Sunday, September 5, 2010
Progressives and Progressivism
It's always a good thing to remember that "progress", in an egg, is what we call "rotting".
Thursday, July 15, 2010
The Definition of 'Meaningless'
The NAACP's recently-passed resolution decrying 'tea party' racism is meaningless because, first and foremost, there IS NO 'tea party'.
"Tea Party" (capital letters) is a philosophy -- like, you know, Liberal, Conservative, Socialist, Communist -- not a political entity. Liberal, Conservative, Socialist and Communist movements also contain racists. Ask the DOJ's chief racist, Eric Holder (no, wait, don't ask him -- he doesn't recognize racism against anyone not black).
The 'tea party' movement is sick and tired of ever-more government, pure and simple! How hard is that to understand? Governments want ever more money. Bigger governments want even more than that! Governments who kill incentive to earn income and STILL demand more tax proceeds are tightening the noose around their own necks, as Greece, Spain, Portugal, et al, are discovering. The good 'ol U.S.A. is late to that table, but seemingly unabashed by its tardiness.
If a larger percentage of blacks than whites seem willing to accept government intrusion into heretofore private spheres, then I guess the 'racist' label applies -- accept it doesn't, if it's true!
Racism is the imputation of UNJUST stereotypes on groups based on racial or ethnic makeup. If the attitudes are borne out it's, well, description! For example, it's NOT unjust to call most of today's terrorism "Islamic Terror" if virtually all of its practitioners ARE radical Islamists!
Personally, I leave it to others to define the descriptions. But, the NAACP is NOT an impartial adjudicator.
"Tea Party" (capital letters) is a philosophy -- like, you know, Liberal, Conservative, Socialist, Communist -- not a political entity. Liberal, Conservative, Socialist and Communist movements also contain racists. Ask the DOJ's chief racist, Eric Holder (no, wait, don't ask him -- he doesn't recognize racism against anyone not black).
The 'tea party' movement is sick and tired of ever-more government, pure and simple! How hard is that to understand? Governments want ever more money. Bigger governments want even more than that! Governments who kill incentive to earn income and STILL demand more tax proceeds are tightening the noose around their own necks, as Greece, Spain, Portugal, et al, are discovering. The good 'ol U.S.A. is late to that table, but seemingly unabashed by its tardiness.
If a larger percentage of blacks than whites seem willing to accept government intrusion into heretofore private spheres, then I guess the 'racist' label applies -- accept it doesn't, if it's true!
Racism is the imputation of UNJUST stereotypes on groups based on racial or ethnic makeup. If the attitudes are borne out it's, well, description! For example, it's NOT unjust to call most of today's terrorism "Islamic Terror" if virtually all of its practitioners ARE radical Islamists!
Personally, I leave it to others to define the descriptions. But, the NAACP is NOT an impartial adjudicator.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
The End of Histor(ical Memory)
Bill Clinton Back In White House...
...ostensibly to advise President Obama on economic policy.
I always chuckle at Bill Clinton's good luck, or maybe good politicking: he, at least, knew when to declare victory while losing, and take the credit!
The much-praised (-belabored?) Clinton budget surpluses resulted most directly from the GOP's 1994 electoral success and subsequent welfare reform -- which Clinton vetoed twice before succumbing to overwhelming numbers. The less-popular, and effective, leg of the '90s budget boom was significant (some would say "disastrous") cuts in defense spending.
So far, the only thing Obama has pretended to match is the defense reductions, at great cost to future preparedness (note the likely suspension in the near future of the C-17 heavy-lift aircraft production as an example). Unlike Clinton, he's spent like a drunken sailor (if only he were one, God bless 'em!, he'd know what they're good for) instead of accepting reduced spending (or, at least, reduced spending increases), which Clinton did.
If Obama REALLY wants to attend to Clinton's advice, here's what'll happen next month: the president will allow unused stimulus funds to pay for the extended unemployment (and other) benefits stalled in Congress; he'll suggest the means testing of future Social Security benefits via a regime than limits high-income individuals to the CPI, and 'castes' to increases equal to wage enhancements;...and a host of other budget cost-savings.
He won't, of course, because -- unlike Clinton -- Obama is more certain of his rectitude and less concerned about his reelection (that happens when you didn't expect to get elected in the first place, I guess). Most Americans think the president is wrong about what he's right about, and don't plan to reelect him, currently -- so we're talking (again) about assuaging Narcissism. Bill Clinton might have been/be a Hedonist, but he understood his Narcissistic limitations, and its non-attraction to others.
No need to expect smartest-man-in-the-world Obama to listen to a damn thing this (reputedly successful) impeached former president says, I'd think.
...ostensibly to advise President Obama on economic policy.
I always chuckle at Bill Clinton's good luck, or maybe good politicking: he, at least, knew when to declare victory while losing, and take the credit!
The much-praised (-belabored?) Clinton budget surpluses resulted most directly from the GOP's 1994 electoral success and subsequent welfare reform -- which Clinton vetoed twice before succumbing to overwhelming numbers. The less-popular, and effective, leg of the '90s budget boom was significant (some would say "disastrous") cuts in defense spending.
So far, the only thing Obama has pretended to match is the defense reductions, at great cost to future preparedness (note the likely suspension in the near future of the C-17 heavy-lift aircraft production as an example). Unlike Clinton, he's spent like a drunken sailor (if only he were one, God bless 'em!, he'd know what they're good for) instead of accepting reduced spending (or, at least, reduced spending increases), which Clinton did.
If Obama REALLY wants to attend to Clinton's advice, here's what'll happen next month: the president will allow unused stimulus funds to pay for the extended unemployment (and other) benefits stalled in Congress; he'll suggest the means testing of future Social Security benefits via a regime than limits high-income individuals to the CPI, and 'castes' to increases equal to wage enhancements;...and a host of other budget cost-savings.
He won't, of course, because -- unlike Clinton -- Obama is more certain of his rectitude and less concerned about his reelection (that happens when you didn't expect to get elected in the first place, I guess). Most Americans think the president is wrong about what he's right about, and don't plan to reelect him, currently -- so we're talking (again) about assuaging Narcissism. Bill Clinton might have been/be a Hedonist, but he understood his Narcissistic limitations, and its non-attraction to others.
No need to expect smartest-man-in-the-world Obama to listen to a damn thing this (reputedly successful) impeached former president says, I'd think.
Maker's Mark 46
I got a taste of the new Maker's Mark 46 today, making its debut in Middle Tennessee. I liked it.
At 94 proof, it is only slightly more spirity than the standard, healthy 90-proof Maker's Mark. But, the somewhat longer aging and the inserted new-charred staves into the pre-dump barrels add a suggestion of oakiness to the finish -- which is the first time I've EVER mentioned "finish" in a positive light regarding MM.
I like standard Maker's, except for its too-dear pricing -- a la, Jack Daniel's (Jim Beam ownership seems to have detached the linked pricing to JD Maker's management used to insist upon), as far as it goes. But, it goes -- or ends, anyway -- without any sort of finish. It's just good-tasting, then over.
Is this the best thing since sliced bread, or Very Old Fitzgerald BIB 8yo? Nope. But, it IS the better thing in Maker's Mark's so-far, two-label stable.
At $34.99 retail locally, it's at the top of its reasonable price range, but not so exorbitant not to splurge on a bottle once in a while.
At 94 proof, it is only slightly more spirity than the standard, healthy 90-proof Maker's Mark. But, the somewhat longer aging and the inserted new-charred staves into the pre-dump barrels add a suggestion of oakiness to the finish -- which is the first time I've EVER mentioned "finish" in a positive light regarding MM.
I like standard Maker's, except for its too-dear pricing -- a la, Jack Daniel's (Jim Beam ownership seems to have detached the linked pricing to JD Maker's management used to insist upon), as far as it goes. But, it goes -- or ends, anyway -- without any sort of finish. It's just good-tasting, then over.
Is this the best thing since sliced bread, or Very Old Fitzgerald BIB 8yo? Nope. But, it IS the better thing in Maker's Mark's so-far, two-label stable.
At $34.99 retail locally, it's at the top of its reasonable price range, but not so exorbitant not to splurge on a bottle once in a while.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Was "The Greatest Generation's" Greatest Fault Its Progeny?
(NOTE: I AM a baby-boomer, mid-cycle. I was born in 1957 to a WWII North Africa and Europe veteran who won a unit bronze star driving in blackout conditions against the Nazis, a 'better day's work than I have ever done'. The latter quote is from one Christopher Hitchens, heretofore famed as a liberal-turned-(well!)-non-liberal on security matters, whose own father sank German convoy raiders.)
For some time, I have suffered the burden of believing that my generation -- now regnant, but retiring, from university chairs and Congressional chairmanships, or being voted into retirement! -- has been the 'worst generation' of Americans, regarding its exceptionalism and existential goodness.
The military draft ended the spring of my high-school senior year, but I've always respected those who served in Vietnam. I rooted against Nixon, but regretted my only presidential vote for a Democrat, Jimmy Carter. I voted 'present' (actually, Libertarian, via Ed Clark) in 1980 before acknowledging Ronald Reagan in 1984. My big-L Liberalism lasted much less time than that of many.
Thus, it is notable to me that a pair of former Leftists who have left 'the cause' are in the news these days: David Horowitz and Hitchens, recently diagnosed with serious cancer.
Horowitz has penned a thoughtful and reasoned description of his long-term interactions with Hitchens, which may not serve to ingratiate either with today's Democrat/Liberal complex, but instructs us about it origins and progressions, nonetheless:
Second Thoughts, Part 1
Second Thoughts, Part 2
They do not make us Baby-Boomers proud, but rather the self-proclaimed, privileged progeny of generations better than ourselves.
Two of the last three U.S. presidents -- Clinton and Obama -- have been of this caustic tradition, and have done much to destroy the moral fabric of the Founders' well-grounded national prescriptions.
While there remains hope that subsequent generations have not succumbed to the national suicide that Sixties' Leftists began adopting, Horowitz and Hitchens lay plain what motivates and results from adherence to their philosophies: destruction of the only truly liberal and generous government that has achieved international prominence during man's history.
The time is short to renew an American path to future world harmony. There is, at present, no other path that espouses and allows personal freedom.
For some time, I have suffered the burden of believing that my generation -- now regnant, but retiring, from university chairs and Congressional chairmanships, or being voted into retirement! -- has been the 'worst generation' of Americans, regarding its exceptionalism and existential goodness.
The military draft ended the spring of my high-school senior year, but I've always respected those who served in Vietnam. I rooted against Nixon, but regretted my only presidential vote for a Democrat, Jimmy Carter. I voted 'present' (actually, Libertarian, via Ed Clark) in 1980 before acknowledging Ronald Reagan in 1984. My big-L Liberalism lasted much less time than that of many.
Thus, it is notable to me that a pair of former Leftists who have left 'the cause' are in the news these days: David Horowitz and Hitchens, recently diagnosed with serious cancer.
Horowitz has penned a thoughtful and reasoned description of his long-term interactions with Hitchens, which may not serve to ingratiate either with today's Democrat/Liberal complex, but instructs us about it origins and progressions, nonetheless:
Second Thoughts, Part 1
Second Thoughts, Part 2
They do not make us Baby-Boomers proud, but rather the self-proclaimed, privileged progeny of generations better than ourselves.
Two of the last three U.S. presidents -- Clinton and Obama -- have been of this caustic tradition, and have done much to destroy the moral fabric of the Founders' well-grounded national prescriptions.
While there remains hope that subsequent generations have not succumbed to the national suicide that Sixties' Leftists began adopting, Horowitz and Hitchens lay plain what motivates and results from adherence to their philosophies: destruction of the only truly liberal and generous government that has achieved international prominence during man's history.
The time is short to renew an American path to future world harmony. There is, at present, no other path that espouses and allows personal freedom.
Monday, July 5, 2010
Conservative Technorati
There are, to date, two indisputable geniuses -- and I use the term literally, as they have transformed forever thinking and use of the online media -- on the Conservative/Libertarian side of the political spectrum -- godfather Glenn Harlan Reynolds, the InstaPundit, and consigliere Andrew Brietbart (Brietbart.com, BigJournalism.com, BigGovernment.com, BigHollywood.com and now, contravertibly, BigPeace.com).
Also noted is how much humor is contained in the Right side of the ether, as opposed to the stultifying Left.
Also noted is how much humor is contained in the Right side of the ether, as opposed to the stultifying Left.
War As Economic Stimulus
American history knowledge is in such short supply that most modern Americans don't realize that after 7+ years of FDR's 'New Deal', the Great Depression economy was as bad or worse than it was when he took office in 1933. So, what brought the U.S. economy out of that depression?
War.
As it happens, we're fighting one right now, arguably with one hand tied behind our back. While it might only take 6-12 months of serious, full production to subdue the Taliban and al-Qaida if we were to assay the task with serious dedication, imagine what the 'economic stimulus' of building aircraft, artillery, ammunition and support vehicles would do for the spirit of the American manufacturing worker! It might also do wonders for the understanding of today's political establishment: pretty much, the only reliable job-creating function the federal government has is defense manufacturing, which actually requires things be built by real workers. Virtually every other exchange of funds orchestrated by the federal government amounts to sleight-of-hand graft and/or vote-buying.
Of course, all the better, such a strident military effort and victory would change the attitudes of a majority of the world's governments and leaders toward the U.S., too -- in altogether positive (to us, anyway) ways.
We need a solid win in Afghanistan -- both for the Afghans and ourselves -- and we need jobs created ASAP. Building the machinery and equipment to secure the former will provide the latter. In the inimitable words of Michael Ledeen, "Faster please!".
War.
As it happens, we're fighting one right now, arguably with one hand tied behind our back. While it might only take 6-12 months of serious, full production to subdue the Taliban and al-Qaida if we were to assay the task with serious dedication, imagine what the 'economic stimulus' of building aircraft, artillery, ammunition and support vehicles would do for the spirit of the American manufacturing worker! It might also do wonders for the understanding of today's political establishment: pretty much, the only reliable job-creating function the federal government has is defense manufacturing, which actually requires things be built by real workers. Virtually every other exchange of funds orchestrated by the federal government amounts to sleight-of-hand graft and/or vote-buying.
Of course, all the better, such a strident military effort and victory would change the attitudes of a majority of the world's governments and leaders toward the U.S., too -- in altogether positive (to us, anyway) ways.
We need a solid win in Afghanistan -- both for the Afghans and ourselves -- and we need jobs created ASAP. Building the machinery and equipment to secure the former will provide the latter. In the inimitable words of Michael Ledeen, "Faster please!".
Sunday, June 27, 2010
The Conservative 'Street'
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.
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.
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.
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.)
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
It's Time for Robert Gates to Resign
Why doesn't Secretary of Defense Robert Gates resign?
He suffered a personal and public humiliation last week when the Obama Administration trashed the long-servicing U.S. nuclear policy for idealistic (read that, "naive"), non-pro-American (see, I didn't say 'anti'-American!) political pabulum. It's increasingly plain that Gates' retention from the Bush Administration was both an admission by the Obamans that they don't have a clue about defense issues, and an attempt to triangulate criticism of their left/liberal leanings by retaining a hired gun of the hated 'Right'. Unexplained, is why Gates continues to play along. While his views were entertained by the administration, he served as a great patriot. But, with his attitudes and acumen cast aside, what more does he offer but political protection?
Nothing serves as a slap in the face to an administration more than the public divorce of a featured advisor. While I have little hope that the Obamanauts have enough introspection to feel chastened by a Gates resignation, it seems the only honorable 'out' left for a hertofore honorable public servant.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Yep, a One-Term Volunteer!..
The likely practical application of President Obama's nuclear disarmament agreement with Russia, IF fully implemented, may reduce the former Soviet stockpile of thermonuclear weapons by 190, the U.S.'s by 100. A great trade, no? Well, no.
Because, along with it, Saint Obama is also issuing what may as well be called "The U.S. Nuclear Disarmament Promise" -- we won't drop a Bomb on you even it you devastate us! C'mon, let's face it: the only thing worse than a world with thermonuclear weapons is a world without them -- because there is nothing else so horrifying to keep at bay those non-liberal, non-democratic (not a single capital letter, so I'm not talking about Rush Limbaugh!) hegemons who might otherwise like nothing better than to see the world's greatest liberal/democratic republic disappear (if you include those who simply don't want to pay to defend themselves, that includes just about the rest of the world, okay?!). Give Mark Steyn a little credit -- America IS alone!
President Obama wants us just to be another of the supplicants to -- well, whom, exactly? (See the problem?)
Is it 2012 yet?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
