Liberals like to believe they are the elite, morally and intellectually. Hollywood liberals (no, that is not entirely redundant) make normal liberals look humble by comparison. And yet the only ones they are fooling are themselves. Nothing exposes the moral bankruptcy of the left like their inability to apply morality uniformly.
This is because morality is useful in placating moderates and bludgeoning conservatives. But, truth be told, if it weren't for those pesky moderates and conservatives they would prefer there be no morality at all. Liberals seem to think that abject hedonism and intellectual enlightenment can exist in the same being.
Witness for the prosecution: Roman Polanski. This "gentleman" drugged a thirteen year old girl, raped her, then fled the country to avoid imprisonment. After thirty-two years in exile, he has been arrested in Switzerland and is awaiting extradition hearings. A large number of artists in America and in Europe have rushed to Polanski's defense, claiming he's suffered enough already and that such a great talent should not be shut up in prison.
In other words, if you are talented you should a) be allowed to have sex with anyone or anything, regardless of legality or the wishes of the victim, b) should not be subject to the rule of law, and c) should be shielded from their own stupidity. So what they seem to be telling us is that Timothy McVeigh's only real crime was not being talented enough.
Of course this attitude should not be surprising. Artists and actors have been told by everyone and themselves for years that they are special, that they are delicate souls, and that their role is to push the boundaries and break the rules. More than once in my own musical training did I hear the maxim "You have to learn the rules before you can break them." So many artists have "handlers" to shield them from the realities of life.
But to shield artists, no matter how talented, from the consequences of illegal activities is to undermine the very society that makes it possible for them to develop and display their talents. It is spitting in the face of everyone who has lived by the rules. It cannot be allowed to stand.
Roman Polanski is a criminal. He broke the law. Criminals must be punished, or the system breaks down. He did not just break one law, either. He raped the girl, and he fled the country to avoid justice. That is two laws. Even if there is any reason to overlook the first--and there is not--there is no reason to overlook the second. On the contrary, overlooking the second does more harm to society than the first.
I do not believe those who claim he has suffered enough for his crime already. In what way has he suffered? He has still been able to work all of this time. He has had his freedom. True, there are certain countries he has been unable to visit, but he seems to have done well enough in spite of that. Such are the inconveniences of fleeing justice. Is being unable to go to other countries to accept honors for your work a small price to pay for being free to continue your work?
It is not the fault of American justice that Roman Polanski, for all his supposed genius, was stupid and remains stupid. If there is any constant in America it is our willingness to forgive and forget, especially our celebrity types. What else can explain how Bill Clinton can commit adultery with no consequence while GOP senators continually have to step down for less?
Had Roman Polanski gone to jail like he was supposed to he may have given up a year or two of his life. Considering the kid-glove treatment he was receiving that allowed him to flee in the first place, he probably would not have served even a year. Once he got out he would have been embraced by Hollywood again, and perhaps even lauded all the more for his having experienced the darker side of American justice and come through unscathed, or some clap-trap nonsense like that. Critics would have been falling over themselves to point out the new-found depth and passion in his work that could only have come from having experienced the horror of incarceration and a loss of freedom for a time.
And he would have been free to collect his awards anywhere he liked.
No, I do not feel sorry for Roman Polanski. Every step of the way he has received special treatment. He has foreign diplomats and celebrity elites falling over themselves to come to his defense. The man made some very serious mistakes, but he has largely avoided the consequences.
If Roman Polanski gets off I will feel outrage on behalf of a friend of mine who committed statutory rape. He also plead guilty. He went to prison for several years, voluntarily accepting harsher conditions than was required. I believe he learned his lesson and was reformed. Yet, as a registered sex offender, he will never have the same degree of freedom Roman Polanski has enjoyed for thirty-two years.
Where are the celebrities rushing to his defense? Where are the awards? Is his only crime, then, not being famous enough?
The liberal elites think they are so intelligent, yet they cannot see the harm their attitudes toward morality and rule of law are doing. My friend accepted responsibility for his actions and learned from the experience. He's a much smarter man than Roman Polanski.
Roman Polanski should serve time for his rape. He should serve even more time for evading justice. If he dies in prison, so be it. We, as the "unfamous, untalented" of America, deserve nothing less. The liberal and Hollywood elite deserve nothing less. It is high time someone sent them the message that they are not above the law, that "genius" and creativity and celebrity are no excuse for anti-social behavior. The question is whether or not they are smart enough to learn the lesson when we try to teach it.
UPDATE: In all fairness, I should point out that while the Huffington Post has fired an extensive volley in support of Roman Polanski, not all on the left see it the same way. Many see the situation for what it is: a crime exacerbated by evasion of justice.
It is mainly the Hollywood Elite who are rushing to Polanski's defense. And why not? If justice can be enforced on him, why...it could be enforced on them too! We must push back the hands of legal progress!
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Alan Grayson vs. Joe Wilson
What's the difference between Alan Grayson's charge that the GOP just wants people to die and Joe Wilson calling Obama a liar?
Well, for one, House leadership are not insisting he apologize even once, let alone twice. For another, there is substantial evidence that Joe Wilson was correct, whereas there is very little to back up Grayson's claim. But other than that, the incidents were pretty much the same.
Good behavior for thee, but not for me.
Well, for one, House leadership are not insisting he apologize even once, let alone twice. For another, there is substantial evidence that Joe Wilson was correct, whereas there is very little to back up Grayson's claim. But other than that, the incidents were pretty much the same.
Good behavior for thee, but not for me.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
I think your computer would do it better
Actual tweet from someone who just started following me:
This person really needs his computer to start typing his tweets for him. Computers at least know basic rules of grammar. He doesn't do much to convince me I should trust him anywhere near my business. I don't need to look like an uneducated hick...automatically.
I am not going to be nice and follow this person back.
I realize that Twitter forces one to be brief, and perhaps he has decided to trade punctuation for brevity. But just drop "LOL, " from that tweet and you've bought yourself enough punctuation to look intelligent.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Social media is all fine and good, but it is only as smart as the user. Broadcasting a poor image to a million people instead of a few thousand just drives your business into the ground that much faster. The rules of business still apply. The Internet is merely an equalizer, not a miracle-maker. If you are clueless, it can't help you.
The more technology encourages people to communicate without proper grammar and spelling, the easier it will become to differentiate oneself by merely writing to an acceptable standard. There are already too many people out there who think that grammar is the person married to grampar.
[/snark]
Im not Actually typing this my computer is!!! LOL, email me to learn how to automate your business
This person really needs his computer to start typing his tweets for him. Computers at least know basic rules of grammar. He doesn't do much to convince me I should trust him anywhere near my business. I don't need to look like an uneducated hick...automatically.
I am not going to be nice and follow this person back.
I realize that Twitter forces one to be brief, and perhaps he has decided to trade punctuation for brevity. But just drop "LOL, " from that tweet and you've bought yourself enough punctuation to look intelligent.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Social media is all fine and good, but it is only as smart as the user. Broadcasting a poor image to a million people instead of a few thousand just drives your business into the ground that much faster. The rules of business still apply. The Internet is merely an equalizer, not a miracle-maker. If you are clueless, it can't help you.
The more technology encourages people to communicate without proper grammar and spelling, the easier it will become to differentiate oneself by merely writing to an acceptable standard. There are already too many people out there who think that grammar is the person married to grampar.
[/snark]
Socialism and the assault on the middle-class
This weekend I had a lengthy conversation with a gentleman from Ecuador. He spoke about conditions in his own country and how things are headed that way here. He explained that down there the socialists have gained power by taking from the middle-class and giving it to the poor. Not from the rich, but the middle class.
They don't take from the rich because they want to become rich themselves. They don't want a middle class, because the middle class can threaten them. The poor, however, can be easily diverted in their hatred of the rich to take it out on the middle class. They can be placated by handouts from the government.
Eventually they eliminate the middle class, leaving only the rich-and-in-power, and the poor who depend on the government for everything. As the old song goes, the rich get richer and the poor get children.
We need to be more observant here. Sure, the Cap-and-Trade bill will impact companies and the wealthy. But the main impact will be on the middle-class. Energy costs are nothing to the rich, but they're a significant budget item for the middle-class. Universal Health Care means nothing to the rich. They'll go wherever they need to to get the best care. But saddle the middle-class with their own health care costs (from keeping their private plans) and subsidizing health care for the poor, and suddenly they don't have much left to go around. Hit them with both and the middle-class start resembling the poor--only they're not eligible for the handouts.
People are not stupid. Provide them enough disincentive and they'll get the message. They'll give up and join the poor. It's easier than trying to get ahead and become rich. It's easier than trying to hold the line and remain middle-class.
Socialism doesn't lift everyone to higher levels. It drags everyone else down to the lowest common denominator. After so many decades of fighting against socialism around the globe you think we'd have learned that by now and know better than to bring it here.
They don't take from the rich because they want to become rich themselves. They don't want a middle class, because the middle class can threaten them. The poor, however, can be easily diverted in their hatred of the rich to take it out on the middle class. They can be placated by handouts from the government.
Eventually they eliminate the middle class, leaving only the rich-and-in-power, and the poor who depend on the government for everything. As the old song goes, the rich get richer and the poor get children.
We need to be more observant here. Sure, the Cap-and-Trade bill will impact companies and the wealthy. But the main impact will be on the middle-class. Energy costs are nothing to the rich, but they're a significant budget item for the middle-class. Universal Health Care means nothing to the rich. They'll go wherever they need to to get the best care. But saddle the middle-class with their own health care costs (from keeping their private plans) and subsidizing health care for the poor, and suddenly they don't have much left to go around. Hit them with both and the middle-class start resembling the poor--only they're not eligible for the handouts.
People are not stupid. Provide them enough disincentive and they'll get the message. They'll give up and join the poor. It's easier than trying to get ahead and become rich. It's easier than trying to hold the line and remain middle-class.
Socialism doesn't lift everyone to higher levels. It drags everyone else down to the lowest common denominator. After so many decades of fighting against socialism around the globe you think we'd have learned that by now and know better than to bring it here.
Racist is as racist does
Sonja Schmidt over at PJTV has a video installment on racism and the Democratic Party. It's an interesting video, but most disturbing is the segment showing Sen. Barbara Boxer trying to counter testimony from the head of a national chamber of commerce organization (who is black) on what seems to be a science-related issue by citing that the NAACP takes a different stance.
She seems to be implying that the NAACP's position should be the standard position for all blacks, and that this gentleman should just shut up and accept it. When he rightly takes offense at her intimation of not toeing the black party line she continues to talk to him in an increasingly demeaning way.
To his credit he doesn't back down and calls her out on it. The liberals stance that any black who does not agree with their policies is a sell-out, self-loathing Uncle Tom is much more racist and nasty than any of the protest statements the left are currently denouncing as racist. It's time more people called them on it.
The idea that one should always think and feel (and vote) a certain way because of one's race is despicable. It is wrong. To attack any member of a particular ethnic group because they disagree with that "party line" is vile, underhanded, and racism at its worst. The left have no business lecturing the rest of us on racism until they clean up their own act first.
She seems to be implying that the NAACP's position should be the standard position for all blacks, and that this gentleman should just shut up and accept it. When he rightly takes offense at her intimation of not toeing the black party line she continues to talk to him in an increasingly demeaning way.
To his credit he doesn't back down and calls her out on it. The liberals stance that any black who does not agree with their policies is a sell-out, self-loathing Uncle Tom is much more racist and nasty than any of the protest statements the left are currently denouncing as racist. It's time more people called them on it.
The idea that one should always think and feel (and vote) a certain way because of one's race is despicable. It is wrong. To attack any member of a particular ethnic group because they disagree with that "party line" is vile, underhanded, and racism at its worst. The left have no business lecturing the rest of us on racism until they clean up their own act first.
From the "Too Much Free Time" files
I give you...Monty Python's "Camelot" as performed by the Star Trek Players:
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Greetings to space
For the last four nights the International Space Station has been visible orbiting above our city at least once per night. For some inexplicable reason I've felt compelled to go out and watch every night. Tuesday night it made its earliest pass of the week, and I took the kids outside to watch.
It's little more than a bright light, a little brighter than Venus perhaps, traveling across the sky, fading in out of the sunset and fading out toward the east. I watched it with binoculars the first night, but it's simply too high for my birdwatching binoculars to help much.
But each night I've been out there watching that little bright point of light pass overhead. I've always been excited about space, I suppose, from the time my brother woke me up early one morning to watch the first space shuttle launch on TV. There is something inherently exciting about the idea of traveling out there in the void where distances quickly become mind-staggeringly meaningless, where there is barely anything at all, and where one slight misstep is not just dangerous, but fatal.
To the men and women who have served on the ISS, I salute you. And, given the chance, I keep a quiet vigil from my backyard. You'll never know it, but there is at least one pair of eyes in Idaho noting your passage in the night sky. God bless, and good night.
It's little more than a bright light, a little brighter than Venus perhaps, traveling across the sky, fading in out of the sunset and fading out toward the east. I watched it with binoculars the first night, but it's simply too high for my birdwatching binoculars to help much.
But each night I've been out there watching that little bright point of light pass overhead. I've always been excited about space, I suppose, from the time my brother woke me up early one morning to watch the first space shuttle launch on TV. There is something inherently exciting about the idea of traveling out there in the void where distances quickly become mind-staggeringly meaningless, where there is barely anything at all, and where one slight misstep is not just dangerous, but fatal.
To the men and women who have served on the ISS, I salute you. And, given the chance, I keep a quiet vigil from my backyard. You'll never know it, but there is at least one pair of eyes in Idaho noting your passage in the night sky. God bless, and good night.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Things that concern me
Starting off, the FCC chairman has decided the Internet needs his regulation.
Harry Reid doesn't want to investigate ACORN.
Investigating baseball steroids use is important, but not what some questionable political group does with taxpayer funds. Harry, your moralectomy was a complete success. Heck, even Barney Frank is starting to question ACORN.
The Washington Post is coming to the defense of Congress by saying that requiring them to read every bill they vote on would bring government to a standstill. As Glenn Reynolds says, "That's not a bug, it's a feature..."
Meanwhile, our Secretary of Energy thinks Americans are children who need to be taught how to act.
This concerns me, and I'd like to see a reference for this claim:
We don't need bureaucrats for that. It's already in the lesson plans for every school out there. My children get it in school regularly. I get frequent lectures from my kids based on stuff they heard in school. Of course they still can't manage to turn out the bathroom light when they're done, but hey, they're only supposed to pass on the message, not heed it themselves.
And what's this? Is the government really helping out the drug companies in exchange for pro-reform advertising? In light of the recent NEA scandal, it's not hard to imagine.
Meanwhile, Democrats have rejected a GOP bill that would have required putting the text of the health-care bill online 72 hours before an vote.
Remember when posting the text of bills online before a vote was a plank of Obama's platform? He doesn't.
Of course he's too busy apologizing for America, stiffing our friends and loving our enemies:
Evidently if we want moral leadership we need to look to Canada, of all places:
And finally, what better way to wrap up than a jab at our dear friend Charlie Rangel, who can write tax law blindfolded. That way he can honestly claim to never have seen it when he fails to follow it himself later on.
Now, whenever a telecom company wants to implement a new service or product that works by manipulating traffic flow on the Web, it will have to worry about whether or not its innovation might set off Genochowski's sense of... well, whatever it is that he and the rest of the regulators at the FCC don't like.
Harry Reid doesn't want to investigate ACORN.
Reid, D-Nev., said Tuesday that he would not ask the Senate committee chairmen or Congress “to do anything that would distract from efforts to address” health care, climate change, an overhaul of the nation’s financial regulatory system and oversight of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Investigating baseball steroids use is important, but not what some questionable political group does with taxpayer funds. Harry, your moralectomy was a complete success. Heck, even Barney Frank is starting to question ACORN.
The Washington Post is coming to the defense of Congress by saying that requiring them to read every bill they vote on would bring government to a standstill. As Glenn Reynolds says, "That's not a bug, it's a feature..."
Meanwhile, our Secretary of Energy thinks Americans are children who need to be taught how to act.
This week, prepping for the upcoming Copenhagen climate change talks, Dr. Steven Chu, our erstwhile Energy secretary, crystallized the administration's underlying thinking by claiming that the "American public . . . just like your teenage kids, aren't acting in a way that they should act. The American public has to really understand in their core how important this issue is."
This concerns me, and I'd like to see a reference for this claim:
Chu will deploy bureaucrats to more than 6,000 public schools to, um, teach children about "climate change" and efficiency. They probably won't mention that the Energy Department was found to have wasted millions on inefficient use of energy by an independent auditor this year. (Listen, even our parents aren't perfect.)
We don't need bureaucrats for that. It's already in the lesson plans for every school out there. My children get it in school regularly. I get frequent lectures from my kids based on stuff they heard in school. Of course they still can't manage to turn out the bathroom light when they're done, but hey, they're only supposed to pass on the message, not heed it themselves.
And what's this? Is the government really helping out the drug companies in exchange for pro-reform advertising? In light of the recent NEA scandal, it's not hard to imagine.
Meanwhile, Democrats have rejected a GOP bill that would have required putting the text of the health-care bill online 72 hours before an vote.
Remember when posting the text of bills online before a vote was a plank of Obama's platform? He doesn't.
Of course he's too busy apologizing for America, stiffing our friends and loving our enemies:
But on foreign policy as his record emerges -- as he reverses himself on missile defense and perhaps on Afghanistan -- his motivating principle seems rooted in an analysis, common in his formative university years, that America has too often been on the side of the bad guys. The response has been to disrespect those who have been our friends and to bow to our enemies.
Evidently if we want moral leadership we need to look to Canada, of all places:
“President Ahmadinejad’s repeated denial of the Holocaust and his anti-Israel comments run counter to the values of the UN General Assembly, and they’re shameful,” said one Canadian official.
“He uses his public appearances to provoke the international community, and that is why Canada’s seats will be empty.”
And finally, what better way to wrap up than a jab at our dear friend Charlie Rangel, who can write tax law blindfolded. That way he can honestly claim to never have seen it when he fails to follow it himself later on.
It's not whether you are loved, but who loves you
The Telegraph, a British paper, offers the following analysis of Barak Obama on the international stage:
I feel safer already.
Simply put, Barack Obama is loved at the UN because he largely fails to advance real American leadership. This is a dangerous strategy of decline that will weaken US power and make her far more vulnerable to attack.
As we saw last week with his shameful surrender to Moscow over missile defence, the president is perfectly happy to undermine America’s allies and gut its strategic defences while currying favour with enemies and strategic competitors. The missile defence debacle is rightly viewed as a betrayal by the Poles and the Czechs, and Washington has clearly give the impression that it cares little about those who have bravely stood shoulder to shoulder with their US allies in Iraq, Afghanistan and the wider war on terror.
The Obama administration is now overseeing and implementing the biggest decline in American global power since Jimmy Carter. Unfortunately it may well take another generation for the United States to recover.
I feel safer already.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Saturn in all its glory
I am not kidding. This picture, (Hat Tip Bad Astronomy) is simply incredible. Or, if you're really up for a show, try this larger version (picture is large. Scroll down and right for the main show).
It's stuff like this that adds a little perspective to one's day. Political sniping loses importance in the face of such reminders of the wonders just outside our own world. Or in our world, for that matter.
It's stuff like this that adds a little perspective to one's day. Political sniping loses importance in the face of such reminders of the wonders just outside our own world. Or in our world, for that matter.
Why don't I like Glenn Beck?
Several friends of mine are avid listeners of Glenn Beck, but I can't bring myself to become one myself. I've listened to a little bit, and while I find him at times amusing and at times correct, I still can't warm to him. Ron Radosh over at Pajamas Media comes close encapsulating my viewpoint, I think, by encapsulating David Horowitz:
I admit some of my dislike of Glenn Beck is a gut reaction. My father was an early and avid "Ditto-head" when Rush Limbaugh first impacted on the scene. The more avid he became the more I avoided Rush. Beck reminds me of Rush, and so triggers my habitual wariness.
Yet, on the recommendation of some persons whose opinions I respect, I read Beck's "Common Sense" recently and found it convincing. If that was the Beck who showed up on the radio every day I might be more inclined to listen, had I the time. But therein, too, lies the problem. I'm not willing to give very many people a full hour of my time. If they can't make their point in a few minutes it's time I was moving on.
But ultimately I think my main reason for disliking Glenn Beck is because of his incite-ful style. He is a merchant of anger, and I find that distasteful and counterproductive. Anger doesn't get the job done, not when the job is something that requires long-term focus and commitment. And Anger is too easily subverted for other purposes.
There's a popular bumper sticker that says "If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention." The trouble is, the opposite is also true: If you're outraged you're not paying attention to anything else. I can't live a life of continual outrage. I don't need to be outraged to act, and I fear those who do. Outrage far too often leaves one unable to think clearly, and therefore prone to having others do their thinking for them.
I'll take a platoon of calm, cool, rationally concerned people motivated to action over an army of the outraged any day.
Granted, that can be hard to come by.
And let me give the last word to David Horowitz, who reasonably accepts part of what David Frum has said, when he makes the following point. Beck, he says in one of his blogs, has done good things and must be given credit for this and not be read out of the conservative movement. Yet, he agrees that Beck must be “reined in” and corrected when he goes too far. If those in the conservative ranks who support Beck do just that, Beck’s excesses can be tempered, and those who do not like him will listen to him more carefully when he is right.
I admit some of my dislike of Glenn Beck is a gut reaction. My father was an early and avid "Ditto-head" when Rush Limbaugh first impacted on the scene. The more avid he became the more I avoided Rush. Beck reminds me of Rush, and so triggers my habitual wariness.
Yet, on the recommendation of some persons whose opinions I respect, I read Beck's "Common Sense" recently and found it convincing. If that was the Beck who showed up on the radio every day I might be more inclined to listen, had I the time. But therein, too, lies the problem. I'm not willing to give very many people a full hour of my time. If they can't make their point in a few minutes it's time I was moving on.
But ultimately I think my main reason for disliking Glenn Beck is because of his incite-ful style. He is a merchant of anger, and I find that distasteful and counterproductive. Anger doesn't get the job done, not when the job is something that requires long-term focus and commitment. And Anger is too easily subverted for other purposes.
There's a popular bumper sticker that says "If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention." The trouble is, the opposite is also true: If you're outraged you're not paying attention to anything else. I can't live a life of continual outrage. I don't need to be outraged to act, and I fear those who do. Outrage far too often leaves one unable to think clearly, and therefore prone to having others do their thinking for them.
I'll take a platoon of calm, cool, rationally concerned people motivated to action over an army of the outraged any day.
Granted, that can be hard to come by.
Monday, September 21, 2009
In defense of Ewoks.
This weekend I completed the indoctrination of my children by showing them Return of the Jedi. I know, there are three other movies still to go, but I'm still ambivalent about the "newer older" movies. Perhaps in time I'll watch them again to see if they're any better than I remember. I mostly just remember being overwhelmed with special effects and underwhelmed with actual plot and acting.
But to get back to my children, Return of the Jedi for many Star Wars fans is the worst of the three, for one main reason: Ewoks. There are very few ambivalent fans where Ewoks are concerned. You either hate them or love them. Most hate them.
I'm one of the ambivalent ones. I thought they were fun the first few times. I don't dislike them now. I have no problem with a bunch of overgrown teddy-bears defeating an entire legion of the Emperor's best troops. With the Empire, that's not saying much. The Empire military doctrine always seemed to be "either build massive, intimidating weapon systems or throw more troops at them". They deserved to get beat by a band of teddy bears with teeth.
I have more of a problem with either the speed at which the Ewoks were able to prepare all their traps, or the fact that the Imperial troops basically ignored those traps for so long, depending on which premise you believe. I think the Ewoks had too easy of a time with it, but that was more a fault in the story-telling than anything else. Lucas dwelt more on the Ewoks beating up stormtroopers than on stormtroopers beating up Ewoks, yet also portray's Chewbacca's liberation of a scout walker as the turning point in the battle. I don't think it was meant to look like such a cake-walk for the Ewoks, yet that's how the battle came across.
But there was one aspect of the entire situation I hadn't considered until my kids showed me. Kids love Ewoks. At least mine do, and I now can see why. They'd sat through three movies of scary stuff. Scary bad people. Scary alien monsters (Jabba's Palace wins the competition for my six-year-old son's least-favorite part). Big people fighting big, uncertain fights. It's the sort of thing that caused great amounts of anxiety in even my bravest kid.
Then along come the Ewoks. They're cute, they're small, they're non-threatening. They obviously have to be good. And then the cute, small, non-threatening "silly-bears", as my kids call them, proceed to kick the scary people's butts in cute, amusing ways (unless you're the Imperial walker crew caught between those two logs). It's not just a triumph for the Rebellion. It's not just a triumph for the Ewoks. It's a triumph for small, repressed things everywhere, which includes children who have sat through three movies of scariness and never seen it completely defeated, merely escaped. Until the Ewoks do it.
In short, I think George Lucas, consciously or not, was tapping into the adolescent psyche. He'd been providing the coolness and wonder for three movies already, but he still needed to provide that empowering image that children could connect with. The Ewoks provided that. They are the one thing in the trilogy that kids can connect with whole-heartedly. They're the comic relief of the movies, and they save the day.
I think Jar Jar Binks and the Gungans played that role in the next three movies, though primarily in the first. I think Jar Jar was not there for the adults, but for the kids. But the adults hated him--much like many adults at least now hate the Ewoks.
Young Anakin was, I believe, intended for a similar function. He was a kid played for kids. Yes, to adults lines like "Let's try spinning, that's a good trick" sound corny and...well, childish. But I've heard similar things come from my own children's lips.
I don't think the adults were ready for a young Darth Vader that acted like a kid. I think we were expecting something more like the little girl from Poltergeist or something; creepy and vaguely menacing. Instead we got...Anakin. And many of the adults never forgave Lucas for that. Especially for that, coupled with Jar Jar.
Time and nostalgia tends to make all of us take things from our childhood more seriously than we should. The original Star Wars trilogy, for all its excitement and dark aspects, was meant to be fun. Let's face it, parts of Episode IV are just plain silly. Like the trash monster. Like the Jawas. Like the cantina band. Like C-3PO. We're not supposed to think too much, just enjoy.
Time ages us, however, and we somehow get the idea that our beloved Star Wars we remember from our youth was somehow better and more serious than it was. So when a new set of movies came out, we went expecting something more like Star Trek: Deep Space Nine or some of the other darker, more "adult" sci-fi we had been subsisting on in the mean time.
Lucas went the other direction. He made Episode I to out-Star Wars the originally Trilogy. He emphasized what he thought were the key ingredients in making it fun--and had we still been the children we had been when was first saw it, he would have been right. We told him on no uncertain terms that he'd gotten it wrong. We hated Anakin and Jar Jar.
He wasn't stupid. He made a quick attitude correction hoping that he'd done enough to bring in the kids in the Phantom Menace that they'd stick with him through the darker, more angst-filled remaining two films. It was the adults he had to convince now, and I'm not sure he really knew how. The result was two more films that, in my opinion, lacked the fun of the original trilogy while not ever quite figuring out what else to be instead.
I'm not so sure that Revenge of the Sith couldn't have been made better with a dash of Ewoks. My kids are clamoring for me to show them the next three, but I'm hesitant. After Phantom Menace there will be precious little pay-off for them. I'm not sure I want them getting the message that not all movies end well just yet. I'm pretty sure I don't want them getting that message from a set of movies that basically tell you "life sucks and then it gets worse, and there aren't even Ewoks to make you laugh along the way."
Because no matter what you may think, real life is not that way. Even if it sucks and just gets worse, there will always be Ewoks if you know where to look.
But to get back to my children, Return of the Jedi for many Star Wars fans is the worst of the three, for one main reason: Ewoks. There are very few ambivalent fans where Ewoks are concerned. You either hate them or love them. Most hate them.
I'm one of the ambivalent ones. I thought they were fun the first few times. I don't dislike them now. I have no problem with a bunch of overgrown teddy-bears defeating an entire legion of the Emperor's best troops. With the Empire, that's not saying much. The Empire military doctrine always seemed to be "either build massive, intimidating weapon systems or throw more troops at them". They deserved to get beat by a band of teddy bears with teeth.
I have more of a problem with either the speed at which the Ewoks were able to prepare all their traps, or the fact that the Imperial troops basically ignored those traps for so long, depending on which premise you believe. I think the Ewoks had too easy of a time with it, but that was more a fault in the story-telling than anything else. Lucas dwelt more on the Ewoks beating up stormtroopers than on stormtroopers beating up Ewoks, yet also portray's Chewbacca's liberation of a scout walker as the turning point in the battle. I don't think it was meant to look like such a cake-walk for the Ewoks, yet that's how the battle came across.
But there was one aspect of the entire situation I hadn't considered until my kids showed me. Kids love Ewoks. At least mine do, and I now can see why. They'd sat through three movies of scary stuff. Scary bad people. Scary alien monsters (Jabba's Palace wins the competition for my six-year-old son's least-favorite part). Big people fighting big, uncertain fights. It's the sort of thing that caused great amounts of anxiety in even my bravest kid.
Then along come the Ewoks. They're cute, they're small, they're non-threatening. They obviously have to be good. And then the cute, small, non-threatening "silly-bears", as my kids call them, proceed to kick the scary people's butts in cute, amusing ways (unless you're the Imperial walker crew caught between those two logs). It's not just a triumph for the Rebellion. It's not just a triumph for the Ewoks. It's a triumph for small, repressed things everywhere, which includes children who have sat through three movies of scariness and never seen it completely defeated, merely escaped. Until the Ewoks do it.
In short, I think George Lucas, consciously or not, was tapping into the adolescent psyche. He'd been providing the coolness and wonder for three movies already, but he still needed to provide that empowering image that children could connect with. The Ewoks provided that. They are the one thing in the trilogy that kids can connect with whole-heartedly. They're the comic relief of the movies, and they save the day.
I think Jar Jar Binks and the Gungans played that role in the next three movies, though primarily in the first. I think Jar Jar was not there for the adults, but for the kids. But the adults hated him--much like many adults at least now hate the Ewoks.
Young Anakin was, I believe, intended for a similar function. He was a kid played for kids. Yes, to adults lines like "Let's try spinning, that's a good trick" sound corny and...well, childish. But I've heard similar things come from my own children's lips.
I don't think the adults were ready for a young Darth Vader that acted like a kid. I think we were expecting something more like the little girl from Poltergeist or something; creepy and vaguely menacing. Instead we got...Anakin. And many of the adults never forgave Lucas for that. Especially for that, coupled with Jar Jar.
Time and nostalgia tends to make all of us take things from our childhood more seriously than we should. The original Star Wars trilogy, for all its excitement and dark aspects, was meant to be fun. Let's face it, parts of Episode IV are just plain silly. Like the trash monster. Like the Jawas. Like the cantina band. Like C-3PO. We're not supposed to think too much, just enjoy.
Time ages us, however, and we somehow get the idea that our beloved Star Wars we remember from our youth was somehow better and more serious than it was. So when a new set of movies came out, we went expecting something more like Star Trek: Deep Space Nine or some of the other darker, more "adult" sci-fi we had been subsisting on in the mean time.
Lucas went the other direction. He made Episode I to out-Star Wars the originally Trilogy. He emphasized what he thought were the key ingredients in making it fun--and had we still been the children we had been when was first saw it, he would have been right. We told him on no uncertain terms that he'd gotten it wrong. We hated Anakin and Jar Jar.
He wasn't stupid. He made a quick attitude correction hoping that he'd done enough to bring in the kids in the Phantom Menace that they'd stick with him through the darker, more angst-filled remaining two films. It was the adults he had to convince now, and I'm not sure he really knew how. The result was two more films that, in my opinion, lacked the fun of the original trilogy while not ever quite figuring out what else to be instead.
I'm not so sure that Revenge of the Sith couldn't have been made better with a dash of Ewoks. My kids are clamoring for me to show them the next three, but I'm hesitant. After Phantom Menace there will be precious little pay-off for them. I'm not sure I want them getting the message that not all movies end well just yet. I'm pretty sure I don't want them getting that message from a set of movies that basically tell you "life sucks and then it gets worse, and there aren't even Ewoks to make you laugh along the way."
Because no matter what you may think, real life is not that way. Even if it sucks and just gets worse, there will always be Ewoks if you know where to look.
Double standards on criminal behavior
This weekend in our city a female schoolteacher was arrested for having sex with a thirteen year old student. Today I overheard some colleagues discussing it. Their consensus was that this woman's husband must not be much of a man if his wife needed to go have sex with teenagers.
Can you imagine anyone saying that if the situation were reversed? Did anyone suggest of Elliot Spitzer's wife that she was an inadequate lover? Does anyone ever think to place the blame on anyone but the rapist when the rapist is male? Not that I excuse male rapists in any way, but that's the point. Why do female rapists get a pass? Why do people look for external causes to explain their behavior?
It would be unthinkable to blame the wife for a husband's sexual crimes, but it's entirely too common to blame the husband when the wife messes up. This teacher did not do what she did because of her husband. She did it because she has some deep, serious problems. She made some very bad choices, and she alone is responsible for them.
Or have we merely progressed for far on eliminating sexism against females that we over-compensated and are now sexist against men?
Can you imagine anyone saying that if the situation were reversed? Did anyone suggest of Elliot Spitzer's wife that she was an inadequate lover? Does anyone ever think to place the blame on anyone but the rapist when the rapist is male? Not that I excuse male rapists in any way, but that's the point. Why do female rapists get a pass? Why do people look for external causes to explain their behavior?
It would be unthinkable to blame the wife for a husband's sexual crimes, but it's entirely too common to blame the husband when the wife messes up. This teacher did not do what she did because of her husband. She did it because she has some deep, serious problems. She made some very bad choices, and she alone is responsible for them.
Or have we merely progressed for far on eliminating sexism against females that we over-compensated and are now sexist against men?
Friday, September 18, 2009
The detritus of our lives
My den has become home to a family of four kittens being fattened up for adoption. Our local shelter can't adopt them out until they're big enough to be neutered, which isn't until they're around ten weeks old. In the mean time they need the cages space for all the cats that can be adopted, so they've asked foster families to take on kittens for awhile.
Kittens are frisky. Kittens have sharp claws. And they can't be allowed out into the rest of the house, so my den door is always closed. I am somewhat allergic to cats, and my den gets stuffy without proper ventilation. In short, I have been unable to use my den much.
This weekend we came up with a solution. The den is becoming my wife's sewing room, and I'm moving my desk and stuff up to our bedroom where her sewing stuff was. It should be an easy swap, right?
Except my desk won't fit in our bedroom. It's a corner desk, and won't fit in any corner of the house except the one it was in. So out it goes, and in the mean time I've built a new desk from an old closet door, a bookcase, and a filing cabinet. It's actually quite nice. I have more desk space than I've ever had before.
The trouble is finding places for all the stuff that used to go in the old desk and bookcase. I never realized just how much stuff had built up there in the four years since we moved in. All of that stuff no longer has a place, but dearly needs one.
Much of it is not simple-to-place stuff. We're talking about old keys I'm not sure what they go to. Or old cassette tapes that I'm not sure what is on them. Or that container of change from the yard sale. Two undeveloped rolls of film. Where do they go?
To find out could require a significant amount of time. I'd have to try every lock in the house to figure out what to do with the keys. I'd have to find one of the few working cassette players to try the tape on. I'd have to find my wife and have a non-trivial discussion on where the change can goes. Okay, the Chuck E. Cheese token can go in the trash. There, one piece of clutter gone.
It's like a bomb went off in a thrift store, and I'm sifting through the rubble trying to reconstruct both the bomb and the store. We accumulate so many things in our lives that have significance only in where they came from. I have dozens of little knickknacks given to me by my children or by flummoxed family. I love them, because I love the people who gave them to me.
And I can never get rid of them, especially anything given to me by my kids. Every single crayon scribble on paper must remain a cherished keepsake until at least a few years have passed to where even they don't remember it anymore. Then you quietly slip it into the trash and hope this is not the day they decided to go through Daddy's garbage can.
The bulk of my writing has ground to a halt this week. The task of sorting, sifting, and placing has gone on much longer than expected. Not all of it has been drudgery. I came across several manila envelopes full of old pictures my mom sent me. There are numerous mementos of ten years of marriage; paperwork for cars long dead, loans paid off, or education completed. It's a fossil record marking the passage of life and the evolution of souls.
Some of it gets thrown away at long last, though you can almost hear the grief-stricken wail of the abandoned artifact, unable to comprehend why it, and not the receipt for the microwave, is being tossed aside. Such is the burden of a sentimental person. Everything has meaning. Everything represents a lifetime of memories, and to dispose of the object somehow diminishes the memory. Isn't my daughter's first gymnastics lesson just as important as the last car payment? They both left behind receipts. Where do you draw the line?
It seems easier just to hoard and hoard every little artifact until desperation forces your hand. You simply have to reclaim more space, so this time it's the manual for the old refrigerator that gets it, along with the receipt for when you got your wedding rings re-sized. Another memory dies, gasping its final death rattle.
It's not good to live too much in the past, but it's still good to visit now and then. It's good to measure growth, to reconnect with things now taken for granted.
My in-laws are in the process of moving to a smaller place from the townhouse where they lived for over thirty years. I do not envy them the task of deciding which bits of memory are worth saving. A lot of memories will be taking their last breaths.
Where do you draw the line?
Kittens are frisky. Kittens have sharp claws. And they can't be allowed out into the rest of the house, so my den door is always closed. I am somewhat allergic to cats, and my den gets stuffy without proper ventilation. In short, I have been unable to use my den much.
This weekend we came up with a solution. The den is becoming my wife's sewing room, and I'm moving my desk and stuff up to our bedroom where her sewing stuff was. It should be an easy swap, right?
Except my desk won't fit in our bedroom. It's a corner desk, and won't fit in any corner of the house except the one it was in. So out it goes, and in the mean time I've built a new desk from an old closet door, a bookcase, and a filing cabinet. It's actually quite nice. I have more desk space than I've ever had before.
The trouble is finding places for all the stuff that used to go in the old desk and bookcase. I never realized just how much stuff had built up there in the four years since we moved in. All of that stuff no longer has a place, but dearly needs one.
Much of it is not simple-to-place stuff. We're talking about old keys I'm not sure what they go to. Or old cassette tapes that I'm not sure what is on them. Or that container of change from the yard sale. Two undeveloped rolls of film. Where do they go?
To find out could require a significant amount of time. I'd have to try every lock in the house to figure out what to do with the keys. I'd have to find one of the few working cassette players to try the tape on. I'd have to find my wife and have a non-trivial discussion on where the change can goes. Okay, the Chuck E. Cheese token can go in the trash. There, one piece of clutter gone.
It's like a bomb went off in a thrift store, and I'm sifting through the rubble trying to reconstruct both the bomb and the store. We accumulate so many things in our lives that have significance only in where they came from. I have dozens of little knickknacks given to me by my children or by flummoxed family. I love them, because I love the people who gave them to me.
And I can never get rid of them, especially anything given to me by my kids. Every single crayon scribble on paper must remain a cherished keepsake until at least a few years have passed to where even they don't remember it anymore. Then you quietly slip it into the trash and hope this is not the day they decided to go through Daddy's garbage can.
The bulk of my writing has ground to a halt this week. The task of sorting, sifting, and placing has gone on much longer than expected. Not all of it has been drudgery. I came across several manila envelopes full of old pictures my mom sent me. There are numerous mementos of ten years of marriage; paperwork for cars long dead, loans paid off, or education completed. It's a fossil record marking the passage of life and the evolution of souls.
Some of it gets thrown away at long last, though you can almost hear the grief-stricken wail of the abandoned artifact, unable to comprehend why it, and not the receipt for the microwave, is being tossed aside. Such is the burden of a sentimental person. Everything has meaning. Everything represents a lifetime of memories, and to dispose of the object somehow diminishes the memory. Isn't my daughter's first gymnastics lesson just as important as the last car payment? They both left behind receipts. Where do you draw the line?
It seems easier just to hoard and hoard every little artifact until desperation forces your hand. You simply have to reclaim more space, so this time it's the manual for the old refrigerator that gets it, along with the receipt for when you got your wedding rings re-sized. Another memory dies, gasping its final death rattle.
It's not good to live too much in the past, but it's still good to visit now and then. It's good to measure growth, to reconnect with things now taken for granted.
My in-laws are in the process of moving to a smaller place from the townhouse where they lived for over thirty years. I do not envy them the task of deciding which bits of memory are worth saving. A lot of memories will be taking their last breaths.
Where do you draw the line?
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Fighting racism with prejudice
Someone in my Facebook friends list (I don't recall how she came to get there) was ranting about "teabaggers" and how they are all racist and ignorant because she saw a few signs at a rally that could be taken in a racist manner.
Obviously the irony of her own statements were lost on her. Certainly the implications for liberal protests were. I'm sure there were some liberals who were uncomfortable with some of the signs that showed up to some of their protests, too, and would take exception with someone assuming that they agreed with those signs just because they were at the same rally.
I'll tell you right now, I did NOT agree with the "Birther" at the Tea Party rally here in Boise last week. And I thought quite a few signs were too angry for my tastes. But they have a right to say what they want to say, whether I like it or not.
I still don't get how liberals can call themselves "intellectuals" and simultaneously hold the belief that anyone who disagrees with the current administration is racist. Especially since I'm pretty sure a large number of liberals disagree with the current administration on a number of issues, such as Obama's move today to renew three key points of the Patriot Act, or our escalating commitment in Afghanistan. By their own definition, they are now officially racist.
I disagree with the current administration on a number of issues. I also agree with many of the actions Obama has taken since taking office. So which is it, people? Am I racist or not? Please spell it out for me. How many issues must I agree with the president on before I am not a racist?
And where does criticism of Pelosi and Reid enter on the spectrum? Since a good portion of the details of "Obama's" policies actually come from them, am I racist for disagreeing with Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid? Can a white person be racist against a white person?
Of course this entire train of thinking is idiotic. It's merely justification by the left for not listening to any criticism of their hero. If they can find a way to dismiss another's arguments before even hearing them they never have to risk being uncomfortable or questioning their own moral superiority. Crying racism is a cop-out, and in the long run it will do more damage to their cause than they realize. Soon everything will be "racism" to the point that real racism will become irrelevant.
I "unfriended" this person. I'm probably a racist for doing so, even though she's white. But, having reviewed her own words (which is more than she has done for me before painting me as an ignorant racist), I find I have no desire to associate or, by accepting her as a friend, imply any approval of her prejudice and intellectual dishonesty. She is, quite simply, everything she is supposedly against, but refuses to see it. She is no friend of mine.
Obviously the irony of her own statements were lost on her. Certainly the implications for liberal protests were. I'm sure there were some liberals who were uncomfortable with some of the signs that showed up to some of their protests, too, and would take exception with someone assuming that they agreed with those signs just because they were at the same rally.
I'll tell you right now, I did NOT agree with the "Birther" at the Tea Party rally here in Boise last week. And I thought quite a few signs were too angry for my tastes. But they have a right to say what they want to say, whether I like it or not.
I still don't get how liberals can call themselves "intellectuals" and simultaneously hold the belief that anyone who disagrees with the current administration is racist. Especially since I'm pretty sure a large number of liberals disagree with the current administration on a number of issues, such as Obama's move today to renew three key points of the Patriot Act, or our escalating commitment in Afghanistan. By their own definition, they are now officially racist.
I disagree with the current administration on a number of issues. I also agree with many of the actions Obama has taken since taking office. So which is it, people? Am I racist or not? Please spell it out for me. How many issues must I agree with the president on before I am not a racist?
And where does criticism of Pelosi and Reid enter on the spectrum? Since a good portion of the details of "Obama's" policies actually come from them, am I racist for disagreeing with Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid? Can a white person be racist against a white person?
Of course this entire train of thinking is idiotic. It's merely justification by the left for not listening to any criticism of their hero. If they can find a way to dismiss another's arguments before even hearing them they never have to risk being uncomfortable or questioning their own moral superiority. Crying racism is a cop-out, and in the long run it will do more damage to their cause than they realize. Soon everything will be "racism" to the point that real racism will become irrelevant.
I "unfriended" this person. I'm probably a racist for doing so, even though she's white. But, having reviewed her own words (which is more than she has done for me before painting me as an ignorant racist), I find I have no desire to associate or, by accepting her as a friend, imply any approval of her prejudice and intellectual dishonesty. She is, quite simply, everything she is supposedly against, but refuses to see it. She is no friend of mine.
Fifteen minutes of fame
Last night I was just checking Instapundit one more time before heading to bed when something caught my eye--my own name. I'd nearly forgotten about it, but I'd sent Glenn Reynolds a brief email about the Boise Tea Party after I got home on Saturday. He posted it. Fortunately someone else had sent a picture. I had intended to, but forgot the camera in the hustle to get the kids ready.
Anyway, I was like a giddy fanboy to see my name on Instapundit. What can I say?
Anyway, I was like a giddy fanboy to see my name on Instapundit. What can I say?
Sunday, September 13, 2009
My First Tea Party: Why I joined in
I've never been to a demonstration/protest/rally before. It's not my..."thing". While my involvement in politics has increased dramatically since I became old enough to have something to lose, I've never really felt passionate enough about something to go demonstrate.
Perhaps that is because in my lifetime protesting has largely been the tool of choice of the Left. The right, as a general rule, are not protesters. And the moderates...well, we think both sides are nuts and tend not to get too close to either lest something undesirable rub off.
Besides which, I've never felt that protests work. In my rather short political history there's been little evidence that it does. How many anti-war and anti-Bush protests were there? What did they accomplish? They couldn't even sway enough democrats to their side.
Plus, I felt that their rabid, frothing anti-Bush hatred undermined their entire argument. I mean if these people were reasonable, thinking human beings they would surely realize that there is another side to the issue and be willing to acknowledge it, right? They would be more convincing if they acted reasonable. At least in my book.
Well, times they are a-changing. Over the last year or so I've grown increasingly dissatisfied with both parties. The Left are too busy trying to spend all our money, sock it to the rich, and get as many special interests hooked on government funding as they can. The Right are too busy trying to spend all our money, sock it to everyone but the rich, and annoy as many special interest groups as they can.
And then Obama took office. Though I didn't vote for him (my vote for McCain was not an enthusiastic one), I at least had hope that he would be who he campaigned as. I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. For awhile, at least on national security, it appeared he might be okay.
But as a team, Obama, Pelosi, and Reid have been atrocious. Obama has largely sat it out on domestic matters. He has offered no leadership on any of his "pet projects". He's simply told Congress "Send me a bill, and I'll sign it". So the democratic congress has served up the biggest slabs of partisan legislation they could find, laden with pork, and stuffed with little "gotchas". And they've tried to run them through before anyone had enough time to read them, a sure sign that they've had something to hide.
But the Republicans haven't had anything better to offer. Granted, the Democrats have largely cut them out of the process. But they've been unable to get any message out at all, let alone one that resonated with the public enough to sway them to their side. The GOP has become the party of zombies. They've done precious little to earn any trust. The only good thing they have done is keep saying no. But my own democrat congressman does that, too.
Then there's the corruption. The Republicans can't keep their pants on and the Democrats can't seem to file an honest tax return to save their lives. Nancy "I'm going to drain this swamp" Pelosi has done nothing to try to restore ethics wot Congress--unless a Republican does something wrong.
So I'm sick of all of them. No one represents me in Washington anymore, except perhaps for the Blue Dog Democrats, and then only on fiscal matters. The left has done their absolute best to shut down any dissent, including trying to frame any criticism of the sitting president as motivated by racism. That's a bunch of hooey, and they know it. But they also know that if they keep hurling the same epithets at reasonable people long enough they get scared off and go away.
Well here's a news flash for you. I do not trust Obama. I do not like his policies. I think his plans are dangerous. And I am not racist. I defy you to prove that I am. If Bill Cosby were to run for office I'd vote for him in a heartbeat. If Colin Powell or Condoleeza Rice were to run for office I'd seriously consider them after a good look at their policies. I judge people by the content of their character, their words, and their actions. Skin color matters about as much to me as the color of their car. If you've got any evidence to the contrary I urge you to bring it forward.
But to get back on topic, I'm extremely dissatisfied with our government--all of it. However, except for elections, which happen far too infrequently to avoid the pending disaster that is a Obama supported by Pelosi and Reid inadequately opposed by the GOP-light, there is nothing we can do except protest. And I've felt protest to be an ineffective tool of the politically demented.
The Tea Party protests have given me some hope. And the Town Halls of August helped, though the level of anger coming out has made me wary of associating myself with any of it. The 9-12 group has some good ideas, but I've associated it too much with Glenn Beck. Mind you, I don't mind Glenn Beck. I read his "Common Sense" and found it to be very good. He's got some good ideas. But he is an entertainer, and he takes his discourse to levels I do not wish to go.
So when I heard about our local September 12th Rally sponsored by the 9-12 group I wasn't interested. But the night before I talked with a friend who is more politically impassioned than I am. He asked me if I was going, and I said I wasn't. We discussed my reasons, and I posed the question of what good it would do.
He explained, first of all, that beyond saying it's a good idea, Glenn Beck is not involved in the 9-12 group. He encourages people to look into it, but that's it. And to answer my question of what good it would do, he simply reminded me that the more people who show up the more likely the politicians will take notice, and those who show up help determine what it is the politicians hear.
I replied that it was all well and good, but the only chance we really have to make a difference is for Americans to stay angry until the 2010 elections, and I doubt Americans will do that. He countered that the movement doesn't need angry people, it needs concerned people who are willing to stand up.
We ended up moving on to other topics, but the discussion stuck with me. Saturday morning in the shower I replayed the conversation in my head and realized that my excuses were just that--excuses. What chance does the Tea Party movement have of sustaining its efforts into 2010 if it sputters and dies now? If people aren't willing to stand up now while it's still fresh, who is going to stand up in a year from now when the powers that be are pulling every trick in their playbook to help us forget all about this year?
There is another reason to protest, and I had been the one to think of it during our conversation. There are people out there considering running for office. The way our election cycle works they have to be making their decisions soon if they are to get things started soon enough. By protesting now, these people may get a chance to see what issues are really important. It may help them shape their platform, and it may get good people who feel similarly to run, taking the protests of a sign that the support may be there for them next year.
But it basically boiled down to the fact that for me to feel as strongly about the situation as I do and then to not try every avenue to get my voice heard would be a useless waste of energy at best, and downright hypocrisy at worst. I really started to think hard about going.
I looked up the information online and saw that it was not just the 9-12 group sponsoring the rally, but also the Tea Party organization. That further nudged me toward going--while the Tea Parties are painted and dismissed by the left as just right-wing extremism, they are really about as centrist an organization as you're likely to find in America right now. I would not be presenting myself as one of "Glenn Beck's Evil Minions."
But there was the matter of my kids. My wife does volunteer work on Saturday mornings, and I watch the kids. They're 8, 6, and 4 years old, so taking them would not be the easiest thing to do. But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that this would be a good opportunity to teach them about citizenship and government. I want my kids to grow up with a different example than I had.
My dad was passionate about politics, but I don't recall him ever doing much more than yelling at the television during the party conventions and arguing with friends. I'm beginning to see now that I was wrong, but at the time it just turned me off. I don't like extreme emotion, or extreme devotion to a cause (Dad was a Ditto-head), and from my dad's example, I learned to dislike politics intensely.
I want to be different for my kids. I want to show a calmer, more rational view of politics. I want them to know that I keep informed and form opinions, but that I can discuss it rationally with anyone who is willing. I also want to show them that there are times when talking is not enough and that people of conscience must act--act rationally and within the law, but act nonetheless.
From what I've heard of the Tea Party protests so far, I figured this would be about as safe a rally as I'm ever likely to find. Taking my kids would pose no problems beyond their ability to keep up with the march. There was little chance of seeing something that I would have to explain before they're ready to understand it. In hindsight that was not entirely an accurate assessment, but we got lucky.
So I ended up loading the kids in the car, driving downtown, parking near the rally zone, and walking with my kids up the hill to meet the rally as they marched downhill from their starting point. I was able to spot my friend and some of his kids, and we joined in. He was surprised to see us, and flattered when I explained it was largely his doing.
The paper today indicates there were about 1500 people involved. That's pretty good for Idaho, especially for a moderate-to-conservative cause. It was calm, rational, and pleasant. My kids had fun being in the "parade", as they called it. They would have liked it more if I'd thought ahead better and given them some signs to wave, but all things considered, it went well. We left early, as they were getting hungry and started getting bored once the speakers started, but we were there long enough to count, I think.
Later in the day I checked the news and found out about the 2 million protesters at the Tea Party in Washington D.C. That's a staggering number. If the politicians fail to take notice of that then they're too stupid to serve.
Frankly, I wouldn't have thought a turnout like that was possible. That alone is enough to make me glad I went. I think I would have been embarrassed had I not gone and then found out that so many others did--enough to possibly make a difference. Instead I can take some satisfaction that, in a small way, I was a part of something much, much bigger than just me.
Obviously my story is not unique. There are a lot of people going through much a similar thought process right now. A lot of people who thought their individual participation probably wouldn't matter, but took a chance anyway. One by one, person by person, we individually added up to a very big something.
And that sent a message louder than anything we might have shouted, or anything we might have written on a sign. I was there, and so were my children. There is hope that we can change the world after all--or at least our country.
Perhaps that is because in my lifetime protesting has largely been the tool of choice of the Left. The right, as a general rule, are not protesters. And the moderates...well, we think both sides are nuts and tend not to get too close to either lest something undesirable rub off.
Besides which, I've never felt that protests work. In my rather short political history there's been little evidence that it does. How many anti-war and anti-Bush protests were there? What did they accomplish? They couldn't even sway enough democrats to their side.
Plus, I felt that their rabid, frothing anti-Bush hatred undermined their entire argument. I mean if these people were reasonable, thinking human beings they would surely realize that there is another side to the issue and be willing to acknowledge it, right? They would be more convincing if they acted reasonable. At least in my book.
Well, times they are a-changing. Over the last year or so I've grown increasingly dissatisfied with both parties. The Left are too busy trying to spend all our money, sock it to the rich, and get as many special interests hooked on government funding as they can. The Right are too busy trying to spend all our money, sock it to everyone but the rich, and annoy as many special interest groups as they can.
And then Obama took office. Though I didn't vote for him (my vote for McCain was not an enthusiastic one), I at least had hope that he would be who he campaigned as. I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. For awhile, at least on national security, it appeared he might be okay.
But as a team, Obama, Pelosi, and Reid have been atrocious. Obama has largely sat it out on domestic matters. He has offered no leadership on any of his "pet projects". He's simply told Congress "Send me a bill, and I'll sign it". So the democratic congress has served up the biggest slabs of partisan legislation they could find, laden with pork, and stuffed with little "gotchas". And they've tried to run them through before anyone had enough time to read them, a sure sign that they've had something to hide.
But the Republicans haven't had anything better to offer. Granted, the Democrats have largely cut them out of the process. But they've been unable to get any message out at all, let alone one that resonated with the public enough to sway them to their side. The GOP has become the party of zombies. They've done precious little to earn any trust. The only good thing they have done is keep saying no. But my own democrat congressman does that, too.
Then there's the corruption. The Republicans can't keep their pants on and the Democrats can't seem to file an honest tax return to save their lives. Nancy "I'm going to drain this swamp" Pelosi has done nothing to try to restore ethics wot Congress--unless a Republican does something wrong.
So I'm sick of all of them. No one represents me in Washington anymore, except perhaps for the Blue Dog Democrats, and then only on fiscal matters. The left has done their absolute best to shut down any dissent, including trying to frame any criticism of the sitting president as motivated by racism. That's a bunch of hooey, and they know it. But they also know that if they keep hurling the same epithets at reasonable people long enough they get scared off and go away.
Well here's a news flash for you. I do not trust Obama. I do not like his policies. I think his plans are dangerous. And I am not racist. I defy you to prove that I am. If Bill Cosby were to run for office I'd vote for him in a heartbeat. If Colin Powell or Condoleeza Rice were to run for office I'd seriously consider them after a good look at their policies. I judge people by the content of their character, their words, and their actions. Skin color matters about as much to me as the color of their car. If you've got any evidence to the contrary I urge you to bring it forward.
But to get back on topic, I'm extremely dissatisfied with our government--all of it. However, except for elections, which happen far too infrequently to avoid the pending disaster that is a Obama supported by Pelosi and Reid inadequately opposed by the GOP-light, there is nothing we can do except protest. And I've felt protest to be an ineffective tool of the politically demented.
The Tea Party protests have given me some hope. And the Town Halls of August helped, though the level of anger coming out has made me wary of associating myself with any of it. The 9-12 group has some good ideas, but I've associated it too much with Glenn Beck. Mind you, I don't mind Glenn Beck. I read his "Common Sense" and found it to be very good. He's got some good ideas. But he is an entertainer, and he takes his discourse to levels I do not wish to go.
So when I heard about our local September 12th Rally sponsored by the 9-12 group I wasn't interested. But the night before I talked with a friend who is more politically impassioned than I am. He asked me if I was going, and I said I wasn't. We discussed my reasons, and I posed the question of what good it would do.
He explained, first of all, that beyond saying it's a good idea, Glenn Beck is not involved in the 9-12 group. He encourages people to look into it, but that's it. And to answer my question of what good it would do, he simply reminded me that the more people who show up the more likely the politicians will take notice, and those who show up help determine what it is the politicians hear.
I replied that it was all well and good, but the only chance we really have to make a difference is for Americans to stay angry until the 2010 elections, and I doubt Americans will do that. He countered that the movement doesn't need angry people, it needs concerned people who are willing to stand up.
We ended up moving on to other topics, but the discussion stuck with me. Saturday morning in the shower I replayed the conversation in my head and realized that my excuses were just that--excuses. What chance does the Tea Party movement have of sustaining its efforts into 2010 if it sputters and dies now? If people aren't willing to stand up now while it's still fresh, who is going to stand up in a year from now when the powers that be are pulling every trick in their playbook to help us forget all about this year?
There is another reason to protest, and I had been the one to think of it during our conversation. There are people out there considering running for office. The way our election cycle works they have to be making their decisions soon if they are to get things started soon enough. By protesting now, these people may get a chance to see what issues are really important. It may help them shape their platform, and it may get good people who feel similarly to run, taking the protests of a sign that the support may be there for them next year.
But it basically boiled down to the fact that for me to feel as strongly about the situation as I do and then to not try every avenue to get my voice heard would be a useless waste of energy at best, and downright hypocrisy at worst. I really started to think hard about going.
I looked up the information online and saw that it was not just the 9-12 group sponsoring the rally, but also the Tea Party organization. That further nudged me toward going--while the Tea Parties are painted and dismissed by the left as just right-wing extremism, they are really about as centrist an organization as you're likely to find in America right now. I would not be presenting myself as one of "Glenn Beck's Evil Minions."
But there was the matter of my kids. My wife does volunteer work on Saturday mornings, and I watch the kids. They're 8, 6, and 4 years old, so taking them would not be the easiest thing to do. But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that this would be a good opportunity to teach them about citizenship and government. I want my kids to grow up with a different example than I had.
My dad was passionate about politics, but I don't recall him ever doing much more than yelling at the television during the party conventions and arguing with friends. I'm beginning to see now that I was wrong, but at the time it just turned me off. I don't like extreme emotion, or extreme devotion to a cause (Dad was a Ditto-head), and from my dad's example, I learned to dislike politics intensely.
I want to be different for my kids. I want to show a calmer, more rational view of politics. I want them to know that I keep informed and form opinions, but that I can discuss it rationally with anyone who is willing. I also want to show them that there are times when talking is not enough and that people of conscience must act--act rationally and within the law, but act nonetheless.
From what I've heard of the Tea Party protests so far, I figured this would be about as safe a rally as I'm ever likely to find. Taking my kids would pose no problems beyond their ability to keep up with the march. There was little chance of seeing something that I would have to explain before they're ready to understand it. In hindsight that was not entirely an accurate assessment, but we got lucky.
So I ended up loading the kids in the car, driving downtown, parking near the rally zone, and walking with my kids up the hill to meet the rally as they marched downhill from their starting point. I was able to spot my friend and some of his kids, and we joined in. He was surprised to see us, and flattered when I explained it was largely his doing.
The paper today indicates there were about 1500 people involved. That's pretty good for Idaho, especially for a moderate-to-conservative cause. It was calm, rational, and pleasant. My kids had fun being in the "parade", as they called it. They would have liked it more if I'd thought ahead better and given them some signs to wave, but all things considered, it went well. We left early, as they were getting hungry and started getting bored once the speakers started, but we were there long enough to count, I think.
Later in the day I checked the news and found out about the 2 million protesters at the Tea Party in Washington D.C. That's a staggering number. If the politicians fail to take notice of that then they're too stupid to serve.
Frankly, I wouldn't have thought a turnout like that was possible. That alone is enough to make me glad I went. I think I would have been embarrassed had I not gone and then found out that so many others did--enough to possibly make a difference. Instead I can take some satisfaction that, in a small way, I was a part of something much, much bigger than just me.
Obviously my story is not unique. There are a lot of people going through much a similar thought process right now. A lot of people who thought their individual participation probably wouldn't matter, but took a chance anyway. One by one, person by person, we individually added up to a very big something.
And that sent a message louder than anything we might have shouted, or anything we might have written on a sign. I was there, and so were my children. There is hope that we can change the world after all--or at least our country.
Tuesday, September 08, 2009
Historical Perspective
I just finished reading "The Victors", by Stephen E. Ambrose. It's an account of the European Theater during World War II. As I made my way through the book, reading of all the men killed and wounded it slowly dawned on me that my impressions of the war were flawed. World War II, in my mind, was a war that Americans went off to, won, and then came home. But that is not really accurate. A lot of Americans went off to war, died, and never came back.
I know it sounds incredibly stupid on my part, but it occurred to me that my viewpoint was based entirely on one detail: The only ones who can tell the story of what happened are the ones who lived. Every story you hear about the war is told by someone who lived. The dead tell no tales. You never hear a story without it ending "and then I got to go home."
Wikipedia states that there were 416,800 American soldiers killed in the war. That's as if the entire region for about 50 miles around my house were suddenly depopulated. America got off lightly, considering our role.
It is practically impossible for us today to comprehend the evil that was unleashed on the world in the space of about ten years. Three to four percent of the world's population was killed in the war; about 60 to 80 million people.
What can one say about that, really?
I know it sounds incredibly stupid on my part, but it occurred to me that my viewpoint was based entirely on one detail: The only ones who can tell the story of what happened are the ones who lived. Every story you hear about the war is told by someone who lived. The dead tell no tales. You never hear a story without it ending "and then I got to go home."
Wikipedia states that there were 416,800 American soldiers killed in the war. That's as if the entire region for about 50 miles around my house were suddenly depopulated. America got off lightly, considering our role.
It is practically impossible for us today to comprehend the evil that was unleashed on the world in the space of about ten years. Three to four percent of the world's population was killed in the war; about 60 to 80 million people.
What can one say about that, really?
What was the big deal?
I just finished listening to the President's speech to schoolkids. It was a good speech. I enjoyed it. I got some positive things from it. Is there room for disagreement on what he said? Sure there is. A lot of the disagreements in this country stem from how we define a lot of the terms he spoke about. But chances are each kid that listened is going to define those terms the way their parents do.
I didn't see anything I'm going to have to sort my kids out on tonight. It was a good speech. I hope all you screaming radicals who kept your kids home today are embarrassed. I'm embarrassed for you.
UPDATE: It seems that the screaming radicals are always with us: When Bush spoke to students, Democrats investigated, held hearings
I didn't see anything I'm going to have to sort my kids out on tonight. It was a good speech. I hope all you screaming radicals who kept your kids home today are embarrassed. I'm embarrassed for you.
UPDATE: It seems that the screaming radicals are always with us: When Bush spoke to students, Democrats investigated, held hearings
Friday, September 04, 2009
Does power breed apathy?
Marta Mossburg looks at why ObamaCare is failing in her column for the Washington Post:
Who would have thought that being in power might actually make it more difficult to get things done. What a concept: We vote our people into office so that they can get things done, not so that we have to keep working to get it.
The group collectively lamented that the Right discovered Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals." "It's kind of scary! They have learned all of the tricks," said Sue Esty, the assistant director of American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees Maryland.
But maybe it isn't the Right learning the rules. Maybe it's the community organizers losing the anger so necessary to keep the fight alive. Angry people drive beat-up hatchbacks and eat ramen noodles.
They don't show up to greet their leaders in a Volvo, Lexus, Cadillac or Chrysler 300, like some of the cars parked outside SEIU 1199, and eat grapes and cheese like at this meeting.
Who would have thought that being in power might actually make it more difficult to get things done. What a concept: We vote our people into office so that they can get things done, not so that we have to keep working to get it.
Thursday, September 03, 2009
Parental responsibility and Obama's school speech
My first grader informed me today that his class will be watching Obama's address to schoolchildren on Sept. 8th, and that if we don't want our child to watch we need to notify the teacher. Frankly, I'm embarrassed that this is what our country is coming to.
I remember a lot of people on the right promising to do for Obama what the left were unwilling to do for Bush: respect the office, if not the occupant. That has all been forgotten, evidently, as a hear a lot of people encouraging us to keep our children home that day. I repeat, this is embarrassing.
The man is the President of the United States, whether we like it or not. Let him talk to our kids. He's not likely to say anything too complicated anyway. These are schoolkids, after all.
That night be sure you talk to your kids about the speech. Find out what they got out of it. Find out how they feel about it. Then offer counter-arguments as needed. I learned last year around election time that my opinion still hold sway with my kids. They still trust Mom and Dad over teachers and presidents.
But they won't for long if they feel like you are hiding things from them. Pulling them out of school because the President is speaking is going to spark their curiosity and make them want to find out just what is so bad about what he said. Then they'll wonder why Mom and Dad were afraid of it. You will lose credibility by avoiding issues like this, where you will gain trust and respect if you meet the challenge head on.
My wife just found in the school newsletter that only six classes out of at least fifteen will be showing the broadcast. That is rather sad, but I can understand why the teachers would want to avoid the hassle. It makes me wonder if there are parents out there who burn their children's Presidential Health and Fitness Award certificates when they bring them home from school.
Give your president a little respect and your kids a little credit. I understand the speech will also be broadcast online, so watch it yourself so you know what to discuss with your kids. But for pity sake, people, let's stop acting so suspicious and fearful. Obama does not have a mind control ray. He's not going to tell our kids to join his Obama Youth Brigade and refuse to eat their vegetables until you give in on health care and cap-n-trade.
I do not fear Obama using the schools for a bully pulpit. I have a much more effective vehicle when it comes to ensuring my children are taught correctly. It's called the dinner table.
I remember a lot of people on the right promising to do for Obama what the left were unwilling to do for Bush: respect the office, if not the occupant. That has all been forgotten, evidently, as a hear a lot of people encouraging us to keep our children home that day. I repeat, this is embarrassing.
The man is the President of the United States, whether we like it or not. Let him talk to our kids. He's not likely to say anything too complicated anyway. These are schoolkids, after all.
That night be sure you talk to your kids about the speech. Find out what they got out of it. Find out how they feel about it. Then offer counter-arguments as needed. I learned last year around election time that my opinion still hold sway with my kids. They still trust Mom and Dad over teachers and presidents.
But they won't for long if they feel like you are hiding things from them. Pulling them out of school because the President is speaking is going to spark their curiosity and make them want to find out just what is so bad about what he said. Then they'll wonder why Mom and Dad were afraid of it. You will lose credibility by avoiding issues like this, where you will gain trust and respect if you meet the challenge head on.
My wife just found in the school newsletter that only six classes out of at least fifteen will be showing the broadcast. That is rather sad, but I can understand why the teachers would want to avoid the hassle. It makes me wonder if there are parents out there who burn their children's Presidential Health and Fitness Award certificates when they bring them home from school.
Give your president a little respect and your kids a little credit. I understand the speech will also be broadcast online, so watch it yourself so you know what to discuss with your kids. But for pity sake, people, let's stop acting so suspicious and fearful. Obama does not have a mind control ray. He's not going to tell our kids to join his Obama Youth Brigade and refuse to eat their vegetables until you give in on health care and cap-n-trade.
I do not fear Obama using the schools for a bully pulpit. I have a much more effective vehicle when it comes to ensuring my children are taught correctly. It's called the dinner table.
Tuesday, September 01, 2009
Can America stay angry?
It seems 53% of independents disapprove of Obama. People on both sides of the political fence are getting tired of government spending, government waste, government bickering, and government taxes. We're tired of hypocrisy and duplicity by our elected officials. We're tired of those who keep promising to clean up Washington yet don't even lift a finger to do so once elected.
All well and good.
But can we hold on to our anger for another year? This is why the administration is trying to push everything through now. They're counting on the "American Amnesia" to kick in before the next election. Will we forget by then how upset we are with things now?
This is not the time to go all "Yoda". We do not want to let go of our anger. America needs to turn to the dark side for awhile and take back our country.
Can we do it? Yes we can!
All well and good.
But can we hold on to our anger for another year? This is why the administration is trying to push everything through now. They're counting on the "American Amnesia" to kick in before the next election. Will we forget by then how upset we are with things now?
This is not the time to go all "Yoda". We do not want to let go of our anger. America needs to turn to the dark side for awhile and take back our country.
Can we do it? Yes we can!
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
General disquiet
Here are a few things that worry me:
- Senators abusing their power to dredge up ammunition for the Health Care bill
- Real unemployment rate much higher, perhaps 16%
- It appears that the person who vandalized the Denver DNC office is...a Democrat activist
- Beating up blacks is okay if they're against Democratic policies
- What's good for Geithner is criminal for the rest of us
- The deficit will be higher than first thought...and that's a good thing?!
- China is starting to dump American debt
- Eric Holder is a joke, but I'm not laughing
- John Stossel has noticed that criticism equals racism in "post-racial America"
- The Healthcare Bill includes tighter restrictions on taxpayers who make honest mistakes. Perhaps this is a good thing if it would have applied to Obama cabinet appointees.
Don't worry, there's got to be some good news out there somewhere.
- Senators abusing their power to dredge up ammunition for the Health Care bill
- Real unemployment rate much higher, perhaps 16%
- It appears that the person who vandalized the Denver DNC office is...a Democrat activist
- Beating up blacks is okay if they're against Democratic policies
- What's good for Geithner is criminal for the rest of us
- The deficit will be higher than first thought...and that's a good thing?!
- China is starting to dump American debt
- Eric Holder is a joke, but I'm not laughing
- John Stossel has noticed that criticism equals racism in "post-racial America"
- The Healthcare Bill includes tighter restrictions on taxpayers who make honest mistakes. Perhaps this is a good thing if it would have applied to Obama cabinet appointees.
Don't worry, there's got to be some good news out there somewhere.
Friday, August 21, 2009
You can't win the war until you win the battle
Over at PajamasTV they're calling a cautious victory for the health care and budget protesters.
Color me jaded, but I can't believe it was that easy. I still hear lots of rhetoric from the White House about pushing Health Care through. If they're pulling back at all it's just to try their next favorite tactic: stall and hope everyone forgets about it.
I don't think the Administration has learned anything yet. I don't think they're listening yet. I think they're only pretending to listen. They're appearing to change their minds, but at the same time they still protest about the protests. That doesn't appear to me to be a concession. I think it's more like the kid to, when mom says no, goes and asks dad.
So what is America to do now? Keep up the pressure. We've got their attention, at least, and that's more than we've been able to do previously. It's a start. But we need to keep holding their feet to the flame, and we need to stay vigilant. They are going to try an end-run at least once before they actually concede any kind of defeat.
In the mean time, we can also raise the level of discourse:
- No more shouting matches, please. That's so "Bush Era". We're different. Let's show it. Be respectful, but don't be a push-over.
- No more guns at protests. That was stupid, even for a radio show stunt. It distracts from the real message we're trying to send. Stop it.
- No more "Kill Obama, his wife and kids" signs. That person got detained--and quite frankly, should be arrested. That's beyond the coverage of the First Amendment. I wouldn't be surprised if they were an Obama-backer hoping to do their man a favor by discrediting the legitimate protesters.
- Do not forget. Those of you in areas where your elected officials have been hiding from you or talking down to you--remember that. They're counting on our faulty collective memory to kick in before the next election. Do not forget. Vote them out. Support the reps. who are listening and get it. I don't usually vote Democrat at the national level, but right new we've got a Democratic representative in our area who is listening, is talking sense, and largely voting the way I would like. If he keeps it up I will vote for him next time. People like that deserve our support.
- Stay informed. A vigilant populace is our only guard against unresponsive and oppressive government. And it's not just this administration. Though I agreed with some of what the previous administration did, they were just as deaf when it came to listening to the people. I understand what some of you were feeling back then a little better now. Whether we agree on the issues is irrelevant. We need to join together to force our government to start listening again.
- Do the "reaching out" that they refuse to do. Remember all of that talk of bi-partisanship, post-partisanship, and reaching across the aisle? It didn't happen, did it. But let's not let them drive a wedge between Americans. Let's show them a good example. Let's start talking to each other. Let's start working out problems ourselves. Let's start treating each other with respect, try to understand where each other is coming from, and see if we can't find a third option that moves us in a better direction.
- Turn off the Professional Outrage Squad. Both sides have them. They're not doing us any favors. Their jobs, as they see it, is not to bring people together. They're to stir up the flock to keep sending them drawing a paycheck. As much as I like Glenn Beck's "Common Sense", I still will not listen to his shows. He always sees the worst in everything the other side does. We don't need that.
< >< >< >< >It's like my kids when they get in these moods where they are constantly watching each other to find something to tattle about. No one is giving anyone even the slightest bit of room for error. Everyone is holding on to every little piece of ammunition they can get. We're still hearing about Michelle Obama's "For the first time I'm proud..." speech. I think she misspoke then, and I don't care to keep hearing about it now.
It's not too late to turn America around. It's not too late to return decency to our national dialogue. It's not too late to build bridges so that even when we don't get our way on issues we don't start reaching for the torches and pitchforks. Wouldn't it be nice to feel like we were at least heard first, and that perhaps the result we disagree with was at least modified out of respect for our point of view?
It can happen. But We The People have to make it happen. Our government won't do it for us. We have to make them. And that starts with re-making ourselves.
Color me jaded, but I can't believe it was that easy. I still hear lots of rhetoric from the White House about pushing Health Care through. If they're pulling back at all it's just to try their next favorite tactic: stall and hope everyone forgets about it.
I don't think the Administration has learned anything yet. I don't think they're listening yet. I think they're only pretending to listen. They're appearing to change their minds, but at the same time they still protest about the protests. That doesn't appear to me to be a concession. I think it's more like the kid to, when mom says no, goes and asks dad.
So what is America to do now? Keep up the pressure. We've got their attention, at least, and that's more than we've been able to do previously. It's a start. But we need to keep holding their feet to the flame, and we need to stay vigilant. They are going to try an end-run at least once before they actually concede any kind of defeat.
In the mean time, we can also raise the level of discourse:
- No more shouting matches, please. That's so "Bush Era". We're different. Let's show it. Be respectful, but don't be a push-over.
- No more guns at protests. That was stupid, even for a radio show stunt. It distracts from the real message we're trying to send. Stop it.
- No more "Kill Obama, his wife and kids" signs. That person got detained--and quite frankly, should be arrested. That's beyond the coverage of the First Amendment. I wouldn't be surprised if they were an Obama-backer hoping to do their man a favor by discrediting the legitimate protesters.
- Do not forget. Those of you in areas where your elected officials have been hiding from you or talking down to you--remember that. They're counting on our faulty collective memory to kick in before the next election. Do not forget. Vote them out. Support the reps. who are listening and get it. I don't usually vote Democrat at the national level, but right new we've got a Democratic representative in our area who is listening, is talking sense, and largely voting the way I would like. If he keeps it up I will vote for him next time. People like that deserve our support.
- Stay informed. A vigilant populace is our only guard against unresponsive and oppressive government. And it's not just this administration. Though I agreed with some of what the previous administration did, they were just as deaf when it came to listening to the people. I understand what some of you were feeling back then a little better now. Whether we agree on the issues is irrelevant. We need to join together to force our government to start listening again.
- Do the "reaching out" that they refuse to do. Remember all of that talk of bi-partisanship, post-partisanship, and reaching across the aisle? It didn't happen, did it. But let's not let them drive a wedge between Americans. Let's show them a good example. Let's start talking to each other. Let's start working out problems ourselves. Let's start treating each other with respect, try to understand where each other is coming from, and see if we can't find a third option that moves us in a better direction.
- Turn off the Professional Outrage Squad. Both sides have them. They're not doing us any favors. Their jobs, as they see it, is not to bring people together. They're to stir up the flock to keep sending them drawing a paycheck. As much as I like Glenn Beck's "Common Sense", I still will not listen to his shows. He always sees the worst in everything the other side does. We don't need that.
< >< >< >< >It's like my kids when they get in these moods where they are constantly watching each other to find something to tattle about. No one is giving anyone even the slightest bit of room for error. Everyone is holding on to every little piece of ammunition they can get. We're still hearing about Michelle Obama's "For the first time I'm proud..." speech. I think she misspoke then, and I don't care to keep hearing about it now.
It's not too late to turn America around. It's not too late to return decency to our national dialogue. It's not too late to build bridges so that even when we don't get our way on issues we don't start reaching for the torches and pitchforks. Wouldn't it be nice to feel like we were at least heard first, and that perhaps the result we disagree with was at least modified out of respect for our point of view?
It can happen. But We The People have to make it happen. Our government won't do it for us. We have to make them. And that starts with re-making ourselves.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Town hall, Idaho style
Tonight I got a call from my congressman--or at least his auto-dialer--inviting me to a telephone town hall, one of at least two he's conducting this month. I decided to join. Everyone was polite and calm on both sides of the health care issue, and Mr. Minnick did a pretty good job of explaining where he stands on things and why. This is what town halls should be, and would be if more congresspersons treated their constituents with the respect Mr. Minnick shows us.
Walt Minnick is one of the "Blue Dog Democrats" who supposedly convinced Pelosi to slow things down and not take a vote until after the August recess. If so, good for him. And while I can't say I agree with everything he said, I think if he can stick to his guns he'll do a good job for us when he goes back. If there has to be health care reform, I'd prefer his version of it to anything else I've heard so far.
I'm still jaded enough by politics to not want to believe Minnick is for real, but he's off to a good start if he's trying to make a believer out of me. I didn't vote for him, but next time around I just might.
Walt Minnick is one of the "Blue Dog Democrats" who supposedly convinced Pelosi to slow things down and not take a vote until after the August recess. If so, good for him. And while I can't say I agree with everything he said, I think if he can stick to his guns he'll do a good job for us when he goes back. If there has to be health care reform, I'd prefer his version of it to anything else I've heard so far.
I'm still jaded enough by politics to not want to believe Minnick is for real, but he's off to a good start if he's trying to make a believer out of me. I didn't vote for him, but next time around I just might.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Rewriting Godwin's Law
"Godwin's Law" is an observation made by attorney and author Mike Godwin, which states: "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."
I believe that the law needs a corollary to fit the Obama age: "In discussing any political issue the probability of anyone who disagrees with views held by the current administration being a racist is automatically 1."
Disagree with the Health Care overhaul? It's because you're racist. Disagree with the stimulus bill? You're racist. Disagree with the government take-over of the auto industry? You're a racist.
Those on the left are incapable of believing anyone could disagree with them, and they are afraid that anyone else might listen to those who disagree with them. Rather than admit disagreement can exist based on the logical, political, social, economic, or historical merits of an issue, the only possible reason anyone could have for disliking current policies or legislation is because there is a black man in the White House. They know it is a difficult charge to defend against, so they invoke it early and often to quickly drag any discussion away from the actual merits of an issue.
I am not saying there is no racism in America, nor am I saying that there aren't people who disagree with Obama solely because of race. I'm sure there is at least one person out there who would support the administration heart and soul if there just weren't a black man at its head. But people like that are the exception, not the rule.
Meanwhile, the real cases of racism in this country are being overshadowed by this pathetic excuse for a debate technique, which is in reality the same thing as wrapping up your opponent in boxing so they can't punch you with any effectiveness. It's illegal in boxing, and we should not allow it in discussion or debate.
In fact, it's time to strike back. Why do we accept the charge of racism as the end of discussion? Is this not America, where a person is innocent until proven guilty? Next time someone calls you racist you have every right to insist they offer proof. They can't, and they know it, so they will likely attempt to point out some latent racist leanings in your past or some other nonsense.
But don't accept that. Reframe the argument. Ask them if what they are really saying is that there is no other possible reason for someone to be against issue X. If they say yes then you may now accuse them of prejudice and ignorance. If they say no, ask them why they would automatically assume racism is your motivation when there is no proof that you are racist. Does that not prove that they themselves are prejudiced?
The argument is so easily turned on its head, but no one ever seems to try. One does not have to be racist to oppose the ideas of this administration. To assume one is a racist because they do is dishonest and morally bankrupt--and ultimately detrimental to the real fight against real racism.
Both sides should have a vested interest in removing this particular tactic from play as soon as possible before real damage is done.
I believe that the law needs a corollary to fit the Obama age: "In discussing any political issue the probability of anyone who disagrees with views held by the current administration being a racist is automatically 1."
Disagree with the Health Care overhaul? It's because you're racist. Disagree with the stimulus bill? You're racist. Disagree with the government take-over of the auto industry? You're a racist.
Those on the left are incapable of believing anyone could disagree with them, and they are afraid that anyone else might listen to those who disagree with them. Rather than admit disagreement can exist based on the logical, political, social, economic, or historical merits of an issue, the only possible reason anyone could have for disliking current policies or legislation is because there is a black man in the White House. They know it is a difficult charge to defend against, so they invoke it early and often to quickly drag any discussion away from the actual merits of an issue.
I am not saying there is no racism in America, nor am I saying that there aren't people who disagree with Obama solely because of race. I'm sure there is at least one person out there who would support the administration heart and soul if there just weren't a black man at its head. But people like that are the exception, not the rule.
Meanwhile, the real cases of racism in this country are being overshadowed by this pathetic excuse for a debate technique, which is in reality the same thing as wrapping up your opponent in boxing so they can't punch you with any effectiveness. It's illegal in boxing, and we should not allow it in discussion or debate.
In fact, it's time to strike back. Why do we accept the charge of racism as the end of discussion? Is this not America, where a person is innocent until proven guilty? Next time someone calls you racist you have every right to insist they offer proof. They can't, and they know it, so they will likely attempt to point out some latent racist leanings in your past or some other nonsense.
But don't accept that. Reframe the argument. Ask them if what they are really saying is that there is no other possible reason for someone to be against issue X. If they say yes then you may now accuse them of prejudice and ignorance. If they say no, ask them why they would automatically assume racism is your motivation when there is no proof that you are racist. Does that not prove that they themselves are prejudiced?
The argument is so easily turned on its head, but no one ever seems to try. One does not have to be racist to oppose the ideas of this administration. To assume one is a racist because they do is dishonest and morally bankrupt--and ultimately detrimental to the real fight against real racism.
Both sides should have a vested interest in removing this particular tactic from play as soon as possible before real damage is done.
Monday, August 17, 2009
Iconography and Obama
Bill Whittle is back with another thought-provoking segment on the power of iconography.
And while we're touting videos, here's Ed Driscoll's interview with Chris Muir, creator of "Day By Day", one of my favorite cartoons (Ed didn't ask the question I'd have asked, which is: Is Zed modeled after Muir himself?)
Muir just completed a fund-raising drive which evidently exceeded the goal, which I'm pleased to see. I'm also hoping to be in better financial shape (ie. employed) next time so I can contribute. He's certainly on my list of sites I would like to support.
And who would I like to support, you may ask? Well...in no particular order:
Michael Totten
Chris Muir (Day By Day)
Pajamas Media - Bill Whittle, Alfonzo Rachel, Glenn Reynolds, Ed Driscoll, et al.
Michael Yon
James Lileks
Do I think you should, too? Why yes, of course! If you have some spare change, check them out and leave a tip. Tell 'em Thom sent you.
And while we're touting videos, here's Ed Driscoll's interview with Chris Muir, creator of "Day By Day", one of my favorite cartoons (Ed didn't ask the question I'd have asked, which is: Is Zed modeled after Muir himself?)
Muir just completed a fund-raising drive which evidently exceeded the goal, which I'm pleased to see. I'm also hoping to be in better financial shape (ie. employed) next time so I can contribute. He's certainly on my list of sites I would like to support.
And who would I like to support, you may ask? Well...in no particular order:
Michael Totten
Chris Muir (Day By Day)
Pajamas Media - Bill Whittle, Alfonzo Rachel, Glenn Reynolds, Ed Driscoll, et al.
Michael Yon
James Lileks
Do I think you should, too? Why yes, of course! If you have some spare change, check them out and leave a tip. Tell 'em Thom sent you.
John Mackey, Obamacare, and public opinion
Now that I've read the Op/Ed by Whole Foods CEO John Mackey in the Wall Street Journal I really don't understand what the big deal is.
Don't get me wrong. This is not about Free Speech. I uphold Mackey's right to say what he said. I uphold the right of the readers to boycott Whole Foods if they so desire. Freedom of Speech should never guarantee freedom from consequences for that speech. If you're going to say something that annoys your support base you should be prepared to take a hit, whether you're John Mackey or Natalie Maines (or Arlen Specter).
No, this post is about what liberals say and what they do. One of the main criticisms being leveled at those protesting against the Health Care Reform bill is that they are shutting down discussion and disallowing dialogue.
Mackey's article is a calm, rational discussion of alternatives to what is currently on the table. But just because he does not agree with universal health care it appears that the liberals are unwilling to read any farther than the second paragraph. I'll bet if they did they'd find they agree with him on at least a few points. Even if they disagree with everything, they would likely benefit from hearing what other people think.
Don't liberals espouse the value of differing viewpoints? Or does that only apply to ethnicity and sexual orientation?
To be fair, the political right is just as bad. Both sides seem to focus much of their attention on keeping people from listening to anyone from the other side. They aren't conducting a war on their ideological opposites so much as a joint offensive against moderation. They don't want anyone reaching over the wall they built. They have no interest in reaching across the aisle--they'd rather turn the aisle into a demilitarized zone where anyone who dares to venture will be shot on sight!
The sad thing is that if we we would take more time to listen we just might find we CAN find an answer that we can all agree on. Health Care reform could be possible. Universal Health Care could be doable. But as long as our politics allows for no middle ground we'll never accomplish anything that doesn't alienate at least half of the country.
The middle ground is where the answers can be found. John Mackey tried to take us there. No good deed goes unpunished.
Don't get me wrong. This is not about Free Speech. I uphold Mackey's right to say what he said. I uphold the right of the readers to boycott Whole Foods if they so desire. Freedom of Speech should never guarantee freedom from consequences for that speech. If you're going to say something that annoys your support base you should be prepared to take a hit, whether you're John Mackey or Natalie Maines (or Arlen Specter).
No, this post is about what liberals say and what they do. One of the main criticisms being leveled at those protesting against the Health Care Reform bill is that they are shutting down discussion and disallowing dialogue.
Mackey's article is a calm, rational discussion of alternatives to what is currently on the table. But just because he does not agree with universal health care it appears that the liberals are unwilling to read any farther than the second paragraph. I'll bet if they did they'd find they agree with him on at least a few points. Even if they disagree with everything, they would likely benefit from hearing what other people think.
Don't liberals espouse the value of differing viewpoints? Or does that only apply to ethnicity and sexual orientation?
To be fair, the political right is just as bad. Both sides seem to focus much of their attention on keeping people from listening to anyone from the other side. They aren't conducting a war on their ideological opposites so much as a joint offensive against moderation. They don't want anyone reaching over the wall they built. They have no interest in reaching across the aisle--they'd rather turn the aisle into a demilitarized zone where anyone who dares to venture will be shot on sight!
The sad thing is that if we we would take more time to listen we just might find we CAN find an answer that we can all agree on. Health Care reform could be possible. Universal Health Care could be doable. But as long as our politics allows for no middle ground we'll never accomplish anything that doesn't alienate at least half of the country.
The middle ground is where the answers can be found. John Mackey tried to take us there. No good deed goes unpunished.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Oops! I picked the wrong side!
According to this article, the Obama administration is offering $15 an hour to protest in favor of his health care proposal (big misnomer, really, since he didn't write any of it and admits to having no idea what is in it). Unfortunately for me I already caved to the insurance companies and have been speaking out against it. Boy did I screw that up. Obama pays much better than the big, bad insurance companies! I haven't received a single darn penny for my efforts so far.
But it's our side of the debate that's being dismissed as "astroturf", while the other side is the one hauling in professional protestors. Isn't all this "truthiness" great?
But it's our side of the debate that's being dismissed as "astroturf", while the other side is the one hauling in professional protestors. Isn't all this "truthiness" great?
Monday, August 10, 2009
Call Me Un-American
I am the mob. I am a racist, fascist nazi pawn of the Health Insurance industry. Not only that, I must be stupid, because I'm not getting anything from the Health Insurance industry except...the health insurance I pay for. There's no hack like a stupid hack. And alas, alack, I am a hack.
Because Nancy Pelosi says so. And Nancy Pelosi wouldn't lie to you.
She and Steny Hoyer have a column up at USA Today in which they make the case for Americans sitting down, shutting up, and letting Congress do what's best for everyone. It really is a precious piece of cynicism, misrepresentation, and hypocrisy. Where to begin...
"Americans have been waiting for nearly a century for quality, affordable health care."
I don't know about that. I've been enjoying quality, affordable health care for only about 39 years. But then I work hard, save my money, and plan for such expenses. Which makes me a chump, of course.
"From President Lyndon Johnson to President Bill Clinton, to President Obama's winning campaign on the promise of reform, there hasn't been a more debated domestic issue than the promise of affordable health care for all."
Oh, so that's why you want no debate on it this time, because it's been debated in the past. Oh, and Obama was elected on many things, and to suggest that the only reason we voted him into office was to screw up Health Care is disingenuous.
"The failure of past attempts is a reminder that health insurance reform is a defining moment in our nation's history — it is well worth the time it takes to get it right."
Unless, of course, "getting it right" means doing nothing. Shouldn't all these past failures tell you something? WE DON'T WANT IT! AT LEAST NOT THE BRAND YOU'RE PEDDLING!
"Already, three House committees have passed this critical legislation..."
Meaning....? Obviously three House committees is no endorsement, or you would have supported the War in Iraq as vehemently as you do this nonsense.
"... and over August, the two of us will work closely with those three committees to produce one strong piece of legislation that the House will approve in September."
Even if we don't want it? Aren't you missing something. It's fitting that she refers to the governing body as "the House", as she's obviously forgetting the representative mission of that body. You are supposed to represent us, not cram things down our throats.
"In the meantime, as members of Congress spend time at home during August, they are talking with their constituents about reform. The dialogue between elected representatives and constituents is at the heart of our democracy and plays an integral role in assuring that the legislation we write reflects the genuine needs and concerns of the people we represent."
And this is why the majority of the meetings our elected officials are holding do not even allow questions about the health care legislation? Is this why so many representatives are not interesting in "dialogue" but just telling us what we want? Is this why so many of them end up yelling at their constituents, hurling accusations and contempt? Is this why union members are beating up protestors?
"However, it is now evident that an ugly campaign is underway not merely to misrepresent..."
...anyone who is against this bill as un-American, fascist, elitist, paid hacks, but to silence any opposition? Oops, I'm jumping the gun, even if it is true...
"...the health insurance reform legislation, but to disrupt public meetings and prevent members of Congress and constituents from conducting a civil dialogue."
I will agree with her some here. If there are people who are shouting others down then that's rude. But most of the videos I've seen has involved heckling the speaker, something left protestors have been doing without any criticism from Madam Pelosi for years. Does that mean that everyone has free speech, but some have more of it than others?
"These tactics have included hanging in effigy one Democratic member of Congress in Maryland and protesters holding a sign displaying a tombstone with the name of another congressman in Texas, where protesters also shouted "Just say no!" drowning out those who wanted to hold a substantive discussion."
Like I said, this just looks like a case of "we can dish it out, but we can't take it. For shame, Pelosi. We saw WORSE than this about Bush. Where were you then? Holding the noose?
"These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views — but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American. Drowning out the facts is how we failed at this task for decades."
No, creating bad legislation is how you failed at this task for decades. You have the media firmly in your corner. If they can't get the message our there for you it's because you have no message. We're not afraid of the facts. But it's hard to believe our congressmen are giving us the facts when many of them admit to not having read the bill. How can they possibly give us the facts?
The Congressional Budget Office, meanwhile, is TRYING to give us the facts, but YOU don't seem to be listening.
"Health care is complex. It touches every American life. It drives our economy. People must be allowed to learn the facts."
Why? If you'd had your way this bill would already be passed BEFORE anyone could learn the facts. In fact, nearly every bill you've crammed through so far has been as quickly as possible lest Americans get a chance to learn the facts and engage in dialogue and debate. Pelosi, thy name is hypocrit.
"Reform will also mean higher-quality care by promoting preventive care so health problems can be addressed before they become crises. This, too, will save money. We'll be a much healthier country if all patients can receive regular checkups and tests, such as mammograms and diabetes exams, without paying a dime out-of-pocket."
Uhm...most health plans I've ever seen already have a preventive care component. Even after I was laid off I had people from my former employer's health plan calling me to work out a healthy lifestyle plan. Any decent insurer gets it already. Probably better than the government does.
"This month, despite the disruptions, members of Congress will listen to their constituents back home and explain reform legislation. We are confident that our principles of affordable, quality health care will stand up to any and all critics."
...because you intend to intimidate, malign, and discredit all critics until there are none left!
Good luck with that. You've already made it obvious that you'd prefer to do everything without any debate. That is WHY our elected officials are getting such pushback. It's a new thing for them, but it's long overdue.
"Now — with Americans strongly supporting health insurance reform, with Congress reaching consensus on a plan, and with a president who ran and won on this specific promise of change — America is closer than ever to this century-deferred goal."
What polls does she read? Certainly not this one.
"This fall, at long last, we must reach it."
Why? Tell me why we must, other than your poll consisting of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama. Is it because you haven't managed to kill off the economy yet? Is it because you haven't spent enough money yet this year, in spite of campaign promises of cutting the budget? I'm not necessarily opposed to health care reform, but not the expansive, not this expensive, and not when we can't even afford the amount of government we've got. Enough of this deficit spending. I know Pelosi et al just want to get the main spending over with and out of the way before next year's election season, but that's is the worst possible reason. If these bills are so good they should stand up to the debate of a campaign season. If you're so proud of it, wouldn't it be a great campaign point? The very fact that they want to hide this before then indicates they know what a scam this is.
Let's not forget, too, that these elected representatives who care so much about Americans and the environment want to buy a bunch more airplanes for congressional travel, even though the military claims we don't need all of them. As Glenn Reynolds says, I'll believe it's a problem when those who are telling me it's a problem ACT like it's a problem.
To quote columnist Ron Hart:
It's a shame that Pelosi had to squander her opportunity. She had a national forum in USA Today. This was the perfect opportunity to present the "facts" she cares so much about and make her case for Health Care Reform. Instead she maligned concerned Americans who are so frustrated by their elected officials they feel they have no recourse but to protest. Instead she gave us broad, unsubstantiated generalizations that amount to little more than "it'll be great. Trust us."
Miss Pelosi, we don't trust you. That is why we're protesting. Get your fingers out of your ears and listen, like you claim our representatives are eager to do.
Instead she's too busy doing the very thing she accuses her opposition of doing: ABCNews Blog: "Partisan Mobs with Lies About Health Reform," Democrats Rally Their Own Activists to Visit Members of Congress at Town Halls, District Offices.
Miss Pelosi, have you forgotten that dissent is the highest form of patriotism?
Because Nancy Pelosi says so. And Nancy Pelosi wouldn't lie to you.
She and Steny Hoyer have a column up at USA Today in which they make the case for Americans sitting down, shutting up, and letting Congress do what's best for everyone. It really is a precious piece of cynicism, misrepresentation, and hypocrisy. Where to begin...
"Americans have been waiting for nearly a century for quality, affordable health care."
I don't know about that. I've been enjoying quality, affordable health care for only about 39 years. But then I work hard, save my money, and plan for such expenses. Which makes me a chump, of course.
"From President Lyndon Johnson to President Bill Clinton, to President Obama's winning campaign on the promise of reform, there hasn't been a more debated domestic issue than the promise of affordable health care for all."
Oh, so that's why you want no debate on it this time, because it's been debated in the past. Oh, and Obama was elected on many things, and to suggest that the only reason we voted him into office was to screw up Health Care is disingenuous.
"The failure of past attempts is a reminder that health insurance reform is a defining moment in our nation's history — it is well worth the time it takes to get it right."
Unless, of course, "getting it right" means doing nothing. Shouldn't all these past failures tell you something? WE DON'T WANT IT! AT LEAST NOT THE BRAND YOU'RE PEDDLING!
"Already, three House committees have passed this critical legislation..."
Meaning....? Obviously three House committees is no endorsement, or you would have supported the War in Iraq as vehemently as you do this nonsense.
"... and over August, the two of us will work closely with those three committees to produce one strong piece of legislation that the House will approve in September."
Even if we don't want it? Aren't you missing something. It's fitting that she refers to the governing body as "the House", as she's obviously forgetting the representative mission of that body. You are supposed to represent us, not cram things down our throats.
"In the meantime, as members of Congress spend time at home during August, they are talking with their constituents about reform. The dialogue between elected representatives and constituents is at the heart of our democracy and plays an integral role in assuring that the legislation we write reflects the genuine needs and concerns of the people we represent."
And this is why the majority of the meetings our elected officials are holding do not even allow questions about the health care legislation? Is this why so many representatives are not interesting in "dialogue" but just telling us what we want? Is this why so many of them end up yelling at their constituents, hurling accusations and contempt? Is this why union members are beating up protestors?
"However, it is now evident that an ugly campaign is underway not merely to misrepresent..."
...anyone who is against this bill as un-American, fascist, elitist, paid hacks, but to silence any opposition? Oops, I'm jumping the gun, even if it is true...
"...the health insurance reform legislation, but to disrupt public meetings and prevent members of Congress and constituents from conducting a civil dialogue."
I will agree with her some here. If there are people who are shouting others down then that's rude. But most of the videos I've seen has involved heckling the speaker, something left protestors have been doing without any criticism from Madam Pelosi for years. Does that mean that everyone has free speech, but some have more of it than others?
"These tactics have included hanging in effigy one Democratic member of Congress in Maryland and protesters holding a sign displaying a tombstone with the name of another congressman in Texas, where protesters also shouted "Just say no!" drowning out those who wanted to hold a substantive discussion."
Like I said, this just looks like a case of "we can dish it out, but we can't take it. For shame, Pelosi. We saw WORSE than this about Bush. Where were you then? Holding the noose?
"These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views — but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American. Drowning out the facts is how we failed at this task for decades."
No, creating bad legislation is how you failed at this task for decades. You have the media firmly in your corner. If they can't get the message our there for you it's because you have no message. We're not afraid of the facts. But it's hard to believe our congressmen are giving us the facts when many of them admit to not having read the bill. How can they possibly give us the facts?
The Congressional Budget Office, meanwhile, is TRYING to give us the facts, but YOU don't seem to be listening.
"Health care is complex. It touches every American life. It drives our economy. People must be allowed to learn the facts."
Why? If you'd had your way this bill would already be passed BEFORE anyone could learn the facts. In fact, nearly every bill you've crammed through so far has been as quickly as possible lest Americans get a chance to learn the facts and engage in dialogue and debate. Pelosi, thy name is hypocrit.
"Reform will also mean higher-quality care by promoting preventive care so health problems can be addressed before they become crises. This, too, will save money. We'll be a much healthier country if all patients can receive regular checkups and tests, such as mammograms and diabetes exams, without paying a dime out-of-pocket."
Uhm...most health plans I've ever seen already have a preventive care component. Even after I was laid off I had people from my former employer's health plan calling me to work out a healthy lifestyle plan. Any decent insurer gets it already. Probably better than the government does.
"This month, despite the disruptions, members of Congress will listen to their constituents back home and explain reform legislation. We are confident that our principles of affordable, quality health care will stand up to any and all critics."
...because you intend to intimidate, malign, and discredit all critics until there are none left!
Good luck with that. You've already made it obvious that you'd prefer to do everything without any debate. That is WHY our elected officials are getting such pushback. It's a new thing for them, but it's long overdue.
"Now — with Americans strongly supporting health insurance reform, with Congress reaching consensus on a plan, and with a president who ran and won on this specific promise of change — America is closer than ever to this century-deferred goal."
What polls does she read? Certainly not this one.
"This fall, at long last, we must reach it."
Why? Tell me why we must, other than your poll consisting of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama. Is it because you haven't managed to kill off the economy yet? Is it because you haven't spent enough money yet this year, in spite of campaign promises of cutting the budget? I'm not necessarily opposed to health care reform, but not the expansive, not this expensive, and not when we can't even afford the amount of government we've got. Enough of this deficit spending. I know Pelosi et al just want to get the main spending over with and out of the way before next year's election season, but that's is the worst possible reason. If these bills are so good they should stand up to the debate of a campaign season. If you're so proud of it, wouldn't it be a great campaign point? The very fact that they want to hide this before then indicates they know what a scam this is.
Let's not forget, too, that these elected representatives who care so much about Americans and the environment want to buy a bunch more airplanes for congressional travel, even though the military claims we don't need all of them. As Glenn Reynolds says, I'll believe it's a problem when those who are telling me it's a problem ACT like it's a problem.
To quote columnist Ron Hart:
If Obama has his way, his health care plan will be funded by his treasury chief who did not pay his taxes, overseen by his surgeon general who is obese, signed by a president who smokes, and financed by a country that is just about broke.
What possibly could go wrong?
It's a shame that Pelosi had to squander her opportunity. She had a national forum in USA Today. This was the perfect opportunity to present the "facts" she cares so much about and make her case for Health Care Reform. Instead she maligned concerned Americans who are so frustrated by their elected officials they feel they have no recourse but to protest. Instead she gave us broad, unsubstantiated generalizations that amount to little more than "it'll be great. Trust us."
Miss Pelosi, we don't trust you. That is why we're protesting. Get your fingers out of your ears and listen, like you claim our representatives are eager to do.
Instead she's too busy doing the very thing she accuses her opposition of doing: ABCNews Blog: "Partisan Mobs with Lies About Health Reform," Democrats Rally Their Own Activists to Visit Members of Congress at Town Halls, District Offices.
Miss Pelosi, have you forgotten that dissent is the highest form of patriotism?
Wednesday, August 05, 2009
Excuse me?
Why was it that during the Bush administration any demonstration or protest--or even mob action--by the Left was heralded as a victory for freedom of speech, but now when independents and conservatives are protesting and demonstrating they're "mobs" and "extremists"? What happened to "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism"? Why is it wrong to question the actions of the administration when they have repeatedly made inexcusable attempts to leave no room for debate themselves?
More on this at Hot Air:
And more here, as well:
Heaven help us all if we are not allowed to speak out against issues that affect us all. What happened to representative government? I may not have liked what many of the left protesters had to say, but I would never have questioned their right to protest. I guess it was expecting too much that they would return the courtesy--I mean, right.
More on this at Hot Air:
Needless to say, this is the left’s pitiful — and ironic, given the lip service paid above to “thoughtful discussion” — strategy to win the ObamaCare debate by framing the GOP as stone-cold nuts before its own message machine gets rolling during the recess this month. Already today, we’ve had Axelrod whining on MSNBC about “fearmongering” (more irony!), Boxer fretting about people in suits “storming” the town halls, and smilin’ Dick Durbin lamenting that “tea baggers” are trying to turn the meetings into “free for alls.” Isn’t that what the left did for years in public meetings about the war, asked Jake Tapper of Gibbs earlier today.
And more here, as well:
- People who want Congress to take more time debating healthcare are shutting down debate.
- Pres. Obama says the time for talk on healthcare is over, but his critics are trying to shut down debate.
- Harrassing and threatening the families of AIG employees is awesome; razzing Representatives and Senators is totally bogus!
- Asking Representatives and Senators to read bills before voting on them is killing democracy.
- Sen. Specter saying “we have to make judgments very fast” is awesome. Booing him for saying so is shutting off debate.
- Healthcare protesters are thugs shutting off debate; antiwar protesters are “rowdy.”
Heaven help us all if we are not allowed to speak out against issues that affect us all. What happened to representative government? I may not have liked what many of the left protesters had to say, but I would never have questioned their right to protest. I guess it was expecting too much that they would return the courtesy--I mean, right.
HOA gripe session
I am president of my HOA. Last night I had someone stop by my house to pay their dues (four months late) and to complain about my Vice President's lack of tact in collections. I'll concede right away that my VP is probably not tactful when he goes to collect. Do his job for awhile and you'd lose any tact you had, too.
But let me continue on to the rant by saying this: If you don't like my VP getting upset with you then PAY YOUR DOGGONE DUES ALREADY!!!! You see, the problem with these people's complaints about my VP is that they're simultaneously proving it works. They hate my VP, but they pay their dues. They didn't pay after the two overdue notices and the regular reminders in the newsletter. They paid after someone appeared on their doorstep and got cross with them.
Yet they want me to drop the tactic that seems to work. Why does this not make sense to me?
Another standard complaint is "Why make such a big deal over $40?" (Our HOA dues are really low!) Well, how about this? Why are you making such a big deal over $40. Just pay already! Are you suggesting that you would pay up immediately if it were a lot higher? I don't think so. Why am I making a big deal over $40? Because 95% of the neighborhood have already paid up, most of them without complaint or any extra measures on our part. These people should not be made out to be chumps by the other 5%.
I've also now heard "My lawyer friend said I don't have to pay until the end of the year". Has your lawyer friend read our CC&Rs? Is your lawyer friend going to pay your dues for you? Shut up about the lawyer friend. I have a lawyer on retainer who says you have to pay, and if you don't I can charge interest and slap a lien on your house for the overdue amount plus legal fees. You wanna go there?
I might. It would be easier for me to just turn this all over to lawyers and bill collectors. We might get on your doorstep and get in your face. They'll ruin your credit rating and make you pay $260 minimum for a $40 bill. Which do you prefer?
Don't give me the "hardship" sob story, either. I'm unemployed. I paid. I know people with health problems. They paid. I requested in the newsletter for people to let me know if there are problems so we can work something out. Very, very few have taken me up on it. We can work with you, but we're not mind-readers.
There is a soldier in our neighborhood who will be on deployment when dues come around next year. If anyone has a good excuse to dodge dues, or at least put them off, it's him. But does he? No. He's made arrangement with his family to pay while he's gone. And he's told me almost a year in advance. I know his situation, and should his family forget to pay I will not be making a big deal about it. Neither will my VP. We will wait patiently until he gets home. Heck, I may even cover him myself.
Anyway, I am sick to death of people who think the rules don't apply to them and get mad at us when we insist that they do. Pay your dues, people. If you don't like my VP then stop ignoring our mail notices. Pay on time or tell us why you can't and when you will. Ignore us and we'll be forced to make it hard for your to ignore us.
Yes, it's a big fuss over $40. But you started it, not us. There are 80-90 other responsible people who we have to stand up for. It's not fair to them for us to let you get off.
Grow up and be responsible.
But let me continue on to the rant by saying this: If you don't like my VP getting upset with you then PAY YOUR DOGGONE DUES ALREADY!!!! You see, the problem with these people's complaints about my VP is that they're simultaneously proving it works. They hate my VP, but they pay their dues. They didn't pay after the two overdue notices and the regular reminders in the newsletter. They paid after someone appeared on their doorstep and got cross with them.
Yet they want me to drop the tactic that seems to work. Why does this not make sense to me?
Another standard complaint is "Why make such a big deal over $40?" (Our HOA dues are really low!) Well, how about this? Why are you making such a big deal over $40. Just pay already! Are you suggesting that you would pay up immediately if it were a lot higher? I don't think so. Why am I making a big deal over $40? Because 95% of the neighborhood have already paid up, most of them without complaint or any extra measures on our part. These people should not be made out to be chumps by the other 5%.
I've also now heard "My lawyer friend said I don't have to pay until the end of the year". Has your lawyer friend read our CC&Rs? Is your lawyer friend going to pay your dues for you? Shut up about the lawyer friend. I have a lawyer on retainer who says you have to pay, and if you don't I can charge interest and slap a lien on your house for the overdue amount plus legal fees. You wanna go there?
I might. It would be easier for me to just turn this all over to lawyers and bill collectors. We might get on your doorstep and get in your face. They'll ruin your credit rating and make you pay $260 minimum for a $40 bill. Which do you prefer?
Don't give me the "hardship" sob story, either. I'm unemployed. I paid. I know people with health problems. They paid. I requested in the newsletter for people to let me know if there are problems so we can work something out. Very, very few have taken me up on it. We can work with you, but we're not mind-readers.
There is a soldier in our neighborhood who will be on deployment when dues come around next year. If anyone has a good excuse to dodge dues, or at least put them off, it's him. But does he? No. He's made arrangement with his family to pay while he's gone. And he's told me almost a year in advance. I know his situation, and should his family forget to pay I will not be making a big deal about it. Neither will my VP. We will wait patiently until he gets home. Heck, I may even cover him myself.
Anyway, I am sick to death of people who think the rules don't apply to them and get mad at us when we insist that they do. Pay your dues, people. If you don't like my VP then stop ignoring our mail notices. Pay on time or tell us why you can't and when you will. Ignore us and we'll be forced to make it hard for your to ignore us.
Yes, it's a big fuss over $40. But you started it, not us. There are 80-90 other responsible people who we have to stand up for. It's not fair to them for us to let you get off.
Grow up and be responsible.
Monday, August 03, 2009
Gates-gate: What can we learn?
A neighbor sees someone trying to force their way into a house and calls the police. The police show up and find that someone still in the house. They request to see ID. And things get fuzzy from there, turning into a national issue that helped the President of the United States stick his foot in his mouth at a time it should have been talking about his health care reform. The whole incident doesn't really end when the President invites both parties to the White House for a beer.
I'm not sure what we are supposed to learn.
The real loser in this is Lucia Whalen, the neighbor who called the police. She has been defamed far and wide by Gates' defenders. That is completely wrong. She should be applauded. If one of my neighbors saw me forcing their way into my house and called the cops I'd go right over there and thank them, because mistake or not, at least she was paying attention and willing to do something to protect my property.
Lucia Whalen, thank you! As a home-owner and home-owners association president I would like to say I wish there were more people like you.
Of course we can also learn that perhaps we don't do enough these days to get to know our neighbors. Perhaps if people were closer in Gates' neighborhood Whalen would have recognized him and not had to call the cops. That's not her failing. That's America's failing.
I shudder to think about what lessons we can learn about race and politics. All I know is that if I had just had difficulty getting into my home and the police show up investigating reports of a burglary I would 1) show them my identification immediately and without talking back, and once they are convinced I live there, 2) thank them for protecting my property and doing their (very difficult) jobs. I would not have ended up in jail, because I would have done nothing to get myself there. But if I had, you can bet the charges would not have been dropped, either.
I am concerned, any racial overtones aside, that our President admits publicly that he doesn't know the facts of the case but in the same breath passes judgment anyway. There was no reason for him to make a statement at that time and in that way. He deserves to get beaten up in the polls because of it. It was a foolish, easily-avoided mistake.
One final lesson, one of forgiveness and humanity:
Gates castigated Crowley in person and in the media, yet Crowley still helps him down the steps. He had every reason to dislike Gates, and to let him get himself down the steps. No one would have thought anything of it, likely. But he helped anyway. That, folks, is the measure of a man.
I'm not sure what we are supposed to learn.
The real loser in this is Lucia Whalen, the neighbor who called the police. She has been defamed far and wide by Gates' defenders. That is completely wrong. She should be applauded. If one of my neighbors saw me forcing their way into my house and called the cops I'd go right over there and thank them, because mistake or not, at least she was paying attention and willing to do something to protect my property.
Lucia Whalen, thank you! As a home-owner and home-owners association president I would like to say I wish there were more people like you.
Of course we can also learn that perhaps we don't do enough these days to get to know our neighbors. Perhaps if people were closer in Gates' neighborhood Whalen would have recognized him and not had to call the cops. That's not her failing. That's America's failing.
I shudder to think about what lessons we can learn about race and politics. All I know is that if I had just had difficulty getting into my home and the police show up investigating reports of a burglary I would 1) show them my identification immediately and without talking back, and once they are convinced I live there, 2) thank them for protecting my property and doing their (very difficult) jobs. I would not have ended up in jail, because I would have done nothing to get myself there. But if I had, you can bet the charges would not have been dropped, either.
I am concerned, any racial overtones aside, that our President admits publicly that he doesn't know the facts of the case but in the same breath passes judgment anyway. There was no reason for him to make a statement at that time and in that way. He deserves to get beaten up in the polls because of it. It was a foolish, easily-avoided mistake.
One final lesson, one of forgiveness and humanity:
Gates castigated Crowley in person and in the media, yet Crowley still helps him down the steps. He had every reason to dislike Gates, and to let him get himself down the steps. No one would have thought anything of it, likely. But he helped anyway. That, folks, is the measure of a man.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
A Salute to Station 7
Yesterday we got a real treat. Our home teacher from church is a fireman. We mentioned to him once that the kids would love to visit a fire station some time. He invited us to come visit his. We finally had time to take him up on it yesterday, and made the arrangements.
The first thing we learned was that our friend is not just a fireman. He's a battalion chief. The second thing we learned is that firefighters are very good hosts. They bent over backward to show us anything we wanted to see.
For example, they were more than happy to run out their big truck (we also learned the difference between a "truck" and an "engine") and give us a ride in the basket. They didn't take it up to its full height at all, I'm sure, but we were above the power lines. I was amazed at how sturdy it was. Other than minor jolts when it started to move, it was nearly as stable as being on the ground.
Our friend also gave us a tour of all their trucks and engines and a look at all their equipment. He let us try on his equipment as well. I tried the entire outfit, and I'm glad I don't have to be a fireman in my current shape. It was all I could do to move around, let alone run up several flights of stairs, hack down a door, and drag out a 200-pound person.
Emma wanted to try the outfit, too, though she could only handle the turnout coat and helmet.
E.T. phone home!
Everyone, including we parents, found it all fascinating. There is so much behind the scenes that you never think about. For example, all of their stoves and ovens are connected to the alarm. If a call comes in it automatically shuts everything down so that nothing burns while they're away.
They also have ventilation hoses attached to the exhaust pipes of each vehicle that turns on automatically to vent the exhaust outside when they start up the vehicles and get them rolling. They can just drive off, and it's rigged in such a way that the hose comes off automatically as they leave. It also triggers the door to close after they leave.
The kids also got to try running one of their smaller hoses, one they use for brush-fires. What kid doesn't dream of getting to use a fire hose? What parent wouldn't also like to get their hands on one, even if they wouldn't admit it openly?
Anyway, we had a great time and learned a lot! Thanks again to John and the men of Station 7! We appreciate everything you do to help keep our city safe. We definitely appreciate a lot more just what a complex job it can be. Thank you for your service!
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Hindsight is not always 20/20
Bill Whittle continues his interview with WWII veteran Leon Cooper, who admits that before the war he was an isolationist, during the war didn't think it was justifiable, but afterward came to realize that it was absolutely necessary. And he gets mad at people who sit back with 60 years of removal and second-guess it all.
Well worth watching.
Well worth watching.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)