We've all spent a lot of time pissing and moaning about Obama here at the Bund... and we all fancy ourselves as pretty smart, well-read individuals. Let's all put our money where our "mouths" are...
What would YOU do, if you were President tomorrow morning? It's your turn, you decide, you pick the Cabinet positions, you name the legislation you'll veto or sign into law, and you detail the foreign policy you'll follow as the new Commander in Chief of the United States of America.
As I proposed this "game", I guess I'll start...
Following close on the heels of the "hope and change" that put the US $1.2 trillion in debt in less than one year, the first thing I would do is make it abundantly clear that I will be expecting Congress to overturn Obama's and the last Congress' legislation, from top to bottom. How would I do that?
The first thing I would do is STOP all funding for the following Cabinet departments:
Commerce. Labor. Health and Human Services. Housing and Urban Development. Transportation. Energy. That's roughly 306,000 jobs cut from Federal Executive budget by either early retirement or transfer to other departments that NEED the personnel... Homeland Security, or Interior, or Defense. I also think that, buried somewhere deep inside each of these departments are agencies and bureaus that ARE worth the money... NOAA, for example. These would be funded through the remaining Cabinet offices (Interior, for example). Even with my "pick-and-choose" hack and slash reduction of the Executive Branch, I still feel like I could reduce the cost by nearly 30%. I would appoint no Secretary to these positions, and funding would end or be diverted to other departments.
And all within the enumerated Executive Powers as defined by the Constitution, too.
I would propose legislation calling for a 40% across-the-board reduction in the national income tax rate, a 25% cut in the corporate tax rate, and the elimination of capital gains and the "death" tax. ALL health care costs incurred by the public would be tax-deductible, including the cost of employer-provided health care insurance and all co-pays.
That means that the average Joe paying in the 33% bracket now would owe only 19.8% in my first term, while his employer would owe only 28% (on average) and both could claim additional breaks based on what they SPENT on health care... not on what they could afford to pay regardless of money spent.
My next plan would be to use my influence and ability to encourage the 55 members of the National Governors Association to build on the 10th Amendment movement and to find the places and means to take on greater and greater authority at a State level and to reverse the more than 145 year trend of surrendering State rights to the Feds.
Over the course of the four years I would serve, I would work as hard as I could to lay the groundwork to also delete the Department of Education... at least in its current role as the "standard setting" institution for 50 states-worth of school districts encompassing 350 million people's lives, in one way or another. The primary control of education should be in the hands of those at the State, county and district levels... the Feds should be the last course of regulation and funding, NEVER the first. I wouldn't do this from the start, however. This nation can't afford to see even 4 years of education wasted... not with "No Child Left Behind" still in place!..., so I wouldn't want to stress the systems and districts by interrupting funding and standards without SOME time-table effect.
So, who's next?
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
He simply doesn't understand the job of president.
Read this and consider that in the midst of all this the president of the United States, let me repeat THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, flew in person yesterday to Copenhagen in order to solicit Chicago, Illinois as the site of the 2016 Olympics like some 3rd level State Department staffer.
From today's issue of the WSJ:
Unless you are a connoisseur of small pictures of bearded, brooding fanatical clerics there is not much reason to collect Iranian currency. But I kept one bill on my desk at the State Department because of its watermark—an atom superimposed on the part of that country that harbors the Natanz nuclear site. Only the terminally innocent should have been surprised to learn that there is at least one other covert site, whose only purpose could be the production of highly enriched uranium for atom bombs.
Pressure, be it gentle or severe, will not erase that nuclear program. The choices are now what they ever were: an American or an Israeli strike, which would probably cause a substantial war, or living in a world with Iranian nuclear weapons, which may also result in war, perhaps nuclear, over a longer period of time.
Understandably, the U.S. government has hoped for a middle course of sanctions, negotiations and bargaining that would remove the problem without the ugly consequences. This is self-delusion. Yes, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy stood side by side with President Barack Obama in Pittsburgh and talked sternly about lines in the sand; and yes, Russian President Dimitry Medvedev hinted that some kind of sanctions might, conceivably, be needed. They said the same things to, and with, President George W. Bush.
Though you would not know it to listen to Sunday talk shows, a large sanctions effort against Iran has been underway for some time. It has not worked to curb Tehran's nuclear appetite, and it will not. Sooner or later the administration, whose main diplomatic initiatives thus far have been a program of apologies and a few sharp kicks to small allies' shins, will have to recognize that fact.
The Iranian regime wants nuclear weapons and has invested vast sums to get both the devices and the means to deliver them. The Russians and Chinese have made soothing murmurs of disapproval but have repeatedly made it clear that they will not go along with measures that would cripple the Iranian economy (and deprive them of markets). German and Swiss businessmen will happily sell Iran whatever goods their not very exacting governments will permit, and our terrified Arab allies have nothing like the military capability to match their own understandable fears. So let's be serious about the choice, because we have less than a year to make it.
An Israeli strike may set back the Iranian program by some short period of time. What the Israelis can do is unclear: They play their tactical cards close to their vest, and they would take different approaches, and accept different risks, than the U.S. Air Force would. No surprise there, given that they believe, with reason, that the looming issues are existential.
But even if they achieved temporary success, it would be just that, because the Iranian program is very different from the Iraqi Osirak reactor that the Israelis nailed so precisely in 1981. It is far more dispersed and protected, and is based on thousands of centrifuges rather than a single nuclear reactor. Moreover, the chances are that it would evoke outrage throughout the Middle East (although Arab governments would privately rejoice at the event), and probably provoke an Iranian reaction that could involve a very large war as the Israelis are attacked by, and retaliate against, Iran's proxies in the Levant and throughout the world.
An American attack would be more effective, but it would take longer and probably lead to real warfare in the Persian Gulf, disrupting oil supplies and producing global responses. More to the point, it is difficult to believe that the Obama administration has the stomach for war. Its appalling public case of nerves over the war in Afghanistan—a "war of necessity," as of only a few months ago—is indicative of its true temper. And if President Obama does not have the courage to accept hazards and ugly surprises, and if he cannot bring himself to deploy his rhetorical skills to the mobilization of opinion at home and abroad, he should not start a shooting war, even if the Iranians are already waging one against us.
That leaves living with an Iranian bomb. But this too has enormous hazards. It will engender—it has already quietly engendered—a nuclear arms race in the region. It will embolden the Iranian regime to make much more lethal mischief than it has even now. In a region that respects strength, it will enhance, not diminish, Iranian prestige. And it may yield the first nuclear attack since 1945 some time down the road.
At the heart of the problem is not simply the nuclear program. It is the Iranian regime, a regime that has, since 1979, relentlessly waged war against the U.S. and its allies. From Buenos Aires to Herat, from Beirut to Cairo, from Baghdad to, now, Caracas, Iranian agents have done their best to disrupt and kill. Iran is militarily weak, but it is masterful at subversive war, and at the kind of high-tech guerrilla, roadside-bomb and rocket fight that Hezbollah conducted in 2006. American military cemeteries contain the bodies of hundreds, maybe thousands, of American servicemen and servicewomen slain by Iranian technology, Iranian tactics, and in some cases, Iranian operatives.
The brutality without is more than matched by the brutality within—the rape, torture and summary execution of civilians by the tens of thousands, down, quite literally, to the present day. This is a corrupt, fanatical, ruthless and unprincipled regime—unpopular, to be sure, but willing to do whatever it takes to stay in power. With such a regime, no real negotiation, based on understandings of mutual interest and respect for undertakings is possible.
It is, therefore, in the American interest to break with past policy and actively seek the overthrow of the Islamic Republic. Not by invasion, which this administration would not contemplate and could not execute, but through every instrument of U.S. power, soft more than hard. And if, as is most likely, President Obama presides over the emergence of a nuclear Iran, he had best prepare for storms that will make the squawks of protest against his health-care plans look like the merest showers on a sunny day.
By ELIOT A. COHEN
(Director of the Philip Merrill Center for Strategic Studies. Expertise by Geographic Area: Afghanistan; Iraq; Middle East; Persian Gulf. Expertise by Issue: Air Power; American Defense Policy; Diplomacy; International Relations; Military History; Military Power and Strategy; North Atlantic Treaty Organization - NATO; Strategic and Security Issues Background: Served as counselor of the U.S. Department of State 2005 - 2007; former professor at the U.S. Naval War College; served on the Policy Planning Staff of the secretary of Defense and directed the U.S. Air Force’s Gulf War Air Power Survey; former member of the Defense Policy Board)
But I mean why listen to him? He, and other "adults in the room" on the discussion of American security and force projection issues never ORGANIZED A COMMUNITY. Especially when there is pressing OLYMPICS BUSINESS TO TEND TO!!!
Let me add to that the commanding general in theater for Afghanistan, McCrystal, told 60 Minutes yesterday that, "If we dither, if we delay, if we draw down we will experience more casualties and you can lose this war." Now - why did I hear such an "S.O.S" from the general? Because he had no alternative but to go public to effect a result/decision from his CiC. In that same interview he disclosed that he has spoken to the Commander-in-Chief only once in the last 70 days. Anyone want to wager that the president has spoken to Oprah more time then that just this week?
Seriously ladies and gentleman of America, I ask again, just whom have you elected?
For the next 3 years the Irish "have more sense than us" by default.
From today's issue of the WSJ:
Unless you are a connoisseur of small pictures of bearded, brooding fanatical clerics there is not much reason to collect Iranian currency. But I kept one bill on my desk at the State Department because of its watermark—an atom superimposed on the part of that country that harbors the Natanz nuclear site. Only the terminally innocent should have been surprised to learn that there is at least one other covert site, whose only purpose could be the production of highly enriched uranium for atom bombs.
Pressure, be it gentle or severe, will not erase that nuclear program. The choices are now what they ever were: an American or an Israeli strike, which would probably cause a substantial war, or living in a world with Iranian nuclear weapons, which may also result in war, perhaps nuclear, over a longer period of time.
Understandably, the U.S. government has hoped for a middle course of sanctions, negotiations and bargaining that would remove the problem without the ugly consequences. This is self-delusion. Yes, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy stood side by side with President Barack Obama in Pittsburgh and talked sternly about lines in the sand; and yes, Russian President Dimitry Medvedev hinted that some kind of sanctions might, conceivably, be needed. They said the same things to, and with, President George W. Bush.
Though you would not know it to listen to Sunday talk shows, a large sanctions effort against Iran has been underway for some time. It has not worked to curb Tehran's nuclear appetite, and it will not. Sooner or later the administration, whose main diplomatic initiatives thus far have been a program of apologies and a few sharp kicks to small allies' shins, will have to recognize that fact.
The Iranian regime wants nuclear weapons and has invested vast sums to get both the devices and the means to deliver them. The Russians and Chinese have made soothing murmurs of disapproval but have repeatedly made it clear that they will not go along with measures that would cripple the Iranian economy (and deprive them of markets). German and Swiss businessmen will happily sell Iran whatever goods their not very exacting governments will permit, and our terrified Arab allies have nothing like the military capability to match their own understandable fears. So let's be serious about the choice, because we have less than a year to make it.
An Israeli strike may set back the Iranian program by some short period of time. What the Israelis can do is unclear: They play their tactical cards close to their vest, and they would take different approaches, and accept different risks, than the U.S. Air Force would. No surprise there, given that they believe, with reason, that the looming issues are existential.
But even if they achieved temporary success, it would be just that, because the Iranian program is very different from the Iraqi Osirak reactor that the Israelis nailed so precisely in 1981. It is far more dispersed and protected, and is based on thousands of centrifuges rather than a single nuclear reactor. Moreover, the chances are that it would evoke outrage throughout the Middle East (although Arab governments would privately rejoice at the event), and probably provoke an Iranian reaction that could involve a very large war as the Israelis are attacked by, and retaliate against, Iran's proxies in the Levant and throughout the world.
An American attack would be more effective, but it would take longer and probably lead to real warfare in the Persian Gulf, disrupting oil supplies and producing global responses. More to the point, it is difficult to believe that the Obama administration has the stomach for war. Its appalling public case of nerves over the war in Afghanistan—a "war of necessity," as of only a few months ago—is indicative of its true temper. And if President Obama does not have the courage to accept hazards and ugly surprises, and if he cannot bring himself to deploy his rhetorical skills to the mobilization of opinion at home and abroad, he should not start a shooting war, even if the Iranians are already waging one against us.
That leaves living with an Iranian bomb. But this too has enormous hazards. It will engender—it has already quietly engendered—a nuclear arms race in the region. It will embolden the Iranian regime to make much more lethal mischief than it has even now. In a region that respects strength, it will enhance, not diminish, Iranian prestige. And it may yield the first nuclear attack since 1945 some time down the road.
At the heart of the problem is not simply the nuclear program. It is the Iranian regime, a regime that has, since 1979, relentlessly waged war against the U.S. and its allies. From Buenos Aires to Herat, from Beirut to Cairo, from Baghdad to, now, Caracas, Iranian agents have done their best to disrupt and kill. Iran is militarily weak, but it is masterful at subversive war, and at the kind of high-tech guerrilla, roadside-bomb and rocket fight that Hezbollah conducted in 2006. American military cemeteries contain the bodies of hundreds, maybe thousands, of American servicemen and servicewomen slain by Iranian technology, Iranian tactics, and in some cases, Iranian operatives.
The brutality without is more than matched by the brutality within—the rape, torture and summary execution of civilians by the tens of thousands, down, quite literally, to the present day. This is a corrupt, fanatical, ruthless and unprincipled regime—unpopular, to be sure, but willing to do whatever it takes to stay in power. With such a regime, no real negotiation, based on understandings of mutual interest and respect for undertakings is possible.
It is, therefore, in the American interest to break with past policy and actively seek the overthrow of the Islamic Republic. Not by invasion, which this administration would not contemplate and could not execute, but through every instrument of U.S. power, soft more than hard. And if, as is most likely, President Obama presides over the emergence of a nuclear Iran, he had best prepare for storms that will make the squawks of protest against his health-care plans look like the merest showers on a sunny day.
By ELIOT A. COHEN
(Director of the Philip Merrill Center for Strategic Studies. Expertise by Geographic Area: Afghanistan; Iraq; Middle East; Persian Gulf. Expertise by Issue: Air Power; American Defense Policy; Diplomacy; International Relations; Military History; Military Power and Strategy; North Atlantic Treaty Organization - NATO; Strategic and Security Issues Background: Served as counselor of the U.S. Department of State 2005 - 2007; former professor at the U.S. Naval War College; served on the Policy Planning Staff of the secretary of Defense and directed the U.S. Air Force’s Gulf War Air Power Survey; former member of the Defense Policy Board)
But I mean why listen to him? He, and other "adults in the room" on the discussion of American security and force projection issues never ORGANIZED A COMMUNITY. Especially when there is pressing OLYMPICS BUSINESS TO TEND TO!!!
Let me add to that the commanding general in theater for Afghanistan, McCrystal, told 60 Minutes yesterday that, "If we dither, if we delay, if we draw down we will experience more casualties and you can lose this war." Now - why did I hear such an "S.O.S" from the general? Because he had no alternative but to go public to effect a result/decision from his CiC. In that same interview he disclosed that he has spoken to the Commander-in-Chief only once in the last 70 days. Anyone want to wager that the president has spoken to Oprah more time then that just this week?
Seriously ladies and gentleman of America, I ask again, just whom have you elected?
For the next 3 years the Irish "have more sense than us" by default.
The Lisbon Treaty... again
The islands off the west coast of Ireland are casting ballots for the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty again, and it has the attention of all of Europe right now.
What I find interesting is that so many of the "Silicon Valley" industries that have landed in Ireland since 1993 (Intel, Dell, and Microsoft among them) who encouraged a NO vote the first time, now are arguing for a YES vote... and can you imagine the reason given?
They want the Central Bank of Europe to offer the same sort of bailouts that the US has instituted to save failing businesses here.
It really does boggle the mind... to read the papers and headlines in Ireland and the UK, the blame for the recession in Ireland is laid squarely on a too-liberal agenda that has increased corporate taxes and slowed the rate of growth in an economy that was BOOMING with the influx of companies fleeing higher and higher US taxes, especially from California, New York and Mass. However, the calls to "fix" the problem are saying that MORE government, from Brussells and not from Dublin, and more intervention is the answer.
I would have thought that simply looking at what the bailouts here in the US HAVEN'T done would be enough for any rational human being to see that they do not work, that they do not create jobs, and that they do not stimulate an economy beyond the initial influx of money. It isn't even a good short-term fix, let alone a long-term one.
God grant that the Irish are smarter than we are...
What I find interesting is that so many of the "Silicon Valley" industries that have landed in Ireland since 1993 (Intel, Dell, and Microsoft among them) who encouraged a NO vote the first time, now are arguing for a YES vote... and can you imagine the reason given?
They want the Central Bank of Europe to offer the same sort of bailouts that the US has instituted to save failing businesses here.
It really does boggle the mind... to read the papers and headlines in Ireland and the UK, the blame for the recession in Ireland is laid squarely on a too-liberal agenda that has increased corporate taxes and slowed the rate of growth in an economy that was BOOMING with the influx of companies fleeing higher and higher US taxes, especially from California, New York and Mass. However, the calls to "fix" the problem are saying that MORE government, from Brussells and not from Dublin, and more intervention is the answer.
I would have thought that simply looking at what the bailouts here in the US HAVEN'T done would be enough for any rational human being to see that they do not work, that they do not create jobs, and that they do not stimulate an economy beyond the initial influx of money. It isn't even a good short-term fix, let alone a long-term one.
God grant that the Irish are smarter than we are...
Monday, September 28, 2009
"I'm not interested in victory."
2 issues are coming to dominate the landscape of this young presidency:
1.) Afghanistan
2.) Iran
Health care has a way of taking a back seat when Iran is launching a barrage of test missiles capable of hitting Israel and parts of Europe, 1 day no less after a "secret" underground nuclear facility became public. Add to that General McCrystal, the theater commander in Afghanistan, is rumored to have asked the president for an additional 30,000 troops to quell a growing enemy. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff himself, Admiral Mike Mullen, flew out to get the request in person, and then reportedly carried it back to the president. McCrystal (of the inspiring pre battle speech to his Marines that I posted some months back) & General Patraeus, Cent Com Commander and avid backer of McCrytal's request, are veterans and even architects of the successful surge strategy in Iraq, and they have the further endorsement of this plan from Mullen himself - so saying "no" will be a hearty task for Obama given this is all now public knowledge. Yet saying yes will be near catastrophic to his base support. The hard left did not elect this man to fight a war, let alone win one, he was (as he promised) sent there to "end" a war (or 2). For the life of me I still don't see how you "end" a war - you either win it or lose it, but I digress. The bottom line is to lose in Afghanistan is to cede ground to the very architects of 9/11. It will be a generational loss to the very terrorists Obama claimed we took our eyes off of by invading Iraq. Unfortunately I have almost no confidence that the president will draw the ire of his left wing base, but not because he is "scared" of them but because he IS of their mindset and feels to betray them is to betray himself, if you want my personal psychoanalysis of our Commander in Chief. And that of course means our fighting men and women will be forced to do more with less ... I desperately hope I'm wrong about him on this ... we will certainly see in the near future.
His perhaps even more immediate problem is Iran. 2 days after Israeli PM Benjamen Netenyahu held up Nazi documents from the Wannasee Conference in response to a holocaust denying Iranian speech, and 1 day after a secret underground nuclear facility was made public, Iran is shooting off enough rockets to cause Hezbollah leaders everywhere to get a chubby.
Now, it is to that development (the secret underground facility) to which I want to turn our attention in the remainder of this post, and on 2 fronts. First, the interaction with Chip Reid (the CBS chief White House correspondent) just yesterday at a solo presidential post G20 press conference.
Reid: Thank you Mr. President, you just mentioned sanctions that have bite, what kinds of sanction, and I know you can't get into details but what kind of sanctions at all would have bite with Iran, do you really think that any kind of sanctions would have any effect on somebody like Ahmadinejad, secondly some of your advisers today said that this announcement was a victory, do you consider it a victory and if so why didn't you announce it earlier since you have known since you were President elect?
President Obama: "Umm ... this isn't a football game. I'm not interested in victory, I'm interested in solving the problem"
He then went on to describe exactly what the "problem" was as he sees it. I didn't transcribe the rest because I - along with the rest of the world - could scarcely get past the first 2 lines, but the roughly 56 second interchange is Here for your viewing/listening pleasure.
I don't have to describe to anyone here how exceedingly troublesome it is for the president of the United States to send that sort of signal, "Im not interested in victory", on a myriad of levels too numerous to mention in a book, let alone a post. But what I'm even more interested in is what no one else is seemingly talking about as far as I can tell. Reread the second part of Reid's question, if you'll indulge me ... "secondly some of your advisers today said that this announcement was a victory, do you consider it a victory and if so why didn't you announce it earlier since you have known since you were President elect?"
The administration was quick to point out that it was in fact NOT blindsided by the news over the secret underground Iranian nuclear facility. They wanted to appear on top of the situation, at least in terms of Intel, and I have no doubt that they did know. You can read (or hear) Chip Reid reference that fact very clearly in his statement. The "success" he spoke of was the administration noting Russia and China's willingness to publicly condemn Iran's latest actions in strong terms. They saw that as a "victory" for the White House given that only a few months ago those 2 nations weren't willing to make such a public condemnation (a clear - "see I'm doing what Bush couldn't" jab). But the throw away line of Reid's is the most important of all: "... you have known since you were president elect."
Does anyone get what that then means? The missle shield he abandoned in Poland/Czech Republic was, yes, an "unwelcome mat" for Russia, that was the acknowledged side effect. But the PRIMARY purpose given, argued and accepted between Bush, Poland and the Czechs was the defense missile shield was to be a clear and large deterrent to a belligerent, nuclear bound Iran. THAT was its' primary focus. Meaning Obama GAVE AWAY THE STORE ON MISSILE SHIELD IN FULL KNOWLEDGE OF THE SECOND, UNDERGROUND IRANIAN NUCLEAR FACILITY!!!!
Am I the only one that has made that connection, and is absolutely astonished by it?
You see my friends, I don't buy this argument that his world view is pure "naivety." This is the result (this president's reasoning) of a student taking his deconstructionist philosophy theory too far, and blurring, to the point of erasing, all clear lines between good and evil. And once you are left with ONLY "differing perspectives" with no judgment as to their validity, well - Marxism, socialism, Communism, and a foreign policy out look tantamount to a child's view of the world can very easily make its' way into your cerebral cortex ... and thrive.
1.) Afghanistan
2.) Iran
Health care has a way of taking a back seat when Iran is launching a barrage of test missiles capable of hitting Israel and parts of Europe, 1 day no less after a "secret" underground nuclear facility became public. Add to that General McCrystal, the theater commander in Afghanistan, is rumored to have asked the president for an additional 30,000 troops to quell a growing enemy. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff himself, Admiral Mike Mullen, flew out to get the request in person, and then reportedly carried it back to the president. McCrystal (of the inspiring pre battle speech to his Marines that I posted some months back) & General Patraeus, Cent Com Commander and avid backer of McCrytal's request, are veterans and even architects of the successful surge strategy in Iraq, and they have the further endorsement of this plan from Mullen himself - so saying "no" will be a hearty task for Obama given this is all now public knowledge. Yet saying yes will be near catastrophic to his base support. The hard left did not elect this man to fight a war, let alone win one, he was (as he promised) sent there to "end" a war (or 2). For the life of me I still don't see how you "end" a war - you either win it or lose it, but I digress. The bottom line is to lose in Afghanistan is to cede ground to the very architects of 9/11. It will be a generational loss to the very terrorists Obama claimed we took our eyes off of by invading Iraq. Unfortunately I have almost no confidence that the president will draw the ire of his left wing base, but not because he is "scared" of them but because he IS of their mindset and feels to betray them is to betray himself, if you want my personal psychoanalysis of our Commander in Chief. And that of course means our fighting men and women will be forced to do more with less ... I desperately hope I'm wrong about him on this ... we will certainly see in the near future.
His perhaps even more immediate problem is Iran. 2 days after Israeli PM Benjamen Netenyahu held up Nazi documents from the Wannasee Conference in response to a holocaust denying Iranian speech, and 1 day after a secret underground nuclear facility was made public, Iran is shooting off enough rockets to cause Hezbollah leaders everywhere to get a chubby.
Now, it is to that development (the secret underground facility) to which I want to turn our attention in the remainder of this post, and on 2 fronts. First, the interaction with Chip Reid (the CBS chief White House correspondent) just yesterday at a solo presidential post G20 press conference.
Reid: Thank you Mr. President, you just mentioned sanctions that have bite, what kinds of sanction, and I know you can't get into details but what kind of sanctions at all would have bite with Iran, do you really think that any kind of sanctions would have any effect on somebody like Ahmadinejad, secondly some of your advisers today said that this announcement was a victory, do you consider it a victory and if so why didn't you announce it earlier since you have known since you were President elect?
President Obama: "Umm ... this isn't a football game. I'm not interested in victory, I'm interested in solving the problem"
He then went on to describe exactly what the "problem" was as he sees it. I didn't transcribe the rest because I - along with the rest of the world - could scarcely get past the first 2 lines, but the roughly 56 second interchange is Here for your viewing/listening pleasure.
I don't have to describe to anyone here how exceedingly troublesome it is for the president of the United States to send that sort of signal, "Im not interested in victory", on a myriad of levels too numerous to mention in a book, let alone a post. But what I'm even more interested in is what no one else is seemingly talking about as far as I can tell. Reread the second part of Reid's question, if you'll indulge me ... "secondly some of your advisers today said that this announcement was a victory, do you consider it a victory and if so why didn't you announce it earlier since you have known since you were President elect?"
The administration was quick to point out that it was in fact NOT blindsided by the news over the secret underground Iranian nuclear facility. They wanted to appear on top of the situation, at least in terms of Intel, and I have no doubt that they did know. You can read (or hear) Chip Reid reference that fact very clearly in his statement. The "success" he spoke of was the administration noting Russia and China's willingness to publicly condemn Iran's latest actions in strong terms. They saw that as a "victory" for the White House given that only a few months ago those 2 nations weren't willing to make such a public condemnation (a clear - "see I'm doing what Bush couldn't" jab). But the throw away line of Reid's is the most important of all: "... you have known since you were president elect."
Does anyone get what that then means? The missle shield he abandoned in Poland/Czech Republic was, yes, an "unwelcome mat" for Russia, that was the acknowledged side effect. But the PRIMARY purpose given, argued and accepted between Bush, Poland and the Czechs was the defense missile shield was to be a clear and large deterrent to a belligerent, nuclear bound Iran. THAT was its' primary focus. Meaning Obama GAVE AWAY THE STORE ON MISSILE SHIELD IN FULL KNOWLEDGE OF THE SECOND, UNDERGROUND IRANIAN NUCLEAR FACILITY!!!!
Am I the only one that has made that connection, and is absolutely astonished by it?
You see my friends, I don't buy this argument that his world view is pure "naivety." This is the result (this president's reasoning) of a student taking his deconstructionist philosophy theory too far, and blurring, to the point of erasing, all clear lines between good and evil. And once you are left with ONLY "differing perspectives" with no judgment as to their validity, well - Marxism, socialism, Communism, and a foreign policy out look tantamount to a child's view of the world can very easily make its' way into your cerebral cortex ... and thrive.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Fantastic observation ...
My avoiding the news is like asking a G20 protester to avoid a Micheal Moore movie - and as you noted below, that's where the comparisons end between grass root conservative/traditional protesters & the left. I too noted the stories of arrests on FOX over the last few days in your state, but your numbers reflecting property damage & the economic infusion are stark examples that the formerly "mainstream" press purposely and wilfully suppresses from the light of day.
Ha! Can you imagine? With that number of people spending that amount of dollars in local revenue I could see Vegas, Biloxi or any other resort area advertising: "Have your 9-12 rally here!" "Protest in luxury at the x-y-z resort!"
Ha! Can you imagine? With that number of people spending that amount of dollars in local revenue I could see Vegas, Biloxi or any other resort area advertising: "Have your 9-12 rally here!" "Protest in luxury at the x-y-z resort!"
Let's talk "perspective"...
I know Ryan is avoiding the news, but I wanted to make an observation.
Watch the news this week, and you can still hear the echos of the liberal criticisms of the "9-12" march to the Capitol, or the "Tea Party" movement, or the calls for the censorship of Rep. Joe Wilson for speaking out about policy. These criticisms range from cries of "opposition politics" to the outright accusations of racism and violence.
But, if one watches the news carefully enough, we can see graphic evidence that the conservative movement really is measurably different from the Left's efforts and focus on "Change" and reform.
Here in PA, we saw the "liberal" effort to effect change and hope in the Age of Obama during the G20 Summit in Pittsburgh. 110 arrests, OC gas, water and sound cannons employed to stop rioters, more than $50,000 worth of property damage to local businesses... all from the activities of an estimated 4,500 protesters "representing the people of the new America" (source HERE).
No less than 1 million participants in the Tea Parties, 9-12 march, and town hall debates... and ZERO arrests. $0.00 in property damage. AND, in the case of the DC 9-12 march, a documented $16 million in additional revenue to the DC area through the "protesters" use of hotel and transportation services, restaurants, and souvenirs.
We can debate the merits of policy and political theory as much as we want... but the real proof of the "base support" for the liberal movement in America is... to borrow a phrase... "in the pudding".
Watch the news this week, and you can still hear the echos of the liberal criticisms of the "9-12" march to the Capitol, or the "Tea Party" movement, or the calls for the censorship of Rep. Joe Wilson for speaking out about policy. These criticisms range from cries of "opposition politics" to the outright accusations of racism and violence.
But, if one watches the news carefully enough, we can see graphic evidence that the conservative movement really is measurably different from the Left's efforts and focus on "Change" and reform.
Here in PA, we saw the "liberal" effort to effect change and hope in the Age of Obama during the G20 Summit in Pittsburgh. 110 arrests, OC gas, water and sound cannons employed to stop rioters, more than $50,000 worth of property damage to local businesses... all from the activities of an estimated 4,500 protesters "representing the people of the new America" (source HERE).
No less than 1 million participants in the Tea Parties, 9-12 march, and town hall debates... and ZERO arrests. $0.00 in property damage. AND, in the case of the DC 9-12 march, a documented $16 million in additional revenue to the DC area through the "protesters" use of hotel and transportation services, restaurants, and souvenirs.
We can debate the merits of policy and political theory as much as we want... but the real proof of the "base support" for the liberal movement in America is... to borrow a phrase... "in the pudding".
Saturday, September 26, 2009
I couldn't agree more ...
I too have taken that journey of believing opposition politics was a means to an end all its own. In the late 90's through the early 2000's I would have never envisioned banging away key stroke after key stroke condemning nearly (if not over) 50% of the GOP's actions & policies.
I keep telling myself that if history is a guide which illuminates the gargantuan mistakes Obama & Co. are making (and it is, as you just well pointed out in succinct rapid fire succession), then I should find some comfort in knowing that 4 years of Carter caused we as a nation to return to those fundamental principles that made us great, manifested in 8 years of Reagan.
I tell myself that, but then I turn on the news and cringe for even with the "containment" possible with the 2010 elections, the potential for damage with AT LEAST 3 years left before a core course correction can even be attempted causes the comfort of that historical guide to be sorely challenged.
I DO know this ... we can not simply depend on "history" to manifest that cycle back to core principles. We must act, vote, and peacefully assemble & protest be it electronically or in person. Thankfully my fellow Americans are beginning to do just that, and that can NOT be ignored indefinitely; and in doing so even in the short term the administration only helps to further our cause.
Ok ... now I feel a little better, I just have to avoid the news the rest of the day ... hehe.
I keep telling myself that if history is a guide which illuminates the gargantuan mistakes Obama & Co. are making (and it is, as you just well pointed out in succinct rapid fire succession), then I should find some comfort in knowing that 4 years of Carter caused we as a nation to return to those fundamental principles that made us great, manifested in 8 years of Reagan.
I tell myself that, but then I turn on the news and cringe for even with the "containment" possible with the 2010 elections, the potential for damage with AT LEAST 3 years left before a core course correction can even be attempted causes the comfort of that historical guide to be sorely challenged.
I DO know this ... we can not simply depend on "history" to manifest that cycle back to core principles. We must act, vote, and peacefully assemble & protest be it electronically or in person. Thankfully my fellow Americans are beginning to do just that, and that can NOT be ignored indefinitely; and in doing so even in the short term the administration only helps to further our cause.
Ok ... now I feel a little better, I just have to avoid the news the rest of the day ... hehe.
Bravo!
It is, truly, sad that this is what it has come to.
I don't make excuses for the current liberal-leadership in America (and indeed, the entire Western world), but I can blame much of this on the "conservative" movement losing its way and focusing far too much on the paltry and petty details of political life rather than on the fundamentals of what made the United States great in the first place.
The resistance that the Left is feeling right now... and it is growing resistance, I think... stems from the "in-your-face" direct contradiction that the conservatives of this country (GOP or otherwise) are taking to heart in light of the radical nature of much of what Obama and the Congress are pushing down our throats. That contradiction was non-existent in the years before 9-11, and I can say that with a clear conscience because I VOTED FOR Al Gore in '00... and for Clinton in '96. I liked Bob Dole... I honestly did, and I very nearly cast my vote for him in light of the Lewinsky disaster... but the focus for "Main Street" America was so far from the fundamentals that made the nation great that I didn't see the trend that was mounting behind the Clintons in '96. I saw only the "opposition politics" that both the Conservative Coalition and the DNC were playing on a daily basis back then. I saw only that the perfectly functional and wildly successful "Pay as you Go" Act that Clinton DIDN'T veto worked beyond anyone's dreams, and that helped to reinforce the illusion that both compromise politics and "compassionate conservatism" also worked.
Once again, I say onto all of you that what this nation lacks, more than anything else... is a functional perspective on history. So many of us today want to see compromise work, but can't relate that compromise to the historical examples of Hoover and his failure to stop Japan from invading Manchuria in '31, or Chamberlain surrendering the Sudetenland in '38, or Carter failing to end the Iranian crisis or the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979.
So many want to see diplomacy win where armed conflict has failed, but can't recall the reasons why Hitler and the Nazis gained power in Germany through the FAILINGS of diplomacy within the League of Nations, or the "diplomacy" that led the US to allow half of Europe, the Korean peninsula, all of mainland China and most of southeast Asia to come under the iron grip of Stalin's communism, or the "diplomacy" that led to the over-throw of the Shah and the instillation of a fanatical regime that has plagued the free world for more than 30 years, or what "diplomacy" gained the US when it was employed in lieu of armed conflict in apprehending and detaining one Osama bin Laden AFTER his first attacks on American interests and allies... but BEFORE his attacks on 9-11-01.
So many want to see a government that can "give" the people all they need, but can't understand what is meant by those that question what will be "taken" or "lost" in the process. They ignore the utter lack of historical examples of EXTANT nations and governments that provide all the standards and means for its citizens, and focus on the Utopian dreams that are not only unrealistic, but patently contrary to fundamental human nature and individual liberty.
So many want to see a government that imposes no rules, restrictions or reservations on personal conduct or moral behavior, but fail to see that history is replete with examples of societies where such goals did nothing more than to remove utterly all ETHICAL behavior from the very government itself... and, in fact, ushered in a period of repression and overly-restrictive judgmental bias in subsequent governments.
Those that promote a diplomatic course with nations like Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela do not do so because it is the RIGHT thing to do, but because it was something BUSH and the GOP didn't do. It is promoted as a means of opposition politics, and nothing more. It furthers an agenda that those who opposed the former Administration began and are now forced to follow... or they will be seen to be even more "wrong" than those they initially opposed.
Those that support a reduction in our strategic nuclear forces do not do so because "nukes are bad", but because Bush & Co. refused to do so and they feel that making THEM look bad is more important than learning from the mistakes we can clearly see resulting from such past examples as the SALT I and II treaties, or the Treaty of Washington, or the Munich Accords. No possible weight can be seen to the argument that the Cuban Missile Crisis was resolved SOLELY on the conviction that the US was better able to survive and win a nuclear exchange than the USSR, or that the unconditional surrender of the Imperial Japanese military to the Allies resulted from the sure and certain knowledge that, unless they did so, Japan would systematically be reduced to fused glass one bombed city at a time.
Those that cry out against the greed and corruption of a free market economic system do not do so because they have seen a more equitable or fair means of providing for the needs and wants of our society, but instead do so because by making the "national standard of living" as low as its lowest common denominator through the implementation of socialist economic wealth redistribution and Marx's "labor theory of value" they assure themselves the same kind of economic and social CONTROL that the Soviet-style socialists of eastern Europe enjoyed from 1945 until 1999... when THEY finally got the message and adopted a free-market system of their own and now are the fastest growing economies in Europe.
No, this is more than sad... it is truly tragic.
I don't make excuses for the current liberal-leadership in America (and indeed, the entire Western world), but I can blame much of this on the "conservative" movement losing its way and focusing far too much on the paltry and petty details of political life rather than on the fundamentals of what made the United States great in the first place.
The resistance that the Left is feeling right now... and it is growing resistance, I think... stems from the "in-your-face" direct contradiction that the conservatives of this country (GOP or otherwise) are taking to heart in light of the radical nature of much of what Obama and the Congress are pushing down our throats. That contradiction was non-existent in the years before 9-11, and I can say that with a clear conscience because I VOTED FOR Al Gore in '00... and for Clinton in '96. I liked Bob Dole... I honestly did, and I very nearly cast my vote for him in light of the Lewinsky disaster... but the focus for "Main Street" America was so far from the fundamentals that made the nation great that I didn't see the trend that was mounting behind the Clintons in '96. I saw only the "opposition politics" that both the Conservative Coalition and the DNC were playing on a daily basis back then. I saw only that the perfectly functional and wildly successful "Pay as you Go" Act that Clinton DIDN'T veto worked beyond anyone's dreams, and that helped to reinforce the illusion that both compromise politics and "compassionate conservatism" also worked.
Once again, I say onto all of you that what this nation lacks, more than anything else... is a functional perspective on history. So many of us today want to see compromise work, but can't relate that compromise to the historical examples of Hoover and his failure to stop Japan from invading Manchuria in '31, or Chamberlain surrendering the Sudetenland in '38, or Carter failing to end the Iranian crisis or the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979.
So many want to see diplomacy win where armed conflict has failed, but can't recall the reasons why Hitler and the Nazis gained power in Germany through the FAILINGS of diplomacy within the League of Nations, or the "diplomacy" that led the US to allow half of Europe, the Korean peninsula, all of mainland China and most of southeast Asia to come under the iron grip of Stalin's communism, or the "diplomacy" that led to the over-throw of the Shah and the instillation of a fanatical regime that has plagued the free world for more than 30 years, or what "diplomacy" gained the US when it was employed in lieu of armed conflict in apprehending and detaining one Osama bin Laden AFTER his first attacks on American interests and allies... but BEFORE his attacks on 9-11-01.
So many want to see a government that can "give" the people all they need, but can't understand what is meant by those that question what will be "taken" or "lost" in the process. They ignore the utter lack of historical examples of EXTANT nations and governments that provide all the standards and means for its citizens, and focus on the Utopian dreams that are not only unrealistic, but patently contrary to fundamental human nature and individual liberty.
So many want to see a government that imposes no rules, restrictions or reservations on personal conduct or moral behavior, but fail to see that history is replete with examples of societies where such goals did nothing more than to remove utterly all ETHICAL behavior from the very government itself... and, in fact, ushered in a period of repression and overly-restrictive judgmental bias in subsequent governments.
Those that promote a diplomatic course with nations like Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela do not do so because it is the RIGHT thing to do, but because it was something BUSH and the GOP didn't do. It is promoted as a means of opposition politics, and nothing more. It furthers an agenda that those who opposed the former Administration began and are now forced to follow... or they will be seen to be even more "wrong" than those they initially opposed.
Those that support a reduction in our strategic nuclear forces do not do so because "nukes are bad", but because Bush & Co. refused to do so and they feel that making THEM look bad is more important than learning from the mistakes we can clearly see resulting from such past examples as the SALT I and II treaties, or the Treaty of Washington, or the Munich Accords. No possible weight can be seen to the argument that the Cuban Missile Crisis was resolved SOLELY on the conviction that the US was better able to survive and win a nuclear exchange than the USSR, or that the unconditional surrender of the Imperial Japanese military to the Allies resulted from the sure and certain knowledge that, unless they did so, Japan would systematically be reduced to fused glass one bombed city at a time.
Those that cry out against the greed and corruption of a free market economic system do not do so because they have seen a more equitable or fair means of providing for the needs and wants of our society, but instead do so because by making the "national standard of living" as low as its lowest common denominator through the implementation of socialist economic wealth redistribution and Marx's "labor theory of value" they assure themselves the same kind of economic and social CONTROL that the Soviet-style socialists of eastern Europe enjoyed from 1945 until 1999... when THEY finally got the message and adopted a free-market system of their own and now are the fastest growing economies in Europe.
No, this is more than sad... it is truly tragic.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Clarity for the West, coming from the East.
This is what it has come to.The most documented horror in all of human history, one our own nation paid a dear price to help stop, must in 2009 be "proven" to member states of the UN.
The idea that Benjamin Netenyahu even felt it NECESSARY to do this is a disturbing indictment of not just the Iranian government, but of the institution that would give its' words quarter.
America, let me ask you something ... whom have we voted into office? Our president seeks to sit down with the Iranian Holocaust denier, makes gestures towards and "accepts books" from despots such as Chavez, and defends usurpers of the Honduras democratic rule of law all while causing champagne corks to pop in Moscow by leaving Poland twisting in the Eastern European wind. Yet he sends back a bust of Winston Churchill to Gordon Brown, and scolds Israeli settlement actions as "illegitimate", equating the act of building schools to blowing them up. Shunning our 2 closest allies while embracing international thugs that have no place in the community of free men, dear God people - what side of history do we find ourselves on in 2009? How will we be judged by subsequent generations if we do not correct the course our national ship is on?
Now it is true that dozens of nations, led by France, walked out on Ahmedadenajad's lunacy in protest. Among them was the United States delegation (although I don't know why it was France and not we that lead); however, simply "walking out" is not enough. Evil must be called out in clear, plain language. The words must be spoken - "there evil stands" in order to be properly confronted. And ultimately actions must be taken if no other remedy is found effective. Does anyone believe that at present the US has the constitution to do this? I find this man, Benjamen Netanyahu, alone on the world stage as the only voice of moral clarity, of appropriate indignation possessing the fortitude of character necessary to call out the evil of his time. The thought of Iran possessing nuclear weapons conjures up the hair raising image in my mind of a lone Israeli prime minister standing along the Rhine ... screaming that we must act now, not later.
I urge you to watch the video at the link provided: "Have you no shame?" There are 3 parts, each as compelling as the last. And as you listen ask yourself, how did we come to a place in time that this defense, this speech, became necessary?
I urge you to watch the video at the link provided: "Have you no shame?" There are 3 parts, each as compelling as the last. And as you listen ask yourself, how did we come to a place in time that this defense, this speech, became necessary?
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Yesterday...
I haven't been to the Bund in a while, but not for lack of things to say.
Work has had me running around like crazy for nearly two weeks, and yesterday I was taking one of my Supervisors to a leadership seminar at the local arena. Zig Ziglar, Rev. Robert Schuller, Krish Dhanam... a parade of inspirational speakers and successful instructors.
However, it was the 40 minutes that Rudi Giuliani spoke that impressed me the most. I'm telling you, it wasn't until I heard him, and got to see him up-close, that I really got to appreciate the mistake that the GOP made in not backing him more for the Republican nomination. The man is more than elloquent, he is truly inspiring. He is personable, funny, direct, and doesn't not pander to his audience. I can't explain how I am convinced of this, but I am... from just listening to him for 40 minutes.
This man would have been more than a match for Obama during the run up to November... I am now convinced of this.
Work has had me running around like crazy for nearly two weeks, and yesterday I was taking one of my Supervisors to a leadership seminar at the local arena. Zig Ziglar, Rev. Robert Schuller, Krish Dhanam... a parade of inspirational speakers and successful instructors.
However, it was the 40 minutes that Rudi Giuliani spoke that impressed me the most. I'm telling you, it wasn't until I heard him, and got to see him up-close, that I really got to appreciate the mistake that the GOP made in not backing him more for the Republican nomination. The man is more than elloquent, he is truly inspiring. He is personable, funny, direct, and doesn't not pander to his audience. I can't explain how I am convinced of this, but I am... from just listening to him for 40 minutes.
This man would have been more than a match for Obama during the run up to November... I am now convinced of this.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
As goes Poland ...
... so goes history.
Well, Obama dumped the Poland/Czech Republic land based missile defense shield. Of course this was proposed as a deterrent to Iran by Bush, but with a wink and an elbow everybody KNEW this was to lay down a marker for an ever aggressive Russian Federation. And as a testament to that reality the top of the hour news updates described Moscow as "jubilant at the news." One thing is for certain - with few notable exceptions rarely has a move that made Moscow "jubilant" enhanced the security of the US & her allies. Oh ya, and we got NOTHING from Putin out of the deal (I don't mention Medvedev, because what would be the point? He's not running the show).
It occurs to me that the president routinely "redefines" our Bill of Rights, the 2nd Amendment and so on, so why not Article 5 of the Nato Accord (an attack on one is an attack on all)?
And to add insult to injury President Obama announced the abandonment of this program (and the Poles) on the 70th anniversary to-the-day of the Soviet invasion of Poland (Germans went in on the 1st, thus providing the Reds a fasle pretext of "defending" Eastern Poland when they went in ... of course everybody here understands that, I only wish our President did).
Well, Obama dumped the Poland/Czech Republic land based missile defense shield. Of course this was proposed as a deterrent to Iran by Bush, but with a wink and an elbow everybody KNEW this was to lay down a marker for an ever aggressive Russian Federation. And as a testament to that reality the top of the hour news updates described Moscow as "jubilant at the news." One thing is for certain - with few notable exceptions rarely has a move that made Moscow "jubilant" enhanced the security of the US & her allies. Oh ya, and we got NOTHING from Putin out of the deal (I don't mention Medvedev, because what would be the point? He's not running the show).
It occurs to me that the president routinely "redefines" our Bill of Rights, the 2nd Amendment and so on, so why not Article 5 of the Nato Accord (an attack on one is an attack on all)?
And to add insult to injury President Obama announced the abandonment of this program (and the Poles) on the 70th anniversary to-the-day of the Soviet invasion of Poland (Germans went in on the 1st, thus providing the Reds a fasle pretext of "defending" Eastern Poland when they went in ... of course everybody here understands that, I only wish our President did).
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
That got a laugh out of me...
"An overly committed nationalist?"... funny.
Seriously though, I am under the gun here at the joint, so I don't have long to write this... less time, in fact, than the subject deserves, but here's the basics:
Since last year's primary race, we have heard the words ACORN and Saul Alinsky time and time again, and now that ACORN is back in the news due to criminal investigations ranging from aiding and abetting felons to supporting child exploitation attempts and advocating kidnapping, rape and murder as legitimate means of business in both NY and CA... I did some deeper research.
Deep enough, in fact, to have read Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, which was published right before he died in the early 70's.
Ryan has, in the past, mocked me for a "conspiracy buff" because I have intimations or impressions of what "could be" that are not supported by raw, hard facts every step of the way... and if that is the criteria for being a "conspiracy buff", then I am occasionally guilty as charged. I do not ever claim that these impressions are TRUE 100% of the time... but some things simply stick in my craw as "wrong" and until I am shown the proof to the contrary, that is the impression I run with when making or voicing my opinions.
Ryan, or anyone else, that feels no previous basis for my basing personal opinion on impressions and "gut feelings" is wrong needs to read that book, and then tell me that the vast majority of all the varied and multifaceted features of the "liberal left" agenda in this country isn't substantially linked to the methods detailed in that book.
I can't tell you the last time I read a work that brought so much light to the means by which the Democratic leadership in this country is forcing "CHANGE" and "HOPE" down our throats as this book has. This book is NOT a book about how to organize poverty-stricken neighborhoods in the inner city... it is a step-by-step handbook on how to bring about forced, involuntary change upon the national political spectrum at any cost and by any means.
The "sting" videos of ACORN volunteers advocating and advising on the best means to accomplish illegal and immoral actions within the various communities where they are found show an alarming correlation to Alinsky's Rules... as does Pelosi's rants, and Reid's speeches, and the entire current DNC platform, and everything that has come out of Bill and Hilary Clinton's mouths since 1994, and (most scary) nearly every speech, announcement and press conference made by Obama since Jan.
Want to lose some sleep this week? Read this book, and then compare what you read to what you hear or read coming from the Left.
Seriously though, I am under the gun here at the joint, so I don't have long to write this... less time, in fact, than the subject deserves, but here's the basics:
Since last year's primary race, we have heard the words ACORN and Saul Alinsky time and time again, and now that ACORN is back in the news due to criminal investigations ranging from aiding and abetting felons to supporting child exploitation attempts and advocating kidnapping, rape and murder as legitimate means of business in both NY and CA... I did some deeper research.
Deep enough, in fact, to have read Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, which was published right before he died in the early 70's.
Ryan has, in the past, mocked me for a "conspiracy buff" because I have intimations or impressions of what "could be" that are not supported by raw, hard facts every step of the way... and if that is the criteria for being a "conspiracy buff", then I am occasionally guilty as charged. I do not ever claim that these impressions are TRUE 100% of the time... but some things simply stick in my craw as "wrong" and until I am shown the proof to the contrary, that is the impression I run with when making or voicing my opinions.
Ryan, or anyone else, that feels no previous basis for my basing personal opinion on impressions and "gut feelings" is wrong needs to read that book, and then tell me that the vast majority of all the varied and multifaceted features of the "liberal left" agenda in this country isn't substantially linked to the methods detailed in that book.
I can't tell you the last time I read a work that brought so much light to the means by which the Democratic leadership in this country is forcing "CHANGE" and "HOPE" down our throats as this book has. This book is NOT a book about how to organize poverty-stricken neighborhoods in the inner city... it is a step-by-step handbook on how to bring about forced, involuntary change upon the national political spectrum at any cost and by any means.
The "sting" videos of ACORN volunteers advocating and advising on the best means to accomplish illegal and immoral actions within the various communities where they are found show an alarming correlation to Alinsky's Rules... as does Pelosi's rants, and Reid's speeches, and the entire current DNC platform, and everything that has come out of Bill and Hilary Clinton's mouths since 1994, and (most scary) nearly every speech, announcement and press conference made by Obama since Jan.
Want to lose some sleep this week? Read this book, and then compare what you read to what you hear or read coming from the Left.
Furthermore ...
The talking point for Obama apologists in recent days is crying, "racism."
Members of the House have flatly accused Rep Joe Wilson of racism. That this explains his break in decorum when shouting, "you lie" during the president's joint address. Maureen Dowd, that bastion of reason and logic (choke, cough ... gag), said all that was missing was, "you lie, boy."
In addition all the alphabet soup stations, most notably NBC, have described the DC "tea party marchers" as hate filled, violent, and of course - racist. Brian Williams, in a shocking display of "shadowy" journalism described the marchers this way: "The recent march on DC by protesters, a certain number of which were carrying racist and violent themed signs, ..."
Seriously, a "certain number", that's journalism? It may be, but it certainly isn't reporting.
See, this is when I know they are on the ropes - they revert to calling us racist. But the coupe de tat was bringing in that master of race relations, Jimmy Carter, whom noted on NBC, and I quote: "An overwhelming portion of the opposition to President Obama is because he is a black man."
So let me restate my above - I know they are on the ropes when they roll out Carter to do their dirty work. He's like "Mikey", they look around the room and say, "who here will say ANYTHING, no matter how ridiculous?" Then they tap the arm with 2 fingers and shout, "bring in the lefty", and presto, we have Carter being featured in the main stream media as a voice of reason.
It would be laughable if these guys weren't in power.
Members of the House have flatly accused Rep Joe Wilson of racism. That this explains his break in decorum when shouting, "you lie" during the president's joint address. Maureen Dowd, that bastion of reason and logic (choke, cough ... gag), said all that was missing was, "you lie, boy."
In addition all the alphabet soup stations, most notably NBC, have described the DC "tea party marchers" as hate filled, violent, and of course - racist. Brian Williams, in a shocking display of "shadowy" journalism described the marchers this way: "The recent march on DC by protesters, a certain number of which were carrying racist and violent themed signs, ..."
Seriously, a "certain number", that's journalism? It may be, but it certainly isn't reporting.
See, this is when I know they are on the ropes - they revert to calling us racist. But the coupe de tat was bringing in that master of race relations, Jimmy Carter, whom noted on NBC, and I quote: "An overwhelming portion of the opposition to President Obama is because he is a black man."
So let me restate my above - I know they are on the ropes when they roll out Carter to do their dirty work. He's like "Mikey", they look around the room and say, "who here will say ANYTHING, no matter how ridiculous?" Then they tap the arm with 2 fingers and shout, "bring in the lefty", and presto, we have Carter being featured in the main stream media as a voice of reason.
It would be laughable if these guys weren't in power.
"Guy walks into a book store ..."
I think everyone here is familiar with my absolute disdain of former president James Earl Carter. It is my contention that he fundamentally dislikes & rejects the idea of America as a "special" point in history. He also happens to be an anti-Semite. Well get this story from the NY Times, dateline 9/15/09:
While Oprah’s seal of approval on a book cover is sought after in America, Osama Bin Laden’s is, to put it mildly, not. On Monday, the authors of three books apparently recommended to American readers by the leader of Al Qaeda in his latest communique might be wondering how one goes about returning an unsolicited endorsement to a shadowy militant who has been in hiding for eight years.
As our colleague Mark McDonald reported on Sunday, Mr. Bin Laden apparently released a new audiotape, entitled “An Address to the American People.” According to the SITE Intelligence Group, which monitors jihadist Web sites, on the tape, a voice claiming to be that of the Qaeda leader described three books that he says support his analysis of global politics and the systematic maltreatment of Muslims at the hands of America and her allies…
1. “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” by Stephen M. Walt, a professor of international affairs at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, and John J. Mearsheimer, a political scientist at the University of Chicago. Published in 2007, the book argues that uncritical American support for Israel, shaped by powerful lobbying organizations like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, does grave harm to both American and Israeli interests. The voice on the tape gives the title of the book as “The Israeli Lobby in the United States,” according to the SITE translation. ...
2. “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid,” in which former President Jimmy Carter gives his views about how best to end the Arab-Israeli conflict, and criticizes Israeli treatment of Palestinians in the territories. While the voice on the tape does not mention this book by name, it calls on Americans to “read what your former president, Carter, wrote regarding Israeli racism against our people in Palestine,” in a characterization of the book that goes beyond Mr. Carter’s own language. …
3. The third book referred to on the tape is called “The Apology of a Hired Killer,” according to the SITE translation. The book is said to have been written by “a former CIA agent who lived in two cultures, whose conscience was awakened in his third decade and decided to say the truth despite threats.” The voice on the tape says that this author is “the best to clarify to you the causes of the eleventh,” apparently meaning the attacks of September 11, 2001.
While there seems to be no book of that title and description, at least one analyst has suggested that Mr. bin Laden may have been reading “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man,” by John Perkins.
Carter's book, $22.
A marker to highlight it on your Jihadi must buy list, $0.88 cents.
That endorsement ... priceless.
On a side note ... does anyone else find it disturbing that the Times referred to Bin Laden - the greatest mass murderer of American civilians in our history, as well as the world's most infamous terrorist - as nothing more than a, "shadowy militant who has been in hiding for eight years." So then what was Stalin? A questionable figure in the struggle for workers' rights? Hitler? An overly committed nationalist? The leftist intelligentsia crowd is infinitely talented at proving they are anything but.
While Oprah’s seal of approval on a book cover is sought after in America, Osama Bin Laden’s is, to put it mildly, not. On Monday, the authors of three books apparently recommended to American readers by the leader of Al Qaeda in his latest communique might be wondering how one goes about returning an unsolicited endorsement to a shadowy militant who has been in hiding for eight years.
As our colleague Mark McDonald reported on Sunday, Mr. Bin Laden apparently released a new audiotape, entitled “An Address to the American People.” According to the SITE Intelligence Group, which monitors jihadist Web sites, on the tape, a voice claiming to be that of the Qaeda leader described three books that he says support his analysis of global politics and the systematic maltreatment of Muslims at the hands of America and her allies…
1. “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” by Stephen M. Walt, a professor of international affairs at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, and John J. Mearsheimer, a political scientist at the University of Chicago. Published in 2007, the book argues that uncritical American support for Israel, shaped by powerful lobbying organizations like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, does grave harm to both American and Israeli interests. The voice on the tape gives the title of the book as “The Israeli Lobby in the United States,” according to the SITE translation. ...
2. “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid,” in which former President Jimmy Carter gives his views about how best to end the Arab-Israeli conflict, and criticizes Israeli treatment of Palestinians in the territories. While the voice on the tape does not mention this book by name, it calls on Americans to “read what your former president, Carter, wrote regarding Israeli racism against our people in Palestine,” in a characterization of the book that goes beyond Mr. Carter’s own language. …
3. The third book referred to on the tape is called “The Apology of a Hired Killer,” according to the SITE translation. The book is said to have been written by “a former CIA agent who lived in two cultures, whose conscience was awakened in his third decade and decided to say the truth despite threats.” The voice on the tape says that this author is “the best to clarify to you the causes of the eleventh,” apparently meaning the attacks of September 11, 2001.
While there seems to be no book of that title and description, at least one analyst has suggested that Mr. bin Laden may have been reading “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man,” by John Perkins.
Carter's book, $22.
A marker to highlight it on your Jihadi must buy list, $0.88 cents.
That endorsement ... priceless.
On a side note ... does anyone else find it disturbing that the Times referred to Bin Laden - the greatest mass murderer of American civilians in our history, as well as the world's most infamous terrorist - as nothing more than a, "shadowy militant who has been in hiding for eight years." So then what was Stalin? A questionable figure in the struggle for workers' rights? Hitler? An overly committed nationalist? The leftist intelligentsia crowd is infinitely talented at proving they are anything but.
Friday, September 11, 2009
9/11
I scarcely feel qualified to comment on the attack 8 years ago. The sheer magnitude of the event domestically and its' ramifications world wide will echo throughout history ... as will our response.
I will simply note that the only vessel for properly honoring the thousands of fallen civilians, the hundreds of police officers and firefighters, the first Americans to fight back - the passengers of Flight 93 - and the 5,159 soldiers as of 9/10/09 that have fallen in our defense in Iraq and Afghanistan, is to remain eternally vigilant against the enemy that even eight years later remains unquestionably committed to his wicked ideology.
I've heard them say "we love death", that they live to kill our freedom. Well they don't understand our history, or they'd know ... we will die to defend it.
If history has taught us one thing it is that the barbarians will forever be at the gates. So I say, let them forever feel the full weight of this Republic.
I will simply note that the only vessel for properly honoring the thousands of fallen civilians, the hundreds of police officers and firefighters, the first Americans to fight back - the passengers of Flight 93 - and the 5,159 soldiers as of 9/10/09 that have fallen in our defense in Iraq and Afghanistan, is to remain eternally vigilant against the enemy that even eight years later remains unquestionably committed to his wicked ideology.
I've heard them say "we love death", that they live to kill our freedom. Well they don't understand our history, or they'd know ... we will die to defend it.
If history has taught us one thing it is that the barbarians will forever be at the gates. So I say, let them forever feel the full weight of this Republic.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Here, here!
Indeed Titus!
And yes, badboy, you did misinterpret my FEMA line just a bit, as I was following up to Titus's previous post that local and/or private entities provided of version of "relief" (either in terms of management or application) that was more effective than did the feds. The entire reason I am in Vegas was due to private charity - a very large construction firm for which my cousin (whom I haven't seen in 22 years) works, had a program set up for Katrina victims of their employee's family members. They asked me, now get this, where in the country (if anywhere) that I would prefer to relocate. The only qualifications were that I could demonstrate the probability of gainful employment once I got there, and that I indeed lived within the federally declared disaster zone of Katrina. Well, no problem on the 2nd, I lived 1.7 miles off the beach in MS. And as a casino dealer finding work in what was still a descent economy in Vegas was all but a given. Within 3 days (of talking to them, not the storm) this company my cousin works for sent me a check for $4000 for moving expenses. Not a voucher, a check, made out to me. They sent me another $2000 once I got to town to get on my (and my 2 sons & then wife) feet, and here's the kicker - they gave me one of their newly constructed homes, furnished, free of charge for 6 months. And the ENTIRE time I spoke directly on the personal cell of the woman whom was the executive of the entire project. She could make decisions and execute them while on the phone with me! Now compare that to the prospect I had were I to stay in Meridian, MS - a $400 Red Cross debit card were I to wait in line for 6 hours. Even the motel I stayed at allowed me 1 week free as we were preparing to move, & after a 3 minute conversation with the manager. My brothers helped me move (1 even went with me), and I restarted my life, & the life of my family 1900 miles away due to the unending generosity of a private construction company, acting with no government mandate. And as I drove the Uhaul paid for by that private company, to my new home across the country, there were people in New Orleans still in the Super Dome sleeping on cots provided by the government - I can't think of a more stark comparison.
NOW - am I knocking the Red Cross or FEMA (who did send me $1,200 4 months after the storm - I forgot that I originally applied 2 weeks after the storm) for not doing "more" or being a "failure?" No. I am making the point Titus did - the federal government, and even the state government (although MS was indeed more efficient than her Western neighbor) simply CAN NOT as efficiently operate relief for her citizens in the way those private volunteers, companies, charities & entities of all stripes can. So why give a government agency the mandate, or my tax money, in the first place?
And that is the point relative to health insurance. I have often said: "Public health care will be like the DMV, only add kidney dialysis." Perhaps for those of us that experienced Katrina a more apt line would be: "Public health care will be like FEMA, only add prostate cancer." And that is the point here. The federal government's responsibilities are specific and enumerated for damn good reason - it simply can not replace the efficiency, resourcefulness and unyielding selflessness that the private sector, and more specifically the individual American, is capable of when he sees his fellow man in need.
And yes, badboy, you did misinterpret my FEMA line just a bit, as I was following up to Titus's previous post that local and/or private entities provided of version of "relief" (either in terms of management or application) that was more effective than did the feds. The entire reason I am in Vegas was due to private charity - a very large construction firm for which my cousin (whom I haven't seen in 22 years) works, had a program set up for Katrina victims of their employee's family members. They asked me, now get this, where in the country (if anywhere) that I would prefer to relocate. The only qualifications were that I could demonstrate the probability of gainful employment once I got there, and that I indeed lived within the federally declared disaster zone of Katrina. Well, no problem on the 2nd, I lived 1.7 miles off the beach in MS. And as a casino dealer finding work in what was still a descent economy in Vegas was all but a given. Within 3 days (of talking to them, not the storm) this company my cousin works for sent me a check for $4000 for moving expenses. Not a voucher, a check, made out to me. They sent me another $2000 once I got to town to get on my (and my 2 sons & then wife) feet, and here's the kicker - they gave me one of their newly constructed homes, furnished, free of charge for 6 months. And the ENTIRE time I spoke directly on the personal cell of the woman whom was the executive of the entire project. She could make decisions and execute them while on the phone with me! Now compare that to the prospect I had were I to stay in Meridian, MS - a $400 Red Cross debit card were I to wait in line for 6 hours. Even the motel I stayed at allowed me 1 week free as we were preparing to move, & after a 3 minute conversation with the manager. My brothers helped me move (1 even went with me), and I restarted my life, & the life of my family 1900 miles away due to the unending generosity of a private construction company, acting with no government mandate. And as I drove the Uhaul paid for by that private company, to my new home across the country, there were people in New Orleans still in the Super Dome sleeping on cots provided by the government - I can't think of a more stark comparison.
NOW - am I knocking the Red Cross or FEMA (who did send me $1,200 4 months after the storm - I forgot that I originally applied 2 weeks after the storm) for not doing "more" or being a "failure?" No. I am making the point Titus did - the federal government, and even the state government (although MS was indeed more efficient than her Western neighbor) simply CAN NOT as efficiently operate relief for her citizens in the way those private volunteers, companies, charities & entities of all stripes can. So why give a government agency the mandate, or my tax money, in the first place?
And that is the point relative to health insurance. I have often said: "Public health care will be like the DMV, only add kidney dialysis." Perhaps for those of us that experienced Katrina a more apt line would be: "Public health care will be like FEMA, only add prostate cancer." And that is the point here. The federal government's responsibilities are specific and enumerated for damn good reason - it simply can not replace the efficiency, resourcefulness and unyielding selflessness that the private sector, and more specifically the individual American, is capable of when he sees his fellow man in need.
Furthermore...
Since this is still very close to the anniversary of Katrina, let me ask this question to those of us that lived through it:
"What COULD the US Federal Government have done that would have substantially helped you recover from the hurricane, both immediately and in the longer sense of the word?"
It never ceases to amaze me that Bush is blamed for as much as he is blamed for. The Administration (Bush's, I mean) took the heat for many failings, mainly in the FEMA and DHS areas of responsibility, and many of these failings were real, I don't doubt. But was it the Fed's "responsibility" to make sure the shelters were safe? That transportation from the shelters was there, if it was needed? That PODs were safe and available for those that needed them? Or was that the PRIMARY responsiblity of the municiple, county and State authorities?
To this day, we stil hear people blame Bush... while Nagin is still Mayor of New Orleans and Blanco's name is never mentioned at all. FEMA's failures are listed ad nauseum, while the failures of the State and municiple authorities in LA and elsewhere are (seemingly) never considered. People still shed tears when recalling the devestation of the 9th Ward and Lakeview districts, but not one thought is given to the fact that more than 1 million people and nearly half of the State of Mississippi was impacted (in one way or another) by at least a Catagory 1 Hurricane over the course of 36 hours.
I have thought on this an awful lot in the years since, and seeing as I never received a $2,500 FEMA check (or any FEMA money at all), that I never got a dime from Red Cross, and that the only Federal "relief" I ever received at all was in the form of a $20k LOAN from the SBA, the first thing I would have asked for was instant and complete exemption for income taxes for one calendar year. Imagine what an impact that would have had on YOUR life in the region, had that been an option. I know it would have made the rebuilding of my home and property a whole hell of a lot easier, and I wouldn't have had to sacrifice the bulk of my retirement savings to compelte the job.
Just one year's taxes returned to me in total, and the course of MY life would have been dramatically different... and very possibly much easier. If that kind of tax "relief" would help in a time of disaster, what could it do to the national outlook WITHOUT the need of a sweeping event like a hurricane, earthquake or flood?
"What COULD the US Federal Government have done that would have substantially helped you recover from the hurricane, both immediately and in the longer sense of the word?"
It never ceases to amaze me that Bush is blamed for as much as he is blamed for. The Administration (Bush's, I mean) took the heat for many failings, mainly in the FEMA and DHS areas of responsibility, and many of these failings were real, I don't doubt. But was it the Fed's "responsibility" to make sure the shelters were safe? That transportation from the shelters was there, if it was needed? That PODs were safe and available for those that needed them? Or was that the PRIMARY responsiblity of the municiple, county and State authorities?
To this day, we stil hear people blame Bush... while Nagin is still Mayor of New Orleans and Blanco's name is never mentioned at all. FEMA's failures are listed ad nauseum, while the failures of the State and municiple authorities in LA and elsewhere are (seemingly) never considered. People still shed tears when recalling the devestation of the 9th Ward and Lakeview districts, but not one thought is given to the fact that more than 1 million people and nearly half of the State of Mississippi was impacted (in one way or another) by at least a Catagory 1 Hurricane over the course of 36 hours.
I have thought on this an awful lot in the years since, and seeing as I never received a $2,500 FEMA check (or any FEMA money at all), that I never got a dime from Red Cross, and that the only Federal "relief" I ever received at all was in the form of a $20k LOAN from the SBA, the first thing I would have asked for was instant and complete exemption for income taxes for one calendar year. Imagine what an impact that would have had on YOUR life in the region, had that been an option. I know it would have made the rebuilding of my home and property a whole hell of a lot easier, and I wouldn't have had to sacrifice the bulk of my retirement savings to compelte the job.
Just one year's taxes returned to me in total, and the course of MY life would have been dramatically different... and very possibly much easier. If that kind of tax "relief" would help in a time of disaster, what could it do to the national outlook WITHOUT the need of a sweeping event like a hurricane, earthquake or flood?
Need to make a point here...
Baddboy posted a comment about Ryan's last, and I wanted to add my thoughts to that...
Baddboy seems to think that FEMA was used as an example by Ryan of a government failure or shortcoming, and maybe it was... but I think it stands a an excellent example of what Government is incapable of doing better than the private sector.
Using only our first-hand, personal experiences after Katrina, can any give me an example of where FEMA did a better job, at any level or scope of duty, than the services offered by private sector entities? Perhaps there are examples, but I'm not coming up with any.
Who doesn't remember the PODs? "Points of Distribution" were areas within our communities where vital goods and services were "centralized" for ease of access by the tens of thousands of residents that had limited or no access to transportation (like me). Every example of a POD that I visited or even know of were initiated by local municipalities or private companies to expedite the distribution of goods being donated by John Q. Public in the first days after the storm... Ocean Springs Wal Mart, St Paul's Methodist Church, Singing River Mall in Gautier are my favorite examples. These PODs stayed open for the better part of a year, and provided an absolutely vital link to goods and services for people just like me.
Who doesn't remember COWs? "Communication on Wheels" were mobile communication hubs offering telephone and Internet access to thousands of residents at no cost for about 10 minutes at a time, with services provided by such companies as Nextel, Sprint and AT&T. Yes, you stood in line for a while, but once you got to the truck/van you could make a 10 minute phone call to anyone in the country and/or you could use any one of several Internet links to post updates on websites giving contact info or finding contact info for things like insurance, FEMA updates (what a joke), Red Cross access sites, etc.
With every hospital in the coastal area of Jackson County out of service for the first 10 to 12 days, my only recourse to medical services was in an inflatable "tent" set up at the Wesley Church where volunteer doctors and nurses from around the country came to offer free services and examinations to any who showed up. I had a smashed finger repaired by a wonderfully pleasant doctor (of a shockingly young age) from Atlanta, GA in that balloon-tent, and I've never seen faster, more efficient service in an actual clinic or ER.
Within days of the event, I was eating MREs and drinking water bottled for the military (courtesy of the Georgia National Guard), but I also got water bottled by Miller Brewing Co. and Anheuser-Busch which was being distributed from the PODs. Water is water... I'm not arguing that, but there is something to be said for water that is packaged in a way that makes carrying it nearly a mile back to your house twice a day an easier chore. Miller and Bud put the water in the same kind of packaging as they put beer... with handles. The GNG and the US Army water was bottled in cases of 4 1-gallon containers that made that twice-a-day walk nearly fatal in 100-degree heat.
Now, as Baddboy said, FEMA was designed as a "management" agency, not as a means to produce, distribute and manage disaster relief on a grand scale. But if it couldn't handle the "management" aspect of Katrina... can we really afford to depend on it for ALL the needed relief that future such disasters might bring to the table? I shudder to consider such dependency for my part... never again will I want for the basics because I choose to depend on the ability (or willingness) of my Government to provide for my needs in the future.
I'll even go so far as to suggest that, given FEMAs undoubted role in coordination and cooperation between local, county and State agencies, perhaps more of their primary designed purpose was met than I am giving them credit for. That does not negate the fact that I am unwilling to see MORE responsibility (and cost) heaped on them given that I simply don't think it is the most efficient means of providing relief in times of trouble. Money that would, according to the "left", go to FEMA projects and expansions, could instead go towards the individual States developing the needed infrastructure to respond and provide relief... which is EXACTLY why I think MS didn't have the same trouble with violence and unrest that LA had. MS had the means and planning IN PLACE to respond to the problems that came with and after Katrina, while LA and New Orleans especially, were entrenched in the "someone give me what I need" syndrome from top to bottom. How can the visible, measurable results of the two State's efforts not stand as stark evidence of the power of de-centralized planning and preparations? How can ANYONE that witness, let alone lived through, the debacle that was New Orleans in the two weeks after Katrina possibly want to "depend" on the US Federal government for relief in times of future crisis?
Baddboy seems to think that FEMA was used as an example by Ryan of a government failure or shortcoming, and maybe it was... but I think it stands a an excellent example of what Government is incapable of doing better than the private sector.
Using only our first-hand, personal experiences after Katrina, can any give me an example of where FEMA did a better job, at any level or scope of duty, than the services offered by private sector entities? Perhaps there are examples, but I'm not coming up with any.
Who doesn't remember the PODs? "Points of Distribution" were areas within our communities where vital goods and services were "centralized" for ease of access by the tens of thousands of residents that had limited or no access to transportation (like me). Every example of a POD that I visited or even know of were initiated by local municipalities or private companies to expedite the distribution of goods being donated by John Q. Public in the first days after the storm... Ocean Springs Wal Mart, St Paul's Methodist Church, Singing River Mall in Gautier are my favorite examples. These PODs stayed open for the better part of a year, and provided an absolutely vital link to goods and services for people just like me.
Who doesn't remember COWs? "Communication on Wheels" were mobile communication hubs offering telephone and Internet access to thousands of residents at no cost for about 10 minutes at a time, with services provided by such companies as Nextel, Sprint and AT&T. Yes, you stood in line for a while, but once you got to the truck/van you could make a 10 minute phone call to anyone in the country and/or you could use any one of several Internet links to post updates on websites giving contact info or finding contact info for things like insurance, FEMA updates (what a joke), Red Cross access sites, etc.
With every hospital in the coastal area of Jackson County out of service for the first 10 to 12 days, my only recourse to medical services was in an inflatable "tent" set up at the Wesley Church where volunteer doctors and nurses from around the country came to offer free services and examinations to any who showed up. I had a smashed finger repaired by a wonderfully pleasant doctor (of a shockingly young age) from Atlanta, GA in that balloon-tent, and I've never seen faster, more efficient service in an actual clinic or ER.
Within days of the event, I was eating MREs and drinking water bottled for the military (courtesy of the Georgia National Guard), but I also got water bottled by Miller Brewing Co. and Anheuser-Busch which was being distributed from the PODs. Water is water... I'm not arguing that, but there is something to be said for water that is packaged in a way that makes carrying it nearly a mile back to your house twice a day an easier chore. Miller and Bud put the water in the same kind of packaging as they put beer... with handles. The GNG and the US Army water was bottled in cases of 4 1-gallon containers that made that twice-a-day walk nearly fatal in 100-degree heat.
Now, as Baddboy said, FEMA was designed as a "management" agency, not as a means to produce, distribute and manage disaster relief on a grand scale. But if it couldn't handle the "management" aspect of Katrina... can we really afford to depend on it for ALL the needed relief that future such disasters might bring to the table? I shudder to consider such dependency for my part... never again will I want for the basics because I choose to depend on the ability (or willingness) of my Government to provide for my needs in the future.
I'll even go so far as to suggest that, given FEMAs undoubted role in coordination and cooperation between local, county and State agencies, perhaps more of their primary designed purpose was met than I am giving them credit for. That does not negate the fact that I am unwilling to see MORE responsibility (and cost) heaped on them given that I simply don't think it is the most efficient means of providing relief in times of trouble. Money that would, according to the "left", go to FEMA projects and expansions, could instead go towards the individual States developing the needed infrastructure to respond and provide relief... which is EXACTLY why I think MS didn't have the same trouble with violence and unrest that LA had. MS had the means and planning IN PLACE to respond to the problems that came with and after Katrina, while LA and New Orleans especially, were entrenched in the "someone give me what I need" syndrome from top to bottom. How can the visible, measurable results of the two State's efforts not stand as stark evidence of the power of de-centralized planning and preparations? How can ANYONE that witness, let alone lived through, the debacle that was New Orleans in the two weeks after Katrina possibly want to "depend" on the US Federal government for relief in times of future crisis?
Monday, September 7, 2009
So NOW the left wants to legislate morality.
Ahh ... the dangers of circular logic.
I hesitate to add to Titus's rather succinct description of "morality" regarding government programs, because it was quite good ... but what the hell, I will anyway.
I think each of us here have an agreed disdain, if not a flat out fear, for the American worship of a culture of death. Abortions to "divorce parties" to gangster rap music and the glorification of "loser-ism" in movies and TV, the trend is disconcerting to any aware adult. In my opinion the entire line up of the E Channel, to MTV to the grotesque mind numbing phenomena that is "reality tv" in which the only reality I can see is that the stars of these shows would have no other way of earning a living without that genera, is collectively nothing more than tooth decay in the mouth of society. But let me return to that in a moment ...
My initial reaction to Jambo's implicit endorsement of a "moral argument" for public health care was nearly the same as Titus. To be honest I earnestly thought Jambo was joking to get a rise with his post, but then he text me on my way to work to inform me that he was indeed serious. Something I was genuinely surprised at, because the opposition argument seemed so compelling, and so unarguably part of the American experience in Democracy that it seemed uncharacteristic for him to miss.
I phrased it slightly different then Titus. I expressed my belief that it has long been considered since the time of our founding fathers "immoral" for a government (especially a central government) to intrude into the life and choices of the individual. "Tyrannical" governments were written about extensively as the very source of immorality itself by our founders, and that "tyrannical" aspect most notably took the form of unjust taxation. It can be said that at the core of our national DNA is the belief that to deny a man the fruits of his own labor epitomizes immorality. And this is all part and parcel of Titus noting that a moral society is one that encourages a man to be charitable versus dictating he be, for in the latter the dictation itself becomes the immoral act. I'm sure I don't have to remind Jambo how many quotes of the founders, pre and post Constitutional Convention, that exist that touch on that very aspect of governance with near unanimity of opinion, and AGAIN I submit that either Barak Obama and the advocates of public health care are correct or the founders were ... but I digress.
Let me address this another way ... I had an argument similar to this with a Canadian co-worker (now a naturalized US citizen) whom was adamant that if public health care was not passed in the States that upon retirement he was heading back to Kunnuck country in order to avail himself of their socialized medicine. I scoffed at such a statement because he talked right past the obvious hypocrisy staring him in the face. He relocated, by his own admission, to the US to make more money. On the side he even runs his own business. Now here is a gentleman that fundamentally doesn't understand that the robust economy he opted for over the nation of his birth is robust precisely because our experiment in self governance has traditionally rejected the collective central planning he is lamenting we don't have!
Now reenter the culture of death discussion ... whether it be the media avenues we discussed or, lets say, burning the American flag, I submit that the answer to such acts we as private citizens define as "immoral" is not a curtailing of the bad actors speech, but rather more speech, from us. The answer to hate speech is not censorship, but more speech. The answer to a moral obligation (assuming you believe one exists) to provide all citizens with health care is not less options, it's more options. And we all know that if a government option is introduced it will eat through the private sector of health insurance providers until none other exists.
And let me just extrapolate further on that point. Once the government option becomes the sole option it is inevitable that the "prohibition effect" will come into play. In other words the best doctors, those at the top of their field, will simply opt out and render services exclusively for those whom can afford to pay cash. In which case you have in effect reserved the very best care for ONLY the uber rich ... and that is a populist's version of morality?
Unless of course you intend to make going out of the system illegal no matter if one posses the means to do so, in which case we are back to dictating morality being an act of immorality itself, and blatantly denying a man the fruits of his own labor.
Now so far our discussion has been primarily based on the immorality of forcing me to pay for my neighbors health care, or worse, as Titus aptly pointed out, the immorality of forcing me to cough up money in order for others to engage in procedures that I find abhorrent, be it abortion or condoms for 7th graders. But Jambo text me after I gave the short hand version of this post to him over the phone, and asked: "Well if we could find a way to do this without an additional burden of taxes, doesn't your entire argument dissipate?" In a word, NO.
First off, that's like asking an anti-war protester, "As long as there isn't any killing, would you be for war then?" I hardly see how you divorce the two and maintain a rationale discussion, but for the sake of argument, lets try.
If it is a "moral obligation" that we provide each and every citizen not equal opportunity to health care but (supposedly) equal care, haven't we ventured in to definitional Marxism? Lets further the question - Americans whom become doctors spend 4 years in undergrad school, another 4 years in medical school, and an additional 2 years as an intern, and in the process rack up hundreds of thousands in student bills and loans, and yet you are advocating that it is "ok" to limit their income once they attain their goal. And we all know that is precisely what will happen because be it socialized medicine or public insurance inevitably the private sector of either will be wiped clean, and since that causes a finite amount of care, that care WILL be rationed, and one of the ways to ration the finite resources, in other words reduce cost, will be to ration compensation (and as I think about it that action will result in a "doctors union" so say hello to the NEA teachers union version of health care ... ugh). At any rate, if you are comfortable with rationing compensation due to a moral imperative why not go a step further and install a "doctor draft?" Why not make 2 or 4 years of their service mandatory at military enlistee wages? They can get a draft letter at their office. The difference being of course that an enlistee begins his initial wages before he puts in his 10 years to be a soldier, not after. This would be the equivalent of the opposite. The dictation of compensation ... that is morality?
Let me deal with another aspect. You must realize that with a finite amount of services comes rationing, that's a given. In other words distant bureaucrats, government workers, whatever you want to call them, in the end they are strangers to you and your family, THEY will be judging the worth of a person's life. That is ultimately where senior care will head. They will have no choice but to consider the worth of the elderly patients ability to "contribute" ... and THAT is morality?
See, this is why I initially, in my text, described the "morality" argument for public health care as "insidious." Jambo claimed that this was "inflammatory rhetoric", but I mean that critique honestly. This moral imperative for government intervention is the grand puba of slippery slopes. It ultimately redefines freedom. As a moral imperative the government must step in and give you X, Y and Z. You need a house, you need an education, you need a car, why not have the government provide all of these at no cost to you as a moral imperative so you aren't bothered with the burden of having to provide these things for yourself? The rich can afford the taxes. After all, "true freedom," says the central planner, "is freedom from want. It is freedom from need." But ultimately that is freedom from "choice", from decisions, from being the master of your own destiny.
{deep exhale} ....
During this entire discussion I keep replaying a talk with my elder son I had not long ago. On the way to some errand we came upon a red light at a busy Las Vegas intersection. There, amidst the pounding heat, stood a disheveled unshaven man with a sign. "HUNGRY", it read. He was making his way from car window to car window, with some drivers emptying out their ash tray of change, another few handing bills from a wallet. When finally he made his way to our truck. I simply shook my head, without rolling down the window, and the man moved on. The light turned green and my son and I drove away. As we did I asked him a simple, but revealing question: "Can you tell me what just happened there?" He answered, "That homeless guy was begging for money, and you told him no." "True enough" I responded, "but there's more." I made a detour to the crudely named "ho-bo village" here in town, just 3 or 4 blocks from the Golden Nugget and all of Down Town. There my son's jaw dropped, for one after another a series of tents and make shift card board boxes lined the street in a scene reminiscent of a Great Depression era film, and in searing temperatures. "They live there?", he asked with true surprise on his face. I didn't say anything. I took a few more streets and came upon a building that reads: "Desert Industries", and I explained to him what that was. These buildings are all over town. They take in the homeless and clean them up in every sense of the phrase. Give them job training, a place to stay while they learn, and then set them up on job interviews. There is a catch though - in addition to some other rules such as curfews, it is an alcohol and drug free zone. He asked why they didn't just all go there. And I told him - "Because those people's hand outs, at the red light, enable them to stay in those shanty tents just one more afternoon. Their handouts make that village possible. Those people are enabling a fellow human being to live on the street just that much longer. So son, where is the compassion in that?"
See, in the end, whether they knew it or not, that person at the red light was making that hand out about his or her self. They felt good giving the homeless man money. They did ... and I did not. I had a different moral imperative. Who was right?
I submit that the person whose genuine compassion is driving them to make a moral argument for public health care, whether it be grandma's end of life decisions or a homeless man at the red light, they must inevitably trust that the government will define compassion the same way as they do. Does anyone think that will be the case? Has it ever? Did FEMA define "emergency management" the same way as you, Titus or I would?
I sincerely doubt it.
I hesitate to add to Titus's rather succinct description of "morality" regarding government programs, because it was quite good ... but what the hell, I will anyway.
I think each of us here have an agreed disdain, if not a flat out fear, for the American worship of a culture of death. Abortions to "divorce parties" to gangster rap music and the glorification of "loser-ism" in movies and TV, the trend is disconcerting to any aware adult. In my opinion the entire line up of the E Channel, to MTV to the grotesque mind numbing phenomena that is "reality tv" in which the only reality I can see is that the stars of these shows would have no other way of earning a living without that genera, is collectively nothing more than tooth decay in the mouth of society. But let me return to that in a moment ...
My initial reaction to Jambo's implicit endorsement of a "moral argument" for public health care was nearly the same as Titus. To be honest I earnestly thought Jambo was joking to get a rise with his post, but then he text me on my way to work to inform me that he was indeed serious. Something I was genuinely surprised at, because the opposition argument seemed so compelling, and so unarguably part of the American experience in Democracy that it seemed uncharacteristic for him to miss.
I phrased it slightly different then Titus. I expressed my belief that it has long been considered since the time of our founding fathers "immoral" for a government (especially a central government) to intrude into the life and choices of the individual. "Tyrannical" governments were written about extensively as the very source of immorality itself by our founders, and that "tyrannical" aspect most notably took the form of unjust taxation. It can be said that at the core of our national DNA is the belief that to deny a man the fruits of his own labor epitomizes immorality. And this is all part and parcel of Titus noting that a moral society is one that encourages a man to be charitable versus dictating he be, for in the latter the dictation itself becomes the immoral act. I'm sure I don't have to remind Jambo how many quotes of the founders, pre and post Constitutional Convention, that exist that touch on that very aspect of governance with near unanimity of opinion, and AGAIN I submit that either Barak Obama and the advocates of public health care are correct or the founders were ... but I digress.
Let me address this another way ... I had an argument similar to this with a Canadian co-worker (now a naturalized US citizen) whom was adamant that if public health care was not passed in the States that upon retirement he was heading back to Kunnuck country in order to avail himself of their socialized medicine. I scoffed at such a statement because he talked right past the obvious hypocrisy staring him in the face. He relocated, by his own admission, to the US to make more money. On the side he even runs his own business. Now here is a gentleman that fundamentally doesn't understand that the robust economy he opted for over the nation of his birth is robust precisely because our experiment in self governance has traditionally rejected the collective central planning he is lamenting we don't have!
Now reenter the culture of death discussion ... whether it be the media avenues we discussed or, lets say, burning the American flag, I submit that the answer to such acts we as private citizens define as "immoral" is not a curtailing of the bad actors speech, but rather more speech, from us. The answer to hate speech is not censorship, but more speech. The answer to a moral obligation (assuming you believe one exists) to provide all citizens with health care is not less options, it's more options. And we all know that if a government option is introduced it will eat through the private sector of health insurance providers until none other exists.
And let me just extrapolate further on that point. Once the government option becomes the sole option it is inevitable that the "prohibition effect" will come into play. In other words the best doctors, those at the top of their field, will simply opt out and render services exclusively for those whom can afford to pay cash. In which case you have in effect reserved the very best care for ONLY the uber rich ... and that is a populist's version of morality?
Unless of course you intend to make going out of the system illegal no matter if one posses the means to do so, in which case we are back to dictating morality being an act of immorality itself, and blatantly denying a man the fruits of his own labor.
Now so far our discussion has been primarily based on the immorality of forcing me to pay for my neighbors health care, or worse, as Titus aptly pointed out, the immorality of forcing me to cough up money in order for others to engage in procedures that I find abhorrent, be it abortion or condoms for 7th graders. But Jambo text me after I gave the short hand version of this post to him over the phone, and asked: "Well if we could find a way to do this without an additional burden of taxes, doesn't your entire argument dissipate?" In a word, NO.
First off, that's like asking an anti-war protester, "As long as there isn't any killing, would you be for war then?" I hardly see how you divorce the two and maintain a rationale discussion, but for the sake of argument, lets try.
If it is a "moral obligation" that we provide each and every citizen not equal opportunity to health care but (supposedly) equal care, haven't we ventured in to definitional Marxism? Lets further the question - Americans whom become doctors spend 4 years in undergrad school, another 4 years in medical school, and an additional 2 years as an intern, and in the process rack up hundreds of thousands in student bills and loans, and yet you are advocating that it is "ok" to limit their income once they attain their goal. And we all know that is precisely what will happen because be it socialized medicine or public insurance inevitably the private sector of either will be wiped clean, and since that causes a finite amount of care, that care WILL be rationed, and one of the ways to ration the finite resources, in other words reduce cost, will be to ration compensation (and as I think about it that action will result in a "doctors union" so say hello to the NEA teachers union version of health care ... ugh). At any rate, if you are comfortable with rationing compensation due to a moral imperative why not go a step further and install a "doctor draft?" Why not make 2 or 4 years of their service mandatory at military enlistee wages? They can get a draft letter at their office. The difference being of course that an enlistee begins his initial wages before he puts in his 10 years to be a soldier, not after. This would be the equivalent of the opposite. The dictation of compensation ... that is morality?
Let me deal with another aspect. You must realize that with a finite amount of services comes rationing, that's a given. In other words distant bureaucrats, government workers, whatever you want to call them, in the end they are strangers to you and your family, THEY will be judging the worth of a person's life. That is ultimately where senior care will head. They will have no choice but to consider the worth of the elderly patients ability to "contribute" ... and THAT is morality?
See, this is why I initially, in my text, described the "morality" argument for public health care as "insidious." Jambo claimed that this was "inflammatory rhetoric", but I mean that critique honestly. This moral imperative for government intervention is the grand puba of slippery slopes. It ultimately redefines freedom. As a moral imperative the government must step in and give you X, Y and Z. You need a house, you need an education, you need a car, why not have the government provide all of these at no cost to you as a moral imperative so you aren't bothered with the burden of having to provide these things for yourself? The rich can afford the taxes. After all, "true freedom," says the central planner, "is freedom from want. It is freedom from need." But ultimately that is freedom from "choice", from decisions, from being the master of your own destiny.
{deep exhale} ....
During this entire discussion I keep replaying a talk with my elder son I had not long ago. On the way to some errand we came upon a red light at a busy Las Vegas intersection. There, amidst the pounding heat, stood a disheveled unshaven man with a sign. "HUNGRY", it read. He was making his way from car window to car window, with some drivers emptying out their ash tray of change, another few handing bills from a wallet. When finally he made his way to our truck. I simply shook my head, without rolling down the window, and the man moved on. The light turned green and my son and I drove away. As we did I asked him a simple, but revealing question: "Can you tell me what just happened there?" He answered, "That homeless guy was begging for money, and you told him no." "True enough" I responded, "but there's more." I made a detour to the crudely named "ho-bo village" here in town, just 3 or 4 blocks from the Golden Nugget and all of Down Town. There my son's jaw dropped, for one after another a series of tents and make shift card board boxes lined the street in a scene reminiscent of a Great Depression era film, and in searing temperatures. "They live there?", he asked with true surprise on his face. I didn't say anything. I took a few more streets and came upon a building that reads: "Desert Industries", and I explained to him what that was. These buildings are all over town. They take in the homeless and clean them up in every sense of the phrase. Give them job training, a place to stay while they learn, and then set them up on job interviews. There is a catch though - in addition to some other rules such as curfews, it is an alcohol and drug free zone. He asked why they didn't just all go there. And I told him - "Because those people's hand outs, at the red light, enable them to stay in those shanty tents just one more afternoon. Their handouts make that village possible. Those people are enabling a fellow human being to live on the street just that much longer. So son, where is the compassion in that?"
See, in the end, whether they knew it or not, that person at the red light was making that hand out about his or her self. They felt good giving the homeless man money. They did ... and I did not. I had a different moral imperative. Who was right?
I submit that the person whose genuine compassion is driving them to make a moral argument for public health care, whether it be grandma's end of life decisions or a homeless man at the red light, they must inevitably trust that the government will define compassion the same way as they do. Does anyone think that will be the case? Has it ever? Did FEMA define "emergency management" the same way as you, Titus or I would?
I sincerely doubt it.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
She's right about one thing... you're an idiot!
Okay, the title is harsh... but it is my favorite BoB quote of all times, and I didn't want to break the streak. I do find it ironic that, as the only Democrat in the Bund, I'm the one offering the most lucid argument against the national health care proposals, though...
Jambo raises good points, but none more than the case of a more "moral" America. He is spot-on with his opinions concerning the Culture of Death in this society (and the world in general), as is his "defender of Camelot" who is his aunt and Godmother... but both have perhaps lost sight of what it means to be "moral" in a society such as ours.
I consider myself a moral man, and I work very hard to raise moral children in a more than simply "amoral" world. I think (and I think the Framers would agree with me) that the definition of a "moral society" is not one where the choices of its citizens are limited to ONE, or even a few, person's definition of what is or isn't MORAL. It is a society where each individual has the ability to make moral decisions and take moral actions as they see fit... not necessarily as I see fit. My definition of "immoral" would include drug abuse, abortion, teenage promiscuity and use of contraception, murder, rape, pornography... you get the picture. However, how many would feel the same about such practices and habits as alcohol use, tobacco use, punk music, tattoos and piercings, pre-marital sex, contraception within a marriage, swearing, or participating in military combat... none of which I feel is ALWAYS immoral?
As Jambo said, those of us who experienced the aftermath of Katrina have a far different view of what the Government is capable of... then, now or in the future. However, the other side of that coin is the almost heartbreaking and endless examples of charity, love and kindness that each and every one of us experienced from the hands of ordinary citizens, either directly or indirectly. Right there, we see a stunning example of what works and what doesn't... and the government side doesn't work. Want relief from the devestation of a hurricane, earthquake, tsunami, or forest fire? Don't count on the US Federal government... count on John Q. Public to make sure that there is enough water, shelter, clothing and medicine for those that need it.
When the tsunami hit the Indonesean islands in 2004, the US pledged $350 million in both short and long term aid, and to date, only $78 million has been delivered. Within the first 12 months of the disaster, the American public had delivered $1.1 billion dollars in cash relief, and another $1.6 billion in relief aid in the form of donated medicines, clothing, shelter, food and water. Does anyone here remember who was feeding Titus those first 7 days after Katrina? Not the Feds, and not the National Guard... it was the congregation of Bethel Lutheran Church, Falls IN... or the Newman Center volunteers from Excelsior College in Albany NY... or the Kiwanis Club from Rochester, MN... that who was feeding Titus in that first week after the storm. That's who was providing hospital and emergency care to his neighborhood. That's who was patroling his streets at night, keeping him safe.
Those that cry for greater governmental control of relief and care continually cry that society can't "hope and pray" for the generousity of the common man in times of disaster, yet it is... time after time... the common man that provides far more, and far better, relief than the Feds. A "moral" society is one that would encourage the common man to give more of himself and his ability, and not one that would dictate what the common man MUST give of himself and his ability.
Where is the example of state-provided "welfare" that compares in any way, shape or form with the "welfare" enjoyed by even the poorest Americans? What American family exists that doesn't have recourse to food, medicine, shelter and assistance in every facet of life? Even a family of four, with only one parent who doesn't work at all, has the opportunity to receive $1100 a month in food vouchers, $1600 a month in housing allowances, free access to public transportation, MedicAid or ACCESS cards for doctor's visits, and tax refunds when no taxes have ever been paid... and the opportunity to further an adult education is provided to those that can't pay in all fifty States. All this right NOW... no further reform or additional benefits need be enacted.
My point is, anything more that is to be given to the needy must be taken from those that are already working to better themselves and their families... so we must determine where the balance is. When is taking from Peter to provide for Paul beneficial to both, rather than harmful to both? Will we live in a more "moral" society when I am asked to pay for abortions through my tax dollars to teenagers who can't afford one themselves? Will society be more "moral" when my school taxes fund the teaching of contraception techniques and "freedom of choice" classes that are mandated by the Federal Government? Why would the legalization for the spending of Federal dollars on the surgical transformation of a convicted felon serving a life sentence from a "man" to a "woman" help make America more "moral"?
I'm not making this stuff up. Read the Bills as they have been submitted to both Houses of Congress, and you will find THIS in them! If this constitutes someone's idea of a more "moral" America because it provides "free" sub-par health care compared to what we have now, then I'll vote to keep paying my high insurance fees, even if it means I can't have my new hybrid car or that I have to work at my "less-than-green" job for more hours than I would like.
Jambo raises good points, but none more than the case of a more "moral" America. He is spot-on with his opinions concerning the Culture of Death in this society (and the world in general), as is his "defender of Camelot" who is his aunt and Godmother... but both have perhaps lost sight of what it means to be "moral" in a society such as ours.
I consider myself a moral man, and I work very hard to raise moral children in a more than simply "amoral" world. I think (and I think the Framers would agree with me) that the definition of a "moral society" is not one where the choices of its citizens are limited to ONE, or even a few, person's definition of what is or isn't MORAL. It is a society where each individual has the ability to make moral decisions and take moral actions as they see fit... not necessarily as I see fit. My definition of "immoral" would include drug abuse, abortion, teenage promiscuity and use of contraception, murder, rape, pornography... you get the picture. However, how many would feel the same about such practices and habits as alcohol use, tobacco use, punk music, tattoos and piercings, pre-marital sex, contraception within a marriage, swearing, or participating in military combat... none of which I feel is ALWAYS immoral?
As Jambo said, those of us who experienced the aftermath of Katrina have a far different view of what the Government is capable of... then, now or in the future. However, the other side of that coin is the almost heartbreaking and endless examples of charity, love and kindness that each and every one of us experienced from the hands of ordinary citizens, either directly or indirectly. Right there, we see a stunning example of what works and what doesn't... and the government side doesn't work. Want relief from the devestation of a hurricane, earthquake, tsunami, or forest fire? Don't count on the US Federal government... count on John Q. Public to make sure that there is enough water, shelter, clothing and medicine for those that need it.
When the tsunami hit the Indonesean islands in 2004, the US pledged $350 million in both short and long term aid, and to date, only $78 million has been delivered. Within the first 12 months of the disaster, the American public had delivered $1.1 billion dollars in cash relief, and another $1.6 billion in relief aid in the form of donated medicines, clothing, shelter, food and water. Does anyone here remember who was feeding Titus those first 7 days after Katrina? Not the Feds, and not the National Guard... it was the congregation of Bethel Lutheran Church, Falls IN... or the Newman Center volunteers from Excelsior College in Albany NY... or the Kiwanis Club from Rochester, MN... that who was feeding Titus in that first week after the storm. That's who was providing hospital and emergency care to his neighborhood. That's who was patroling his streets at night, keeping him safe.
Those that cry for greater governmental control of relief and care continually cry that society can't "hope and pray" for the generousity of the common man in times of disaster, yet it is... time after time... the common man that provides far more, and far better, relief than the Feds. A "moral" society is one that would encourage the common man to give more of himself and his ability, and not one that would dictate what the common man MUST give of himself and his ability.
Where is the example of state-provided "welfare" that compares in any way, shape or form with the "welfare" enjoyed by even the poorest Americans? What American family exists that doesn't have recourse to food, medicine, shelter and assistance in every facet of life? Even a family of four, with only one parent who doesn't work at all, has the opportunity to receive $1100 a month in food vouchers, $1600 a month in housing allowances, free access to public transportation, MedicAid or ACCESS cards for doctor's visits, and tax refunds when no taxes have ever been paid... and the opportunity to further an adult education is provided to those that can't pay in all fifty States. All this right NOW... no further reform or additional benefits need be enacted.
My point is, anything more that is to be given to the needy must be taken from those that are already working to better themselves and their families... so we must determine where the balance is. When is taking from Peter to provide for Paul beneficial to both, rather than harmful to both? Will we live in a more "moral" society when I am asked to pay for abortions through my tax dollars to teenagers who can't afford one themselves? Will society be more "moral" when my school taxes fund the teaching of contraception techniques and "freedom of choice" classes that are mandated by the Federal Government? Why would the legalization for the spending of Federal dollars on the surgical transformation of a convicted felon serving a life sentence from a "man" to a "woman" help make America more "moral"?
I'm not making this stuff up. Read the Bills as they have been submitted to both Houses of Congress, and you will find THIS in them! If this constitutes someone's idea of a more "moral" America because it provides "free" sub-par health care compared to what we have now, then I'll vote to keep paying my high insurance fees, even if it means I can't have my new hybrid car or that I have to work at my "less-than-green" job for more hours than I would like.
"I'm hanging on every word..."
Okay... Ryan sent me a text needing proof about the badness of socialized medicine. I don't have it and that's not what this post is about, so just bear with me and answer my questions, please.
1) If a national health insurance bill passed, removing the burden of "benefits" from employers and placing it on the federal government (John and Suzie Taxpayer) would there be an economic bounce? A good bounce? Because that's a large chunk of change companies aren't paying out anymore.
2) If a national health insurance bill would cost us $1,000,000,000,000 (wow... write that number out and it still is impossible to wrap your brain around...) over ten years, is there ANY comparable INCOME to offset this expense over the same time frame? If the feds tax the businesses the SAME or slightly more money for the federal health insurance as what they're paying out now, where has the economic benefit gone?
3) Would this federal health insurance be run for a profit? If so, if it is designed to be self sustaining, then were is the advantage other than the universal aspect of coverage? You still have a large insurance entity gouging clients, the very thing people are bemoaning now.
4) If the federal health insurance is NOT to be run for a profit, then what precedent are we setting in the business world?
#4 is a very important question and I want you guys to think about this. I look outside my patio door right now and I see empty lots where businesses and homes once stood, empty lots that will remain empty as long as no one can get insurance for the homes and businesses that would replace those lost during Katrina. The second largest profit earnings raked in the last quarter of 2005 and all of 2006, second only to oil, was insurance. State Farm, Allstate, you get it. During the largest national disaster in this nations history these companies made billions. So the model for an insurance program MAKING money is there... If the feds choose to follow it and ease the burden on the taxpayers.
5) Are there some aspects of American society that should NOT be for a profit?
I spoke to the champion of Camelot for three hours last week concerning federal health insurance and she answered the tough questions without hesitation and without shame, something Obama has not done yet. She suggested a moderate tax on big businesses, (those employing over 500 people) and a tax increase on the top ten percent income bracket. She immediately stated that this would NOT cover the trillion dollar over ten year cost of the coverage, but stated in Camelot style that we choose to do the hard things and not pass the buck to future generations, and as a society we FIND ways of making it happen. She also stated that it's the RIGHT thing to do, and as a Christian nation we need to start doing the right thing as a society.
My personal opinion is this. Most of my youthful idealism was lost in the debris removal of Katrina. I have very little faith in the federal government and its ability to help me directly. But more frightening than this nation's financial bankruptcy is its growing MORAL bankruptcy. I am NOT saying we're the great Satan so fire down, but we all have looked in the national mirror and seen the Culture of Death looking back at us. I have been without health coverage for thirteen months and, knock on wood, dodged bullets. I'm one health incident away from bankruptcy myself. I'm not a fan of Obama at all. Could Bobby Jindhal make this happen? Could Haley Barbour? Could Patraeus? HOW could they do it?
What if F. Ryan got elected with all the conservative mandates intact SAVE universal health coverage? How would we make it happen? Work with me on this, it'll be fun. And maybe someone will steal these ideas like they did the troop surge.
1) If a national health insurance bill passed, removing the burden of "benefits" from employers and placing it on the federal government (John and Suzie Taxpayer) would there be an economic bounce? A good bounce? Because that's a large chunk of change companies aren't paying out anymore.
2) If a national health insurance bill would cost us $1,000,000,000,000 (wow... write that number out and it still is impossible to wrap your brain around...) over ten years, is there ANY comparable INCOME to offset this expense over the same time frame? If the feds tax the businesses the SAME or slightly more money for the federal health insurance as what they're paying out now, where has the economic benefit gone?
3) Would this federal health insurance be run for a profit? If so, if it is designed to be self sustaining, then were is the advantage other than the universal aspect of coverage? You still have a large insurance entity gouging clients, the very thing people are bemoaning now.
4) If the federal health insurance is NOT to be run for a profit, then what precedent are we setting in the business world?
#4 is a very important question and I want you guys to think about this. I look outside my patio door right now and I see empty lots where businesses and homes once stood, empty lots that will remain empty as long as no one can get insurance for the homes and businesses that would replace those lost during Katrina. The second largest profit earnings raked in the last quarter of 2005 and all of 2006, second only to oil, was insurance. State Farm, Allstate, you get it. During the largest national disaster in this nations history these companies made billions. So the model for an insurance program MAKING money is there... If the feds choose to follow it and ease the burden on the taxpayers.
5) Are there some aspects of American society that should NOT be for a profit?
I spoke to the champion of Camelot for three hours last week concerning federal health insurance and she answered the tough questions without hesitation and without shame, something Obama has not done yet. She suggested a moderate tax on big businesses, (those employing over 500 people) and a tax increase on the top ten percent income bracket. She immediately stated that this would NOT cover the trillion dollar over ten year cost of the coverage, but stated in Camelot style that we choose to do the hard things and not pass the buck to future generations, and as a society we FIND ways of making it happen. She also stated that it's the RIGHT thing to do, and as a Christian nation we need to start doing the right thing as a society.
My personal opinion is this. Most of my youthful idealism was lost in the debris removal of Katrina. I have very little faith in the federal government and its ability to help me directly. But more frightening than this nation's financial bankruptcy is its growing MORAL bankruptcy. I am NOT saying we're the great Satan so fire down, but we all have looked in the national mirror and seen the Culture of Death looking back at us. I have been without health coverage for thirteen months and, knock on wood, dodged bullets. I'm one health incident away from bankruptcy myself. I'm not a fan of Obama at all. Could Bobby Jindhal make this happen? Could Haley Barbour? Could Patraeus? HOW could they do it?
What if F. Ryan got elected with all the conservative mandates intact SAVE universal health coverage? How would we make it happen? Work with me on this, it'll be fun. And maybe someone will steal these ideas like they did the troop surge.
"Captain Sobel doesn't hate Easy Company private, he just hates you."
Well thank you Titus.
I admit, I laughed as soon as I read your title, I knew what was coming in the first paragraph ... hehehe.
Well - Van Jones is out. The idea that we even have a "green jobs czar" position strikes me as a sad commentary on our national course heading. It might as well be named "post industrial America czar." At any rate this is no mere partisan head hunting commentary (not that we engage in that here anyway), for this individuals ideology was shockingly radical, read: dangerous to the US economy. Among his infamous affiliations he became an avowed communist after the Rodney King verdict (I'm still trying to figure out what one has to do with the other, I mean does he prefer a shorter anagram then LAPD to conduct his citizen beatings ... say KGB?); he has described capitalism and societies that embrace it in the most derogatory of terms; he insisted we as a nation must move to an "eco-economy"; quipped that "it's white kids, not black kids that shoot up entire schools" (a Columbine reference); and the 2nd of his biggest dust-ups: he referred to Republicans (on video) as "a** holes." Now that last one I find least offensive of all, in fact I don't find any offense truth be told. Some Republicans ARE a** holes. We learned that in the bailouts, original TARP money, the Southern border debates, etc. One comes to mind immediately ... I'm thinking of a name ... rhymes with Karaln Fector ... I'll think of it in a minute. At any rate the offense that finally sealed his fate was evidence that he signed an online petition asking the US Government to reveal its role in staging the 9/11 attacks. Seriously, what exactly IS the vetting process at the White House? Or even more scary to consider - perhaps Jones aced that process. And THAT is why this resignation holds relevance - our president continually asks us to suspend our senses and buy into the notion that whether it's Reverend Wright, or Bill Ayers or Bernadine Dorn, or his warm greeting of Chavez, the off script comments about "spreading the wealth around", all the way to hiring an actual Communist in his White House, that ALL OF THIS is some series of isolated events and coincidental people within his life, and in truth he is not a socialist himself, not a practicing neo-Marxist, not a statist, that what he has in common with all of these people is a love of sports I suppose. At some point any clear thinking independent voter that was giving him the benefit of the doubt last election cycle is going to conclude that the mosaic of his life points in a very definite direction, and there goes 2012, perhaps sooner, 2010.
Well ... I do appreciate your kudos on "Berkley boy." My only regret is you weren't standing floor during all of this. But it occurs to me that the one most in need of support & encouragement going forward is his soon to be bride. I didn't mention this in my last. See, I asked him if she enjoyed politics and history, if his bride to be shared that interest of his (in an attempt to lighten the conversation at one heated point). He responded, and I quote: "Yes, we talk politics some times, but she comes from a lower socio-economic background then I."
HA! I laughed & murmured to myself, "Well buddy, I'll see you back here when you're trying to get over your divorce." Hehehehe.
I admit, I laughed as soon as I read your title, I knew what was coming in the first paragraph ... hehehe.
Well - Van Jones is out. The idea that we even have a "green jobs czar" position strikes me as a sad commentary on our national course heading. It might as well be named "post industrial America czar." At any rate this is no mere partisan head hunting commentary (not that we engage in that here anyway), for this individuals ideology was shockingly radical, read: dangerous to the US economy. Among his infamous affiliations he became an avowed communist after the Rodney King verdict (I'm still trying to figure out what one has to do with the other, I mean does he prefer a shorter anagram then LAPD to conduct his citizen beatings ... say KGB?); he has described capitalism and societies that embrace it in the most derogatory of terms; he insisted we as a nation must move to an "eco-economy"; quipped that "it's white kids, not black kids that shoot up entire schools" (a Columbine reference); and the 2nd of his biggest dust-ups: he referred to Republicans (on video) as "a** holes." Now that last one I find least offensive of all, in fact I don't find any offense truth be told. Some Republicans ARE a** holes. We learned that in the bailouts, original TARP money, the Southern border debates, etc. One comes to mind immediately ... I'm thinking of a name ... rhymes with Karaln Fector ... I'll think of it in a minute. At any rate the offense that finally sealed his fate was evidence that he signed an online petition asking the US Government to reveal its role in staging the 9/11 attacks. Seriously, what exactly IS the vetting process at the White House? Or even more scary to consider - perhaps Jones aced that process. And THAT is why this resignation holds relevance - our president continually asks us to suspend our senses and buy into the notion that whether it's Reverend Wright, or Bill Ayers or Bernadine Dorn, or his warm greeting of Chavez, the off script comments about "spreading the wealth around", all the way to hiring an actual Communist in his White House, that ALL OF THIS is some series of isolated events and coincidental people within his life, and in truth he is not a socialist himself, not a practicing neo-Marxist, not a statist, that what he has in common with all of these people is a love of sports I suppose. At some point any clear thinking independent voter that was giving him the benefit of the doubt last election cycle is going to conclude that the mosaic of his life points in a very definite direction, and there goes 2012, perhaps sooner, 2010.
Well ... I do appreciate your kudos on "Berkley boy." My only regret is you weren't standing floor during all of this. But it occurs to me that the one most in need of support & encouragement going forward is his soon to be bride. I didn't mention this in my last. See, I asked him if she enjoyed politics and history, if his bride to be shared that interest of his (in an attempt to lighten the conversation at one heated point). He responded, and I quote: "Yes, we talk politics some times, but she comes from a lower socio-economic background then I."
HA! I laughed & murmured to myself, "Well buddy, I'll see you back here when you're trying to get over your divorce." Hehehehe.
That was priceless...
However, there were symptoms of your Berkley-boy that any outsider would have recognized in YOU when I first met you.
Not symptoms of liberalism, or leftist ideology, or blanket indoctrination from your educational experiences... but you did have a nasty habit all those years ago of basing your initial opinions on someone else's observations (admittedly, most were conservative pundits... but not all).
Now, the biggest difference here (and I am NOT bashing Ryan... far from) is that Ryan has shown a capacity... nay, a passionate drive... to develop and improve his perspective on all things political. Berkley-boy will not begin to do that until he admits that neither he, nor his "sources", are the end-all authorities on political, economic, or social topics. He is basing his ENTIRE political and (probably) historical point-of-view on someone else's observations and commentary, and has no objective, personal hand in gaining insight into the topics he professes to be an expert in because he "wrote a paper".
By the way, if only I could express to anyone reading this how often I have "written papers" (both for myself and others... hehe) on topics that I literally knew NOTHING about and still got 3.8 or greater grades each and every time, I'd go a long way to making this Berkley-boy seem rather tame in his "authority"... but I can't adequately express how my mild ability in the realm of "fiction-writing" has earned me more A+ grades than anything my research ability got me. I mean, really... I once took a class in college called "A Political History of Post-War Poland, from 1945 to 1985" and I guaranty you there was never a drier, more boring class taught in all of human history. I attended the first two or three lectures on the class, then decided I was more likely to learn something by watching ALF or CHEERS, so I stopped going altogether. Come the end of the term, I walked in, took the final exam (which was three hours of essay questions) and passed with an A-. That alone would make me stop listening to Berkley-boy upon hearing him expostulate on his expertise due to writing a paper... sheesh.
Anyway... back to the topic... Berkley-boy will only stand successful in his ability to defend his position if he remains surrounded by like-minded idiots, particularly those that graduated from the same school. His encounter with you should have taught him just how vulnerable his "opinion" is when faced with someone that has the ability to balance political opinion with an historical perspective and an objective eye. He will never be able to do that AND maintain his radical opinions, because his radical opinions do not stand up to the kind of yardstick history holds up.
So, to make a long post longer...
Well done, Ryan! That's one Berkley graduate down... 350,000 more to go before you've hit them all since 1999.
Not symptoms of liberalism, or leftist ideology, or blanket indoctrination from your educational experiences... but you did have a nasty habit all those years ago of basing your initial opinions on someone else's observations (admittedly, most were conservative pundits... but not all).
Now, the biggest difference here (and I am NOT bashing Ryan... far from) is that Ryan has shown a capacity... nay, a passionate drive... to develop and improve his perspective on all things political. Berkley-boy will not begin to do that until he admits that neither he, nor his "sources", are the end-all authorities on political, economic, or social topics. He is basing his ENTIRE political and (probably) historical point-of-view on someone else's observations and commentary, and has no objective, personal hand in gaining insight into the topics he professes to be an expert in because he "wrote a paper".
By the way, if only I could express to anyone reading this how often I have "written papers" (both for myself and others... hehe) on topics that I literally knew NOTHING about and still got 3.8 or greater grades each and every time, I'd go a long way to making this Berkley-boy seem rather tame in his "authority"... but I can't adequately express how my mild ability in the realm of "fiction-writing" has earned me more A+ grades than anything my research ability got me. I mean, really... I once took a class in college called "A Political History of Post-War Poland, from 1945 to 1985" and I guaranty you there was never a drier, more boring class taught in all of human history. I attended the first two or three lectures on the class, then decided I was more likely to learn something by watching ALF or CHEERS, so I stopped going altogether. Come the end of the term, I walked in, took the final exam (which was three hours of essay questions) and passed with an A-. That alone would make me stop listening to Berkley-boy upon hearing him expostulate on his expertise due to writing a paper... sheesh.
Anyway... back to the topic... Berkley-boy will only stand successful in his ability to defend his position if he remains surrounded by like-minded idiots, particularly those that graduated from the same school. His encounter with you should have taught him just how vulnerable his "opinion" is when faced with someone that has the ability to balance political opinion with an historical perspective and an objective eye. He will never be able to do that AND maintain his radical opinions, because his radical opinions do not stand up to the kind of yardstick history holds up.
So, to make a long post longer...
Well done, Ryan! That's one Berkley graduate down... 350,000 more to go before you've hit them all since 1999.
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Excercises in masochism ...
Why?
Why oh why do I do this to myself?
I learn that a 30-something PhD in "presidential politics" is on my game, and that he graduated from the University of California at Berkley, and I proceed, nay INSIST, on pressing a political discussion. By the way, he was there for his bachelor party weekend.
Where should I begin? Now while I'm certainly not going to recitre the entire 90 minutes let me give you some highlights. I referred, not in pssing sacharrin style but with earnest intent that Obama is definitionally a neo-Marxist. Which he of course denied. But then informed me, and I quote: "Marxism is essentially about equal opportunity." No, I explained, it's about equal outcomes, not opportunity. At which point the phrase was uttered by he that I would hear again no less than 3 dozen times in 90 minutes - "Trust me, I wrote an entire paper on this." Oh, well, why didn't you say so, you put pen to paper, well it must be true then. The absolute dismisiveness in tone and thought directed at me, whom he mistook for unwashed simply because I am unpublished, was thicker than War and Peace. My friend, I went on, I realize you're not used to siting down in a recreational setting with others that have also read the Communist Manifesto, but the "opportunity" you speak of is opportunity defined by the ideology, thus the state, and not the individual, which ultimately means that the outcome is defined by the state, i.e. equality of outcome. And while I am at it, if Marx was so "fair", so laudable, why are you going to such great lengths to convince me that Obama is NOT a Marxist? That one set him back for a second ... we moved on to health care.
"Can you name me another industrialized Western nation that DOESN'T offer public health care." To which I responded, "no." And added my own question - can you name an industrialized Western nation, or ANY nation regardless of classification, that has advanced treatment and medicine superior to that of the US? Can you name one whom enjoys superior economic or military status? "Well that is separate and away from health care." Really? Or is that portion of the DNA within our character which rejects socialized medicine also responsible for the superpower status we now enjoy, in other words is that rejection of a public option but an example of how our notions of government and governance has enhanced the human condition more in the last 233 years then in the previous 5000? He responded by telling me the NHS (National Health Service) approval rating in the UK, which he claims is 85%. We went on to Reagan ...
"Reagan raised taxes 8 times. All in a recession too." Now I admit I thought he would trip me up if I simply answered with a flat "False!", and cite some obscure FCC fee that appears on your phone or cable bill. So, I simply asked him what the top marginal rate was at Reagan's ascension (it was almost 70%) and what it was when he left office (which was roughly 39%). It is indisputable that he cut taxes, and doubled receipts to the National Treasury, thus proving in the real world that the Laffer Curve Theory was correct. That cutting taxes RAISES revenue because the result is the creation of more tax payers rather than more tax law. We moved to cycle & hammer tee shirts ...
I asked him, given he lives in Santa Barbara, why these 17 tear old children of yuppies are fascinated with spending their capitalist parent's money on Soviet tees and Che Rivera shirts, not to mention a Mao & Stalin pictorial belt (yes, a belt for one's pants) I witnessed first hand at my own local mall? I submitted that the cycle and hammer should be AS offensive to democratic societies as the Swastika. He of course disagreed, stating that Marx never murdered anyone, and those were the regimes of Lenin and Stalin et al. I noted that Marxism's end game IS INHERENTLY "Stalinism" because it conflicts with natural law, but putting that aside our question is centered around symbolism, not Marx, and that symbol represented a murderous, repressive regime for 70 years, responsible for the murder of nearly five times that of the National Socialist Party in Germany, so why would he not be just as offended? He interrupted me with a question on doubling down on soft 15 against a 5 and we didn't return to the subject.
We called last shoe and as that shoe came to a close he offered his hand and noted: "Let me leave you with this - just don't call people on the left, people you disagree with, anti-American or unpatriotic. There;'s too much of that on the right." To be honest I find their singular sensitivity to that claim curious, because I've never done such a thing nor witnessed any other member of the "right" do so. In return I replied, "Well let ME leave YOU with this - either the Founding Fathers were right or Obama is, there's no in between." Which got wild applause from his entourage. He asked which Founding Father? I noted Jefferson, and the authors of the Federalist papers, Madison & Hamilton. He immediately noted Hamilton's avocation of a central bank, which got my eyes to roll, I mean as if my beef with Obama centers around his support for a central bank, come on already. So I refined that oft repeated phrase of mine: "Well then. Either the conclusions drawn at the Constitutional Convention are correct, or Obama is."
He said I should watch less Fox News, and politely left.
I learned 2 very valuable things. One, although I rarely do it anyway I will NEVER AGAIN attempt to lend credibility to my argument by prefacing it with the phrase: "I wrote a paper on this." That is THE MOST obnoxious statement as a point of argument one could ever hear and I regret I used it in my youth once or twise. The facts must speak for themselves. I mean to tell you I listened to Dr. Thomas Sowell on the radio today and not once did he preface his statements with a statement about his degrees or writing, and this is a man that's published 43 books. Secondly, I realized that if you go into researching history in order to affirm your political ideology, rather than inform it, you get the man I argued with tonight.
He picks a school that is simpatico. Courses and professors that are the same. Surrounds himself with colleagues that are, and simply dismisses the average American as (and he actually said this): "unable to comprehend nuance." Realize now that he says this while engaged in a nuance laced conversation with an "average American." An academic whom believes to his core that Americans are simply incapable of making self beneficial decisions on their own behalf ... sounds like the job qualification for "CZAR" if you ask me.
Why oh why do I do this to myself?
I learn that a 30-something PhD in "presidential politics" is on my game, and that he graduated from the University of California at Berkley, and I proceed, nay INSIST, on pressing a political discussion. By the way, he was there for his bachelor party weekend.
Where should I begin? Now while I'm certainly not going to recitre the entire 90 minutes let me give you some highlights. I referred, not in pssing sacharrin style but with earnest intent that Obama is definitionally a neo-Marxist. Which he of course denied. But then informed me, and I quote: "Marxism is essentially about equal opportunity." No, I explained, it's about equal outcomes, not opportunity. At which point the phrase was uttered by he that I would hear again no less than 3 dozen times in 90 minutes - "Trust me, I wrote an entire paper on this." Oh, well, why didn't you say so, you put pen to paper, well it must be true then. The absolute dismisiveness in tone and thought directed at me, whom he mistook for unwashed simply because I am unpublished, was thicker than War and Peace. My friend, I went on, I realize you're not used to siting down in a recreational setting with others that have also read the Communist Manifesto, but the "opportunity" you speak of is opportunity defined by the ideology, thus the state, and not the individual, which ultimately means that the outcome is defined by the state, i.e. equality of outcome. And while I am at it, if Marx was so "fair", so laudable, why are you going to such great lengths to convince me that Obama is NOT a Marxist? That one set him back for a second ... we moved on to health care.
"Can you name me another industrialized Western nation that DOESN'T offer public health care." To which I responded, "no." And added my own question - can you name an industrialized Western nation, or ANY nation regardless of classification, that has advanced treatment and medicine superior to that of the US? Can you name one whom enjoys superior economic or military status? "Well that is separate and away from health care." Really? Or is that portion of the DNA within our character which rejects socialized medicine also responsible for the superpower status we now enjoy, in other words is that rejection of a public option but an example of how our notions of government and governance has enhanced the human condition more in the last 233 years then in the previous 5000? He responded by telling me the NHS (National Health Service) approval rating in the UK, which he claims is 85%. We went on to Reagan ...
"Reagan raised taxes 8 times. All in a recession too." Now I admit I thought he would trip me up if I simply answered with a flat "False!", and cite some obscure FCC fee that appears on your phone or cable bill. So, I simply asked him what the top marginal rate was at Reagan's ascension (it was almost 70%) and what it was when he left office (which was roughly 39%). It is indisputable that he cut taxes, and doubled receipts to the National Treasury, thus proving in the real world that the Laffer Curve Theory was correct. That cutting taxes RAISES revenue because the result is the creation of more tax payers rather than more tax law. We moved to cycle & hammer tee shirts ...
I asked him, given he lives in Santa Barbara, why these 17 tear old children of yuppies are fascinated with spending their capitalist parent's money on Soviet tees and Che Rivera shirts, not to mention a Mao & Stalin pictorial belt (yes, a belt for one's pants) I witnessed first hand at my own local mall? I submitted that the cycle and hammer should be AS offensive to democratic societies as the Swastika. He of course disagreed, stating that Marx never murdered anyone, and those were the regimes of Lenin and Stalin et al. I noted that Marxism's end game IS INHERENTLY "Stalinism" because it conflicts with natural law, but putting that aside our question is centered around symbolism, not Marx, and that symbol represented a murderous, repressive regime for 70 years, responsible for the murder of nearly five times that of the National Socialist Party in Germany, so why would he not be just as offended? He interrupted me with a question on doubling down on soft 15 against a 5 and we didn't return to the subject.
We called last shoe and as that shoe came to a close he offered his hand and noted: "Let me leave you with this - just don't call people on the left, people you disagree with, anti-American or unpatriotic. There;'s too much of that on the right." To be honest I find their singular sensitivity to that claim curious, because I've never done such a thing nor witnessed any other member of the "right" do so. In return I replied, "Well let ME leave YOU with this - either the Founding Fathers were right or Obama is, there's no in between." Which got wild applause from his entourage. He asked which Founding Father? I noted Jefferson, and the authors of the Federalist papers, Madison & Hamilton. He immediately noted Hamilton's avocation of a central bank, which got my eyes to roll, I mean as if my beef with Obama centers around his support for a central bank, come on already. So I refined that oft repeated phrase of mine: "Well then. Either the conclusions drawn at the Constitutional Convention are correct, or Obama is."
He said I should watch less Fox News, and politely left.
I learned 2 very valuable things. One, although I rarely do it anyway I will NEVER AGAIN attempt to lend credibility to my argument by prefacing it with the phrase: "I wrote a paper on this." That is THE MOST obnoxious statement as a point of argument one could ever hear and I regret I used it in my youth once or twise. The facts must speak for themselves. I mean to tell you I listened to Dr. Thomas Sowell on the radio today and not once did he preface his statements with a statement about his degrees or writing, and this is a man that's published 43 books. Secondly, I realized that if you go into researching history in order to affirm your political ideology, rather than inform it, you get the man I argued with tonight.
He picks a school that is simpatico. Courses and professors that are the same. Surrounds himself with colleagues that are, and simply dismisses the average American as (and he actually said this): "unable to comprehend nuance." Realize now that he says this while engaged in a nuance laced conversation with an "average American." An academic whom believes to his core that Americans are simply incapable of making self beneficial decisions on their own behalf ... sounds like the job qualification for "CZAR" if you ask me.
Friday, September 4, 2009
A road map ...
So my sister texts me to say that my nephew's school in MS sent home a letter to parents explaining that the school will NOT be airing the president's much talked about "Obama youth" speech. The reason listed? It, "interferes with the children's lunch schedule." Hehehe. And I've heard these similar reports from my various family members (& given we're Irish Catholic or Mormon, that's a considerable number) across the fruited plain. And it occurred to me ...
... when this speech is all said and done I'd bet that you could take a map of districts/counties that "opted out" of this speech, lay it over a map of voting districts and get a fairly good picture of where the president stands come the 2010 midterms, and even the 2012 presidential race. And given we are looking at an extended fight on public health care over the coming months as the president is forced to get even more specific, that map only stands to get worse for the Democrat Party.
Be it the Communist "green job czar" Van Jones whom makes Reverend Wright look like a sedated school librarian, & remember he is actually IN the administration (by the way, if there was such a thing as green jobs the private sector would of created it - it's either a job or it is not); or the original trio of Weather Underground friends; or socialist professors once and still embraced; or the "spread the wealth around" comments, all the way to finding the Constitution "too cumbersome", apologizing for America or "Americanism" abroad or desiring the nation to undergo a "fundamental transformation," the American people are waking up to the reality of this president's ideology. And he is rapidly finding that being a stealth Marxist is much easier as "candidate Obama" then it is as President Obama.
And I would ask anyone whom still "believes" this president is on the right course to consider this ... either the Founding Fathers were right or Obama is, there is no in between.
... when this speech is all said and done I'd bet that you could take a map of districts/counties that "opted out" of this speech, lay it over a map of voting districts and get a fairly good picture of where the president stands come the 2010 midterms, and even the 2012 presidential race. And given we are looking at an extended fight on public health care over the coming months as the president is forced to get even more specific, that map only stands to get worse for the Democrat Party.
Be it the Communist "green job czar" Van Jones whom makes Reverend Wright look like a sedated school librarian, & remember he is actually IN the administration (by the way, if there was such a thing as green jobs the private sector would of created it - it's either a job or it is not); or the original trio of Weather Underground friends; or socialist professors once and still embraced; or the "spread the wealth around" comments, all the way to finding the Constitution "too cumbersome", apologizing for America or "Americanism" abroad or desiring the nation to undergo a "fundamental transformation," the American people are waking up to the reality of this president's ideology. And he is rapidly finding that being a stealth Marxist is much easier as "candidate Obama" then it is as President Obama.
And I would ask anyone whom still "believes" this president is on the right course to consider this ... either the Founding Fathers were right or Obama is, there is no in between.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
The President's "Lesson Plan"...
Sometimes I think this nation is comprised of... well, idiots.
On the chilly morning of Jan 20, 1961, we heard the last great Democratic President of the United States say, during his Inaugural Address, that we should "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."
Now, we see the White House planning an address that will will focus on school children and how they can "help the President" reach his goals in education and national reform. This address will be pumped into classrooms across this nation, from pre-kindergarten to the high school level, and will be accompanied by a "lesson plan" appropriate for the ages involved. This plan includes having the younger children write letters to themselves pledging to "help" the President, and outlining how they will do that, to having the older children study the background and history of our President and his rise to the highest office in the land.
The "liberal Left" in this country does not seem to see a difference between the two calls. They see Obama's address as a logical continuation of the Kennedy call made 48 years ago... something they seem to feel has been forgotten (this according to the First Lady herself).
In 1961, Kennedy called for a renewed sense of patriotic and civic duty. His call was to give notice that the incoming Democratic administration would NOT continue the "New Deal" policies of either the outgoing Republican administration or the previous Democratic plans of FDR and Truman. The message was that the Federal Government was NOT there to support and determine the "general welfare" of the society, but that IT depended on the support of the people. Kennedy understood that a society without the incentive to contribute voluntarily would necessarily be forced to make contributions to the society compulsory, and that such compulsory actions detract from our personal freedoms and liberties as defined by our Constitution.
Obama's plans seem to remove the focus from the "country" and move that focus to the "President" himself. Aside from the superficial and narcissistic nature of such a request, I am afraid that this would send a dangerous message to future generations. In a society such as ours, where we routinely refer to the men that helped found our Republic as the Founding Fathers, and we point to these men as role models for today's youth. These men fought (and some died) for the defense of the inherent right to disagree with authority, to dissent and voice a contrary opinion to stated policy. Obama himself made many allusions to the "patriotic" nature of the dissenter's voice in American politics, repeatedly saying that opposition to Administration policy DID NOT equal "un-American" or unpatriotic actions... on the contrary, he led us to believe it was the height of patriotism and a yardstick for American diversity in politics.
Should a child of mine voice a dissenting opinion to the policies and agendas laid out in this upcoming speech to the children of our nation, can Obama guaranty that they won't be marginalized? Can he show me that the "lesson plan" he is proposing will not make support and adherence to the Obama administration seem "mainstream"... if not compulsory... to our students? Would I be wrong in urging my kids to write a letter to themselves stating that they will openly, and with enthusiasm, oppose any stated policy or position taken by the Administration that they feel is outside the scope of Federal government as defined by our Constitution... especially if the schools and teachers couldn't guaranty objective and open environments for such lessons? I think not...
In 1961, the torch did, indeed, pass to a new generation. The Obama White House, however, is trying its damnedest to pass on a "new torch" rather than show the world what the "next generation" is capable of with the torch we have held for more than 225 years. That isn't simply partisan in its nature... it is criminal, in my opinion.
On the chilly morning of Jan 20, 1961, we heard the last great Democratic President of the United States say, during his Inaugural Address, that we should "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."
Now, we see the White House planning an address that will will focus on school children and how they can "help the President" reach his goals in education and national reform. This address will be pumped into classrooms across this nation, from pre-kindergarten to the high school level, and will be accompanied by a "lesson plan" appropriate for the ages involved. This plan includes having the younger children write letters to themselves pledging to "help" the President, and outlining how they will do that, to having the older children study the background and history of our President and his rise to the highest office in the land.
The "liberal Left" in this country does not seem to see a difference between the two calls. They see Obama's address as a logical continuation of the Kennedy call made 48 years ago... something they seem to feel has been forgotten (this according to the First Lady herself).
In 1961, Kennedy called for a renewed sense of patriotic and civic duty. His call was to give notice that the incoming Democratic administration would NOT continue the "New Deal" policies of either the outgoing Republican administration or the previous Democratic plans of FDR and Truman. The message was that the Federal Government was NOT there to support and determine the "general welfare" of the society, but that IT depended on the support of the people. Kennedy understood that a society without the incentive to contribute voluntarily would necessarily be forced to make contributions to the society compulsory, and that such compulsory actions detract from our personal freedoms and liberties as defined by our Constitution.
Obama's plans seem to remove the focus from the "country" and move that focus to the "President" himself. Aside from the superficial and narcissistic nature of such a request, I am afraid that this would send a dangerous message to future generations. In a society such as ours, where we routinely refer to the men that helped found our Republic as the Founding Fathers, and we point to these men as role models for today's youth. These men fought (and some died) for the defense of the inherent right to disagree with authority, to dissent and voice a contrary opinion to stated policy. Obama himself made many allusions to the "patriotic" nature of the dissenter's voice in American politics, repeatedly saying that opposition to Administration policy DID NOT equal "un-American" or unpatriotic actions... on the contrary, he led us to believe it was the height of patriotism and a yardstick for American diversity in politics.
Should a child of mine voice a dissenting opinion to the policies and agendas laid out in this upcoming speech to the children of our nation, can Obama guaranty that they won't be marginalized? Can he show me that the "lesson plan" he is proposing will not make support and adherence to the Obama administration seem "mainstream"... if not compulsory... to our students? Would I be wrong in urging my kids to write a letter to themselves stating that they will openly, and with enthusiasm, oppose any stated policy or position taken by the Administration that they feel is outside the scope of Federal government as defined by our Constitution... especially if the schools and teachers couldn't guaranty objective and open environments for such lessons? I think not...
In 1961, the torch did, indeed, pass to a new generation. The Obama White House, however, is trying its damnedest to pass on a "new torch" rather than show the world what the "next generation" is capable of with the torch we have held for more than 225 years. That isn't simply partisan in its nature... it is criminal, in my opinion.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
We haven't talked about Russia in a while...
So, Putin is defending the Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty of 1939... while on a state visit to Poland, no less.
Many is the time we have argued the accuracy of "revisionist" interpretations of history, and if we can do it, there isn't any real reason why Putin can't either. But I'd love to hear his defense of the statement.
In light of the bigger issue, however, I feel this is another stunning example of Putin reaching for (what he perceives as) the "lost glory of the USSR". He wants "his" Russia to encapsulate all the "good" that was Russia (and the USSR) of the past, without accepting any of the responsibility for the "bad".
Last year, in a sanctioned article in a "mainstream" magazine, Joseph Stalin was listed as the 3rd "greatest" Russian of all time... even though he was born and raised just outside of Tblisi, Georgia. Putin has claimed that the fall of the USSR was the "greatest political catastrophe of the 20th Century." He has openly admitted to rebuilding the Russian military in a manner that would recapture the "national promise" of the Soviet-era... presumably, this means that Russia would again be able to project force into distant regions and theaters with impunity, as they did as late as 1988 under the Soviets. He spent hundreds of millions of rubles to plant a "flag" under the polar ice cap, "claiming" the ocean floor there as Russian.
Claiming that the "Western" Munich Agreement of '38 ended all possibility of an anti-Nazi alliance between the USSR and the West is something we can debate at our leisure, but when seen in the light of Putin's previous actions since 1999, I'd say that Russia is still a strategic and economic threat that no one in Washington right now is paying any attention to at all.
Many is the time we have argued the accuracy of "revisionist" interpretations of history, and if we can do it, there isn't any real reason why Putin can't either. But I'd love to hear his defense of the statement.
In light of the bigger issue, however, I feel this is another stunning example of Putin reaching for (what he perceives as) the "lost glory of the USSR". He wants "his" Russia to encapsulate all the "good" that was Russia (and the USSR) of the past, without accepting any of the responsibility for the "bad".
Last year, in a sanctioned article in a "mainstream" magazine, Joseph Stalin was listed as the 3rd "greatest" Russian of all time... even though he was born and raised just outside of Tblisi, Georgia. Putin has claimed that the fall of the USSR was the "greatest political catastrophe of the 20th Century." He has openly admitted to rebuilding the Russian military in a manner that would recapture the "national promise" of the Soviet-era... presumably, this means that Russia would again be able to project force into distant regions and theaters with impunity, as they did as late as 1988 under the Soviets. He spent hundreds of millions of rubles to plant a "flag" under the polar ice cap, "claiming" the ocean floor there as Russian.
Claiming that the "Western" Munich Agreement of '38 ended all possibility of an anti-Nazi alliance between the USSR and the West is something we can debate at our leisure, but when seen in the light of Putin's previous actions since 1999, I'd say that Russia is still a strategic and economic threat that no one in Washington right now is paying any attention to at all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
