"Leaping to extremes" is exactly what it sounds like when conservatives employ hyperbole when discussing what needs to change. If we are discussing what the GOP needs to do to win, then hyperbole and exaggeration need to be put aside and clear, measurable means to the end must be shown, especially when we are discussing things in an open, public manner.
Conservative voters and advocates in this nation are already two steps behind the left because of the biased media in this nation, so if we are clear and unambiguous in what we discuss for the platform of our movement, then there is less likelihood that someone is going to twist words in such a manner as to make the whole effort seem like a call to a Nuremberg rally.
Discussing fundamental conservative issues such as a reduction in the size and scope of government is NOT going to work... at least, not now. We need to show why the Obama expansion of government is bad, yes indeed, but hearkening back to the imaginary days when Reagan brought small government, lower taxes, and a balanced budget to the national agenda doesn't get the movement support from the middle... because it didn't happen that way.
How many liberals has Ryan completely dismissed from a conversation in a break room or bar because they started a conversation quoting "they said", or hearkening back to the heady days of the Carter Administration when we had an honest man in the White House, or complaining about how Bush only helped "Big Oil" and didn't care about the working man... these are liberal catch-phrases that are instant triggers to Ryan's "Idiot Meter" and will stop a discussion in its tracks (believe me, I've seen it).
Crying "Socialist!" while pointing at Obama, or shouting "Beware of socialism!" while pointing at the new health care reform may be accurate, they are not productive to the goal we were discussing... how to get conservatives back in some kind of power. This goes back to my point that, if we dig deep enough, we can find some action or policy by a past President that can be seen today to have been "bad for America", but no one here is arguing that the vast majority did not do anything with the intention of harming America, and I truly don't believe Obama is doing things to intentionally harm America. His ideas of "hope and change" are counter-productive and won't work, I agree, but then we should focus our attention to pointing that out, not slandering the individual(s) that are promoting the efforts.
My mistake was in incorporating Ryan into the example... old habit, and it wasn't fair. I'll make a better example of two extremes that AREN'T Ryan... Michael Steele and any conservative radio talk show host you care to point at.
The radio pundits are paid by the number of listeners, and since Howard Stern took to the air, almost nothing is sacred in the realm of talk radio when it comes to gaining market share. Conservative hosts are more tame then most when it comes to language, but the passion and emotion run damn high throughout their shows (at least the successful ones). Names like Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, Wilkow, Church, Imus, Savage... all evoke a level of anger and frustration that can be felt anytime one listens to the shows. Most will offer suggestions or guest speakers that provide alternative courses of action that could be followed by politicians today, and some even manage a little calm, rational perspective in their dialogue. Most, however, also make their bread and butter on making the opposition party look bad, any way they can.
Then you have the sitting Chair of the Republican National Committee, Michael Steele. Long time conservative, and someone with a lot of grey matter between the ears, he simply hasn't done a damn thing since being made RNC chairman, has he? He has spent less time make the conservative point since being made chairman than he did before he was promoted, in fact. Maybe I'm not giving the guy enough credit, but I think that he could have done a whole lot more to further the conservative, anti-liberal view in this country than he has. Giving key-note speeches at conservative-hosted events isn't winning new support for the conservatives, is it?
On the one side, you have hyperbole and emotion galore, on the other inaction and hesitation to present... neither accomplishing what we are trying to find the easiest path to: putting the conservative voice back into American politics. Neither side is doing the ones we WANT to see succeed any service, and that is the up-and-coming young GOP members that have the best chance of making that impact in America. The Jindals, Ryans (Paul Ryan, that is), Hoevens, and Pawlentys need to be able to articulate clear, conservative plans that can be presented to the people in rational and reasonable ways so everyone can see that the path we are on NOW isn't the one that is going to fix the problems we face.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Are you using tepid water in your morning coffee or what?
What in the name of all that is holy is this?
So why should the GOP, and its vocal conservative supporters, continue to pretend that someone is going to magically appear that will reduce the size and cost of Federal government by 25% over the next ten years; eliminate agencies like the EPA, IRS, FCC, Department of Education, FDIC, Social Security, Amtrack, NAFTA/CAFTA; end our membership in such organizations as the UN, the OAS, NATO, ANZUS, the WHO, the IMF; and institute a policy of unrestricted, unregulated laissez faire capitalism as the national economic model?
Seriously Titus, who on God's brown earth (I live in Nevada) stated this as the "F.Ryan" or "conservative" agenda? Maybe you were being over the top for effect, but I want "bold differences", not an isolationist pre-20th century policy. Where did you get that such was the necessary platform to avoid being a "Dem-light?" This is unuseful hyperbole.
Look, I don't know why you suddenly have such visceral lead in your pencil today, but these statements of leaders that will "magically appear", and reduce government by "25%", all of this is just nonsensical banter meant to relieve you of either angst or comedic outlet but certainly not to further the conversation.
As you stated, we are no longer discussing within the Bund (or within this nation) the "traditional" Democrat vs Republican issues of tax levels, WWII or Great Society era social programs, etc. This president will with one stroke of the pen today socialize ALL student loans, making private college loans illegal. He is mandating policy at GM, down to their advertising budget. He is effecting a health care takeover that will see no less than 1/6th of the US economy federalized, and we haven't even gotten to cap & trade nor illegal immigration. Forget isolationist, classic conservative policy, I'd be relieved to be dealing with an actual centrist Dem in the oval at this point. And to get a bonified "conservative" we must espouse core conservative belief at every turn, and field a candidate with just such a record. But that doesn't mean leaping to the extremes you just did.
And to Jambo, I don't think Putin sees opposing America (for the sake of it or any other reason) as "stupid." I think he sees it as practical. He sees us going the way of European Social Democracies and smells blood in the water, and he sees Russia as the "new America" once our self devourment is complete. Now, he is gambling. I think he is gambling wrong, but I don't think his wager out of stupidity. I think he'll continue to bet this way as long as we demonstrate a propensity for weakness, be it our dollar, tone, direction, or foreign policy.
So why should the GOP, and its vocal conservative supporters, continue to pretend that someone is going to magically appear that will reduce the size and cost of Federal government by 25% over the next ten years; eliminate agencies like the EPA, IRS, FCC, Department of Education, FDIC, Social Security, Amtrack, NAFTA/CAFTA; end our membership in such organizations as the UN, the OAS, NATO, ANZUS, the WHO, the IMF; and institute a policy of unrestricted, unregulated laissez faire capitalism as the national economic model?
Seriously Titus, who on God's brown earth (I live in Nevada) stated this as the "F.Ryan" or "conservative" agenda? Maybe you were being over the top for effect, but I want "bold differences", not an isolationist pre-20th century policy. Where did you get that such was the necessary platform to avoid being a "Dem-light?" This is unuseful hyperbole.
Look, I don't know why you suddenly have such visceral lead in your pencil today, but these statements of leaders that will "magically appear", and reduce government by "25%", all of this is just nonsensical banter meant to relieve you of either angst or comedic outlet but certainly not to further the conversation.
As you stated, we are no longer discussing within the Bund (or within this nation) the "traditional" Democrat vs Republican issues of tax levels, WWII or Great Society era social programs, etc. This president will with one stroke of the pen today socialize ALL student loans, making private college loans illegal. He is mandating policy at GM, down to their advertising budget. He is effecting a health care takeover that will see no less than 1/6th of the US economy federalized, and we haven't even gotten to cap & trade nor illegal immigration. Forget isolationist, classic conservative policy, I'd be relieved to be dealing with an actual centrist Dem in the oval at this point. And to get a bonified "conservative" we must espouse core conservative belief at every turn, and field a candidate with just such a record. But that doesn't mean leaping to the extremes you just did.
And to Jambo, I don't think Putin sees opposing America (for the sake of it or any other reason) as "stupid." I think he sees it as practical. He sees us going the way of European Social Democracies and smells blood in the water, and he sees Russia as the "new America" once our self devourment is complete. Now, he is gambling. I think he is gambling wrong, but I don't think his wager out of stupidity. I think he'll continue to bet this way as long as we demonstrate a propensity for weakness, be it our dollar, tone, direction, or foreign policy.
Let me break out my CCCP hoodie...
You're right, not the message I intended to portray. Having ANY opposition be a REAL state, a nation with a face and identity instead of a faceless threat... That was what I meant. And let's remember one thing.
The days of the Soviet menace are gone forever. A strong Russia, with a working Navy, a formidable land army and an economic arsenal to draw from is NOT the same as the Red Menace we faced a generation ago. Putin can rattle sabers until hell freezes over but he won't resurrect the Bear from the 50's to the 80's. He's not staring at a Carter Administration military anymore. Putin's only "new" muscle is the Russian economy. Not the same as staring down Third Shock Army and wondering how Hanover or Hamburg could offer any kind of defense other than speed bumps.
Russian opposition, Russia dealing with "rogue" states, Russia playing the friend to the American foes in the end will hurt Russia for the same global reasons we point to American politics and speak of "opposition party" mindsets. The enemy of my enemy is my friend works during a war, not during peace. (Stalin, '41-'45 textbook example) If the Russians want to deal with N. Korea, Venezuela or any other rogue nation they're asking for the migraines that are sure to follow. He's a lot of things, Putin is, but stupid isn't one of them.
The days of the Soviet menace are gone forever. A strong Russia, with a working Navy, a formidable land army and an economic arsenal to draw from is NOT the same as the Red Menace we faced a generation ago. Putin can rattle sabers until hell freezes over but he won't resurrect the Bear from the 50's to the 80's. He's not staring at a Carter Administration military anymore. Putin's only "new" muscle is the Russian economy. Not the same as staring down Third Shock Army and wondering how Hanover or Hamburg could offer any kind of defense other than speed bumps.
Russian opposition, Russia dealing with "rogue" states, Russia playing the friend to the American foes in the end will hurt Russia for the same global reasons we point to American politics and speak of "opposition party" mindsets. The enemy of my enemy is my friend works during a war, not during peace. (Stalin, '41-'45 textbook example) If the Russians want to deal with N. Korea, Venezuela or any other rogue nation they're asking for the migraines that are sure to follow. He's a lot of things, Putin is, but stupid isn't one of them.
Taking it down a notch...
I think the term was "Dem-lite", in point of fact, and while I still think McCain was a bad choice to have to make, you basically made my previous point for me.
For the GOP to succeed in the next two to four years, some kind of understanding is going to have to be found between what conservatives WANT to see happen in Washington DC, and what IS going to happen in Washington DC, regardless of who is in control.
If we take Ryan as the average GOP opinion, then what they WANT to happen is a reduction in the size, scope and cost of the Federal government, a tax rate that reflects 1983 margins or lower, increased spending in national security and defense with at least a proportional cut in domestic social spending and entitlement programs, massive deregulation of such vast and varied global industries as energy production, environmental protection, resource procurement and management, infrastructure improvement, corporate and private financial practices and national health care administration. Did I miss anything?
That's a big "wish list", and making that the fundamental platform of the GOP for the next decade is going to get the GOP no closer to a controlling majority than they have right now.
Even the Great and All-Powerful Reagan didn't reduce the size of the Federal government... not by one janitor or one dollar. The most you can credit him with is reducing the rate at which government expanded. Reagan didn't eliminate agencies or programs of any real value to the left, he simply reduced the amount of increased revenue those agencies or programs could expect from his executive budget proposals... and he didn't do an awful lot of that. Reagan didn't de-regulate the financial sectors of our economy, he increased them with extended power and authority to the Federal Reserve and the the Federal Trades Commission, as well as championing the cause of "free trade" by beginning the process that would become NAFTA and CAFTA, allowing increased requirements from foreign nations to effect our production and distribution of export goods and a flood of cheap untaxed imports to compete with American products.
So why should the GOP, and its vocal conservative supporters, continue to pretend that someone is going to magically appear that will reduce the size and cost of Federal government by 25% over the next ten years; eliminate agencies like the EPA, IRS, FCC, Department of Education, FDIC, Social Security, Amtrack, NAFTA/CAFTA; end our membership in such organizations as the UN, the OAS, NATO, ANZUS, the WHO, the IMF; and institute a policy of unrestricted, unregulated laissez faire capitalism as the national economic model?
Not only are you NOT going to find this man or woman in the modern era, but even if you did (let's pretend his name is F. Ryan), who in Christ's good Name is going to vote for him? If I really thought that is what the country needed, and that it was an achievable goal for us to strive for, why didn't I vote for Ron Paul in 2008?
McCain was trying to tell the public what they wanted to hear... just like Obama. Difference was, Obama did it better.
I'm saying that the strategy that is going to make a DIFFERENCE in how this nation operates and prospers is by outlining WHAT needs (not what the GOP wants) to be done, HOW it is going to be done, and WHY that is the best way to do it. The person making this pitch to the people needs to be articulate, honest and willing (and able) to withstand some powerful abuse and scrutiny from the opposition with grace and aplomb.
Continually calling for the impossible to become possible furthers the cause of only one group... the liberals.
For the GOP to succeed in the next two to four years, some kind of understanding is going to have to be found between what conservatives WANT to see happen in Washington DC, and what IS going to happen in Washington DC, regardless of who is in control.
If we take Ryan as the average GOP opinion, then what they WANT to happen is a reduction in the size, scope and cost of the Federal government, a tax rate that reflects 1983 margins or lower, increased spending in national security and defense with at least a proportional cut in domestic social spending and entitlement programs, massive deregulation of such vast and varied global industries as energy production, environmental protection, resource procurement and management, infrastructure improvement, corporate and private financial practices and national health care administration. Did I miss anything?
That's a big "wish list", and making that the fundamental platform of the GOP for the next decade is going to get the GOP no closer to a controlling majority than they have right now.
Even the Great and All-Powerful Reagan didn't reduce the size of the Federal government... not by one janitor or one dollar. The most you can credit him with is reducing the rate at which government expanded. Reagan didn't eliminate agencies or programs of any real value to the left, he simply reduced the amount of increased revenue those agencies or programs could expect from his executive budget proposals... and he didn't do an awful lot of that. Reagan didn't de-regulate the financial sectors of our economy, he increased them with extended power and authority to the Federal Reserve and the the Federal Trades Commission, as well as championing the cause of "free trade" by beginning the process that would become NAFTA and CAFTA, allowing increased requirements from foreign nations to effect our production and distribution of export goods and a flood of cheap untaxed imports to compete with American products.
So why should the GOP, and its vocal conservative supporters, continue to pretend that someone is going to magically appear that will reduce the size and cost of Federal government by 25% over the next ten years; eliminate agencies like the EPA, IRS, FCC, Department of Education, FDIC, Social Security, Amtrack, NAFTA/CAFTA; end our membership in such organizations as the UN, the OAS, NATO, ANZUS, the WHO, the IMF; and institute a policy of unrestricted, unregulated laissez faire capitalism as the national economic model?
Not only are you NOT going to find this man or woman in the modern era, but even if you did (let's pretend his name is F. Ryan), who in Christ's good Name is going to vote for him? If I really thought that is what the country needed, and that it was an achievable goal for us to strive for, why didn't I vote for Ron Paul in 2008?
McCain was trying to tell the public what they wanted to hear... just like Obama. Difference was, Obama did it better.
I'm saying that the strategy that is going to make a DIFFERENCE in how this nation operates and prospers is by outlining WHAT needs (not what the GOP wants) to be done, HOW it is going to be done, and WHY that is the best way to do it. The person making this pitch to the people needs to be articulate, honest and willing (and able) to withstand some powerful abuse and scrutiny from the opposition with grace and aplomb.
Continually calling for the impossible to become possible furthers the cause of only one group... the liberals.
Slow down there comrade ...
First, we seem to all be in agreement about my original beef with McCain during the GOP primary. The only thing you guys got wrong is that he wasn't "Bush-light", he was "Obama-light." At least Obama the candidate anyway. To nearly every answer on what ails the country Obama answered "government."And McCain's standard response was basically, "yes government, but only this much." I mean if both candidates are in agreeance on the "solution", then why pick the guy offering only a small amount of that solution? There were no "bold colors" of difference in the McCain message, even with Palin at his side.
Now something caught my eye reading the last posts. I too see that Chechnya is a sore spot in the Russian reemergence that has no obvious answer, but I want to address this ... Jambo wrote:
"I LIKE the idea of a strong Russia. I LIKE the idea of sharing the responsibility of being world police, and a re-established Russia is just that. Let the Russians deal with the Middle East, or North Korea, or China ..."
I understand your intent here, but it seems to me that your expectations of Russia are just a little out of whack. They will deal with Iran and North Korea, but literally, and not in the sense you mean. The Israeli (and presumably American) question on whether to hit the Iranian nuclear facilities has been complicated by Russian anti-missile technology. And the Persians didn't steal that technology. Nor does North Korea face any serious scolding from Russia. And Chinese markets are much too important for Russians selling their immense oil reserves. But besides all of that the most particular reason we can not expect, in my opinion, that Russia will "deal" with any of these nations that are the proverbial thorns in our side is precisely because they are thorns in our side. It's clear that the Medvedev-Putin agenda sees their reemergence only possible via an American decline. And although I would relish blaming this solely on Obama (namely Putin seeing our president as a piker on the geopolitical stage & thus fearing no serious reprisals for aggressive action), this attitude (if you want to call it that) clearly started under the last years of Bush. Bush & Putin had that soul swapping "I looked into his eyes" Vulcan mind meld at Crawford and it seemed a new era was dawning in US-Russo relations, perhaps even partnership. But the moment Bush announced he was unilaterally withdrawing from the missile treaty in favor of NATO allies, Putin snapped shut and went cold on the US (and hey, look, I'm not saying Bush was wrong, I supported that move, I was just marking the time line).
So my point here is that a "strong Russia", at least under its current leadership, makes all those hot spots you mentioned all the more difficult for us, not less. They aren't interested in making life easier for us buddy ... quite the opposite.
Now something caught my eye reading the last posts. I too see that Chechnya is a sore spot in the Russian reemergence that has no obvious answer, but I want to address this ... Jambo wrote:
"I LIKE the idea of a strong Russia. I LIKE the idea of sharing the responsibility of being world police, and a re-established Russia is just that. Let the Russians deal with the Middle East, or North Korea, or China ..."
I understand your intent here, but it seems to me that your expectations of Russia are just a little out of whack. They will deal with Iran and North Korea, but literally, and not in the sense you mean. The Israeli (and presumably American) question on whether to hit the Iranian nuclear facilities has been complicated by Russian anti-missile technology. And the Persians didn't steal that technology. Nor does North Korea face any serious scolding from Russia. And Chinese markets are much too important for Russians selling their immense oil reserves. But besides all of that the most particular reason we can not expect, in my opinion, that Russia will "deal" with any of these nations that are the proverbial thorns in our side is precisely because they are thorns in our side. It's clear that the Medvedev-Putin agenda sees their reemergence only possible via an American decline. And although I would relish blaming this solely on Obama (namely Putin seeing our president as a piker on the geopolitical stage & thus fearing no serious reprisals for aggressive action), this attitude (if you want to call it that) clearly started under the last years of Bush. Bush & Putin had that soul swapping "I looked into his eyes" Vulcan mind meld at Crawford and it seemed a new era was dawning in US-Russo relations, perhaps even partnership. But the moment Bush announced he was unilaterally withdrawing from the missile treaty in favor of NATO allies, Putin snapped shut and went cold on the US (and hey, look, I'm not saying Bush was wrong, I supported that move, I was just marking the time line).
So my point here is that a "strong Russia", at least under its current leadership, makes all those hot spots you mentioned all the more difficult for us, not less. They aren't interested in making life easier for us buddy ... quite the opposite.
Monday, March 29, 2010
On Russian attacks...
If one of those stations hit was the one underneath Lubyanka Prison (home of the former KGB and its modern successor, FSB), then yes, I have been there... it is very near the Kremlin itself, and a "spoke" of the hub that circles Moscow city center and the Kremlin.
I don't have an answer to what Putin or Medvedev should do. The separatists are a thorn, no question, but repressive strikes and occupations aren't a good response to these kinds of insurgent-terror movements. Allowing the local and regional authorities as much autonomy and latitude as they can to root out and destroy these cells seems like a good start, while those elements working outside of the region (in Moscow, for example) can be dealt with in the most extreme and expedient manner available.
Russians aren't backwater peasants. Given enough information about the nature of the situation, I think anyone there would rapidly come to see the injustice and inhumanity of such violence and how it is counter-productive to the goals of the separatists. Hopefully, this will cause the support and sympathy that the local populations in Chechnya and southern Russia to dry up, much as it did during the surge in Baghdad and Fallugah. Insurgencies don't work without support... and if the Chechyns feel "represented" by the Russian authorities, then the support for the radicals and terrorists dries up, at least on a local level.
I don't have an answer to what Putin or Medvedev should do. The separatists are a thorn, no question, but repressive strikes and occupations aren't a good response to these kinds of insurgent-terror movements. Allowing the local and regional authorities as much autonomy and latitude as they can to root out and destroy these cells seems like a good start, while those elements working outside of the region (in Moscow, for example) can be dealt with in the most extreme and expedient manner available.
Russians aren't backwater peasants. Given enough information about the nature of the situation, I think anyone there would rapidly come to see the injustice and inhumanity of such violence and how it is counter-productive to the goals of the separatists. Hopefully, this will cause the support and sympathy that the local populations in Chechnya and southern Russia to dry up, much as it did during the surge in Baghdad and Fallugah. Insurgencies don't work without support... and if the Chechyns feel "represented" by the Russian authorities, then the support for the radicals and terrorists dries up, at least on a local level.
Agreed
I agree completely, with both of you. We do not need a moderator and compromiser in the White House, we need a leader. Obama promised that, and won the election.
Ryan sent me a text that (in short) said, by my very definition of the label, Obama is a socialist and to call him such isn't wrong, it is right.
I can't really argue against this, either... but is this something we should make the rallying point of the conservative movement? Will calling Obama a "socialist" enough times get our candidate elected, or does it make those that embrace a conservative political agenda look like "right-wingers" to the independents and moderates that will decide the next election.
Again, my main point (for more than a year now) is that McCain was a bad candidate because he didn't even have the full support of the conservative movement, let alone the fence-sitters. Obama managed to appeal to both the liberal AND the moderate voter, even more than Hilary (who admittedly had some Bill-baggage, I think). None the less, even if McCain had enjoyed the FULL support of the conservative wing of American politics... he couldn't have won given the sentiments of the country at the time... he didn't have the votes.
Offering a compromise candidate is a losing strategy from the start. The change can't come in the color/shape/sex/orientation of the candidate, it has to come from the position from which the candidate is starting from.
Either the GOP redefines itself so that each and every voter out there understands WHAT the GOP wants to deliver, and HOW they are going to do it, or we watch the liberal and progressive agendas win again and again and again.
Reagan redefined what being a Republican meant, and won the decade. Who is going to do that for the GOP now?
Ryan sent me a text that (in short) said, by my very definition of the label, Obama is a socialist and to call him such isn't wrong, it is right.
I can't really argue against this, either... but is this something we should make the rallying point of the conservative movement? Will calling Obama a "socialist" enough times get our candidate elected, or does it make those that embrace a conservative political agenda look like "right-wingers" to the independents and moderates that will decide the next election.
Again, my main point (for more than a year now) is that McCain was a bad candidate because he didn't even have the full support of the conservative movement, let alone the fence-sitters. Obama managed to appeal to both the liberal AND the moderate voter, even more than Hilary (who admittedly had some Bill-baggage, I think). None the less, even if McCain had enjoyed the FULL support of the conservative wing of American politics... he couldn't have won given the sentiments of the country at the time... he didn't have the votes.
Offering a compromise candidate is a losing strategy from the start. The change can't come in the color/shape/sex/orientation of the candidate, it has to come from the position from which the candidate is starting from.
Either the GOP redefines itself so that each and every voter out there understands WHAT the GOP wants to deliver, and HOW they are going to do it, or we watch the liberal and progressive agendas win again and again and again.
Reagan redefined what being a Republican meant, and won the decade. Who is going to do that for the GOP now?
Home grown terror
What do you do if you're Putin?
The Chechneyans are NOT going away, and they're only the most visible and vocal of the "breakaway" republic want-to-bes. And for a nation doing every single thing it can to re-establish itself as the second super power, this glaring example of not keeping its house in order is a big black eye.
Hey, I don't wish this on anyone, even Putin. I LIKE the idea of a strong Russia. I LIKE the idea of sharing the responsibility of being world police, and a re-established Russia is just that. Let the Russians deal with the Middle East, or North Korea, or China. But that's kind of hard when the thorns in their side send black widows into the subways and kill Muscovites by the dozen.
What mystifies me is that anyone would have to tell a EUROPEAN nation the horrors of terrorism. Doesn't anyone remember the terror attacks in the 1980s? Airport bombings, dance club bombings, car bombs? Come on! If a collective group of nations should be LEADING the charge for eradicating terror where it grows, it should be the European nations.
Sad really. Were you at any of those stations, Titus?
The Chechneyans are NOT going away, and they're only the most visible and vocal of the "breakaway" republic want-to-bes. And for a nation doing every single thing it can to re-establish itself as the second super power, this glaring example of not keeping its house in order is a big black eye.
Hey, I don't wish this on anyone, even Putin. I LIKE the idea of a strong Russia. I LIKE the idea of sharing the responsibility of being world police, and a re-established Russia is just that. Let the Russians deal with the Middle East, or North Korea, or China. But that's kind of hard when the thorns in their side send black widows into the subways and kill Muscovites by the dozen.
What mystifies me is that anyone would have to tell a EUROPEAN nation the horrors of terrorism. Doesn't anyone remember the terror attacks in the 1980s? Airport bombings, dance club bombings, car bombs? Come on! If a collective group of nations should be LEADING the charge for eradicating terror where it grows, it should be the European nations.
Sad really. Were you at any of those stations, Titus?
Bush Light
Ryan beat me to the response, but didn't use the argument I thought he would.
We had a ton of posts, prior to and immediately after the election of 2008 concerning where the Republican Party needed to go. McCain was Dem Light, the voice of moderation, the list of compromises and aisle crossing cooperation a mile long. Obama was the "Yes we can!" guy, the damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead, screw compromise when I have the super majority in the Legislative Branch guy. He said as much throughout his campaign.
The same argument can be made for Al Gore in 2000. If you were happy with 8 years of Clinton, Gore was your guy. And in a very close vote he loses to change, to a more conservative voice, to someone untainted by scandal and a tarnished image. And Bush Jr. didn't come out Clinton bashing, he came out telling the people that he was going to slash taxes, curb gov't spending and power the nation out of the recession we were in. Clinton light lost. Just like Bush light did 8 years later.
We had a ton of posts, prior to and immediately after the election of 2008 concerning where the Republican Party needed to go. McCain was Dem Light, the voice of moderation, the list of compromises and aisle crossing cooperation a mile long. Obama was the "Yes we can!" guy, the damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead, screw compromise when I have the super majority in the Legislative Branch guy. He said as much throughout his campaign.
The same argument can be made for Al Gore in 2000. If you were happy with 8 years of Clinton, Gore was your guy. And in a very close vote he loses to change, to a more conservative voice, to someone untainted by scandal and a tarnished image. And Bush Jr. didn't come out Clinton bashing, he came out telling the people that he was going to slash taxes, curb gov't spending and power the nation out of the recession we were in. Clinton light lost. Just like Bush light did 8 years later.
The Obama-factor...
I have to admit, Ryan made a damn good point in his last...
Obama does seem to be an exception to my rule that anger doesn't win elections. I guess I could try and make the case that the people were afraid, but I'd be making a point I don't believe. We weren't in the throws of a full-blown recession by Nov of '08 (although the signs were there)... so I don't think that people were as afraid then as they were going to become.
No, America bought into the "Blame Bush" campaign, and it carried the day. I could point to McCain-Palin and say they dropped the ball by allowing themselves to be seen as "divided", but again, I'd only be making excuses.
I do agree that McCain was a poor choice for a candidate, primary winner or not. The better candidates dropped out too soon, and the party suffered for it. So, knowing what we know, what kind of candidate can appeal to the dyed-in-the-wool conservative and the moderate or independent voter?
It is going to be someone with a real ability to convince the public that they have a PLAN that will work to fix what ails the nation, some real and measurable "face appeal" and some honest-to-God moral fiber to withstand the abuse and slander that the left will throw out for every second that their campaign goes on.
McCain didn't have that combination, even after he included Palin on the ticket. Romney didn't seem to have the stomach for it (otherwise he would have stuck it out longer). Huckabee shown to be too "judgemental" about his faith-related opinions from years back (I call that baggage, and there aren't many "experienced" candidates that aren't going to have that anymore). Paul was simply too far right... the conservative version of Jesse Jackson.
I think the candidate should be a Governor rather than a Senator, or if not a Governor, then perhaps a really (REALLY) perfect House member with some time under his/her belt. If you are old enough to have voted for Nixon or Ford (let alone worked for them), you are too old to run, in my opinion. They are out there... somewhere... all we have to do is find the right voice.
Obama does seem to be an exception to my rule that anger doesn't win elections. I guess I could try and make the case that the people were afraid, but I'd be making a point I don't believe. We weren't in the throws of a full-blown recession by Nov of '08 (although the signs were there)... so I don't think that people were as afraid then as they were going to become.
No, America bought into the "Blame Bush" campaign, and it carried the day. I could point to McCain-Palin and say they dropped the ball by allowing themselves to be seen as "divided", but again, I'd only be making excuses.
I do agree that McCain was a poor choice for a candidate, primary winner or not. The better candidates dropped out too soon, and the party suffered for it. So, knowing what we know, what kind of candidate can appeal to the dyed-in-the-wool conservative and the moderate or independent voter?
It is going to be someone with a real ability to convince the public that they have a PLAN that will work to fix what ails the nation, some real and measurable "face appeal" and some honest-to-God moral fiber to withstand the abuse and slander that the left will throw out for every second that their campaign goes on.
McCain didn't have that combination, even after he included Palin on the ticket. Romney didn't seem to have the stomach for it (otherwise he would have stuck it out longer). Huckabee shown to be too "judgemental" about his faith-related opinions from years back (I call that baggage, and there aren't many "experienced" candidates that aren't going to have that anymore). Paul was simply too far right... the conservative version of Jesse Jackson.
I think the candidate should be a Governor rather than a Senator, or if not a Governor, then perhaps a really (REALLY) perfect House member with some time under his/her belt. If you are old enough to have voted for Nixon or Ford (let alone worked for them), you are too old to run, in my opinion. They are out there... somewhere... all we have to do is find the right voice.
This one is my fault...
I'm not placing the burden of "spreading the tent canvas" to make sure that the tent is big enough on the Tea Party... that was not my point, nor was it Card's. That is the primary responsibility of Mr. Steele and the GOP.
If it is only the Tea Party activists that are calling for a renewed conservative movement, then they will be seen by those outside the movement as angry, fringe elements. To suggest that the Tea Party needs to "moderate itself" is silly... it is, fundamentally, a grass-root movement inspired by those that feel abandoned by the GOP. The onus is on the GOP, and specifically on its chosen leadership, to embrace the movement's call to renew and refocus or doom itself to another cycle of nothing more than opposition politics as the minority party in all aspects of our government.
I guess my point is that, when this same effort was coming from the minority Democratic fringe in the form of "Meetup.com" and the campaign of Howard Dean, it was embraced by the whole party (not something I'm happy about, but it worked, obviously). Prior to that, most incumbent Democrats supported the effort in Iraq and the broader war on terror (barring Wellstone and a very few others). Since then, it is the exception to find a Democrat supporting either... not the norm.
I mean, let's face it... it wasn't all that long ago that what was holding our attention and discussions when we had our "driveway" meetings was the far more traditional questions of taxes, spending, and social issues facing the political scene. I can't even blame the change from then to now on 9-11 (not all of it, anyway). It REALLY changed sometime in the late '90s, and I think it was the manner by which the DNC "adopted" the Meetup.com-crowd into the fold that propelled the Democrats into the fringe.
Now, that is the unfortunate example... but it is an example of the kind of fundamental change that a party can (and sometimes SHOULD) undergo in order to make their position more apparent and understandable to the public. It took the DNC nearly 8 years to go from minority opposition party to complete control, and in that time they have moved further and further left in their professed ideology with each passing year. What even I would have thought of as "too far left" for rational discussion from the DNC just 10 years ago is now platform-position and the firmly established status quo.
Do we have the time to wait for the RNC to do the same thing? It doesn't need to be this all-or-nothing transformation of the party, but rather a renewed focus on what has been the fundamental planks of the party platform since 1979... but the longer the rest of America has to watch the Tea Party try and defend what USED TO BE mainstream conservatism while being portrayed as "right-wing extremists", the harder it is going to be to find a candidate that appeals to both conservatives AND mainstream America.
Anyway... I agree with Ryan, I just think I was too vague in my last couple of posts and Ryan misunderstood. My beef is with the GOP for NOT embracing the bulk of what the Tea Party is calling for, rather than wanting the TPers to "tone it down".
If it is only the Tea Party activists that are calling for a renewed conservative movement, then they will be seen by those outside the movement as angry, fringe elements. To suggest that the Tea Party needs to "moderate itself" is silly... it is, fundamentally, a grass-root movement inspired by those that feel abandoned by the GOP. The onus is on the GOP, and specifically on its chosen leadership, to embrace the movement's call to renew and refocus or doom itself to another cycle of nothing more than opposition politics as the minority party in all aspects of our government.
I guess my point is that, when this same effort was coming from the minority Democratic fringe in the form of "Meetup.com" and the campaign of Howard Dean, it was embraced by the whole party (not something I'm happy about, but it worked, obviously). Prior to that, most incumbent Democrats supported the effort in Iraq and the broader war on terror (barring Wellstone and a very few others). Since then, it is the exception to find a Democrat supporting either... not the norm.
I mean, let's face it... it wasn't all that long ago that what was holding our attention and discussions when we had our "driveway" meetings was the far more traditional questions of taxes, spending, and social issues facing the political scene. I can't even blame the change from then to now on 9-11 (not all of it, anyway). It REALLY changed sometime in the late '90s, and I think it was the manner by which the DNC "adopted" the Meetup.com-crowd into the fold that propelled the Democrats into the fringe.
Now, that is the unfortunate example... but it is an example of the kind of fundamental change that a party can (and sometimes SHOULD) undergo in order to make their position more apparent and understandable to the public. It took the DNC nearly 8 years to go from minority opposition party to complete control, and in that time they have moved further and further left in their professed ideology with each passing year. What even I would have thought of as "too far left" for rational discussion from the DNC just 10 years ago is now platform-position and the firmly established status quo.
Do we have the time to wait for the RNC to do the same thing? It doesn't need to be this all-or-nothing transformation of the party, but rather a renewed focus on what has been the fundamental planks of the party platform since 1979... but the longer the rest of America has to watch the Tea Party try and defend what USED TO BE mainstream conservatism while being portrayed as "right-wing extremists", the harder it is going to be to find a candidate that appeals to both conservatives AND mainstream America.
Anyway... I agree with Ryan, I just think I was too vague in my last couple of posts and Ryan misunderstood. My beef is with the GOP for NOT embracing the bulk of what the Tea Party is calling for, rather than wanting the TPers to "tone it down".
Sunday, March 28, 2010
President McCain ...
While the historical references of Buchanan and Perot you listed are nearly all correct, I find your projections as to what the GOP must now do & what the Tea Party represents, misguided. Were this argument of merit, we would have what my subject title suggests. Look, I have heard this argument time and again, that we must be "for" something rather than against. That the Teat Party is "angry", and that doesn't win votes, etc.
"Movements like the Tea Party can be as grass-root as they come, but the prospects is always there that they will split the vote ..."
The problem here is the facts to date don't bare this out. The Tea Party's focus thus has been the GOP primary. I will list Marc Rubio as an example. This is a 38 year old Florida House Representative whom has come from double digits behind to a double digit lead versus his fellow party member Charlie Crist, a popular governor and staple of Florida politics. And the primary reason (if you'll forgive the pun) for Rubio's rise has been the proper channeling of the Tea Party energy, or "anger." Chris Wallace hosted a debate between the two primary contestants just today and described what many people have been saying, that Rubio could be the first "Tea Party Senator." And do you know what Crist had a hard time ruling out when asked (Wallace rephrased it no less than 4 times in an attempt to get a straight answer)? Running as an Independent. The incumbent, establishment candidate was having to answer to that discussion, not Rubio. The Tea Party has taken to heart, in my estimation, the Reagan mantra that, "what we need is a revitalized Republican Party, not a third Party." And in that vein I feel the advice of being an "incumbent" rather than a "conservative" counter intuitive. This is a center-right nation on most issues. Reagan emphasized, "no dull pastels but bold contrasts" when urging politicians across the fruited plain to unapologetically embrace conservatism. Which seems to me something the Tea Party has also embraced.
I think gentlemen like Card, lifetime Democrats, find the Tea Party movement unpalatable. And while they may agree with them on substance their "style" and tenor is objected to, thus they employ logic just a little too clever by half in order to find a "viable" critique. I've seen this behavior repeated with bright, blue dog democrats more than once. My response to "anger doesn't win elections", is that angry candidates don't win elections. Think about what Obama did. The anger on the left after Bush was immeasurable - and Obama smiled, took their energy, and ran with it.
So let me summarize ... what is missing here is NOT, in my opinion, the need for the Tea Party to moderate its' anger in order to attract independents (its' growing exponentially on its own). It is NOT for us to embrace the art of compromise in a watered down "McCain way." Reagan's "big tent" was big because he attracted independents and Democrats to CONSERVATIVE ideals, not because he watered them down enough to make them palatable. We all agree that the GOP has a golden opportunity here. And everyone has advice on how to capitalize on it. And in my opinion the "missing link" is the GOP's ABSOLUTE LACK of an attractive candidate thus far. The Tea Party, the angry independents, the unhappy Dems, we ALL want a more conservative agenda for America. But it isn't up to the Tea Party nor any other group to moderate its' tone. It will not work for GOP leaders to scold the Tea Party, "keep it down over there." It is up to an ambitious, articulate, heart felt individual to channel that passion into a electoral movement. Reagan didn't walk around angry, I agree. He did something much worse to Carter - he took all the anger over Jimmy, all the angst, all the pissed off feelings and made Carter into a punch line, an incompetent. He was someone whom had the ability to turn the idea of "deficit neutral Trillion dollar programs" into a joke. History shows us that all this anger, all the palpable energy, all the protest gatherings and sign making, that it is PRECISELY this type of behavior which will provide an effective leader the momentum he or she needs. A person whom can channel it, a man whom fights with a smile on his face as Churchill once quipped. I find all this "anger" necessary to produce such a candidate, so when an FDR or a Reagan comes along with a smile, a stinging comedic observation of his opponent, and an alternative path, all that "anger" gets poured and channeled as fuel for electoral success. So I say let a thousand protest signs be made! Let the Tea Party chant and yell. For when a conservative who CAN fight with a smile on their face comes along, we will NEED that energy, and he will be propelled into landslide victories.
"Movements like the Tea Party can be as grass-root as they come, but the prospects is always there that they will split the vote ..."
The problem here is the facts to date don't bare this out. The Tea Party's focus thus has been the GOP primary. I will list Marc Rubio as an example. This is a 38 year old Florida House Representative whom has come from double digits behind to a double digit lead versus his fellow party member Charlie Crist, a popular governor and staple of Florida politics. And the primary reason (if you'll forgive the pun) for Rubio's rise has been the proper channeling of the Tea Party energy, or "anger." Chris Wallace hosted a debate between the two primary contestants just today and described what many people have been saying, that Rubio could be the first "Tea Party Senator." And do you know what Crist had a hard time ruling out when asked (Wallace rephrased it no less than 4 times in an attempt to get a straight answer)? Running as an Independent. The incumbent, establishment candidate was having to answer to that discussion, not Rubio. The Tea Party has taken to heart, in my estimation, the Reagan mantra that, "what we need is a revitalized Republican Party, not a third Party." And in that vein I feel the advice of being an "incumbent" rather than a "conservative" counter intuitive. This is a center-right nation on most issues. Reagan emphasized, "no dull pastels but bold contrasts" when urging politicians across the fruited plain to unapologetically embrace conservatism. Which seems to me something the Tea Party has also embraced.
I think gentlemen like Card, lifetime Democrats, find the Tea Party movement unpalatable. And while they may agree with them on substance their "style" and tenor is objected to, thus they employ logic just a little too clever by half in order to find a "viable" critique. I've seen this behavior repeated with bright, blue dog democrats more than once. My response to "anger doesn't win elections", is that angry candidates don't win elections. Think about what Obama did. The anger on the left after Bush was immeasurable - and Obama smiled, took their energy, and ran with it.
So let me summarize ... what is missing here is NOT, in my opinion, the need for the Tea Party to moderate its' anger in order to attract independents (its' growing exponentially on its own). It is NOT for us to embrace the art of compromise in a watered down "McCain way." Reagan's "big tent" was big because he attracted independents and Democrats to CONSERVATIVE ideals, not because he watered them down enough to make them palatable. We all agree that the GOP has a golden opportunity here. And everyone has advice on how to capitalize on it. And in my opinion the "missing link" is the GOP's ABSOLUTE LACK of an attractive candidate thus far. The Tea Party, the angry independents, the unhappy Dems, we ALL want a more conservative agenda for America. But it isn't up to the Tea Party nor any other group to moderate its' tone. It will not work for GOP leaders to scold the Tea Party, "keep it down over there." It is up to an ambitious, articulate, heart felt individual to channel that passion into a electoral movement. Reagan didn't walk around angry, I agree. He did something much worse to Carter - he took all the anger over Jimmy, all the angst, all the pissed off feelings and made Carter into a punch line, an incompetent. He was someone whom had the ability to turn the idea of "deficit neutral Trillion dollar programs" into a joke. History shows us that all this anger, all the palpable energy, all the protest gatherings and sign making, that it is PRECISELY this type of behavior which will provide an effective leader the momentum he or she needs. A person whom can channel it, a man whom fights with a smile on his face as Churchill once quipped. I find all this "anger" necessary to produce such a candidate, so when an FDR or a Reagan comes along with a smile, a stinging comedic observation of his opponent, and an alternative path, all that "anger" gets poured and channeled as fuel for electoral success. So I say let a thousand protest signs be made! Let the Tea Party chant and yell. For when a conservative who CAN fight with a smile on their face comes along, we will NEED that energy, and he will be propelled into landslide victories.
Still more to say...
Back to my thoughts on last night's radio program...
Card made another point that has been sticking in my head. He brought up the candidacy of William Jennings Bryant in three election cycles: 1896, 1900, and 1908. This was an example of the Democrats running with a "purist" candidate that exemplified what the Party wanted to see in the next President of the United States. He was (like Dean in 2004) representing the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party", and made no effort to appeal to moderates or independents. He ran representing the extreme, and couldn't win anything close to the majority needed.
Even Reagan understood the need to compromise. He knew how to appeal to the masses, where his opponents did not (especially not Mondale!), and he did it while still keeping the majority of his promises and principles intact and functioning. Reagan was a popular President, but those that didn't like him REALLY didn't like him, and they were very vocal in that dislike. That makes beating him in an election that much harder. If you doubt me, then ask Bob Dole how popular Clinton was in 1996, and which campaign appealed to the most voters.
I'm not saying that a "popular" President is a good one, by definition... that is asinine. I'm saying that defeating a bad President is much, much easier when past mistakes are understood and avoided by the minority party as the new cycle approaches. Obama has the advantage right now because he can be shown to have accomplished something his party promised for years IN SPITE OF huge GOP and conservative opposition. I'm not saying what he did was good or right, but that is the FACT that his supporters will throw out when it comes up in 2012. Couple this with the fact that while the majority of Americans might not have supported the reform bill as it was passed, the fact remains that the vast majority of Americans DID support reform of one kind or another, and Obama delivered while the GOP fought him... and my point should be clear.
I have heard time and time again that the GOP needs to "stick to their principles" and stop trying to appeal to the center (and I've mostly heard this from Ryan), but that is EXACTLY what made Reagan such a popular President, wasn't it? All of us have experienced problems rooted in the insurance and health care industries, in one form or another, over the last 5 years (please, tell me I'm wrong on THAT point!), so who here can't make the argument that the country could benefit from some kind of insurance and health care reform? The very nature of the industry demands that those with the least risk be the most involved in the effort, so that those most at risk can gain assistance from the rest, right? If only the people who got sick bought health insurance, then the cost of the insurance would negate its availablility completely. If only those at most risk for catastrophic storm or flood damage were buying such insurance, then the cost would never be affordable to those that need it worst.
Making the case that the people who voted FOR the legislation are all commies and socialists out to tear the Constitution to shreds is self defeating in the extreme. They did what they felt needed to be done, one way or the other. We can question the method, but not the means, if we want to see a substantial change in the direction of the government in the next four years. Searching for a candidate (or candidates, when it comes to Congress) that appeal to "conservatives" gains us next to nothing in the long run, does it?
As has been said, is it better to be a "pure" conservative, or an "incumbant" conservative?
Card made another point that has been sticking in my head. He brought up the candidacy of William Jennings Bryant in three election cycles: 1896, 1900, and 1908. This was an example of the Democrats running with a "purist" candidate that exemplified what the Party wanted to see in the next President of the United States. He was (like Dean in 2004) representing the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party", and made no effort to appeal to moderates or independents. He ran representing the extreme, and couldn't win anything close to the majority needed.
Even Reagan understood the need to compromise. He knew how to appeal to the masses, where his opponents did not (especially not Mondale!), and he did it while still keeping the majority of his promises and principles intact and functioning. Reagan was a popular President, but those that didn't like him REALLY didn't like him, and they were very vocal in that dislike. That makes beating him in an election that much harder. If you doubt me, then ask Bob Dole how popular Clinton was in 1996, and which campaign appealed to the most voters.
I'm not saying that a "popular" President is a good one, by definition... that is asinine. I'm saying that defeating a bad President is much, much easier when past mistakes are understood and avoided by the minority party as the new cycle approaches. Obama has the advantage right now because he can be shown to have accomplished something his party promised for years IN SPITE OF huge GOP and conservative opposition. I'm not saying what he did was good or right, but that is the FACT that his supporters will throw out when it comes up in 2012. Couple this with the fact that while the majority of Americans might not have supported the reform bill as it was passed, the fact remains that the vast majority of Americans DID support reform of one kind or another, and Obama delivered while the GOP fought him... and my point should be clear.
I have heard time and time again that the GOP needs to "stick to their principles" and stop trying to appeal to the center (and I've mostly heard this from Ryan), but that is EXACTLY what made Reagan such a popular President, wasn't it? All of us have experienced problems rooted in the insurance and health care industries, in one form or another, over the last 5 years (please, tell me I'm wrong on THAT point!), so who here can't make the argument that the country could benefit from some kind of insurance and health care reform? The very nature of the industry demands that those with the least risk be the most involved in the effort, so that those most at risk can gain assistance from the rest, right? If only the people who got sick bought health insurance, then the cost of the insurance would negate its availablility completely. If only those at most risk for catastrophic storm or flood damage were buying such insurance, then the cost would never be affordable to those that need it worst.
Making the case that the people who voted FOR the legislation are all commies and socialists out to tear the Constitution to shreds is self defeating in the extreme. They did what they felt needed to be done, one way or the other. We can question the method, but not the means, if we want to see a substantial change in the direction of the government in the next four years. Searching for a candidate (or candidates, when it comes to Congress) that appeal to "conservatives" gains us next to nothing in the long run, does it?
As has been said, is it better to be a "pure" conservative, or an "incumbant" conservative?
Ryan... he's a card, isn't he?
Ryan's just finishing up this week's episode of Spartacus, Blood and Sand. This week was a shocker, no question, and I can't wait to see where the season goes before it wraps up.
I really liked the Varro character, too... too bad. It does make one wonder what is to become of Ilithyia, though. She just cost Batiatus one of his best gladiators, and we all know how badly Batiatus takes financial slights, don't we?
I really liked the Varro character, too... too bad. It does make one wonder what is to become of Ilithyia, though. She just cost Batiatus one of his best gladiators, and we all know how badly Batiatus takes financial slights, don't we?
Another conservative Democrat...
The big kids are gone, and it was just Liz, Jake and I last night. Once Jake went to bed, Liz and I decided to watch a movie and I made a run to Subway for a couple of sandwiches. This is our version of "going out" on a Saturday night, I guess...
Anyway, the radio show that plays here on Saturday nights is one I do not typically listen to, and I really don't think I'm missing much, either... but last night he has a really surprising guest speaker on. A registered Democrat that hasn't been able to vote for his party's candidate in more than 10 years, and one of my favorite authors of all time... Orson Scott Card.
Card made some very good points while he was on the radio, let me tell you. The one I wanted to touch on, though, was why Obamacare isn't the case that is going to get GOP candidates elected in 2010-2012... and why the "Tea Party" movement is potentially devastating for conservative hopes in 2012.
His first point was that anger over what the various House Democrats voted for is NOT a point that the GOP is going to make any ground on. It is true that many Representatives ignored concerns of their constituents and voted YAY in spite of loud protests or previous NAY votes, but that isn't something conservatives can point to and say "THIS IS BAD." It is too easy to write off as someone following their conscience, or taking the lesser of two evils, or (quite simply) doing their job of voting as they see best since that is what they are elected to do. Card does not think Obamacare is good (in fact, he made a case that it is the worst legislation signed by a President into law... ever), but whining and crying about how the bill is tantamount to ending the Constitution and everyone that voted for it is a communist-at-heart is counter-productive to the long-term goal that the GOP needs to keep in focus... getting back majority control.
This point made me think... didn't Jambo once make the claim that "anger doesn't win elections"? I don't remember who said it (but I do think it was Jambo), but the jist is: Anger doesn't win elections... fear does. Well, Card said something very, very similar. Conservatives in this country can get as angry as they want, but it won't get anyone elected. Anger tells a voter who NOT to vote for, but fear will tell them who TO vote for.
History backs this up, I think. Was the country angry at the Hoover Administration's lack of success? Or were they afraid of the effects of the Great Depression and voted for someone that promised solutions? The former may be true, but FDR got elected because he offered solutions. Were people angry at the state of the Nation in 1980? Hell, yes. Did they vote for Reagan because he WASN'T Carter... no, they didn't, they voted for him because his promises offered HOPE and CHANGE, for the better. They voted for Reagan because they were afraid of the direction the country was going in.
Card's second point is also very important. History shows us that movements like the Tea Party pop up throughout history, but almost never win an election simply on an opposition-platform. This isn't a new idea for us here at the Bund, but it is a good one to make again. The average American voter in this country doesn't give a rat's buttocks for what the President's (or Presidential candidate's) ideology is based on. There is no question in my mind that Obama's personal ideology is rooted in radical, fundamental socialist ideology, and his success in recent years stems from his ability to say what everyone wants to hear more than everyone's agreement with what his ideology says. Card goes so far as to say that Obama is the most dangerous President to be elected to the office... ever. That's a lot to say from even a conservative Democrat, huh?
Movements like the Tea Party can be as grass-root as they come, but the prospects is always there that they will split the vote. I won't touch on the obvious examples (Perot in '92), but instead I'll use the example that Card used last night... Buchanan in '96.
Now, I'm going to be charitable and NOT share the scene from the radio show where the host (whom I won't name) made an ASS of himself by completely misunderstanding Card's point about Buchanan and assuming that he really meant Perot in '92, but Card was talking about Buchanan in '96. So, I went back and looked at the numbers again.
1996 was Buchanan's best run for the White House. In the primary election cycle, he won 21% of the GOP vote... enough to keep him relevant, I think. Now, if we look at that slice of the vote, but from the point of view of the "independent" conservative voter, can we assume a similar percentage of interest? How many independents went to the polls and remembered Buchanan's slogan of "the peasants are coming with pitchforks"? Bob Dole was not the most memorable candidate the GOP ever threw up, but I'm very sure that much of what Buchanan said during the primary season was seen as "the GOP position" by moderates and independents. Buchanan ran a campaign of "anger" at the direction of the Clinton Administration, and we can all recall his comments... but how many people can recall his solutions? What was he promising to do that would fix what Clinton was doing?
I'll say this about Buchanan... he's a man of principles, and he sticks to them. He hasn't changed his song for decades, and because of this, we can look back and see that his very vocal, very well-covered primary campaign did more harm to the GOP in '96 than anything Clinton said or did at all. He routinely voiced his disdain for NAFTA (making it a household phrase in '96 almost single-handedly) by claiming it was a Clinton effort to subvert American pre-dominance in the global economy... and forgetting that it was the economic love-child of Ronald Wilson Reagan, the man that the GOP was modeling itself after. He routinely called for a reduction in our armed forces and a non-interventionist position in our foreign policy, again, forgetting that it was exactly the opposite position that was advocated by Reagan ("peace through security") and almost every other mainstream conservative out there. He was the most out-spoken critic of the Clinton Administration's efforts to enforce the "no-fly" zones and to maintain the security effort in a post-'91 Iraq... and I can't help but think that is 180 degrees opposite from the "mainstream" conservative position that would lead to the 2003 invasion (although, that is outside the scope of this particular discussion).
I am utterly convinced, now more than ever, that Buchanan is far more responsible for the failures of the pre-Bush GOP (and I am including the failures of the public's perception of the Contract with America in this, too) because of his very vocal, very angry rhetoric that constantly criticized but never offered viable, memorable solutions to the problems that the "average voter" could embrace. His anger and resentment at how things were bring run carried through to the public, loudly and clearly, though...
Now, back to the point. Perot's Reform ticket took more than 8% of the conservative vote from Dole, but that wasn't enough to tip the scales against Clinton. However, I can't help but think that Card is RIGHT when he says that a significant proportion of conservative independent and moderate Democrats might have felt more comfortable voting opposite ticket, had A) Perot not run as a third party and B) Buchanan had kept his mouth shut and stayed out of the race altogether. '96 was a closer race than any Democrat is likely to admit today... and none of them are going to make the case that, had these two factors (Perot and Buchanan) learned the lessons of '92 just a little sooner, Clinton would have been a one-term President, and the Conservative Majority would have been complete four years sooner than it was.
For conservatives to win in 2010 and 2012, we are going to have to show that what is being done is counter-productive and how it is going to be fixed. We are NOT going to win by saying over and over again that it is the "wrong path to take"... because even the most uninformed American voter understands that simply bitching about which path to take only really means you are left standing in the middle of an intersection, waiting to be run over by someone who knows what direction they want to go in.
Anyway, the radio show that plays here on Saturday nights is one I do not typically listen to, and I really don't think I'm missing much, either... but last night he has a really surprising guest speaker on. A registered Democrat that hasn't been able to vote for his party's candidate in more than 10 years, and one of my favorite authors of all time... Orson Scott Card.
Card made some very good points while he was on the radio, let me tell you. The one I wanted to touch on, though, was why Obamacare isn't the case that is going to get GOP candidates elected in 2010-2012... and why the "Tea Party" movement is potentially devastating for conservative hopes in 2012.
His first point was that anger over what the various House Democrats voted for is NOT a point that the GOP is going to make any ground on. It is true that many Representatives ignored concerns of their constituents and voted YAY in spite of loud protests or previous NAY votes, but that isn't something conservatives can point to and say "THIS IS BAD." It is too easy to write off as someone following their conscience, or taking the lesser of two evils, or (quite simply) doing their job of voting as they see best since that is what they are elected to do. Card does not think Obamacare is good (in fact, he made a case that it is the worst legislation signed by a President into law... ever), but whining and crying about how the bill is tantamount to ending the Constitution and everyone that voted for it is a communist-at-heart is counter-productive to the long-term goal that the GOP needs to keep in focus... getting back majority control.
This point made me think... didn't Jambo once make the claim that "anger doesn't win elections"? I don't remember who said it (but I do think it was Jambo), but the jist is: Anger doesn't win elections... fear does. Well, Card said something very, very similar. Conservatives in this country can get as angry as they want, but it won't get anyone elected. Anger tells a voter who NOT to vote for, but fear will tell them who TO vote for.
History backs this up, I think. Was the country angry at the Hoover Administration's lack of success? Or were they afraid of the effects of the Great Depression and voted for someone that promised solutions? The former may be true, but FDR got elected because he offered solutions. Were people angry at the state of the Nation in 1980? Hell, yes. Did they vote for Reagan because he WASN'T Carter... no, they didn't, they voted for him because his promises offered HOPE and CHANGE, for the better. They voted for Reagan because they were afraid of the direction the country was going in.
Card's second point is also very important. History shows us that movements like the Tea Party pop up throughout history, but almost never win an election simply on an opposition-platform. This isn't a new idea for us here at the Bund, but it is a good one to make again. The average American voter in this country doesn't give a rat's buttocks for what the President's (or Presidential candidate's) ideology is based on. There is no question in my mind that Obama's personal ideology is rooted in radical, fundamental socialist ideology, and his success in recent years stems from his ability to say what everyone wants to hear more than everyone's agreement with what his ideology says. Card goes so far as to say that Obama is the most dangerous President to be elected to the office... ever. That's a lot to say from even a conservative Democrat, huh?
Movements like the Tea Party can be as grass-root as they come, but the prospects is always there that they will split the vote. I won't touch on the obvious examples (Perot in '92), but instead I'll use the example that Card used last night... Buchanan in '96.
Now, I'm going to be charitable and NOT share the scene from the radio show where the host (whom I won't name) made an ASS of himself by completely misunderstanding Card's point about Buchanan and assuming that he really meant Perot in '92, but Card was talking about Buchanan in '96. So, I went back and looked at the numbers again.
1996 was Buchanan's best run for the White House. In the primary election cycle, he won 21% of the GOP vote... enough to keep him relevant, I think. Now, if we look at that slice of the vote, but from the point of view of the "independent" conservative voter, can we assume a similar percentage of interest? How many independents went to the polls and remembered Buchanan's slogan of "the peasants are coming with pitchforks"? Bob Dole was not the most memorable candidate the GOP ever threw up, but I'm very sure that much of what Buchanan said during the primary season was seen as "the GOP position" by moderates and independents. Buchanan ran a campaign of "anger" at the direction of the Clinton Administration, and we can all recall his comments... but how many people can recall his solutions? What was he promising to do that would fix what Clinton was doing?
I'll say this about Buchanan... he's a man of principles, and he sticks to them. He hasn't changed his song for decades, and because of this, we can look back and see that his very vocal, very well-covered primary campaign did more harm to the GOP in '96 than anything Clinton said or did at all. He routinely voiced his disdain for NAFTA (making it a household phrase in '96 almost single-handedly) by claiming it was a Clinton effort to subvert American pre-dominance in the global economy... and forgetting that it was the economic love-child of Ronald Wilson Reagan, the man that the GOP was modeling itself after. He routinely called for a reduction in our armed forces and a non-interventionist position in our foreign policy, again, forgetting that it was exactly the opposite position that was advocated by Reagan ("peace through security") and almost every other mainstream conservative out there. He was the most out-spoken critic of the Clinton Administration's efforts to enforce the "no-fly" zones and to maintain the security effort in a post-'91 Iraq... and I can't help but think that is 180 degrees opposite from the "mainstream" conservative position that would lead to the 2003 invasion (although, that is outside the scope of this particular discussion).
I am utterly convinced, now more than ever, that Buchanan is far more responsible for the failures of the pre-Bush GOP (and I am including the failures of the public's perception of the Contract with America in this, too) because of his very vocal, very angry rhetoric that constantly criticized but never offered viable, memorable solutions to the problems that the "average voter" could embrace. His anger and resentment at how things were bring run carried through to the public, loudly and clearly, though...
Now, back to the point. Perot's Reform ticket took more than 8% of the conservative vote from Dole, but that wasn't enough to tip the scales against Clinton. However, I can't help but think that Card is RIGHT when he says that a significant proportion of conservative independent and moderate Democrats might have felt more comfortable voting opposite ticket, had A) Perot not run as a third party and B) Buchanan had kept his mouth shut and stayed out of the race altogether. '96 was a closer race than any Democrat is likely to admit today... and none of them are going to make the case that, had these two factors (Perot and Buchanan) learned the lessons of '92 just a little sooner, Clinton would have been a one-term President, and the Conservative Majority would have been complete four years sooner than it was.
For conservatives to win in 2010 and 2012, we are going to have to show that what is being done is counter-productive and how it is going to be fixed. We are NOT going to win by saying over and over again that it is the "wrong path to take"... because even the most uninformed American voter understands that simply bitching about which path to take only really means you are left standing in the middle of an intersection, waiting to be run over by someone who knows what direction they want to go in.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Funny you should mention that...
I have been gaining a growing appreciation for the small, lesser-known museums of our country, and your post fits right in with something I was talking about just two days ago.
I know none of us have forgotten our "Bund Trip" to the D-Day Museum (Now the World War II Museum) in New Orleans on the 60th Anniversary of D-Day. That particular museum is a classic example of what I am talking about. Nothing to compare to Washington DC's Smithsonian Museum, or Chicago's Natural History Museum, or New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art, or the British Museum, or the Louve, or Hermitage, or the Cairo Museum, at least not in size and number of exhibits.
But these small, local museums offer an insight that the big ones often seem to lack. That trip to the D-Day Museum is a great example. It cost us what? Two hours of drive time? $11 to park, and another $12 (each) to get in? What did we get for that 57 mile drive and $47 investment?
A full day of completely immersive history, surrounded by the sights, sounds, faces, voices... even the SMELLS of that grey morning in France on 6 June 1945. I will never forget the sound... the actual feeling of the sound... coming from a .50 "Ma Deuce" pounding out a full belt in the middle of a quiet back street in New Orleans, or of speaking with any one of the dozens of volunteers who had dressed in various uniforms to display and explain the minute details of what those men were wearing, carrying, shooting and using from both sides of the battlefield, or to experience the details being shared via that particularly fascinating G2-style briefing that occured every fifteen minutes and which was delivering the same information to the audience that the commanders in the field were getting real-time during the actual invasion.
Want another example? Go to absolutely ANY US Navy Museum Ship that you care to mention. One of my all-time favorites is the USS Alabama, in Mobile Alabama. $5 to park, and $8 per person to spend the entire day walking on one of TWO WWII-era warships (BB-60 "The Big A" or the SS-228 USS Drum), or a fully-stocked aircraft museum which, among a baker's dozen other aircraft, contains one of only FOUR remaining Blackbird SR-71 spyplanes and (the crowning piece in the aircraft collection)... the actual "Calamity Jane" B-52 Stratofortress. Tanks from four US wars and enough field artillery pieces to equip an artillery company, along with the shell and exhaust nozzels for a complete Saturn V rocket body... it's a great freakin' tour, let me tell you.
There are lots of them out there, too. The USS New Jersey is parked in Camden, NJ. The USS Intrepid sits in New York Harbor. The USS Constitution in Boston, MA. The USS Texas, the USS Olympia, USS North Carolina, USS Lexington, USS Wisconsin... its a long and very impressive list of ships available to visit and explore, and they are spread across the country, from Pearl Harbor HI to Hilton Head, NC. From Manitowoc, WI to Key West, FL.
Every major city in this country has some kind of museum, and some of them are worth every effort to see. Add to that the pieces of history scattered across this vast landscape, like Gettysburg, PA or Vicksburg, MS or Saratoga, NY or St. Augustine, FL or Mount Rushmore, SD or the Sullivan Trail across PA and NY, and you have an almost endless list of fun, interesting, and educational things to do with your kids anytime you get in the car to travel.
Good for you, for planning a trip like that with your boys!
I know none of us have forgotten our "Bund Trip" to the D-Day Museum (Now the World War II Museum) in New Orleans on the 60th Anniversary of D-Day. That particular museum is a classic example of what I am talking about. Nothing to compare to Washington DC's Smithsonian Museum, or Chicago's Natural History Museum, or New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art, or the British Museum, or the Louve, or Hermitage, or the Cairo Museum, at least not in size and number of exhibits.
But these small, local museums offer an insight that the big ones often seem to lack. That trip to the D-Day Museum is a great example. It cost us what? Two hours of drive time? $11 to park, and another $12 (each) to get in? What did we get for that 57 mile drive and $47 investment?
A full day of completely immersive history, surrounded by the sights, sounds, faces, voices... even the SMELLS of that grey morning in France on 6 June 1945. I will never forget the sound... the actual feeling of the sound... coming from a .50 "Ma Deuce" pounding out a full belt in the middle of a quiet back street in New Orleans, or of speaking with any one of the dozens of volunteers who had dressed in various uniforms to display and explain the minute details of what those men were wearing, carrying, shooting and using from both sides of the battlefield, or to experience the details being shared via that particularly fascinating G2-style briefing that occured every fifteen minutes and which was delivering the same information to the audience that the commanders in the field were getting real-time during the actual invasion.
Want another example? Go to absolutely ANY US Navy Museum Ship that you care to mention. One of my all-time favorites is the USS Alabama, in Mobile Alabama. $5 to park, and $8 per person to spend the entire day walking on one of TWO WWII-era warships (BB-60 "The Big A" or the SS-228 USS Drum), or a fully-stocked aircraft museum which, among a baker's dozen other aircraft, contains one of only FOUR remaining Blackbird SR-71 spyplanes and (the crowning piece in the aircraft collection)... the actual "Calamity Jane" B-52 Stratofortress. Tanks from four US wars and enough field artillery pieces to equip an artillery company, along with the shell and exhaust nozzels for a complete Saturn V rocket body... it's a great freakin' tour, let me tell you.
There are lots of them out there, too. The USS New Jersey is parked in Camden, NJ. The USS Intrepid sits in New York Harbor. The USS Constitution in Boston, MA. The USS Texas, the USS Olympia, USS North Carolina, USS Lexington, USS Wisconsin... its a long and very impressive list of ships available to visit and explore, and they are spread across the country, from Pearl Harbor HI to Hilton Head, NC. From Manitowoc, WI to Key West, FL.
Every major city in this country has some kind of museum, and some of them are worth every effort to see. Add to that the pieces of history scattered across this vast landscape, like Gettysburg, PA or Vicksburg, MS or Saratoga, NY or St. Augustine, FL or Mount Rushmore, SD or the Sullivan Trail across PA and NY, and you have an almost endless list of fun, interesting, and educational things to do with your kids anytime you get in the car to travel.
Good for you, for planning a trip like that with your boys!
Dig it ...
Nice sentiment Titus.
So, I'm looking for something for myself & the boys to do on my birthday (today). And I think we will make our way down to the Atomic Testing Museum. I assumed it was just a small tribute establishment to Nevada's involvement in the development of the bomb. But as I scan the site (only $9 a ticket for Nevadan's) I see in its' short 5 years the speakers they've enjoyed aren't unimpressive, one or two jumped out ... Sergei N. Krushcev & Susan Eisenhower, along with various USAF generals. And as I'm thinking to myself, "how the hell did this little joint draw those kind of names?", I notice in the corner, in small text it reads: "An Affiliate of the Smithsonian Institution."
Ha! I guess its' being located among other landmark establishments advertised as "just off the strip", such as the Elvis Museum, Magic Galore, and "Stripper Supplies" (a real store), I didn't assume it was a real deal museum. It is.
For $45 they have full replica, galvanized "fall out shelter" signs. I might have to pick one up. Starting April 1st there will be "The Art of War" gallery focusing on tools & weapons used in WWI's trench warfare. And they recently enjoyed a sincerely special, permanent "artifact dedication" - a beam from (I believe it's the South Tower) the World Trade Center, pulled from the rubble. Patrons are allowed to touch and photograph it.
I raised an eyebrow as I noted a disclaimer on the site. Within this museum the Trade Center beam is the ONLY area where ANY photography is allowed, as the various displays and documents were, as they note, once "TOP SECRET." I wonder if they're serious ...
So, I'm looking for something for myself & the boys to do on my birthday (today). And I think we will make our way down to the Atomic Testing Museum. I assumed it was just a small tribute establishment to Nevada's involvement in the development of the bomb. But as I scan the site (only $9 a ticket for Nevadan's) I see in its' short 5 years the speakers they've enjoyed aren't unimpressive, one or two jumped out ... Sergei N. Krushcev & Susan Eisenhower, along with various USAF generals. And as I'm thinking to myself, "how the hell did this little joint draw those kind of names?", I notice in the corner, in small text it reads: "An Affiliate of the Smithsonian Institution."
Ha! I guess its' being located among other landmark establishments advertised as "just off the strip", such as the Elvis Museum, Magic Galore, and "Stripper Supplies" (a real store), I didn't assume it was a real deal museum. It is.
For $45 they have full replica, galvanized "fall out shelter" signs. I might have to pick one up. Starting April 1st there will be "The Art of War" gallery focusing on tools & weapons used in WWI's trench warfare. And they recently enjoyed a sincerely special, permanent "artifact dedication" - a beam from (I believe it's the South Tower) the World Trade Center, pulled from the rubble. Patrons are allowed to touch and photograph it.
I raised an eyebrow as I noted a disclaimer on the site. Within this museum the Trade Center beam is the ONLY area where ANY photography is allowed, as the various displays and documents were, as they note, once "TOP SECRET." I wonder if they're serious ...
Do you know what I love about our blog?
It's never just "one point of view"...
Yes, there are many aspects of current events that we share a common view of, but when we are posting our views, we are expecting a response... usually in the form of a rebuttal, refutation, argument or outright hostile threat. It is NEVER just one point of view.
So many blogs seem to be one point of view, presented for all to see, but with no means of addressing issues within those views or opinions outside of the attached "comments" that are difficult to post and aren't typically part of a debate or discussion.
We aren't simply hanging essays and articles about what we "think" is happening (or has happened) for everyone interested to read and absorb. We are posting these views with the express intention of getting someone (usually one of us, I know) to contribute to or refute the viewpoint. That is what makes this fun for me... and for anyone reading it, I hope.
Good times... good times.
Yes, there are many aspects of current events that we share a common view of, but when we are posting our views, we are expecting a response... usually in the form of a rebuttal, refutation, argument or outright hostile threat. It is NEVER just one point of view.
So many blogs seem to be one point of view, presented for all to see, but with no means of addressing issues within those views or opinions outside of the attached "comments" that are difficult to post and aren't typically part of a debate or discussion.
We aren't simply hanging essays and articles about what we "think" is happening (or has happened) for everyone interested to read and absorb. We are posting these views with the express intention of getting someone (usually one of us, I know) to contribute to or refute the viewpoint. That is what makes this fun for me... and for anyone reading it, I hope.
Good times... good times.
France abandons carbon tax plan...
Sarkozy ran for his Presidency on the promise of climate reform legislation in France, and now even he is questioning the effect such legislation will have on the ability of France to compete globally.
With the French version of the Supreme Court saying the planned 4.5 billion euro annual tax was unfair in its coverage (55% would have come from households, 45% from industry... but only industry had any tax breaks to hide behind), it isn't really all that surprising, is it? Only four EU states have implemented a carbon tax to date (Ireland, Finland, Denmark and Sweden) and none of those four are very likely to show any benefits from the tax, either in revenue or reduced carbon emissions, but all are likely to show a drop in competitive market shares both in the Union and globally. So, Sarkozy thinks France should "wait and see"...
Let's remember this position the next time someone says we should be doing things more like they are in Europe, okay?
With the French version of the Supreme Court saying the planned 4.5 billion euro annual tax was unfair in its coverage (55% would have come from households, 45% from industry... but only industry had any tax breaks to hide behind), it isn't really all that surprising, is it? Only four EU states have implemented a carbon tax to date (Ireland, Finland, Denmark and Sweden) and none of those four are very likely to show any benefits from the tax, either in revenue or reduced carbon emissions, but all are likely to show a drop in competitive market shares both in the Union and globally. So, Sarkozy thinks France should "wait and see"...
Let's remember this position the next time someone says we should be doing things more like they are in Europe, okay?
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Here's how Ryan can get a House seat in 2010...
Without even trying hard!
Jambo's five step plan for How to Get a House Seat.
1) Move to a district where the incumbent voted for the health care bill.
2) Register as a Democrat.
3) Open the Primary season with the absolute trump card of all trump cards: "Let's review the TRANSPARENCY of the incumbent's voting record."
4) Apply full pressure onto the incumbent's throat during the ensuing debates.
5) Crush the opposition in the general election in November with actual debating skills and promises you can keep.
Of course, you'll be sworn in as a Democrat, but afterwards you can switch to an Independent affiliation if you so choose.
Jambo's five step plan for How to Get a House Seat.
1) Move to a district where the incumbent voted for the health care bill.
2) Register as a Democrat.
3) Open the Primary season with the absolute trump card of all trump cards: "Let's review the TRANSPARENCY of the incumbent's voting record."
4) Apply full pressure onto the incumbent's throat during the ensuing debates.
5) Crush the opposition in the general election in November with actual debating skills and promises you can keep.
Of course, you'll be sworn in as a Democrat, but afterwards you can switch to an Independent affiliation if you so choose.
My point, exactly...
I can't do much to add to what Ryan already said... and what he said he said well, didn't he?
I'm delighted at the response this sort of sweeping legislation is drawing from the States. With the focus of the mainstream media having been almost exclusively on the Congressional aspect of the effort leading up to today's signing, we haven't heard much from what the States think of this load of tripe.
As I think I've already said, only 34 States are needed to form an Article V Convention, and any proposed amendments need only 38 States to ratify it into the Constitution. With Congress taking this much control and regulation of what will (without question) constitute a full 20% of our entire nation's economy away from the States, even States that are typically "liberal" in their views will need to think long and hard about NOT fighting this. For example, let's look at California...
California is either the 7th or 8th largest economy on the face of the earth (depending on which scale you go by), and it contains the largest concentration of pharmaceutical and medical technology companies anywhere in the world. With the prospect of an additional 40% taxes on their revenues here in the US, and even more regulation and oversight by the Feds than they already have, what will happen to cash-strapped Cali if the vast majority of the companies pack up and move to India, or the Philippines, or Mexico where they can make their products at lower costs, with lower taxes, and cheaper labor? Any of the three countries I mentioned have more than enough "intelligentsia" looking for work straight out of university... and India even has the technical infrastructure to compete with anything CA has right now (how much do you want to bet there aren't any "rolling blackouts" in Bombay?). Add to that the fact that two out of the three countries I listed use ENGLISH as a first-language in college and university settings, and the prospects are looking more and more appealing, aren't they?
Imagine how it would look if, while basking in the glow of their triumph over conservative concerns about growing government, an expanding deficit, and an utter lack of transparency and cooperation between Democrats and ANYONE else... they get bitch-slapped by the majority of States with enough litigation to choke even a Democratic initiative, followed by an Article V Convention to make sure that this mess NEVER HAPPENS AGAIN.
Ah, what rosey dreams we dream...
I'm delighted at the response this sort of sweeping legislation is drawing from the States. With the focus of the mainstream media having been almost exclusively on the Congressional aspect of the effort leading up to today's signing, we haven't heard much from what the States think of this load of tripe.
As I think I've already said, only 34 States are needed to form an Article V Convention, and any proposed amendments need only 38 States to ratify it into the Constitution. With Congress taking this much control and regulation of what will (without question) constitute a full 20% of our entire nation's economy away from the States, even States that are typically "liberal" in their views will need to think long and hard about NOT fighting this. For example, let's look at California...
California is either the 7th or 8th largest economy on the face of the earth (depending on which scale you go by), and it contains the largest concentration of pharmaceutical and medical technology companies anywhere in the world. With the prospect of an additional 40% taxes on their revenues here in the US, and even more regulation and oversight by the Feds than they already have, what will happen to cash-strapped Cali if the vast majority of the companies pack up and move to India, or the Philippines, or Mexico where they can make their products at lower costs, with lower taxes, and cheaper labor? Any of the three countries I mentioned have more than enough "intelligentsia" looking for work straight out of university... and India even has the technical infrastructure to compete with anything CA has right now (how much do you want to bet there aren't any "rolling blackouts" in Bombay?). Add to that the fact that two out of the three countries I listed use ENGLISH as a first-language in college and university settings, and the prospects are looking more and more appealing, aren't they?
Imagine how it would look if, while basking in the glow of their triumph over conservative concerns about growing government, an expanding deficit, and an utter lack of transparency and cooperation between Democrats and ANYONE else... they get bitch-slapped by the majority of States with enough litigation to choke even a Democratic initiative, followed by an Article V Convention to make sure that this mess NEVER HAPPENS AGAIN.
Ah, what rosey dreams we dream...
March 23, 1775
Alabama Louisiana North Dakota
Alaska Maine Ohio
Arizona Maryland Oklahoma
Arkansas Michigan Oregon
California Minnesota Rhode Island
Colorado Mississippi South Dakota
Florida Missouri Texas
Georgia Montana Utah
Idaho Nebraska Washington
Illinois New Hampshire West Virginia
Kansas New Mexico Wyoming
Kentucky North Carolina
36 state legislatures so far have proposed measures to challenge the constitutionality of the new federal bill; 29 states are also calling for ballot questions to amend their constitutions; 13 are looking to change state law, and a total of 12 have announced plans to sue over the unconstitutionality in this expansion of the commerce clause. Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum is the face leading the consortium of 12 states which include: Alabama, Florida, Nebraska, Washington, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Colorado.
AG Bill McCollum (R) FL held a press conference today then filed his suit on behalf of the Sunshine State before the ink was even dry on the new law this afternoon. Virginia's AG walked 6 blocks from his office to the federal court house and filed as well. They will argue, among other things, that the requirement in the bill that all Americans purchase health insurance violates the Constitution because it forces individuals to contract with private companies.
"With this law, the federal government will force citizens to buy health insurance, claiming it has the authority to do so because of its power to regulate interstate commerce," said Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli Monday. "We contend that if a person decides not to buy health insurance, that person – by definition – is not engaging in commerce, and therefore, is not subject to a federal mandate."
As to the legislative initiatives while federal law trumps state law, these various initiatives are set to strengthen the federal law suits and be in place to be upheld in the event of a SCOTUS ruling. In addition this list of 36 states so far bodes well in the event of a serious push for a Constitutional Convention.
For an ENTIRE list of details about various initiatives, I found a fantastically informative site at the National Conference of State Legislatures. It has all the details you could possibly want.
Now, as to the subject line ... I found it an historical irony what this date, the day Obama has signed into law the most sweeping abridgement of our freedom in my life time, represents to the history of our nation.
Following the Boston Tea Party, Dec. 16, 1773, in which American Colonists dumped 342 containers of tea into the Boston harbor, the British Parliament enacted a series of Acts in response to the rebellion in Massachusetts.
In May of 1774, General Thomas Gage, commander of all British military forces in the colonies, arrived in Boston, followed by the arrival of four regiments of British troops.
The First Continental Congress met in the fall of 1774 in Philadelphia with 56 American delegates, representing every colony, except Georgia. On September 17, the Congress declared its opposition to the repressive Acts of Parliament, saying they are "not to be obeyed," and also promoted the formation of local militia units.
Thus economic and military tensions between the colonists and the British escalated. In February of 1775, a provincial congress was held in Massachusetts during which John Hancock and Joseph Warren began defensive preparations for a state of war. The English Parliament then declared Massachusetts to be in a state of rebellion.
On March 23, in Virginia, the largest colony in America, a meeting of the colony's delegates was held in St. John's church in Richmond. Resolutions were presented by Patrick Henry putting the colony of Virginia "into a posture of defense...embodying, arming, and disciplining such a number of men as may be sufficient for that purpose." Before the vote was taken on his resolutions, Henry delivered the speech below, imploring the delegates to vote in favor.
He spoke without any notes in a voice that became louder and louder, climaxing with the now famous ending. Following his speech, the vote was taken in which his resolutions passed by a narrow margin, and thus Virginia joined in the American Revolution.
No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope that it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen, if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve.
This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty towards the majesty of heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.
Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren, till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation?
For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth -- to know the worst and to provide for it. I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years, to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House?
Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with these warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation -- the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motives for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies?
No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us; they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer on the subject? Nothing.
We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves longer.
Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament.
Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope.
If we wish to be free -- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending -- if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!
They tell us, sir, that we are weak -- unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?
Sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of the means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us.
The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable -- and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come!
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, "Peace! Peace!" -- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!
Patrick Henry - March 23, 1775
Alaska Maine Ohio
Arizona Maryland Oklahoma
Arkansas Michigan Oregon
California Minnesota Rhode Island
Colorado Mississippi South Dakota
Florida Missouri Texas
Georgia Montana Utah
Idaho Nebraska Washington
Illinois New Hampshire West Virginia
Kansas New Mexico Wyoming
Kentucky North Carolina
36 state legislatures so far have proposed measures to challenge the constitutionality of the new federal bill; 29 states are also calling for ballot questions to amend their constitutions; 13 are looking to change state law, and a total of 12 have announced plans to sue over the unconstitutionality in this expansion of the commerce clause. Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum is the face leading the consortium of 12 states which include: Alabama, Florida, Nebraska, Washington, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Colorado.
AG Bill McCollum (R) FL held a press conference today then filed his suit on behalf of the Sunshine State before the ink was even dry on the new law this afternoon. Virginia's AG walked 6 blocks from his office to the federal court house and filed as well. They will argue, among other things, that the requirement in the bill that all Americans purchase health insurance violates the Constitution because it forces individuals to contract with private companies.
"With this law, the federal government will force citizens to buy health insurance, claiming it has the authority to do so because of its power to regulate interstate commerce," said Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli Monday. "We contend that if a person decides not to buy health insurance, that person – by definition – is not engaging in commerce, and therefore, is not subject to a federal mandate."
As to the legislative initiatives while federal law trumps state law, these various initiatives are set to strengthen the federal law suits and be in place to be upheld in the event of a SCOTUS ruling. In addition this list of 36 states so far bodes well in the event of a serious push for a Constitutional Convention.
For an ENTIRE list of details about various initiatives, I found a fantastically informative site at the National Conference of State Legislatures. It has all the details you could possibly want.
Now, as to the subject line ... I found it an historical irony what this date, the day Obama has signed into law the most sweeping abridgement of our freedom in my life time, represents to the history of our nation.
Following the Boston Tea Party, Dec. 16, 1773, in which American Colonists dumped 342 containers of tea into the Boston harbor, the British Parliament enacted a series of Acts in response to the rebellion in Massachusetts.
In May of 1774, General Thomas Gage, commander of all British military forces in the colonies, arrived in Boston, followed by the arrival of four regiments of British troops.
The First Continental Congress met in the fall of 1774 in Philadelphia with 56 American delegates, representing every colony, except Georgia. On September 17, the Congress declared its opposition to the repressive Acts of Parliament, saying they are "not to be obeyed," and also promoted the formation of local militia units.
Thus economic and military tensions between the colonists and the British escalated. In February of 1775, a provincial congress was held in Massachusetts during which John Hancock and Joseph Warren began defensive preparations for a state of war. The English Parliament then declared Massachusetts to be in a state of rebellion.
On March 23, in Virginia, the largest colony in America, a meeting of the colony's delegates was held in St. John's church in Richmond. Resolutions were presented by Patrick Henry putting the colony of Virginia "into a posture of defense...embodying, arming, and disciplining such a number of men as may be sufficient for that purpose." Before the vote was taken on his resolutions, Henry delivered the speech below, imploring the delegates to vote in favor.
He spoke without any notes in a voice that became louder and louder, climaxing with the now famous ending. Following his speech, the vote was taken in which his resolutions passed by a narrow margin, and thus Virginia joined in the American Revolution.
No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope that it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen, if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve.
This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty towards the majesty of heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.
Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren, till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation?
For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth -- to know the worst and to provide for it. I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years, to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House?
Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with these warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation -- the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motives for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies?
No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us; they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer on the subject? Nothing.
We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves longer.
Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament.
Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope.
If we wish to be free -- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending -- if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!
They tell us, sir, that we are weak -- unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?
Sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of the means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us.
The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable -- and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come!
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, "Peace! Peace!" -- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!
Patrick Henry - March 23, 1775
Let's talk about a fix-it plan...
Had a very interesting conversation with Jambo already this morning. Seems he got a text from Ryan that shared insight into the scope of the nation's concern about both what this legislation means to America and how it was brought about.
This morning, I read article after article about the historic signing of this legislation into law by Obama. I also read quite a few articles about how the Governors of the States of Virginia, Louisiana, Texas, and Mississippi (and more to come, no doubt) are calling for their AGs to file suit with the legislative branch the MINUTE this bill is signed. This leads me to my point... what can be done to fix this problem?
As Ryan is always so quick to point out, Federal entitlement programs do not go away unless forced to do so... and that doesn't happen very often. There were a few Great Society programs that have been forced off the books by the SCOTUS... but probably not enough of them, and years after they went into effect, meaning that some other agency or program simply picked up the slack (a real and measurable result of the precedents set by the New Deal Presidents). With the long-term nature of this bill's implementation firmly carved into its very bones, no serious consideration is going to be given to critics of the bill's success until as late as 2019, when it all falls into place... and I think the detrimental effects will be felt far sooner than that. Add to that the FACT that gaps in the scope and reach of this bill are not denied within it, and are still only a sweep of the pen away from an executive order as being part of the law (Federal funding for abortions, for example, are not DENIED in the bill, so Obama would only have to sign the order to make it a reality), and what we have here is an open-ended equation for more and more wasted money and effort on the part of the Fed for less and less measurable benefits to society.
So, what is the quickest and surest means to fix this problem, once and for all, and to put this nation back on track in regards to the size and scope of the Federal authority and control it exercises in our lives?
We already have four States promising to fight the legislation the second it becomes law (I predict that this number will TRIPLE by this time next week). Is it out of the realm of possibility that the number of States that fight this movement could reach 34? Because if it isn't, then those States could, without interference from Congress or the White House, hold an Article V Convention to amend the Constitution. All that would be needed then is a total of 38 States to ratify the amendments to make them permanent and untouchable across the land.
Can you imagine the blow-back such an event would have? There hasn't been a Constitutional Convention since 1787, and we've never seen the Article V option employed in this country since (not even in our most trying and divided moments), but I think this option is finally beginning to make sense to many people in this land.
The longer unjust or immoral rules and laws remain in place, the more difficult they are to remove... this is a very painful lesson that American simply has not learned in her 230 year history. It took 87 years and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans to finally remove the stain of slavery from our national government... and nothing within those decades of compromise politics is justified in light of the crimes committed under slavery. To recover from the injustice of slavery and the war that resulted from it, we find another 12 years of Reconstruction, which wasn't ended until the scandalous Compromise of 1877... itself a model of governmental injustice and total failure to follow Constitutional procedure. Nearly 100 years of compromise and hidden agendas to fix what the entire nation knew to be a problem, one way or another.
Another example is the 17th Amendment. No one here could possibly NOT see the failings of a system of gubernatorial appointments for vacancies in the Senate when you have the appointments by Blagojevich and Patterson in just the last few years, and I still think the case can be made that the 17th Amendment gave TOO much power and authority to special interests within the Congress.
Congressional amendments to the Constitution are hard to come by... but I really think we are coming to a point where an Article V amendment opportunity is going to be seen by many as the only viable option to curb our nation's increasing movement to a leftist, soft-socialist, "European-style" system of public welfare and forced economics.
I admit to not knowing a whole lot about the process, but I can tell you that my free time over the next few days will center on learning what this process entails and how it can be employed to fix what is so OBVIOUSLY not working right now.
This morning, I read article after article about the historic signing of this legislation into law by Obama. I also read quite a few articles about how the Governors of the States of Virginia, Louisiana, Texas, and Mississippi (and more to come, no doubt) are calling for their AGs to file suit with the legislative branch the MINUTE this bill is signed. This leads me to my point... what can be done to fix this problem?
As Ryan is always so quick to point out, Federal entitlement programs do not go away unless forced to do so... and that doesn't happen very often. There were a few Great Society programs that have been forced off the books by the SCOTUS... but probably not enough of them, and years after they went into effect, meaning that some other agency or program simply picked up the slack (a real and measurable result of the precedents set by the New Deal Presidents). With the long-term nature of this bill's implementation firmly carved into its very bones, no serious consideration is going to be given to critics of the bill's success until as late as 2019, when it all falls into place... and I think the detrimental effects will be felt far sooner than that. Add to that the FACT that gaps in the scope and reach of this bill are not denied within it, and are still only a sweep of the pen away from an executive order as being part of the law (Federal funding for abortions, for example, are not DENIED in the bill, so Obama would only have to sign the order to make it a reality), and what we have here is an open-ended equation for more and more wasted money and effort on the part of the Fed for less and less measurable benefits to society.
So, what is the quickest and surest means to fix this problem, once and for all, and to put this nation back on track in regards to the size and scope of the Federal authority and control it exercises in our lives?
We already have four States promising to fight the legislation the second it becomes law (I predict that this number will TRIPLE by this time next week). Is it out of the realm of possibility that the number of States that fight this movement could reach 34? Because if it isn't, then those States could, without interference from Congress or the White House, hold an Article V Convention to amend the Constitution. All that would be needed then is a total of 38 States to ratify the amendments to make them permanent and untouchable across the land.
Can you imagine the blow-back such an event would have? There hasn't been a Constitutional Convention since 1787, and we've never seen the Article V option employed in this country since (not even in our most trying and divided moments), but I think this option is finally beginning to make sense to many people in this land.
The longer unjust or immoral rules and laws remain in place, the more difficult they are to remove... this is a very painful lesson that American simply has not learned in her 230 year history. It took 87 years and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans to finally remove the stain of slavery from our national government... and nothing within those decades of compromise politics is justified in light of the crimes committed under slavery. To recover from the injustice of slavery and the war that resulted from it, we find another 12 years of Reconstruction, which wasn't ended until the scandalous Compromise of 1877... itself a model of governmental injustice and total failure to follow Constitutional procedure. Nearly 100 years of compromise and hidden agendas to fix what the entire nation knew to be a problem, one way or another.
Another example is the 17th Amendment. No one here could possibly NOT see the failings of a system of gubernatorial appointments for vacancies in the Senate when you have the appointments by Blagojevich and Patterson in just the last few years, and I still think the case can be made that the 17th Amendment gave TOO much power and authority to special interests within the Congress.
Congressional amendments to the Constitution are hard to come by... but I really think we are coming to a point where an Article V amendment opportunity is going to be seen by many as the only viable option to curb our nation's increasing movement to a leftist, soft-socialist, "European-style" system of public welfare and forced economics.
I admit to not knowing a whole lot about the process, but I can tell you that my free time over the next few days will center on learning what this process entails and how it can be employed to fix what is so OBVIOUSLY not working right now.
I can't do it...
I have yet to find even one sentence of this legislation that give some kind of benefit to the average person that deregulating the insurance system would have done 100% better. This bill raises the cost of existing coverage at nearly every level, raises taxes to those that aren't going to recieve any benefits, and costs the Federal government a significant amount of annual revenue (meaning deficit spending) for the next 12 years.
It is a convoluted, confusing mess of a bill (soon to be a law) that was hidden from the American people with the express intent of masking just how over-blown and inconsequential it really is to the average American, while it increases Federal authority and access to our private lives by an entire order of magnitude. This is the political love-child of the Obama-Pelosi-Reid government... and everything about it is contrary to what Obama promised us in his vow to bring "hope and change" to America.
So, I'm bowing out of the role of "devil's advocate" today... you'll have to find someone either a lot smarter than I am, or a lot dumber.
It is a convoluted, confusing mess of a bill (soon to be a law) that was hidden from the American people with the express intent of masking just how over-blown and inconsequential it really is to the average American, while it increases Federal authority and access to our private lives by an entire order of magnitude. This is the political love-child of the Obama-Pelosi-Reid government... and everything about it is contrary to what Obama promised us in his vow to bring "hope and change" to America.
So, I'm bowing out of the role of "devil's advocate" today... you'll have to find someone either a lot smarter than I am, or a lot dumber.
Any time someone...
Brings up FDR and New Deal, we end up with eight million posts. So this mondo-record pace is a direct result of me asking Ryan why FDR wasn't on his top five list. Yay me.
I need someone to play devil's advocate for me, okay? Someone tell me WHAT John Q. Public gets out of this bill. What measurable and specific benefit does Johnny and Suzie reap?
Love it, hate it, what have you, the Social Security Act came about as a result of hundreds of thousands of workers losing their pensions in the Crash of '29. Again, not defending it, just pointing out that the measurable and specific result of this is three generations of Americans living with the security of knowing the money was waiting for them, regardless of the economic ups and downs.
(Personal note... Ray and Betty of Bund Grandparent fame lived off of three benefit packages. 1st was Social Security. 2nd was Ray's retirement pension from the Teamsters, which crapped the bed in the early 90s. 3rd was Ray's military disability due to the wounds he suffered in WWII, which was NOT all that much. So their primary retirement? Social Security. Their son, Richard, Titus and Jambo's father and his wife, Linda, our mother, had TWO retirement packages. 1st is Social Security. 2nd was Father's retirement package from his cable television construction career, which took massive hits in the recession of 2000, the tech bubble burst and the most recent recession of 2008. Was it Father's mishandling of his retirement? No. He had no control over the retirement fund's diversified (or lack thereof) portfolio. So their PRIMARY retirement is Social Security. They are not jet setting socialites on fixed income, but they are living and eating and paying their utilities. So in those instances Social Security did its job. So pardon my lack of criticism of the program. My personal experience is that it has worked.)
Okay? Ready for my Devil's Advocate response.
I need someone to play devil's advocate for me, okay? Someone tell me WHAT John Q. Public gets out of this bill. What measurable and specific benefit does Johnny and Suzie reap?
Love it, hate it, what have you, the Social Security Act came about as a result of hundreds of thousands of workers losing their pensions in the Crash of '29. Again, not defending it, just pointing out that the measurable and specific result of this is three generations of Americans living with the security of knowing the money was waiting for them, regardless of the economic ups and downs.
(Personal note... Ray and Betty of Bund Grandparent fame lived off of three benefit packages. 1st was Social Security. 2nd was Ray's retirement pension from the Teamsters, which crapped the bed in the early 90s. 3rd was Ray's military disability due to the wounds he suffered in WWII, which was NOT all that much. So their primary retirement? Social Security. Their son, Richard, Titus and Jambo's father and his wife, Linda, our mother, had TWO retirement packages. 1st is Social Security. 2nd was Father's retirement package from his cable television construction career, which took massive hits in the recession of 2000, the tech bubble burst and the most recent recession of 2008. Was it Father's mishandling of his retirement? No. He had no control over the retirement fund's diversified (or lack thereof) portfolio. So their PRIMARY retirement is Social Security. They are not jet setting socialites on fixed income, but they are living and eating and paying their utilities. So in those instances Social Security did its job. So pardon my lack of criticism of the program. My personal experience is that it has worked.)
Okay? Ready for my Devil's Advocate response.
Prediction time!
I'm going on record right now. Of the 218 members of the House that voted for the health care bill, 66% or 146 will LOSE their seats.
Bold, I know. I'm a risk taking kind of guy.
For this bill to be made public NOW, AFTER the passage, without the informed consent of the constituency is horrible. In the 21st century of Internet, C-SPAN, 24 hour news channels and in general INFORMATION the fact that this was NOT TRANSPARENT will blow up in the faces of everyone who voted for it.
My congressman, Gene Taylor, 4th District of Mississippi, voted against by the way. One of the handful of Democrats who did.
Bold, I know. I'm a risk taking kind of guy.
For this bill to be made public NOW, AFTER the passage, without the informed consent of the constituency is horrible. In the 21st century of Internet, C-SPAN, 24 hour news channels and in general INFORMATION the fact that this was NOT TRANSPARENT will blow up in the faces of everyone who voted for it.
My congressman, Gene Taylor, 4th District of Mississippi, voted against by the way. One of the handful of Democrats who did.
I wonder if ANYONE has read all 2,500 pages.
Endeavouring to put forth some key aspects of the new health care bill & when they go into effect, I offer the following:
2010
Coverage-
■Subsidies begin for small businesses to provide coverage to employees.
■Insurance companies barred from denying coverage to children with pre-existing illness.
■Children permitted to stay on their parents' insurance policies until their 26th birthday.
2011
Coverage-
■Set up long-term care program under which people pay premiums into system for at least five years and become eligible for support payments if they need assistance in daily living.
Taxes and fees-
■Drug makers face annual fee of $2.5 billion (rises in subsequent years).
2013
Taxes and fees-
■New Medicare taxes on individuals earning more than $200,000 a year and couples filing jointly earning more than $250,000 a year.
■Tax on wages rises to 2.35% from 1.45%.
■New 3.8% tax on unearned income such as dividends and interest.
■Excise tax of 2.3% imposed on sale of medical devices.
Cost control-
■Medicare pilot program begins to test bundled payments for care, in a bid to pay for quality rather than quantity of services.
2014
Coverage-
■Create exchanges where people without employer coverage, as well as small businesses, can shop for health coverage. Insurance companies barred from denying coverage to anyone with pre-existing illness.
■Requirement begins for most people to have health insurance. Subsidies begin for lower and middle-income people. People at 133% of federal poverty level pay maximum of 3% of income for coverage. People at 400% of poverty level pay up to 9.5% of income. (Poverty level currently is about $22,000 for a family of four.)
■Medicaid, the federal-state program for the poor, expands to all Americans with income up to 133% of federal poverty level.
■Subsidies for small businesses to provide coverage increase. Businesses with 10 or fewer employees and average annual wages of less than $25,000 receive tax credit of up to 50% of employer's contribution. Tax credits phase out for larger businesses.
Taxes and fees-
■Employers with more than 50 employees that don't provide affordable coverage must pay a fine if employees receive tax credits to buy insurance. Fine is up to $3,000 per employee, excluding first 30 employees.
■Insurance industry must pay annual fee of $8 billion (rises in subsequent years).
Cost control -
■Independent Medicare board must begin to submit recommendations to curb Medicare spending, if costs are rising faster than inflation.
2016
Taxes and fees-
■Penalty for those who don't carry coverage rises to 2.5% of taxable income or $695, whichever is greater.
2017
Coverage-
■Businesses with more than 100 employees can buy coverage on insurance exchanges, if state permits it.
2018
Taxes and fees-
■Excise tax of 40% imposed on health plans valued at more than $10,200 for individual coverage and $27,500 for family coverage.
(Sources: House bill; Kaiser Family Foundation, via WSJ online available: here)
Welcome to Obama care America ... and Mr. President, welcome to your party's permanent minority status throughout the rest of your tenure, via November.
2010
Coverage-
■Subsidies begin for small businesses to provide coverage to employees.
■Insurance companies barred from denying coverage to children with pre-existing illness.
■Children permitted to stay on their parents' insurance policies until their 26th birthday.
2011
Coverage-
■Set up long-term care program under which people pay premiums into system for at least five years and become eligible for support payments if they need assistance in daily living.
Taxes and fees-
■Drug makers face annual fee of $2.5 billion (rises in subsequent years).
2013
Taxes and fees-
■New Medicare taxes on individuals earning more than $200,000 a year and couples filing jointly earning more than $250,000 a year.
■Tax on wages rises to 2.35% from 1.45%.
■New 3.8% tax on unearned income such as dividends and interest.
■Excise tax of 2.3% imposed on sale of medical devices.
Cost control-
■Medicare pilot program begins to test bundled payments for care, in a bid to pay for quality rather than quantity of services.
2014
Coverage-
■Create exchanges where people without employer coverage, as well as small businesses, can shop for health coverage. Insurance companies barred from denying coverage to anyone with pre-existing illness.
■Requirement begins for most people to have health insurance. Subsidies begin for lower and middle-income people. People at 133% of federal poverty level pay maximum of 3% of income for coverage. People at 400% of poverty level pay up to 9.5% of income. (Poverty level currently is about $22,000 for a family of four.)
■Medicaid, the federal-state program for the poor, expands to all Americans with income up to 133% of federal poverty level.
■Subsidies for small businesses to provide coverage increase. Businesses with 10 or fewer employees and average annual wages of less than $25,000 receive tax credit of up to 50% of employer's contribution. Tax credits phase out for larger businesses.
Taxes and fees-
■Employers with more than 50 employees that don't provide affordable coverage must pay a fine if employees receive tax credits to buy insurance. Fine is up to $3,000 per employee, excluding first 30 employees.
■Insurance industry must pay annual fee of $8 billion (rises in subsequent years).
Cost control -
■Independent Medicare board must begin to submit recommendations to curb Medicare spending, if costs are rising faster than inflation.
2016
Taxes and fees-
■Penalty for those who don't carry coverage rises to 2.5% of taxable income or $695, whichever is greater.
2017
Coverage-
■Businesses with more than 100 employees can buy coverage on insurance exchanges, if state permits it.
2018
Taxes and fees-
■Excise tax of 40% imposed on health plans valued at more than $10,200 for individual coverage and $27,500 for family coverage.
(Sources: House bill; Kaiser Family Foundation, via WSJ online available: here)
Welcome to Obama care America ... and Mr. President, welcome to your party's permanent minority status throughout the rest of your tenure, via November.
No, I agree ...
That was very well put. I am in full agreeance.
Here's what I am saying - there was a one-two punch from my perspective. First, your point about it being a war about race is affording Hanks a great deal of latitude. Given his political leanings I assumed he was referencing us in specific if not alone; but lets go ahead and assign him the more general, legitimate motives you described. The 1, 2 shots were Hank's comments followed by the "pot shot" scene. This isn't fair to you because you haven't seen it, but the shots I am describing weren't them trying to kill an enemy unwilling to surrender. THAT I would have no problem with. The shots I refer to is the purposeful missed shots as the Japanese soldier first ran right, then left. They were taunting, laughing and corralling him, via their rounds, for some short lived entertainment. THEN one Marine (Leigit) draws his weapon and shoots the Japanese dead (a reasonable response given the suicide grenade attack by a Japanese soldier pretending to be dead moments before), ending the little "pistol dance" they were forcing the soldier to do.
So this is my point - with all the unending stories of heroism and brutal sacrifice that occurred literally on a second by second basis, and absent any scenes that demonstrate Japanese brutality to POW's, why are we treated, in the first episode, to that scene? Why set the template with that? With all the film making prowess of Hanks & Spielberg could they not of communicated what you wrote in your last short of that scene? What I'm saying is why do we start off with that? Why is that not after clear episodes of monumental stress, rather than one night time firefight? Between Hanks comments and that scene I was less than optimistic about the series.
That being said, episode II was fantastic. I don't care what the political bent is, once you decide to accurately portray a full frontal Japanese assault, the heroism of the US Marines speaks for itself.
Here's what I am saying - there was a one-two punch from my perspective. First, your point about it being a war about race is affording Hanks a great deal of latitude. Given his political leanings I assumed he was referencing us in specific if not alone; but lets go ahead and assign him the more general, legitimate motives you described. The 1, 2 shots were Hank's comments followed by the "pot shot" scene. This isn't fair to you because you haven't seen it, but the shots I am describing weren't them trying to kill an enemy unwilling to surrender. THAT I would have no problem with. The shots I refer to is the purposeful missed shots as the Japanese soldier first ran right, then left. They were taunting, laughing and corralling him, via their rounds, for some short lived entertainment. THEN one Marine (Leigit) draws his weapon and shoots the Japanese dead (a reasonable response given the suicide grenade attack by a Japanese soldier pretending to be dead moments before), ending the little "pistol dance" they were forcing the soldier to do.
So this is my point - with all the unending stories of heroism and brutal sacrifice that occurred literally on a second by second basis, and absent any scenes that demonstrate Japanese brutality to POW's, why are we treated, in the first episode, to that scene? Why set the template with that? With all the film making prowess of Hanks & Spielberg could they not of communicated what you wrote in your last short of that scene? What I'm saying is why do we start off with that? Why is that not after clear episodes of monumental stress, rather than one night time firefight? Between Hanks comments and that scene I was less than optimistic about the series.
That being said, episode II was fantastic. I don't care what the political bent is, once you decide to accurately portray a full frontal Japanese assault, the heroism of the US Marines speaks for itself.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Take two...
I talked to Jambo about this today, and I think he made an even clearer point in that discussion than he posted on the blog...
Hanks did say that the War in the Pacific, and thus his show, was a war of race. At first, this comment stuck in my gut... but think about it. This WAS a war of "race"... for and against the Japanese. Imperial Japan was every bit as "racist" as Nazi Germany, and caused millions of death because of that racism. I do not defend the racial slurs that we used in our propaganda during the war... but it was mirrored in the attitudes and propaganda of the Japanese soldiers that we were fighting against. Add to this the cultural gulf between American GIs and Marines and those of Japan, and you have a recipe for racist attitudes about the "enemy".
I still haven't seen either episode (I will... soon), but they have been described to me in some detail, and if I am not mistaken, the scene described by both Ryan and Jambo where the lone surviving Japanese soldier that was being given the "pot shots" was an event that was preceded by a "suicide" attack from a wounded Japanese soldier, right? A hand grenade hidden in a wounded soldier's hands until he was being helped... then BOOM. Did I get this right?
This being the case, I think it is a PERFECT example of what I am saying. The American's were taught, both by the Army/Marines AND by experience in the field and on the beach that the Japs were NOT GOING TO SURRENDER OR STOP FIGHTING. How many times would any of us have to watch our brothers in arms die at the hands of a booby-trapped soldiers pretending to surrender before we stopped asking for surrenders and just shot until everybody was dead?
This sort of mindset was completely alien to Americans encountering it for the first time, especially when they were encountering it across a battlefield. To counter the stress involved in this kind of combat environment, the US employed some graphic racism to portray the enemy as an animal rather than human, or to make them seem cartoon-like, rather than equals. These weren't the same techniques employed by the US for propaganda in Europe, you'll notice.
The Nazis were shown to be evil... dark, sinister people working from the shadows to subvert those they ruled into some kind of demonic hell. Japanese were shown to be monkey-like, cartoonish people with only rudimentary human features and figures. We taught GIs to say phrases like "Give up now" or "lay down your weapons" to the Germans we were fighting, but we didn't bother with that in the Pacific, did we? Was this because Japanese is harder to learn that German? Was this because the US was looking to kill each and every Jap soldiers, sailor or marine out there? Or was it because learning that phrase would force US troops to recognize the humanity of an enemy that didn't carry the same recognition for us?
I think it was because of the latter, and I think that it was a necessary evil in light of the effort we were making.
Hanks did say that the War in the Pacific, and thus his show, was a war of race. At first, this comment stuck in my gut... but think about it. This WAS a war of "race"... for and against the Japanese. Imperial Japan was every bit as "racist" as Nazi Germany, and caused millions of death because of that racism. I do not defend the racial slurs that we used in our propaganda during the war... but it was mirrored in the attitudes and propaganda of the Japanese soldiers that we were fighting against. Add to this the cultural gulf between American GIs and Marines and those of Japan, and you have a recipe for racist attitudes about the "enemy".
I still haven't seen either episode (I will... soon), but they have been described to me in some detail, and if I am not mistaken, the scene described by both Ryan and Jambo where the lone surviving Japanese soldier that was being given the "pot shots" was an event that was preceded by a "suicide" attack from a wounded Japanese soldier, right? A hand grenade hidden in a wounded soldier's hands until he was being helped... then BOOM. Did I get this right?
This being the case, I think it is a PERFECT example of what I am saying. The American's were taught, both by the Army/Marines AND by experience in the field and on the beach that the Japs were NOT GOING TO SURRENDER OR STOP FIGHTING. How many times would any of us have to watch our brothers in arms die at the hands of a booby-trapped soldiers pretending to surrender before we stopped asking for surrenders and just shot until everybody was dead?
This sort of mindset was completely alien to Americans encountering it for the first time, especially when they were encountering it across a battlefield. To counter the stress involved in this kind of combat environment, the US employed some graphic racism to portray the enemy as an animal rather than human, or to make them seem cartoon-like, rather than equals. These weren't the same techniques employed by the US for propaganda in Europe, you'll notice.
The Nazis were shown to be evil... dark, sinister people working from the shadows to subvert those they ruled into some kind of demonic hell. Japanese were shown to be monkey-like, cartoonish people with only rudimentary human features and figures. We taught GIs to say phrases like "Give up now" or "lay down your weapons" to the Germans we were fighting, but we didn't bother with that in the Pacific, did we? Was this because Japanese is harder to learn that German? Was this because the US was looking to kill each and every Jap soldiers, sailor or marine out there? Or was it because learning that phrase would force US troops to recognize the humanity of an enemy that didn't carry the same recognition for us?
I think it was because of the latter, and I think that it was a necessary evil in light of the effort we were making.
My take ...
I haven't seen episode 2 yet, but let me say this ...
Jambo made a fair defense. I get everything he's saying. There was certainly mild to extreme racism wrapped into our fight with the Japanese, and as Jambo points out, even with that racism it still puts our humanity on a peg 1000 times above that of the Imperial Japanese Army. The Baton death march, etc (a good film while I'm thinking about it is "The Great Raid" - I even bought a WWII official replica "Marine Hack Watch" which were released in limited number subsequent to that movie).
My beef wasn't that there wasn't racism, and "how dare they" portray such a thing. It's accurate to portray that CO barking out orders with racial slurs, the pot shots (literal rounds) taken at the 1 surviving, cornered Japanese soldier. That's all accurate, I get that. My beef was why does Hanks et al start us off, in episode 1, with that? By the time we get to any maltreatment of the captured/unarmed enemy in Band of Brothers we already feel as if we know these guys, know there good intent, know their valor. In other words there is context afforded these men. Jambo pointed out the attack on Pearl Harbor shown at the onset of the episode is context incarnate, but what I mean is context for the individual men being portrayed. There isn't a lot of time spent on showing them for the decent, hard training, tough individuals they were, nor had we as the viewer seen any battle scenes prior to the racist overtones. Had they contextualized in that way, in my estimation, it would have made for a more appropriate, more accurate transition into portraying the racism demonstrated towards the Japanese (and I say more "accurate" because I think it only reasonable to assume that racial slurs are more likely to increase after you're shot at). But hey, I'm Ryan and Tom Hanks & Spielberg are, well ... Tom Hanks and Spielberg, so take my film critique for what its worth ...
I'm going on to episode 2.
Jambo made a fair defense. I get everything he's saying. There was certainly mild to extreme racism wrapped into our fight with the Japanese, and as Jambo points out, even with that racism it still puts our humanity on a peg 1000 times above that of the Imperial Japanese Army. The Baton death march, etc (a good film while I'm thinking about it is "The Great Raid" - I even bought a WWII official replica "Marine Hack Watch" which were released in limited number subsequent to that movie).
My beef wasn't that there wasn't racism, and "how dare they" portray such a thing. It's accurate to portray that CO barking out orders with racial slurs, the pot shots (literal rounds) taken at the 1 surviving, cornered Japanese soldier. That's all accurate, I get that. My beef was why does Hanks et al start us off, in episode 1, with that? By the time we get to any maltreatment of the captured/unarmed enemy in Band of Brothers we already feel as if we know these guys, know there good intent, know their valor. In other words there is context afforded these men. Jambo pointed out the attack on Pearl Harbor shown at the onset of the episode is context incarnate, but what I mean is context for the individual men being portrayed. There isn't a lot of time spent on showing them for the decent, hard training, tough individuals they were, nor had we as the viewer seen any battle scenes prior to the racist overtones. Had they contextualized in that way, in my estimation, it would have made for a more appropriate, more accurate transition into portraying the racism demonstrated towards the Japanese (and I say more "accurate" because I think it only reasonable to assume that racial slurs are more likely to increase after you're shot at). But hey, I'm Ryan and Tom Hanks & Spielberg are, well ... Tom Hanks and Spielberg, so take my film critique for what its worth ...
I'm going on to episode 2.
The Pacific
Episode Two was last night.
Damn.
I know Ryan has issues with it. I don't understand them but oh well. There is a difference between the theaters of war and that is something as a Bund we have not really appreciated.
It always surprised me when my grandfather would speak of the war unsolicited. So when I talked to him one time about my high school buddy going to Kuwait in '91 to assist in the oil well fire fights, (and let's be honest, making STACKS of cash in the process)I shared a story about Erik coming across literal mountains of Iraqi munitions left in the desert. Rifles, RPGs, ammo, explosives, piled and left. Erik was afraid to grab "souvenirs" because the place was still littered with land mines and the potential for booby traps was real. Ray looked at me and said,
"We didn't even dig pits when we detonated ordinance. We'd blow it in place so the nips couldn't get it." He paused and sipped his drink. "Of course, that took the tops off some of the locals but we didn't have time to care."
The locals were Chinese, our allies.
Now truth be told, Ray was a screaming racist to the day he died. And he was NO fan of the French, as we've documented. But he NEVER would have endangered French civilians by detonating German ordinance without safety procedures, even if the threat of having the ordinance fall BACK into German hands was high.
The Germans and Italians had enormous cultural and historical ties to our nation. And while the Japanese did as well, they weren't nearly as prominent. The culture gap was one of the fatal flaws for BOTH the japs and us. Few people on either side understood each other. Yamamoto was one and foretold the course of events post Pearl Harbor. Halsey and MacArthur were a couple and were instrumental in leading the "total war" effort necessary to bring about the defeat of the Japanese Empire.
So when Hanks gets on TV and says that the Pacific war was as much about race as anything, he's not way out in left field. There was no grey area, no SS troops in American uniforms behind the lines, no commonality between the sides. They looked different, thought different and believed different. They committed atrocities unknown to the Americans since the time of Little Big Horn. They ATTACKED us, unawares, and for almost almost a solid calender year was WINNING the war. So when that hatred manifests itself in films like "Flags of our Fathers" and "The Pacific," we recoil a bit? Cry revisionism? Say that barbaric behavior paints our Marines in a bad light?
I say no. I say we matched ferocity with ferocity. At no time did we as a nation march POWs 80+ miles to camps. We didn't force POWs into slave labor. We didn't use POWs as human shields in shipping. And if this show doesn't give the opportunity to show the atrocities the Japanese inflicted, then that will be too bad and a borderline crime. But so far, two episodes in, I've seen plenty of Jap atrocities.
And the night combat action at Guadalcanal? Every bit the equal to any combat scene in Band of Brothers.
Damn.
I know Ryan has issues with it. I don't understand them but oh well. There is a difference between the theaters of war and that is something as a Bund we have not really appreciated.
It always surprised me when my grandfather would speak of the war unsolicited. So when I talked to him one time about my high school buddy going to Kuwait in '91 to assist in the oil well fire fights, (and let's be honest, making STACKS of cash in the process)I shared a story about Erik coming across literal mountains of Iraqi munitions left in the desert. Rifles, RPGs, ammo, explosives, piled and left. Erik was afraid to grab "souvenirs" because the place was still littered with land mines and the potential for booby traps was real. Ray looked at me and said,
"We didn't even dig pits when we detonated ordinance. We'd blow it in place so the nips couldn't get it." He paused and sipped his drink. "Of course, that took the tops off some of the locals but we didn't have time to care."
The locals were Chinese, our allies.
Now truth be told, Ray was a screaming racist to the day he died. And he was NO fan of the French, as we've documented. But he NEVER would have endangered French civilians by detonating German ordinance without safety procedures, even if the threat of having the ordinance fall BACK into German hands was high.
The Germans and Italians had enormous cultural and historical ties to our nation. And while the Japanese did as well, they weren't nearly as prominent. The culture gap was one of the fatal flaws for BOTH the japs and us. Few people on either side understood each other. Yamamoto was one and foretold the course of events post Pearl Harbor. Halsey and MacArthur were a couple and were instrumental in leading the "total war" effort necessary to bring about the defeat of the Japanese Empire.
So when Hanks gets on TV and says that the Pacific war was as much about race as anything, he's not way out in left field. There was no grey area, no SS troops in American uniforms behind the lines, no commonality between the sides. They looked different, thought different and believed different. They committed atrocities unknown to the Americans since the time of Little Big Horn. They ATTACKED us, unawares, and for almost almost a solid calender year was WINNING the war. So when that hatred manifests itself in films like "Flags of our Fathers" and "The Pacific," we recoil a bit? Cry revisionism? Say that barbaric behavior paints our Marines in a bad light?
I say no. I say we matched ferocity with ferocity. At no time did we as a nation march POWs 80+ miles to camps. We didn't force POWs into slave labor. We didn't use POWs as human shields in shipping. And if this show doesn't give the opportunity to show the atrocities the Japanese inflicted, then that will be too bad and a borderline crime. But so far, two episodes in, I've seen plenty of Jap atrocities.
And the night combat action at Guadalcanal? Every bit the equal to any combat scene in Band of Brothers.
What a pace...
With more than 1,500 posts over the last 33 months, March '10 is already our 3rd biggest (or is "busiest" a better term?) month at more than 70 posts and growing.
I know I'm still out of work, so I'm posting more now than I have in a long time, but I'd still like to hear from Jambo more... and from Baddboy at least ONCE in a while. I never wanted this blog to be the "Ryan and Titus" slap-stick routine of the ages, you know.
We've also seen a huge increase in outside hits over the last four months... not counting ourselves, we averaged 2,200 hits last year. In 2010, we are already up to 3,500 hits from non-members.
Good news, huh? Seems we do have an audience.
I know I'm still out of work, so I'm posting more now than I have in a long time, but I'd still like to hear from Jambo more... and from Baddboy at least ONCE in a while. I never wanted this blog to be the "Ryan and Titus" slap-stick routine of the ages, you know.
We've also seen a huge increase in outside hits over the last four months... not counting ourselves, we averaged 2,200 hits last year. In 2010, we are already up to 3,500 hits from non-members.
Good news, huh? Seems we do have an audience.
Irony...
I find it ironic that the Obamacare reforms passed the House on the 245th anniversary of the passage of the Stamp Act in 1765.
Parliament forces a legislative process to reduce their debt by taxing a targeted, specific group of subjects whose concerns and worries were not given adequate consideration prior to passage on the 22nd of March, 1765... which directly contributes to the feelings of distrust and animosity between America and Westminister that would finally lead to armed confrontation just ten short years later.
Pelosi and Obama completely ignore promises of transparency and honesty in government by spending 24 hours making secret deals with wavering Democrats to pass legislation that had almost no GOP or conservative input in its making, knowing that it would constitute both a doubling of the national debt and usher in a new era of high top-end tax rates and a reduction in consumer confidence in the process. Targeting individuals making more than $200k and families making more than $250k, this will constitute a 5.8% tax hike to more than 78% of all small business owners in the country, and will force millions of people out of their established insurance policies and into a government-provided option (even if it isn't a government plan... yet).
Let's see what ten years brings...
Parliament forces a legislative process to reduce their debt by taxing a targeted, specific group of subjects whose concerns and worries were not given adequate consideration prior to passage on the 22nd of March, 1765... which directly contributes to the feelings of distrust and animosity between America and Westminister that would finally lead to armed confrontation just ten short years later.
Pelosi and Obama completely ignore promises of transparency and honesty in government by spending 24 hours making secret deals with wavering Democrats to pass legislation that had almost no GOP or conservative input in its making, knowing that it would constitute both a doubling of the national debt and usher in a new era of high top-end tax rates and a reduction in consumer confidence in the process. Targeting individuals making more than $200k and families making more than $250k, this will constitute a 5.8% tax hike to more than 78% of all small business owners in the country, and will force millions of people out of their established insurance policies and into a government-provided option (even if it isn't a government plan... yet).
Let's see what ten years brings...
Sunday, March 21, 2010
You bring dishonor to this Lotus ...
You simply CAN NOT do this sort of post less you've confirmed that all within the Bund have had TIME TO SEE THE F****ING EPISODE! I ask, are you MAD man? You sent me a text foreshadowing a "surprise" ending. But did you ask if I've even seen the episode FIRST? NO! I work Friday nights you bollix swallowing jackal! So I watch it on Netflix a day or 2 later! Do you think so little of my intellect that this text would not damage, nigh GIVE AWAY, what "surprise" the episode manifests as I watched???!!! I knew she switched the "proper Roman women" 20 minutes before Spartacus got the 14 karat gold bath! Because of Y-O-U!
DON'T DO THIS AGAIN !!!!! JERK !!!!
A simple text reading, "Did you watch the latest episode yet?" will suffice. Then unleash your rabid dog tongue!
DON'T DO THIS AGAIN !!!!! JERK !!!!
A simple text reading, "Did you watch the latest episode yet?" will suffice. Then unleash your rabid dog tongue!
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Oh...my...God...
Look, I know that typically this forum is used almost exclusively to discuss politics, with the occasional religious debate thrown in for good measure and some spice. We will sometimes throw some personal stories or recollections about for fun, I know... but tonight I'm going to venture away from the typical and into an area we haven't played in since the old mail-group days...
I know that at least 3 out of the 4 Bund members are HUGE fans of Spartacus: Blood and Sand, and perhaps some of our followers and friends are too. That is what I am focusing on tonight... the latest episode, Whore.
I'm trying to imagine a series that has so captured my imagination as this one, and the closest I can come to is either Band of Brothers or Firefly. But DAMN... Spartacus is moving up the ranks quickly. I'm not sure how they have managed it, but each episode is better than the last, and the endings for the last two have just about blown my socks off. I was SO not expecting either to end the way they did, especially Whore.
And think... Season Two is already in the works! We've met many of the central players of the "historical" Spartacus in Batiatus, Crixus, and Glaber (and, of course, Spartacus himself). Only Oenomaus remains to be introduced... but I don't know that this happens before the revolt begins. I only know that all the sources for Spartacus tell us he was one of three leaders, and that he was Thracian and the others were Gauls named Crixus and Oenomaus.
I'm pretty sure Liz is convinced that I am only watching it for the blood and sex... but am I wrong in saying that those things pale in light of how addicting the story is getting? Did anyone else even SUSPECT that the cousin of the great Crassus (fellow consul and member of the First Triumvirate with Pompeii and Ceasar themselves!) was going to get her brains beat out on the floor of Batiatus' house as the episode progressed?
I'm forced to paraphrase Batiatus himself from past episodes and say: "F***K the sex! We'll make a fan of you yet!"
I know that at least 3 out of the 4 Bund members are HUGE fans of Spartacus: Blood and Sand, and perhaps some of our followers and friends are too. That is what I am focusing on tonight... the latest episode, Whore.
I'm trying to imagine a series that has so captured my imagination as this one, and the closest I can come to is either Band of Brothers or Firefly. But DAMN... Spartacus is moving up the ranks quickly. I'm not sure how they have managed it, but each episode is better than the last, and the endings for the last two have just about blown my socks off. I was SO not expecting either to end the way they did, especially Whore.
And think... Season Two is already in the works! We've met many of the central players of the "historical" Spartacus in Batiatus, Crixus, and Glaber (and, of course, Spartacus himself). Only Oenomaus remains to be introduced... but I don't know that this happens before the revolt begins. I only know that all the sources for Spartacus tell us he was one of three leaders, and that he was Thracian and the others were Gauls named Crixus and Oenomaus.
I'm pretty sure Liz is convinced that I am only watching it for the blood and sex... but am I wrong in saying that those things pale in light of how addicting the story is getting? Did anyone else even SUSPECT that the cousin of the great Crassus (fellow consul and member of the First Triumvirate with Pompeii and Ceasar themselves!) was going to get her brains beat out on the floor of Batiatus' house as the episode progressed?
I'm forced to paraphrase Batiatus himself from past episodes and say: "F***K the sex! We'll make a fan of you yet!"
More from Ryan, via texts...
Ryan got backed up but sent me a mountain of texts last night in the midst of our stupor about why my argument for the New Deal's success are contrary to my conservative principles. So, headache and hang-over permitting, I'll try to both spell out Ryan's point and make my defense here. Bear with me, please... if I'm not perfect in my understanding of Ryan's point or in my clarity of explanation, I'm not 100% this morning.
1) Ryan asked why I feel that low taxes and less regulation is good for the nation in general, and why I am able to find examples of that through out history, but still feel that the era of the 1930's is an "exception to the rule" and that this 9 year period prior to the outbreak of WWII needed the New Deal to work.
I feel that history proves that lower taxes and less regulation on commerce is good for an economy, this is undeniably true. Maintaining the 63-70% top tax rate that Hoover implemented in 1932 was FDR's biggest mistake... that should have been thrown out with the rest of the Hoover trash. However, FDR maintained several aspects of Hoover's recovery plans, for reasons that I can only assume were political necessity at the time the determinations were made.
FDR promised a "New Deal" and that means (plainly enough, I think) that what had been being done wasn't working, whether we are talking in actuality or in the perception of the American people. The contemporary conservative viewpoint of the day was held exclusively by the Hoover Republicans, and in 1932 they constituted less than 24% of the ENTIRE scope of US Government. They had lost the confidence of the American public, and the demand that something be done to fix what wasn't working was very real, indeed.
Reagan raised taxes. Lincoln instituted an income tax and a draft. Washington instituted new taxes on products that previously hadn't been taxed before, and started an armed rebellion in the process (the Whiskey Rebellion of 1791) and ushered in the era of high Federal alcohol taxes ever since. Jefferson quadrupled the Federal deficit with one sweep of his quill... which many at the time felt was just as unconstitutional an act as anything FDR did as President. In one manner or another, each of these "great" Presidents broke with the established norm to achieve ends they felt were in the greater interest of the nation, not with the intention of setting some evil precedent or corrupting the Constitutionally established status quo, but with the hopes of seeing the nation through a particular crisis in its history. Furthermore, NONE of the Presidents listed above were able to completely follow the model of "Reaganomics" 100%... not even Reagan himself! Does this negatively impact their legacies? Does this negate their efforts to see the nation through a crisis? Is it fair to place the yardstick of Reaganomics, as we understand it today, on their efforts decades or centuries past? Does this make them ALL "failures"?
What I think benefited the economy from the New Deal most was the ability of the Federal government, in the time of a national (even global) crisis, to stabilize the volatile nature of our markets and to act the role of the largest "consumer" to be found. The Feds sought to defeat the Crash by being the entity that hired people, built roads, expanded power grids, planted or cut down forests, dug canals, improved railroads, paved airports... when no one else would or could. This was a progressive, centralized plan that was (and is) counter to much of what I now know to be sound economic national theory, but it was what they saw as the quickest and easiest means to solving the problem... and it worked.
It was EXACTLY the same theory and methodology that saw us to the successful conclusion of WWII, as well... and Ryan even credits FDR with that success, but it would seem that the "stand back and do nothing" approach of the Hoover years was a better alternative to a purely economic crisis (no matter how global in scope) than the "hands-on" approach that eventually won us a war the literally covered the globe and pitted us against TWO despotic empires bent on global domination.
While nations across the globe were falling to despotic leaders promising better futures and delivering tyranny and death by the truck-load, the New Deal kept peace and maintained the American way of life while delivering real and measurable benefits to our lives. Yes, this was accomplished at the expense of a purely-theoretical model of minimalist government that Reagan gave his name to, and a greater degree of centralization and Federal control, but it wasn't anything that couldn't have been reversed once it was found to NOT work. The aspects of New Deal that hadn't proven their worth before the end of the war were allowed to expire, were disbanded, or were found unconstitutional through a fair and democratic process that was not allowed FAIL because of a loss of confidence in our nation's fundamental principles.
2) Ryan asked why, knowing that the majority of New Deal programs were deemed "unconstitutional", and that the National Recovery Administration was the "corner stone" of the entire New Deal, how can the New Deal still be seen as a success?
My response is that I can find only TWO major New Deal programs that were found to be unconstitutional by the SCOTUS... the NRA and the AAA, and the AAA was disbanded and reconstituted in 1939 to meet the requirements laid down by the SCOTUS in 1936. The program then went on to be instrumental in our nation's ability to meet agricultural needs during the war years, and Ike praised it as part of the Arsenal of Democracy that finished the jobs in Europe and the Pacific.
So, that leaves only the NRA (what Ryan deemed the "center-point" of the New Deal) as glaringly unconstitutional in its nature because it violated the Constitution's clear separation or powers between the various branches of government.
The NRA was a key piece of New Deal legislation, but I think that like MOST of the New Deal, it was always seen as a temporary measure. Of the (literally) dozens and dozens of programs that the New Deal instituted, only SEVEN have remained in place past the New Deal era. ALL the rest either expired or were disbanded once the need for the program was gone. In the two years that the NRA was functioning, national industrial production capacity rose 55% above its pre-Crash level. That alone shows that something in the national infrastructure was broken and needed a fix, doesn't it?
Look, I'm not an apologist for the NRA, or for the entire ideology of progressive politics. Once again, we began this debate by asking if FDR was a good President or a bad one... and what portions of his policies were responsible for that "grade". We have agreed that unemployment remained too high all through the era, and that the true end of the unemployment problem didn't come about until the US military grew to its full height of 17 million (from a 1938 figure of 300,000).
However, to continue to blame what is wrong with the remaining aspects of New Deal (Social Security, for example) solely on FDR is no more a fair and just proposition than blaming what eventually became Reconstruction on Lincoln, who started the process before he was killed. Both FDR and Lincoln employed means that were later determined to be unconstitutional in their nature to reach the successful conclusions of their respective crisis', and real cases can be made that Jefferson and Madison did the same things (although I don't know that the cases ever went before the SCOTUS). Thus, I feel Ryan is holding FDR to an unrealistic and unreasonable measure of success/failure that he is not employing with any other Presidents in our history.
Finally, I want to say that I truly do understand what Ryan (and such pundits as Beck and Limbaugh) keep saying... that FDR was "bad" because he started a ball rolling that we haven't been able to completely stop in the nearly 80 years since he took office, but that doesn't mean that he should be vilified for making the effort. To do so then causes us to question the perceptions AND efforts of people like Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and any other President that was acting out of genuine concern for the nation but employed questionable or unorthodox means to gain them. FDR was elected to do whatever he could to fix what wasn't working... and some of those things worked, while others didn't. What can be determined without question is that the vast majority of symptoms of the Great Depression were completely reversed by 1939, and ALL OF THEM showed vast improvements over what had been done to fix them in the past. If we all agree that Reagan had the "right stuff" in hand when it came to understanding how to run an economy, why didn't he end SSI once and for all? Because he would have been crucified in the court of "public opinion" that's why... which means that even the greatest of Ryan's "Great Presidents" list have to bow to what the people demand and that compromises have to be made to further the causes that reach the goals that benefit the nation the most.
FDR was a progressive, I do not argue that point at all. He was also the President that saw us through 15 years of the toughest times the US had to face in all of the last century, and he did it the best way he knew how... through the implementation of progressive programs and policies that did what they were intended to do, and either became the footnotes in history that they are now (NRA, CCC, WPA) or are still with us today (SSI, FDIC). We have not seen an actual "depression" since his terms, and what he accomplished in the '30s led directly to the success we saw as a nation in the '40s and '50s. Progressive or not, he ranks as a "great President" in my book for those reasons.
1) Ryan asked why I feel that low taxes and less regulation is good for the nation in general, and why I am able to find examples of that through out history, but still feel that the era of the 1930's is an "exception to the rule" and that this 9 year period prior to the outbreak of WWII needed the New Deal to work.
I feel that history proves that lower taxes and less regulation on commerce is good for an economy, this is undeniably true. Maintaining the 63-70% top tax rate that Hoover implemented in 1932 was FDR's biggest mistake... that should have been thrown out with the rest of the Hoover trash. However, FDR maintained several aspects of Hoover's recovery plans, for reasons that I can only assume were political necessity at the time the determinations were made.
FDR promised a "New Deal" and that means (plainly enough, I think) that what had been being done wasn't working, whether we are talking in actuality or in the perception of the American people. The contemporary conservative viewpoint of the day was held exclusively by the Hoover Republicans, and in 1932 they constituted less than 24% of the ENTIRE scope of US Government. They had lost the confidence of the American public, and the demand that something be done to fix what wasn't working was very real, indeed.
Reagan raised taxes. Lincoln instituted an income tax and a draft. Washington instituted new taxes on products that previously hadn't been taxed before, and started an armed rebellion in the process (the Whiskey Rebellion of 1791) and ushered in the era of high Federal alcohol taxes ever since. Jefferson quadrupled the Federal deficit with one sweep of his quill... which many at the time felt was just as unconstitutional an act as anything FDR did as President. In one manner or another, each of these "great" Presidents broke with the established norm to achieve ends they felt were in the greater interest of the nation, not with the intention of setting some evil precedent or corrupting the Constitutionally established status quo, but with the hopes of seeing the nation through a particular crisis in its history. Furthermore, NONE of the Presidents listed above were able to completely follow the model of "Reaganomics" 100%... not even Reagan himself! Does this negatively impact their legacies? Does this negate their efforts to see the nation through a crisis? Is it fair to place the yardstick of Reaganomics, as we understand it today, on their efforts decades or centuries past? Does this make them ALL "failures"?
What I think benefited the economy from the New Deal most was the ability of the Federal government, in the time of a national (even global) crisis, to stabilize the volatile nature of our markets and to act the role of the largest "consumer" to be found. The Feds sought to defeat the Crash by being the entity that hired people, built roads, expanded power grids, planted or cut down forests, dug canals, improved railroads, paved airports... when no one else would or could. This was a progressive, centralized plan that was (and is) counter to much of what I now know to be sound economic national theory, but it was what they saw as the quickest and easiest means to solving the problem... and it worked.
It was EXACTLY the same theory and methodology that saw us to the successful conclusion of WWII, as well... and Ryan even credits FDR with that success, but it would seem that the "stand back and do nothing" approach of the Hoover years was a better alternative to a purely economic crisis (no matter how global in scope) than the "hands-on" approach that eventually won us a war the literally covered the globe and pitted us against TWO despotic empires bent on global domination.
While nations across the globe were falling to despotic leaders promising better futures and delivering tyranny and death by the truck-load, the New Deal kept peace and maintained the American way of life while delivering real and measurable benefits to our lives. Yes, this was accomplished at the expense of a purely-theoretical model of minimalist government that Reagan gave his name to, and a greater degree of centralization and Federal control, but it wasn't anything that couldn't have been reversed once it was found to NOT work. The aspects of New Deal that hadn't proven their worth before the end of the war were allowed to expire, were disbanded, or were found unconstitutional through a fair and democratic process that was not allowed FAIL because of a loss of confidence in our nation's fundamental principles.
2) Ryan asked why, knowing that the majority of New Deal programs were deemed "unconstitutional", and that the National Recovery Administration was the "corner stone" of the entire New Deal, how can the New Deal still be seen as a success?
My response is that I can find only TWO major New Deal programs that were found to be unconstitutional by the SCOTUS... the NRA and the AAA, and the AAA was disbanded and reconstituted in 1939 to meet the requirements laid down by the SCOTUS in 1936. The program then went on to be instrumental in our nation's ability to meet agricultural needs during the war years, and Ike praised it as part of the Arsenal of Democracy that finished the jobs in Europe and the Pacific.
So, that leaves only the NRA (what Ryan deemed the "center-point" of the New Deal) as glaringly unconstitutional in its nature because it violated the Constitution's clear separation or powers between the various branches of government.
The NRA was a key piece of New Deal legislation, but I think that like MOST of the New Deal, it was always seen as a temporary measure. Of the (literally) dozens and dozens of programs that the New Deal instituted, only SEVEN have remained in place past the New Deal era. ALL the rest either expired or were disbanded once the need for the program was gone. In the two years that the NRA was functioning, national industrial production capacity rose 55% above its pre-Crash level. That alone shows that something in the national infrastructure was broken and needed a fix, doesn't it?
Look, I'm not an apologist for the NRA, or for the entire ideology of progressive politics. Once again, we began this debate by asking if FDR was a good President or a bad one... and what portions of his policies were responsible for that "grade". We have agreed that unemployment remained too high all through the era, and that the true end of the unemployment problem didn't come about until the US military grew to its full height of 17 million (from a 1938 figure of 300,000).
However, to continue to blame what is wrong with the remaining aspects of New Deal (Social Security, for example) solely on FDR is no more a fair and just proposition than blaming what eventually became Reconstruction on Lincoln, who started the process before he was killed. Both FDR and Lincoln employed means that were later determined to be unconstitutional in their nature to reach the successful conclusions of their respective crisis', and real cases can be made that Jefferson and Madison did the same things (although I don't know that the cases ever went before the SCOTUS). Thus, I feel Ryan is holding FDR to an unrealistic and unreasonable measure of success/failure that he is not employing with any other Presidents in our history.
Finally, I want to say that I truly do understand what Ryan (and such pundits as Beck and Limbaugh) keep saying... that FDR was "bad" because he started a ball rolling that we haven't been able to completely stop in the nearly 80 years since he took office, but that doesn't mean that he should be vilified for making the effort. To do so then causes us to question the perceptions AND efforts of people like Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and any other President that was acting out of genuine concern for the nation but employed questionable or unorthodox means to gain them. FDR was elected to do whatever he could to fix what wasn't working... and some of those things worked, while others didn't. What can be determined without question is that the vast majority of symptoms of the Great Depression were completely reversed by 1939, and ALL OF THEM showed vast improvements over what had been done to fix them in the past. If we all agree that Reagan had the "right stuff" in hand when it came to understanding how to run an economy, why didn't he end SSI once and for all? Because he would have been crucified in the court of "public opinion" that's why... which means that even the greatest of Ryan's "Great Presidents" list have to bow to what the people demand and that compromises have to be made to further the causes that reach the goals that benefit the nation the most.
FDR was a progressive, I do not argue that point at all. He was also the President that saw us through 15 years of the toughest times the US had to face in all of the last century, and he did it the best way he knew how... through the implementation of progressive programs and policies that did what they were intended to do, and either became the footnotes in history that they are now (NRA, CCC, WPA) or are still with us today (SSI, FDIC). We have not seen an actual "depression" since his terms, and what he accomplished in the '30s led directly to the success we saw as a nation in the '40s and '50s. Progressive or not, he ranks as a "great President" in my book for those reasons.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
