Rupert Murdoch. Conrad Black.
Any other nominations for media barons first to realize that the "Mainstream Main Street" of America is a helluva lot more centrist-to-conservative than the "Mainstream Media", which is almost universally leftist/liberal?
Newsweek, long a standard of American current events, is on its death bed, barely a year after outing itself as a liberal rag. U.S. News & World Report already is gone. The Washington Post can't, apparently, find a non-liberal blogger to comment and report on the Conservative movement paramount in most towns and cities around "Flyover Country" (no one there, you know, can write a proper sentence or entertain a 'correct' thought). Harvard freshmen are re-matriculating to Hope College (if they're really as smart as they think they are!).
I'm awaiting the tidal wave of retirements/deaths of the '60 generation from college faculties, and the concurrent realization by East Coast publishers that generations from -- oh, say -- 1980 onward aren't nearly as likely to swallow whole the principle that government enterprise is, well, enterprise. I believe Barack Obama -- raised in the cacophony of Ivy League/faculty lounge elitism and racial entitlement -- is the high-water mark of the American social-democratic movement. What remains to be seen is how much damage its acolytes can do before more confident Americans retake political authority.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
President Obama's Finest Hour?
Note the time on the last post -- it is BEFORE, though only slightly -- the official announcement of Petraeus as McChrystal's successor. In reality, I'd been pondering Petraeus as the only possible upgrade since the Rolling Stone imbroglio hit a couple of days ago. Instinctively --and historically -- it was obvious to me that any serious president couldn't let McChrystal stand. Believe that or not.
Still, the danger to Obama is much greater than the danger for Petraeus, who has already had success -- in Iraq! Obama is appointing a commander who has the standing to question and essentially command suspension of the president's goal of July 2011 withdrawal of forces. The American public will believe Petraeus if he says prolonging our role will lead to victory. After all, he has known -- and delivered -- victory.
Down the far-distant road, Petraeus reminds me of another senior American commander: the man who would NOT be king, George Washington! Petraeus is taking a demotion to accept command in Afghanistan. Should he succeed again, reminiscent of a Washington, he may well settle for being president. Are we not due, after more than 200 years, an "Uncle of His Country"?
By the way, it struck me that Obama, in his remarks, signaled true regret that he'd been forced to relieve his chosen commander. His graceful comments may go far in ameliorating ignominy for McChrystal, who has served his country long and well, and deserves our credit.
Oddly, and instructively, it seemed the most unrehearsed and genuine I have seen this president. Will he take a lesson?
A historical footnote: B. Obama thus becomes the first American commander-in-chief to involuntarily remove two theater commanders -- first, McKiernan, and now McChrystal, both in Afghanistan -- from active war zones since one A. Lincoln. History 'Grants" little doubt who was at fault during the Civil War command difficulties. Will Obama fare as well?
Still, the danger to Obama is much greater than the danger for Petraeus, who has already had success -- in Iraq! Obama is appointing a commander who has the standing to question and essentially command suspension of the president's goal of July 2011 withdrawal of forces. The American public will believe Petraeus if he says prolonging our role will lead to victory. After all, he has known -- and delivered -- victory.
Down the far-distant road, Petraeus reminds me of another senior American commander: the man who would NOT be king, George Washington! Petraeus is taking a demotion to accept command in Afghanistan. Should he succeed again, reminiscent of a Washington, he may well settle for being president. Are we not due, after more than 200 years, an "Uncle of His Country"?
By the way, it struck me that Obama, in his remarks, signaled true regret that he'd been forced to relieve his chosen commander. His graceful comments may go far in ameliorating ignominy for McChrystal, who has served his country long and well, and deserves our credit.
Oddly, and instructively, it seemed the most unrehearsed and genuine I have seen this president. Will he take a lesson?
A historical footnote: B. Obama thus becomes the first American commander-in-chief to involuntarily remove two theater commanders -- first, McKiernan, and now McChrystal, both in Afghanistan -- from active war zones since one A. Lincoln. History 'Grants" little doubt who was at fault during the Civil War command difficulties. Will Obama fare as well?
Gen. Petraeus: A Star for Afghanistan?
I hope, should Gen. David Petraeus -- American's finest soldier! -- accept the demotion that comes with his acceptance of theater command in Afghanistan (which he's going to be offered -- count on it!), will successfully demand two things from President Obama: a fifth star at the end of his duty, and non-interference by the Obama boobs.
Monday, June 21, 2010
'Gangsta' U.S.
(Note: there is no question mark at the end of the post title. It IS a fait accompli, not just a possibility!)
Political pundit Michael Barone -- recently labeled of the 'Conservative' faith (because, you know, that's what's convenient to those in power) -- has long referred to the 'Gangsta' style of the Obama Administration. Today, he doubles down with an outright label of "thuggery".
And, as almost always, he's right! We Americans have elected an administration who's foremost goal is to implement its policy viewpoints, NOT adhere to the rules of law. And, yet, the President is the chief law enforcement officer of the U.S., not empowered with ANY legislative authority.
Texas GOP Rep. Joe Barton has been virtually forced to gag on his well-stated belief that the Obama Administration has 'shaken down' (think Rev. Jesse Jackson and corporate America) BP for $20 million in 'slush' monies to be distributed by a political appointee -- undoubtedly to politically correct recipients. Much less noted is that there are legal and judicial methods for holding BP accountable for actual financial damages -- which BP has already promised by which to abide. Of course, this makes BP subject to so-called 'double jeopardy', and our chief executive guilty of 'extra-legal' (which is polite terms for "illegal and unconstitutional") extortion.
There is a pattern here. Note that the GM 'bankruptcy' -- which resulted in the U.S. government taking a large stake in the management of a theretofore private enterprise -- essentially contravened and usurped established bankruptcy law. Hugo Chavez should be proud!
There you have it!: We have a federal government with contempt for existing laws, and concerned only with its own power. During ANY OTHER TIME, no one would doubt the suitability of charges alleging "high crimes and misdemeanors" -- aka, 'impeachable offenses'. Not today, though, not today -- wouldn't want to be branded a racist, don't ya know!
You'd think 'people of color' would be embarrassed, but how (speaking PC now) would I know? I mean, I'd only be embarrassed, offended, and outraged if some white guy -- like George W. Bush -- attempted such stuff.
This is Obama, so this is different.
Political pundit Michael Barone -- recently labeled of the 'Conservative' faith (because, you know, that's what's convenient to those in power) -- has long referred to the 'Gangsta' style of the Obama Administration. Today, he doubles down with an outright label of "thuggery".
And, as almost always, he's right! We Americans have elected an administration who's foremost goal is to implement its policy viewpoints, NOT adhere to the rules of law. And, yet, the President is the chief law enforcement officer of the U.S., not empowered with ANY legislative authority.
Texas GOP Rep. Joe Barton has been virtually forced to gag on his well-stated belief that the Obama Administration has 'shaken down' (think Rev. Jesse Jackson and corporate America) BP for $20 million in 'slush' monies to be distributed by a political appointee -- undoubtedly to politically correct recipients. Much less noted is that there are legal and judicial methods for holding BP accountable for actual financial damages -- which BP has already promised by which to abide. Of course, this makes BP subject to so-called 'double jeopardy', and our chief executive guilty of 'extra-legal' (which is polite terms for "illegal and unconstitutional") extortion.
There is a pattern here. Note that the GM 'bankruptcy' -- which resulted in the U.S. government taking a large stake in the management of a theretofore private enterprise -- essentially contravened and usurped established bankruptcy law. Hugo Chavez should be proud!
There you have it!: We have a federal government with contempt for existing laws, and concerned only with its own power. During ANY OTHER TIME, no one would doubt the suitability of charges alleging "high crimes and misdemeanors" -- aka, 'impeachable offenses'. Not today, though, not today -- wouldn't want to be branded a racist, don't ya know!
You'd think 'people of color' would be embarrassed, but how (speaking PC now) would I know? I mean, I'd only be embarrassed, offended, and outraged if some white guy -- like George W. Bush -- attempted such stuff.
This is Obama, so this is different.
Friday, June 11, 2010
The Problem With American Liberals...
...is their arrogance and misplaced confidence.
The American public treasures nothing more than a redeemed heretic. Should President Obama come to admit he's wrong about Iran, Israel, Russia, North Korea, and cheaper health care, he'd assure himself re-electon. But, as an American liberal, he can't -- because he truly believes he's right, even if being (mistakenly) right means the end of the Republic!
Barring an unlikely Obama epiphany, we have one -- and, probably, JUST one! -- chance of redeeming the American Experiment: the 2012 presidential election, in which "anyone but Obama" is the correct choice!
The Dwarfs are for the Dwarfs!
The American public treasures nothing more than a redeemed heretic. Should President Obama come to admit he's wrong about Iran, Israel, Russia, North Korea, and cheaper health care, he'd assure himself re-electon. But, as an American liberal, he can't -- because he truly believes he's right, even if being (mistakenly) right means the end of the Republic!
Barring an unlikely Obama epiphany, we have one -- and, probably, JUST one! -- chance of redeeming the American Experiment: the 2012 presidential election, in which "anyone but Obama" is the correct choice!
The Dwarfs are for the Dwarfs!
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Israel: the Downside of Success
Don Surber points out that so-called Progressives once supported Israel:
There's more to the Helen Thomas case
Of course, 'progress' in an egg -- if allowed to go on too long -- is called 'going bad', and it stinks to high Heaven!
There's more to the Helen Thomas case
Of course, 'progress' in an egg -- if allowed to go on too long -- is called 'going bad', and it stinks to high Heaven!
Free Speech: Use It or Lose It?
Free speech: use it or lose it!
One of many 'kicker' passages:
"...According to the Institute for Justice, 36 states have laws requiring citizen groups to register with the government before they can talk to their neighbors about politics. Duke University professor Mike Munger has described how such laws have a chilling effect on the political process.
"Similarly, it is the independent bloggers and journalists who will be stifled by the proposed DISCLOSE Act, not the entrenched mainstream media. But note how it was the blogging community, not the mainstream media, which took the lead in reporting stories such as the RatherGate scandal, the ClimateGate memos, and the rise of the tea parties.
"The numerous independent bloggers covering the ClimateGate disclosures provide a perfect example of how truth emerges when ordinary people are left free to debate and discuss contentious issues. If the bloggers who dissented from the government-backed climate science orthodoxy had instead been punished for spreading 'misinformation', would Americans have ever learned the truth?
"If bloggers, independent journalists, and ordinary thinking Americans value our free speech, then we must do the following:
"We must articulate and defend a proper definition of free speech and of censorship.
"We must defend free speech on the proper grounds of individual rights, rather than on utilitarian grounds that it promotes some 'social good'. This includes defending free speech in principle, even when some people express views we consider odious. For liberals, this includes defending speech they may find bigoted or offensive. For social conservatives, this includes defending speech promoting alternative lifestyles they may find morally repugnant.
"We must defend the principle of free speech not just in politics but throughout the full range of our culture — including science, art, and philosophy. We must defend the freedom of individuals to criticize another’s scientific or religious views as vigorously as their right to debate banking regulations.
"As President Ronald Reagan once warned:
"'Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free'...".
One of many 'kicker' passages:
"...According to the Institute for Justice, 36 states have laws requiring citizen groups to register with the government before they can talk to their neighbors about politics. Duke University professor Mike Munger has described how such laws have a chilling effect on the political process.
"Similarly, it is the independent bloggers and journalists who will be stifled by the proposed DISCLOSE Act, not the entrenched mainstream media. But note how it was the blogging community, not the mainstream media, which took the lead in reporting stories such as the RatherGate scandal, the ClimateGate memos, and the rise of the tea parties.
"The numerous independent bloggers covering the ClimateGate disclosures provide a perfect example of how truth emerges when ordinary people are left free to debate and discuss contentious issues. If the bloggers who dissented from the government-backed climate science orthodoxy had instead been punished for spreading 'misinformation', would Americans have ever learned the truth?
"If bloggers, independent journalists, and ordinary thinking Americans value our free speech, then we must do the following:
"We must articulate and defend a proper definition of free speech and of censorship.
"We must defend free speech on the proper grounds of individual rights, rather than on utilitarian grounds that it promotes some 'social good'. This includes defending free speech in principle, even when some people express views we consider odious. For liberals, this includes defending speech they may find bigoted or offensive. For social conservatives, this includes defending speech promoting alternative lifestyles they may find morally repugnant.
"We must defend the principle of free speech not just in politics but throughout the full range of our culture — including science, art, and philosophy. We must defend the freedom of individuals to criticize another’s scientific or religious views as vigorously as their right to debate banking regulations.
"As President Ronald Reagan once warned:
"'Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free'...".
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Al and Tipper...
(Because nothing else of note -- insert appropriate skeptical 'smilie' here -- is happening in the world right now)
So, Al and Tip are calling it quits. And they're just -- really! -- peachy-keen about it. Ya know, amicable and everything sophist(ry?)icated like that.
Me, I'm kinda of the same mind as this http://althouse.blogspot.com/2010/06/gores-have-handled-their-decision-to.html commenter:
"...Look, this is how I have come to see divorce. On one hand, Jesus comes out pretty strongly against divorce in general, but on the other hand, there is the story of my sister. She was beaten by her first husband. She is now married to an absolutely wonderful man. I literally only wish she had met him sooner. I look at the picture of the newly-formed family (now 7 years ago) and I think to myself there is no way God was not happy when my sister left her ex, and when she found her new husband. There is no way God isn’t glad my niece finally has the father she deserves.
"And the way I reconcile it comes down to this. A divorce should be seen almost like an intentional killing of a person. Almost every time an intentional killing happens, a crime has been committed. But its not always the person doing the killing who is responsible. When a person comes at you with a knife, and you pull a gun and kill your attacker, you have intentionally killed him, but you aren’t the criminal; the criminal is the attacker.
"I feel the same way about marriage. If a man or a woman is forced into divorce by the behavior of another, then who 'murdered' the marriage? Not the person who files for divorce, but the person who made marriage intolerable. And I don’t limit that to extreme situations like abuse. My brother, for instance, had a nutjob for a wife. He isn’t perfect, but perfect wouldn’t have made a difference. No matter what he did, their marriage was doomed, because of her own psychological damage that she couldn’t get past. And hey he is remarried, even has a family, now, with an absolutely wonderful woman.
"But if it is 'no one’s' fault, then guess what? Its EVERYONE’S fault.
"So I am watching Al and Tipper throw away this marriage, murder it. And people think its wonderful because it isn’t ugly. They are exactly wrong. Its horrible precisely because it isn’t ugly. Not that I have to see the ugliness, but hearing positively that it is an amicable break up, is horrible. If they can get along enough to divorce without acrimony, they should f---ing stay married. My only solace is that in truth they really do hate each other, really do have pain and they are just keeping it from us. Because otherwise this is an arbitrary destruction and that is horrible in my mind.
So, Al and Tip are calling it quits. And they're just -- really! -- peachy-keen about it. Ya know, amicable and everything sophist(ry?)icated like that.
Me, I'm kinda of the same mind as this http://althouse.blogspot.com/2010/06/gores-have-handled-their-decision-to.html commenter:
"...Look, this is how I have come to see divorce. On one hand, Jesus comes out pretty strongly against divorce in general, but on the other hand, there is the story of my sister. She was beaten by her first husband. She is now married to an absolutely wonderful man. I literally only wish she had met him sooner. I look at the picture of the newly-formed family (now 7 years ago) and I think to myself there is no way God was not happy when my sister left her ex, and when she found her new husband. There is no way God isn’t glad my niece finally has the father she deserves.
"And the way I reconcile it comes down to this. A divorce should be seen almost like an intentional killing of a person. Almost every time an intentional killing happens, a crime has been committed. But its not always the person doing the killing who is responsible. When a person comes at you with a knife, and you pull a gun and kill your attacker, you have intentionally killed him, but you aren’t the criminal; the criminal is the attacker.
"I feel the same way about marriage. If a man or a woman is forced into divorce by the behavior of another, then who 'murdered' the marriage? Not the person who files for divorce, but the person who made marriage intolerable. And I don’t limit that to extreme situations like abuse. My brother, for instance, had a nutjob for a wife. He isn’t perfect, but perfect wouldn’t have made a difference. No matter what he did, their marriage was doomed, because of her own psychological damage that she couldn’t get past. And hey he is remarried, even has a family, now, with an absolutely wonderful woman.
"But if it is 'no one’s' fault, then guess what? Its EVERYONE’S fault.
"So I am watching Al and Tipper throw away this marriage, murder it. And people think its wonderful because it isn’t ugly. They are exactly wrong. Its horrible precisely because it isn’t ugly. Not that I have to see the ugliness, but hearing positively that it is an amicable break up, is horrible. If they can get along enough to divorce without acrimony, they should f---ing stay married. My only solace is that in truth they really do hate each other, really do have pain and they are just keeping it from us. Because otherwise this is an arbitrary destruction and that is horrible in my mind.
"I know that puts me greatly out of step with a lot of people. And I am not even sure that this should be how the law should see it, although I do question how much we really benefitted from moving to 'no fault' divorce. But morally, that is how I see it."
Well said -- and me, too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
