've kicked their moderates and conservatives to the curb. Conservative Republicans just want to be recognized as the base of the Republican party and showed it in their primary votes.
O'Donnell may or may not be the best candidate, time will tell come November. She will certainly have a much steeper climb to pull out a victory. But she is now the Republican candidate, and the party must support her as vigorously as they would support Castle. There is wide agreement of the danger the Obama administration poses to the future of a constitutional, free America. Our endgame is a return to liberty, freedom and constitutionally limited government. Our argument is over the means to achieve it.
Democrats have no such argument.
How Obama Thinks - Forbes.com
How Obama Thinks - Forbes.com
"It may seem incredible to suggest that the anticolonial ideology of Barack Obama Sr. is espoused by his son, the President of the United States. That is what I am saying. From a very young age and through his formative years, Obama learned to see America as a force for global domination and destruction. He came to view America's military as an instrument of neocolonial occupation. He adopted his father's position that capitalism and free markets are code words for economic plunder. Obama grew to perceive the rich as an oppressive class, a kind of neocolonial power within America. In his worldview, profits are a measure of how effectively you have ripped off the rest of society, and America's power in the world is a measure of how selfishly it consumes the globe's resources and how ruthlessly it bullies and dominates the rest of the planet."
"It may seem incredible to suggest that the anticolonial ideology of Barack Obama Sr. is espoused by his son, the President of the United States. That is what I am saying. From a very young age and through his formative years, Obama learned to see America as a force for global domination and destruction. He came to view America's military as an instrument of neocolonial occupation. He adopted his father's position that capitalism and free markets are code words for economic plunder. Obama grew to perceive the rich as an oppressive class, a kind of neocolonial power within America. In his worldview, profits are a measure of how effectively you have ripped off the rest of society, and America's power in the world is a measure of how selfishly it consumes the globe's resources and how ruthlessly it bullies and dominates the rest of the planet."
Monday, September 13, 2010
Capitalism at its finest...
Nothing like capitalizing on distrust of the current regime, in a twist of the left's recent anti-Bush mantra. I know it's kind of cynical and maybe even a little mean-spirited...
Don't worry, there's fun stuff too.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
The President could learn a lot from Spider-Man
"With great power comes great responsibility."
The one word I didn't hear during President Obama's address last night announcing the end of combat operations in Iraq was "Freedom." It's a word his predecessor used often both as a conceptual elemental human aspiration and as a symbolic understanding of America's place in the world.
Whether we should have gone to war in Iraq is a legitimate discussion. Whether the United States ought to involve itself in world issues in general is also a legitimate discussion. Many people believe we have no business "meddling" in others' affairs. They might prefer a sort of isolationism as foreign policy. Others believe that as the only remaining true superpower in the world America has a duty and obligation to protect its interests and the interests of other nations and peoples. Many believe we have an obligation to spread the concepts of freedom and liberty throughout the world. Again, these are all discussions open for reasoned, civil debate.
The reality, however, is that America remains the only true power in the world. As such, in the sage words of Uncle Ben, "With great power comes great responsibility." Much like the reluctant comic book superhero, America's great power is intrinsically coupled with great responsibility.
President Obama's speech seemed unengaged and disinterested. He spoke of Iraq in a manner that, frankly, cast it as little more than a distraction. Instead he simply said it is time to "turn the page" on a chapter of our history, not recognizing the enormity of a task nearly completed yet which remains tenuous.
From the National Review Online:
For now, we have transformed Iraq from a hostile, terrorist-supporting dictatorship destabilizing the region into a ramshackle democracy that is an ally in the war on terror. To get Iraq to this point, in January 2007 President Bush had to order tens of thousands of additional troops into a failing war, in the teeth of gale-force opposition from the political establishment, public opinion, and the balance of the military brass. To capitalize on the opportunity we have bought in Iraq with blood and treasure, President Obama has to do something much easier: resist a strategically witless urge to turn his back on Iraq as being merely the site of "Bush’s war."
The president’s Oval Office address wasn’t confidence-inducing.
...In its failure to credit explicitly Bush’s surge for turning around the war, the speech was graceless; in its cursory treatment of Iraq, it lacked strategic vision; and in its attempt to hijack the troops for Obama’s domestic priorities (“we must tackle . . . challenges at home with as much energy and grit, and sense of common purpose, as our men and women in uniform”), it was shameless.
At first glance it would seem that President Obama doesn't understand the great responsibilities placed into his hands as President of the United States, leader of the free world and shepherd of Freedom on earth. He campaigned on a single-minded promise to end the war in Iraq. He reminded us that he kept his promise.
But the story is not over. The stakes are still high and Iraq is still important, not only for its citizens but for the region as a whole.
What happens if Iraq devolves? The current forces which remain are called support troops or transitional forces or some such relabelling that may or may not appease the anti-war left or isolationist libertarians. Do we send troops back to fight some more?
Which post-conflict model does the President intend to emulate? The Vietnam pullout which led to the slaughter of millions? Or the peace-keeping presence of American military in South Korea? We still have military bases in Germany and Japan as well.
Finally, just how will we deal with a belligerent nuclear Iran, Iraq's neighbor?
It is clear that President Obama's most animating interest is his leftist social domestic agenda. He implied now that we have washed our hands of the Iraq problem, we owe it to those who fought and died to support his economic agenda. How patriotic.
The President does not seem fond of America's position of power in the world and the sense of America's responsibility to protect the idea of individual freedom. As a leftist he likely sees it as unfair that other countries are not as strong, or as prosperous, or as safe. The inequality of superiority likely bothers him greatly. Perhaps that's why he seems to always feel he needs to make apologies overseas.
So perhaps it is more likely that he does recognize America's position in the world, and he doesn't like it and would prefer to ignore or even minimize it.
Remember what happened when Peter Parker neglected his opportunity and responsibility to stop the bad guy? He lost his uncle. If America, the Shining City on a Hill, does not protect people and stop bad guys, who will? And what will the world lose?
The one word I didn't hear during President Obama's address last night announcing the end of combat operations in Iraq was "Freedom." It's a word his predecessor used often both as a conceptual elemental human aspiration and as a symbolic understanding of America's place in the world.
Whether we should have gone to war in Iraq is a legitimate discussion. Whether the United States ought to involve itself in world issues in general is also a legitimate discussion. Many people believe we have no business "meddling" in others' affairs. They might prefer a sort of isolationism as foreign policy. Others believe that as the only remaining true superpower in the world America has a duty and obligation to protect its interests and the interests of other nations and peoples. Many believe we have an obligation to spread the concepts of freedom and liberty throughout the world. Again, these are all discussions open for reasoned, civil debate.
The reality, however, is that America remains the only true power in the world. As such, in the sage words of Uncle Ben, "With great power comes great responsibility." Much like the reluctant comic book superhero, America's great power is intrinsically coupled with great responsibility.
President Obama's speech seemed unengaged and disinterested. He spoke of Iraq in a manner that, frankly, cast it as little more than a distraction. Instead he simply said it is time to "turn the page" on a chapter of our history, not recognizing the enormity of a task nearly completed yet which remains tenuous.
From the National Review Online:
For now, we have transformed Iraq from a hostile, terrorist-supporting dictatorship destabilizing the region into a ramshackle democracy that is an ally in the war on terror. To get Iraq to this point, in January 2007 President Bush had to order tens of thousands of additional troops into a failing war, in the teeth of gale-force opposition from the political establishment, public opinion, and the balance of the military brass. To capitalize on the opportunity we have bought in Iraq with blood and treasure, President Obama has to do something much easier: resist a strategically witless urge to turn his back on Iraq as being merely the site of "Bush’s war."
The president’s Oval Office address wasn’t confidence-inducing.
...In its failure to credit explicitly Bush’s surge for turning around the war, the speech was graceless; in its cursory treatment of Iraq, it lacked strategic vision; and in its attempt to hijack the troops for Obama’s domestic priorities (“we must tackle . . . challenges at home with as much energy and grit, and sense of common purpose, as our men and women in uniform”), it was shameless.
At first glance it would seem that President Obama doesn't understand the great responsibilities placed into his hands as President of the United States, leader of the free world and shepherd of Freedom on earth. He campaigned on a single-minded promise to end the war in Iraq. He reminded us that he kept his promise.
But the story is not over. The stakes are still high and Iraq is still important, not only for its citizens but for the region as a whole.
What happens if Iraq devolves? The current forces which remain are called support troops or transitional forces or some such relabelling that may or may not appease the anti-war left or isolationist libertarians. Do we send troops back to fight some more?
Which post-conflict model does the President intend to emulate? The Vietnam pullout which led to the slaughter of millions? Or the peace-keeping presence of American military in South Korea? We still have military bases in Germany and Japan as well.
Finally, just how will we deal with a belligerent nuclear Iran, Iraq's neighbor?
It is clear that President Obama's most animating interest is his leftist social domestic agenda. He implied now that we have washed our hands of the Iraq problem, we owe it to those who fought and died to support his economic agenda. How patriotic.
The President does not seem fond of America's position of power in the world and the sense of America's responsibility to protect the idea of individual freedom. As a leftist he likely sees it as unfair that other countries are not as strong, or as prosperous, or as safe. The inequality of superiority likely bothers him greatly. Perhaps that's why he seems to always feel he needs to make apologies overseas.
So perhaps it is more likely that he does recognize America's position in the world, and he doesn't like it and would prefer to ignore or even minimize it.
Remember what happened when Peter Parker neglected his opportunity and responsibility to stop the bad guy? He lost his uncle. If America, the Shining City on a Hill, does not protect people and stop bad guys, who will? And what will the world lose?
Monday, August 30, 2010
The New American Caste System
Casting the current political divide in terms of a new caste system crystallizes the visceral, instinctive outbreak of opposition toward the Obama administration's policies and the current ruling class in Washington, D.C. The sort of aristocratic arrogance of our leaders is open and obvious; the Tea Party movement and this past weekend's apolitical Restoring Honor rally, hosted by Glenn Beck and attended by an estimated 500,000 patriots, are examples of the elemental American inclination to resist oppressive governance.
This article is required reading:
America's Ruling Class -- And the Perils of Revolution
This article is required reading:
America's Ruling Class -- And the Perils of Revolution
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Setting the table for the Party of No
Democrats have gotten very good at setting the rules of political engagement. They have been allowed to frame every argument and set every agenda for every issue.
Let's take, for example, the argument over the health care reform bill, Obamacare. Democrats came out firing with both barrels -- interesting since most leftists oppose the individual right to own firearms. They set the terms of the discussion with the claim that "health care in America is broken." Unfortunately, many Republicans and conservatives agreed. "You're right, health care is broken, but our way to fix it is better."
Or, take for another example, recent legislation to extend unemployment "benefits." The way I see it, there are no benefits inherent anywhere in being unemployed. Again, Democrats said, "We need this." Republicans said, "Yes we do. But lets just do this and that. We should probably make it 'deficit-neutral,' or at least give it that appearance."
It's a weak, weak argument. It's the same argument the liberal and liberal-lite parties make all across Europe, and the reason they have not been an economic force in two hundred years and routinely face chronic high unemployment and ethnic groups that refuse to join the common culture.
The problem is this type of weak opposition reinforces an original premise which is wrong from the start. It's awfully hard to counter an argument with agreement.
As a result Democrats have been able to push nearly every item of their socialist wish list with nary the meekest opposition from Republicans. And, as a result, America is on the cusp of becoming a third-world banana republic dictatorship ruled by an elite class of "intelligentsia."
Think about this the next time you and your buddies crack open a 30-pack of Coors Light. Your pal says, "Let's drink the whole case!"
But you don't think drinking an entire case of 30 cans of light beer is such a good idea. You might say you "oppose" his idea.
"No, I don't think that's a good idea," you counter. "Let's only drink most of the beer."
So you and your friend rock out and polish off 26 cans of beer, black out and awake weeks later on a Japanese whaling ship cleaning carcasses.
How's that for opposition?
Republicans need to embrace the concept of opposition. They need to become obstinate. "Party of No" ought to be badge of patriotic honor. Conservatives have it right. We know what works
, and have mountains of empirical data to support it. If we fight harder for our liberty maybe we'll be able to keep it.
Let's take, for example, the argument over the health care reform bill, Obamacare. Democrats came out firing with both barrels -- interesting since most leftists oppose the individual right to own firearms. They set the terms of the discussion with the claim that "health care in America is broken." Unfortunately, many Republicans and conservatives agreed. "You're right, health care is broken, but our way to fix it is better."
Or, take for another example, recent legislation to extend unemployment "benefits." The way I see it, there are no benefits inherent anywhere in being unemployed. Again, Democrats said, "We need this." Republicans said, "Yes we do. But lets just do this and that. We should probably make it 'deficit-neutral,' or at least give it that appearance."
It's a weak, weak argument. It's the same argument the liberal and liberal-lite parties make all across Europe, and the reason they have not been an economic force in two hundred years and routinely face chronic high unemployment and ethnic groups that refuse to join the common culture.
The problem is this type of weak opposition reinforces an original premise which is wrong from the start. It's awfully hard to counter an argument with agreement.
As a result Democrats have been able to push nearly every item of their socialist wish list with nary the meekest opposition from Republicans. And, as a result, America is on the cusp of becoming a third-world banana republic dictatorship ruled by an elite class of "intelligentsia."
Think about this the next time you and your buddies crack open a 30-pack of Coors Light. Your pal says, "Let's drink the whole case!"
But you don't think drinking an entire case of 30 cans of light beer is such a good idea. You might say you "oppose" his idea.
"No, I don't think that's a good idea," you counter. "Let's only drink most of the beer."
So you and your friend rock out and polish off 26 cans of beer, black out and awake weeks later on a Japanese whaling ship cleaning carcasses.
How's that for opposition?
Republicans need to embrace the concept of opposition. They need to become obstinate. "Party of No" ought to be badge of patriotic honor. Conservatives have it right. We know what works
, and have mountains of empirical data to support it. If we fight harder for our liberty maybe we'll be able to keep it.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Intellectual Dishonesty and Moral Equivalence
The furor over the Ground Zero Mosque is illustrative of the unbridgeable moral chasm between the left and the right. The left tends to equivocate moral issues, rather than understand or accept the absolutism of morality that the right, especially the generally more religious right respects and embraces. It is dishonest and intellectually dissonant.
Outspoken voices on the left are incorrectly and even antagonistically comparing the opposition to building the mosque to racism and bigotry. It's the typical leftist deflective straw man. Recent polling shows the majority of Americans support, understand and respect the concept of property rights and religious freedoms. Yet the issue for those opposing the building of the mosque is purely an issue of propriety and sensitivity. The gaping would left by terrorists who attacked in the name of Islam is still painful. Opponents of the mosque are simply asking for compassion, for it to be built somewhere less confrontational.
But the left, long opposed to any semblance of religion in public life, and those who support the building of the mosque have inexplicably and suddenly found respect for religious freedom. Is it because they are Muslim, rather than Christian? A Greek Orthodox church was also destroyed in the attacks of 9/11. Yet bureaucratic impediments have prevented it from being rebuilt for nine years. The left always feels compelled to support its perceived victims of oppression. Once again Muslims are, in the minds of leftist equalists, being persecuted by an intolerant America.
The left is taking an argument based on an unrelated principle and twisting it. Recently prominent members of the media have made comparisons to Timothy McVeigh's supposed Christianity, equivocating opposition to the mosque to Catholic and Christian churches in proximity to the federal building that was bombed in Oklahoma City. "What if people had asked for Christian churches to be moved away because Timothy McVeigh was Christian?" they ask. Perplexingly, Christianity and Islam are equivalent in the mind of the leftist. Never mind that Timothy McVeigh's purported Christianity was completely irrelevant to his actions, if he was even Christian to begin with. His faith, or lack thereof, was not readily apparent, whereas Muslim extremist terrorists routinely and blatantly commit their acts of horror in the name of Islam.
Besides, according to the left, at the time of the Oklahoma City bombing McVeigh was driven to his despicable actions by the words of radio talk show hosts.
The right generally understands the concept of absolutism. It is an integral component of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Right is right, and wrong is wrong. Good is good, and evil is evil. Law is law. There's not a lot of wiggle room. Consequently the moral relativism of the left is maddening. The acts of horror committed by a crazy man are attributed to a supposed Christianity equal to a violent Muslim extremism and convenient to today's argument, equated to a completely unrelated situation. Moral acrobatics worthy of Barnum and Bailey.
Outspoken voices on the left are incorrectly and even antagonistically comparing the opposition to building the mosque to racism and bigotry. It's the typical leftist deflective straw man. Recent polling shows the majority of Americans support, understand and respect the concept of property rights and religious freedoms. Yet the issue for those opposing the building of the mosque is purely an issue of propriety and sensitivity. The gaping would left by terrorists who attacked in the name of Islam is still painful. Opponents of the mosque are simply asking for compassion, for it to be built somewhere less confrontational.
But the left, long opposed to any semblance of religion in public life, and those who support the building of the mosque have inexplicably and suddenly found respect for religious freedom. Is it because they are Muslim, rather than Christian? A Greek Orthodox church was also destroyed in the attacks of 9/11. Yet bureaucratic impediments have prevented it from being rebuilt for nine years. The left always feels compelled to support its perceived victims of oppression. Once again Muslims are, in the minds of leftist equalists, being persecuted by an intolerant America.
The left is taking an argument based on an unrelated principle and twisting it. Recently prominent members of the media have made comparisons to Timothy McVeigh's supposed Christianity, equivocating opposition to the mosque to Catholic and Christian churches in proximity to the federal building that was bombed in Oklahoma City. "What if people had asked for Christian churches to be moved away because Timothy McVeigh was Christian?" they ask. Perplexingly, Christianity and Islam are equivalent in the mind of the leftist. Never mind that Timothy McVeigh's purported Christianity was completely irrelevant to his actions, if he was even Christian to begin with. His faith, or lack thereof, was not readily apparent, whereas Muslim extremist terrorists routinely and blatantly commit their acts of horror in the name of Islam.
Besides, according to the left, at the time of the Oklahoma City bombing McVeigh was driven to his despicable actions by the words of radio talk show hosts.
The right generally understands the concept of absolutism. It is an integral component of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Right is right, and wrong is wrong. Good is good, and evil is evil. Law is law. There's not a lot of wiggle room. Consequently the moral relativism of the left is maddening. The acts of horror committed by a crazy man are attributed to a supposed Christianity equal to a violent Muslim extremism and convenient to today's argument, equated to a completely unrelated situation. Moral acrobatics worthy of Barnum and Bailey.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
7 Millionaire Myths - Investopedia.com
"Tax cuts only for the wealthiest!" Such is President Obama and the Democrats' invective whenever the subject of the Bush tax cuts, or lowering taxes in general comes up. It's the same old game -- class warfare at its bloodiest. "The rich don't pay their fair share!" If 40% of the nation's entire tax burden is not their "fair share," then what is?
7 Millionaire Myths - Investopedia.com
7 Millionaire Myths - Investopedia.com
Thursday, June 3, 2010
The newest reality television sensation!
Reality TV kind of makes me sad for the future of humanity. It's fascinating, enlightening and a just little depressing observing cultural degradation. Watching bits and pieces of “So You Think You Can Dance?” last night (bits and pieces of reality TV already strain my brain's limits) spurred me to contemplate the depths of our Romanesque debauchery. …Anyone remember "Elimidate?"
Reality programming frequently features certain broad commonalities across different show concepts. Like a lion staring down a sickly antelope, producers often lock onto the weakest participant. Let’s just say, “Least Likely to Succeed” if there were a vote.
This is, of course, not to say that watching someone try and fail is not thoroughly entertaining television. My life would be a ratings juggernaut!
What is depressing is the inappropriately overconfident individual is usually blindingly unaware of his woeful lack of talent, ability and good sense. Shameless in his ignorance, the indignation after being told by the judges he “doesn't have what it takes” is amazing. At some point someone should have grasped him by the shoulders and shaken him vigorously, telling him, “Stop! You are not good at this! Learn a trade!”
Instead he will likely return for the next audition not having practiced, studied, or worked to improve in any appreciable manner, expecting to be ushered into an exclusive world of awards shows and all the free gift bags he can carry.
Meanwhile, out in the real world rogue nations are plotting the destruction of their neighbors and devastating disasters are occurring daily. Imagine for a moment that Iran made good on its threats to wipe Israel off the face of the planet. Chaos would ensue, not to mention a likely US versus The World apocalyptic cage match of World War Three proportions. The real show is just outside your living room window.
Which brings me back to our current fascination with reality television. The allure and the illusion is that fame and fortune are available to anyone – not just the lucky, gorgeous and/or talented. The "stars" could be you or your neighbor. With a modicum of effort, a strong stomach and an astronomical embarrassment threshold anyone can achieve Hollywood Nirvana.
There was a time when people understood lazy entitlement and hedonistic obsessions are counterproductive to a prosperous and safe civil society. Have we too allowed ourselves to become so preoccupied with pleasure at the expense of our own safety, or even our own existence? The indomitable Roman Empire seemed invincible – until it was conquered by barbarians. So much for “The Eternal City.”
Can we survive? And if we do, what will we watch after dinner?
I'm thinking about pitching the networks a new show. I'm going to call it, "So You Think You Can Survive the Apocalypse?"
Reality programming frequently features certain broad commonalities across different show concepts. Like a lion staring down a sickly antelope, producers often lock onto the weakest participant. Let’s just say, “Least Likely to Succeed” if there were a vote.
This is, of course, not to say that watching someone try and fail is not thoroughly entertaining television. My life would be a ratings juggernaut!
What is depressing is the inappropriately overconfident individual is usually blindingly unaware of his woeful lack of talent, ability and good sense. Shameless in his ignorance, the indignation after being told by the judges he “doesn't have what it takes” is amazing. At some point someone should have grasped him by the shoulders and shaken him vigorously, telling him, “Stop! You are not good at this! Learn a trade!”
Instead he will likely return for the next audition not having practiced, studied, or worked to improve in any appreciable manner, expecting to be ushered into an exclusive world of awards shows and all the free gift bags he can carry.
Meanwhile, out in the real world rogue nations are plotting the destruction of their neighbors and devastating disasters are occurring daily. Imagine for a moment that Iran made good on its threats to wipe Israel off the face of the planet. Chaos would ensue, not to mention a likely US versus The World apocalyptic cage match of World War Three proportions. The real show is just outside your living room window.
Which brings me back to our current fascination with reality television. The allure and the illusion is that fame and fortune are available to anyone – not just the lucky, gorgeous and/or talented. The "stars" could be you or your neighbor. With a modicum of effort, a strong stomach and an astronomical embarrassment threshold anyone can achieve Hollywood Nirvana.
There was a time when people understood lazy entitlement and hedonistic obsessions are counterproductive to a prosperous and safe civil society. Have we too allowed ourselves to become so preoccupied with pleasure at the expense of our own safety, or even our own existence? The indomitable Roman Empire seemed invincible – until it was conquered by barbarians. So much for “The Eternal City.”
Can we survive? And if we do, what will we watch after dinner?
I'm thinking about pitching the networks a new show. I'm going to call it, "So You Think You Can Survive the Apocalypse?"
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Remember...
It's important on this Memorial Day to remember not only the men and women who died to protect our Freedom and Liberty but also for what they sacrificed their futures, lives and sacred honor. They died for an Idea, a grand experiment in freedom and diversity, openness and opportunity and a civil society based on the novel approach of Self Government.
In breaking the millenia-long tradition of imperial rule by kings and monarchs in which a class of privileged few ruled largely uneducated masses of subjects destined for meager existences in poverty and obscurity, the Founders
of the United States of America introduced the concept of individual rights and citizen service, or government of the people, by the people and for the people. The idea that man can govern himself and in doing so achieve a wealth of freedoms and successes beyond the wildest dreams of mere serfs, slaves, servants and subjects. In the United States of America, the people are Citizens. In the process individuals are freed to go their own way and fulfill their own destinies.
As a result of the sacrifices of the men and women of all races, countries and origins who won our freedom from tyranny to lay the Foundation of this Nation, to the soldiers serving presently in Iraq and Afghanistan to help bring freedom to others, we are at liberty to worship freely, speak freely, travel freely, and dream freely.
Remember them, and remember US.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Oh noes!
Okay, I am totally freaking out. Just freaking out, all over the place. Which is weird, because being of German Lutheran descent, stoicism is in my genes. But LOST
will be finished in less than two weeks and my brain is about to implode like the hatch.I just need a moment to catch my breath.
We began with a simple story about a plane crash on an island. A very mysterious island. Really, regarding the plot, it's not that complicated:
Some strangers crash on an island and try to survive the strange things that happen to them. They run around a lot. Some leave, then they come back. Pretty basic stuff.
The pleasure in watching LOST lies deeper than simply following the relatively simple storyline. Like a good mystery (or an onion), peeling back the layers reveals more of the story and sometimes makes you cry.
LOST is a story about more than just an island and the people who crashed on it. The most interesting and engaging element of the series, by far, is the deep characterizations of the survivors. Most of the characters are incredibly flawed or severely damaged in some way. Early in the series we were introduced to a major theme that has recurred throughout the series. Everyone gets a new beginning on this island. Using the flashback to marvelous effect, LOST has explored the depth of these characters, their motivations, their neuroses, their flaws and foibles, their successes and more often their mistakes to animate and illuminate each character for the viewer. Consequently we get a vibrant character study that enriches and often informs the individual episodic plot and the greater storyline in the process. This is what makes LOST so intriguing. Each new answer leads to even more questions.
Naturally, so near to the end many of our long-standing and much hypothesized questions and theories are being answered or at least alluded to, and I have consigned myself to the realization that we likely won't be given all the answers. All will not be revealed, and I'm okay with that. Much of the enjoyment in watching interesting television and movies or reading good books is arriving at your own conclusions. For example, just what is it that makes the Island so special? The most recent episode and the second to last prior to the finale gave us some hints, moreso vaguely and cryptically than anything decisive. But as a viewer I don't really want to be led by the hand, as though the finale would include a scene with one of the characters finding some special book of "LOST Island Secrets" hidden away in a cave and spending the last moments of the show reading them in list form to finally satiate the very uninquisitive and unimaginative.
No, imagination is another important element in the success of LOST. How many television shows can you think of that have sparked such imagination in the minds of viewers? How many television programs have ignited the minds of millions of viewers to dream up their own theories and ideas about the island and its mysteries? A simple Google search will find nearly 3 million hits. Such a basic premise has blossomed into nothing short of an historic television sensation.
Having watched since the beginning, in fact having been ensnared by the mysteries of the island and enthralled by the characters I have come to know and love despite their numerous flaws and shortcomings, I will be sad to see LOST go on to that great mysterious electromagnetic island in the sky. But it's been quite a ride.
LOST is a story about more than just an island and the people who crashed on it. The most interesting and engaging element of the series, by far, is the deep characterizations of the survivors. Most of the characters are incredibly flawed or severely damaged in some way. Early in the series we were introduced to a major theme that has recurred throughout the series. Everyone gets a new beginning on this island. Using the flashback to marvelous effect, LOST has explored the depth of these characters, their motivations, their neuroses, their flaws and foibles, their successes and more often their mistakes to animate and illuminate each character for the viewer. Consequently we get a vibrant character study that enriches and often informs the individual episodic plot and the greater storyline in the process. This is what makes LOST so intriguing. Each new answer leads to even more questions.
Naturally, so near to the end many of our long-standing and much hypothesized questions and theories are being answered or at least alluded to, and I have consigned myself to the realization that we likely won't be given all the answers. All will not be revealed, and I'm okay with that. Much of the enjoyment in watching interesting television and movies or reading good books is arriving at your own conclusions. For example, just what is it that makes the Island so special? The most recent episode and the second to last prior to the finale gave us some hints, moreso vaguely and cryptically than anything decisive. But as a viewer I don't really want to be led by the hand, as though the finale would include a scene with one of the characters finding some special book of "LOST Island Secrets" hidden away in a cave and spending the last moments of the show reading them in list form to finally satiate the very uninquisitive and unimaginative.
No, imagination is another important element in the success of LOST. How many television shows can you think of that have sparked such imagination in the minds of viewers? How many television programs have ignited the minds of millions of viewers to dream up their own theories and ideas about the island and its mysteries? A simple Google search will find nearly 3 million hits. Such a basic premise has blossomed into nothing short of an historic television sensation.
Having watched since the beginning, in fact having been ensnared by the mysteries of the island and enthralled by the characters I have come to know and love despite their numerous flaws and shortcomings, I will be sad to see LOST go on to that great mysterious electromagnetic island in the sky. But it's been quite a ride.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Stand up for the underdog!
And now for something completely different...
Join Vimeo and vote for the "Dobbs" video! This is an entry for a short film contest called The Story Beyond the Still presented by Canon and Vimeo.
The competition is tough. Help my friend, a non-pro, beat the pros!
Dobbs from John Behrens on Vimeo.
Join Vimeo and vote for the "Dobbs" video! This is an entry for a short film contest called The Story Beyond the Still presented by Canon and Vimeo.
The competition is tough. Help my friend, a non-pro, beat the pros!
Dobbs from John Behrens on Vimeo.
Monday, March 22, 2010
How about an individual firearm mandate?
There's much debate over the constitutionality of the individual insurance mandate in the recently passed health care legislation. There shouldn't be, but there is. I believe the majority of Americans understand that the individual mandate, forcing every man, woman and child to purchase a government-prescribed health insurance policy essentially as a condition of their birth, violates the Constitution. In fact, the Declaration of Independence is quite clear: we are all "endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of Happiness." The individual mandate automatically places constraints upon every citizen. There is no liberty in force. The federal government that was bound by the people has turned those shackles upon the governed.
One obvious argument posited by those favoring the mandate is that universal coverage only works when everyone is covered. It is therefore viewed as a benignly pragmatic solution to a general problem in regard to the general welfare clause of the Constitution, which allows the federal government to enact certain laws to provide for and promote, you guessed it, the general welfare of the people. In other words, the argument is that it works to the general well being of every citizen to mandate insurance coverage or levy fines. But this is a flawed argument based on too broad a premise, that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one. (Apologies to Mr. Spock) The history of this country celebrates the power and ingenuity of the individual, not the disordered weight of the collective. Individual decisions made freely unleash and unbind the individual from the impediments of an unwieldy, ponderous collective. Think of it this way -- a small knife does a much better job of opening the box your new 50 inch plasma TV came in than a chainsaw. Okay, not the best illustration, but it speaks to a better point. The individual, small as he or she may be, making individual decisions, is the basis for the monumental success of the American experiment, not some enormous, lumbering mass of a collective.
So if the insurance mandate is so vital to the general interest, it should follow that there are also some other instances in which a mandate would serve the general well being of the American people.
For example, perhaps it would serve the general interest to mandate that every American must buy a gun. It's a dangerous world out there. North Korea is ruled by a crazy man with nuclear weapons. Iran is ruled by some crazy clerics who want nuclear weapons. China is undoubtedly getting anxious to at some point get a return on their $7 trillion dollar loan to us. Is it that unreasonable to assume that, given the attacks of Pearl Harbor or September 11, there is not at least someone, somewhere in the world who has an axe to grind? Therefore, if every American citizen were armed, perhaps another terrorist attack could be thwarted and America would be safer. And what about domestic crime? Again, it’s a dangerous world. Perhaps if every American were mandated to own a gun to defend themselves, crime would be diminished. Perhaps if every American were required by law to own a gun it would provide for and promote the general welfare of the American people.
It's like those algebra problems that used to give me fits. If X equals Y, and Y equals Z, they X equals Z. If the federal government can mandate one thing, naturally it follows that they can mandate another, and then another, and then another. In the end, X equals American citizens as slaves to their government and a formerly representative republic now resembling a feudal fiefdom.
I kind of like the gun mandate idea. Good luck getting the Left to sign off on that one...
One obvious argument posited by those favoring the mandate is that universal coverage only works when everyone is covered. It is therefore viewed as a benignly pragmatic solution to a general problem in regard to the general welfare clause of the Constitution, which allows the federal government to enact certain laws to provide for and promote, you guessed it, the general welfare of the people. In other words, the argument is that it works to the general well being of every citizen to mandate insurance coverage or levy fines. But this is a flawed argument based on too broad a premise, that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one. (Apologies to Mr. Spock) The history of this country celebrates the power and ingenuity of the individual, not the disordered weight of the collective. Individual decisions made freely unleash and unbind the individual from the impediments of an unwieldy, ponderous collective. Think of it this way -- a small knife does a much better job of opening the box your new 50 inch plasma TV came in than a chainsaw. Okay, not the best illustration, but it speaks to a better point. The individual, small as he or she may be, making individual decisions, is the basis for the monumental success of the American experiment, not some enormous, lumbering mass of a collective.
So if the insurance mandate is so vital to the general interest, it should follow that there are also some other instances in which a mandate would serve the general well being of the American people.
For example, perhaps it would serve the general interest to mandate that every American must buy a gun. It's a dangerous world out there. North Korea is ruled by a crazy man with nuclear weapons. Iran is ruled by some crazy clerics who want nuclear weapons. China is undoubtedly getting anxious to at some point get a return on their $7 trillion dollar loan to us. Is it that unreasonable to assume that, given the attacks of Pearl Harbor or September 11, there is not at least someone, somewhere in the world who has an axe to grind? Therefore, if every American citizen were armed, perhaps another terrorist attack could be thwarted and America would be safer. And what about domestic crime? Again, it’s a dangerous world. Perhaps if every American were mandated to own a gun to defend themselves, crime would be diminished. Perhaps if every American were required by law to own a gun it would provide for and promote the general welfare of the American people.
It's like those algebra problems that used to give me fits. If X equals Y, and Y equals Z, they X equals Z. If the federal government can mandate one thing, naturally it follows that they can mandate another, and then another, and then another. In the end, X equals American citizens as slaves to their government and a formerly representative republic now resembling a feudal fiefdom.
I kind of like the gun mandate idea. Good luck getting the Left to sign off on that one...
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Better not get sick.
In a very sad ironic twist in the US House of Representatives, Democrats voting on a "health care" reform bill just killed America. It was a vote of 219 to 212 to pull the plug on Freedom and Liberty. Every Republican opposed, as well as 34 Democrats.
So tomorrow all of us will wake up in a different country. We are no longer born free. Thanks to the individual insurance mandate in the bill which just passed, all of us will be required to buy health insurance. That's right, it's the birth penalty. We are required to pay money to exist. Call it the "Breath Tax."
Tomorrow we all wake up subservient to Washington, slaves to the State. Better not get sick...
So tomorrow all of us will wake up in a different country. We are no longer born free. Thanks to the individual insurance mandate in the bill which just passed, all of us will be required to buy health insurance. That's right, it's the birth penalty. We are required to pay money to exist. Call it the "Breath Tax."
Tomorrow we all wake up subservient to Washington, slaves to the State. Better not get sick...
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Civil Disobedience
If the current health care legislation passes, perhaps the Obama Dictatorship and the ruling radical Left should prepare for the conservative Right to pick up the mantle of civil disobedience.
Long the intellectual property of the radical Left, the unfamiliar notion of protest may well become very familiar to conservatives, libertarians and independents who do not take kindly to being told what to do by an oppressive centralized government. In essence, the health care mandate is unconstitutional, and even more so, un-American. It defies the American ideal of individual choice.
Furthermore, unlike the Left, most Americans oppose the idea of federally funding abortion, which, despite the President's false claims, is part and parcel of the health care legislation. These are people who believe mankind has almost and nearly irrevocably damaged “Mother Earth.” These are people who have preached the gospel of fanatical environmentalism and calamitous overpopulation. That there are too many people using finite resources. These are people who have proposed population control via sex education in elementary schools at best, and forced sterilization at worst. Is it that much of a stretch to suggest that they would embrace the idea of killing your baby on the government's dime? But therein lies the problem. Therein lies the sick, twisted truth of the radical Left's atheistic humanist ideology. Life does have value, and that value is instilled by God when he gives life.
The crux of the issue is that health care is a good, a service, not a right. Rights are intangible. Rights are natural, or of nature. Therefore government providence cannot create nor provide rights. In fact, government of itself cannot provide anything. Not one thing. Everything government does is with someone else's money.
So when President Obama misleads, claiming the bill will not allow for federally funded abortion, he is lying. The reality is your tax money and mine will pay to abort helpless children. The federal mandate to buy insurance, or pay a fine, means your taxes and mine, your contribution to the operation of government and mine, will kill unborn children.
So perhaps in this new, Bizarro America in which citizens are utterly subservient to their government, average Americans, not just the fringe radical Left, will get used to the idea of civil disobedience. Perhaps millions of Americans will protest by not agreeing to the mandate. Perhaps millions will stop paying their taxes to stop the funding of abortions. Perhaps millions of Americans will stand up and say "Stop!"
How will the Leftists in charge react if they become the target of civil disobedience?
Long the intellectual property of the radical Left, the unfamiliar notion of protest may well become very familiar to conservatives, libertarians and independents who do not take kindly to being told what to do by an oppressive centralized government. In essence, the health care mandate is unconstitutional, and even more so, un-American. It defies the American ideal of individual choice.
Furthermore, unlike the Left, most Americans oppose the idea of federally funding abortion, which, despite the President's false claims, is part and parcel of the health care legislation. These are people who believe mankind has almost and nearly irrevocably damaged “Mother Earth.” These are people who have preached the gospel of fanatical environmentalism and calamitous overpopulation. That there are too many people using finite resources. These are people who have proposed population control via sex education in elementary schools at best, and forced sterilization at worst. Is it that much of a stretch to suggest that they would embrace the idea of killing your baby on the government's dime? But therein lies the problem. Therein lies the sick, twisted truth of the radical Left's atheistic humanist ideology. Life does have value, and that value is instilled by God when he gives life.
The crux of the issue is that health care is a good, a service, not a right. Rights are intangible. Rights are natural, or of nature. Therefore government providence cannot create nor provide rights. In fact, government of itself cannot provide anything. Not one thing. Everything government does is with someone else's money.
So when President Obama misleads, claiming the bill will not allow for federally funded abortion, he is lying. The reality is your tax money and mine will pay to abort helpless children. The federal mandate to buy insurance, or pay a fine, means your taxes and mine, your contribution to the operation of government and mine, will kill unborn children.
So perhaps in this new, Bizarro America in which citizens are utterly subservient to their government, average Americans, not just the fringe radical Left, will get used to the idea of civil disobedience. Perhaps millions of Americans will protest by not agreeing to the mandate. Perhaps millions will stop paying their taxes to stop the funding of abortions. Perhaps millions of Americans will stand up and say "Stop!"
How will the Leftists in charge react if they become the target of civil disobedience?
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Is there such a thing as a good one-term President?
President Obama has stated that he would rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president. Is there such a thing as a good one-term president?
Last year the Chicago Bears signed potential franchise quarterback and supposed team savior Jay Cutler to much fanfare and great optimism and eventually even more criticism and greater disappointment as the team went on to an underwhelming 7-9 record and Cutler led the league in interceptions.
After trading away draft picks, incomprehensible personnel moves and questionable coaching decisions, Bears General Manager Jerry Angelo and Head Coach Lovie Smith are on the hot seat. Conventional wisdom is they have a year to get it right. Make the playoffs next season or find new jobs.
But suppose that everything works out. Suppose the sun shines everyday in Chicago and flowers bloom in the winter...
Suppose new offensive coordinator Mike Martz transforms the team from offensive pauper to powerhouse. Suppose Cutler performs as the Pro Bowl quarterback-of-the-future he was supposed to last year. Suppose the defense doesn't allow opposing offenses to carve them up like a Thanksgiving turkey. Suppose the team makes the playoffs, or, perhaps, even returns to the Superbowl. Which, then, is more likely? That Angelo and Smith will be sent packing? Or will there be much rejoicing among the formerly hostile fans and once again fawning media celebrating their brilliant job in turning the team around? Contract extensions, perhaps?
So, again, is there such a thing as a good one-term President? After all, a one-term President is a President who is not reelected. The two most recent one-term Presidents, Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush, were both disappointments in that respect. Carter's incompetence led to the Iran hostage crisis and economic stagflation. Bush broke his promise not to raise taxes.
But what about President Obama? Essentially what President Obama is saying is that he would rather achieve his wildly unpopular agenda and policy goals rather than win reelection. That means he wants his healthcare reform, he wants his climate change legislation, he wants his immigration reform, he wants his financial reform. It also means he understands his centralized authoritarian policies are disliked to such an extent that the American people will not want four more years of him in charge. Yet he intends to push ahead with his agenda anyway despite the wishes of those who elected him. It is obvious in his recent, even more accelerated and forceful push for his type of government run healthcare.
A one-term President doesn't get his contract extension. A one-term President is told to take his playbook and take a hike so someone else can clean up his mess and return the team to glory.
Last year the Chicago Bears signed potential franchise quarterback and supposed team savior Jay Cutler to much fanfare and great optimism and eventually even more criticism and greater disappointment as the team went on to an underwhelming 7-9 record and Cutler led the league in interceptions.
After trading away draft picks, incomprehensible personnel moves and questionable coaching decisions, Bears General Manager Jerry Angelo and Head Coach Lovie Smith are on the hot seat. Conventional wisdom is they have a year to get it right. Make the playoffs next season or find new jobs.
But suppose that everything works out. Suppose the sun shines everyday in Chicago and flowers bloom in the winter...
Suppose new offensive coordinator Mike Martz transforms the team from offensive pauper to powerhouse. Suppose Cutler performs as the Pro Bowl quarterback-of-the-future he was supposed to last year. Suppose the defense doesn't allow opposing offenses to carve them up like a Thanksgiving turkey. Suppose the team makes the playoffs, or, perhaps, even returns to the Superbowl. Which, then, is more likely? That Angelo and Smith will be sent packing? Or will there be much rejoicing among the formerly hostile fans and once again fawning media celebrating their brilliant job in turning the team around? Contract extensions, perhaps?
So, again, is there such a thing as a good one-term President? After all, a one-term President is a President who is not reelected. The two most recent one-term Presidents, Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush, were both disappointments in that respect. Carter's incompetence led to the Iran hostage crisis and economic stagflation. Bush broke his promise not to raise taxes.
But what about President Obama? Essentially what President Obama is saying is that he would rather achieve his wildly unpopular agenda and policy goals rather than win reelection. That means he wants his healthcare reform, he wants his climate change legislation, he wants his immigration reform, he wants his financial reform. It also means he understands his centralized authoritarian policies are disliked to such an extent that the American people will not want four more years of him in charge. Yet he intends to push ahead with his agenda anyway despite the wishes of those who elected him. It is obvious in his recent, even more accelerated and forceful push for his type of government run healthcare.
A one-term President doesn't get his contract extension. A one-term President is told to take his playbook and take a hike so someone else can clean up his mess and return the team to glory.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
What can Brown do for you?
In the wake of the stunning upset win of Republican Scott Brown in the Massachusetts special election for the late Ted Kennedy’s seat in the United States Senate, the leadership in Washington has a choice: Listen to the people, or find a new job.
The election of a Republican to the seat held by a Kennedy for five decades in a state bluer than B.B. King without Lucille should send a strong message to the White House and Democrats in general, especially moderates, about the strong opposition the majority of Americans harbor to President Obama and the Democrat leadership’s agenda.
Of note was that Brown campaigned in part specifically as the 41st vote against the currently proposed health care legislation, which as we have examined is not at all about health care; rather it is about aggregating and centralizing federal power while reducing if not completely dissolving the American idea of self-governance. It’s command and control, U.S.S.A. style.
But the people have spoken. Perhaps this time their message will not be ignored.
The “tea party” movement in protest of the Obama administration’s epic spending and unflinching push towards government-controlled health care over the past year had been largely ignored by the Democrat leadership as nothing more than a nuisance. A minor inconvenience at best, and at worst, in the words of some of the left’s loudest and most abrasive voices, dangerous mobs of violent, racist rednecks.
Yet despite the growing discontent, they pushed on.
Republican gubernatorial victories in Virginia and New Jersey in November did not dissuade them. These were aberrations, simply local races fed by local issues.
But Tuesday marked a change that simply cannot be spun otherwise. A Republican won the Ted Kennedy seat. The people backed up their words with their actions in the voting booths.
The problem for the Democrat leadership now is the Democrats, specifically, moderate Democrats who see the results of this election and realize their careers may be on borrowed time if they continue to follow their Progressive leaders. Radical Progressives in Congress and the White House, their friends in the media, not to mention their comrades in the celebrity community, will be tempted to force their agenda against the will of the people who have just spoken loudly and convincingly. According to Saul Alinsky, author of the playbook
for radical Progressive social change and hero and spiritual leader of the modern radical Progressive movement, the ends justify any means. And radical Progressives desperately desire government-provided health care.
The question is which Democrats will win? Will it be the ruthless Progressives or the traditional Democrats who, in contrast to the sharp leftward shift in which the Progressives have driven the party are now considered moderate, even conservative?
The Scott Brown victory will hopefully embolden moderate Democrats to stand up to their Progressive leadership and put a stop to some very, very bad ideas. Americans do not want a centralized government bureaucracy determining what health care is appropriate for them. Americans do not want exempted politicians forcing them to buy health insurance. Americans do not want to be penalized for their health insurance coverage just because they don’t belong to a union. Americans do not want to subsidize other countries for supposed sins against mother earth. Essentially, Americans do not want arrogant, condescending, elitist intellectuals telling them what is good for them. This election has sent the message that this is still a center-right country which still cherishes individual liberty and the American concept of self-determination.
What can Brown do for you? One day after a shocking political upset a message is being sent: Listen to the people.
The election of a Republican to the seat held by a Kennedy for five decades in a state bluer than B.B. King without Lucille should send a strong message to the White House and Democrats in general, especially moderates, about the strong opposition the majority of Americans harbor to President Obama and the Democrat leadership’s agenda.
Of note was that Brown campaigned in part specifically as the 41st vote against the currently proposed health care legislation, which as we have examined is not at all about health care; rather it is about aggregating and centralizing federal power while reducing if not completely dissolving the American idea of self-governance. It’s command and control, U.S.S.A. style.
But the people have spoken. Perhaps this time their message will not be ignored.
The “tea party” movement in protest of the Obama administration’s epic spending and unflinching push towards government-controlled health care over the past year had been largely ignored by the Democrat leadership as nothing more than a nuisance. A minor inconvenience at best, and at worst, in the words of some of the left’s loudest and most abrasive voices, dangerous mobs of violent, racist rednecks.
Yet despite the growing discontent, they pushed on.
Republican gubernatorial victories in Virginia and New Jersey in November did not dissuade them. These were aberrations, simply local races fed by local issues.
But Tuesday marked a change that simply cannot be spun otherwise. A Republican won the Ted Kennedy seat. The people backed up their words with their actions in the voting booths.
The problem for the Democrat leadership now is the Democrats, specifically, moderate Democrats who see the results of this election and realize their careers may be on borrowed time if they continue to follow their Progressive leaders. Radical Progressives in Congress and the White House, their friends in the media, not to mention their comrades in the celebrity community, will be tempted to force their agenda against the will of the people who have just spoken loudly and convincingly. According to Saul Alinsky, author of the playbook
for radical Progressive social change and hero and spiritual leader of the modern radical Progressive movement, the ends justify any means. And radical Progressives desperately desire government-provided health care. The question is which Democrats will win? Will it be the ruthless Progressives or the traditional Democrats who, in contrast to the sharp leftward shift in which the Progressives have driven the party are now considered moderate, even conservative?
The Scott Brown victory will hopefully embolden moderate Democrats to stand up to their Progressive leadership and put a stop to some very, very bad ideas. Americans do not want a centralized government bureaucracy determining what health care is appropriate for them. Americans do not want exempted politicians forcing them to buy health insurance. Americans do not want to be penalized for their health insurance coverage just because they don’t belong to a union. Americans do not want to subsidize other countries for supposed sins against mother earth. Essentially, Americans do not want arrogant, condescending, elitist intellectuals telling them what is good for them. This election has sent the message that this is still a center-right country which still cherishes individual liberty and the American concept of self-determination.
What can Brown do for you? One day after a shocking political upset a message is being sent: Listen to the people.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Delusions of Transparency...
President Obama promised several times on the campaign trail to broadcast health care reform conferences on C-Span. The House and Senate are currently hammering out their partisan radical progressive liberal dream plan like the door panel of a Yugo behind closed doors and away from the prying eyes of the electorate...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
