I don't know why there are so many people who still cannot discern what is playing out right before their own faces. It is so obvious. It is so irrefutable. They even tell you straight up, what they are wanting to do.
Take a moment and listen to the statement recently made by Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV).
We have said it many times and we believe it. Progressives are not the most open minded people we will ever meet. They are not tolerant of opinions different than their own....and they do not want them communicated. They are not respectful of our right to disagree with them and their ideas. They are only proponents of free speech, when they are in the minority.
Additionally, we know and understand very clearly that progressive want control of everything they can get in our lives. They think it is good, but we think it is bad. So Rockefeller does only thing that he can do in this situation. He chooses to make known his preference to limit the choices of what a free market has to offer, because one of those choices presents opinions that differ with his own.
But to get rid of FOX, the plan appears to be sacrificing MSNBC under the illusion that they just want to eliminate two polarizing forces. I think any idiot can see that still leaves them NBC, ABC, NBC, CNN, NPR, and PBS to control the distribution of information.
Now let me state emphatically, I may not like what MSNBC has to say. But I don't want it eliminated.
I think the market is proving to be an effective tool in assessing the most accurate sources in news and commentary. And in the final analysis, FOX has been able to attract more viewers than CNN, CNNHL, and MSNBC, combined. Facts are facts and there must be a reason for this.
Of course, we have learned some things over the years. We know from our vast experiences with illogical elitists that the masses are stupid.......and only "enlightened" intellectuals are capable of knowing what's best for people. Only they can know what is fair to all.
This is not unlike things we have witnessed in history. Communists (like Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro) have historically shut down media outlets to suppress dissent and free speech. It may not be taught like this anymore, but this does not negate the fact that this is the objective and rationale behind it.
This is precisely why the 2012 election process must begin right now. We must keep this dynamic force moving. We must get this bunch of big government liberals back into the private sector... where the damage they do, can be absorbed by anyone foolish enough to hire them. And, we must start the onerous process of reversing the massive amount of damage already done by them.
To do this effectively, we must isolate the progressives. They are helping us, by picking Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to stay on as the faces of this movement. While it is true this will make our jobs easier, we cannot become complacent. We must push ahead and expose their ideas for what they are.
Unless we want to witness our nation crumbling into rubble, we have no other choice.
Showing posts with label Elitism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Elitism. Show all posts
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Tuesday, November 09, 2010
Marc, Brian, And The Fat Man
Everyone knows Marc Lamont Hill. He's a Columbia University professor and biased Fox news contributor, who recently said New Jersey Governor Chris Christie could never be President because he is fat.
I say biased and I say Fox, because the liberal mainstream media says so. I know it's sarcasm.... I also contend that if they were so biased, why are they giving a voice to this guy?
But I digress.
I guess the real question we should ask is much more appropriate. And that is, why do leftists (like Hill) hate Christie so much that they would stoop to such low levels in their critiques?
I think one only need to listen to this short piece, to know why:
We all know and understand that Williams is an elitist snob of the nth degree..... if there ever was one. But as smart as he thinks he is, it is clear in this exchange that he is certainly no match for the Governor. In fact, Gov. Christie pretty much chewed and spit Anchorman Williams out.... right in front of his own friends.
It's really hard to understand why NBC chose to air that part of the interview, because he was made to look like the fool we all know him to be. And while it may be clearly true that Christie might never be President, it will most certainly not be because of his weight.
It will be because liberals fear a no-nonsense conservative who sticks to his/her principles, and does not care what others think of him (for doing so).
I say biased and I say Fox, because the liberal mainstream media says so. I know it's sarcasm.... I also contend that if they were so biased, why are they giving a voice to this guy?
But I digress.
I guess the real question we should ask is much more appropriate. And that is, why do leftists (like Hill) hate Christie so much that they would stoop to such low levels in their critiques?
I think one only need to listen to this short piece, to know why:
We all know and understand that Williams is an elitist snob of the nth degree..... if there ever was one. But as smart as he thinks he is, it is clear in this exchange that he is certainly no match for the Governor. In fact, Gov. Christie pretty much chewed and spit Anchorman Williams out.... right in front of his own friends.
It's really hard to understand why NBC chose to air that part of the interview, because he was made to look like the fool we all know him to be. And while it may be clearly true that Christie might never be President, it will most certainly not be because of his weight.
It will be because liberals fear a no-nonsense conservative who sticks to his/her principles, and does not care what others think of him (for doing so).
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Misguided + Misinformation = Mistake
I like to read commentaries of those I disagree with, just to see which fallacies they use to arrive at their conclusions. There are so many up and coming wannabe progressive pundits trying to break through the inner veil that leads to notoriety, and their writings are saturated with mischaracterizations and misinformation.
They are training for the next generation of progressive hackery and actively seeking approval from the established hacks who are in many cases already in charge of the mainstream media. It is these kinds of op-eds that go far to show there really is a professional left, like the one described recently by Robert Gibbs.
Take this misguided piece of writing by someone who calls herself Holly Bailey, for instance. The title says much of it all:
The goal here is two-fold.
One objective is to draw in Tea Party haters, who will immediately buy into the title because they seek some shred of evidence that the movement is waning. They desperately want to believe that their statist vision is not in danger of succumbing to the same demise, as other statist systems which have failed.
These are pundits who wish a similar but more modern and more effective, Soviet-style system governing the United States. They want a planned economy and government intervention in every aspect of Americans' lives. To them, it is clear that the Tea Party is the biggest obstacle to realizing that dream.
The second objective is to demoralize the Tea Party membership. This is desperation playing out in textbook political fashion. When the establishment and its defenders cannot win the argument of ideas, they use their platforms to minimize and shrink the influence of those that stand against it by demonizing the movement as racists, hilljacks, and fascists.
Not all are as blunt about it, but from the opening paragraph of Bailey's commentary the subtle negativity is openly apparent to this reader:
Her use of the term "flagging" is a weak and feeble attempt to signal that the Tea Party is stopping or slowing its advancement of the highly esteemed principles just to win an election. Her implication is that now they will most certainly need to recenter themselves for the general election, to have any chance of winning whatever seat they are seeking. In other words, those who were endeared to the Tea Party stand a good chance of compromising their core principles.
I cannot help but think she is not able to grasp what the Tea party is trying to do in this election. She certainly is not able to see what it is NOT trying to do. It is not trying to be a party unto itself.... or within a party. It does not openly endorse candidates. But when limited government is the primary focus, the candidates they support are easy to spot.
I am sure there will be Republicans who will use the Tea Party anger to propel them into office, and will forget how they got there during the time they serve. I have no doubt about that, at all.
But this is not a one-time shot.
This is the beginning of what could turn out to be a restoration of that which has been lost. At some point, those same users will face re-election and will face the same voters who supported them earlier. If they have not measured up and the voters remain engaged, they will be fired in the next election.
I also have no doubt that some efforts have fallen and will fall short. Not all establishment candidates will fall in one election and it's unrealistic to believe it will. Hayworth's campaign against McCain is one example. The establishment poured a lot of money into McCain's war chest, and he spent it to fight back the challenger. But this is not an indicator of the Tea Party's lack of success.
Baseball seasons are 162 games long. There is never a team that wins them all. The same holds true for politics.
Right now, the goal of all constitutionalists should be to get the Democrats out of power. If this means supporting the establishment GOP candidate, so be it. Right now, the worst GOP is better than any Obama lap dog Democrat that will blindly support his failed ideological positions.
There's always another opportunity down the road, so do not cave into the progressive liberal delusion that the Tea Party is just a fad. It's not. And that will become clearer in November.
They are training for the next generation of progressive hackery and actively seeking approval from the established hacks who are in many cases already in charge of the mainstream media. It is these kinds of op-eds that go far to show there really is a professional left, like the one described recently by Robert Gibbs.
Take this misguided piece of writing by someone who calls herself Holly Bailey, for instance. The title says much of it all:
Big primary night highlights limits of tea party insurgency
The goal here is two-fold.
One objective is to draw in Tea Party haters, who will immediately buy into the title because they seek some shred of evidence that the movement is waning. They desperately want to believe that their statist vision is not in danger of succumbing to the same demise, as other statist systems which have failed.
These are pundits who wish a similar but more modern and more effective, Soviet-style system governing the United States. They want a planned economy and government intervention in every aspect of Americans' lives. To them, it is clear that the Tea Party is the biggest obstacle to realizing that dream.
The second objective is to demoralize the Tea Party membership. This is desperation playing out in textbook political fashion. When the establishment and its defenders cannot win the argument of ideas, they use their platforms to minimize and shrink the influence of those that stand against it by demonizing the movement as racists, hilljacks, and fascists.
Not all are as blunt about it, but from the opening paragraph of Bailey's commentary the subtle negativity is openly apparent to this reader:
Insider versus outsider: That's been the major theme of the 2010 campaign so far, and it was no different as voters in five key states, including Florida and Arizona, headed to the polls in nominating contests 10 weeks before the November midterms. But in the GOP contests that dominated the night, the influence of the tea party movement, which for the past year has fueled so much voter anger — and media coverage — showed some important signs of flagging, particular as nominees on the right ponder the best way to frame a campaign message to appeal to independent voters in the general election campaign.
Her use of the term "flagging" is a weak and feeble attempt to signal that the Tea Party is stopping or slowing its advancement of the highly esteemed principles just to win an election. Her implication is that now they will most certainly need to recenter themselves for the general election, to have any chance of winning whatever seat they are seeking. In other words, those who were endeared to the Tea Party stand a good chance of compromising their core principles.
I cannot help but think she is not able to grasp what the Tea party is trying to do in this election. She certainly is not able to see what it is NOT trying to do. It is not trying to be a party unto itself.... or within a party. It does not openly endorse candidates. But when limited government is the primary focus, the candidates they support are easy to spot.
I am sure there will be Republicans who will use the Tea Party anger to propel them into office, and will forget how they got there during the time they serve. I have no doubt about that, at all.
But this is not a one-time shot.
This is the beginning of what could turn out to be a restoration of that which has been lost. At some point, those same users will face re-election and will face the same voters who supported them earlier. If they have not measured up and the voters remain engaged, they will be fired in the next election.
I also have no doubt that some efforts have fallen and will fall short. Not all establishment candidates will fall in one election and it's unrealistic to believe it will. Hayworth's campaign against McCain is one example. The establishment poured a lot of money into McCain's war chest, and he spent it to fight back the challenger. But this is not an indicator of the Tea Party's lack of success.
Baseball seasons are 162 games long. There is never a team that wins them all. The same holds true for politics.
Right now, the goal of all constitutionalists should be to get the Democrats out of power. If this means supporting the establishment GOP candidate, so be it. Right now, the worst GOP is better than any Obama lap dog Democrat that will blindly support his failed ideological positions.
There's always another opportunity down the road, so do not cave into the progressive liberal delusion that the Tea Party is just a fad. It's not. And that will become clearer in November.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Progressive Mythology
You have heard of Greek mythology and read the great fictional tragedies from that era. Well, this is an expository examination of Washingtonian mythology. This alone is quite telling, especially when you consider that Washington is controlled by progressive socialists who will use any means necessary to proliferate and disseminate lies, to implement their radical agenda.
As for some of the myths from some of the usual suspects, here is one example from a well-known ex-president and perjurer, Bill Clinton:
So let me see if I can get this straight. He who has power also has influence, right? If that is the case, I guess it means he has some element of responsibility to pick and choose his words wisely. So far so good, right? But what about those on the left who aren't picking and choosing their words very well?
Here is a bright shining example. This time, it comes from some young unknown upstart hack:
How anyone could tie Tea Partiers to George Wallace and keep a straight face, is way beyond me. The Tea Party gathering I just attended in Indianapolis (on the Capital grounds) had black people speaking to an energized, but civil, crowd. No one engaged in racist speech at all. No one advocated anything like Wallace did, there were no calls to deny black people anything.
If there had been, you could bet that no black person would have stuck around until then very end.
No, these were merely people who are concerned about the state of their country and do not support what has been going on. Some of them just happened to be black. Not as many as I would have liked to have seen, but I understand the pressure that is being put on blacks by the radical left.
Even at that, this is not the best myth to come out of this weak and faulty piece of journalism. Let's look at this one:
Makes me laugh, how about you?
This is how it is. The Tea Partiers stick up for the WORKING people, those who pay their bills and taxes. These are the ones who get up everyday, drag their asses to work and put in long hours. It is they who earn the money necessary, so the government can tax it.
Elected officials could not spend like they do, if it weren't for the bill payer and the tax payer. In fact, we now know that almost half of the people in this country pay no taxes at all, which makes them recipients of collected money, after the government has taken their cut for their own self-serving purposes.
So, if you want to paint the Tea Partiers as being in the upper echelons of wage earners, I find nothing wrong with it. Where these myth-makers go astray is to suggest that we are the upper crust of society who are loaded with money. They screw up even worse, when they believe that our opinions are not valid.
Do we not have rights? Do we not have the right to demand those rights be respected? Do we not have the right to speak out when we feel those rights are being violated?
Why should we be required to keep paying more of our hard-earned money to lazy bums who are capable of working, but won't? I know not all recipients are in this category, but a good many are.
They won't work because the government will pay them to sit at home, deal drugs, work under the table like an illegal immigrant, and basically contribute nothing of any value to the country. And they honestly think it is alright to do so.
How can any progressive reconcile this mentality, with any sense of true justice?
If that isn't clear enough, let me be plain. Let's break it down in idiot's terms and examine it closer, shall we?
Myth #1 - Tea Partiers are tied to domestic terrorists.
Q. What did Tim McVeigh's agenda have to do with over-spending and high taxes?
A. Nothing.
By his own admission, it had everything to do with an overzealous government who chose to go into a situation with guns blazing, when there was no need to do so.
Myth #2 - Tea Partiers are racist.
Q. If you believe this, why are there blacks at almost every large Tea Party gathering?
A. Because a lot of them are bill/tax payers and do not like the way the government is handling their tax dollars. These are they who do NOT factor race into their ideology, in any way whatsoever. I suspect there are more who would attend if they could. but many may have had to work and many may have felt intimidated by the radical left.
Myth #3 - Tea Partiers are greedy people who want to keep the little people down.
Some may be greedy to a fault. I don't know every last one of them, so I cannot say for sure who is and who isn't.
But I saw no one pulling up in limos, there was no preferential seating for large donors. Everything at Tea Party rallies is first come, first serve. I saw a lot of retired people who have paid their dues and are now living on fixed incomes. I saw a lot working stiffs like me who were tired after a long day, and yet made it anyway. I saw young, old, and middle aged. The one thing that united all of the people was a genuine concern about the direction the nation is being driven, by deceitful and manipulative leaders.
After all of these queries I have posed here today, there only remains one intelligent question left to ask.
If the Tea Party Movement is not a relevant force, why are so many progressives scared of them and seek to demonize them -- in place of a debate about the issues? What could they possibly be afraid of, that they would stoop to such a low level of behavior?
As for some of the myths from some of the usual suspects, here is one example from a well-known ex-president and perjurer, Bill Clinton:
"What we learned from Oklahoma City is not that we should gag each other or that we should reduce our passion for the positions we hold - but that the words we use really do matter, because there's this vast echo chamber, and they go across space and they fall on the serious and the delirious alike. They fall on the connected and the unhinged alike," he said.
"One of the things that the conservatives have always brought to the table in America is a reminder that no law can replace personal responsibility. And the more power you have and the more influence you have, the more responsibility you have."
So let me see if I can get this straight. He who has power also has influence, right? If that is the case, I guess it means he has some element of responsibility to pick and choose his words wisely. So far so good, right? But what about those on the left who aren't picking and choosing their words very well?
Here is a bright shining example. This time, it comes from some young unknown upstart hack:
The Tea Partiers aren’t too fond of racial underdogs either. They’re more likely than other Americans to believe that the Obama administration favors blacks over whites, and that black people’s hardships have been exaggerated. America does have a history of right-wing, often racist, populism. Segregationist Alabama Governor George Wallace called his party the Populists in 1968. But at least Wallace’s economic views were reasonably progressive. The Tea Partiers favor the economically and racially privileged.
How anyone could tie Tea Partiers to George Wallace and keep a straight face, is way beyond me. The Tea Party gathering I just attended in Indianapolis (on the Capital grounds) had black people speaking to an energized, but civil, crowd. No one engaged in racist speech at all. No one advocated anything like Wallace did, there were no calls to deny black people anything.
If there had been, you could bet that no black person would have stuck around until then very end.
No, these were merely people who are concerned about the state of their country and do not support what has been going on. Some of them just happened to be black. Not as many as I would have liked to have seen, but I understand the pressure that is being put on blacks by the radical left.
Even at that, this is not the best myth to come out of this weak and faulty piece of journalism. Let's look at this one:
The Tea Partiers aren’t standing up for the little guy; they’re standing up to the little guy.
Makes me laugh, how about you?
This is how it is. The Tea Partiers stick up for the WORKING people, those who pay their bills and taxes. These are the ones who get up everyday, drag their asses to work and put in long hours. It is they who earn the money necessary, so the government can tax it.
Elected officials could not spend like they do, if it weren't for the bill payer and the tax payer. In fact, we now know that almost half of the people in this country pay no taxes at all, which makes them recipients of collected money, after the government has taken their cut for their own self-serving purposes.
So, if you want to paint the Tea Partiers as being in the upper echelons of wage earners, I find nothing wrong with it. Where these myth-makers go astray is to suggest that we are the upper crust of society who are loaded with money. They screw up even worse, when they believe that our opinions are not valid.
Do we not have rights? Do we not have the right to demand those rights be respected? Do we not have the right to speak out when we feel those rights are being violated?
Why should we be required to keep paying more of our hard-earned money to lazy bums who are capable of working, but won't? I know not all recipients are in this category, but a good many are.
They won't work because the government will pay them to sit at home, deal drugs, work under the table like an illegal immigrant, and basically contribute nothing of any value to the country. And they honestly think it is alright to do so.
How can any progressive reconcile this mentality, with any sense of true justice?
If that isn't clear enough, let me be plain. Let's break it down in idiot's terms and examine it closer, shall we?
Myth #1 - Tea Partiers are tied to domestic terrorists.
Q. What did Tim McVeigh's agenda have to do with over-spending and high taxes?
A. Nothing.
By his own admission, it had everything to do with an overzealous government who chose to go into a situation with guns blazing, when there was no need to do so.
Myth #2 - Tea Partiers are racist.
Q. If you believe this, why are there blacks at almost every large Tea Party gathering?
A. Because a lot of them are bill/tax payers and do not like the way the government is handling their tax dollars. These are they who do NOT factor race into their ideology, in any way whatsoever. I suspect there are more who would attend if they could. but many may have had to work and many may have felt intimidated by the radical left.
Myth #3 - Tea Partiers are greedy people who want to keep the little people down.
Some may be greedy to a fault. I don't know every last one of them, so I cannot say for sure who is and who isn't.
But I saw no one pulling up in limos, there was no preferential seating for large donors. Everything at Tea Party rallies is first come, first serve. I saw a lot of retired people who have paid their dues and are now living on fixed incomes. I saw a lot working stiffs like me who were tired after a long day, and yet made it anyway. I saw young, old, and middle aged. The one thing that united all of the people was a genuine concern about the direction the nation is being driven, by deceitful and manipulative leaders.
After all of these queries I have posed here today, there only remains one intelligent question left to ask.
If the Tea Party Movement is not a relevant force, why are so many progressives scared of them and seek to demonize them -- in place of a debate about the issues? What could they possibly be afraid of, that they would stoop to such a low level of behavior?
Tuesday, March 02, 2010
Distortion Of Reality
There is some controversy about a movie that has been nominated for some Oscars this year. The name of the flick is Hurt Locker and the flack the flick is taking is primarily centered on how many veterans think it is realistic. Knowing Hollywood and its poor record of recreating wars on screen, I have my doubts.
Full Metal Jacket was one example. If it were not for the basic training scenes, this one would have ended up just another Stanley Kubrick acid trip. At very least we can call it "distorted reality".
But I digress.
From the LA Times:
So help me understand something here, as it very well could be that I am just some dense bozo with a blog or someone who doesn't understand what the elitists understand.
How many film critics have ever actually been in combat? I mean who are these people? What are their names? In what theater did they serve, and what damn units were they in?
Because from where I sit, if a film critic thinks it is an accurate portrayal of what life was really like in Iraq, I think they should halt, identify themselves, and then advance to be recognized. They should tell us where they were in Iraq and what their jobs were, so as to lend some credibility to their opinions.
Otherwise, they are nothing more than a bunch of ignoramuses.
Ignorant people are people who do not know things. But many of them are people who know they don't know... and do not act like they know. There is a certain integrity in them.
In contrast to this demographic, there are people who think they know about things and yet, know nothing at all. These are the people who are are truly lower than the lowest whale dung, which sinks to the bottom of the ocean floor. In them, there is no integrity and no validity to what they may say about the things they know nothing about.
This is the category that I place these film critics. Looking closer we can see another example of distorted reality, within the spaces between their ears.
Addendum:
Greg put a link in the comment section, to a NYT essay that pretty much says it's crap. It's a great read, if you have a moment.
Full Metal Jacket was one example. If it were not for the basic training scenes, this one would have ended up just another Stanley Kubrick acid trip. At very least we can call it "distorted reality".
But I digress.
From the LA Times:
Some soldiers and veterans say the movie, a favorite for the best picture Oscar, portrays them as renegades and doesn't depict combat accurately. But film critics have praised its authenticity.
So help me understand something here, as it very well could be that I am just some dense bozo with a blog or someone who doesn't understand what the elitists understand.
How many film critics have ever actually been in combat? I mean who are these people? What are their names? In what theater did they serve, and what damn units were they in?
Because from where I sit, if a film critic thinks it is an accurate portrayal of what life was really like in Iraq, I think they should halt, identify themselves, and then advance to be recognized. They should tell us where they were in Iraq and what their jobs were, so as to lend some credibility to their opinions.
Otherwise, they are nothing more than a bunch of ignoramuses.
Ignorant people are people who do not know things. But many of them are people who know they don't know... and do not act like they know. There is a certain integrity in them.
In contrast to this demographic, there are people who think they know about things and yet, know nothing at all. These are the people who are are truly lower than the lowest whale dung, which sinks to the bottom of the ocean floor. In them, there is no integrity and no validity to what they may say about the things they know nothing about.
This is the category that I place these film critics. Looking closer we can see another example of distorted reality, within the spaces between their ears.
Addendum:
Greg put a link in the comment section, to a NYT essay that pretty much says it's crap. It's a great read, if you have a moment.
Monday, February 22, 2010
TEA Partiers Are Pro-Government
Allow me to start off with a real "Facebook" approach to this post by saying that it's gray outside and I am ready for the weather to make a positive turn, soon. Now that I have said that, let me say that in the midst of yesterday's dismal lethargic morning I did find time to listen to a few minutes of Meet The Press -- just before I took my nasally congested grandson home to his mother.
The inherently arrogant and smug David Gregory aptly demonstrated why he has earned his adjectives. Here is the wording of his question to Rep. Mike Pence:
Pence was his usual professional self. He gently corrected the most prevalent misconception that the elitist leftist establishment wants everyone to believe, which is the TEA Party members are anti-government. They are not.
The interesting thing is that these are the same people, who think we are utterly clueless. But at the same time, they openly and naively fall for the inherent myth that government is a panacea to all of our problems .... and that we as a culture are incapable of living without them.
To anyone stumbling onto this blog by happenstance, let's be clear on something. I am a proud American and I am not anti-government. I do not advocate of overthrowing anything at all, despite the image Bozo Gregory wants you to believe.
I do want the same structural framework that was built by the founding fathers to be restored. I want the federal government to take care of things that effect out nation on a macro level that cannot be done on the state level. No more, no less.
They need to protect our borders, be responsible for the common defense, protect out interests abroad, and settle disputes between the states. They do not need to be involved in every aspect of our lives.
We want Washington to be accountable for their actions and want them to stop their ever increasing hunger and thirst for more of our money, and power over us. We want better and smarter government, one that truly meets the needs of the people and not the interests of the politicians who lord over us.
How is that anti-government?
The inherently arrogant and smug David Gregory aptly demonstrated why he has earned his adjectives. Here is the wording of his question to Rep. Mike Pence:
MR. GREGORY: Congressman Pence, you spoke at the, the gathering of conservatives this week. Dick Armey spoke there as well, then the leader of this tea party movement. Is the tea party movement, an--as an anti-government movement, is it part of the Republican Party?
REP. PENCE: Well, I don't know. You know, E.J. did that anti-government thing. Look, and the president said this week, he said something about, "You've got these people who are against government," you know. In...
MR. GREGORY: Well, they're not pro-government, that's fair, right?
REP. PENCE: Right, no. The American people aren't against government, they're against big government. They're, they're tired of borrowing and spending and bailouts and takeovers. And the people that you characterize...
MR. GREGORY: But my question is about are they part of the Republican Party, do you believe?
REP. PENCE: The people that you characterize, the tea party movement, are a group of--I was there at 9/12 on the National Mall. I've spoken to tea party rallies and town hall meetings. David, I'm telling you, these are decent, God-fearing, hard-working, everyday Americans...
MR. GREGORY: Right.
REP. PENCE: ...who just know we can't pile this mountain range of debt on our children and grandchildren.
Pence was his usual professional self. He gently corrected the most prevalent misconception that the elitist leftist establishment wants everyone to believe, which is the TEA Party members are anti-government. They are not.
The interesting thing is that these are the same people, who think we are utterly clueless. But at the same time, they openly and naively fall for the inherent myth that government is a panacea to all of our problems .... and that we as a culture are incapable of living without them.
To anyone stumbling onto this blog by happenstance, let's be clear on something. I am a proud American and I am not anti-government. I do not advocate of overthrowing anything at all, despite the image Bozo Gregory wants you to believe.
I do want the same structural framework that was built by the founding fathers to be restored. I want the federal government to take care of things that effect out nation on a macro level that cannot be done on the state level. No more, no less.
They need to protect our borders, be responsible for the common defense, protect out interests abroad, and settle disputes between the states. They do not need to be involved in every aspect of our lives.
We want Washington to be accountable for their actions and want them to stop their ever increasing hunger and thirst for more of our money, and power over us. We want better and smarter government, one that truly meets the needs of the people and not the interests of the politicians who lord over us.
How is that anti-government?
Thursday, June 04, 2009
Recommended Reading (Again)
It's not WND. It's from Mother Jones, noted liberal progressive publication. Here is an article that is critical of Sonia Sotmayor's writing skills.
Some disturbing news in the world of states' rights is coming from the Georgia Secretary of State. Apparently the Justice department is meddling in the affairs of a state that has a constitutional law, requiring people who wish to vote, to prove they are citizens.
Biden tells us what most of us already know. Hope we all feel better now that we know we were right. I know I do.
Some disturbing news in the world of states' rights is coming from the Georgia Secretary of State. Apparently the Justice department is meddling in the affairs of a state that has a constitutional law, requiring people who wish to vote, to prove they are citizens.
Biden tells us what most of us already know. Hope we all feel better now that we know we were right. I know I do.
Monday, April 06, 2009
A Prophet Has No Honor
The full scripture said: A prophet has no honor in his own country.
From the beginning of time, there have been men (and women) who have felt an impending sense of doom. There have been men who kept these things to themselves, only shared them privately, or opted to take their thoughts and predictions public, despite the public scorn and ridicule that is almost always certain to occur.
Many times, they (who are in a position to react to such information) are apt to disregard such things unless there is irrefutable evidence. There must be acceptable proof or it will usually get ignored. But what happens, when the people who have the authority shut down the voice of the ones who warn others?
It's one thing to ignore the warnings, and in many ways it is certainly understandable to want to reserve some judgment on anyone claiming the sky is falling. But if you ask me, it's quite another thing to actively and willfully seek a way to silence people who have what they believe to be pertinent information, which could affect people's health and well-being.
How hard is it to allow the man to tell his story, and then add a caveat? How hard is it to let people hear both sides of any issue, and allow them to decide for themselves if they want to heed advice?
The reason for my argument is not necessarily a call for castigation. I do not doubt the experts, when they say there is no 100% foolproof method of predicting quakes. But there are times when it can be said that conditions are right. One thing I have always been told is, watch the behavior of wildlife. Birds do not sing and other animals act scared.
Apparently this man had a belief that the radon levels were consistent with seismic activity. Apparently, the intelligentsia believed him to be wrong and wanted show him a thing or two.
Today, we know who was right.
Today, there are others speaking of their impending sense of doom. There are those who are convinced the nation is going down the wrong path because of many of the decisions currently being made by the "so-called" American intelligentsia. These are they, who think they know more than we do. But what will they say when they are shown to be as wrong as those people in Italy, those arrogant elitists who stifled a man's freedom to warn his fellow countrymen of an imminent danger?
From the beginning of time, there have been men (and women) who have felt an impending sense of doom. There have been men who kept these things to themselves, only shared them privately, or opted to take their thoughts and predictions public, despite the public scorn and ridicule that is almost always certain to occur.
Many times, they (who are in a position to react to such information) are apt to disregard such things unless there is irrefutable evidence. There must be acceptable proof or it will usually get ignored. But what happens, when the people who have the authority shut down the voice of the ones who warn others?
An Italian scientist predicted a major earthquake around L'Aquila weeks before disaster struck the city on Monday, killing dozens of people, but was reported to authorities for spreading panic among the population.
The first tremors in the region were felt in mid-January and continued at regular intervals, creating mounting alarm in the medieval city, about 100 km (60 miles) east of Rome.
Vans with loudspeakers had driven around the town a month ago telling locals to evacuate their houses after seismologist Gioacchino Giuliani predicted a large quake was on the way, prompting the mayor's anger.
Giuliani, who based his forecast on concentrations of radon gas around seismically active areas, was reported to police for "spreading alarm" and was forced to remove his findings from the Internet.
It's one thing to ignore the warnings, and in many ways it is certainly understandable to want to reserve some judgment on anyone claiming the sky is falling. But if you ask me, it's quite another thing to actively and willfully seek a way to silence people who have what they believe to be pertinent information, which could affect people's health and well-being.
How hard is it to allow the man to tell his story, and then add a caveat? How hard is it to let people hear both sides of any issue, and allow them to decide for themselves if they want to heed advice?
The reason for my argument is not necessarily a call for castigation. I do not doubt the experts, when they say there is no 100% foolproof method of predicting quakes. But there are times when it can be said that conditions are right. One thing I have always been told is, watch the behavior of wildlife. Birds do not sing and other animals act scared.
Apparently this man had a belief that the radon levels were consistent with seismic activity. Apparently, the intelligentsia believed him to be wrong and wanted show him a thing or two.
Today, we know who was right.
Today, there are others speaking of their impending sense of doom. There are those who are convinced the nation is going down the wrong path because of many of the decisions currently being made by the "so-called" American intelligentsia. These are they, who think they know more than we do. But what will they say when they are shown to be as wrong as those people in Italy, those arrogant elitists who stifled a man's freedom to warn his fellow countrymen of an imminent danger?
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
More Liberal Hypocrisy
The chatter in the media about Rush Limbaugh is quite comical. The Democrats that choose to make an issue of him must be feeling threatened by him. Why else would they be spending so much time on one talk show host?
This past weekend Limbaugh made a speech that has been the subject of some criticism. Here is an article that discusses some of it.
I am sorry, but this requires a comment.
Many DID wish for us to fail in Iraq, they DID do everything they could have to ensure that it happened, albeit passive-aggressively. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and countless others in the Democratic leadership DID proclaim that we could not win, when boots were on ground and engaged in combat.
This negativity led to empowering and emboldening an already fierce enemy. It gave them aid and comfort. So, to all of those Democrats that want to make this Limbaugh stuff out to be some kind of treasonous statement, think again.
My memory is not that short.
This past weekend Limbaugh made a speech that has been the subject of some criticism. Here is an article that discusses some of it.
The Speaker of the House won't mention his name, but the White House has shown a willingness to invoke the name of radio host Rush Limbaugh whenever challenged.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) won't comment on anything the hero of conservatives has to say — and he has a lot to say — but the White House on Monday was only too happy to respond to Limbaugh's repeated assertion over the weekend that he hopes President Obama's presidency fails.
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, who last month blasted CNBC host Rick Santelli from the podium in the briefing room, challenged reporters on Monday to ask Republicans if they agree with Limbaugh's desire.
"Do they want to see the president's economic agenda fail? You know, I bet there are a number of guests on television throughout the day and maybe into tomorrow who could let America know whether they agree with what Rush Limbaugh said this weekend."
Gibbs said he thought "it would be charitable to say he doubled down on what he said in January in wishing and hoping for economic failure in this country."
"I can only imagine what might have been said a few years ago if somebody might have said that on the other side relating to what was going on in this country or our
endeavors overseas," Gibbs said.
I am sorry, but this requires a comment.
Many DID wish for us to fail in Iraq, they DID do everything they could have to ensure that it happened, albeit passive-aggressively. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and countless others in the Democratic leadership DID proclaim that we could not win, when boots were on ground and engaged in combat.
This negativity led to empowering and emboldening an already fierce enemy. It gave them aid and comfort. So, to all of those Democrats that want to make this Limbaugh stuff out to be some kind of treasonous statement, think again.
My memory is not that short.
Friday, December 19, 2008
Comeback Camelot
Come back Camelot, come back. We need you. Such are the pleas of a generation, such are the illusions.
Hearing the Camelot Kennedy comparisons in this past election cycle has been hard to swallow. Camelot was a different time, a different era, and a different set of circumstances. It wasn't planned, it just sort of happened. But today's Camelot is different. There are many who are using this (perceived) Camelot period to re-live their unresolved issues from their youth and are using that moment in time, as a foundational basis for their existences.
We now know, forces are exerting an huge amount of pressure to get Caroline into Hillary's seat. But what we do not know is the inner workings and dynamics, of this entire situation as it sits before us.
Besides the fantasies of those who are coming to grips with their own mortalities, here is something worthy of note:
It was reported that at one time (a long time ago), JFK Jr. was privately considering running for the seat that eventually became Hillary's. After JFK Jr.'s untimely death, many rumors and conspiracy theories (which were never proven) were being circulated. The question becomes, how much (if any) does this play into Caroline's decision to want this seat?
Suddenly, we have in front of us, Caroline "I want my private life to be my own" Kennedy, being tranformed into Caroline "I want to be in the limelight" Kennedy. Suddenly, out of nowhere, she expects to be handed something which she has never shown an interest in before, for little or no effort on her part, and without validation by anyone (other than an elected official and those that lobby for her).
She hasn't held one office, she's been elected to nothing. And to to top it all off, the NY Daily News is reporting this lady hasn't always voted in elections, raising the question of whether or not, she failed in the role of a citizen in the political process. How is it we can see this, argue this, but very few care enough to make the necessary noise? If I were in the state of NY right now, I would be satiating the Governor's office about this. If the people can convince him there are enough of them to derail his efforts in the next election, he may think twice about this. But then again, he may not.
Hearing the Camelot Kennedy comparisons in this past election cycle has been hard to swallow. Camelot was a different time, a different era, and a different set of circumstances. It wasn't planned, it just sort of happened. But today's Camelot is different. There are many who are using this (perceived) Camelot period to re-live their unresolved issues from their youth and are using that moment in time, as a foundational basis for their existences.
We now know, forces are exerting an huge amount of pressure to get Caroline into Hillary's seat. But what we do not know is the inner workings and dynamics, of this entire situation as it sits before us.
Besides the fantasies of those who are coming to grips with their own mortalities, here is something worthy of note:
It was reported that at one time (a long time ago), JFK Jr. was privately considering running for the seat that eventually became Hillary's. After JFK Jr.'s untimely death, many rumors and conspiracy theories (which were never proven) were being circulated. The question becomes, how much (if any) does this play into Caroline's decision to want this seat?
Suddenly, we have in front of us, Caroline "I want my private life to be my own" Kennedy, being tranformed into Caroline "I want to be in the limelight" Kennedy. Suddenly, out of nowhere, she expects to be handed something which she has never shown an interest in before, for little or no effort on her part, and without validation by anyone (other than an elected official and those that lobby for her).
She hasn't held one office, she's been elected to nothing. And to to top it all off, the NY Daily News is reporting this lady hasn't always voted in elections, raising the question of whether or not, she failed in the role of a citizen in the political process. How is it we can see this, argue this, but very few care enough to make the necessary noise? If I were in the state of NY right now, I would be satiating the Governor's office about this. If the people can convince him there are enough of them to derail his efforts in the next election, he may think twice about this. But then again, he may not.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Obama Still Can't Close The Deal
After a week of hammering John McCain on the economy, Obama still cannot pull away from his rival. The dice has rolled his way with the banking crisis and the bailouts, but he has not been able to capitalize on an issue that experts say leans in his favor.
In some instances, he is not drawing the crowds that were once used by the liberal media as a sign that he was going to walk away with this election.
I think there is some truth to that excuse because many of Obama's supporters are seldom up out of bed at noon. Some of them are staying up late removing smear videos, which they posted on You Tube to destroy Sarah Palin. Others stay up late playing video games in their parents' basements, with no other meaning or purpose in life.
I'll tell you folks, the dreams of many are dissipating before their very eyes, so no dirty deed is deemed to be too callous or underhanded. No amount of lies and deceits have been able to sway decent people from realizing that Obama is just another corrupt Chicago politician that has duped the naive masses into believing he is the only agent of change, worth considering.
I submit that he is an agent of change, but not the kind of change he claims to promote. The only change he is successfully selling is "changing his positions".
Take a look at this list of flip-flops Obama has performed during this campaign. See what you think about this and wonder with me in amazement, how anyone can truly believe the MSM is objective in this Presidential race. If they were, they'd be looking long and hard at this list and pressuring him for some answers.
Even more amazingly, after all of this positive coverage from elitist media organizations, all of this demonization of the McCain-Palin ticket, and all of the Obama campaign's dirty tricks, he is still in danger of losing this election. Can we imagine how far behind he would be, if only the deck was stacked fairly?
In some instances, he is not drawing the crowds that were once used by the liberal media as a sign that he was going to walk away with this election.
“You all know that you hold this election in your hands,” Sen. Russ Feingold, a Democrat who said he worked on ethics legislation with Obama, told a crowd of about 6,000 cheering Obama fans in the arena next to Lambeau Field. “We just barely won this state for Al Gore in 2000 and we just barely won this state for John Kerry in 2004.”
The numbers in Wisconsin and Minnesota are getting close enough that the Obama campaign closed its 11 campaign offices in North Dakota and moved the 50 staffers there to these two states.
Just a week ago, John McCain and his vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin — who can bring out crowds the way Obama can — appeared in this same stadium, Resch Center, to a crowd of 10,000 fans. There were an uncharacteristic amount of empty orange seats for Obama’s rally.
In their defense, Obama's backers note their rally was held on Monday at noon, compared to a Thursday night rally for McCain and Palin.
I think there is some truth to that excuse because many of Obama's supporters are seldom up out of bed at noon. Some of them are staying up late removing smear videos, which they posted on You Tube to destroy Sarah Palin. Others stay up late playing video games in their parents' basements, with no other meaning or purpose in life.
I'll tell you folks, the dreams of many are dissipating before their very eyes, so no dirty deed is deemed to be too callous or underhanded. No amount of lies and deceits have been able to sway decent people from realizing that Obama is just another corrupt Chicago politician that has duped the naive masses into believing he is the only agent of change, worth considering.
I submit that he is an agent of change, but not the kind of change he claims to promote. The only change he is successfully selling is "changing his positions".
Take a look at this list of flip-flops Obama has performed during this campaign. See what you think about this and wonder with me in amazement, how anyone can truly believe the MSM is objective in this Presidential race. If they were, they'd be looking long and hard at this list and pressuring him for some answers.
Even more amazingly, after all of this positive coverage from elitist media organizations, all of this demonization of the McCain-Palin ticket, and all of the Obama campaign's dirty tricks, he is still in danger of losing this election. Can we imagine how far behind he would be, if only the deck was stacked fairly?
Friday, August 15, 2008
Recommended Reading
VDH has written another stellar essay that you won't want to miss.
Charles Krauthammer has one worthy of a look, on possible sanctions against Russia if they overthrow the Georgia government. He left one big one out, see if you can guess which one it is.
John Hawkins at Town Hall has penned 25 Reasons You Might Be A Liberal.
Charles Krauthammer has one worthy of a look, on possible sanctions against Russia if they overthrow the Georgia government. He left one big one out, see if you can guess which one it is.
John Hawkins at Town Hall has penned 25 Reasons You Might Be A Liberal.
Monday, August 04, 2008
Media Survivalists: The Marketing Of Words And Personality
If you haven't had an opportunity to read Ramesh Ponnuru's essay in Time Magazine, centered on the media's love affair with Barack Obama, I recommend doing so and soon. He makes some interesting points worthy of some serious consideration, on the reasons the media is so biased.
But I want to break it down a bit further, if I might. We'll start with this snippet:
Maybe it's because attorneys love words. Attorneys seem to gravitate towards the Democratic party for a host reasons, not the least of them (like the author says), Democrats love words.
Words are part of our life, we use them to communicate. We use them to persuade and to convince. The attorney's main objective is to win an argument, usually and presumably with some good evidence. And when there is little or no evidence, they must use words to make compelling cases. If they win their cases, they get paid.
The media uses words to support their claims too. This similarity certainly stands out like a NASCAR fan in a European coffee house, but there is one stark difference that I would point out in the context of this argument: Attorneys, for the most part, make their cases to judges and juries. Unless they are in a high profile case that some hotshot wants to try his case in the media beforehand (for advertising purposes), the arguments are confined to courts and conference rooms used for depositions.
By contrast, the media takes its cases directly to the people. They make their money by selling periodicals and in the case of electronic media, high ratings. The more magazines and newspapers being sold, the more people watching news commentary shows, the more money the media makes.
Enter teachers and professors, the backbone of the education community. They make their living using words too. They must come up with persuasive words using innovation and creativity to teach kids and adults. They, too, are attracted by the Democratic party. They, too, have an affinity for the media when it reflects their ideological positions. These are positions that are usually in direct conflict with the conservatives' philosophical belief systems. Naturally, they will gravitate to those that share their views.
Teachers may not make more money, but professors do. They sell their books and many command some hefty speaking fees when able to effectively articulate their ideas unchallenged in a contradictory forum.
All three of these professions are highly dependent on words. All three are better explained and can be found, in this piece at the website of The Heritage Foundation.
But let's move on, shall we. There is one other reason Ponnuru has pointed out here, one that most people are already aware of:
I do notice a pattern here. I also notice another pattern.
Media sales of companies that show an open liberal bias are down. Let's look at Time-Warner as an example. TW stocks were $19.25 a share in September, of last year. In March of this year, they were as low as $13.91. Today they closed at up a little, at $14.40. March is right about the time Time realized the path was leading to self-destruction and began to do a better job of fair coverage. They still have their liberal pundits, but they are printing more articles like the one I am citing for this post. As a result, sales are up somewhat but certainly nothing to write home about.
In November of last year, Newsweek's parent company The Washington Post Company stock was at $857.92 a share. By June of this year, it was down to $559. Today, it closed at $607. WaPo has been hurt by declining circulation and it's subsidiary Newsweek has remained stagnant, which in economic terms can be considered a decrease when you factor in the growth of the rest of the economy.
Some of the circulation woes can be attributed to the shift from print media to the internet, but that doesn't take into account the drop in ad revenues. This is what fuels the stock prices and with stocks down, it's hard to give much too much credence to this switch in mediums.
But there's one last reason Ramesh highlights as a partial plausible explanation for this massive public perception of media bias:
Part of this is BS and the other part is true. There has to be an impact with such a rising personality coming out of seemingly nowhere only to wrest the nomination from a Clinton machine that at one time was as close to Obama status, as anyone else has ever been before. People are bound to buy more periodicals that feature this shooting star, whom they do not know. But much of this is fueled by the periodicals, themselves.
Let's consider who is buying. I would be interested to know how the demographics break down in regard to sales. Obama has a younger following than McCain. His supporters appear to be based in the academic scene, made up mostly of students. They have more expendable income, so they could be the ones that are keeping the news weeklies from crashing. In other words, they have a target audience that is fanatical about Obama that translates into a cash cow.
In the end, there's not much any of us can do, except watch how we spend our dollars. We can only hope that thinking people will carefully consider giving some quality thought to what I am saying here and ask themselves - who would they rather trust to minimize the damage caused by government? I say this because neither of these people are what I think we need. Clearly, one of them is certainly better suited to lead this nation than the other. But, I have no delusions that either of them is a panacea for what ails us. Only the people that must bear the brunt of the load can pull us out of it, by demanding better leaders at all levels.
More importantly, I hope that thinking people do not allow themselves to get caught up into the desperate sales campaign that is going on, while the real campaign gets overlooked.
But I want to break it down a bit further, if I might. We'll start with this snippet:
Why are the media so smitten with Obama? Journalists have an affinity for the Democratic nominee in part because he is a wordsmith and they make a living manipulating words and symbols, so they have a special appreciation for his gifts.
Maybe it's because attorneys love words. Attorneys seem to gravitate towards the Democratic party for a host reasons, not the least of them (like the author says), Democrats love words.
Words are part of our life, we use them to communicate. We use them to persuade and to convince. The attorney's main objective is to win an argument, usually and presumably with some good evidence. And when there is little or no evidence, they must use words to make compelling cases. If they win their cases, they get paid.
The media uses words to support their claims too. This similarity certainly stands out like a NASCAR fan in a European coffee house, but there is one stark difference that I would point out in the context of this argument: Attorneys, for the most part, make their cases to judges and juries. Unless they are in a high profile case that some hotshot wants to try his case in the media beforehand (for advertising purposes), the arguments are confined to courts and conference rooms used for depositions.
By contrast, the media takes its cases directly to the people. They make their money by selling periodicals and in the case of electronic media, high ratings. The more magazines and newspapers being sold, the more people watching news commentary shows, the more money the media makes.
Enter teachers and professors, the backbone of the education community. They make their living using words too. They must come up with persuasive words using innovation and creativity to teach kids and adults. They, too, are attracted by the Democratic party. They, too, have an affinity for the media when it reflects their ideological positions. These are positions that are usually in direct conflict with the conservatives' philosophical belief systems. Naturally, they will gravitate to those that share their views.
Teachers may not make more money, but professors do. They sell their books and many command some hefty speaking fees when able to effectively articulate their ideas unchallenged in a contradictory forum.
All three of these professions are highly dependent on words. All three are better explained and can be found, in this piece at the website of The Heritage Foundation.
But let's move on, shall we. There is one other reason Ponnuru has pointed out here, one that most people are already aware of:
But another part of the reason is, yes, plain old liberal bias. McCain was a press darling when he was a maverick dissenting from the Republican Party from points left. Obama has become one by succeeding as a down-the-line liberal. When McCain decided this time around to court conservative Republican voters as much as liberal reporters, the coverage of him became more critical. Notice a pattern?
I do notice a pattern here. I also notice another pattern.
Media sales of companies that show an open liberal bias are down. Let's look at Time-Warner as an example. TW stocks were $19.25 a share in September, of last year. In March of this year, they were as low as $13.91. Today they closed at up a little, at $14.40. March is right about the time Time realized the path was leading to self-destruction and began to do a better job of fair coverage. They still have their liberal pundits, but they are printing more articles like the one I am citing for this post. As a result, sales are up somewhat but certainly nothing to write home about.
In November of last year, Newsweek's parent company The Washington Post Company stock was at $857.92 a share. By June of this year, it was down to $559. Today, it closed at $607. WaPo has been hurt by declining circulation and it's subsidiary Newsweek has remained stagnant, which in economic terms can be considered a decrease when you factor in the growth of the rest of the economy.
Some of the circulation woes can be attributed to the shift from print media to the internet, but that doesn't take into account the drop in ad revenues. This is what fuels the stock prices and with stocks down, it's hard to give much too much credence to this switch in mediums.
But there's one last reason Ramesh highlights as a partial plausible explanation for this massive public perception of media bias:
Obama is on more magazine covers in part, they note, because those issues sell better than McCain covers. McCain is a familiar figure who has been involved in presidential politics for nearly a decade, while Obama's rapid rise--from state senator to presidential nominee in four years--is part of what makes him a compelling story.
Part of this is BS and the other part is true. There has to be an impact with such a rising personality coming out of seemingly nowhere only to wrest the nomination from a Clinton machine that at one time was as close to Obama status, as anyone else has ever been before. People are bound to buy more periodicals that feature this shooting star, whom they do not know. But much of this is fueled by the periodicals, themselves.
Let's consider who is buying. I would be interested to know how the demographics break down in regard to sales. Obama has a younger following than McCain. His supporters appear to be based in the academic scene, made up mostly of students. They have more expendable income, so they could be the ones that are keeping the news weeklies from crashing. In other words, they have a target audience that is fanatical about Obama that translates into a cash cow.
In the end, there's not much any of us can do, except watch how we spend our dollars. We can only hope that thinking people will carefully consider giving some quality thought to what I am saying here and ask themselves - who would they rather trust to minimize the damage caused by government? I say this because neither of these people are what I think we need. Clearly, one of them is certainly better suited to lead this nation than the other. But, I have no delusions that either of them is a panacea for what ails us. Only the people that must bear the brunt of the load can pull us out of it, by demanding better leaders at all levels.
More importantly, I hope that thinking people do not allow themselves to get caught up into the desperate sales campaign that is going on, while the real campaign gets overlooked.
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Obama Watch: What The Media Isn't Highlighting
Obama's history making tour has come to an end. Europe is now mesmerized and the euphoria is high. Or so we think.
First up, there's a little thing that happened in Berlin that Media Obama will not share on the same stages as the other things that get plastered on the headlines. Before the speech by Obama in front of two hundred thousand people, there were two very popular stadium packing bands performing for FREE. I cannot help but wonder how many young impressionable people would show to a McCain rally, if a band like U2 were to perform for free.
Last May, something very similar occurred in Portland. I guess there's a good reason Obama is getting compared to a rock star. Anyone can do it. Just have a big free outdoor concert with a band that will attract tons of fans that produce very little, with no expendable income, and no real purpose in life.
About that euphoria, Christiane Amanpour noticed something was lacking following the Obama Berlin speech that was preceded by a rock concert. Euphoria.
(HT for this coverage goes to Advance Indiana.)
Not all are pleased with Mr. Obama's performance overseas.
Amanpour reports that the Europeans aren't too enthusiastic about Obama's stance against free-trade. (That is if doesn't flip-flop on it before November, like other issues.)
While the American press seems to be under Obama's spell, there is word this isn't necessarily so with Europe's press.
I don't know why this is surprising. So far, he has yet to put himself into any kind of arena that would challenge his positions, his flip-flops, or his overall intellectual integrity. Why would he sacrifice that free campaign advertising? Here in the US, we are used to it.
Not all are pleased here in the States, either.
Underneath the sheep's clothing is a wolf. Take healthcare for instance.
This has yet to gain a prominent slot in the story rotation, on NBC's Nightly News. Obama claims to be some kind new politician that makes news journalists' legs tingle. But when one does some research, he is just another politician that has a supportive media suppressing his skeletons.
(For the hat tip and more on this, check out Advance Indiana.)
As for his greeting when he gets home, I suspect part of that greeting will include some questions about why he decided to cancel a visit with some wounded troops while in Germany. The Obama camp blames the Pentagon, the Pentagon says not so. But more than anything, he could have left the cameras behind if he had truly felt his visit would have politicized the visit too much. As one pundit said over the weekend, it is always appropriate to visit the troops whenever the opportunity arises.
First up, there's a little thing that happened in Berlin that Media Obama will not share on the same stages as the other things that get plastered on the headlines. Before the speech by Obama in front of two hundred thousand people, there were two very popular stadium packing bands performing for FREE. I cannot help but wonder how many young impressionable people would show to a McCain rally, if a band like U2 were to perform for free.
Last May, something very similar occurred in Portland. I guess there's a good reason Obama is getting compared to a rock star. Anyone can do it. Just have a big free outdoor concert with a band that will attract tons of fans that produce very little, with no expendable income, and no real purpose in life.
About that euphoria, Christiane Amanpour noticed something was lacking following the Obama Berlin speech that was preceded by a rock concert. Euphoria.
WOLF BLITZER: Did you get a sense, Christiane, that he actually delivered with his presentation, with his speech, his appearance in Berlin? Did people walk away seemingly satisfied or disappointed?
AMANPOUR: Well, I don't think they were disappointed, and I'm not sure that they were thoroughly satisfied. I did ask some people as they were leaving what they thought. Everybody said good, good. But I was surprised that there wasn't this sort of euphoria afterwards, given how many people had come to listen and how much it had been anticipated.
(HT for this coverage goes to Advance Indiana.)
Not all are pleased with Mr. Obama's performance overseas.
Amanpour reports that the Europeans aren't too enthusiastic about Obama's stance against free-trade. (That is if doesn't flip-flop on it before November, like other issues.)
The top EU trade official is already offering this caution to Obama on NAFTA: stop the crowd pleasing rhetoric, and be serious about U.S. commitment to free trade and unfettered markets.
Europe is looking forward to seeing an internationalist in the White House, no matter who wins the U.S. election in November.
While the American press seems to be under Obama's spell, there is word this isn't necessarily so with Europe's press.
He hasn't, as yet, given an interview to a foreign newspaper. He doesn't, as far as I know, have any foreign press on his plane on this trip. He has received many requests by foreign journalists to accompany him on his travels in the US, but has turned them all down.
This is strikingly different from John McCain.
Perhaps Obama doesn't want to face the sort of questions he fears might be put to him - on free trade, on Iraq, and on how his foreign policy would differ from George Bush's.
I don't know why this is surprising. So far, he has yet to put himself into any kind of arena that would challenge his positions, his flip-flops, or his overall intellectual integrity. Why would he sacrifice that free campaign advertising? Here in the US, we are used to it.
Not all are pleased here in the States, either.
Underneath the sheep's clothing is a wolf. Take healthcare for instance.
While on the county payroll, a top urologist at Cook County Hospital solicited nearly $1 million from drug companies over the last decade for his private foundation.
Dr. Paul S. Ray's pitch was that the money would go toward medical research and education.
But most of the money hasn't gone to health care at all. Instead, Ray invested it -- mostly in Tony Rezko.
This has yet to gain a prominent slot in the story rotation, on NBC's Nightly News. Obama claims to be some kind new politician that makes news journalists' legs tingle. But when one does some research, he is just another politician that has a supportive media suppressing his skeletons.
(For the hat tip and more on this, check out Advance Indiana.)
As for his greeting when he gets home, I suspect part of that greeting will include some questions about why he decided to cancel a visit with some wounded troops while in Germany. The Obama camp blames the Pentagon, the Pentagon says not so. But more than anything, he could have left the cameras behind if he had truly felt his visit would have politicized the visit too much. As one pundit said over the weekend, it is always appropriate to visit the troops whenever the opportunity arises.
The State Of Education And The ICLU's Newest Protected Class
Many times schools do not meet standards and need some corrective action. One of those actions can include adding school days to the calendar to catch students up in areas where they are deficient. John Marshall High School and three others are in this category, locally.
Last Monday was the first day of the new school year. It is estimated that 800 kids will be in attendance this year, but as of Monday only 400 were enrolled and only 300 actually showed up.
Enter Lawrence Township Trustee Mike Hobbs and his solution to the problem:
With no magical solution to this problem, one man decided he would try something drastic. Amazingly, there has been some improvement in attendance by the week's end.
But this is not where the story ends. According to a local radio talk show host that usually gets good information out on the reporting trail, the Indiana Civil Liberties Union has threatened legal action against Hobbs if he makes good on his promise.
We already have protected classes galore, in this country. But now, we have Indiana's version of the ACLU calling the poor a protected class. But somehow in all of this, I just cannot help but think the ICLU has missed the point here.
If we are ever to have any hope for children to get out of that sense of hopelessness/despair that our liberal friends say causes so many problems (to include crime), getting their asses into the classroom has to be the beginning of such an undertaking.
This alone will not be the only component to solving this problem, but it has to start somewhere. And while many of the schools are on the wrong path to educating our children, attendance is not the responsibility of the schools. It is the responsibility of the parents to make sure their kids are where they are supposed to be, when they are supposed to be there. And if parents disagree with the way schools are educating their kids, one must ask: How many school board meetings they have attended and what kind of school board members have they voted for in the past?
In the end, No Child Left Behind may turn out to be a dismal failure. From what I have seen so far, it hasn't been overly successful so far. But this isn't too surprising when you consider, nothing that comes from the federal government has ever been shown to be very effective. Certainly, this program is no different. If we want to trace the current set of problems in the schools today, just go back to the creation of the Department of Education and work your way forward. Do the math and you will see.
Still, this is no excuse for not attending. True, there may be little hope for Johnny getting a quality education and getting out of the cycle of poverty, as it stands now. But that hope index drops to zero if he is at home, sleeping in until noon, playing video games and watching Jerry Springer on TV.
Last Monday was the first day of the new school year. It is estimated that 800 kids will be in attendance this year, but as of Monday only 400 were enrolled and only 300 actually showed up.
Enter Lawrence Township Trustee Mike Hobbs and his solution to the problem:
Parents of truant John Marshall High School students will find it difficult to collect financial aid from the Lawrence Township trustee's office if their kids don't get to class.
Trustee Mike Hobbs said he would stall poor relief payments to guardians of children who are supposed to be attending John Marshall's early-start school year, but aren't.
By Wednesday morning, he had put holds on two such cases.
With no magical solution to this problem, one man decided he would try something drastic. Amazingly, there has been some improvement in attendance by the week's end.
But this is not where the story ends. According to a local radio talk show host that usually gets good information out on the reporting trail, the Indiana Civil Liberties Union has threatened legal action against Hobbs if he makes good on his promise.
We already have protected classes galore, in this country. But now, we have Indiana's version of the ACLU calling the poor a protected class. But somehow in all of this, I just cannot help but think the ICLU has missed the point here.
If we are ever to have any hope for children to get out of that sense of hopelessness/despair that our liberal friends say causes so many problems (to include crime), getting their asses into the classroom has to be the beginning of such an undertaking.
This alone will not be the only component to solving this problem, but it has to start somewhere. And while many of the schools are on the wrong path to educating our children, attendance is not the responsibility of the schools. It is the responsibility of the parents to make sure their kids are where they are supposed to be, when they are supposed to be there. And if parents disagree with the way schools are educating their kids, one must ask: How many school board meetings they have attended and what kind of school board members have they voted for in the past?
In the end, No Child Left Behind may turn out to be a dismal failure. From what I have seen so far, it hasn't been overly successful so far. But this isn't too surprising when you consider, nothing that comes from the federal government has ever been shown to be very effective. Certainly, this program is no different. If we want to trace the current set of problems in the schools today, just go back to the creation of the Department of Education and work your way forward. Do the math and you will see.
Still, this is no excuse for not attending. True, there may be little hope for Johnny getting a quality education and getting out of the cycle of poverty, as it stands now. But that hope index drops to zero if he is at home, sleeping in until noon, playing video games and watching Jerry Springer on TV.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
What The 60s Hath Wrought
There is a group of people here and elsewhere in the world that look at the 60s as an era that brought a new social order, which at that time was supposed to change the world and make it a beautiful place. It was billed as nothing less than utopia and featured a group of people that believed Marxism was the future, which would bring this whole fantasy to fruition. Down with the establishment, up with the movement (whichever one was protesting at the time).
LBJ promised us the Great Society, where hunger and poverty would someday be eliminated. But instead, it has brought government dependency and laziness, and poverty is still every bit as problematic today. If the Great Society legislative programs of 1965 were so successful, why were radicals so restless in their protests in 67, 68 and 69? Did we not hear how the Watts riots were a direct result of the despair and frustration of being black and in poverty?
If this notion that people can truly be equal by simultaneously eliminating the rich and the poor if it were possible, wouldn't it stand to reason that the Soviet bloc would still have the same economic system as they did in the 60s? Wouldn't they be dominating the markets right now under those weak and unnatural systems? Would not China and the USSR be the dominate forces in the world now? They may be someday, but socialism has played no role whatsoever in their resurgences. But capitalism has.
Today we have Obama desperately trying to convince us he is the agent of change and can best take us into the future. if this is the case, why is his campaign trying to repeat the magic of JFK in Berlin. Why are they invoking the 60s as their measuring stick of influence? To me, it sounds like they are looking to the past and not the future.
Victor Davis Hanson's latest essay features some interesting aspects of the 60s, all of which are difficult to refute unless one has their thinking clouded with lysergic acid diethylamide. His take is more poignant than mine and features a recurrent theme that has some pretty strong roots in that same 60s era. It's known as hypocrisy.
Give it a read when you get a chance.
LBJ promised us the Great Society, where hunger and poverty would someday be eliminated. But instead, it has brought government dependency and laziness, and poverty is still every bit as problematic today. If the Great Society legislative programs of 1965 were so successful, why were radicals so restless in their protests in 67, 68 and 69? Did we not hear how the Watts riots were a direct result of the despair and frustration of being black and in poverty?
If this notion that people can truly be equal by simultaneously eliminating the rich and the poor if it were possible, wouldn't it stand to reason that the Soviet bloc would still have the same economic system as they did in the 60s? Wouldn't they be dominating the markets right now under those weak and unnatural systems? Would not China and the USSR be the dominate forces in the world now? They may be someday, but socialism has played no role whatsoever in their resurgences. But capitalism has.
Today we have Obama desperately trying to convince us he is the agent of change and can best take us into the future. if this is the case, why is his campaign trying to repeat the magic of JFK in Berlin. Why are they invoking the 60s as their measuring stick of influence? To me, it sounds like they are looking to the past and not the future.
Victor Davis Hanson's latest essay features some interesting aspects of the 60s, all of which are difficult to refute unless one has their thinking clouded with lysergic acid diethylamide. His take is more poignant than mine and features a recurrent theme that has some pretty strong roots in that same 60s era. It's known as hypocrisy.
Give it a read when you get a chance.
Friday, July 18, 2008
IUPUI's Affirmative Action Office Out Of Control
Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis is located in the heart of Indy, just outside of downtown.
Recently, there was a flap over a man working for and attending IUPUI for reading a book (on his break in a breakroom) entitled, Notre Dame vs. The Klan: How The Fighting Irish Defeated The Ku Klux Klan. What followed was something totally outrageous and another fine example of how this racial card is be played at every drop of a hat.
Much of it is explained in this WSJ Op-Ed piece.
As anyone can plainly assess from this synopsis of the situation, there are many out of control elements at this and other universities across this nation. Here, we have a book that explains how the Klan's influence was significantly diminished at one prestigious university and we have a group of paranoid race-baiters at another university, making an illogical determination that this book is offensive. (Maybe the Klan would find this offensive too, because they came up on the short end of the stick in this one.)
How can anyone learn the Klan's thinking is wrong, except they read about it in an academic setting? How can anyone learn that power can be stripped from hate organizations like the Klan, except they read about one example where it was? How can there be any inspiration to do such a thing, except a story be told?
Never mind this book was found in the university library, this book was deemed offensive by those with a union mentality and an official complaint was lodged at the request of some ignorant being. From there, some radical "chip on her shoulder" university Affirmative Action Officer gets involved and proceeds to demonstrate that some people have no business in positions of authority and influence.
But here's a twist, found later in the WSJ piece. The ICLU (Indiana's version of the ACLU) eventually did something uncharacteristic. They got involved on the side of Mr. Sampson.
The result was, frankly, surprising to me and many other cynics in this area. It seems the chancellor has officially apologized to Mr. Sampson. Here is the PDF version of the letter, Sampson received.
But in my opinion, this is not enough. If I had any say whatsoever, the union leadership and entire Affirmative Action Office at IUPUI would be re-educated. Additionally, I would require both AAO officials that took this overzealous and ill-conceived action to meet personally with and officially apologize to Keith Sampson as part of (and in front of) an open forum open to all students. If they refused, I would fire them.
How these idiots ever got a degree, is beyond me. But that's another post.
Addendum:
Upon further investigation, it appears that AAO Director Lillian Charleston has retired in the time since this case played out. For her bio, take a quick peek here. Note that her studies were centered in Urban Studies, where much of this kind of thinking is taught and glorified.
Recently, there was a flap over a man working for and attending IUPUI for reading a book (on his break in a breakroom) entitled, Notre Dame vs. The Klan: How The Fighting Irish Defeated The Ku Klux Klan. What followed was something totally outrageous and another fine example of how this racial card is be played at every drop of a hat.
Much of it is explained in this WSJ Op-Ed piece.
The story began prosaically enough. Keith Sampson, a student employee on the janitorial staff earning his way toward a degree, was in the habit of reading during work breaks. Last October he was immersed in "Notre Dame Vs. the Klan: How the Fighting Irish Defeated the Ku Klux Klan."
Mr. Sampson was in short order visited by his union representative, who informed him he must not bring this book to the break room, and that he could be fired. Taking the book to the campus, Mr. Sampson says he was told, was "like bringing pornography to work." That it was a history of the battle students waged against the Klan in the 1920s in no way impressed the union rep.
The assistant affirmative action officer who next summoned the student was similarly unimpressed. Indeed she was, Mr. Sampson says, irate at his explanation that he was, after all, reading a scholarly book. "The Klan still rules Indiana," Marguerite Watkins told him – didn't he know that? Mr. Sampson, by now dazed, pointed out that this book was carried in the university library. Yes, she retorted, you can get Klan propaganda in the library.
As anyone can plainly assess from this synopsis of the situation, there are many out of control elements at this and other universities across this nation. Here, we have a book that explains how the Klan's influence was significantly diminished at one prestigious university and we have a group of paranoid race-baiters at another university, making an illogical determination that this book is offensive. (Maybe the Klan would find this offensive too, because they came up on the short end of the stick in this one.)
How can anyone learn the Klan's thinking is wrong, except they read about it in an academic setting? How can anyone learn that power can be stripped from hate organizations like the Klan, except they read about one example where it was? How can there be any inspiration to do such a thing, except a story be told?
Never mind this book was found in the university library, this book was deemed offensive by those with a union mentality and an official complaint was lodged at the request of some ignorant being. From there, some radical "chip on her shoulder" university Affirmative Action Officer gets involved and proceeds to demonstrate that some people have no business in positions of authority and influence.
But here's a twist, found later in the WSJ piece. The ICLU (Indiana's version of the ACLU) eventually did something uncharacteristic. They got involved on the side of Mr. Sampson.
The result was, frankly, surprising to me and many other cynics in this area. It seems the chancellor has officially apologized to Mr. Sampson. Here is the PDF version of the letter, Sampson received.
But in my opinion, this is not enough. If I had any say whatsoever, the union leadership and entire Affirmative Action Office at IUPUI would be re-educated. Additionally, I would require both AAO officials that took this overzealous and ill-conceived action to meet personally with and officially apologize to Keith Sampson as part of (and in front of) an open forum open to all students. If they refused, I would fire them.
How these idiots ever got a degree, is beyond me. But that's another post.
Addendum:
Upon further investigation, it appears that AAO Director Lillian Charleston has retired in the time since this case played out. For her bio, take a quick peek here. Note that her studies were centered in Urban Studies, where much of this kind of thinking is taught and glorified.
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
Objective: Irrelevance. Goal Met.
After four days of fun and not giving a damn about anything that was in the news, I come home to find this this ridiculous story on the web:
So, let's just say we have a white American kid that is offered some Scottish haggis and he/she instantly sneers and says yuck. According to the idiots that make up the London-based National Children's Bureau, these kids may be racist.
Kids say yuck to anything that doesn't sound appealing to them during the toddler years (and beyond). Green beans, peas, and carrots were guaranteed to get a yuck, no matter how they were cooked and presented to my kids at that age. They aren't racist.
It seems to me that a lot of elitist organizations have nothing more important to do than to sit around some conference table in some bureaucratic conference or symposium, talking about things they know nothing about and have no bearing on reality, whatsoever. The organization we now know as the National Children's Bureau has reached this milestone and can be mentioned in the same breath as other useless organizations like the UN.
Congratulations to this organization for attaining the coveted title of "grand masters of irrelevance".
Toddlers who say "yuck" when given flavorful foreign food may be exhibiting racist behavior, a British government-sponsored organization says.
So, let's just say we have a white American kid that is offered some Scottish haggis and he/she instantly sneers and says yuck. According to the idiots that make up the London-based National Children's Bureau, these kids may be racist.
Kids say yuck to anything that doesn't sound appealing to them during the toddler years (and beyond). Green beans, peas, and carrots were guaranteed to get a yuck, no matter how they were cooked and presented to my kids at that age. They aren't racist.
It seems to me that a lot of elitist organizations have nothing more important to do than to sit around some conference table in some bureaucratic conference or symposium, talking about things they know nothing about and have no bearing on reality, whatsoever. The organization we now know as the National Children's Bureau has reached this milestone and can be mentioned in the same breath as other useless organizations like the UN.
Congratulations to this organization for attaining the coveted title of "grand masters of irrelevance".
Sunday, June 29, 2008
March Of The French Cowboys
I have been on blogs that have certain regulars who write things which give the distinct impression, they feel French culture is superior to others. Certainly, they are entitled to their narrow views. But in the grand scheme of things, their folly sometimes doth precede them in the midst of their cavalier presentations.
I have read words like redneck, hick, and hilljack, as they present their arrogant and presumptuous opinions. With noses as high as Mt. Everest, they mock and ridicule Americans, especially those in rural and southern America. They perceive them as lacking in intelligence and class. And when visiting the US, they speak highly of the arts scene in NY, LA, or other high society cities that promote European art forms (over and above others that have no root, in the American continent).
Not all are this way of course, and to say so would come across as narrow-minded and bigoted. But many are and they know who they are.
These are they which prefer Achille-Claude Debussy, Guillaume de Machaut, and Pierre Boulez over Hank Williams (Sr. and Jr.), Willie Nelson, and Garth Brooks. They are also the ones that believe a classical waltz or ballet is far superior to a square dance or line dance, as meaningful expression of art. Personal preferences are a good thing to exercise, but not when one purposefully denigrates another to make their choice look better than it really is. (People do this, when their own self-esteem is low and need others to be in the tank with them.)
Why? You'd have to ask them, for I cannot speak for them. But I can say they will soon be forced to take a look at this attitude. I say this because, there is a new American import that appears to be gaining some serious popularity in the Republique.
Many of the people I write of claim that America has no endemic culture of their own. (And that which we do have have, has been borrowed from other countries.) They are partially right. But by the law of inference, this makes them partially wrong too. It is true that much of our culture is based on our European roots. But before the arrival of Europeans to this continent, there were a vast number of Indian tribes that had their own culture, independent of anything European. As time progressed, Americans of European ancestry witnessed an evolution of American culture, as well as the advent of other things that had no roots in European society at all.
This article points so distinctly points out that country music is becoming more popular than many would have us all believe, with line dancing now becoming more popular than they are willing to admit (publicly or privately). In Germany, C&W music has long been a favorite of many Germans.
But we can bet this story doesn't end here. Let's read on:
We know it's serious in France, when the government feels the need to regulate something. In true French-style socialist fashion, we can see that government wants a piece of this action. Fees paid to sanctioning bodies are nothing new in a civilized society and many times they are good for the consuming public. It is highly understandable why we want healthcare professionals to be trained and licensed properly. But when people feel the necessity to regulate art, it would seem to be a bit of overkill.
This begs a few questions here. Can a position of Country Music and Line Dancing Minister be far behind? How about rodeos? Is this the end of Haute Couture as we know it?
My overall point to this post is not hard to grasp. These people (who will probably become slightly irritable when they read this) fail to see the value of anything that is different from their own narrow world. And yet, this is precisely what they accuse of many Americans of doing. So any healthy analysis of this man's opinion should not overlook one very important point, as one gives it a fair amount of thought:
This attitude has a name and it's called, hypocrisy.
I have read words like redneck, hick, and hilljack, as they present their arrogant and presumptuous opinions. With noses as high as Mt. Everest, they mock and ridicule Americans, especially those in rural and southern America. They perceive them as lacking in intelligence and class. And when visiting the US, they speak highly of the arts scene in NY, LA, or other high society cities that promote European art forms (over and above others that have no root, in the American continent).
Not all are this way of course, and to say so would come across as narrow-minded and bigoted. But many are and they know who they are.
These are they which prefer Achille-Claude Debussy, Guillaume de Machaut, and Pierre Boulez over Hank Williams (Sr. and Jr.), Willie Nelson, and Garth Brooks. They are also the ones that believe a classical waltz or ballet is far superior to a square dance or line dance, as meaningful expression of art. Personal preferences are a good thing to exercise, but not when one purposefully denigrates another to make their choice look better than it really is. (People do this, when their own self-esteem is low and need others to be in the tank with them.)
Why? You'd have to ask them, for I cannot speak for them. But I can say they will soon be forced to take a look at this attitude. I say this because, there is a new American import that appears to be gaining some serious popularity in the Republique.
They turn out in their hundreds in Stetsons and boots as hits such as the Crazy Foot Mambo and the Cowboy Strut echo around their village halls.
They are drawn by a love of American culture - although definitely not American politics - and a passion for line dancing, which enables them to swing but avoid all human contact.
Many of the people I write of claim that America has no endemic culture of their own. (And that which we do have have, has been borrowed from other countries.) They are partially right. But by the law of inference, this makes them partially wrong too. It is true that much of our culture is based on our European roots. But before the arrival of Europeans to this continent, there were a vast number of Indian tribes that had their own culture, independent of anything European. As time progressed, Americans of European ancestry witnessed an evolution of American culture, as well as the advent of other things that had no roots in European society at all.
This article points so distinctly points out that country music is becoming more popular than many would have us all believe, with line dancing now becoming more popular than they are willing to admit (publicly or privately). In Germany, C&W music has long been a favorite of many Germans.
But we can bet this story doesn't end here. Let's read on:
Now country and western has become so big in France that the country's bureaucrats have decided to bring the craze under state control.
The French administration has moved to create an official country dancing diploma as part of a drive to regulate the fad. Authorised instructors who have been on publicly funded training courses will be put in charge of line dancing lessons and balls.
We know it's serious in France, when the government feels the need to regulate something. In true French-style socialist fashion, we can see that government wants a piece of this action. Fees paid to sanctioning bodies are nothing new in a civilized society and many times they are good for the consuming public. It is highly understandable why we want healthcare professionals to be trained and licensed properly. But when people feel the necessity to regulate art, it would seem to be a bit of overkill.
This begs a few questions here. Can a position of Country Music and Line Dancing Minister be far behind? How about rodeos? Is this the end of Haute Couture as we know it?
My overall point to this post is not hard to grasp. These people (who will probably become slightly irritable when they read this) fail to see the value of anything that is different from their own narrow world. And yet, this is precisely what they accuse of many Americans of doing. So any healthy analysis of this man's opinion should not overlook one very important point, as one gives it a fair amount of thought:
This attitude has a name and it's called, hypocrisy.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Smear Politics
Mustang at Social Sense has the scoop.
All I can say (beyond what I said in the comment section of his post) is, who would have thought a US Senator representing the state of Iowa would have the audacity to make such a foolish and asinine statement? Normally, one would expect this out of Howard Dean and the other useless idiots that have hijacked the Democratic party. You can see why I am so critical of elitists, they are not grounded in reality.
All I can say (beyond what I said in the comment section of his post) is, who would have thought a US Senator representing the state of Iowa would have the audacity to make such a foolish and asinine statement? Normally, one would expect this out of Howard Dean and the other useless idiots that have hijacked the Democratic party. You can see why I am so critical of elitists, they are not grounded in reality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)