Biden fires volley at Dem opponents.
This is perfectly priceless. I’ve read it several times. Incredible. This could very well represent what’s to come (and if Hillary sticks with her prior campaign tactics, it certainly does) which means that the ’08 campaign is going to be the ugliest on record. This is only the beginning. According to Biden, Hillary is not electable, Edwards doesn’t know what he’s talking about, and Obama doesn’t have a plan or a tactic. But the absolute greatest comment was this about Obama:
"the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.... I mean, that’s a storybook, man"
I hate to bask in a comment like this, but it’s perfect. Biden, along with all the other Dems, seem to pride themselves on being the party for minorities and for some unexplained reason minorities (especially blacks) buy it. Then, every now and then you get a comment like this. Obviously to Biden this isn’t a big deal, and I doubt the black caucus or Al Sharpton will raise any objections either. Certainly if Bill Frist or Mitt Romney had said this then it would be pasted on the front page of every major US newspaper – after all, it’s the Republicans who are racist, right?
Do I think Biden is a racist? I don’t know him, but I doubt it. My guess is that it was meant as an innocent evaluation of Obama and all the prior black candidates. At worst, it was a dumb thing to say, or it could have simply been a brilliant campaign move - he does have everyone talking about him. My point is that a double standard exists in the media and the public eye. This will be brushed aside by them. No big deal, the guy’s a Democrat, he didn’t mean it. That would hardly be the case if a Republican had said this.
So I can’t wait to see what happens. Will Al Sharpton boycott Biden? Will Jesse Jackson hold a march against his office? Will the NAACP respond? (Note: since this was posted Jesse Jackson has already responded that he wasn't offended and that Biden meant nothing by it).
What needs to happen is for a lesser known GOP candidate like Hagel or Brownback (someone who doesn’t have a chance) to step up and say the EXACT same thing. It would be a brilliant test of the mainstream media. Of course, they’d see right through it, but I don’t think that would stop them from showing their double standard. It would really be entertaining.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Early thoughts on decision '08
It’s almost February which means that in one year the first votes for the next US President will be cast. Indeed, the campaign season is gearing up. So I figured it would be fitting for this site to do an early assessment of the leading candidates and throw in my proverbial 2 cents worth. Some have already announced their intention to run, some haven’t and very well may not, but they still deserve mentioning.
Hillary Clinton – Right now, she is the leading Dem candidate. Yes, I know Obama will challenge, but Hillary is a ruthless campaigner. Bill came out of nowhere in ’92. He wasn’t given even the slightest chance to win, yet he did…twice. That was no accident. Her tactics are effective, although questionable from a moral standpoint. She slings mud from behind closed doors while putting on an "above the dirty tricks" persona in public. In short, she’s good at what she does. See my previous post for another example. She can dodge a pertinent question and still leave the audience feeling "impressed" with her as a candidate. I’ve said many times before, and I’ll say it again…she will be the next President. She is the Tom Brady of politics. She finds a way to win. As for her position on the issues…who knows? I can’t comment on where she stands because she’s not very up front about it. I do know that she is adamant about global government funded health care which would bankrupt the federal gov’t without substantial Carter-like tax hikes.
Barak Obama – A decent man. Somewhere between moderate and far left, unlike Hillary who bounces all over the political spectrum. I don’t agree with much of what he says, but he is clearly fresh to politics, which to me is a plus. I intend to read his book. I want to know more. I don’t see myself voting for him because I think he has the whole war on terror thing wrong and he puts WAY too much trust in the government from healthcare to corporate oversight. The Hollywood-Soros-elite Left media love him, which is a red flag to me. But, I’d rather see him in than Hillary. He seems to be genuine in his desire to serve and seems to want to do the right thing for the people, not himself. I question him using his office as a means to promote his book (remember Gingrich getting slammed for this?) but that may be simple inexperience. But make no mistake, he is in for a nasty campaign. There are already reports of his "Muslim" heritage circulating…those were not by accident, they have Hillary’s fingerprints all over them. In the end, I don’t see America going for him. The campaign will portray him as a man with a Muslim family background who may tend to sympathize too much. He will be raked through the mud by Clinton’s campaign. However, he will be a hot topic for running mates and wouldn’t be surprise if Clinton adds him to her ticket. He’d have an instant "in" for 2016.
John Edwards – Probably the wealthiest of all the candidates, and ultra-Left. But with all that money (which he made with medical malpractice lawsuits) one has to wonder why the Left voters trust him? I thought they hated people with money? This guy is far left on just about everything and, to be honest, is someone I would never turn my back on. There’s just something about him that tells me he may lift my wallet if I’m not looking. He doesn’t have a chance. If he even looks to challenge Hillary, she’ll drub him. If he stays down in the polls, she’ll leave him alone – no sense in attacking someone who isn’t a threat. My bet is he drops out after the first three weeks.
Those are the main Dem candidates. There will be the nutty Kucinich and I’m sure Sharpton will run again – that guy just loves the media attention too much not to run. Bill Richardson may challenge, and as a fairly moderate "bluedog" he may not be a bad choice, but Hillary will be too much for them. She wins the nomination hands down. And now, the GOP.
Mitt Romney – He has a lot of good ideas and seems to stand strong on his principles. He won the Governorship in Mass., which to me shows that he can appeal to moderate Dems as well. I think he would be a good leader, and would keep up the fight against the Islamo-fascists. He would also likely do something sound about the Mexican border. The problem is his religious background. He is Mormon. Not a problem for me, anyone who acknowledges Christ as their savior is a Christian brother in my book, but many will not see it that way, especially in the Bible belt GOP stronghold. Because of this alone, I don’t see him getting the nomination. That would be a shame, but I truly feel that would be the reality. Too bad, I think he’d do a good job.
John McCain – Like Obama, I feel he is genuine. This guy is in politics to serve his constituents, not himself. He gave one of the best political speeches I’ve ever heard at the GOP convention in 2000. He would be fairly tough on defense, but his objections to Gitmo bother me. He has the knack for building cross-party coalitions, which would help in the White House. But he is not "right" enough to win the nomination. In short, conservatives don’t trust him. They see him as someone who would give in to the Dems on too many issues, and that bothers the base. He would probably give Hillary a great challenge in a straight up election, but I don’t think he could win the GOP nomination. He just doesn’t have the support of the base.
Rudy Guiliani – Like McCain, he is a strong leader, but simply not conservative enough. He is pro gun control and pro gay marriage, and that won’t fly with the base. He also could challenge Hillary as "America’s mayor" but his problem will be getting the nomination to do so. I don’t see it happening.
Condi Rice – A classy, intelligent, strong person. She has had a few slip-ups as Sec of State, but overall I think she’s done a good job. She will fight the war on terror and will not likely deviate from his moral foundation. She strikes me as someone who can argue her point in a diplomatic manner, but isn’t afraid to roll up her sleeves and kick someone’s ass when the time came. That’s probably why Bush likes her. She would brutalize Hillary in a head-to-head debate. Some may say that she couldn’t win the southern states, but I disagree. I’m from the South, and I guarantee the people there would more likely vote for her than McCain or Guiliani. But it likely won’t matter because I don’t think she’ll run. She doesn’t seem to have the stomach for the nastiness and bitterness of politics, much like Colin Powell.
Then there are the moderates like Hagel and Brownback, who don’t stand a chance at getting the nomination. They’d do better switching parties and running as Democrats. But then, there is the wild card, and my personal favorite:
Newt Gingrich – He has said he’s not running, but Newt sure is making a lot of public appearances lately. I’ve seen more of him in the past year than in the years since he left Congress. I think he will run, and if he does the GOP nomination is his to lose. I can’t think of anyone who would be more suited at rallying the conservative base as they were rallied in ’04. People will flock to him, and he would probably even get a few moderate Dems as well. Not only that, but he has sound policy both domestic and foreign. He led the balanced budget measure in the ‘90s that Clinton took credit for, he led the welfare reform that was so badly needed (and has worked brilliantly for America’s poor) and he has it right when it comes to immigration, foreign oil and the war on terror (the 3 most important issues we face today). Newt would be the only candidate who could secure the GOP nomination AND challenge Hillary head-to-head for the White House. That is, if he runs. I’m sure Hillary would welcome the challenge, but the other GOP candidates would certainly be deflated. It will be interesting to see what happens.
Hillary Clinton – Right now, she is the leading Dem candidate. Yes, I know Obama will challenge, but Hillary is a ruthless campaigner. Bill came out of nowhere in ’92. He wasn’t given even the slightest chance to win, yet he did…twice. That was no accident. Her tactics are effective, although questionable from a moral standpoint. She slings mud from behind closed doors while putting on an "above the dirty tricks" persona in public. In short, she’s good at what she does. See my previous post for another example. She can dodge a pertinent question and still leave the audience feeling "impressed" with her as a candidate. I’ve said many times before, and I’ll say it again…she will be the next President. She is the Tom Brady of politics. She finds a way to win. As for her position on the issues…who knows? I can’t comment on where she stands because she’s not very up front about it. I do know that she is adamant about global government funded health care which would bankrupt the federal gov’t without substantial Carter-like tax hikes.
Barak Obama – A decent man. Somewhere between moderate and far left, unlike Hillary who bounces all over the political spectrum. I don’t agree with much of what he says, but he is clearly fresh to politics, which to me is a plus. I intend to read his book. I want to know more. I don’t see myself voting for him because I think he has the whole war on terror thing wrong and he puts WAY too much trust in the government from healthcare to corporate oversight. The Hollywood-Soros-elite Left media love him, which is a red flag to me. But, I’d rather see him in than Hillary. He seems to be genuine in his desire to serve and seems to want to do the right thing for the people, not himself. I question him using his office as a means to promote his book (remember Gingrich getting slammed for this?) but that may be simple inexperience. But make no mistake, he is in for a nasty campaign. There are already reports of his "Muslim" heritage circulating…those were not by accident, they have Hillary’s fingerprints all over them. In the end, I don’t see America going for him. The campaign will portray him as a man with a Muslim family background who may tend to sympathize too much. He will be raked through the mud by Clinton’s campaign. However, he will be a hot topic for running mates and wouldn’t be surprise if Clinton adds him to her ticket. He’d have an instant "in" for 2016.
John Edwards – Probably the wealthiest of all the candidates, and ultra-Left. But with all that money (which he made with medical malpractice lawsuits) one has to wonder why the Left voters trust him? I thought they hated people with money? This guy is far left on just about everything and, to be honest, is someone I would never turn my back on. There’s just something about him that tells me he may lift my wallet if I’m not looking. He doesn’t have a chance. If he even looks to challenge Hillary, she’ll drub him. If he stays down in the polls, she’ll leave him alone – no sense in attacking someone who isn’t a threat. My bet is he drops out after the first three weeks.
Those are the main Dem candidates. There will be the nutty Kucinich and I’m sure Sharpton will run again – that guy just loves the media attention too much not to run. Bill Richardson may challenge, and as a fairly moderate "bluedog" he may not be a bad choice, but Hillary will be too much for them. She wins the nomination hands down. And now, the GOP.
Mitt Romney – He has a lot of good ideas and seems to stand strong on his principles. He won the Governorship in Mass., which to me shows that he can appeal to moderate Dems as well. I think he would be a good leader, and would keep up the fight against the Islamo-fascists. He would also likely do something sound about the Mexican border. The problem is his religious background. He is Mormon. Not a problem for me, anyone who acknowledges Christ as their savior is a Christian brother in my book, but many will not see it that way, especially in the Bible belt GOP stronghold. Because of this alone, I don’t see him getting the nomination. That would be a shame, but I truly feel that would be the reality. Too bad, I think he’d do a good job.
John McCain – Like Obama, I feel he is genuine. This guy is in politics to serve his constituents, not himself. He gave one of the best political speeches I’ve ever heard at the GOP convention in 2000. He would be fairly tough on defense, but his objections to Gitmo bother me. He has the knack for building cross-party coalitions, which would help in the White House. But he is not "right" enough to win the nomination. In short, conservatives don’t trust him. They see him as someone who would give in to the Dems on too many issues, and that bothers the base. He would probably give Hillary a great challenge in a straight up election, but I don’t think he could win the GOP nomination. He just doesn’t have the support of the base.
Rudy Guiliani – Like McCain, he is a strong leader, but simply not conservative enough. He is pro gun control and pro gay marriage, and that won’t fly with the base. He also could challenge Hillary as "America’s mayor" but his problem will be getting the nomination to do so. I don’t see it happening.
Condi Rice – A classy, intelligent, strong person. She has had a few slip-ups as Sec of State, but overall I think she’s done a good job. She will fight the war on terror and will not likely deviate from his moral foundation. She strikes me as someone who can argue her point in a diplomatic manner, but isn’t afraid to roll up her sleeves and kick someone’s ass when the time came. That’s probably why Bush likes her. She would brutalize Hillary in a head-to-head debate. Some may say that she couldn’t win the southern states, but I disagree. I’m from the South, and I guarantee the people there would more likely vote for her than McCain or Guiliani. But it likely won’t matter because I don’t think she’ll run. She doesn’t seem to have the stomach for the nastiness and bitterness of politics, much like Colin Powell.
Then there are the moderates like Hagel and Brownback, who don’t stand a chance at getting the nomination. They’d do better switching parties and running as Democrats. But then, there is the wild card, and my personal favorite:
Newt Gingrich – He has said he’s not running, but Newt sure is making a lot of public appearances lately. I’ve seen more of him in the past year than in the years since he left Congress. I think he will run, and if he does the GOP nomination is his to lose. I can’t think of anyone who would be more suited at rallying the conservative base as they were rallied in ’04. People will flock to him, and he would probably even get a few moderate Dems as well. Not only that, but he has sound policy both domestic and foreign. He led the balanced budget measure in the ‘90s that Clinton took credit for, he led the welfare reform that was so badly needed (and has worked brilliantly for America’s poor) and he has it right when it comes to immigration, foreign oil and the war on terror (the 3 most important issues we face today). Newt would be the only candidate who could secure the GOP nomination AND challenge Hillary head-to-head for the White House. That is, if he runs. I’m sure Hillary would welcome the challenge, but the other GOP candidates would certainly be deflated. It will be interesting to see what happens.
Monday, January 29, 2007
Slick Hilly
Hillary’s joke slams husband
Hillary has been in Iowa, starting her ’08 presidential campaign. During a recent question – answer session, a gentleman asked her if she could handle evil men like Osama Bin Laden were she to become president. Her response was to repeat the question with a raised-eyebrow look. This from the linked article: Clinton grabbed the mike and told the audience that the questioner wanted to know "what in my background equips me to deal with evil and bad men." She then smiled, raised her eyebrows and nodded knowingly at the questioner.
Of course, this drew prolonged laughter as slowly the audience understood what she was referring to. Later, Clinton denied that she was referring to her husband, but I think the people at the session saw it otherwise. The result, Hillary looks as though she actually does have a sense of humor (not forgetting her Ghandi/gas station joke a few years back) and is trying to be more likable. She is a master politician.
What’s interesting about this is that after the laughter died down, she still hadn’t answered the question. It was a clever, witty dodge of a very pertinent question, and we still don’t know how she would deal with evil men.
Suppose she was referring to her husband. How did she deal with that? He betrayed her. He betrayed their marriage, and embarrassed her before the entire world. And what did she do? She stuck with him. Is that how she plans to deal with evil men around the world?
Suppose we take her word, and she wasn’t referring to Bill. She still didn’t answer the question. And we can’t take her voting record for any indication of future performance. After all, she voted for the war, said that Saddam was a dangerous threat to America, that he DID have WMDs; then voted to continue funding the war, the whole time voicing support for Bush until recently when she now says that HE created the problem in Iraq. So, her position has flip-flopped, and she doesn’t acknowledge the role that US partisan politics has had in creating the mess in Iraq. Is that how she would deal with evil men?
This is the main problem with Clinton’s campaign. No one seems to actually know where she stands on things. No one knows what she’d do if 9/11 was repeated on her watch. She is more elusive than her husband on some of the major issues we face. That’s concerning.
So we’ll have to see if things change. At what point will Hillary define her positions on things like foreign policy, if ever?
Hillary has been in Iowa, starting her ’08 presidential campaign. During a recent question – answer session, a gentleman asked her if she could handle evil men like Osama Bin Laden were she to become president. Her response was to repeat the question with a raised-eyebrow look. This from the linked article: Clinton grabbed the mike and told the audience that the questioner wanted to know "what in my background equips me to deal with evil and bad men." She then smiled, raised her eyebrows and nodded knowingly at the questioner.
Of course, this drew prolonged laughter as slowly the audience understood what she was referring to. Later, Clinton denied that she was referring to her husband, but I think the people at the session saw it otherwise. The result, Hillary looks as though she actually does have a sense of humor (not forgetting her Ghandi/gas station joke a few years back) and is trying to be more likable. She is a master politician.
What’s interesting about this is that after the laughter died down, she still hadn’t answered the question. It was a clever, witty dodge of a very pertinent question, and we still don’t know how she would deal with evil men.
Suppose she was referring to her husband. How did she deal with that? He betrayed her. He betrayed their marriage, and embarrassed her before the entire world. And what did she do? She stuck with him. Is that how she plans to deal with evil men around the world?
Suppose we take her word, and she wasn’t referring to Bill. She still didn’t answer the question. And we can’t take her voting record for any indication of future performance. After all, she voted for the war, said that Saddam was a dangerous threat to America, that he DID have WMDs; then voted to continue funding the war, the whole time voicing support for Bush until recently when she now says that HE created the problem in Iraq. So, her position has flip-flopped, and she doesn’t acknowledge the role that US partisan politics has had in creating the mess in Iraq. Is that how she would deal with evil men?
This is the main problem with Clinton’s campaign. No one seems to actually know where she stands on things. No one knows what she’d do if 9/11 was repeated on her watch. She is more elusive than her husband on some of the major issues we face. That’s concerning.
So we’ll have to see if things change. At what point will Hillary define her positions on things like foreign policy, if ever?
Friday, January 26, 2007
Brokeback pedophile
Yesterday I came across a TV discussion about a controversial movie and it made quite an impression on me. The movie "Hounddog" is causing a bit of a stir in the commentary world. It stars Dakota Fanning, a very talented and very young actress. During this movie, her character is raped. She took part in the scene, there was no "stunt" double. She wore a body suit. Apparently, there was no nudity. People who have viewed it say the scene is rather graphic and done in poor taste. The problem with it is that Ms Fanning is 12 years old. She is a minor in every sense of the word. Now, there is wrongness on multiple levels there, and I’ll deal with that later, but what bothered me about the program I was watching was the debate. Apparently, the argument centers around whether or not movie distributors should pick up the film and show it in their respective theaters, or basically whether or not people should be allowed to see the film.
Think about that for a moment. The discussion here is whether or not we have a right to see this trash. If that doesn’t exemplify how malfunctioned America’s moral compass has become, then I don’t know what does. Here is a movie in which a 12 year old actress engages in a sex scene, and a rather graphic one at that. Umm…isn’t that child pornography? Isn’t that illegal? Yet, we want to discuss whether or not movie theaters have the right to show the film to consumers? At what point did we venture off the path of normalcy into this surreal world of misguided priorities?
Personally, I don’t give a damn if viewers think they have a right to see this trash. What I want to know is at what point do we investigate Fanning’s parents for child endangerment? At what point do we bring charges against the director, producer and studio for filming this? At what point do we immediately get Fanning involved in counseling to help her deal with the problems that could come from this later in life? And yet, we want to debate on whether theaters should be showing the film?
Regardless of what anyone thinks, Fanning is a minor. And even though she is intelligent and mature for her age, she still lacks the emotional maturity to decide whether or not she can handle a graphic sex scene on film. No, that’s the parents’ responsibility, and it’s the director’s job to ensure that the young actress is not exploited in any way. It seems they both failed here, even if Fanning said she was comfortable with it. I will be extremely disappointed if this were allowed to slide without some sort of investigation. I think it’s fair to be concerned about this girl’s safety. At the very least, child protective services should take a look into matters. We have animal rights people overseeing movies to ensure that dogs don’t get harmed in movies, but we allow a 12 year old girl to engage in a sex scene? Unbelievable!
I’d be willing to bet my traditionalist mindset that Fanning will be immersed in chemical dependence before she’s 16. The young mind just can’t handle certain adult things, and many of those things come with celebrity status, not to mention the graphic sex scene she agreed to film. But what does Hollywood care? Seems to me this is their next great cause, and Fanning is just a tool in promoting that cause. They succeeded in getting homosexuality accepted in mainstream America, so why not do the same for child molestation? Seems to me, this is nothing more than the pedophile version of "Brokeback Mountain".
I think we as a society need to start making some choices here. Is sex with a child acceptable behavior? If not, then we need to put a stop to this, not just in movies but all over the country. We need to punish it, harshly, before the progressive far Left succeeds in adding this to their moral relativist ideas. A 12 year old girl has no business – NONE – in engaging in ANY kind of sexual behavior, whether it’s part of a movie, or in a body suit, or for a good cause, or whatever other lame rationalization they can pin on it. This is simply unacceptable. We wouldn’t tolerate it in our neighbor’s bedroom, so why is it OK on the motion picture screen? Her parents should be investigated, and those involved in filming should as well. Hopefully, Fanning won’t suffer any long-term damage from this, but can anyone honestly say that she won’t? If not, then you should join me in the call for action here.
Think about that for a moment. The discussion here is whether or not we have a right to see this trash. If that doesn’t exemplify how malfunctioned America’s moral compass has become, then I don’t know what does. Here is a movie in which a 12 year old actress engages in a sex scene, and a rather graphic one at that. Umm…isn’t that child pornography? Isn’t that illegal? Yet, we want to discuss whether or not movie theaters have the right to show the film to consumers? At what point did we venture off the path of normalcy into this surreal world of misguided priorities?
Personally, I don’t give a damn if viewers think they have a right to see this trash. What I want to know is at what point do we investigate Fanning’s parents for child endangerment? At what point do we bring charges against the director, producer and studio for filming this? At what point do we immediately get Fanning involved in counseling to help her deal with the problems that could come from this later in life? And yet, we want to debate on whether theaters should be showing the film?
Regardless of what anyone thinks, Fanning is a minor. And even though she is intelligent and mature for her age, she still lacks the emotional maturity to decide whether or not she can handle a graphic sex scene on film. No, that’s the parents’ responsibility, and it’s the director’s job to ensure that the young actress is not exploited in any way. It seems they both failed here, even if Fanning said she was comfortable with it. I will be extremely disappointed if this were allowed to slide without some sort of investigation. I think it’s fair to be concerned about this girl’s safety. At the very least, child protective services should take a look into matters. We have animal rights people overseeing movies to ensure that dogs don’t get harmed in movies, but we allow a 12 year old girl to engage in a sex scene? Unbelievable!
I’d be willing to bet my traditionalist mindset that Fanning will be immersed in chemical dependence before she’s 16. The young mind just can’t handle certain adult things, and many of those things come with celebrity status, not to mention the graphic sex scene she agreed to film. But what does Hollywood care? Seems to me this is their next great cause, and Fanning is just a tool in promoting that cause. They succeeded in getting homosexuality accepted in mainstream America, so why not do the same for child molestation? Seems to me, this is nothing more than the pedophile version of "Brokeback Mountain".
I think we as a society need to start making some choices here. Is sex with a child acceptable behavior? If not, then we need to put a stop to this, not just in movies but all over the country. We need to punish it, harshly, before the progressive far Left succeeds in adding this to their moral relativist ideas. A 12 year old girl has no business – NONE – in engaging in ANY kind of sexual behavior, whether it’s part of a movie, or in a body suit, or for a good cause, or whatever other lame rationalization they can pin on it. This is simply unacceptable. We wouldn’t tolerate it in our neighbor’s bedroom, so why is it OK on the motion picture screen? Her parents should be investigated, and those involved in filming should as well. Hopefully, Fanning won’t suffer any long-term damage from this, but can anyone honestly say that she won’t? If not, then you should join me in the call for action here.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Good point, Newt
The other day on Fox, Newt Gingrich was discussing the war in Iraq and Bush's latest plan to temporarily increase troops in Baghdad. He also noticed the lack of applause from the Dems when Bush mentioned pushing for victory in Iraq, but that's beside the point.
He, like all Americans, are frustrated with the war. Personally, I'm extremely disappointed in the failure and unwillingness of the Iraqi people to fight for their independence. The Pentagon obviously dropped the ball when it came to having a reconstruction strategy in place for when Hussein's gov't fell. And, no one seemed to expect the insurgents would be so effective at dividing the country along religious lines and thrusting it into a near-civil war. Not only that, but "victory" has not been clearly defined. What constitutes victory? At what point can we declare the war won? The definition of victory has changed with time, and yes it is frustrating.
But, Gingrich brought a good point. He said that while he may not be able to define victory, he can at least define defeat. That is when we leave prematurely, allowing the entire nation to crumble into a Cambodian-like chaos, with genocide and random acts of violence running rampant. Al Qaeda sets up a safe haven in Anbar, allowing them to operate without interference, but this time with the help of Iraqi money and Syrian cover. Iran moves into southern Iraq, controlling the key pipelines. The entire area becomes the center for an all-out war that could engulf the entire region, Israel included. THAT is defeat, and that's what happens if we don't succed in stabilizing that area. In short, that's what happens when we leave.
He then went on to say that those who are calling for our withdrawal, those defeatists on the Left (and to some extent the Right as well), have an obligation to describe how they would deal with the consequences of the defeat. How would the Left handle all the scenarios above? the scenarios of Iraq without US stabilization? It is a VERY fair question that no one seems to have an answer for. And I think he's right, those who want us to cut and run DO have an obligation to explain their plan for dealing with the defeat.
Newt has some good points here, and I felt the need to share them.
He, like all Americans, are frustrated with the war. Personally, I'm extremely disappointed in the failure and unwillingness of the Iraqi people to fight for their independence. The Pentagon obviously dropped the ball when it came to having a reconstruction strategy in place for when Hussein's gov't fell. And, no one seemed to expect the insurgents would be so effective at dividing the country along religious lines and thrusting it into a near-civil war. Not only that, but "victory" has not been clearly defined. What constitutes victory? At what point can we declare the war won? The definition of victory has changed with time, and yes it is frustrating.
But, Gingrich brought a good point. He said that while he may not be able to define victory, he can at least define defeat. That is when we leave prematurely, allowing the entire nation to crumble into a Cambodian-like chaos, with genocide and random acts of violence running rampant. Al Qaeda sets up a safe haven in Anbar, allowing them to operate without interference, but this time with the help of Iraqi money and Syrian cover. Iran moves into southern Iraq, controlling the key pipelines. The entire area becomes the center for an all-out war that could engulf the entire region, Israel included. THAT is defeat, and that's what happens if we don't succed in stabilizing that area. In short, that's what happens when we leave.
He then went on to say that those who are calling for our withdrawal, those defeatists on the Left (and to some extent the Right as well), have an obligation to describe how they would deal with the consequences of the defeat. How would the Left handle all the scenarios above? the scenarios of Iraq without US stabilization? It is a VERY fair question that no one seems to have an answer for. And I think he's right, those who want us to cut and run DO have an obligation to explain their plan for dealing with the defeat.
Newt has some good points here, and I felt the need to share them.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Five surgeons
Just got this in email, I'm sure many of you have seen it but I just HAD to include it on this blog.
Five surgeons from big cities are discussing who makes the best patients to operate on.
The first surgeon, from New York, says, "I like to see accountants on my operating table, because when you open them up, everything inside is numbered."
The second, from Chicago, responds, "Yeah, but you should try electricians! Everything inside them is color coded."
The third surgeon, from Dallas says, "No, I really think librarians are the best, everything inside them is in alphabetical order."
The fourth surgeon, from Los Angeles chimes in: "You know, I like construction workers...those guys always understand when you have a few parts left over."
But the fifth surgeon, from Ottawa shut them all up when he observed: "You're all wrong. Politicians are the easiest to operate on. There's no guts, no heart, no balls, no brains and no spine, and the head and the ass are interchangeable."
Five surgeons from big cities are discussing who makes the best patients to operate on.
The first surgeon, from New York, says, "I like to see accountants on my operating table, because when you open them up, everything inside is numbered."
The second, from Chicago, responds, "Yeah, but you should try electricians! Everything inside them is color coded."
The third surgeon, from Dallas says, "No, I really think librarians are the best, everything inside them is in alphabetical order."
The fourth surgeon, from Los Angeles chimes in: "You know, I like construction workers...those guys always understand when you have a few parts left over."
But the fifth surgeon, from Ottawa shut them all up when he observed: "You're all wrong. Politicians are the easiest to operate on. There's no guts, no heart, no balls, no brains and no spine, and the head and the ass are interchangeable."
State of the Union
President Bush knows how to deliver great speeches, and tonight was no different. Here are the highlights for me:
No global warming. This was a relief. He did not endorse the theory of human-induced climate change. He stuck to his guns. However, he did call for energy independence, research into alternative fuels, increasing the federal petroleum reserve, tapping our own rich oil deposits, and pursuing cleaner fuels (including Nuclear - thank you!) with a goal of decreasing our gasoline use by 20% in ten years. Excellent. Tough, but doable. And this will reduce our Mid East imports by 3/4ths. I'm all for it.
Healthcare. See prior post. BAD IDEA.
Immigration. I have no problem with guest worker programs, but I think priority should be securing the border FIRST, then we can work out a way for guest workers and what to do with our current illegal immigrants. Why would anyone oppose this?
Balanced budget. The key here was doing it WITHOUT raising taxes. I noticed that didn't get much applause from the Dems. Another thing that impressed me is that Bush's economy achieved it's goal of cutting the deficit by 50% 3 years ahead of schedule. It tells me that federal revenues are climbing. So you see, tax cuts DO lead to more federal dollars, and eventually the deficit disappears.
Iraq. This was a homerun. There is nothing he talks more passionately about than the war on terror, of which Iraq is the focal point. He refocused my thoughts on this, he reminded me that we are engaged in a long, global war, that we've had successes. 2005 was a good year, with many victories, but in 2006 the enemy fought back. They mounted a surprising and effective offensive. That's what enemies do in war. Does that mean we give up? No, because he also effectively outlined the consequences of defeat, and made it clear that defeat can't be allowed.
What struck me about this was one line: "Ladies and gentlemen: On this day, at this hour, it is still within our power to shape the outcome of this battle," the president said. "Let us find our resolve and turn events toward victory." Yes. This would be good. Turn events toward victory. The GOP stood to applaud, the Dems remained seated.
Let me type that again. The President said, "Let us find our resolve and turn events toward victory." And the Democrats did NOT applaud. Do they NOT want victory? It was one of the most shameful displays in Congressional history. But, of course, when he says "support the troops" I thought Nancy Pelosi was going to fall over the podium trying to be the first on her feet to applaud. The hypocrisy of it all is nauseating.
But, it's not just the Left. Here is a response from a Republican: Republican Sen. Norm Coleman of Minnesota, also took issue with Bush. "I can't tell you what the path to success is, but it's not what the president has put on the table," he said. So he has no ideas of his own, he just knows that Bush is wrong. Does this not define ignorance?
These were the key points. In addition, I was entertained by Dennis Kucinich as he pushed his way through the crowd to be at the front of the line. Does he give anyone else the creeps?
The shmoozing between Bush and Pelosi was too much. We all know you don't like each other, so stop acting like you do. But, at least they can be civil. I have to give them that much.
All in all, it was good. I feel, and have always felt, that Bush is a good person. He makes mistakes, but he's focused. He has America's best interest at heart and he's determined to do the right thing, for the most part, despite whatever criticism comes his way. I respect that, and I'll remember him in my prayers.
No global warming. This was a relief. He did not endorse the theory of human-induced climate change. He stuck to his guns. However, he did call for energy independence, research into alternative fuels, increasing the federal petroleum reserve, tapping our own rich oil deposits, and pursuing cleaner fuels (including Nuclear - thank you!) with a goal of decreasing our gasoline use by 20% in ten years. Excellent. Tough, but doable. And this will reduce our Mid East imports by 3/4ths. I'm all for it.
Healthcare. See prior post. BAD IDEA.
Immigration. I have no problem with guest worker programs, but I think priority should be securing the border FIRST, then we can work out a way for guest workers and what to do with our current illegal immigrants. Why would anyone oppose this?
Balanced budget. The key here was doing it WITHOUT raising taxes. I noticed that didn't get much applause from the Dems. Another thing that impressed me is that Bush's economy achieved it's goal of cutting the deficit by 50% 3 years ahead of schedule. It tells me that federal revenues are climbing. So you see, tax cuts DO lead to more federal dollars, and eventually the deficit disappears.
Iraq. This was a homerun. There is nothing he talks more passionately about than the war on terror, of which Iraq is the focal point. He refocused my thoughts on this, he reminded me that we are engaged in a long, global war, that we've had successes. 2005 was a good year, with many victories, but in 2006 the enemy fought back. They mounted a surprising and effective offensive. That's what enemies do in war. Does that mean we give up? No, because he also effectively outlined the consequences of defeat, and made it clear that defeat can't be allowed.
What struck me about this was one line: "Ladies and gentlemen: On this day, at this hour, it is still within our power to shape the outcome of this battle," the president said. "Let us find our resolve and turn events toward victory." Yes. This would be good. Turn events toward victory. The GOP stood to applaud, the Dems remained seated.
Let me type that again. The President said, "Let us find our resolve and turn events toward victory." And the Democrats did NOT applaud. Do they NOT want victory? It was one of the most shameful displays in Congressional history. But, of course, when he says "support the troops" I thought Nancy Pelosi was going to fall over the podium trying to be the first on her feet to applaud. The hypocrisy of it all is nauseating.
But, it's not just the Left. Here is a response from a Republican: Republican Sen. Norm Coleman of Minnesota, also took issue with Bush. "I can't tell you what the path to success is, but it's not what the president has put on the table," he said. So he has no ideas of his own, he just knows that Bush is wrong. Does this not define ignorance?
These were the key points. In addition, I was entertained by Dennis Kucinich as he pushed his way through the crowd to be at the front of the line. Does he give anyone else the creeps?
The shmoozing between Bush and Pelosi was too much. We all know you don't like each other, so stop acting like you do. But, at least they can be civil. I have to give them that much.
All in all, it was good. I feel, and have always felt, that Bush is a good person. He makes mistakes, but he's focused. He has America's best interest at heart and he's determined to do the right thing, for the most part, despite whatever criticism comes his way. I respect that, and I'll remember him in my prayers.
A bad move
Bush health plan will raise taxes
President Bush will propose his new healthcare plan tonight. Under this plan, health insurance will be grouped as taxable income, specifically for any plan over 15K dollars in coverage. The added revenue will be used to give tax breaks for health care plans under this amount. So it will allow some to purchase new plans, and encourage others to opt for cheaper plans. There are currently 47 million people without health insurance. This plan will drop that number by 3 million. Not a very good improvement. But the plan will lead to a tax increase for some 30 million Americans, myself included, which makes it a very bad idea.
I have already outlined a solution to the healthcare crisis. It’s simple in concept, but difficult in the fact that it would require across-the-aisle concessions and hard work from BOTH parties. That will never happen. So, instead, we get plans like this. More taxes, few results, just so some politicians can say "we allowed 3 million Americans to get health insurance" at the next presidential campaign. Raising taxes should be off the table permanently. The government has plenty of money, it's up to them to figure out how best to spend it. The US taxpayer is NOT a bottomless pit and it's time we cut Washington's allowance.
Bush’s approval rating continues to fall, so maybe this an attempt to appeal to the Democratic base. But, those people will never approve of his Presidency, even if he walked across the Reflecting Pool and bounded over the Washington Monument. But plans like this do nothing but further alienate his own base, and the few conservatives who still support him will start to dwindle. Someone is giving him bad advice, or perhaps he just isn’t listening to good advice.
Don’t get me wrong. I like Bush. In fairness, he’s done a good job considering the circumstances. Again, I feel he has endured the MOST difficult presidency since Abraham Lincoln, who wasn’t exactly popular among the masses either. So, in light of things, I think he has been given a raw deal and extremely unfair treatment from the media. But alienating his base is a bad move on his part, so is raising taxes regardless of how he paints it. He did it with a Supreme Court nominee, he’s done it with illegal immigration, and now he seems to be doing it with health care. How long until his approval is in the single digits?
Hopefully, he’ll turn away from this plan. Read my blog, Mr. President. I have the answer for the healthcare problems right here.
President Bush will propose his new healthcare plan tonight. Under this plan, health insurance will be grouped as taxable income, specifically for any plan over 15K dollars in coverage. The added revenue will be used to give tax breaks for health care plans under this amount. So it will allow some to purchase new plans, and encourage others to opt for cheaper plans. There are currently 47 million people without health insurance. This plan will drop that number by 3 million. Not a very good improvement. But the plan will lead to a tax increase for some 30 million Americans, myself included, which makes it a very bad idea.
I have already outlined a solution to the healthcare crisis. It’s simple in concept, but difficult in the fact that it would require across-the-aisle concessions and hard work from BOTH parties. That will never happen. So, instead, we get plans like this. More taxes, few results, just so some politicians can say "we allowed 3 million Americans to get health insurance" at the next presidential campaign. Raising taxes should be off the table permanently. The government has plenty of money, it's up to them to figure out how best to spend it. The US taxpayer is NOT a bottomless pit and it's time we cut Washington's allowance.
Bush’s approval rating continues to fall, so maybe this an attempt to appeal to the Democratic base. But, those people will never approve of his Presidency, even if he walked across the Reflecting Pool and bounded over the Washington Monument. But plans like this do nothing but further alienate his own base, and the few conservatives who still support him will start to dwindle. Someone is giving him bad advice, or perhaps he just isn’t listening to good advice.
Don’t get me wrong. I like Bush. In fairness, he’s done a good job considering the circumstances. Again, I feel he has endured the MOST difficult presidency since Abraham Lincoln, who wasn’t exactly popular among the masses either. So, in light of things, I think he has been given a raw deal and extremely unfair treatment from the media. But alienating his base is a bad move on his part, so is raising taxes regardless of how he paints it. He did it with a Supreme Court nominee, he’s done it with illegal immigration, and now he seems to be doing it with health care. How long until his approval is in the single digits?
Hopefully, he’ll turn away from this plan. Read my blog, Mr. President. I have the answer for the healthcare problems right here.
Friday, January 19, 2007
American Bolsheviks
Here is a report by Cliff Kincaid of aim.org. What this contains is truly frightening, and immediately brings thoughts of the Bolshevik Revolution. Recently, in Memphis, a conference was held supporting fairness in broadcasting. In attendance were several progressive congressional leaders along with popular lefties like George Soros, Jesse Jackson, Jane Fonda, Danny Glover and Geena Davis. In addition, official exhibitors at the conferece included the Revolutionary Communist Party and the 9/11 Truth Movement. Yes, some prominent political leaders were at a conference that included Communists and people who claim the American government carried out 9/11 in order to start a Middle Eastern war. But that's not the frightening part. The purpose was to promote "fairness" in American broadcasting, starting with conferences like this one and eventually taking their cause to Washington. Supposedly, after the '08 election (assuming a Democrat wins the White House), they hope to have a vote on the issue.
So what's the issue? There is concern among the Left that American media has become too conservative. Yes, try to keep the laughter to a minimum. Specifically, they are targeting talk radio and certain TV news channels. What they want is equal time on ALL programs - TV or radio - that contain political content. And they want the government to enforce it.
Let that sink in for a moment. Think about it. The Progressive Left is pursuing an agenda that would have the federal government monitoring free speech to ensure equal time for all political points of view. If that doesn't cause a sinking feeling in your gut, then you know nothing of history. This is the seed of a socialist revolution if I've ever seen it.
Here is an example. Suppose I'm listening to the radio and I hear someone say something political, but there is no rebuttal offered. I can call the FCC or whatever government entity that is set up to enforce "broadcasting fairness" and file a complaint. They then investigate and demand equal time on that radio show. If it isn't given, then there would be consequences. This is how free speech dies. And remember, these are the very people who stage "protests" of Conservative speeches and take things to the extreme, shouting down the speakers and even resorting to violence to silence them. Don't believe me? Just watch the news for one week. You'll see an example of this occuring. And this isn't just a radical branch of the Left. This conference was attended by several congressional leaders, people who have already been elected.
Every day it becomes more evident to me that there exists in America a powerful group of people who seek a full-blown revolution. They are motivated and well-funded. They are enemies of the US Constitution. What they want is government control of everything, from finances to broadcasting. They want socialism across the board, and they want their opponents silenced. The only thing that separates them from the Bolsheviks is that they don't have the military ability to carry out a full-blown coup. No, they're using the courts, legislation and bully tactics to push their agenda and it's becoming quite a concern. All Americans, regardless of political affiliation need to acknowledge that this agenda will not be tolerated. We need to acknowledge that these people exist and will not succed in their attempts to transfrom our country into a Soviet state. If we fail, they will strengthen, and the terrorists overseas will be the least of our concerns.
So what's the issue? There is concern among the Left that American media has become too conservative. Yes, try to keep the laughter to a minimum. Specifically, they are targeting talk radio and certain TV news channels. What they want is equal time on ALL programs - TV or radio - that contain political content. And they want the government to enforce it.
Let that sink in for a moment. Think about it. The Progressive Left is pursuing an agenda that would have the federal government monitoring free speech to ensure equal time for all political points of view. If that doesn't cause a sinking feeling in your gut, then you know nothing of history. This is the seed of a socialist revolution if I've ever seen it.
Here is an example. Suppose I'm listening to the radio and I hear someone say something political, but there is no rebuttal offered. I can call the FCC or whatever government entity that is set up to enforce "broadcasting fairness" and file a complaint. They then investigate and demand equal time on that radio show. If it isn't given, then there would be consequences. This is how free speech dies. And remember, these are the very people who stage "protests" of Conservative speeches and take things to the extreme, shouting down the speakers and even resorting to violence to silence them. Don't believe me? Just watch the news for one week. You'll see an example of this occuring. And this isn't just a radical branch of the Left. This conference was attended by several congressional leaders, people who have already been elected.
Every day it becomes more evident to me that there exists in America a powerful group of people who seek a full-blown revolution. They are motivated and well-funded. They are enemies of the US Constitution. What they want is government control of everything, from finances to broadcasting. They want socialism across the board, and they want their opponents silenced. The only thing that separates them from the Bolsheviks is that they don't have the military ability to carry out a full-blown coup. No, they're using the courts, legislation and bully tactics to push their agenda and it's becoming quite a concern. All Americans, regardless of political affiliation need to acknowledge that this agenda will not be tolerated. We need to acknowledge that these people exist and will not succed in their attempts to transfrom our country into a Soviet state. If we fail, they will strengthen, and the terrorists overseas will be the least of our concerns.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Environment, economy...or politics?
I know that this issue is a topic in many of this blog’s posts, but I simply can’t help it. I’m fascinated by the global warming debate. To me, I think it epitomizes much of what’s wrong with American politics. And now President Bush will address the issue in his annual State of the Union speech next week. Personally, I’m a little disappointed. The President has always shared my opinion on global warming – basically, we need more research – but now it appears that he has yet again folded to political pressure. Remember, this is a man who had both houses of Congress and still failed to achieve much of anything, mainly because he allowed his policy to be altered by the whiny minority.
But it’s the hypocrisy of this issue that really gets me. Let’s take a look. On one side, the "believers". These are the environmentalists, socialists, tree huggers, whatever you want to call them. For the most part, this is the political Left, which adds intrigue to the issue. They believe that humans are changing earth’s climate and we are headed for an imminent global disaster. If we don’t "change things" soon, it will be too late. And their idea of changing things is quite unrealistic. It involves punishing big business (a common battle cry for the Left) and drastically altering our way of life despite how that may affect the economy top-to-bottom.
But wait a minute. This is the political Left, the liberals, the anti-establishment-question everything-spawn of the 60s crowd who have been raised on the foundation of intellectualism and independent thought. Yet, we’re talking about an issue that is based on questionable scientific evidence. At best, the intellectual thing would be to say that more information is needed before we know the truth about global warming – or, in short, what I currently recommend. But the intellectuals aren’t doing that. They are virtually ignoring ALL of the counter evidence which is just as credible as what they’re accepting. They’re going against their very instinct of making sound informed decisions. So what’s with this lemming-like acceptance of a scientific theory riddled with holes and based on questionable evidence? What happened to the independent thought? The question-everything attitude? Well, of course, I have my ideas.
You see, global warming is not an environmental issue or an economic issue. Global warming, like everything else, is a political issue. That’s why the Left has adopted it as gospel. Global warming represents the evils of corporate America. It’s symbolic of what rich people do to poor people. It’s the ultimate socio-enviro nazi theory…big business is killing us all. If you took a similar amount of evidence and applied it to the counter theory…stating that big business is GOOD for your health, what would the Left’s response be? I don’t have to answer that question. Thus, the hypocrisy is evident. But we can take it a step further.
Suppose human induced climate change is real. Suppose the fossil fuels we burn are destroying the planet. Well, there’s an easy fix. Right now, 80% of our electricity is generated by burning coal. Yes, in the 21st century coal is still our primary source of energy. Why? Because it seems the enviro-nazis fear nuclear power more than they fear the global warming disaster. Now, there is no credible evidence that shows that nuclear power is harmful. In fact, there are quite a few credible theories that suggest small doses of radiation are actually healthy…but who cares about scientific evidence? Certainly not the global warming hysterics. But it doesn’t change the fact that within a decade we could convert to nuclear power and virtually eliminate the coal-burning, making the environment cleaner and safer. Yes, it may be costly up front, but isn’t it worth it?
But the enviro-nazis aren’t with it. They fear nuclear power because they’ve seen the Hollywood films showing how bad it is. They have nightmares of mushroom clouds and mega-meltdowns that kill us all (interestingly enough, they don’t seem as bothered about terrorists and WMDs). Plus, converting to nuclear power may actually be profitable for big business, which is the whole point of the Left's opposition isn't it? No, they will never accept this. What they want is for us to give up our luxuries, give up our way of life, live "within our means"…or basically regress from a scientific point of view. Is this realistic? Has it EVER been done in human history? Were there enviro-cavemen telling their friends that the wheel is bad, and they should all give up fire? No. And it never will be done, which is fine with the Left because it means that they have a permanent complaint against big business. They have their political issue, their topic for debate, their "fight for the little man". It really is quite ridiculous. The hypocrisy has come full circle.
So, until the enviro-nazis are ready to actually DO something about global warming, I don’t want to hear them complain. Remember, a standing rule on this site is that if you don’t have a solution, then don’t complain about the problem. The solution is simple. We have the technology. We have the resources. We can put an end to this debate. We can "save" the environment. The question is: Are they ready to do it? If not, then it obviously isn’t much of a concern, unless you’re a politician.
But it’s the hypocrisy of this issue that really gets me. Let’s take a look. On one side, the "believers". These are the environmentalists, socialists, tree huggers, whatever you want to call them. For the most part, this is the political Left, which adds intrigue to the issue. They believe that humans are changing earth’s climate and we are headed for an imminent global disaster. If we don’t "change things" soon, it will be too late. And their idea of changing things is quite unrealistic. It involves punishing big business (a common battle cry for the Left) and drastically altering our way of life despite how that may affect the economy top-to-bottom.
But wait a minute. This is the political Left, the liberals, the anti-establishment-question everything-spawn of the 60s crowd who have been raised on the foundation of intellectualism and independent thought. Yet, we’re talking about an issue that is based on questionable scientific evidence. At best, the intellectual thing would be to say that more information is needed before we know the truth about global warming – or, in short, what I currently recommend. But the intellectuals aren’t doing that. They are virtually ignoring ALL of the counter evidence which is just as credible as what they’re accepting. They’re going against their very instinct of making sound informed decisions. So what’s with this lemming-like acceptance of a scientific theory riddled with holes and based on questionable evidence? What happened to the independent thought? The question-everything attitude? Well, of course, I have my ideas.
You see, global warming is not an environmental issue or an economic issue. Global warming, like everything else, is a political issue. That’s why the Left has adopted it as gospel. Global warming represents the evils of corporate America. It’s symbolic of what rich people do to poor people. It’s the ultimate socio-enviro nazi theory…big business is killing us all. If you took a similar amount of evidence and applied it to the counter theory…stating that big business is GOOD for your health, what would the Left’s response be? I don’t have to answer that question. Thus, the hypocrisy is evident. But we can take it a step further.
Suppose human induced climate change is real. Suppose the fossil fuels we burn are destroying the planet. Well, there’s an easy fix. Right now, 80% of our electricity is generated by burning coal. Yes, in the 21st century coal is still our primary source of energy. Why? Because it seems the enviro-nazis fear nuclear power more than they fear the global warming disaster. Now, there is no credible evidence that shows that nuclear power is harmful. In fact, there are quite a few credible theories that suggest small doses of radiation are actually healthy…but who cares about scientific evidence? Certainly not the global warming hysterics. But it doesn’t change the fact that within a decade we could convert to nuclear power and virtually eliminate the coal-burning, making the environment cleaner and safer. Yes, it may be costly up front, but isn’t it worth it?
But the enviro-nazis aren’t with it. They fear nuclear power because they’ve seen the Hollywood films showing how bad it is. They have nightmares of mushroom clouds and mega-meltdowns that kill us all (interestingly enough, they don’t seem as bothered about terrorists and WMDs). Plus, converting to nuclear power may actually be profitable for big business, which is the whole point of the Left's opposition isn't it? No, they will never accept this. What they want is for us to give up our luxuries, give up our way of life, live "within our means"…or basically regress from a scientific point of view. Is this realistic? Has it EVER been done in human history? Were there enviro-cavemen telling their friends that the wheel is bad, and they should all give up fire? No. And it never will be done, which is fine with the Left because it means that they have a permanent complaint against big business. They have their political issue, their topic for debate, their "fight for the little man". It really is quite ridiculous. The hypocrisy has come full circle.
So, until the enviro-nazis are ready to actually DO something about global warming, I don’t want to hear them complain. Remember, a standing rule on this site is that if you don’t have a solution, then don’t complain about the problem. The solution is simple. We have the technology. We have the resources. We can put an end to this debate. We can "save" the environment. The question is: Are they ready to do it? If not, then it obviously isn’t much of a concern, unless you’re a politician.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
And this is a good thing?
51% of American women now living without a spouse
For the first time in American history, the majority of American women are living without a spouse. This includes women who are single, of course, along with those who are divorced, widowed and, in a small percentage, those whose spouses are overseas. I find this interesting in a number of ways, and to a degree it is somewhat alarming.
First, the article itself. Clearly, this was written on a slant, but then again it is a New York Times piece and when is the last time that paper printed anything objective? The connotations are interesting. 51% of women are living without a spouse. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Reading this article, you would think we just passed another Civil Rights Act. For some reason the mainstream media, and Hollywood, thinks that the "traditional" family is a bad thing, that somehow this is oppressive and denies women (and in some cases children) basic human rights. So they see women who choose against the traditional family as liberated or enlightened, while the women who choose the family are looked down upon as little minded, unambitious, small thinkers, codependent, etc. Remember the ’04 election, and Laura Bush being challenged for "not having a real job"? Why is that? Some would think that staying home and raising a family is much more challenging than pursuing a career. But the mainstream media does not fall into that category. So articles like this are written in a positive light, suggesting the "post-‘60s" culture has taken root and at last women have broken the bonds of oppression, separating themselves from the traditions that "held them back" for so long. It is a reflection of the culture we live in and, I think, a reflection of much of what ails this country.
America’s core foundation is marriage and family. The family is what defines society. It is the basic building block. Strong family means strong society and vice versa. Since the culture of the ‘60s took root, traditional marriage and traditional family has been decimated. What percentage of marriages end in divorce? How many kids grow up without proper parental support? And, as a result, we have seen things like teenage pregnancy, suicide, drug use, alcohol abuse, depression and criminal behavior skyrocket. Only a fool would say there is no connection here, yet we tend to point at things like guns or the government or poverty or the white man as the culprit, as a way to explain away the problems in society. The fact is, if we were rooted as a society with a strong family unit, many of these problems would simply vanish. But that would mean that parents, especially women, would have to forego their careers and dedicate their lives to their family. This is not politically correct, and some would even say that it is sexist, how sad.
I respect women who choose to have a career. They have the right to choose, as well they should. I also respect women who choose the family. That automatically suggests a certain level of personal sacrifice, which is vital to rearing a healthy family. Basically, we must understand that our choices, whatever they may be, come with results (or consequences). There are consequences for a society that frowns upon homemakers, that encourages and exalts the career over the family. There are consequences for a society that seeks personal gratification over service to others. That’s all I’m saying. I’m not speaking out against women’s rights. Anyone who reads this blog knows that I am for equal rights across the board. Yet, I’m sure there are those who will vilify me for suggesting that women who choose careers have made a wrong choice. That’s simply not accurate. There are many career women who still raise strong, healthy families. Good for them. But is that the trend for society as a whole? Is it a good thing for 51% of America’s women to be without a spouse? These are questions that deserve some thought, which is why I posted this.
For the first time in American history, the majority of American women are living without a spouse. This includes women who are single, of course, along with those who are divorced, widowed and, in a small percentage, those whose spouses are overseas. I find this interesting in a number of ways, and to a degree it is somewhat alarming.
First, the article itself. Clearly, this was written on a slant, but then again it is a New York Times piece and when is the last time that paper printed anything objective? The connotations are interesting. 51% of women are living without a spouse. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Reading this article, you would think we just passed another Civil Rights Act. For some reason the mainstream media, and Hollywood, thinks that the "traditional" family is a bad thing, that somehow this is oppressive and denies women (and in some cases children) basic human rights. So they see women who choose against the traditional family as liberated or enlightened, while the women who choose the family are looked down upon as little minded, unambitious, small thinkers, codependent, etc. Remember the ’04 election, and Laura Bush being challenged for "not having a real job"? Why is that? Some would think that staying home and raising a family is much more challenging than pursuing a career. But the mainstream media does not fall into that category. So articles like this are written in a positive light, suggesting the "post-‘60s" culture has taken root and at last women have broken the bonds of oppression, separating themselves from the traditions that "held them back" for so long. It is a reflection of the culture we live in and, I think, a reflection of much of what ails this country.
America’s core foundation is marriage and family. The family is what defines society. It is the basic building block. Strong family means strong society and vice versa. Since the culture of the ‘60s took root, traditional marriage and traditional family has been decimated. What percentage of marriages end in divorce? How many kids grow up without proper parental support? And, as a result, we have seen things like teenage pregnancy, suicide, drug use, alcohol abuse, depression and criminal behavior skyrocket. Only a fool would say there is no connection here, yet we tend to point at things like guns or the government or poverty or the white man as the culprit, as a way to explain away the problems in society. The fact is, if we were rooted as a society with a strong family unit, many of these problems would simply vanish. But that would mean that parents, especially women, would have to forego their careers and dedicate their lives to their family. This is not politically correct, and some would even say that it is sexist, how sad.
I respect women who choose to have a career. They have the right to choose, as well they should. I also respect women who choose the family. That automatically suggests a certain level of personal sacrifice, which is vital to rearing a healthy family. Basically, we must understand that our choices, whatever they may be, come with results (or consequences). There are consequences for a society that frowns upon homemakers, that encourages and exalts the career over the family. There are consequences for a society that seeks personal gratification over service to others. That’s all I’m saying. I’m not speaking out against women’s rights. Anyone who reads this blog knows that I am for equal rights across the board. Yet, I’m sure there are those who will vilify me for suggesting that women who choose careers have made a wrong choice. That’s simply not accurate. There are many career women who still raise strong, healthy families. Good for them. But is that the trend for society as a whole? Is it a good thing for 51% of America’s women to be without a spouse? These are questions that deserve some thought, which is why I posted this.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
The road to economic chaos
Dems to seek universal health care
What Governor Arnold wants for California, the Dems also want for all of America. Ted Kennedy appears to be leading the charge that was once led by Hillary Clinton. Universal health care for all Americans. Sounds great on the surface, as do many of the Democrats plans, but there is more to it.
Since California will likely push forward with this, I think we should watch and see what happens. The results are going to be disastrous. Here are a few scenarios:
The government begins paying for healthcare for all, which means the healthcare community will suddenly be inundated with millions of patients who have had little previous care. Following natural rules of supply and demand, access to care will take a hit. Soon, it will be harder to get an appt with the local primary care doc. Not only that, but certainly payments to clinics and hospitals will be limited. We’ve seen that with every government-run health system. They always underestimate the cost and when the budget gets squeezed by over-utilization (abuse of the system), the result is cutting costs by limiting payments. So now the docs are seeing more patients, ie working harder, and getting paid less for it. This will ultimately lead to a flight of healthcare providers from California, thereby further limiting access and driving demand even higher. Soon, there will be months-long waiting lists to get care.
You see, socializing medicine is a proven failure. Why do physicians from overseas come to America to practice? Because the environment is better. Change that environment, and access to care will suffer.
But that’s not all. Since California will extend benefits to illegal immigrants, we will also see a large influx of these people into California, either from Mexico or from other border states where the illegal immigrants currently live. Infrastructure and the basic economy gets further strained, since many of these people require other government-sponsored entitlements to live. The budget grows, and so do the taxes. And since the small businesses of California will be hit especially hard by this, many of them will cut jobs, limit employment, or even close their doors. Some will simply pack up and move out of state. Again, the economy suffers.
And Ted Kennedy wants this for ALL of America? Big mistake. There is a better way. It may be more difficult to implement, but it’s better in the long run. If Congress takes the easy route and passes universal health care, we’re in for some trouble.
What Governor Arnold wants for California, the Dems also want for all of America. Ted Kennedy appears to be leading the charge that was once led by Hillary Clinton. Universal health care for all Americans. Sounds great on the surface, as do many of the Democrats plans, but there is more to it.
Since California will likely push forward with this, I think we should watch and see what happens. The results are going to be disastrous. Here are a few scenarios:
The government begins paying for healthcare for all, which means the healthcare community will suddenly be inundated with millions of patients who have had little previous care. Following natural rules of supply and demand, access to care will take a hit. Soon, it will be harder to get an appt with the local primary care doc. Not only that, but certainly payments to clinics and hospitals will be limited. We’ve seen that with every government-run health system. They always underestimate the cost and when the budget gets squeezed by over-utilization (abuse of the system), the result is cutting costs by limiting payments. So now the docs are seeing more patients, ie working harder, and getting paid less for it. This will ultimately lead to a flight of healthcare providers from California, thereby further limiting access and driving demand even higher. Soon, there will be months-long waiting lists to get care.
You see, socializing medicine is a proven failure. Why do physicians from overseas come to America to practice? Because the environment is better. Change that environment, and access to care will suffer.
But that’s not all. Since California will extend benefits to illegal immigrants, we will also see a large influx of these people into California, either from Mexico or from other border states where the illegal immigrants currently live. Infrastructure and the basic economy gets further strained, since many of these people require other government-sponsored entitlements to live. The budget grows, and so do the taxes. And since the small businesses of California will be hit especially hard by this, many of them will cut jobs, limit employment, or even close their doors. Some will simply pack up and move out of state. Again, the economy suffers.
And Ted Kennedy wants this for ALL of America? Big mistake. There is a better way. It may be more difficult to implement, but it’s better in the long run. If Congress takes the easy route and passes universal health care, we’re in for some trouble.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Symbolic vote
Dems to schedule "symbolic vote"
Political hypocrisy seems to be reaching new stratospheric levels. Tonight, President Bush will reveal his new plan for victory in Iraq. Part of that includes sending more troops to Iraq for temporary added security. Should this have been done months ago? Nancy Pelosi thought so, but dwelling in the past does nothing to assure victory. Say what you want about Bush, but he values the opinion of his military leaders. If they ask for something, they get it. That has always been the case, so the current troop increase doesn’t appear to be any different. Obviously, the military leaders on the ground feel that more troops are needed, and Bush wants to see that it’s done.
So the Democrats have a response planned. The majority of them don’t want more troops, that’s understandable. They see more troops as a Vietnam-esque escalation, also understandable. So they plan to hold a "symbolic vote" on the President’s proposal. A symbolic vote…not an actual vote with power behind it. They plan to propose that all of Congress votes on whether or not they approve of the troop increase. Again, the outcome of the vote is meaningless, it just puts each Congressman on record for supporting or not supporting Bush’s proposal. The point behind it is this, make the Republicans vote, and put themselves on the record, so if it goes wrong then ’08 looks good for the Dems. Naturally, the Dems will allow the funding for the troop increase while voting "symbolically" against the troop increase. Basically, it’s a way for them to say they voted for AND against the troop increase, so either way, regardless of the outcome, they look good.
This may be smart politics, but it’s politics nonetheless. I see the Democratic Party as the party of cowardice, and that’s about as nice as I can be about it. You see, if they REALLY opposed the troop increase, they could stop it…they simply deny the funding for it. The President can do nothing about it. BUT, that would make the Dems look like they’re not supporting the troops, a bad campaign move for ’08. So even though they oppose troop increases, they don’t REALLY oppose them because it may hurt them politically to do so. Basically, they lack true principle. Their actions are based, not on doing what they think is right, but on doing what’s needed to win elections. This is politics at its core and it’s disgusting. This symbolic vote thing is ridiculous, and I think it will backfire.
In my view, the Dems need to put their money where their mouth is. If they oppose Bush’s plan, then deny the funding. In essence, STAND UP FOR WHAT YOU BELIEVE. I have much more respect for people who do that than those who play the political game. If they vote "symbolically" against the troop increase, then vote to approve the funding, it makes them all look like a bunch of John Kerry’s… "I voted for the war before I voted against it". Flip-flop, flip-flop. As I recall, he LOST in ’04. It was a bad strategy.
This is probably a retaliatory thing. Remember, when all the Dems were talking about pulling out of Iraq, the Republicans put the issue to a vote. And the Dems voted against a sudden troop pull-out. They were forced to go on record amid their rhetoric, and they were mad about it. So now, it has come full circle. My guess is that the Republicans will go along with what the troop commanders want. They will symbolically vote for the troop increase, at least if their smart, so that a follow up vote to approve the funding won’t look contradictory. The Dems will be the ones looking foolish here, but that’s not anything new.
What I would like to see is BOTH parties having a common goal…Victory in Iraq. Wouldn’t that be nice? Politics has no business – NONE – in war. It just gets more people killed while accomplishing nothing. Remember Vietnam? If these politicians would just shut it and get the hell out of the military’s way, this war could be won. But, that may make one party look better than the other, and our politicians simply can’t allow that.
Political hypocrisy seems to be reaching new stratospheric levels. Tonight, President Bush will reveal his new plan for victory in Iraq. Part of that includes sending more troops to Iraq for temporary added security. Should this have been done months ago? Nancy Pelosi thought so, but dwelling in the past does nothing to assure victory. Say what you want about Bush, but he values the opinion of his military leaders. If they ask for something, they get it. That has always been the case, so the current troop increase doesn’t appear to be any different. Obviously, the military leaders on the ground feel that more troops are needed, and Bush wants to see that it’s done.
So the Democrats have a response planned. The majority of them don’t want more troops, that’s understandable. They see more troops as a Vietnam-esque escalation, also understandable. So they plan to hold a "symbolic vote" on the President’s proposal. A symbolic vote…not an actual vote with power behind it. They plan to propose that all of Congress votes on whether or not they approve of the troop increase. Again, the outcome of the vote is meaningless, it just puts each Congressman on record for supporting or not supporting Bush’s proposal. The point behind it is this, make the Republicans vote, and put themselves on the record, so if it goes wrong then ’08 looks good for the Dems. Naturally, the Dems will allow the funding for the troop increase while voting "symbolically" against the troop increase. Basically, it’s a way for them to say they voted for AND against the troop increase, so either way, regardless of the outcome, they look good.
This may be smart politics, but it’s politics nonetheless. I see the Democratic Party as the party of cowardice, and that’s about as nice as I can be about it. You see, if they REALLY opposed the troop increase, they could stop it…they simply deny the funding for it. The President can do nothing about it. BUT, that would make the Dems look like they’re not supporting the troops, a bad campaign move for ’08. So even though they oppose troop increases, they don’t REALLY oppose them because it may hurt them politically to do so. Basically, they lack true principle. Their actions are based, not on doing what they think is right, but on doing what’s needed to win elections. This is politics at its core and it’s disgusting. This symbolic vote thing is ridiculous, and I think it will backfire.
In my view, the Dems need to put their money where their mouth is. If they oppose Bush’s plan, then deny the funding. In essence, STAND UP FOR WHAT YOU BELIEVE. I have much more respect for people who do that than those who play the political game. If they vote "symbolically" against the troop increase, then vote to approve the funding, it makes them all look like a bunch of John Kerry’s… "I voted for the war before I voted against it". Flip-flop, flip-flop. As I recall, he LOST in ’04. It was a bad strategy.
This is probably a retaliatory thing. Remember, when all the Dems were talking about pulling out of Iraq, the Republicans put the issue to a vote. And the Dems voted against a sudden troop pull-out. They were forced to go on record amid their rhetoric, and they were mad about it. So now, it has come full circle. My guess is that the Republicans will go along with what the troop commanders want. They will symbolically vote for the troop increase, at least if their smart, so that a follow up vote to approve the funding won’t look contradictory. The Dems will be the ones looking foolish here, but that’s not anything new.
What I would like to see is BOTH parties having a common goal…Victory in Iraq. Wouldn’t that be nice? Politics has no business – NONE – in war. It just gets more people killed while accomplishing nothing. Remember Vietnam? If these politicians would just shut it and get the hell out of the military’s way, this war could be won. But, that may make one party look better than the other, and our politicians simply can’t allow that.
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Two things today
A couple of things to post about. First:
At Wake Forest, researchers have found a way to isolate embryonic stem cells without destroying the embryo. This could potentially end the debate on the controversial research. Embyronic stem cells without loss of life. They do it by harvesting the cells from amniotic fluid. The results are, so far, very good.
So, this is wonderful news, right? At last, we can put this issue aside. It's a win-win. We get the research one side wants while protecting the sanctity of human life the other side wants. It couldn't be better. The compromise seems to be a given. Wrong.
The "other" side is already saying that prior research on destroyed embryos should continue. Why? Because it is seven to eight years ahead of the research that would be done on amniotic stem cells. That's right, seven to eight years. That's how much value human life has for some people. Seven to eight years. Continue destroying embryos so we don't lose seven to eight years of research...
Next, in California, the Governor has announced that every citizen will have health insurance. Everyone in California will have health coverage? Great....well, hang on a second. There's a catch. Every business with ten or more employees will be required to make health care available to their employees, or pay into a state general fund. The bill for global health care will be footed by businesses. And since most larger corporations already offer health care to their employees, it will be the small businesses that take the hit here. Remember, it's small business that acts as the foundation of the economy.
Business owners statewide are already saying this will cause a cutback on jobs. Unemployment will go up. Business growth will slow. The economy will stall. They're already saying it. That's why this is a bad idea. Health care CAN'T be provided by the government because it costs too much, and that cost has to be recovered by more taxes which ultimately harms the economy. So the people of California may get health care, but they'll be unemployed in a stagnant economy. What's worse?
The solution to this is simple, I've already laid it out in a previous post. The point is, bigger government is NOT the answer. If the Governor gets his way, this will be disastrous on the California economy. But something tells me it's gonna happen.
At Wake Forest, researchers have found a way to isolate embryonic stem cells without destroying the embryo. This could potentially end the debate on the controversial research. Embyronic stem cells without loss of life. They do it by harvesting the cells from amniotic fluid. The results are, so far, very good.
So, this is wonderful news, right? At last, we can put this issue aside. It's a win-win. We get the research one side wants while protecting the sanctity of human life the other side wants. It couldn't be better. The compromise seems to be a given. Wrong.
The "other" side is already saying that prior research on destroyed embryos should continue. Why? Because it is seven to eight years ahead of the research that would be done on amniotic stem cells. That's right, seven to eight years. That's how much value human life has for some people. Seven to eight years. Continue destroying embryos so we don't lose seven to eight years of research...
Next, in California, the Governor has announced that every citizen will have health insurance. Everyone in California will have health coverage? Great....well, hang on a second. There's a catch. Every business with ten or more employees will be required to make health care available to their employees, or pay into a state general fund. The bill for global health care will be footed by businesses. And since most larger corporations already offer health care to their employees, it will be the small businesses that take the hit here. Remember, it's small business that acts as the foundation of the economy.
Business owners statewide are already saying this will cause a cutback on jobs. Unemployment will go up. Business growth will slow. The economy will stall. They're already saying it. That's why this is a bad idea. Health care CAN'T be provided by the government because it costs too much, and that cost has to be recovered by more taxes which ultimately harms the economy. So the people of California may get health care, but they'll be unemployed in a stagnant economy. What's worse?
The solution to this is simple, I've already laid it out in a previous post. The point is, bigger government is NOT the answer. If the Governor gets his way, this will be disastrous on the California economy. But something tells me it's gonna happen.
Monday, January 08, 2007
A "new" Congress
Congress off for the football game
Yes, the same Congress that vowed to change Washington, that vowed to work hard for us, that promised a new Congress…has taken today off. Why? Because of tonight’s championship football game. If anyone out there thinks that Congress will be anything different than we’ve had in the past 60 years, then you’re sadly mistaken. They’re a bunch of overpaid, underworked, elitist con artists, and this is further proof of that fact. Is there a third party out there? Anywhere?
Dems create loophole that could lead to more taxes
In 1994, Congress passed a law that required 2/3 majority vote to raise taxes. Their reasoning: Government is too big, taxes are too high. If spending is increased in one area, it should be decreased in another. Basically, taxes are high enough. This was part of the contract with America. Seems like a good rule to me.
But, the new Congress – the Democratically controlled Congress – has a different view. In their first official vote, the Dems approved a rule that would make the 2/3 majority vote waivable by a simple majority. Basically, they created a loophole around the vote. Why would they do that? Is there any reason other than the fact that they plan on raising taxes? And if anyone thinks that tax raise will only be on the "rich"…think again. Everyone needs to ready themselves for a return to the Clinton era tax system.
Yes, the same Congress that vowed to change Washington, that vowed to work hard for us, that promised a new Congress…has taken today off. Why? Because of tonight’s championship football game. If anyone out there thinks that Congress will be anything different than we’ve had in the past 60 years, then you’re sadly mistaken. They’re a bunch of overpaid, underworked, elitist con artists, and this is further proof of that fact. Is there a third party out there? Anywhere?
Dems create loophole that could lead to more taxes
In 1994, Congress passed a law that required 2/3 majority vote to raise taxes. Their reasoning: Government is too big, taxes are too high. If spending is increased in one area, it should be decreased in another. Basically, taxes are high enough. This was part of the contract with America. Seems like a good rule to me.
But, the new Congress – the Democratically controlled Congress – has a different view. In their first official vote, the Dems approved a rule that would make the 2/3 majority vote waivable by a simple majority. Basically, they created a loophole around the vote. Why would they do that? Is there any reason other than the fact that they plan on raising taxes? And if anyone thinks that tax raise will only be on the "rich"…think again. Everyone needs to ready themselves for a return to the Clinton era tax system.
Friday, January 05, 2007
Victory is relative
Dems urge Bush to end Iraq war
In a letter to President Bush, both Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi offer their advice and urged the President not to increase troop strength but to begin a phased redeployment of troops that would effectively end the war, victory or not.
With all due respect to Reid and Pelosi, neither one of them know squat about military matters. Personally, I feel the decision to increase troop levels should be a command decision made by the military leaders in and around Baghdad. In other words, such an important decision should never be dictated from Capitol Hill nor the White House. I think Bush agrees.
Obviously, this will be part of the Democratic strategy for regaining the White House in ’08. They want us out of Iraq, with or without a victory, and they want to claim this as their accomplishment for the next election. Call it politicizing the war, or whatever, but there’s no escaping the fact that the Democratic party is not interested in winning that war as much as they are in winning the White House.
You see, it sounds much better to use the word "redeploy", which basically means the same as "retreat", but the common American would never elect a President who supported America's retreat from Iraq. No way. But someone who favored "redeploying" the troops? Sounds a lot better doesn't it?
I've said before, Iraq is the Gettysburg of the war on terror. If we don't succeed there, then the war itself is lost. That's how crucial Iraq is to our future. So what the Dems should be doing is working with the President to find a path to victory...but, then again, that doesn't exactly help them as much in '08. They have their priorities and in my mind our future is nowhere near the top of that list.
In a letter to President Bush, both Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi offer their advice and urged the President not to increase troop strength but to begin a phased redeployment of troops that would effectively end the war, victory or not.
With all due respect to Reid and Pelosi, neither one of them know squat about military matters. Personally, I feel the decision to increase troop levels should be a command decision made by the military leaders in and around Baghdad. In other words, such an important decision should never be dictated from Capitol Hill nor the White House. I think Bush agrees.
Obviously, this will be part of the Democratic strategy for regaining the White House in ’08. They want us out of Iraq, with or without a victory, and they want to claim this as their accomplishment for the next election. Call it politicizing the war, or whatever, but there’s no escaping the fact that the Democratic party is not interested in winning that war as much as they are in winning the White House.
You see, it sounds much better to use the word "redeploy", which basically means the same as "retreat", but the common American would never elect a President who supported America's retreat from Iraq. No way. But someone who favored "redeploying" the troops? Sounds a lot better doesn't it?
I've said before, Iraq is the Gettysburg of the war on terror. If we don't succeed there, then the war itself is lost. That's how crucial Iraq is to our future. So what the Dems should be doing is working with the President to find a path to victory...but, then again, that doesn't exactly help them as much in '08. They have their priorities and in my mind our future is nowhere near the top of that list.
Thursday, January 04, 2007
Dem agenda...scary
Democratic agenda…scary.
Before getting into the Dems agenda, a few words from soon-to-be Speaker Pelosi:
"We have waited over 200 years for this time to come…I am the most powerful woman in America…All right, let's hear it for the power."
Yikes. And I thought Hillary had a power-hungry chip on her shoulder. Now, for the agenda. The Dems have a "Six of ‘06" plan. This includes priority legislation that they vow to push through within their first 100 days of power. It’s been a long time for them and they can’t wait. So let’s break down their plan:
Implementing the September 11 panel recommendations. Sounds great. Not that I really have much of an opinion on this one. The 9/11 Commission was a waste of time. They spent a lot of money, energy and time to basically say that it was no one’s fault, but was also everyone’s fault. Their recommendations aren’t going to do much to protect us as long as we don’t have the will to stand up to our enemies, but we’ll see.
Increasing the minimum wage. They want an additional $2.10. Big mistake. This does nothing but hurt small business and since small business is what grows the economy, eventually this will slow down our economic boom. Says Steny Hoyer (D-Md), "Americans who work hard to earn an honest living should not be relegated to poverty." Poverty? The vast majority of people who live below the "poverty" line in this country own televisions and have cable TV. I don’t think that’s poverty, but I guess Hoyer and the rest of the Dems disagree. So, this will be step one in the Democratic Party’s halting of the economy. Something tells me there will be more steps later. If there’s one thing they’re good at, it’s economic stagnation.
Expanding stem-cell research. Translation=more government spending on unproven and ethically questionable science. Of course, they don’t mention how this will be paid for, that’s for later.
Allowing the government to negotiate prices for prescription drugs. Another big mistake. Government negotiating prices is another step toward socialized medicine. It sounds good on the surface, but what it does is limit choice for the consumer. It leads to restricted pharmacy formularies, diminishes healthy competition among drug companies, and potentially patients aren’t getting the best available medications. You get what you pay for in this country, remember that.
Cutting interest rates on student loans. No problems here.
Ending subsidies for oil companies while expanding renewable energy exploration. I see higher gas prices as a result. When are our politicians going to realize that legislation aimed at corporations only gets passed to the consumer? Raise taxes, cut subsidies, and we see the result at the pump, not the oil company’s bottom line. Once again, Mr. Hoyer chimes in, "we will not be dependent upon foreign states for our economic well-being." Great. I agree. But how does he plan to do this without pursuing more nuclear energy or drilling in certain "sacred" areas to ease our petroleum burden while transitioning to other forms of energy? There is no plan, other than ending subsidies for oil companies. How does that translate to energy independence?
So I don’t see anything new here. There is nothing ground breaking. It’s basically more of the same, a lot of good talk with little prospect for good results. I guess we’ll see.
Before getting into the Dems agenda, a few words from soon-to-be Speaker Pelosi:
"We have waited over 200 years for this time to come…I am the most powerful woman in America…All right, let's hear it for the power."
Yikes. And I thought Hillary had a power-hungry chip on her shoulder. Now, for the agenda. The Dems have a "Six of ‘06" plan. This includes priority legislation that they vow to push through within their first 100 days of power. It’s been a long time for them and they can’t wait. So let’s break down their plan:
Implementing the September 11 panel recommendations. Sounds great. Not that I really have much of an opinion on this one. The 9/11 Commission was a waste of time. They spent a lot of money, energy and time to basically say that it was no one’s fault, but was also everyone’s fault. Their recommendations aren’t going to do much to protect us as long as we don’t have the will to stand up to our enemies, but we’ll see.
Increasing the minimum wage. They want an additional $2.10. Big mistake. This does nothing but hurt small business and since small business is what grows the economy, eventually this will slow down our economic boom. Says Steny Hoyer (D-Md), "Americans who work hard to earn an honest living should not be relegated to poverty." Poverty? The vast majority of people who live below the "poverty" line in this country own televisions and have cable TV. I don’t think that’s poverty, but I guess Hoyer and the rest of the Dems disagree. So, this will be step one in the Democratic Party’s halting of the economy. Something tells me there will be more steps later. If there’s one thing they’re good at, it’s economic stagnation.
Expanding stem-cell research. Translation=more government spending on unproven and ethically questionable science. Of course, they don’t mention how this will be paid for, that’s for later.
Allowing the government to negotiate prices for prescription drugs. Another big mistake. Government negotiating prices is another step toward socialized medicine. It sounds good on the surface, but what it does is limit choice for the consumer. It leads to restricted pharmacy formularies, diminishes healthy competition among drug companies, and potentially patients aren’t getting the best available medications. You get what you pay for in this country, remember that.
Cutting interest rates on student loans. No problems here.
Ending subsidies for oil companies while expanding renewable energy exploration. I see higher gas prices as a result. When are our politicians going to realize that legislation aimed at corporations only gets passed to the consumer? Raise taxes, cut subsidies, and we see the result at the pump, not the oil company’s bottom line. Once again, Mr. Hoyer chimes in, "we will not be dependent upon foreign states for our economic well-being." Great. I agree. But how does he plan to do this without pursuing more nuclear energy or drilling in certain "sacred" areas to ease our petroleum burden while transitioning to other forms of energy? There is no plan, other than ending subsidies for oil companies. How does that translate to energy independence?
So I don’t see anything new here. There is nothing ground breaking. It’s basically more of the same, a lot of good talk with little prospect for good results. I guess we’ll see.
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
Bad kids aren't born, they're made
"Mean Girls" in suburbia
Here is another illustration of how our society is ailing. To fully appreciate things, please read the linked article. I’ve said countless times that the behavior of our children is not the problem with American society, but is a symptom of a problem…poor parenting. This problem transcends social class. It’s found in the inner cities, and the upscale suburbs. People just don’t know how to parent, or worse they simply don’t care what they’re doing to their kids. Today’s parents have more interest in themselves than their children. We, as a society, are betraying the next generation.
Case in point, five high school girls have come under scrutiny in suburban Texas for basically being out of control. They were disrespectful to teachers and coaches, drinking regularly and posting inappropriate photos of themselves on the internet. Most of this occurred with few consequences. Why? Mainly because one of the girls was the daughter of the school principle, who has since resigned under pressure from the school district. We see similar problems all over the country. Kids go to school with weapons, or they assault other students or even teachers. They’re involved in lewd sexual behavior, drugs and alcohol to large extents. Whose fault is this? Yes, kids will be kids, but at some point we have to start asking questions about how much of this is "normal" adolescent behavior and how much is simply parental failure. In many cases, it’s the latter.
Here’s what I see. Parents aren’t as interested in school performance. They don’t seem to push their kids to excel in academics as much as "social-demics". Nowadays, it’s more important to us as parents for our kids to be with the in-crowd, to be popular. It’s more important to maintain social status than a GPA. We dress our 6 year olds in pageant wear and parade them in front of judges, who assess them and give them value based on their looks. We want to know if our kids are being invited to all the right parties, rather than when their next algebra test is. Basically, we’re raising a generation to be co-dependent, and have their identity based on what others think rather than personal accomplishment. The drugs, the alcohol, the partying, the lack of respect, is all okay as long as it gets them in with the in crowd. Pathetic.
Parents want to be friends with their kids, and this is not conducive to a healthy parent-child relationship. You can't be your child's friend because that makes discipline difficult. When's the last time one of your friends grounded you? Take an active interest in your child's life, keep lines of communication open, but don't try to be one of the guys or one of the girls...it's a big mistake.
It’s time we called these parents what they are…bad parents. This high school principle…she is a bad parent. Period. It’s not society. It’s not the media. It’s not "teenagers being teenagers" that produces this behavior. It’s bad parents. And until we start calling them that, and injecting a little shame into the situation, the situation will not change. Pit Bulls aren’t born vicious killers, they are taught to be that way. Kids are not born to be antagonistic and disrespectful and self-destructive, they’re taught to be that way. Bad kids aren't born, they're made. Let’s not forget that, and hopefully one day our parents will grow up and begin teaching their kids rather than acting like kids themselves.
Here is another illustration of how our society is ailing. To fully appreciate things, please read the linked article. I’ve said countless times that the behavior of our children is not the problem with American society, but is a symptom of a problem…poor parenting. This problem transcends social class. It’s found in the inner cities, and the upscale suburbs. People just don’t know how to parent, or worse they simply don’t care what they’re doing to their kids. Today’s parents have more interest in themselves than their children. We, as a society, are betraying the next generation.
Case in point, five high school girls have come under scrutiny in suburban Texas for basically being out of control. They were disrespectful to teachers and coaches, drinking regularly and posting inappropriate photos of themselves on the internet. Most of this occurred with few consequences. Why? Mainly because one of the girls was the daughter of the school principle, who has since resigned under pressure from the school district. We see similar problems all over the country. Kids go to school with weapons, or they assault other students or even teachers. They’re involved in lewd sexual behavior, drugs and alcohol to large extents. Whose fault is this? Yes, kids will be kids, but at some point we have to start asking questions about how much of this is "normal" adolescent behavior and how much is simply parental failure. In many cases, it’s the latter.
Here’s what I see. Parents aren’t as interested in school performance. They don’t seem to push their kids to excel in academics as much as "social-demics". Nowadays, it’s more important to us as parents for our kids to be with the in-crowd, to be popular. It’s more important to maintain social status than a GPA. We dress our 6 year olds in pageant wear and parade them in front of judges, who assess them and give them value based on their looks. We want to know if our kids are being invited to all the right parties, rather than when their next algebra test is. Basically, we’re raising a generation to be co-dependent, and have their identity based on what others think rather than personal accomplishment. The drugs, the alcohol, the partying, the lack of respect, is all okay as long as it gets them in with the in crowd. Pathetic.
Parents want to be friends with their kids, and this is not conducive to a healthy parent-child relationship. You can't be your child's friend because that makes discipline difficult. When's the last time one of your friends grounded you? Take an active interest in your child's life, keep lines of communication open, but don't try to be one of the guys or one of the girls...it's a big mistake.
It’s time we called these parents what they are…bad parents. This high school principle…she is a bad parent. Period. It’s not society. It’s not the media. It’s not "teenagers being teenagers" that produces this behavior. It’s bad parents. And until we start calling them that, and injecting a little shame into the situation, the situation will not change. Pit Bulls aren’t born vicious killers, they are taught to be that way. Kids are not born to be antagonistic and disrespectful and self-destructive, they’re taught to be that way. Bad kids aren't born, they're made. Let’s not forget that, and hopefully one day our parents will grow up and begin teaching their kids rather than acting like kids themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)