Public union members (“workers” in the old Lenin-Marxist parlance) in Madison, Wisconsin continue protesting new legislation that will begin to bring some balance to their contracts with the state. The current extremely imbalanced contracts have left the small state of Wisconsin $3,600,000,000 in the red over the next two years. Some teachers and other state workers have finally begun returning to work, though the 14 Democrat State Senators remain on the lam somewhere in Illinois, hopping from one Motel 6 to the next in efforts to stay one step ahead of non-state-run media persons as well as any Wisconsin state troopers that may be trying to apprehend them. With only 19 State Senators remaining in Madison, they are unable to fulfill quorum requirements (20 Senators, or 60%) needed to pass fiscal legislation. Now that the bill in question has passed through the State Assembly, the pressure on the absent Senators is increasing.
Governor Walker is being repeatedly likened to Adolf Hitler and a number of other monsters of human history. Has he murdered millions of Jews in an attempted continental ethnic cleansing? No? Then surely he has committed the moral equivalent of such a heinous act, right? Governor Walker’s dictatorial tyrannical crime against humanity itself: asking public union members to contribute 5% (!) of their salaries towards their otherwise entirely state-funded benefits & pensions, and reduce the public union collective bargaining powers. No doubt charges against Governor Walker are being drawn up at The Hague.
Following Governor Walker’s example, several other states facing fiscal emergencies have taken similar measures to reign in their own budget-busting public unions. Barack Obama continues to back public unions, albeit only verbally, and even that support is waning as time passes. As Obama’s decision making process focuses on whether an action is politically expedient & whether it polls well, rather than whether an action is right or wrong, he has undoubtedly realized that supporting the public unions in this fight is a losing proposition. Having state governments attempting to balance their budgets as adversaries would not be well received in the arena of public opinion. Americans have come to realize - hopefully not too late - that public sector unions are little more than avenues through which tax-payer money is laundered to the Democratic Party in exchange for luxurious benefits packages The 2010 election cycle alone saw the transfer of over $200,000,000 to Democratic candidates from public unions, who in turn received their money from taxpayers - allocated to them by current Democrat politicians. That borders on the criminal.
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Thursday, January 27, 2011
The Source of Liberal Aggression
Why are liberals so full of hatred and scorn? Why are they so universally negative, hateful, and prone to violence? They are so for scores of reasons, not the least of which being that their reputation in the American public is steadily shrinking, with <20% of Americans self identifying as “liberals”. More than twice that number self identify as “conservatives”.
A group of such a minority, with views so divergent from those held by the general public, will find itself in a near perpetual state of intellectual self defense. When not defending their largely unpopular ideology, they’re trying to implement their liberal agenda through social reforms. As they make up less that 1/5 of the population, much of their efforts are in vain.
I know not whether liberalism begets a sense of elitism or whether elitism begets a sense of liberalism, but that the two go hand in hand cannot be denied.
So far everything about liberalism is either negative or resentful: inherent elitism, low self identifying %, the perpetual defensive nature. Worse still, each of these things feed off of each other in a vicious feedback loop.
Returning to the aforementioned elitism, liberals largely view themselves as better, brighter, and considerably more enlightened than average Americans, yet these same inferior Americans rarely (and inexplicably!) turn to their betters (liberals… in case you are one of those average Americans and aren’t able to follow…) to lead them. To the liberals’ great shock and indignation, average Americans resent them for their perceived natural superiority. Resentment feeding resentment in yet another tragic feedback loop.
Residing in such a bubble of negativity, it should not be a surprise that liberals are such a spiteful lot. It would, in fact, be a surprise to find liberals who are not negative! Look back at news stories of violent protests and demonstrations around the world. I challenge anyone to find news coverage of protests and/or demonstrations requiring riot gear donned law enforcement in which the protestors are conservatives. In fact, I challenge you to find an example of such a protest in which the protestors are anything but liberals or leftists.
Liberal aggression is also fueled by that which sustains liberal political momentum and in the United States, the Democratic Party. Downward socio-economic mobility is the catalyst for liberal expansion. Conversely upward economic mobility is generally bad for liberals and the Democratic Party, as is economic prosperity and growth in general. Their ranks swell in a direct correlation with poverty and government dependency.
I imagine it is rather difficult for a party (political) to be full of good cheer when its perception of success is the spread of misery among the populace.
Try the riot gear experiment.
A group of such a minority, with views so divergent from those held by the general public, will find itself in a near perpetual state of intellectual self defense. When not defending their largely unpopular ideology, they’re trying to implement their liberal agenda through social reforms. As they make up less that 1/5 of the population, much of their efforts are in vain.
I know not whether liberalism begets a sense of elitism or whether elitism begets a sense of liberalism, but that the two go hand in hand cannot be denied.
So far everything about liberalism is either negative or resentful: inherent elitism, low self identifying %, the perpetual defensive nature. Worse still, each of these things feed off of each other in a vicious feedback loop.
Returning to the aforementioned elitism, liberals largely view themselves as better, brighter, and considerably more enlightened than average Americans, yet these same inferior Americans rarely (and inexplicably!) turn to their betters (liberals… in case you are one of those average Americans and aren’t able to follow…) to lead them. To the liberals’ great shock and indignation, average Americans resent them for their perceived natural superiority. Resentment feeding resentment in yet another tragic feedback loop.
Residing in such a bubble of negativity, it should not be a surprise that liberals are such a spiteful lot. It would, in fact, be a surprise to find liberals who are not negative! Look back at news stories of violent protests and demonstrations around the world. I challenge anyone to find news coverage of protests and/or demonstrations requiring riot gear donned law enforcement in which the protestors are conservatives. In fact, I challenge you to find an example of such a protest in which the protestors are anything but liberals or leftists.
Liberal aggression is also fueled by that which sustains liberal political momentum and in the United States, the Democratic Party. Downward socio-economic mobility is the catalyst for liberal expansion. Conversely upward economic mobility is generally bad for liberals and the Democratic Party, as is economic prosperity and growth in general. Their ranks swell in a direct correlation with poverty and government dependency.
I imagine it is rather difficult for a party (political) to be full of good cheer when its perception of success is the spread of misery among the populace.
Try the riot gear experiment.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Comcast & NBC Universal Coincidence? The Sacking of Olberman
Days after the FCC approved Comcast’s acquisition of / merger with NBC Universal, the journalism world was given a pleasant & unexpected surprise: MSNBC’s liberal bomb-thrower and consummate liar Keith Olberman has been fired! MSNBC executives claim the merger had no impact on their actions, but I find that rather difficult to accept. Coincidence or not, NBC/Comcast made an excellent decision in releasing that raving left-of-liberal lunatic back into the wild. The only downside is that that “wild” happens to be the society in which we all reside.
There are no shortages of liberal loons at MSNBC to fill in, but Olberman was their leader and the quickest to resort to twisting - and if need be fabricating all of the “facts” needed to “prove” his opinions on the ways of the world. People like him who must sink to such base tactics to “win” the argument must do so because the real facts can not come close to doing so on their own.
How much further “house cleaning” shall occur is unknown, but folks at MSNBC must be alarmed to have found out that Comcast is in the business of making money - not cheer leading for the Democratic Party. No money was being made by giving Olberman an uber-liberal fiefdom of a network to operate as he saw fit. Not long ago Olberman was forcing other MSNBC hosts off the air for daring to challenge his opinion on some small political issue. MSNBC and its dozens of regular viewers were nominally under his control with regard to on air content. How the mighty have fallen.
MSNBC will undoubtedly shuffle their lineup of socialists, lesbians, and leftist blow-hards to minimize disruption, but the effects of Olberman’s dismissal will be impossible to ignore. You know you’re in trouble when your game plan for the future includes the words “Ed Shultz” and “prime time”.
There are no shortages of liberal loons at MSNBC to fill in, but Olberman was their leader and the quickest to resort to twisting - and if need be fabricating all of the “facts” needed to “prove” his opinions on the ways of the world. People like him who must sink to such base tactics to “win” the argument must do so because the real facts can not come close to doing so on their own.
How much further “house cleaning” shall occur is unknown, but folks at MSNBC must be alarmed to have found out that Comcast is in the business of making money - not cheer leading for the Democratic Party. No money was being made by giving Olberman an uber-liberal fiefdom of a network to operate as he saw fit. Not long ago Olberman was forcing other MSNBC hosts off the air for daring to challenge his opinion on some small political issue. MSNBC and its dozens of regular viewers were nominally under his control with regard to on air content. How the mighty have fallen.
MSNBC will undoubtedly shuffle their lineup of socialists, lesbians, and leftist blow-hards to minimize disruption, but the effects of Olberman’s dismissal will be impossible to ignore. You know you’re in trouble when your game plan for the future includes the words “Ed Shultz” and “prime time”.
Friday, August 27, 2010
Unbridled Arrogance
Barack Obama is supremely smug and arrogant. This smug arrogance has grown to such an extent that it’s led to delusional perception of reality. Throughout his life, Obama has been told how smart and how special he is so many times -with an exponential increase in intensity in the past 36 months - that I think he honestly believes it now. We have seen this demonstrated repeatedly in his time as President, as if he thinks his very presence will actually do things like convince the International Olympic Committee to hold the 2016 Olympics in Chicago, solve the healthcare debate, and stop Iran from trying to acquire nukes.
As for being the head of state, It's almost as if he holds the duties of the Presidency, the White House, and the American people, in contempt. As if all of this is “beneath” him. I get the distinct impression that he views his job as not just a terrific burden, but as an inconvenience as well. It is a burden of course, every President will attest to that, but every other President would also call it a noble burden, whereas Obama sees it as a distasteful and loathsome burden.
A few days ago I found myself watching a news report on how he had to interrupt his precious vacation (6th, for the record) to take a conference call with economic “geniuses” Tim Geitner and Larry Summers about the economy (that they‘re all doing such a great job of expanding), and I would be willing to bet that Obama thinks we should thank him for taking the time out of his day - on his vacation (!), no less - to deal with our problems. "We really owe you for that one, Barry!"
His arrogance is truly incredible to behold; it knows NO bounds. That level of arrogance is the cause of much of his unusual behavior - ZERO press conferences for more than 10 months (why should someone as brilliant as he need to explain himself to all of us knuckle-dragging Americans, desperately clinging to our guns and religion?), the ceaseless vacations, the 50 rounds of golf, leaving the White House at every opportunity, and creating as many of those opportunities as possible.
To borrow a line, what we have here is the first President not to be awed by the office. He acts like the office should be awed by him. 2012 can not come soon enough.
As for being the head of state, It's almost as if he holds the duties of the Presidency, the White House, and the American people, in contempt. As if all of this is “beneath” him. I get the distinct impression that he views his job as not just a terrific burden, but as an inconvenience as well. It is a burden of course, every President will attest to that, but every other President would also call it a noble burden, whereas Obama sees it as a distasteful and loathsome burden.
A few days ago I found myself watching a news report on how he had to interrupt his precious vacation (6th, for the record) to take a conference call with economic “geniuses” Tim Geitner and Larry Summers about the economy (that they‘re all doing such a great job of expanding), and I would be willing to bet that Obama thinks we should thank him for taking the time out of his day - on his vacation (!), no less - to deal with our problems. "We really owe you for that one, Barry!"
His arrogance is truly incredible to behold; it knows NO bounds. That level of arrogance is the cause of much of his unusual behavior - ZERO press conferences for more than 10 months (why should someone as brilliant as he need to explain himself to all of us knuckle-dragging Americans, desperately clinging to our guns and religion?), the ceaseless vacations, the 50 rounds of golf, leaving the White House at every opportunity, and creating as many of those opportunities as possible.
To borrow a line, what we have here is the first President not to be awed by the office. He acts like the office should be awed by him. 2012 can not come soon enough.
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Obama's Favorite Mosque
At a Ramadan celebration dinner this Friday, President Obama announced his full support for the proposed construction of a mosque in the shadow of the former World Trade Center in New York City. This is about par for the course for America’s most anti-American president. Here we have yet another issue in which Barack Hussein Obama is diametrically opposed to the overwhelming opinion of the American people.
I suppose we should be thankful in some small way that Obama is expressing his true opinions on matters such as this, instead of lying to us. Truthfulness, however, does nothing to make his opinions any less disgusting and abhorrent.
The “cover story” justifying the construction of a mosque at Ground Zero in Manhattan is the desire for “Muslim outreach” and to “bridge the gaps” between cultures. This is both laughable and insulting. A farce! Lip service and nothing more.
In all my life I have never heard of a group “bridging gaps” between itself and another culture by offending that culture to its very core - especially when that offense involves disrespecting the memory of innocent members of the latter culture who were savagely murdered by outlying members of the former culture!
A mosque in such close proximity to where the World Trade Center once stood is an insult aimed at the very heart of America and should be rightly regarded as such. The primary purpose of a mosque is to serve the local Muslim community, yet there isn’t much of community near this mosque, as it is located in the heart of Manhattan’s commercial district. If there is no community, why build a mosque? The mosque’s proponents will not bring up the fact that historically mosques have also served a secondary purpose, and that purpose is to serve as a victory flag announcing to all who see it, “Let it be known that at this site, warriors of Islam were victorious over the infidel!” Apparently that’s the kind of statement that B. Hussein Obama can get behind!
I suppose we should be thankful in some small way that Obama is expressing his true opinions on matters such as this, instead of lying to us. Truthfulness, however, does nothing to make his opinions any less disgusting and abhorrent.
The “cover story” justifying the construction of a mosque at Ground Zero in Manhattan is the desire for “Muslim outreach” and to “bridge the gaps” between cultures. This is both laughable and insulting. A farce! Lip service and nothing more.
In all my life I have never heard of a group “bridging gaps” between itself and another culture by offending that culture to its very core - especially when that offense involves disrespecting the memory of innocent members of the latter culture who were savagely murdered by outlying members of the former culture!
A mosque in such close proximity to where the World Trade Center once stood is an insult aimed at the very heart of America and should be rightly regarded as such. The primary purpose of a mosque is to serve the local Muslim community, yet there isn’t much of community near this mosque, as it is located in the heart of Manhattan’s commercial district. If there is no community, why build a mosque? The mosque’s proponents will not bring up the fact that historically mosques have also served a secondary purpose, and that purpose is to serve as a victory flag announcing to all who see it, “Let it be known that at this site, warriors of Islam were victorious over the infidel!” Apparently that’s the kind of statement that B. Hussein Obama can get behind!
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Elena Kagan, Solicitor General, has been confirmed by the Senate to serve as an Associate Justice of the highest court in the nation. Ms. Kagan was previously a policy advisor and Associate White House Council in the Clinton Administration, and most recently Dean of Harvard Law School. While there can be no disputing that she has considerable experience in the court room, as a judge she has no experience to speak of.
From what is known of the Solicitor General, one can deduce that her political opinions running roughly parallel to that of President Obama. Her views lean to the left, and also like Obama, she is quite proud of her beliefs. Many on the conservative side of the spectrum view excessively liberal judges (liberal social activist judges, more specifically) with an anxiously watchful eye; continuously searching for signs of policy creation rather than policy interpretation. They view such activism as a corruption of our system of checks and balances, and a grave threat to the liberty and freedom they hold so dearly. A fair amount of this concern is unfounded - there have been liberal judges as long as there have been liberals willing to elect or appoint them to their respective judgeships, and our system of government has largely survived intact. Be that as it may, danger does exist in this appointment and others, but it lies elsewhere. The real danger is borne out through the fact that Ms. Kagan has never before been a judge in any court. She has precisely zero experience and zero mental training in the difficult task of separating her personal beliefs and life-long convictions from objective adjudication.
Any self-respecting and honorable judges strive daily to maintain their objectivity, if not continuously improve it. Objective interpretation of the law - in this case the Constitution of the United States - is the badge of honor distinguishing a judge worthy of his or her gavel. Such a skill is not acquired overnight. Considering that, how could we possibly expect to see such a difficult to acquire trait exhibited by a person who has no prior experience as a judge? We’d be foolish to demand such and even more foolish to expect it. We could no sooner expect a person who has never before played a round of golf to one day suddenly make the cut for the PGA Tour! That’s just not how things work in the real world.
So with that said, when we examine Elena Kagan’s worthiness for a life-long appointment to the Supreme Court, it is not her personal beliefs that should give us pause, but her inability (as a normal human being lacking decades of mental training and practice) to effectively separate her personal beliefs from her legal rulings and interpretations. Separating one’s feelings from one’s interpretation of a law is a most unnatural act. Only through many years of practice can such a skill truly be refined to any reliable degree.
From what is known of the Solicitor General, one can deduce that her political opinions running roughly parallel to that of President Obama. Her views lean to the left, and also like Obama, she is quite proud of her beliefs. Many on the conservative side of the spectrum view excessively liberal judges (liberal social activist judges, more specifically) with an anxiously watchful eye; continuously searching for signs of policy creation rather than policy interpretation. They view such activism as a corruption of our system of checks and balances, and a grave threat to the liberty and freedom they hold so dearly. A fair amount of this concern is unfounded - there have been liberal judges as long as there have been liberals willing to elect or appoint them to their respective judgeships, and our system of government has largely survived intact. Be that as it may, danger does exist in this appointment and others, but it lies elsewhere. The real danger is borne out through the fact that Ms. Kagan has never before been a judge in any court. She has precisely zero experience and zero mental training in the difficult task of separating her personal beliefs and life-long convictions from objective adjudication.
Any self-respecting and honorable judges strive daily to maintain their objectivity, if not continuously improve it. Objective interpretation of the law - in this case the Constitution of the United States - is the badge of honor distinguishing a judge worthy of his or her gavel. Such a skill is not acquired overnight. Considering that, how could we possibly expect to see such a difficult to acquire trait exhibited by a person who has no prior experience as a judge? We’d be foolish to demand such and even more foolish to expect it. We could no sooner expect a person who has never before played a round of golf to one day suddenly make the cut for the PGA Tour! That’s just not how things work in the real world.
So with that said, when we examine Elena Kagan’s worthiness for a life-long appointment to the Supreme Court, it is not her personal beliefs that should give us pause, but her inability (as a normal human being lacking decades of mental training and practice) to effectively separate her personal beliefs from her legal rulings and interpretations. Separating one’s feelings from one’s interpretation of a law is a most unnatural act. Only through many years of practice can such a skill truly be refined to any reliable degree.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Academic or Common Sense?
I have come to the firm conclusion that having an academic “intellectual” as Commander in Chief is HIGHLY over-rated. I would instead prefer to have a GED education level possessing Commander in Chief with a reasonable amount of common sense over one considered an “intellectual elite”. Academics by nature exist in the realm of the abstract, relying almost exclusively on theory and supposition; whereas those of common sense exist in reality, relying almost exclusively on personal experience. This is not to say academics have no place within the nerve center of government. They are terrific advisors, but totally ineffective leaders.
Try to think of it this way : Imagine you are trapped in a building that has caught on fire. Who would you want to lead the effort to rescue you? Would you want a person with a Ph. D. in Chemistry, specializing in thermodynamics, who is thoroughly versed in all science and theory pertaining to the properties and behavior of combustion and heat energy, OR would you prefer being rescued by a fire chief who has many years of personal experience fighting fires? I have a feeling that I know your answer. As such, it has been my experience in life that academic knowledge almost ALWAYS pales in comparison to wisdom acquired by genuine experience.
I can think of no better example of a healthy amount of common sense making for an excellent leader than President Harry S. Truman. Harry Truman won World War II, helped for the United Nations, oversaw the reconstruction of Europe following the war, prevented an economic crisis during the transformation from a wartime economy to a peacetime one, held the line in Korea, and Presided over numerous other impressive accomplishments. President Truman did all of this without having spent a single day enrolled in college!
One does not need academic intelligence to be a great leader; nor does having considerable academic intelligence ensure that one will be a good leader, but if one lacks experience and common sense, it is all but certain that that person will prove to be an exceptionally poor leader.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)