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.
Monday, July 5, 2010
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
