...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!
Friday, June 11, 2010
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.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Say 'NO' To Nincompoopery!..
http://volokh.com/2010/05/29/the-solicitor-general-lays-an-egg/
Our executive branch -- and, in this case, its current nominee for SCOTUS associate justice -- is run by nincompoops who assume we all are worse nincompoops than the nincompoops they continually prove themselves to be!
If nothing else, the so-called Tea Party Movement is a throwing off of the strictures of adherence to 'mainstream media' conventional wisdom-creation (out of wholecloth, often). I'm ashamed that I recognized its necessity well over a decade ago (maybe someday I'll post THOSE published remarks here, too), but did nothing to bring it about except grouse about it locally and privately. I assuage myself that maybe it took current, mis-American (not a typo) leadership to make it obvious -- after all, they ARE the ones we've been waiting for, they say!
In any case, our best case is that American is going to the John over this Obamanation, whether it be Galt or Marshall!
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Defining the Presidency Down
I've been a proponent, for many years, of returning to the days when the annual 'State of the Union' address amounted to a hand-written letter from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to the Congress. The founders intended the legislature to be the first/prominent branch of government, NOT the presidency.
If we have anything to be thankful for from the Obama era, it's the re-emergence of this philosophy. Let's face it: he doesn't know what the Hell he's doing! And, yet, we've (barely?) survived, thus far.
I've also been a regular proponent of the "we get what we deserve" attitude toward governance. If we don't reject/eject the Democratic leadership in 2010, we need to understand we don't deserve a second chance at a republican (small-r) form of governance. The liberal fascists will have taken over.
In a best-case scenario, it will have been instructive and positive that we endured an Obama Administration. But, only if we reject it as unnecessarily and unnaturally authoritarian by American standards and desires.
Obama doesn't much like the United States of America up to 2008. We don't much care for his disdain. Let's make that point in 2010, okay?
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
I Remember When Obama Was 'Black'...
...but now he's just anti-American:
(Yes, Canadians ARE Americans, too -- especially since they've tossed the Liberals/Frenchies/anti-Coulter government out.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
