Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Obama’


If someone has evidence to show how Romney is going to be ‘so much better’ than Obama, please bring it forward. (and because ‘he says so’ is not evidence – I can show you how he says just about anything to garner support)

How is Romney ‘better’?

We can’t say he’ll be better when it comes to national healthcare – he already says he doesn’t intend to get rid of it, he intends to replace it. And Romney said he supports mandates.

We can’t say he’ll end progressive taxation – he’s already said he supports taxing the haves to provide for the have-nots.

We can’t say he won’t be for expanding government, his enacting Romneycare in Massachusetts shows otherwise.

We can’t say he’ll be better at ending cronyism, he’s being funded by many of the same sources as Obama.

We can’t say he’ll be better when it comes to encroaching on rights and liberties…

Romney supports:

Romney is against:

We can’t say he’ll be better when it comes to ending wars. (Romney on Iraq)

So what is he ‘better’ at????

Some have argued that they don’t want to see Obama appointing new justices to the supreme court. Yet when Obamacare came up for a Supreme court challenge, it was Chief Justice Roberts that cast the swing vote in favor of Obamacare – a Bush appointee. One that was endorsed by none other than Mitt Romney.

Ryan as Romney’s VP Choice

Now we are told that Paul Ryan having been chosen for the role of vice president will make all the difference. We are told he is a conservative’s conservative. The media even portrays him as a radical and extremist. But what does Ryan’s record have to show?

Paul Ryan voted for:

  • Tarp
  • the auto bailouts
  • Medicare expansion
  • housing subsidies
  • extending unemployment compensation
  • a national ID card
  • making the Patriot Act permanent
  • the NDAA and surveillance without a warrant
  • No Child Left Behind
  • keeping troops in Iraq indefinitely (and against removing troops from Afghanistan)
  • both the 2008 and 2009 stimulus bills

Ryan’s so called ‘extreme’ budget plan doesn’t even seek to balance the federal budget until the year 2045!

Ahhh, but some say ‘he is a supporter of Rand’ or at least that he mentions the ideas of Ayn Rand and brings them into the forefront of national news. Let’s recall how he last chose to spoke of Ayn Rand:

“I later in life learned about what her philosophy was, it’s called Objectivism. It’s something that I completely disagree with.”- Paul Ryan on Real Clear Politics

The best that objectivists can hope for is that Paul Ryan obtaining the position of vice president will lend validity to his assertion that her ideas are not suitable for government.

So I ask again, R&R is better how? More Rationalization and Recidivist politics?

Read Full Post »

Last night I had a dream. I was sitting in a park minding my own business when up walked none other than President Barack Obama. Before I could say anything, he began to speak.

“I understand you don’t like me young man,” he said reaching out his hand.

I just sat nonplussed and responded, “To be more accurate I disapprove of you.”

Seeing I was not going to shake his hand, he held it out a moment longer than eventually pulled it back with a slight ‘hmm’ sound then resumed speaking with his political smile.

“Well, I would like to try to change your mind. As President of these United States I would like to offer you anything you desire that is within my power to grant.”

I looked up at him a second to see if he was serious, then looked around to see if perhaps it was some kind of hidden camera prank, then looked back at the President. He seemed quite in earnest. After I pondered his intentions a bit longer, he finally asked again, “Well, what would it be?”

I took in a deep breath and said simply, “No.”

“No?” he asked, “You mean to say I offer you anything you want, anything that is within my power to grant you and your answer is no?”

“Yes,” I said, “my answer is no. But if you are sincere in your desire for me to have such a favor, I will tell you what…,” and I reached into my pocket and pulled out a pen and a small pad of paper I carry around for scribbling down writing ideas.

As I started to write, the President tried to peek out of curiousity, but catching my attention and causing me to pause in my writing, he quickly resumed his smiling stance patient but curious to see what I was up to.  I eventually finished writing and tore off the sheet and handed it to the him. It read as follows:

To whom it may concern:

Today I offered a young man by the name of Scott Webster Wood a favor of anything I had within the power of my office to bestow upon him for the purpose of trying to gain his favorable regard of me and my administration. This young man refused my offer.

He refused it on the grounds that he does not approve of my administration, it’s policies or even my holding this office based on the nature of those policies. Therefore he considered me neither worthy, nor holding the appropriate authority to grant such a privilege onto him in the first place.

But it was my sincere intention to grant this favor. So should this man ever return to the capital seeking fulfillment of this favor, I would like to ask humbly that you take it under consideration should any of my successors be found sufficiently worthy by this young gentleman after my term of office has expired.

Sincerely,

X______________________________
President Barack Hussein Obama

When it appeared he had finished reading, I told him, “Now all you need do, if your offer was in fact sincere, is sign your name down there at the bottom and shove that somewhere in the drawer of that big HMS desk that you love to put your feet up on all the time.”

Obama just scoffed, then began to laugh, crumpling up the piece of paper and throwing it on the ground before walking away spouting only the word “Fool!” I went back to minding my own business.

Read Full Post »

I was listening to this address on the way home and found the first portion highly pertinent in this coming election cycle:

Ayn Rand Institute Multimedia Library

From Ayn Rand’s address “A Nation’s Unity” on October, 1972 at the Ford Hall Forum (click the graphic or link to hear the full audio of the address)

Every four years, at about this time, we begin to hear louder and louder appeals for national unity. We hear them between Presidential elections as well—particularly when something is about to be put over on us—though they are uttered in a more perfunctory manner.

Observe, however, that in recent years it has become fashionable to disparage unity, between elections, and to praise dissent as a kind of moral or patriotic duty. But the pattern of a Presidential election remains the same: first, there is a campaign in which the candidates denounce each other and seem to appeal to some sort of unstated principles; then, when the election is over, the appeals become, in effect: now let’s forget all about principles—national unity comes first.

This is, therefore, an appropriate time to examine the issue of national unity and to ask certain questions: Is such unity necessary? Is it possible? What makes it possible? What is the alternative? What are the consequences? The present election campaign offers many clues to the answers.

As in the case of many other errors or evils, today’s appeals for national unity are based on a perverted element of truth. It is true that, in order to exist as a nation, the large number of men who live in the same geographical area and deal with one another, must agree on some fundamental principle(s). And more: any two men who choose to deal with each other must have some sort of basic agreement, at least for the duration of their joint action. If you joined forces with another man in order to lift a heavy boulder, and you strained to lift it while he strained to push it down, nothing would come of both your efforts but failure, frustration, and—if the issue were important enough to both of you—the recourse to blows and mutual extermination.

The fact that in case of disagreement men can resort to physical force, i.e., to human destruction, is the reason why every human association is based on some sort of agreement, which is implemented by certain rules of conduct. An agreement, in this context, does not necessarily mean a common purpose: you may make an agreement with a neighbor that you will not attack him so long as he does not attack you—and if both of you abide by it, you are free to go your own ways and, perhaps, never see each other again. The fundamental agreement which is required of a nation is an agreement on the rules of peaceful coexistence. A territory inhabited by men engaged in perpetual conflicts, chronic fighting, physical violence, and general hatred of all for all, is not a nation nor a country, but a bloody mess. Internal peace and some sort of harmony are the precondition of the existence of a nation.

The big questions, however, are: Peace—at what price? Harmony—on what terms? Agreement—about what? And more: Can such terms and agreements be chosen arbitrarily? Can men choose any terms and make them work simply by wishing them to do so? Or are there objective factors which necessitate certain principles of human association, and defeat all others? In sum, the fundamental social question is: What principles should men agree upon in order to live and deal with one another?

The best way to answer questions of this kind is to start not with an enormous, floating abstraction, such as “society as a whole,” but with one member of society, the one you know best: yourself. Ask yourself: What rules of conduct would you be able and willing to accept in order to deal with your neighbors?

Let us say you are a young man who knows that he must work in order to support his life. You have a good job, a small family, and a home in the suburbs. Since you do not intend to stagnate, you maintain a certain financial and intellectual balance between the present and the future; you budget your money and your time: your money, to provide for your present needs and to improve your standard of living, For example, to pay off the mortgage on your home—your time, to do your present job well and to study in order to qualify for a better one. You like some of your neighbors, and you dislike others, but you are not afraid of any of them: they are not a threat to you, nor you to them.

This is the normal pattern of your life and you take it for granted, as if it were a fact of nature. But it is not. It took thousands and thousands of years to achieve it. Let us see what it depends on.

Suppose this country’s political system was changed. It was decided that the affairs of each community are to be determined at a monthly meeting of all it’s citizens – by general democratic vote, and that the rule of the majority is absolute – without limits or appeals. It would mean that you could be thrown out of your home and out of your community if the majority so voted. It would mean that you could be sentenced to die, if not liking your manners or your ideas, the majority so voted.

This is not fantasy. This was the social system of many Greek city-states – pure democracy, unlimited majority rule. Would you agree to accept it in the name of communal unity? No? Than would you agree to accept it on a much larger scale and by remote control?

Suppose it was decided but never announced openly and explicitly that the nation holds the absolute power of a Greek city-state. But since one cannot convene an entire nation to a monthly meeting, the people are compressed into groups representing various interests, and the government acts as arbiter and ruler – who listens to their clashing demands and enforces the will of those it deems to be representative of the public interest.

These groups are not elected. They are formed informally, spontaneously, democratically. Anyone is free to form them and to clamor demands for anything. How will you adjust to it?

First, there is a business lobby. But you don’t mind it, it helps your boss.

Then there is a labor lobby. But you don’t mind it – it helps you!

Then there is a farm lobby. But you don’t notice it. It is too remote from your activities.

Then a neighbor on the next block forms a group demanding better roads, and two blocks further a woman forms a group demanding better schools.

Another group demands ‘free lunches‘ for all school children and a rival group demands ‘free textbooks‘.

Your windows are smashed one night by a group of the ‘local juvenile delinquents’ or ‘problem adolescents‘. They show non-negotiable demands which you cannot quite untangle, but you gather it has something to do with ‘Youth Power’.

The residents of the local old-folks home form a group demanding ‘Senior-citizen power’.

The old-maid file clerk at the office – that you can’t stand because she can’t keep the files straight – is given a promotion with the help of a group that demands the liberation of women.

You have no time to keep track of it all. You notice only that your taxes keep rising and rising, and your money keeps buying less and less.

You are late getting to the office one morning because the local ‘welfare recipients’ group lies stretched out across the highway demanding a yearly income greater than half of your’s. You slam on your breaks just in time to avoid running over the group’s leader: a lady known as ‘fatso’ who has 12 children and no visible husband.

You had planned to have three children but you decided to wait a little for the third one – you cannot afford them.

A long haired, young man forms a group to forbid anyone to have more than two children, and a short haired young woman forms a group to forbid abortion and the use of contraceptives.

There’s a group that demands the display of sexual intercourse on the screen and another group that demands censorship of all movies above the intellectual level of a 6 year old. So you give up going to the movies.

You fall behind in your mortgage payment but your property taxes keep rising and rising. You consider giving up your house and renting one in a new development five miles away. But a local ‘birdwatchers’ group is suing the developer, demanding that the land he cleared be turned into a public park.

Your boss has promised you a promotion: the job of managing a new branch factory he is planning to build in your district. But he does not build it. The lady who used to have the local poetry club now has a group that demands the preservation of the beautiful ‘swamp’ he was going to kill.

Then, an educational group decrees that you cannot send your children to the local schools which so much of your property taxes has gone to pay for. So your children are bussed to a distant town: a daily trip of two hours going there, and another two hours coming back. This you are told will achieve ‘racial integration’.

You have never thought of it before, but you have become race conscious and try to untangle your own ancestry. You find it so mixed that you cannot qualify for any of the groups into which your community is [based]. The afro-americans, the chicano-americans, the italo-americans, the jewish americans, the irish americans, etc. And you … you are just a ‘mongrel-american‘. (so am I)

A title of which you would have been proud at one time but which is becoming ‘dangerous’. If you lose your job, there will be no preferential quota to help you get another one, and no way of knowing how many ‘ethnic’ applications will be pushed ahead of you. There will be no preferential quota for your son’s admission to a college when the time comes.

You are alone, unprotected, defenseless – and the only reason you know that you are living in a human society and not on a deserted island is the fact that your ‘taxes’ keep rising and rising.

How do you adjust? To whom and to what? The first thing to go is your future.

You can barely keep up with your current expenses. You have no way to plan ahead. If you try to save, you do not know which demands of which groups will eat up your savings in the form of new taxes and higher prices.

Why study to develop your skills? You do not know if you will ever get a better job or what new obstacles will spring up overnight or whether there will be anyone left to hire you.

You used to plan your course in terms of years. The range of your concerns shrinks to one year, then to one month, and then to next payday. You can see nothing beyond but a black void.

Strange things happen to a man without a future. You begin to act like the type of man you once despised.

You become sloppy at your job. You can barely summon the effort just to get by.

You get drunk too often. You buy a luxurious lawn mower which you have no time to use and you quarrel with your wife over the expensive cut of lamb chops she bought for dinner.

And when you hear a seedy lecture at the group meeting that declares that Horatio Alger’s stories are a myth, [and claims] that man cannot rise by individual effort and ability, you applaud defiantly and beligerently.

Oh yes! You have joined a group! You have joined several groups.

You do not know exactly what they stand for but they talk of community action and mutual protection and they denounce other groups. You do not know clearly which ones or why. You had tried to get it clear but gave up.

Everytime you read the newspaper or listen to the snarling voices on television, things grow murkier.

You do not know by what steps your attitude toward your neighbors has changed. You have begun to watch them suspiciously.

Whenever you see two of them in a heated discussion or observe several cars parked in front of a house you feel a touch of anxiety. You do not know what they might be up to, what ‘new group’ might be formed and what it will do to you.

You learn to feel ‘fear’. You are afraid of your neighbors – of any human being.

You are afraid to speak. You smile and you agree with everyone you meet.

You are afraid to think.

One day, you discover that what you feel for men … is hatred.

In that moment, you wonder ‘what has happened to your neighbors?’ They were decent people once – you remember vaguely. They did not act like wild packs, scrambling to get at one-another’s throats – and pockets!

You do not know how many of them are wondering the same thing about you.

You know only that there was a time when the local bird watcher, and the problem adolescent and the poetry-club ladies and ‘Ms fatso‘ were of no danger to anyone – but now they are! Why were they better in the past?

If someone answered:

Because – they – did – not – have – a – GUN!

you would not understand it.

You have come to believe that people are no good and that force is the only practical way to deal with them, since ‘reason’ – they all tell you – has failed.

You cannot cope with the enormous complexity of an entire nation’s problems. You have no way of knowing – you conclude – who is right or wrong, so let some groups force others and re-established order.

No one has explained to you that the ‘golden rule’ applies to politics. If certain conditions of social existence are unacceptable and unbearable to you, you cannot expect others to accept them and make them work. And what these conditions do to you, they do to society as a whole.

Do you agree to accept a social system of this kind?

It is of course, the system under which we are living today, but which we have never ‘chosen’.

It is important to consider it now because, in the coming presidential election one of the candidates is asking us to agree – and in the name of ‘national unity’ – explicitly to accept the principle that society has an unlimited power, and that our lives belong to the state!

Read Full Post »

I’m so thoroughly disgusted with US politics at the moment, I only have one short thing to say via an analogy that sums it all up in a nutshell.  This week in D.C. in a nutshell:

You walk into the kitchen to find your kid standing by an empty cookie jar, face covered in crumbs.  Before  you can say anything he starts crying and then starts to scold you because there are no cookies left then throws a tantrum insisting that you have to get him more cookies!

Read Full Post »

On the way back from the store, I managed to catch the last few minutes of a prolonged rant by radio talk host Mark Lavin.   He was all worked up in his typical lather, this time because President Obama decided not to release photos of Osama Bin Laden taken after the recent raid leading to his death.

Among other things, Mr. Lavin alleged that we wouldn’t have hesitated to post such photos in World War II or worry about hurting the feelings of the Japanese or the Germans in that war, saying “I don’t give a damn!” in regards to any offense caused to combatant Muslim fundamentalists who qualify as terrorists.

While I am in agreement about not worrying about offending terrorists, and while not wanting to make anything akin to a ‘moral equivalence‘ argument, I have to disagree with the nature of his comments in regards to the photos.  I will avoid making it a moral equivalence argument by refraining from phrasing it as ‘how can we say…’ type statements but instead focusing on ‘why’ we have made some arguments in the past in support of my view as to why we ‘should not‘ release any photos of Bin Laden’s dead body.

Nick Berg

Almost exactly 7 years ago on May 7th, 2004 we learned of the gruesome death of Nicholas Evan Berg when not only was the news released of his being captured and held by terrorists, but the terrorists themselves released a video of his being beheaded that went viral on the internet.  At the time we were outraged not only by the act itself but by the superfluous act of releasing the footage.

9/11

Then of course there was 9/11, when we saw Palestinians celebrating in the streets of Israel  with reports of celebration in other regions known to be less friendly to the US and western nations.

Al Jazeera

We expressed outrage at news sources like Al Jazeera for continuing to be a mouthpiece for Bin Laden and other pro-terror leaders who were doing little less than gloating following various attacks on pro-western targets.

It’s not Moral Equivalence.

I am not making an argument that ‘we are no better than them’.  We clearly are.  There are ongoing complaints that we often go ‘too far’ in trying to promote the ‘rights’ or at least to take great care in protecting the rights of innocents in our efforts to put an end to terrorism.  (Mark Lavin’s argument is just another example of one of these)  We are better because we do not act without reasonable cause and without seeking input and even assistance from our allies and the international community in general.

And, as I already stated, I am not going to frame this from the perspective of ‘how can we possibly …. in the future if…‘.  Instead, look at why we were outraged by the prior events mentioned.  We do follow reason and there were reasons to be outraged.

Our leaders may use reason and consultation in coming to solutions, but our leaders are practically guaranteed airtime whenever they speak of our achievements to destroy our enemies.  Because our leaders use reason and wisdom, and because our nation bears global influence, there is nothing wrong with that.  And we support freedom of the press.  And our leader has already spoken of the death of this enemy to our freedoms.

Again, Obama was far more justified to go on media sources to break the news.  Our action was a response to specific acts recognized worldwide as unprovoked attacks on innocent citizens.  While an Islamic extremist could probably raise many events relating to specific acts of the west that are worthy of question and even condemnation, they do not seek acceptance or agreement with their ideas in the global community but instead act hastily and recklessly and cheer the deaths of innocents and combatants alike.

We’ve already seen footage that has made the news wires of celebrations in Washington DC and New York city following the announcement by our president.  Many news sources and political figures are quickly trying to point out that the celebrations ‘probably’ reflect a celebration of justice having been done.  And whether or not there are vindictive, vengeful faces in those crowds, I do not think it wholly unreasonable that most in the crowd would concur with that assessment of their motives.

(consequently, there were also large scale celebrations in the Arabic community here in Dearborn, MI – and they are essentially saying the same thing, that they are celebrating justice having been done.  They point out the fact that Bin Laden has killed more Muslims than Americans.  But additionally many of the former middle eastern Muslims here are also saying they are glad to see him gone because of the damage he has done to the reputation of non-extremist followers of Islam)

Finally, do we really want to cross the last border of those things we have previously condemned (with good reason) by making public the pictures of a dead leader of our enemies?  What would it achieve?  Lavin eluded to things such as ‘showing our resolve’ or making it clear to our enemies ‘what we are capable of’.  But was not tracking down and killing him sufficient to do that?  What necessity is there to release the photos that would not qualify as braggadocio or overkill?

Justice was served when we sent in the seals and they got the job done.  There is no necessity of heaping on gratuitous releases of macabre photos and putting us in the same camp as our enemies when it comes to how we behave as a civilized nation.

Read Full Post »

Change is something that a great many people resist even if it is called for or necessary. Traditions represent ‘comfortable expectations’. Even if the end results of traditions could be improved by making changes, people generally tend to favor old routines.

First you have to represent a need for change. Most people will seek change amidst hardship. Wait for a crisis or at least create the perception of one. (or perhaps even create one) Unemployment, the recession, poverty, drug abuse, alcohol abuse, crime, education, global warming, ozone depletion, global famine, natural disasters, global threat of terror, etc. etc. etc.

Second, denounce old ways of doing things. Slowly but surely build up disdain and apprehension for traditions and past times. In an information age, media technology is now mightier than either the pen or the sword.
Negatively taint the notions that once inspired pride. Champion and repeat ad nauseum any notions that support the change or that will help demonize the alternative. Infiltrate mechanisms that help facilitate such promotion, and limit access to those mechanisms for opposing views. Even change the meanings of words themselves.
Profit is bad, taxes are good. Selfishness is bad, sacrifice is good. Individual prosperity and freedom (when others are suffering) is bad, prosperity (as defined by the movement) for the masses is good. Being accountable for one’s self is bad, depending on government for everything is good…. Really???

Finally you need to gain support for the suggested change. Demonize people who support opposing ideals or back traditional means. Treason! Traitor. You hope change fails? I hope your kidneys fail. (paraphrased) We’ve all seen the stories. Who are the demons today? Limbaugh? Hannity? Beck? Lavin? O’Rielly? Coulter? Even Joe the Plumber and Miss California, Carrie Prejean got pulled through the ringer for just saying one sentence that didn’t fit the mold.

America is great, not because we all bow down to a flag or kiss up to a leader. America is great because it was founded, guided and has always been based upon certain ‘ideas’ and ‘ideals’. Ideals that work and make sense; personal responsibility, personal accountability, individual liberty, right to expression, right to associate, right to write about all of the above.
And yes, America can remain great if and only if we remember that this list includes and requires the right and responsibility to defend against any and all challenges to any and all of the previous!

America will NOT remain great if ‘change’ represents advocating personal responsibility and accountability (to the government), taking away individual liberty for political expedience or (government-provided) ‘security’, limiting expression to what is ‘politically correct’, preventing association if it is not ‘all inclusive’ (as spelled out by government mandate) or restricting the press to what is deemed ‘fair’.
And no, it will not remain great if we limit the ability to defend it to a chosen few, again, selected and appointed by government.

Don’t buy it, don’t fall for it. Think for yourselves. Learn for yourselves. Choose for yourselves.

Yes we can? NO we shouldn’t!

Read Full Post »

There’s a lot of talk and the start of action to the end result of ‘changing’ America. So what would it take to ‘change’ America? Rather than focusing on the actual steps of change, let’s focus on the pre-requisites.

Change is something that a great many people resist even if it is called for or necessary. Traditions represent ‘comfortable expectations’. Even if the end results of traditions could be improved by making changes, people generally tend to favor old routines.

In case you haven’t figured it out by now, I tend to look at the world philosophically. I don’t simply do to do, I stop an try to examine why. Whether that be for the purposes of repeating honored traditions or before venturing to take part in a change to those traditions. If a change would be an improvement, then by all means do it. If a tradition makes sense, then “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!”

It is more than likely that although I can’t say I recognize as much introspection and skepticism in most Americans, I do see at least a general desire to ‘do what is best’. Unfortunately the lack of the former misleads the latter. So, how do you set about ‘changing America’?

First you have to represent a need for change. Most people will seek change amidst hardship.

There are many types of people in this world, and in addition to those that want to ‘do what is best’ there are also those that have other motives. Perhaps ‘do what is best for them’ or to do what is best as defined by some idealistic view they have. If you desire change when most others do not, taking advantage of a crisis is a good time to interject your ideas. (Something else to consider, if you are already in a position of power sufficient enough to present and possibly implement changes, in lieu of a crisis to help facilitate them it might be in your self-interest to either create one or belay preventing same)

Second you have to represent that the ‘need’ for change is necessary by a given party in a situation. i.e. do we need to change how we behave, or perhaps the problem is the result of how another behaves therefore we need to change how we prepare and ultimately react or respond to their behavior.

Third, you need to get the individuals involved to feel a personal responsibility in one way or another; be it complicity, complacently or as a result of apathy – whether you use guilt or idealistic rhetoric. You need to convince people that they can or should make a difference in what they support and what they do and generally make them feel responsible for either what they have done or what they failed to do.

Finally you need to gain support for the suggested change. It has to be shown as better (or the alternative shown as ‘worse’) than the traditional way of doing things. If there are other suggestions, you have to show your suggestion as superior (or the others worse). This is an important epistemology here!

———-

So to change America:

* wait for a crisis or at least create the perception of one. (or perhaps create one)

Unemployment, the recession, poverty, drug abuse, alcohol abuse, crime, education, global warming, ozone depletion, global famine, natural disasters, global threat of terror, etc. etc. etc.

* denounce old ways of doing things, focus on the negative, ignore the positive.

Slowly but surely build up disdain and apprehension for American traditions and past times. This is a big one because we live in an information maelstrom where the media technology is now mightier than either the pen or the sword.

Capitalist is a bad word

Capitalist is a bad word

Demonize or otherwise negatively taint the notions that once inspired pride. Build a cloud of suspicion or questions of morality up in regards to defending the status quo – twist the notions being brought up when defending or supporting those ideals.
Champion and repeat ad nauseum any notions that support the ideals behind any changes proposed or that will help demonize any alternative. Infiltrate or take control of any mechanisms that might help facilitate such promotion, and in the process limit access to those same mechanisms by any means possible for opposing views. “stack the deck” in your favor as it were.
Make the words themselves that support your principles all but holy and the words of the opposition evil or even banned. (PC anyone?)
Profit is bad, taxes are good. Selfishness is bad, sacrifice is good. Individual prosperity and freedom (when others are suffering) is bad, prosperity for the masses (as defined by politicians and even when there’s no real basis to assume achieving it) is good. Being accountable for one’s self is bad, depending on government for everything is good.

* demonize people who support opposing ideals or back traditional means.

Treason! Traitor. You hope change fails? I hope your kidneys fail. (paraphrased)
You’ve all followed the stories. Who are the demons today? Limbaugh? Hannity? Beck? Lavin? O’Rielly? Coulter? Even Joe the Plumber and Miss California Carrie Prejean got pulled through the ringer for just saying one sentence that didn’t fit the mold.

Far be it from me to support notions of nationalism. I agree with Penn Gillette on this one. “Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country? I don’t owe Jack Shit to my country!!” Don’t support causes – whether they be causes for change or causes for tradition – without asking why, and examining the facts. Don’t fall for the hype, learn the basis, seek prior examples, review the analysis then decide for yourself!

America is great, not because we all bow down to a flag or kiss up to a leader. America is great because it was founded, guided and has always been based upon certain ‘ideas’ and ‘ideals’. Ideals that work and make sense; personal responsibility, personal accountability, individual liberty, right to expression, right to associate, right to write about all of the above.
And yes, America can remain great if and only if we remember that this list includes and requires the right and responsibility to defend against any and all challenges to any and all of the previous!

America will NOT remain great if ‘change’ represents advocating personal responsibility and accountability (to the government), taking away individual liberty for political expedience or (government-provided) ‘security’, limiting expression to what is ‘politically correct’, preventing association if it is not ‘all inclusive’ (as spelled out by government mandate) or restricting the press to what is deemed ‘fair’.
And no, it will not remain great if we limit the ability to defend it to a chosen few, again, selected and appointed by government.

Don’t buy it, don’t fall for it. Think for yourselves. Learn for yourselves. Choose for yourselves.

Yes we can? NO we shouldn’t!

Read Full Post »

Originally posted on Facebook Notes

Anyone that is having a hard time understanding the outrage being generated following Ms. Sykes stand-up routine at the press dinner might want to dig through some archives at the local library or the antique vinyl store to find some of the works of the pioneers of insult comedy. Dig up some Don Rickles or Buddy Hackett. They were the trail blazers of the genre long before the days of PC – and OH they were far from PC.
I have some of their stuff on MP3 and it is offensive beyond belief, but it’s still funny. Why? Well that’s simple. They would dig into people in the audience with obscenities, ludeness, campy stereotypes and downright sinister zingers. So how is that different from some of the insult comedy that draws offensive responses today? Because they did it to anyone and everyone – and they didn’t make it personal. They picked people from the audience and stuck to the generic, not focusing on the personal or specific. And no one was sacred.
Even modern day ‘racial genre’ insult comedians such as Chris Rock or Dave Chapelle still tend to lambaste just about anyone deserving of scrutiny. (a few other modern insult comedians that come to mind include Dennis Leary and Andrew Dice Clay – also non-specific in their choice of targets, no one is ‘off the radar’)

Examine the material in Ms. Sykes routine, she focuses only on topical, non-issue based traits when referring to folks from one side of the isle and goes to the extreme for anyone that might represent opposition; using words like treason, calling on sexual innuendo, belittling abstinence, comparing them with terrorists and wishing them to die of kidney failure. Now how could that possibly be offensive? (sarcasm)

Sure it has occurred from both sides, and I find it ‘non-funny’ in either case. But I am still amazed how some apologists still cheer when someone from their side does it and condemn when someone from the other does the same. But perhaps what makes it the most offensive is that the side engaging in what cannot be described as less than ‘hate’ comedy is the side claiming to be all for diversity, tolerance and unity.

Read Full Post »

Originally posted on Facebook Notes

A friend of mine who is now living and working in Alaska (some of you may know her) brought this to my attention shortly after Obama was elected by expressing real fears of the eskimo natives in the tribal village where she now lives and works.

Obama’s feel-good idea is to ban the existence of gun shops (even any stores including the sale of ammunition alone) within 5 miles of any school. This 5 mile no-gunshop zone actually equates to a 10 mile diameter circle centered on the school.

So why is this a problem for the eskimos? Towns like Kwethluk where she lives (and many other native american villages across the country) are rather stereotypical of Eskimo towns in Alaska.
* Population 716
* make up of close to 95% native americans
* total land area 10 square miles. (about 3 1/2 miles in diameter)
* isolated and separate from there being any significant ‘population centers’ nearby

Kwethluk is considered an Alaskan ‘bush’ village where the next closest town is over 15 miles away and is similar in size and population makeup. Even the nearest larger town, Bethel is a mere 7 miles in diameter, close to 30 miles away and with no roads running between.

As a native eskimo village, the mean income tends to be low (33k and that number is somewhat padded by the service workers in the town such as administrators, teachers like my friend, etc.). This is due to the fact that most of the native eskimo residents are subsistence hunters and fishermen.

My friend wrote me to express concern over the ‘5 mile ban’ (10 mile diameter) as the bush towns are more often than not only able to get goods delivered by bush plane and then only at considerable expense. In Alaska this is especially poignant during the long winter. (she told of a horror story where she recently ordered toilet paper, had to order them bulk and was only able to get some offbrand ‘scratchpaper’ at $2 per roll)
Add again to this the fact that a bulk of any income in Alaska not only goes to a higher cost of goods and services, but those goods and services also include a significant cost for simple necessities like ‘heat’ in the forms of fuel oil, natural gas, propane and fuel for vehicles.

Add all these things together and what you get is, any of these towns that has a school (as required by federal law in most cases) will no longer be able to have a store to sell guns and ammunition for the subsistence hunting. Combined with the low monetary income of the native american subsistence hunters, this will also make it cost prohibitive for them to afford having ammunition flown in from any city large enough to have gun shops far enough from schools.

If you take a look at a map of Alaska you will see similar towns scattered all throughout the Alaskan bush and most similarly populated by a majority of native eskimo residents. I hadn’t heard anyone mention this aspect of the ‘effects’ of the 5 mile school ban until she brought it to my attention and I think it is quite worthy of a scrupulous look! I doubt I should hold my breath to see the mainstream news post the headline: “Obama plan starves native americans”

Read Full Post »

Originally posted on Facebook Notes

This morning I woke up with one of those ‘clarity of thought’ moments.

Obama was a candidate who was dressed up to appeal to all races, colors and creeds with a message of hope for all of them. He himself is a hodgepodge of races and colors. His promises were gussied up to sound like help to everyone and hurt to no one (save for a small few that ‘deserve’ it of course). His message was heralded as a glimmer of hope in an otherwise dreary political and economic period.

It all made such sense this morning….

He’s a fricken ‘Rainbow President’

His plans are not really real, it’s just a bunch of illusion that happens like when light passes through vapor. It does nothing but carries with it myths of great rewards of pots of gold if you can only reach it’s end, but of course if you pursue it, you never get there, ya only get wet and covered in mud and keep ending up running right back into the storm when you could be enjoying the sunshine if only you’d stay put and let the bad weather pass!

Read Full Post »