I have long regarded Barack Obama as someone who has little regard for the truth, having paid close attention to how he spins and wiggles his way around facts. When the late Lawrence Eaglesburger called him a charlatan on evening of the election in 2008, that phrase stuck in my mind. In a post last may, I referred to Barack Obama as the Charlatan-in-Chief.
But now Dr. Thomas Sowell, professor of economics at Stanford, has also clearly labeled Obama "Phony in Chief" in his most recent article. And the reasoning is devastating and not one that President Obama can easily wiggle out of. A video has recently surfaced of him demagogically telling a black audience that the federal government had not waived the Stafford Act for federal relief in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, as it had in the wake of 9/11 in New York and Hurricane Andrew in Florida.
It turns out that this is a bold face lie. Not only that, but to add insult to injury Barack Obama was not only present when the Stafford Act was waived, he himself voted against waiving it.
Nobody should vote for this man this time around.
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Redistribution and Future Wealth
The incomparable Dr. Thomas Sowell recently hit it out of the park with an article on redistribution of wealth, occasioned by the release of a 1998 video clearly demonstrating Barack Obama's stance favoring such redistribution. Among other things, Sowell correctly points out what so many people fail to comprehend about this topic, namely, that a government can only confiscate present wealth, not future wealth. Once the state grabs present wealth for redistribution, it is no longer available for re-investment to produce future wealth. It is gone for good.
This explains to a significant extent why centrally-planned, collectivist redistribution attempts in the 20th century failed miserably in places like the Soviet Union, Cuba, China and North Korea.
The Soviets demonstrated the disastrous consequences of redistribution as part of central planning in their experimentation with collective farming. The Ukraine learned first hand through the starvation of nearly 10 million people what can happen when political correctness takes over free markets.
Barack Obama's government takeover of GM is laughably small and relatively innocuous when compared with Joseph Stalin's takeover of Ukrainian agriculture in the 1930s. But the thinking and approach are similar, albeit on hugely different scales. In the case of GM, Obama desired to rescue the politically correct class of UAW stakeholders at the expense of ordinary bondholders. This was because the UAW is a big donor to Obama's party. In the case of the Ukraine, Stalin exploited the Ukrainian farmers and stole their agricultural products to feed his own party bosses in Moscow -- and build up his Red Army -- while telling the relatively free kulaks of the Ukraine to go pound sand. When the latter didn't follow his advice and instead started protesting and refusing to work, Stalin responded with sealing the borders of the Ukraine and shipping out all farm products, and declaring the kulak class enemies of the state. He confiscated all of their property and food, resulting in mass starvation in the Ukraine, otherwise the breadbasket of Europe at the time. It is estimated that at least 10,000,000 people in the Ukraine died as a result of Stalin's policies.
This explains to a significant extent why centrally-planned, collectivist redistribution attempts in the 20th century failed miserably in places like the Soviet Union, Cuba, China and North Korea.
The Soviets demonstrated the disastrous consequences of redistribution as part of central planning in their experimentation with collective farming. The Ukraine learned first hand through the starvation of nearly 10 million people what can happen when political correctness takes over free markets.
Barack Obama's government takeover of GM is laughably small and relatively innocuous when compared with Joseph Stalin's takeover of Ukrainian agriculture in the 1930s. But the thinking and approach are similar, albeit on hugely different scales. In the case of GM, Obama desired to rescue the politically correct class of UAW stakeholders at the expense of ordinary bondholders. This was because the UAW is a big donor to Obama's party. In the case of the Ukraine, Stalin exploited the Ukrainian farmers and stole their agricultural products to feed his own party bosses in Moscow -- and build up his Red Army -- while telling the relatively free kulaks of the Ukraine to go pound sand. When the latter didn't follow his advice and instead started protesting and refusing to work, Stalin responded with sealing the borders of the Ukraine and shipping out all farm products, and declaring the kulak class enemies of the state. He confiscated all of their property and food, resulting in mass starvation in the Ukraine, otherwise the breadbasket of Europe at the time. It is estimated that at least 10,000,000 people in the Ukraine died as a result of Stalin's policies.
Sunday, September 16, 2012
"Forty Years I Endured that Generation"
Taken from Psalm 95, the full passage says:
In America we are now approaching on January 22, 2013, the 40th anniversary of the famous Supreme Court abortion decision called Roe vs. Wade. This decision, which struck down certain state laws prohibiting abortion, was a seminal moment in the American journey and has become a key dividing issue in American politics. It is perhaps the one issue that seems to most define the difference between right and left in America. Religious authorities such as Pope John Paul II have cited abortion as one of the main platforms in the culture of death, and the supposed right to an abortion has been a defining plank in the platform of the Democratic Party for decades. Thus, in the culture war of life vs. death, the Democratic Party has placed itself squarely on the side of the culture of death. In fact, it is now almost redundant to say that if you vote for a Democrat, you are voting for abortion. The Pro-Life Democrat is certainly an endangered species, if not already practically extinct.
I fear that if Barack Obama is re-elected president, the words of the Psalm will indeed come true for America and the wrath of God will be upon us. The reason for this fear is that there are several aging liberal justices on the Supreme Court who will almost certainly retire or die during the next four years. Breyer and Ginsburg, both Clinton appointees, may retire. If Obama is re-elected, they will be replaced with liberals and any hope for overturning Roe vs. Wade will be gone for perhaps another generation.
We still have an opportunity on Nov. 6 of this year to turn back the tide of the culture of death of which abortion is the quintessential, representative issue.
President Obama is the most anti-life -- and anti-truth -- president in the history of our country. His opposition to Illinois Bill S.B 1082 amended by Amendment 1 shows just how anti-life he is. His and his campaign's attempts to spin, cover up and lie about his stance as a state senator have been exposed by FactCheck.org's article.
Some people dismiss this issue of abortion, saying it is not as important as other issues such as unemployment, the dismal state of the economy and foreign policy. But this view is sorely mistaken. The right to life is fundamental, the sound basis of our whole political system. It is the litmus test by which God will judge us as a society and determine whether we will continue as a God-fearing people who enjoy his favor and blessing, or whether disaster will overtake us instead. God doesn't have to send specific calamities in order to express his wrath. He can simply allow us to go our own way without his protection and the consequences will be wrath enough.
In America today, life is under attack, marriage is under attack and truth is under attack. The attacking forces are very clever in disguising their program with the glamor of Hollywood and make it seem "cool." But cool it is not.
This year's vote is the most important vote in the history of our nation, one that may well decide whether or not our nation survives. Think long and hard before you vote and, more importantly, pray long and hard before you vote. Remember the words of the Psalm:
Forty years I endured that generation.This last stanza from Psalm 95 is recited everyday by many Catholics throughout the world, especially religious priests, brothers and sisters, as the closing lines of the Invitatory to the Divine Office, also known as the Liturgy of the Hours.
I said, "They are a people whose hearts go astray and they do not know my ways."
So I swore in my anger, "They shall not enter into my rest."
In America we are now approaching on January 22, 2013, the 40th anniversary of the famous Supreme Court abortion decision called Roe vs. Wade. This decision, which struck down certain state laws prohibiting abortion, was a seminal moment in the American journey and has become a key dividing issue in American politics. It is perhaps the one issue that seems to most define the difference between right and left in America. Religious authorities such as Pope John Paul II have cited abortion as one of the main platforms in the culture of death, and the supposed right to an abortion has been a defining plank in the platform of the Democratic Party for decades. Thus, in the culture war of life vs. death, the Democratic Party has placed itself squarely on the side of the culture of death. In fact, it is now almost redundant to say that if you vote for a Democrat, you are voting for abortion. The Pro-Life Democrat is certainly an endangered species, if not already practically extinct.
I fear that if Barack Obama is re-elected president, the words of the Psalm will indeed come true for America and the wrath of God will be upon us. The reason for this fear is that there are several aging liberal justices on the Supreme Court who will almost certainly retire or die during the next four years. Breyer and Ginsburg, both Clinton appointees, may retire. If Obama is re-elected, they will be replaced with liberals and any hope for overturning Roe vs. Wade will be gone for perhaps another generation.
We still have an opportunity on Nov. 6 of this year to turn back the tide of the culture of death of which abortion is the quintessential, representative issue.
President Obama is the most anti-life -- and anti-truth -- president in the history of our country. His opposition to Illinois Bill S.B 1082 amended by Amendment 1 shows just how anti-life he is. His and his campaign's attempts to spin, cover up and lie about his stance as a state senator have been exposed by FactCheck.org's article.
Some people dismiss this issue of abortion, saying it is not as important as other issues such as unemployment, the dismal state of the economy and foreign policy. But this view is sorely mistaken. The right to life is fundamental, the sound basis of our whole political system. It is the litmus test by which God will judge us as a society and determine whether we will continue as a God-fearing people who enjoy his favor and blessing, or whether disaster will overtake us instead. God doesn't have to send specific calamities in order to express his wrath. He can simply allow us to go our own way without his protection and the consequences will be wrath enough.
In America today, life is under attack, marriage is under attack and truth is under attack. The attacking forces are very clever in disguising their program with the glamor of Hollywood and make it seem "cool." But cool it is not.
This year's vote is the most important vote in the history of our nation, one that may well decide whether or not our nation survives. Think long and hard before you vote and, more importantly, pray long and hard before you vote. Remember the words of the Psalm:
Forty years I endured that generation.
I said, "They are a people whose hearts go astray and they do not know my ways."
So I swore in my anger, "They shall not enter into my rest."
Saturday, September 15, 2012
Amateur Hour
President Obama is too busy spending time with Pimp with a Limp to pay much attention to those pesky security briefings that his intel people provide. Just give him a few bullets and a good teleprompter feed. Why does all this presidential stuff have to be so damn stiff and boring. Let's get on with the real excitement, the Hollywood glitz and the celebrity fund raising events.
Marc Steyn's article on the amateur hour in the oval office -- I mean on the road, since he is hardly ever in the oval office.
Marc Steyn's article on the amateur hour in the oval office -- I mean on the road, since he is hardly ever in the oval office.
Whistling Past the Graveyard
The Obama Administration's attempt to say that this conflagration in the Middle East is just outrage over the film and not anti-Americanism per se, is utter nonsense. Very little of the graffiti scrawled on walls near our embassies even mentioned the film, except indirectly by saying that we Americans have insulted their prophet. Most of it was sheer unadulterated hatred towards America and the west.
What may I ask, does Germany have to do with this film by an American crank?
The details of the assassination of our ambassador by Al-Quaeda-like armed militants will most likely support the assessment that this attack was well planned and carried out under the cover of a supposedly spontaneous protest against the film. Details are already getting out that some members of the consulate staff were killed or injured at or near a safe house. Now how did these militants know about that safe house? And how was it that they were apparently prepared and waiting with grenade launchers and other arms near the safe house when the American convoy showed up? Wasn't very safe, I guess. Reports are also now circulating that there had been several previous attempts to attack the consulate in Benghazi.
And the timing of September 11? Is that a coincidence? Apparently, the supposedly outrageous film had been on YouTube since July. How come no "outrage" before then? This was all clearly orchestrated to ignite and incite the Muslim masses on 9/11/2012 and, in the case of Benghazi, to provide fog-of-war cover -- in this case fog of civil unrest -- to hide the murderous attack of the terrorists.
Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood President Morsi called for a million-man demonstration on Friday but then called it off at the last minute. Perhaps he received a phone call from the US State Department threatening to cut off all aid to Egypt. I hope so. I hope the State Department did that.
While the left was giddy with glee about the prospects of "Arab Spring" and thought it proof that if you are nice to the Muslim world, they will suddenly embrace you and your values of liberty with open arms, more sober minds were more cautious. Over a year ago Dennis Prager wrote and article about this.
There he gives 8 reasons to be skeptical about the "Arab Spring" that was just beginning. Reason #4 is this: "Neither liberty nor tolerance has roots in the Arab world."
But the left-leaning main stream media has ignored this, of course, and now we are seeing that Prager and others were right.
Prager's Reason #8 was: "Egypt is saturated with Jew and Israel hatred." The hatred of Jews is about as old as Islam itself and the hatred of Zionists in general and Israel in particular stems from the early part of the 20th century. Obama's Mideast Policy could fairly be summed up with a slight parody on Woodrow Wilson's view of WWI: To make the Mideast safe for Jew haters.
From a BBC article posted today: "According to a June 2012 Pew survey, just 15% of those in Muslim countries held a favourable opinion of the United States, compared to 25% in 2009."
Another maxim that seems to characterize the naivete of President Obama is that "Fools rush in where angels fear to tread." Probably the biggest let down for the young Egyptians who were perhaps inspired by Mr. Obama's Cairo speech, was that this president is great at giving speeches but much less than great when it comes to following up with action. Now the Muslim Brotherhood has run roughshod over the secular idealists in Eqypt and Mr. Obama is nowhere to be seen. So much for democracy!
All of this is very reminiscent of Iran in 1979, when Jimmy Carter's ambassador to the UN Ambassador Andrew Young praised Khomeini's "revolution." An analysis of US naivete towards Iran during their "revolution" is giving in this article.
Marc Steyn says:
What may I ask, does Germany have to do with this film by an American crank?
The details of the assassination of our ambassador by Al-Quaeda-like armed militants will most likely support the assessment that this attack was well planned and carried out under the cover of a supposedly spontaneous protest against the film. Details are already getting out that some members of the consulate staff were killed or injured at or near a safe house. Now how did these militants know about that safe house? And how was it that they were apparently prepared and waiting with grenade launchers and other arms near the safe house when the American convoy showed up? Wasn't very safe, I guess. Reports are also now circulating that there had been several previous attempts to attack the consulate in Benghazi.
And the timing of September 11? Is that a coincidence? Apparently, the supposedly outrageous film had been on YouTube since July. How come no "outrage" before then? This was all clearly orchestrated to ignite and incite the Muslim masses on 9/11/2012 and, in the case of Benghazi, to provide fog-of-war cover -- in this case fog of civil unrest -- to hide the murderous attack of the terrorists.
Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood President Morsi called for a million-man demonstration on Friday but then called it off at the last minute. Perhaps he received a phone call from the US State Department threatening to cut off all aid to Egypt. I hope so. I hope the State Department did that.
While the left was giddy with glee about the prospects of "Arab Spring" and thought it proof that if you are nice to the Muslim world, they will suddenly embrace you and your values of liberty with open arms, more sober minds were more cautious. Over a year ago Dennis Prager wrote and article about this.
There he gives 8 reasons to be skeptical about the "Arab Spring" that was just beginning. Reason #4 is this: "Neither liberty nor tolerance has roots in the Arab world."
But the left-leaning main stream media has ignored this, of course, and now we are seeing that Prager and others were right.
Prager's Reason #8 was: "Egypt is saturated with Jew and Israel hatred." The hatred of Jews is about as old as Islam itself and the hatred of Zionists in general and Israel in particular stems from the early part of the 20th century. Obama's Mideast Policy could fairly be summed up with a slight parody on Woodrow Wilson's view of WWI: To make the Mideast safe for Jew haters.
From a BBC article posted today: "According to a June 2012 Pew survey, just 15% of those in Muslim countries held a favourable opinion of the United States, compared to 25% in 2009."
Another maxim that seems to characterize the naivete of President Obama is that "Fools rush in where angels fear to tread." Probably the biggest let down for the young Egyptians who were perhaps inspired by Mr. Obama's Cairo speech, was that this president is great at giving speeches but much less than great when it comes to following up with action. Now the Muslim Brotherhood has run roughshod over the secular idealists in Eqypt and Mr. Obama is nowhere to be seen. So much for democracy!
All of this is very reminiscent of Iran in 1979, when Jimmy Carter's ambassador to the UN Ambassador Andrew Young praised Khomeini's "revolution." An analysis of US naivete towards Iran during their "revolution" is giving in this article.
The tendency toward wishful thinking continued even after the revolution in February 1979. Whereas Tehran increasingly viewed the U.S. through the darkly hued optic of its paranoid phantasms and loudly demonized America as its Enemy No. 1, Washington plugged its ears and looked back through rose-colored glasses. The American Representative to the UN, Andrew Young, described Khomeini as “some kind of saint,” while National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski was favorably disposed toward him, since he seemed to Brzezinski to represented an effective barrier against Soviet influence. “We can get along with Khomeini!” was the motto in that summer of 1979.Will we never learn from history?
Marc Steyn says:
The 400-strong assault force in Benghazi showed up with RPGs and mortars: that's not a spontaneous movie protest; that's an act of war, and better planned and executed than the dying superpower's response to it. Clinton and Dempsey are, to put it mildly, misleading the American people when they suggest otherwise.
One can understand why they might do this, given the fiasco in Libya. The men who organized this attack knew the ambassador would be at the consulate in Benghazi rather than at the embassy in Tripoli. How did that happen? They knew when he had been moved from the consulate to a "safe house," and switched their attentions accordingly.
How did that happen? The U.S. government lost track of its ambassador for 10 hours. How did that happen? Perhaps, when they've investigated Mitt Romney's press release for another three or four weeks, the court eunuchs of the American media might like to look into some of these fascinating questions, instead of leaving the only interesting reporting on an American story to the foreign press.
Sunday, September 9, 2012
Economic Analysis: 2011 -2012
This post from CNN Money and Fortune is very instructive. The economic news that came out Friday is very bad. You have to look closer at the numbers to see what they really mean. Compared to a year ago, they are very frightening.
Also frightening to me personally is the fact that Facebook is actually causing my post linking to this article to disappear after several attempted posts. What is going on? Sure feels like censorship.
Update: Finally solved the problem by killing the browser and restarting a new session. Now the posts are showing up. Sorry, FB, shouldn't have jumped the gun and accused you!
Also frightening to me personally is the fact that Facebook is actually causing my post linking to this article to disappear after several attempted posts. What is going on? Sure feels like censorship.
Update: Finally solved the problem by killing the browser and restarting a new session. Now the posts are showing up. Sorry, FB, shouldn't have jumped the gun and accused you!
Saturday, September 8, 2012
The Godless Party
To be sure, the patriotic, flag-waving nationalism of American conservatives may remind us of the jingoistic, nationalistic tendencies of the Nazis, and we may be tempted to think that conservatives desire to use the power of the state to suppress those opposed to their ideas. But this once again is a straw man attempt to paint conservatives as Nazis because they share something in common with Nazis, namely, flag-waving. But their is nothing wrong with patriotism and it is patently false to assert that conservatives want to use the power of the state to repress anybody. On the contrary, it is primarily folks on the right who are sounding the alarm about how the current regime is using the power of the state to suppress freedom of speech and freedom of religion, for instance.
Perhaps one could cite the Patriot Act as an example of how the right would propose to use power to suppress the rights of people. But the intent of Patriot Act was to protect the rights and the very lives of Americans from those like Islamic Jihadists who would take away both rights and lives. That is a very proper function of the state -- to protect the rights and lives of its people. Naturally, one has to be on guard that such legitimate functions are not abused and allowed to become a slippery slope downward toward a totalitarian state. That's why we have legitimate debate about such things in this country. But to assert that the Patriot Act is an example of how conservatives exhibit Nazi tendencies is a real stretch of the truth. On the contrary, conservatives are very concerned about the fascist tendencies of Jihadists, something that is really not to be denied.
Saturday, September 1, 2012
The Party of Sexual Dysfunction
The Democratic Party is about to commence its convention in Charlotte, NC. The balloons are being readied, the speeches prepared, the teleprompters checked. It is sad, however, that the DNC, once a cherished and dignified party, can't seem to free itself from the politics of sexual dysfunction. Over the course of their convention they will trumpet several items of this sort and will continue to do so throughout the campaign.
First, while pretending to be outraged by the stupid utterances of one Todd Akin, who has been completely repudiated by the RNC for his remarks, they will bring forth their keynote speaker, Bill Clinton, exploiter of workplace sex with then vulnerable intern Monica Lewinsky, not to mention that he was the target of several sexual harassment-like suits coming from Paula Jones and Juanita Broderick. But let's not also forget Jennifer Flowers. Maybe Bill will be holding a cigar while he gives his talk. He wouldn't be able to light it, of course, because that would mean -- oh, dread! -- second hand smoke! And what could be worse than second hand smoke! Yet no mention will be made of Clinton's sexual dysfunction in the liberal blogosphere, of course. Bill will dutifully say what the DNC requires of him, that Obama's policies are essentially the same as his and that happier days are just around the corner, if only we can get past those mean-spirited Republicans.
His wife Hilary, however, won't be seen at the DNC. She doesn't want to be tainted by damaged goods and a losing proposition (E.g., "You didn't build that!"). Bill has nothing to lose by being associated with the disastrous presidency of Barack Obama, but Hillary certainly does. The Clintons know -- because they probably listen to Dick Morris, their once trusted adviser who has turned on them -- that Obama is going to lose. It is already in the cards. Bill and Hillary are much too smart and too experienced in these matters to not know. But they will pretend to support and provide what little support they must in order to keep up appearances. But make know mistake, they will be back in 2016 with Hillary as the challenger against President Romney.
Never mind that Bill Clinton lied about his sexual escapades as well and was nearly impeached by Congress for his attempted cover up. None of that will be mentioned, except by us in the blogosphere.
Next we will hear from Sandra Fluke, who is outraged over the insensitivity of conservatives who think it is wrong for them to want her to pay for her own contraceptives. But wait, I forgot: She admits that she can afford her own contraceptives; she is just looking out for the poor who can't afford them. Always looking out for the poor. Aren't they compassionate? Yet it is not just the pill that she and the Dems are trying to force us to pay for against our conscience, no, they are not satisfied with that. They want us to pay for the morning after pill as well, the abortifacent that kills a conceived child before it has a chance to attach to the lining of the uterus. Some of us call that murder. But the DNC sweeps that under the rug by calling it "choice." And we conservatives are again labeled as mean-spirited because we won't pay for that. What about all the other things that are not being paid for? The DNC is not proposing to make us pay for condoms. Why is that an exception? Are they mean-spirited for not proposing that? How about natural family planning, why is that off limits? (Oh, I forgot, Planned Parenthood is a major donor to the DNC and they don't like natural family planning -- it cuts into their abortion revenue.)
Sandra Fluke, whose instant celebrity status was conferred on her by the anointed left and their Anointed One, is now a supposed expert on all these things. This is typical of the left. Turn a nobody into a celebrity and voila, they are suddenly an authority. Plus she is a college student and it plays well with other college students. They can use FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) to scare college students into thinking that those mean Republicans (made of straw, of course) are going to taking away their rights to pills and abortions. And if that is not enough they can go the extra mile and entice college students with the nod-nod-wink-wink prospect of having the government pay off their student loans. How does one spell pandering? -- oh, yes, it is 'p' 'a' 'n' 'd' 'e' 'r' 'i' 'n' 'g'. It is so easy to beat straw Republicans with arguments made of straw, but college students don't learn about that anymore, about fallacious reasoning, nor about the meaning of the word 'pandering.'
Never mind that institutions such as the Catholic Church have a 2000 year old record of teaching about the serious moral evils of abortion and contraception. Such qualifications are not important. After all having even minimal qualifications to be president doesn't preclude the Dems from nominating the most underqualified person in US history. And he nominates Sandra Fluke as expert on all things sexual. But never mind. Here's what a 2000 year old Christian institution has to say in their catechism about abortion:
The genesis of this affective love rationalization for same-sex marriage can be traced to the 1960s, when one of my generation's idiotic slogans was "If it feels good, do it!" Fortunately, I outgrew this nonsense in the 1970s, but I am dumbfounded by the number of people in my own generation who have NOT outgrown it, and who continue to mindlessly pull the lever for the DNC, which keeps telling them they are compassionate to do so. Some people never grow up, I guess.
This most likely will not be the end of the DNC's celebration of sexual depravity. Perhaps there will be transgender folks paraded out and applauded for their "bravery." I for one will be praying that good Americans will see the DNC's decadence for what it is and not be suckered into supporting them because they are supposedly "compassionate" toward all.
The Democratic Party was once a noble institution. John F. Kennedy was a fine example. But the noble party took a hard left turn in the 1960s and now we see the result. Nowadays, when you place Kennedy's speeches before high school students and ask them to guess if the person who gave the speeches was Republican or Democrat, they almost always say Republican. I guess Kennedy is just not progressive enough for the Democratic Party. He wasn't very "compassionate."
It is not the purpose of this post to simply scoff at the real sexual dysfunctionality of Democratic Party or any particular Democrats. People who suffer from these things really do need compassion and help. But the DNC's attempt to celebrate this dysfunctionality as if it were legitimate diversity is truly beyond the pale.
First, while pretending to be outraged by the stupid utterances of one Todd Akin, who has been completely repudiated by the RNC for his remarks, they will bring forth their keynote speaker, Bill Clinton, exploiter of workplace sex with then vulnerable intern Monica Lewinsky, not to mention that he was the target of several sexual harassment-like suits coming from Paula Jones and Juanita Broderick. But let's not also forget Jennifer Flowers. Maybe Bill will be holding a cigar while he gives his talk. He wouldn't be able to light it, of course, because that would mean -- oh, dread! -- second hand smoke! And what could be worse than second hand smoke! Yet no mention will be made of Clinton's sexual dysfunction in the liberal blogosphere, of course. Bill will dutifully say what the DNC requires of him, that Obama's policies are essentially the same as his and that happier days are just around the corner, if only we can get past those mean-spirited Republicans.
His wife Hilary, however, won't be seen at the DNC. She doesn't want to be tainted by damaged goods and a losing proposition (E.g., "You didn't build that!"). Bill has nothing to lose by being associated with the disastrous presidency of Barack Obama, but Hillary certainly does. The Clintons know -- because they probably listen to Dick Morris, their once trusted adviser who has turned on them -- that Obama is going to lose. It is already in the cards. Bill and Hillary are much too smart and too experienced in these matters to not know. But they will pretend to support and provide what little support they must in order to keep up appearances. But make know mistake, they will be back in 2016 with Hillary as the challenger against President Romney.
Never mind that Bill Clinton lied about his sexual escapades as well and was nearly impeached by Congress for his attempted cover up. None of that will be mentioned, except by us in the blogosphere.
Next we will hear from Sandra Fluke, who is outraged over the insensitivity of conservatives who think it is wrong for them to want her to pay for her own contraceptives. But wait, I forgot: She admits that she can afford her own contraceptives; she is just looking out for the poor who can't afford them. Always looking out for the poor. Aren't they compassionate? Yet it is not just the pill that she and the Dems are trying to force us to pay for against our conscience, no, they are not satisfied with that. They want us to pay for the morning after pill as well, the abortifacent that kills a conceived child before it has a chance to attach to the lining of the uterus. Some of us call that murder. But the DNC sweeps that under the rug by calling it "choice." And we conservatives are again labeled as mean-spirited because we won't pay for that. What about all the other things that are not being paid for? The DNC is not proposing to make us pay for condoms. Why is that an exception? Are they mean-spirited for not proposing that? How about natural family planning, why is that off limits? (Oh, I forgot, Planned Parenthood is a major donor to the DNC and they don't like natural family planning -- it cuts into their abortion revenue.)
Sandra Fluke, whose instant celebrity status was conferred on her by the anointed left and their Anointed One, is now a supposed expert on all these things. This is typical of the left. Turn a nobody into a celebrity and voila, they are suddenly an authority. Plus she is a college student and it plays well with other college students. They can use FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) to scare college students into thinking that those mean Republicans (made of straw, of course) are going to taking away their rights to pills and abortions. And if that is not enough they can go the extra mile and entice college students with the nod-nod-wink-wink prospect of having the government pay off their student loans. How does one spell pandering? -- oh, yes, it is 'p' 'a' 'n' 'd' 'e' 'r' 'i' 'n' 'g'. It is so easy to beat straw Republicans with arguments made of straw, but college students don't learn about that anymore, about fallacious reasoning, nor about the meaning of the word 'pandering.'
Never mind that institutions such as the Catholic Church have a 2000 year old record of teaching about the serious moral evils of abortion and contraception. Such qualifications are not important. After all having even minimal qualifications to be president doesn't preclude the Dems from nominating the most underqualified person in US history. And he nominates Sandra Fluke as expert on all things sexual. But never mind. Here's what a 2000 year old Christian institution has to say in their catechism about abortion:
ABORTION: Deliberate termination of pregnancy by killing the unborn child. Such direct abortion, willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life (2271–2272).On artificial contraception:
CONTRACEPTION, ARTIFICIAL: The use of mechanical, chemical, or medical procedures to prevent conception from taking place as a result of sexual intercourse; contraception offends against the openness to procreation required of marriage and also the inner truth of conjugal love (2370).And here is what the link provides:
Next, we'll be having speakers at the DNC convention no doubt trumpeting their new-found cause, same-sex marriage, since their Dear Leader Barack Obama has suddenly "evolved" on this issue. Yet, once again, that 2000 year old institution has something to say about that as well:2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:159Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality.... The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle... involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.160
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. (2333)Yet the rationale repeated given by left wing proponents of same-sex marriage is that those desiring it simply "love each other," as if affective love were the ONLY basis for marriage. If love were the only basis, then what is to prevent a threesome from demanding their "right" to marry? Or a foursome of two men and two women who are bisexual? Or four such humans and a dog, with whom all four -- or some of the four -- also want to have sexual relations? You see, the open-ended nature of this has disastrous consequences for society. And yet this, in essence is what the Democratic Party is trumpeting as "progressive."
The genesis of this affective love rationalization for same-sex marriage can be traced to the 1960s, when one of my generation's idiotic slogans was "If it feels good, do it!" Fortunately, I outgrew this nonsense in the 1970s, but I am dumbfounded by the number of people in my own generation who have NOT outgrown it, and who continue to mindlessly pull the lever for the DNC, which keeps telling them they are compassionate to do so. Some people never grow up, I guess.
This most likely will not be the end of the DNC's celebration of sexual depravity. Perhaps there will be transgender folks paraded out and applauded for their "bravery." I for one will be praying that good Americans will see the DNC's decadence for what it is and not be suckered into supporting them because they are supposedly "compassionate" toward all.
The Democratic Party was once a noble institution. John F. Kennedy was a fine example. But the noble party took a hard left turn in the 1960s and now we see the result. Nowadays, when you place Kennedy's speeches before high school students and ask them to guess if the person who gave the speeches was Republican or Democrat, they almost always say Republican. I guess Kennedy is just not progressive enough for the Democratic Party. He wasn't very "compassionate."
It is not the purpose of this post to simply scoff at the real sexual dysfunctionality of Democratic Party or any particular Democrats. People who suffer from these things really do need compassion and help. But the DNC's attempt to celebrate this dysfunctionality as if it were legitimate diversity is truly beyond the pale.
Thursday, August 16, 2012
Israel-Iran: Before or After the Election?
In my last post on this topic, I painted a scary scenario about the impending war between Israel and Iran that is admittedly far-fetched. But some milder variations of this scenario are not far-fetched. The most far-fetched aspect of that scenario concerns the probability that Israel would use nukes to attack a US carrier. I think the firestorm of opposition within the US to any overt attack by the US on Israel would be politically suicidal for the Democrats, even if they manage to be victorious in the upcoming election, and thus an Israeli response of such drastic proportions as I painted in my last post would not be precipitated.
But Mr. Netanyahu is surely weighing his options. He is surely considering that Mr. Obama may do nothing to help Israel, or at least may be very slow and deliberately ineffective in coming to Israel's aid after the election. Prior to the election, Mr. Obama may have something to gain from at least appearing to help Israel.
Iran has stated that they will close the straight of Hormuz if they are attacked. Surely they are also counting on an Obama electoral victory as the best scenario for them. Romney and the Republicans are clearly more hawkish and would surely be a strong ally to Israel, but not until late January 2013.
Surely Iran must realize that if they attack any US assets in the Persian Gulf, there will be strong retaliation. Mr. Obama will not have a choice. If it is merely a matter of coming to Israel's aid, he can probably get away with slow rolling the response, whether it is before the election or after. But a direct attack on US assets is another matter entirely.
Thus Iran's most likely response to any attack by Israel is to unleash Hezbollah to attack Israel. This will be devastating for both Lebanon and Syria, since Israel, if they are engaged in a full-blow war with Iran, will not have the time, resources or will to be careful in how they go after Hezbollah. They will blow up whole city blocks to get at Hezbollah's leadership and not bother with pinpointing them in a specific building. And the people of Israel -- and the press -- will have little sympathy for Hezbollah if they attack Israel.
But most of Israel's military assets will be focused on Iran. Everyone talks about how difficult it will be for their bombers to reach Iran, with re-fueling necessary, but people are probably overlooking Israel's long-range missile capability. The Jericho III ICBM, although designed to deliver nukes, can also likely carry conventional warheads. A 2000 lb conventional explosive with bunker busting, ground penetrating capabilities and pin-point accuracy (which the Israeli's are quite capable of achieving) can do much damage. It might buy them a few years and provide a warning to the international community -- and more importantly, to Iran -- that they need to get serious about dismantling Iran's nuclear program.
On the other hand, one such missile on Ahmadinejad's residence might have a similar effect.
But the most important question is that of timing. Right now, it seems that Netanyahu is leaning toward doing it before the election, even if he unwittingly helps Obama win the election by giving the latter an opportunity to strut his stuff as commander-in-chief in front of the American people. But that might be a big mistake for Netanyahu, since Obama might do a 180 degree turn and become his nemesis immediately after the election. He could become Israel's worst nightmare. Just as Obama has signaled to the Russians, he'll be a lot freer after the election.
On the other hand, the price of oil will go through the roof if such a war breaks out. Iran can easily make the whole world pay for Israel's decision. Nonetheless, Obama can come out looking like a hero if he bombs Iran into submission and brings Israel and Iran into direct talks with each other and forces them to sign a peace treaty or non-aggression pact. In the meantime, Syria's Assad will likely have fallen and Obama can take credit for that as well. He can give glowing speeches about how a new day has dawned in the Middle East and how peace is finally within our grasp, etc., etc., while coasting to an easy victory in November. But then he'll start to tighten the screws on Israel.
But Mr. Netanyahu is surely weighing his options. He is surely considering that Mr. Obama may do nothing to help Israel, or at least may be very slow and deliberately ineffective in coming to Israel's aid after the election. Prior to the election, Mr. Obama may have something to gain from at least appearing to help Israel.
Iran has stated that they will close the straight of Hormuz if they are attacked. Surely they are also counting on an Obama electoral victory as the best scenario for them. Romney and the Republicans are clearly more hawkish and would surely be a strong ally to Israel, but not until late January 2013.
Surely Iran must realize that if they attack any US assets in the Persian Gulf, there will be strong retaliation. Mr. Obama will not have a choice. If it is merely a matter of coming to Israel's aid, he can probably get away with slow rolling the response, whether it is before the election or after. But a direct attack on US assets is another matter entirely.
Thus Iran's most likely response to any attack by Israel is to unleash Hezbollah to attack Israel. This will be devastating for both Lebanon and Syria, since Israel, if they are engaged in a full-blow war with Iran, will not have the time, resources or will to be careful in how they go after Hezbollah. They will blow up whole city blocks to get at Hezbollah's leadership and not bother with pinpointing them in a specific building. And the people of Israel -- and the press -- will have little sympathy for Hezbollah if they attack Israel.
But most of Israel's military assets will be focused on Iran. Everyone talks about how difficult it will be for their bombers to reach Iran, with re-fueling necessary, but people are probably overlooking Israel's long-range missile capability. The Jericho III ICBM, although designed to deliver nukes, can also likely carry conventional warheads. A 2000 lb conventional explosive with bunker busting, ground penetrating capabilities and pin-point accuracy (which the Israeli's are quite capable of achieving) can do much damage. It might buy them a few years and provide a warning to the international community -- and more importantly, to Iran -- that they need to get serious about dismantling Iran's nuclear program.
On the other hand, one such missile on Ahmadinejad's residence might have a similar effect.
But the most important question is that of timing. Right now, it seems that Netanyahu is leaning toward doing it before the election, even if he unwittingly helps Obama win the election by giving the latter an opportunity to strut his stuff as commander-in-chief in front of the American people. But that might be a big mistake for Netanyahu, since Obama might do a 180 degree turn and become his nemesis immediately after the election. He could become Israel's worst nightmare. Just as Obama has signaled to the Russians, he'll be a lot freer after the election.
On the other hand, the price of oil will go through the roof if such a war breaks out. Iran can easily make the whole world pay for Israel's decision. Nonetheless, Obama can come out looking like a hero if he bombs Iran into submission and brings Israel and Iran into direct talks with each other and forces them to sign a peace treaty or non-aggression pact. In the meantime, Syria's Assad will likely have fallen and Obama can take credit for that as well. He can give glowing speeches about how a new day has dawned in the Middle East and how peace is finally within our grasp, etc., etc., while coasting to an easy victory in November. But then he'll start to tighten the screws on Israel.
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
A Scary Scenario
Iran waits until after the election to attack Israel via Hezbollah. Israel counters with attacks on Iran. Instead of joining in the attack, President Obama declares Israel in the wrong and sends aircraft carriers to the Mediterranean. He sends attack jets against Israel. Israel defends itself and shoots down some American planes. America bombs Israel in retaliation. Israel responds by nuking the US carrier. Obama responds by nuking Israel.
The Muslim world applauds. The American Jewish community is dumbfounded and sits there with their mouths open in disbelief. But the left-wing Jewish intelligentsia immediately revs up the spin machine to brainwash everybody into thinking it was a good and necessary thing anyway and that the Middle East problem is now solved for good.
If you've seen Dinesh D'Souza's move "2016," this is not so far-fetched. Let's hope and pray it doesn't come to this. Yet remember what Obama said to the Russians? Wait until after the election?
In reality, Israel may not wait until after the election because they may conclude that the only way they can get Obama to help them in their fight is to engage Iran before the election. Obama wouldn't risk alienating the Jewish vote by withholding support for Israel. Therefore he would send his Navy jets in from the Persian Gulf to help obliterate Iranian nuke sites.
And he would win the election and be hailed for being such a "bold commander-in-chief." It would be like the Bin Laden killing on steroids.
The Muslim world applauds. The American Jewish community is dumbfounded and sits there with their mouths open in disbelief. But the left-wing Jewish intelligentsia immediately revs up the spin machine to brainwash everybody into thinking it was a good and necessary thing anyway and that the Middle East problem is now solved for good.
If you've seen Dinesh D'Souza's move "2016," this is not so far-fetched. Let's hope and pray it doesn't come to this. Yet remember what Obama said to the Russians? Wait until after the election?
In reality, Israel may not wait until after the election because they may conclude that the only way they can get Obama to help them in their fight is to engage Iran before the election. Obama wouldn't risk alienating the Jewish vote by withholding support for Israel. Therefore he would send his Navy jets in from the Persian Gulf to help obliterate Iranian nuke sites.
And he would win the election and be hailed for being such a "bold commander-in-chief." It would be like the Bin Laden killing on steroids.
Sunday, August 12, 2012
Monday, July 23, 2012
Grasping for Anything They Stoop to Slander
The Washington Post is generally acknowledged to be a liberal newspaper. They will undoubtedly endorse President Obama for a second term. Yet their bias is not so perverse that it forces them to turn a blind eye to the blatant lies of the Obama campaign. They have a Fact Checker, and after looking at the Mitt Romney tenure at Bain Capital repeatedly, they have concluded that the assertions of the Obama campaign simply do not cut muster. Kathleen Parker sums it all up in today's opinion piece.
Friday, June 29, 2012
Enjoy the Victory Lap While It Lasts!
At first I was disappointed with the Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare. Then I realized that Chief Justice Roberts has actually done something very smart indeed. He gave the liberals a Pyrrhic victory. And he saved the Court from being accused by the left of being too partisan.
Krauthammer has a thoughtful analysis saying, basically, that Roberts has been true both to is own judicial philosophy and to the preserving the institutional dignity of the Court:
See also the blog Universal Christian.
Krauthammer has a thoughtful analysis saying, basically, that Roberts has been true both to is own judicial philosophy and to the preserving the institutional dignity of the Court:
Result? The law stands, thus obviating any charge that a partisan court overturned duly passed legislation. And yet at the same time the Commerce Clause is reined in. By denying that it could justify the imposition of an individual mandate, Roberts draws the line against the inexorable decades-old expansion of congressional power under the Commerce Clause fig leaf.
Law upheld, Supreme Court's reputation for neutrality maintained. Commerce Clause contained, constitutional principle of enumerated powers reaffirmed.
That's not how I would have ruled. I think the "mandate is merely a tax" argument is a dodge, and a flimsy one at that. (The "tax" is obviously punitive, regulatory and intended to compel.) Perhaps that's not how Roberts would have ruled had he been just an associate justice, and not the chief. But that's how he did rule.
ObamaCare is now essentially upheld. There's only one way it can be overturned. The same way it was passed — elect a new president and a new Congress. That's undoubtedly what Roberts is saying: Your job, not mine. I won't make it easy for you.
See also the blog Universal Christian.
Sunday, June 24, 2012
Albert Einstein and the Catholic Church
Albert Einstein once wrote about his attitude to the Catholic Church:
See also the blog Universal Christian.Being a lover of freedom, when the revolution came in Germany, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but, no, the universities immediately were silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks…..Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler’s campaign for suppressing truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual truth and moral freedom. I am forced thus to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly..- Albert Einstein, Time magazine, 23rd December, 1940 p. 38
Saturday, June 23, 2012
"unaffordable ratchet effect"
Not a new article, but insightful, in my opinion is the idea in this article that welfare states need to be able to dial back their benefits during hard economic times. Instead, benefits are ratcheted up in fat times but not scaled back in lean times. In fact, the we should learn from the Pharaoh's dream in the story of Joseph in the bible. Here the Pharaoh had a dream about 7 fat cows and 7 lean cows and asked Joseph to interpret these for him. Joseph said that the 7 fat cows symbolized 7 years of plenty, while the 7 lean cows represented 7 lean years that were coming. Thus, he advised the Pharaoh to store up grain during the fat years to be doled out in the lean years.
Our governments never seem to learn this lesson. We tend to spend like prosperity is going to last forever.
See also the blog Universal Christian.
Our governments never seem to learn this lesson. We tend to spend like prosperity is going to last forever.
See also the blog Universal Christian.
Leftism's Legacy
Leftism has been around for a while. The French Revolution and the teachings of Marx did much to place its nonsense to world scene. But in America it really didn't take off until the 1960s. Here the ideological old guard found a spoiled generation of thrill seekers hungering for some meaning in their lives and they were all too eager and ready to provide them with an Ersatz religion. The 1950s saw unprecedented prosperity and the rise of materialism with its attendant softening of spiritual discipline.
The youth of the 1960s were thus hungering for a deeper spiritual meaning in life to counter the emptiness of materialistic suburbia. They sought to acquire this meaning with all too easy means. Drugs, for example, especially LSD and Marijuana, gave them a small taste of momentary euphoria. Sexual license, aka "free love," promised to give young people the ecstasy of intimacy without the burden of commitment.
Having rebelled against the sexual mores of their parents and rightfully rebelling against their parent's crass materialism left the 1960s youth as easy pray for the ideological left. They sought to channel the rebellion into their socialist causes. They made heroes of the likes of Che Guevara and Ho Chi Minh and they enlisted in the ranks of the Democratic Party which veered ever more left away from the center.
Great social welfare programs were conceived, Medicare, Medicaid, LBJ's War on Poverty, etc.
But the animus for much of this was really based on feelings. It feels good to care for the poor and the sick. It also felt good to have sex and use drugs. And so a whole generation began to subscribe more or less to the motto that was shouted from the rooftops at the time: "If it feels good, do it!"
It is natural that a philosophy of life based on feelings should fill the spiritual void left by the abandonment of more traditional systems of values such as that based on the Judeo-Christian laws enshrined in the 10 commandments. Nature abhors a vacuum.
I have to credit Dennis Prager with having first made me aware of this fact that leftism is really a religion that is based on feelings. But, being dependent upon your feelings to tell if something is right or not does not prove effective in cultivating certain virtues such as fortitude or bravery. Fortitude is developed by sticking to your sound principles in the face of opposition. Feelings are not sound in this way, because it often doesn't feel good to stick to principles. It is far easier to just shrug one's shoulder and mutter something about "to each his own," live and let live, and simply turn one's back when manifest evil appears. Thus, the left preaches tolerance above all else, but when you ask them if intolerance should be tolerated you get nothing but blank stares and silence. They embrace subjective relativism and don't want to be judgmental. Judging other's behavior makes us uncomfortable, it doesn't feel good. And so we seek refuge in a cowardly philosophy that pretends that all values and beliefs are somehow equal and therefore to be tolerated.
I wrote about a man today who lived around 500 years ago and knew precisely what it meant to stand his ground on principle, even at the cost of his life: Thomas More. He was truly a man for all seasons who spoke truth to power and said no to political correctness even though it cost him his life.
Such fortitude and bravery is very rare nowadays. Instead we are surrounded by cowards who always seem to seek the easy way out. Take our hapless president, Barack Obama. Instead of trying to do the hard work of reaching across the aisle and finding sound bipartisan solutions to the most pressing economic problems of 2009 and 2010, nameless the problem of unemployment, he chose instead the easy partisan route of working with his Democratic compatriots to foist on the rest of America a mammoth health care overhaul involving one sixth of the economy. That was the easy thing to do because he had a Democratic majority in the Senate and House. He could run rough shod over all the GOP opposition. Piece of cake.
In contrast to Thomas More, Barack Obama is a manifest coward. But he is the perfect expression of the mindset that grew out of the sixties. He gamed the system with affirmative action and like a silver tongued devil talked his way into office without any qualifications or any real experience as a leader or even as a worker. All talk, no substance. A consummate phony, our Charlatan-in-Chief. And, of course, he has a large cadre of cowardly leftists at his disposal in the media who will gladly and giddily embrace "hear no evil, speak no evil, see no evil" and look the other way as this charlatan tramples on the US Constitution.
See also the blog Universal Christian.
The youth of the 1960s were thus hungering for a deeper spiritual meaning in life to counter the emptiness of materialistic suburbia. They sought to acquire this meaning with all too easy means. Drugs, for example, especially LSD and Marijuana, gave them a small taste of momentary euphoria. Sexual license, aka "free love," promised to give young people the ecstasy of intimacy without the burden of commitment.
Having rebelled against the sexual mores of their parents and rightfully rebelling against their parent's crass materialism left the 1960s youth as easy pray for the ideological left. They sought to channel the rebellion into their socialist causes. They made heroes of the likes of Che Guevara and Ho Chi Minh and they enlisted in the ranks of the Democratic Party which veered ever more left away from the center.
Great social welfare programs were conceived, Medicare, Medicaid, LBJ's War on Poverty, etc.
But the animus for much of this was really based on feelings. It feels good to care for the poor and the sick. It also felt good to have sex and use drugs. And so a whole generation began to subscribe more or less to the motto that was shouted from the rooftops at the time: "If it feels good, do it!"
It is natural that a philosophy of life based on feelings should fill the spiritual void left by the abandonment of more traditional systems of values such as that based on the Judeo-Christian laws enshrined in the 10 commandments. Nature abhors a vacuum.
I have to credit Dennis Prager with having first made me aware of this fact that leftism is really a religion that is based on feelings. But, being dependent upon your feelings to tell if something is right or not does not prove effective in cultivating certain virtues such as fortitude or bravery. Fortitude is developed by sticking to your sound principles in the face of opposition. Feelings are not sound in this way, because it often doesn't feel good to stick to principles. It is far easier to just shrug one's shoulder and mutter something about "to each his own," live and let live, and simply turn one's back when manifest evil appears. Thus, the left preaches tolerance above all else, but when you ask them if intolerance should be tolerated you get nothing but blank stares and silence. They embrace subjective relativism and don't want to be judgmental. Judging other's behavior makes us uncomfortable, it doesn't feel good. And so we seek refuge in a cowardly philosophy that pretends that all values and beliefs are somehow equal and therefore to be tolerated.
I wrote about a man today who lived around 500 years ago and knew precisely what it meant to stand his ground on principle, even at the cost of his life: Thomas More. He was truly a man for all seasons who spoke truth to power and said no to political correctness even though it cost him his life.
Such fortitude and bravery is very rare nowadays. Instead we are surrounded by cowards who always seem to seek the easy way out. Take our hapless president, Barack Obama. Instead of trying to do the hard work of reaching across the aisle and finding sound bipartisan solutions to the most pressing economic problems of 2009 and 2010, nameless the problem of unemployment, he chose instead the easy partisan route of working with his Democratic compatriots to foist on the rest of America a mammoth health care overhaul involving one sixth of the economy. That was the easy thing to do because he had a Democratic majority in the Senate and House. He could run rough shod over all the GOP opposition. Piece of cake.
In contrast to Thomas More, Barack Obama is a manifest coward. But he is the perfect expression of the mindset that grew out of the sixties. He gamed the system with affirmative action and like a silver tongued devil talked his way into office without any qualifications or any real experience as a leader or even as a worker. All talk, no substance. A consummate phony, our Charlatan-in-Chief. And, of course, he has a large cadre of cowardly leftists at his disposal in the media who will gladly and giddily embrace "hear no evil, speak no evil, see no evil" and look the other way as this charlatan tramples on the US Constitution.
See also the blog Universal Christian.
Sunday, June 17, 2012
Federal Spending on Poverty
In a book called The Dependency Agenda (Encounter Broadsides)
, Kevin Williamson describes what happens to all federal spending on poverty.
If you take all of the money that the federal government spends on poverty programs and divide that amount by the number of poor families in America, you get average spending of $65,000 per poor family. The national income average is only $50,000! So where is all this spending on poverty programs going? It turns out that it is going to folks who have vested interest in "caring about poverty" but never really doing anything to solve the problem.
James Delong discusses this in a recent article.
See also the blog Universal Christian.
, Kevin Williamson describes what happens to all federal spending on poverty.
If you take all of the money that the federal government spends on poverty programs and divide that amount by the number of poor families in America, you get average spending of $65,000 per poor family. The national income average is only $50,000! So where is all this spending on poverty programs going? It turns out that it is going to folks who have vested interest in "caring about poverty" but never really doing anything to solve the problem.James Delong discusses this in a recent article.
See also the blog Universal Christian.
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
The Victim-in-Chief Admits Failure
Besides being Charlatan-in-Chief, our current president is a quintessentially liberal in the sense that he cannot own up to any mistakes, but must always see himself and the Democrats as victims. They are unsuccessful because they are victims. Here in this article on Newsbusters, he is back to blaming Bush for everything. To be sure, he is speaking with an audience that already believes that the failings of the underclass minorities is always about victimization.
But his analogy of the restaurant with the GOP running up a tab and running out just as he gets to the table, leaving him the tab, is tantamount to admitting that his presidency is, in economic terms, a complete failure. He just wants to make sure that someone else is to blame.
See also the blog Universal Christian.
But his analogy of the restaurant with the GOP running up a tab and running out just as he gets to the table, leaving him the tab, is tantamount to admitting that his presidency is, in economic terms, a complete failure. He just wants to make sure that someone else is to blame.
See also the blog Universal Christian.
Sunday, June 10, 2012
Friday, June 8, 2012
Not a Good Week for Democrats
It started Tuesday with the overwhelming loss in Wisconsin. The Democrats depend on their union boss allies to deliver the goods (i.e., campaign donations) based of mandatory union dues. The Democrats in turn scratch the backs of the union bosses by passing laws that keep such dues mandatory and give the unions monopolies in certain areas like health insurance. But the taxpayers of Wisconsin appear to be tired of this game. They elected a Republican governor named Scott Walker who vowed to curtail such practices. The Democrats and union bosses responded with a tantrum year of demonstrations. Democrat state senators fled the state in order to avoid having to vote on Walker's proposals. They mounted a noisy recall campaign that culminated in Tuesday's recall election. But the people of Wisconsin responded that they are tired of the tantrums and in fact like the fiscal results emanating from Walker's program of fiscal restraint.
The Democrat on Wednesday whined that they were outspent by -- heaven forbid -- outside money. It is true that Walker raised more money through lots of small donations (under $50) from concerned citizens outside of Wisconsin. The Democrats did the same and added huge union contributions to boot. But the popular support financially and electorally went to the Walker side.
Then on Wednesday we received the news that the Romney camp raised more money than the Obama camp in the month of May. Despite having cast his lot with wealthy celebrities making huge donations, Obama is not able to raise as much money as Romney who is like Walker getting numerous donations from average Joes.
Also on Wednesday we heard about the big dog, Bill Clinton, going rogue and contradicting the Obama machine message. He said that Romney's record in the business sector was "sterling" after weeks of attempts by the Obama camp to paint Romney as a vulture capitalist. The Obama camp couldn't quite shut him up like they did with Corey Booker, the mayor of Newark, and it wasn't until late Thursday that we heard that Clinton expressed real "sorrow" for going off message.
On Thursday we heard complaints coming from both sides of the aisle in the Senate about the intelligence leaks that seem to come straight from the White House. An investigation is about to start and the Administration will no doubt try to squash it.
Also, on Friday there was more bad news for Obama. A new poll found that nearly 70% of Americans are rooting for ObamaCare to be overturned by the Supreme Court.
So now it is Friday and we are learning that Obama's $25,000,000 dollars worth of advertising buys in May have yielded nothing in terms of polling numbers and may have even hurt him slightly in the polls. And, even more entertaining is that prominent Dems like Nancy Pelosi and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, DNC chair, are trying hard to acquire the Republican vocabulary. Pelosi, for her part, used phrases like "private sector oriented" and "market oriented" to describe ObamaCare. Wasserman-Schultz, on the other hand, is spinning the loss in Wisconsin as a failed attempt on their part to stop "government overreach" while they ensure that "the voices of middle-class families were heard."
So the spinning will continue and Democratic donors will continue to throw good money after bad and invest in the losing proposition of the Democratic machine. They will continue to say that "up" means "down" and "down" means "up". They will continue to have rockstar fundraising parties for their Rockstar-in-Chief with the Hollywood elites. And it looks like they will not hear the two watchman on the bow saying, "Iceberg ahead!"
Here's another author's take on this week's election news.
See also the blog Universal Christian.
The Democrat on Wednesday whined that they were outspent by -- heaven forbid -- outside money. It is true that Walker raised more money through lots of small donations (under $50) from concerned citizens outside of Wisconsin. The Democrats did the same and added huge union contributions to boot. But the popular support financially and electorally went to the Walker side.
Then on Wednesday we received the news that the Romney camp raised more money than the Obama camp in the month of May. Despite having cast his lot with wealthy celebrities making huge donations, Obama is not able to raise as much money as Romney who is like Walker getting numerous donations from average Joes.
Also on Wednesday we heard about the big dog, Bill Clinton, going rogue and contradicting the Obama machine message. He said that Romney's record in the business sector was "sterling" after weeks of attempts by the Obama camp to paint Romney as a vulture capitalist. The Obama camp couldn't quite shut him up like they did with Corey Booker, the mayor of Newark, and it wasn't until late Thursday that we heard that Clinton expressed real "sorrow" for going off message.
On Thursday we heard complaints coming from both sides of the aisle in the Senate about the intelligence leaks that seem to come straight from the White House. An investigation is about to start and the Administration will no doubt try to squash it.
Also, on Friday there was more bad news for Obama. A new poll found that nearly 70% of Americans are rooting for ObamaCare to be overturned by the Supreme Court.
So now it is Friday and we are learning that Obama's $25,000,000 dollars worth of advertising buys in May have yielded nothing in terms of polling numbers and may have even hurt him slightly in the polls. And, even more entertaining is that prominent Dems like Nancy Pelosi and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, DNC chair, are trying hard to acquire the Republican vocabulary. Pelosi, for her part, used phrases like "private sector oriented" and "market oriented" to describe ObamaCare. Wasserman-Schultz, on the other hand, is spinning the loss in Wisconsin as a failed attempt on their part to stop "government overreach" while they ensure that "the voices of middle-class families were heard."
So the spinning will continue and Democratic donors will continue to throw good money after bad and invest in the losing proposition of the Democratic machine. They will continue to say that "up" means "down" and "down" means "up". They will continue to have rockstar fundraising parties for their Rockstar-in-Chief with the Hollywood elites. And it looks like they will not hear the two watchman on the bow saying, "Iceberg ahead!"
Here's another author's take on this week's election news.
See also the blog Universal Christian.
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
Euro Tipping Point is Near
Last fall, this article pointed to signs of the tipping point for euro collapse. The key sign was what the global banking and financial market makers did with their money. They would pull out of risky markets and seek safe havens. This is now happening. The bond rates are diverging: the riskier countries like Greece, Italy and Spain, have to pay exorbitant rates to keep investors interested (no pun intended). The safer countries like Germany and Denmark, don't have to pay hardly any interest at all, because investors are flocking to their sovereign instruments. This past week the German Bund even went negative, meaning that investors were paying to park their funds there. And I we say investors, I mean primarily big money investors like banks.
That article was written over 6 months ago. Now the piper has arrived. Read today's article to see what is happening right now. George Soros believes that Europe has a three-month window to get it right before a serious collapse sets in. Even if Europe reacts correctly and shores up their system like we did in the fall of 2008 with TARP and other measures, this will likely usher in a double-dip recession. But if the Euro cracks apart and sovereigns like Greece, Italy and Spain simply default on their bonds because they just can't pay the interest, there will be shockwaves across the world. The US will not be immune and will take a big hit. But we will survive. At least until our own sovereign debt problem becomes the main actor on the stage.
That article was written over 6 months ago. Now the piper has arrived. Read today's article to see what is happening right now. George Soros believes that Europe has a three-month window to get it right before a serious collapse sets in. Even if Europe reacts correctly and shores up their system like we did in the fall of 2008 with TARP and other measures, this will likely usher in a double-dip recession. But if the Euro cracks apart and sovereigns like Greece, Italy and Spain simply default on their bonds because they just can't pay the interest, there will be shockwaves across the world. The US will not be immune and will take a big hit. But we will survive. At least until our own sovereign debt problem becomes the main actor on the stage.
Monday, June 4, 2012
Barbarians at the Gate? No, in our Midst
The traditional notion of barbarism is that it is matter of one less civilized culture or nation attacking and plundering a more civilized culture or state. Such is the image of the barbarians tribes from northern Europe, the Vandals and the Goths, invading and plundering Rome in the early centuries AD. We also think of the Huns and the invading Mongolian tribes traversing the steppes of Russia to attack the cities of middle and Western Europe.
In today's multicultural, ethnically mixed societies such as the United States, this picture is not quite relevant. The US does not stand in danger of being overrun by hordes coming across our borders, despite the real problem of illegal immigration. However, the US does stand in danger of internal barbarism in which large numbers of its own citizens, long dependent on government subsidies, and having no inner moral code compelling them toward self-control, rise up when the subsidies become unsustainable and intimidate the more civilized members of American society.
We are already seeing hints of this. In this article by Bert Atkinson, Jr., we read of the many signs that are American civilization may be breaking down. Let's us hope that a strong leader is voted into power in November who will put a stop to this very scary stuff.
In today's multicultural, ethnically mixed societies such as the United States, this picture is not quite relevant. The US does not stand in danger of being overrun by hordes coming across our borders, despite the real problem of illegal immigration. However, the US does stand in danger of internal barbarism in which large numbers of its own citizens, long dependent on government subsidies, and having no inner moral code compelling them toward self-control, rise up when the subsidies become unsustainable and intimidate the more civilized members of American society.
We are already seeing hints of this. In this article by Bert Atkinson, Jr., we read of the many signs that are American civilization may be breaking down. Let's us hope that a strong leader is voted into power in November who will put a stop to this very scary stuff.
Sunday, June 3, 2012
Scott Walker: True Progressive
Scott Walker is doing the unions a favor by helping them get their economical house in order, but the radicals in Madison don't seem to care or notice. They see their power of union thuggery being threatened, and so they march and rant in Madison. But the signs are good that the rest of the state has already awakened to the common sense of Walker's policies. He has already helped school districts, and therefore unionized workers, save lots of money.
It is now being recognized that what he is doing is truly progressive in the sense of helping the public good, rather than union thugs' ideology that tends to saddle states with crushing debt.
For great insight into this, see this article by Steven Greenhut at reason.com.
It is now being recognized that what he is doing is truly progressive in the sense of helping the public good, rather than union thugs' ideology that tends to saddle states with crushing debt.
For great insight into this, see this article by Steven Greenhut at reason.com.
Saturday, June 2, 2012
The HHS Mandate: A Truly Unjust Law
The bishops of the Catholic Church in America are rightly sounding the alarms bells about the HHS mandate.
In a letter to the faithful on their website, the bishops quote the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.:
Dr. King wrote this in 1963. It is part of his famous "Letter from Birmingham Jail".
The bishops, for their part, have this to say about the HHS mandate:
In a letter to the faithful on their website, the bishops quote the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.:
I would agree with Saint Augustine that "An unjust law is no law at all." Now what is the difference between the two? How does one determine when a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of Saint Thomas Aquinas, an unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.
Dr. King wrote this in 1963. It is part of his famous "Letter from Birmingham Jail".
The bishops, for their part, have this to say about the HHS mandate:
It is a sobering thing to contemplate our government enacting an unjust law. An unjust law cannot be obeyed. In the face of an unjust law, an accommodation is not to be sought, especially by resorting to equivocal words and deceptive practices. If we face today the prospect of unjust laws, then Catholics in America, in solidarity with our fellow citizens, must have the courage not to obey them. No American desires this. No Catholic welcomes it. But if it should fall upon us, we must discharge it as a duty of citizenship and an obligation of faith.
It is essential to understand the distinction between conscientious objection and an unjust law. Conscientious objection permits some relief to those who object to a just law for reasons of conscience—conscription being the most well-known example. An unjust law is "no law at all." It cannot be obeyed, and therefore one does not seek relief from it, but rather its repeal.
The First Amendment Under Attack
Many folks don't realize that the first amendment to the US Constitution has two clauses having to do with freedom on religion. The full amendment is this: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging
the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the
people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for
a redress of grievances." The first two clauses have to do with religious freedom. Please note the second clause: "prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Of course one can argue that the President is not Congress and so he is not bound by this. But he is bound by a larger one: Only Congress can make laws.
However, when it comes to interpretation and enforcement of laws, the Executive Branch must necessarily exercise judgement. In the case of the HHS mandate, as interpreted by the Obama Administration as part of the Affordable Health Care act (aka ObamaCare), the Executive Branch has taken upon itself to define what religion is!
In a very insightful article, Janine Turner says, among other things, the following:
"Obama has not only taken on the Catholic Church, he has taken on all religion because he is redefining religion. Obama is dictating where a religious people are religious and where they are not, where they have a right to be religious and where they do not. According to President Obama, religious morality and compassion only exist in the temple itself. Catholic-initiated outreaches and missions extended in schools, colleges, hospitals, social service institutions, and charities are not religious, according to Obama. This redefinition conveniently gives him the self-declared right to dictate how these Catholic institutions operate."
This is a violation of the Constitution on several accounts. He is de facto making law which the Constitution expressly forbids of the Executive Branch, and doing what the Constitution even forbids Congress to do, namely prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
If ObamaCare is not struck down by the Supreme Court this month, it will surely be struck down when these lawsuits by Catholic institutions such as the University of Notre Dame finally reach that bench.
Turner's Article
However, when it comes to interpretation and enforcement of laws, the Executive Branch must necessarily exercise judgement. In the case of the HHS mandate, as interpreted by the Obama Administration as part of the Affordable Health Care act (aka ObamaCare), the Executive Branch has taken upon itself to define what religion is!
In a very insightful article, Janine Turner says, among other things, the following:
"Obama has not only taken on the Catholic Church, he has taken on all religion because he is redefining religion. Obama is dictating where a religious people are religious and where they are not, where they have a right to be religious and where they do not. According to President Obama, religious morality and compassion only exist in the temple itself. Catholic-initiated outreaches and missions extended in schools, colleges, hospitals, social service institutions, and charities are not religious, according to Obama. This redefinition conveniently gives him the self-declared right to dictate how these Catholic institutions operate."
This is a violation of the Constitution on several accounts. He is de facto making law which the Constitution expressly forbids of the Executive Branch, and doing what the Constitution even forbids Congress to do, namely prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
If ObamaCare is not struck down by the Supreme Court this month, it will surely be struck down when these lawsuits by Catholic institutions such as the University of Notre Dame finally reach that bench.
Turner's Article
Friday, June 1, 2012
Did You Get Zucked?
A new dirty, four-letter word has entered the English language all in the space of a week: The verb to zuck. It is used mostly in the passive voice as in "to get zucked" and it means, to get screwed as Marc Zuckerberg screwed all the Facebook investors. He's laughing all the way to the bank while he drops off a big donation into Obama's re-election campaign coffers.
Besides generously supporting the Narcissist-in-Chief, the Zucker also made sure that he did not tie the knot with his wife until after the IPO. After all in community property state like California, he did not want to have to share his billions with his wife. He can always just discard her and get a new one when he is tired of her. C'est la vie in California.
Besides generously supporting the Narcissist-in-Chief, the Zucker also made sure that he did not tie the knot with his wife until after the IPO. After all in community property state like California, he did not want to have to share his billions with his wife. He can always just discard her and get a new one when he is tired of her. C'est la vie in California.
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Charlatan-in-Chief
It really doesn't matter whether or not President Obama was born in Kenya, as long as his mother had US citizenship. I have son who was born outside the US in Germany. We traveled to Hamburg to get him to register his birth with the consulate and get him a passport. He is a full-blown US citizen and eligible to run for president.
But what matters the most about the "birther" controversy is what Barack Obama himself said about himself through his own literary agents in the 1990s. There is an article on this at Breitbart.com. It seems his literary agents published a brochure claiming that he was born in Kenya. The Obama administration has dismissed this by saying that he did not know about this, but that is a total laugh. I have published a book and my agents always had me proof read the brochure wording and, moreover, were quite unable to come up with any bio without me first providing it, either in writing or verbally, but generally in writing. Literary agents are not mind readers when it comes you bio; they don't just make stuff up without your approval, for they know that they can bet sued for publishing false information about you. So the idea that Barack Obama knew nothing about his literary agent's brochure is just a bunch of crock.
The late Lawrence Eagleburger summed it up accurately on the night of the election in 2008 by saying that Obama is a charlatan.
But what matters the most about the "birther" controversy is what Barack Obama himself said about himself through his own literary agents in the 1990s. There is an article on this at Breitbart.com. It seems his literary agents published a brochure claiming that he was born in Kenya. The Obama administration has dismissed this by saying that he did not know about this, but that is a total laugh. I have published a book and my agents always had me proof read the brochure wording and, moreover, were quite unable to come up with any bio without me first providing it, either in writing or verbally, but generally in writing. Literary agents are not mind readers when it comes you bio; they don't just make stuff up without your approval, for they know that they can bet sued for publishing false information about you. So the idea that Barack Obama knew nothing about his literary agent's brochure is just a bunch of crock.
The late Lawrence Eagleburger summed it up accurately on the night of the election in 2008 by saying that Obama is a charlatan.
Monday, May 28, 2012
Lack of Leadership
The most recent budget -- over $1,000,000,000,000 -- was unanimously voted down by the Democratic-controlled Senate, 99-0. What is wrong with the President that he can't even negotiate with his own party? Or is this all a ruse? Perhaps the nod-nod-wink-wink understanding between them was this: "We'll propose a ridiculous, over-the-top budget and then you'll vote it down. Afterward, we'll be on the campaign trail wringing our hands about the gridlock, do-nothing, Republican Congress and the stupid Americans who don't follow things that closely won't know the difference. So we'll score a few demagogic election points for this."
Here the country is heading for a major financial cliff once again, with the ratings agencies about ready to downgrade the US again -- like Spain, Italy and Greece -- and these jokers are playing political games.
Where's the leadership? Oh, I forgot, he doesn't have any.
For some analysis, go here:
Washington Times
Here's a quote from that article:
"The White House has held its proposal out as a 'balanced approach' to beginning to rein in deficits. It calls for tax increases to begin to offset higher spending, and would begin to level off debt as a percentage of the economy by 2022. It would produce $6.4 trillion in new deficits over that time."
This is the same game they've been playing for years. Increase taxes and spend the revenues on projects that will bring the Democrats votes, usually social programs like EBT (aka food stamps) and bailing out or investing in political cronies. Both sides do it, but the Democrats are by far the most egregious.
Here the country is heading for a major financial cliff once again, with the ratings agencies about ready to downgrade the US again -- like Spain, Italy and Greece -- and these jokers are playing political games.
Where's the leadership? Oh, I forgot, he doesn't have any.
For some analysis, go here:
Washington Times
Here's a quote from that article:
"The White House has held its proposal out as a 'balanced approach' to beginning to rein in deficits. It calls for tax increases to begin to offset higher spending, and would begin to level off debt as a percentage of the economy by 2022. It would produce $6.4 trillion in new deficits over that time."
This is the same game they've been playing for years. Increase taxes and spend the revenues on projects that will bring the Democrats votes, usually social programs like EBT (aka food stamps) and bailing out or investing in political cronies. Both sides do it, but the Democrats are by far the most egregious.
Sunday, May 27, 2012
Leading from Behind
In Libya our famous policy was to lead from behind, i.e., let France and NATO take the lead and will just provide the logistics, some air power, command and control, and lots of ammunition. Our rationale for getting involved at all was that if we didn't, Gaddafi would surely slaughter thousands of innocent Libyans.
Now that Assad has already slaughtered nearly 10,000 innocent people in Syria, I wonder why we are so reluctant to get involved at all. We seem to be biting our nails wondering whether or not we should send arms and humanitarian aid. We didn't seem to have that hesitation with Libya. What is different?
Well, for starters, the Europeans, who really didn't have much ammunition and had to rely on the US for basic material and logistic support, are now worrying about their collapsing economies. It seems that while we were spending our tax dollars on protecting them during the Cold War, they were busy spending their tax dollars on building cradle-to-grave social welfare states. They raised a generation of spoiled citizens who just want to play and not work as little as possible. Now the piper has come to town and is demanding to be paid.
So the Europeans are not much help here.
Second, it is now election season in the US. Getting involved in another military conflict is something I am sure Obama's handlers are advising him against. He's just biting his nails hoping that the Iranian thing doesn't blow up before the election. And getting involved in Syria could cause the Iranian thing to blow up.
Victor Davis Hanson has a few thoughts on the matter. He advises that maybe we shouldn't get involved in the Middle East because we don't know what the end game is. The Syrian opposition hates us for not giving them arms. Will they love us more after we do? As Hanson says:
"After lots of interventions, we have learned one thing about loud Arab reformers, especially those who were educated at Western universities: They damn us for supporting their dictators; they damn us for removing them; they damn us for interfering in their affairs when we help promote democracy; and they damn us as callous when we just let them be.
These cautionary tales do not necessarily mean that we should not help the Syrian dissidents, only that we must ask ourselves who exactly are these guys, how much will it cost to see them win, and when it is over will our new friends rule any more humanely and competently than the monsters that we remove?"
Now that Assad has already slaughtered nearly 10,000 innocent people in Syria, I wonder why we are so reluctant to get involved at all. We seem to be biting our nails wondering whether or not we should send arms and humanitarian aid. We didn't seem to have that hesitation with Libya. What is different?
Well, for starters, the Europeans, who really didn't have much ammunition and had to rely on the US for basic material and logistic support, are now worrying about their collapsing economies. It seems that while we were spending our tax dollars on protecting them during the Cold War, they were busy spending their tax dollars on building cradle-to-grave social welfare states. They raised a generation of spoiled citizens who just want to play and not work as little as possible. Now the piper has come to town and is demanding to be paid.
So the Europeans are not much help here.
Second, it is now election season in the US. Getting involved in another military conflict is something I am sure Obama's handlers are advising him against. He's just biting his nails hoping that the Iranian thing doesn't blow up before the election. And getting involved in Syria could cause the Iranian thing to blow up.
Victor Davis Hanson has a few thoughts on the matter. He advises that maybe we shouldn't get involved in the Middle East because we don't know what the end game is. The Syrian opposition hates us for not giving them arms. Will they love us more after we do? As Hanson says:
"After lots of interventions, we have learned one thing about loud Arab reformers, especially those who were educated at Western universities: They damn us for supporting their dictators; they damn us for removing them; they damn us for interfering in their affairs when we help promote democracy; and they damn us as callous when we just let them be.
These cautionary tales do not necessarily mean that we should not help the Syrian dissidents, only that we must ask ourselves who exactly are these guys, how much will it cost to see them win, and when it is over will our new friends rule any more humanely and competently than the monsters that we remove?"
The Liberal Echo Chamber
It has been noted more than once, but most recently by Michael Barone in his article "Cocooned Liberals are Unprepared for Political Debate". that liberals in America are effectively isolated from alternative points of view. For, while conservatives cannot help but encounter "the other side" in their daily lives, the folks on the left can live completely isolated from minds different from their own. And this works to their disadvantage, because they simply cannot imagine that anyone would think any differently than they and all their liberal friends.
This is more than just birds of a feather flocking together. This is more like baby birds who have never left their nest and who only eat the worms what the mama bird brings. For, while conservatives are always confronting and becoming at least somewhat acquainted with the views of liberals, many liberals never even come into contact with conservative thought. And this, Barone points out, leaves liberals woefully unprepared to answer their opponents.
And so the pro-union left in Wisconsin can occupy the state house and rant and rave in front of the cameras and convince themselves that the whole world is against Gov. Scott Walker without realizing that they are operating in their own echo chamber. They just keep passing around and sipping the Kool-Aid without realizing that folks outside Madison don't really appreciate what they are doing and don't relish the idea of working until they are 80 so that a government bureaucrat can retire at 55. So, come June 5 it looks like the Kool-Aid drinkers will be crying in their, well, Kool-Aid.
This is more than just birds of a feather flocking together. This is more like baby birds who have never left their nest and who only eat the worms what the mama bird brings. For, while conservatives are always confronting and becoming at least somewhat acquainted with the views of liberals, many liberals never even come into contact with conservative thought. And this, Barone points out, leaves liberals woefully unprepared to answer their opponents.
And so the pro-union left in Wisconsin can occupy the state house and rant and rave in front of the cameras and convince themselves that the whole world is against Gov. Scott Walker without realizing that they are operating in their own echo chamber. They just keep passing around and sipping the Kool-Aid without realizing that folks outside Madison don't really appreciate what they are doing and don't relish the idea of working until they are 80 so that a government bureaucrat can retire at 55. So, come June 5 it looks like the Kool-Aid drinkers will be crying in their, well, Kool-Aid.
Sunday, May 20, 2012
Vin Scully: Greatest Sportscaster of All Time
I grew up in LA, and so you might think that I'm biased when it comes to rating or ranking sportscasters and when I say that Vin Scully is without a doubt the greatest sportscaster of all time. Of course, I am biased. But that doesn't mean that it is impossible for me to be right or to have compelling reasons for my belief. It is sort of like the saying, I guess, that just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they are not out to get you.
Anyway, the reason Vin Scully is the best is because he is a fine human being. I would sum up Scully's greatness with just one word: charity. This word doesn't mean that he excels in alms-giving, although I can imagine that he does that as well. No, this word, 'charity', means that he has a loving heart that seeks to find the good and bring out the best in everybody. It is the opposite of being narcissistic. While other sportscasters try to impress you with their knowledge of the game, Scully is way past that and focused on something much more important. He is more interested in the players of the game, more precisely, in the people of the game. For Vin Scully loves people. Period. Yes, he can weave fascinating stories about these people, because he loves these people. He cares about people. You will never hear him say anything derogatory about anybody. He roots for every player on the field, not just for the Dodgers. And the Dodgers and their fans love him for that.
I have experienced baseball, the American sport, through the eyes of Vin Scully since the 1950s when the Dodgers moved to LA. My Dad took my brother and me to the Roy Campanella night in the Coliseum, when they turned off the lights and had everybody light a match or lighter (a LOT of people smoked back then) as a show of support for Campanella and he was wheeled out in a wheelchair. It still gives me goosebumps just thinking about it. Recently Scully reminded us of that night in one of his between-inning vignettes. I was transported back in time and realized that he loves not only today's players but also all the players who have gone before us. Time doesn't change his charitableness. Back then Scully was the voice of baseball and I didn't even know that other announcers were different until much later. He provide a fine example of a good human being.
But the thing I like most about Scully is that he inspires me to be a better person, to look past my petty squabbles and pet peeves and look at the other person as someone who is special and worthy of being lifted up. Vinnie does that with every batter who comes to the plate, with every pitch that is delivered, with every home run that is hit. He tells you about all the players, where they grew up, whom they idolized, what their hopes and dreams were. And if a story takes several plays to deliver, well, it just does. He'll interrupt his story to call the play and add to your excitement of the game, but then he'll get right back to the story until it has been told.
To be sure, Vin Scully can call a game like nobody else, probably because he cut his teeth in the days of radio broadcasting before television. He can paint the picture of the game better than anyone else. In the old days of transistor radios nearly everyone in the stands would have one with little ear plugs to hear him call the game.
Vin Scully brings out the best in everybody because he sees the best in everybody. And that's why I love him and why I suspect millions of others love him as well.
Anyway, the reason Vin Scully is the best is because he is a fine human being. I would sum up Scully's greatness with just one word: charity. This word doesn't mean that he excels in alms-giving, although I can imagine that he does that as well. No, this word, 'charity', means that he has a loving heart that seeks to find the good and bring out the best in everybody. It is the opposite of being narcissistic. While other sportscasters try to impress you with their knowledge of the game, Scully is way past that and focused on something much more important. He is more interested in the players of the game, more precisely, in the people of the game. For Vin Scully loves people. Period. Yes, he can weave fascinating stories about these people, because he loves these people. He cares about people. You will never hear him say anything derogatory about anybody. He roots for every player on the field, not just for the Dodgers. And the Dodgers and their fans love him for that.
I have experienced baseball, the American sport, through the eyes of Vin Scully since the 1950s when the Dodgers moved to LA. My Dad took my brother and me to the Roy Campanella night in the Coliseum, when they turned off the lights and had everybody light a match or lighter (a LOT of people smoked back then) as a show of support for Campanella and he was wheeled out in a wheelchair. It still gives me goosebumps just thinking about it. Recently Scully reminded us of that night in one of his between-inning vignettes. I was transported back in time and realized that he loves not only today's players but also all the players who have gone before us. Time doesn't change his charitableness. Back then Scully was the voice of baseball and I didn't even know that other announcers were different until much later. He provide a fine example of a good human being.
But the thing I like most about Scully is that he inspires me to be a better person, to look past my petty squabbles and pet peeves and look at the other person as someone who is special and worthy of being lifted up. Vinnie does that with every batter who comes to the plate, with every pitch that is delivered, with every home run that is hit. He tells you about all the players, where they grew up, whom they idolized, what their hopes and dreams were. And if a story takes several plays to deliver, well, it just does. He'll interrupt his story to call the play and add to your excitement of the game, but then he'll get right back to the story until it has been told.
To be sure, Vin Scully can call a game like nobody else, probably because he cut his teeth in the days of radio broadcasting before television. He can paint the picture of the game better than anyone else. In the old days of transistor radios nearly everyone in the stands would have one with little ear plugs to hear him call the game.
Vin Scully brings out the best in everybody because he sees the best in everybody. And that's why I love him and why I suspect millions of others love him as well.
Like Greek Food? How About from the Frying Pan into the Fire?
It is really sad to watch a proud nation of good people go under, but that is precisely what is happening before our eyes in Greece. The Greeks are about to elect a leftist government that is going to thumb its nose at the Euro zone. They will default and do what leftists always do so well -- blame everyone else except themselves. It was socialist pandering for votes that got them in this mess in the first place (sound familiar?) and now they are going to solve that problem by lurching even to the left. They (Syriza) are already talking about nationalizing the banks and seizing people's assets. Is there really any wonder that people are starting to withdraw their savings in a hurry and convert it to dollars or Swiss francs?
Here's a good analysis of the situation.
Here's a good analysis of the situation.
Saturday, May 19, 2012
Elizabeth "Dances with Crabs" Warren
Marc Steyn takes the cake (crab cakes, that is) for the funniest story about the left's obsession with racial identity.
Left and Right Part IX: The Political Compass
Wikipedia has an interesting article on the so-called political compass, which is an attempt to get away from the one-dimensional Right - Left duality. I think this is an admirable attempt to add more subtlety and sophistication to political discourse. However, I also believe it is somewhat flawed in that it regards one of the dimensions as a social dimension and measures attitudes along this dimension in terms of how much one favors or opposes authority -- all kinds of authority without discrimination.
I think this is a bad idea because it tries to politicize things that are not political. For example, religious authority, while having a role to play in society and tending to influence politics considerably, is most certainly not the same as political authority, i.e, authority of the state. Similarly, religious authority has something to say about the other dimension of the compass, the economic dimension, but that does not mean that religious authority is the same thing as economic authority!
Also, these two axes, the economic and the authority axes, do not seem to be quite independent. For example, distrust of all authority would of course mean include distrust of the state as an economic authority. Thus the term left-wing libertarian seems like an oxymoron. The left tends to favor strong political authority that is also very much authoritatively involved in economics. The extreme example is that of the authoritarian Communist and Nazi regimes who influenced nearly every aspect of economic life (not to mention nearly every aspect of life period, including the abolish of and / or strong suppression of all religious authority).
The political compass seems to be a somewhat muddled attempt to illuminate political discourse that falls way short of its intents.
I think this is a bad idea because it tries to politicize things that are not political. For example, religious authority, while having a role to play in society and tending to influence politics considerably, is most certainly not the same as political authority, i.e, authority of the state. Similarly, religious authority has something to say about the other dimension of the compass, the economic dimension, but that does not mean that religious authority is the same thing as economic authority!
Also, these two axes, the economic and the authority axes, do not seem to be quite independent. For example, distrust of all authority would of course mean include distrust of the state as an economic authority. Thus the term left-wing libertarian seems like an oxymoron. The left tends to favor strong political authority that is also very much authoritatively involved in economics. The extreme example is that of the authoritarian Communist and Nazi regimes who influenced nearly every aspect of economic life (not to mention nearly every aspect of life period, including the abolish of and / or strong suppression of all religious authority).
The political compass seems to be a somewhat muddled attempt to illuminate political discourse that falls way short of its intents.
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Romney Speech in Iowa
Some excerpts from Mitt Romney's speech today in Iowa: (Complete Text here.)
"President Obama is an old school liberal whose first instinct is to see free enterprise as the villain and government as the hero. America counted on President Obama to rescue the economy, tame the deficit and help create jobs. Instead, he bailed out the public-sector, gave billions of dollars to the companies of his friends, and added almost as much debt as all the prior presidents combined.
The consequence is that we are enduring the most tepid recovery in modern history.
The consequence is that half of the kids graduating from college can't find a job that uses their skills. Half.
The consequence is that retirees can no longer get by on savings and Social Security.
The consequence is that the length of time it takes an unemployed worker to find a job is the longest on record.
This is why even those who voted for Barack Obama are disappointed in him.
Disappointment is the key in which the President's re-election is being played. Americans will not settle for four more years of the same melancholy song. We can and we must do better.
President Obama started out with a near trillion-dollar stimulus package – the biggest, most careless one-time expenditure by the federal government in history. And remember this: the stimulus wasn’t just wasted – it was borrowed and wasted. We still owe the money, we’re still paying interest on it, and it’ll be that way long after this presidency ends.
Then there was Obamacare. Even now nobody knows what it will actually cost. And that uncertainty has slowed our economy. Employers delay hiring and entrepreneurs put the brakes on starting new businesses, because of a massive, European-style entitlement that Americans didn’t want and can’t afford.
When you add up his policies, this President has increased the national debt by five trillion dollars.
Let me put that in a way we can understand. Your household's share of government debt and unfunded liabilities has reached more than $520,000 under this president. Think about what that means. Your household will be taxed year after year with the interest cost of that debt and with the principal payments for those liabilities. Of course, it won't be paid off by the adults in your household. It will be passed along to your children. They will struggle throughout their lives with the interest on our debts--and President Obama is adding to them every single day.
And that's the best case scenario. The interest rate on that debt is bound to go up, like an adjustable mortgage. And there's a good chance this debt could cause us to hit a Greece-like wall."
"President Obama is an old school liberal whose first instinct is to see free enterprise as the villain and government as the hero. America counted on President Obama to rescue the economy, tame the deficit and help create jobs. Instead, he bailed out the public-sector, gave billions of dollars to the companies of his friends, and added almost as much debt as all the prior presidents combined.
The consequence is that we are enduring the most tepid recovery in modern history.
The consequence is that half of the kids graduating from college can't find a job that uses their skills. Half.
The consequence is that retirees can no longer get by on savings and Social Security.
The consequence is that the length of time it takes an unemployed worker to find a job is the longest on record.
This is why even those who voted for Barack Obama are disappointed in him.
Disappointment is the key in which the President's re-election is being played. Americans will not settle for four more years of the same melancholy song. We can and we must do better.
President Obama started out with a near trillion-dollar stimulus package – the biggest, most careless one-time expenditure by the federal government in history. And remember this: the stimulus wasn’t just wasted – it was borrowed and wasted. We still owe the money, we’re still paying interest on it, and it’ll be that way long after this presidency ends.
Then there was Obamacare. Even now nobody knows what it will actually cost. And that uncertainty has slowed our economy. Employers delay hiring and entrepreneurs put the brakes on starting new businesses, because of a massive, European-style entitlement that Americans didn’t want and can’t afford.
When you add up his policies, this President has increased the national debt by five trillion dollars.
Let me put that in a way we can understand. Your household's share of government debt and unfunded liabilities has reached more than $520,000 under this president. Think about what that means. Your household will be taxed year after year with the interest cost of that debt and with the principal payments for those liabilities. Of course, it won't be paid off by the adults in your household. It will be passed along to your children. They will struggle throughout their lives with the interest on our debts--and President Obama is adding to them every single day.
And that's the best case scenario. The interest rate on that debt is bound to go up, like an adjustable mortgage. And there's a good chance this debt could cause us to hit a Greece-like wall."
Left and Right: Part VIII
So let's take a look at the Democratic and Republican parties to see where they stand.
If you go Democrat's website today, you'll see that their splash page is asking for visitors to stand with Barack Obama on the matter of same-sex marriage. Now if ever there was a social change proposed of profound proportions and historical magnitude, this is it. For all of humanity's history, there has never been until this generation -- and in America never until this president -- a serious proposal to include same sex couples in the definition of marriage. This is probably the most radical social proposal of all time.
The vast majority of Republicans are strenuously opposed to this redefinition of marriage. Here is a excerpt from the GOP website on same-sex marriage:
"Because our children's future is best preserved within the traditional understanding of marriage, we call for a constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage as a union of a man and a woman, so that judges cannot make other arrangements equivalent to it. In the absence of a national amendment, we support the right of the people of the various states to affirm traditional marriage through state initiatives. Republicans recognize the importance of having in the home a father and a mother who are married. The two-parent family still provides the best environment of stability, discipline, responsibility, and character. Children in homes without fathers are more likely to commit a crime, drop out of school, become violent, become teen parents, use illegal drugs, become mired in poverty, or have emotional or behavioral problems. We support the courageous efforts of single-parent families to provide a stable home for their children. Children are our nation's most precious resource. We also salute and support the efforts of foster and adoptive families. Republicans have been at the forefront of protecting traditional marriage laws, both in the states and in Congress. A Republican Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act, affirming the right of states not to recognize same-sex marriages licensed in other states. Unbelievably, the Democratic Party has now pledged to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which would subject every state to the redefinition of marriage by a judge without ever allowing the people to vote on the matter. We also urge Congress to use its Article III, Section 2 power to prevent activist federal judges from imposing upon the rest of the nation the judicial activism in Massachusetts and California. We also encourage states to review their marriage and divorce laws in order to strengthen marriage. As the family is our basic unit of society, we oppose initiatives to erode parental rights."
This sounds like a traditional, right wing position to me, one of desiring to preserve traditional marriage. No transformation of society, no social experimentation. Simply trying to prevent what the left is doing.
If you go Democrat's website today, you'll see that their splash page is asking for visitors to stand with Barack Obama on the matter of same-sex marriage. Now if ever there was a social change proposed of profound proportions and historical magnitude, this is it. For all of humanity's history, there has never been until this generation -- and in America never until this president -- a serious proposal to include same sex couples in the definition of marriage. This is probably the most radical social proposal of all time.
The vast majority of Republicans are strenuously opposed to this redefinition of marriage. Here is a excerpt from the GOP website on same-sex marriage:
"Because our children's future is best preserved within the traditional understanding of marriage, we call for a constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage as a union of a man and a woman, so that judges cannot make other arrangements equivalent to it. In the absence of a national amendment, we support the right of the people of the various states to affirm traditional marriage through state initiatives. Republicans recognize the importance of having in the home a father and a mother who are married. The two-parent family still provides the best environment of stability, discipline, responsibility, and character. Children in homes without fathers are more likely to commit a crime, drop out of school, become violent, become teen parents, use illegal drugs, become mired in poverty, or have emotional or behavioral problems. We support the courageous efforts of single-parent families to provide a stable home for their children. Children are our nation's most precious resource. We also salute and support the efforts of foster and adoptive families. Republicans have been at the forefront of protecting traditional marriage laws, both in the states and in Congress. A Republican Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act, affirming the right of states not to recognize same-sex marriages licensed in other states. Unbelievably, the Democratic Party has now pledged to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which would subject every state to the redefinition of marriage by a judge without ever allowing the people to vote on the matter. We also urge Congress to use its Article III, Section 2 power to prevent activist federal judges from imposing upon the rest of the nation the judicial activism in Massachusetts and California. We also encourage states to review their marriage and divorce laws in order to strengthen marriage. As the family is our basic unit of society, we oppose initiatives to erode parental rights."
This sounds like a traditional, right wing position to me, one of desiring to preserve traditional marriage. No transformation of society, no social experimentation. Simply trying to prevent what the left is doing.
Left and Right: Part VII
In the last post, I indicated how the Democratic Party tends toward the left. In this post I will show how the Republican Party tends toward the right.
Take, e.g., this quote from Ronald Reagan: "I hope we once again have reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts."
As you can see, Reagan was a quintessential conservative in the sense of preferring smaller government over larger. It is also interesting that right wingers tend to see as their program not the task of transforming government or society into some imagined utopia, but to stop the left from doing so. It is in many respects, an anti-program.
It is also interesting and not a little paradoxical that both left and right in some ways violate their own principles. For example, it is characteristic of the left to believe that humans are basically good and that it is genes or the environment that makes them behave badly. Yet you might think that this belief in the innate goodness of man would result in a policies that give people more free rein to express their innate goodness. Yet it does not. The left generally believes that people won't behave well until their environment is transformed, i.e. society is transformed into something that will somehow magically enable them to behave. They believe in the innate goodness of man, but believe that he prevented from expressing it by the evil social structures that make him greedy and selfish. That's why they despise or at least distrust capitalism.
Folks on the right are also paradoxically inconsistent. They don't necessarily believe that people are inherently evil, but they have a healthy skepticism toward individuals. Yet they tend to advocate fewer governmental constraints on the individual. This is probably best explained by the fact that right wingers tend to believe in giving people opportunities, but in punishing them if they screw up.
Take, e.g., this quote from Ronald Reagan: "I hope we once again have reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts."
As you can see, Reagan was a quintessential conservative in the sense of preferring smaller government over larger. It is also interesting that right wingers tend to see as their program not the task of transforming government or society into some imagined utopia, but to stop the left from doing so. It is in many respects, an anti-program.
It is also interesting and not a little paradoxical that both left and right in some ways violate their own principles. For example, it is characteristic of the left to believe that humans are basically good and that it is genes or the environment that makes them behave badly. Yet you might think that this belief in the innate goodness of man would result in a policies that give people more free rein to express their innate goodness. Yet it does not. The left generally believes that people won't behave well until their environment is transformed, i.e. society is transformed into something that will somehow magically enable them to behave. They believe in the innate goodness of man, but believe that he prevented from expressing it by the evil social structures that make him greedy and selfish. That's why they despise or at least distrust capitalism.
Folks on the right are also paradoxically inconsistent. They don't necessarily believe that people are inherently evil, but they have a healthy skepticism toward individuals. Yet they tend to advocate fewer governmental constraints on the individual. This is probably best explained by the fact that right wingers tend to believe in giving people opportunities, but in punishing them if they screw up.
Left and Right: Part VI
Leftists tend to refer to themselves as "progressives," meaning that they yearn and strive for change, i.e., the transformation of society into something better. Change itself sometimes becomes the end in and of itself. Michael Moore, for example, says that the capitalist system doesn't work and when asked what would work he said merely that such a system has not yet been invented and that it will be invented by him and his fellow travelers. Besides showing a boundless faith in change for change's sake, this view also shows an extreme naivete with regards to economics and a not so subtle strain of narcissism similar to candidate Obama's words that we are the change we have been waiting for. Really?
People on the right generally seek to preserve what they perceive as good and do not pine for change unless it is meets a specific need and promises to bring about some greater good. They tend to be wary of people who opt blindly for change. Thus, candidate Obama's slogan of "Hope and Change" didn't make any sense to conservatives, because it was too open-ended; it left them asking, "Change to what end?" or, "Is it change for the better or change for the worse?"
Nancy Pelosi's insistence that they had to hurry up and pass the ObamaCare bill so that they could read what was in it was another example of blind faith in change for change's sake. You can be sure that if a Republican Senate leader had said anything similar about a piece of Republican sponsored legislation, you would hear no end of it being ridiculed in the mainstream media.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)