And before anyone starts hyperventilating, I’m NOT advocating that kids carry guns to school. What I am suggesting is that we allow those who we entrust with keeping our kids safe while they are in the school’s custody the ability to actually DO SO, because when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
Archive for the ‘propaganda as "entertainment"’ Category
Posted in accountability, Another Honest Conversation Eric Holder Won't Support, Crappy laws, Faux Intellectualism, media bullies, Miles Across and Inches Deep, Politics, Priorities, propaganda as "entertainment", Shame, The Politics of Lowered Expectations™, What Really Matters, Why the Internet Is Fun and Informative, WordPress Political Blogs on December 14, 2012 | 73 Comments »
Posted in Another Honest Conversation Eric Holder Won't Support, Politics, Priorities, propaganda as "entertainment", Racism, The Politics of Lowered Expectations™, Tools, Uncategorized, Why the Internet Is Fun and Informative, WordPress Political Blogs on September 1, 2012 | 2 Comments »
Admittedly, I didn’t watch the whole thing.
It was my first week back to work after a week’s vacation, and as any lawyer will tell you, the combination of rush projects and other work that piles up in your absence will keep you pretty busy. Living on the west coast also means that you miss some speakers anyway. On Day One, I only say a few minutes of Ann Romney’s speech, which I hear was good, but she seemed to be struggling with the part I heard.
I caught the second half of Dr. Rice’s speech. I especially liked the ending, which I took as the refined way of flipping the bird to all the jerks on the left who felt free to insult her in every manner possible over the last decade, including all manner of racist caricatures, centering on the insinuation and overt statement about her being a sell-out to her race. True to form, noted racist and boy who cried wolf, Chrissy Tingles Matthews completely missed out on that. (More on Tingles later.)
I thought Suzanna Martinez gave a good speech, and despite a few minor policy differences with him, I thought Vice President Ryan hit it out of the park. I’m quite sure that the rude noise I heard a few moments into the speech was Joe Biden soiling himself at the prospect of having to debate someone who won’t fight fair, because Ryan will use both facts and math.
It goes without saying that I enjoyed Day 3, as well, and I felt that Mitt did a good job telling us who he is, and what his priorities will be. While it isn’t the speech I wouldn’t have given, and it wasn’t the speech I wanted to hear, the one I would have given wouldn’t have been matching with either his style or his character.
What was more telling was what went on outside and around the convention. Code Pink represented the Dadaist movement by dressing as giant vaginas because they don’t think women are taken seriously by Republicans or something. I know nothing makes me take someone seriously until they dress like a sex organ that they don’t want to be defined by, and then march around in public, screaming about a “War on Women”.
And the whole “War on Women” meme? Yeah. While the crew at MSNBC ignored any speaker that might have caused their 3 viewers to question any of the narratives they were pushing, the fact is that I saw several female governors, lieutenant governors, governmental officials, including cabinet members, and a mother that has endured poverty and debilitating disease on an American journey to wealth, while raising 5 kids, and all of them happy and proud to speak to America from the podium at the RNC. They were too many to be ‘tokens”, as our tolerant and respectful friends on the right so graciously referred to them as, and if it was somehow a manifestation of Stockholm Syndrome, then you should probably get in line with Romney anyway, because Obama doesn’t have that kind of mojo. seriously speaking though, I saw smart, strong, confident women who wouldn’t be defined by their lady bits and don’t want government in them, not even to pay for what goes on in them, which is why they have an appeal someone like Sandra Fluke will never have. For these women, it is about their accomplishments, and not about government doing it for them.
And I find nothing more compelling or attractive.
The other development is that someone found the absurd switch at MSNBC, and discovered that it went up past 11. Chris Matthews’ thin veneer of objectivity was wiped completely away by him humping candidate Barack Obama’s leg in 2008; even its memory became dim in the full-on unrequited love affair he started with President Obama after the 2008 election, but this embarrassing public display of affection has made him so defensive of the object of his desire that he’s now seeing “RACISM!!11!!!” in his corn flakes in the morning. You know its bad when even Joe Scarbourough and Mika aren’t seeing race cards in their breakfast cereal. This is why its time to just stop talking to Chris Matthews. All he’s interested in doing is shouting over people so he can talk about what he “hears” rather than what is said. If I wanted to get the dispatches from a different dimension, I’d go directly to the DNC to get them, and not bother with the official propaganda arm. And we’ve now moved so far past the ridiculous allegations of “code words” and “dog whistles” that now Crazy Larry is mystically divining what Republicans are “really” saying from words that have almost nothing in common with his sad and tragic “translations”. While Newt Gingrich is still willing to shoulder the yeoman’s work of challenging Chris Matthews on his own inherent racism, which is screamingly evident from the conclusions that he draws daily, I don’t think that tough love is going to help. I’m not sure that an intervention will help. The best thing that I can say about his continuing presence on MSNBC at the moment is that at least he is helping to identify those who are also caught up in their own racial conclusions, which in his case are rooted in his belief that government HAS to help minorities, because they simply aren’t capable of success on their own. The thing about dog whistles is that only the dogs hear them. The fact that he, Special Ed, Crazy Larry, and some of the other on-air “personalities” at MSNBC are the ones baying the loudest should be a sobering wake-up call for them. And the “code words” claim is silly. There simply is no reason to “speak in code”. If Republicans are all a bunch of racists, we wouldn’t have to skulk around about it. The fact is that it is contrary to the stated priorities of the party. Achievement by building it ourselves wouldn’t be the goal. Not when it would be about denying it to others. And while I’m sure that Tingles and Crazy Larry would say that’s exactly what it’s about, I think its simply about silencing a message that they cannot refute. Its easier to prevent a debate when everything your opponent says is about “racism” (even when it’s not), than it is to explain to someone that they cannot possibly succeed without government taking from those that did, and then giving it to them.
In the short-term, I sincerely hope Chris Matthews gets help. His break with reality is leading him to be unnecessarily provocative, and it can’t end well if left unchecked. I sincerely fear for his well-being when President Obama’s reckoning day comes in November and the American people give him his well-deserved pink slip. Matthews will either have to be put on a 24 hour suicide watch, or he will turn his bitterness on the electorate, and lecture us endlessly for the rest of his pathetic life about our ignorance and bigotry for daring to recognize the mistake that has been the Obama Presidency.
Posted in 'dialogues' with the left, accountability, Barack Hussein Obama, Faux Intellectualism, Jerks, media bullies, Miles Across and Inches Deep, Politics, Priorities, propaganda as "entertainment", Shame, The Politics of Lowered Expectations™, Tools, Unfunded Mandates, What Really Matters, Why the Internet Is Fun and Informative, WordPress Political Blogs on May 23, 2012 | 24 Comments »
The Blaze today has the story of Hustler’s photoshop of S.E. Cupp. While this is emblematic of the REAL “War on [Conservative] Women”…the one that the usual suspects have no interest in talking about, it has been rightly pointed out that all though Hustler was both good enough to provide a disclaimer next to the photoshop…which will undoubtedly NOT accompany the image as it makes its way around the web, and was also good enough to be honest about the reasons for doing so, in creating this image, they have forever marked her in a graphically sexual manner over a political disagreement.
While the National Organization for Women has not yet issued a statement, it is not anticipated that it will offer anything more than a pro forma protest, if any.
The Hustler explanation states:
S.E. Cupp is a lovely young lady who read too much Ayn Rand in high school and ended up joining the dark side. Cupp, an author and media commentator who often shows up on Fox News programs, is undeniably cute. But her hotness is diminished when she espouses dumb ideas like defunding Planned Parenthood. Perhaps the method pictured here is Ms. Cupp’s suggestion for avoiding an unwanted pregnancy.
President Obama, who inserted himself in a similar controversy earlier this year when he personally called Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown Law Student and Activist who was called a “slut” on air by Rush Limbaugh, has so far remained silent on this matter. Fluke, despite voluntarily enrolling at a Catholic school, testified in a public hearing about the need for the school to offer health care plans that would pay for the birth control of female students, which she claimed could cost upwards of $3000 over the course of a standard law school attendance. The number was claimed to be based not on a standard that would use either condoms, or “generic” birth control pills available at the nearest Target or Wal-Mart Stores, but upon the exceptions to the rule, who claimed the more expensive formulations were necessary to treat other conditions, an explanation not given until after the figure was criticized and ridiculed by Limbaugh and others. For the school to offer such a plan , it would have to go against church teaching and doctrine on the issue of birth control.
So because Ms. Cupp opposes PUBLIC funding of Klanned Parenthood, an organization that has undoubtedly been of great utility over the years to a readership that was more than happy to avoid the responsibilities of fatherhood that would have been incurred by sport screwing and the objectification of women, she deserves to be photoshopped with a penis in her mouth…an image that will undoubtedly be seen one day by her children, and the rest of her family.
It seems a far cry from a January day in Tucson, Arizona when President mustered enough sincerity to say these words with apparent conviction:
But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized – at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do – it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds.
But then talk is cheap, and Ms. Cupp’s conservative views and opposition to Klanned Parenthood undoubtedly make a similar intervention by the President in this matter quite impossible.
Posted in 'dialogues' with the left, accountability, Crisis, Disrespect of Rule of Law., entitlement culture, Faux Intellectualism, Hypocrisy, Miles Across and Inches Deep, Politics, propaganda as "entertainment", Shame, The Politics of Lowered Expectations™, Uncategorized, What Really Matters, Why the Internet Is Fun and Informative, WordPress Political Blogs on October 8, 2011 | 48 Comments »
The expression is that “A picture is worth a thousand words”.
This one is the ultimate intellectual expression of the American Left. In it, one sees the contempt that they have for other people’s achievements, and those who help perpetuate society by safeguarding those achievements and keeping the peace. Any discussion of the inconvenient truth that no matter WHO leads it, Marx/Commu/Socialism will never work is wasted on people who can find eloquence in excrement. They are blind to a political and economic system that allows the individual to “pursue happiness” by taking responsibility for their own destiny, rather than being yoked to a collective standard chosen by other people.
I have had exchanges with some of the #OWS (Occupy Wall Street) supporters this week on Twitter. All condemn the “greed” of Wall Street, while being completely blind to their own envy and sense of entitlement to what these “evil” greedy people have. They rail against corporations for their lack of “accountability to the people”, and refuse to acknowledge that corporations answer to their shareholders and the government, and were designed that way, instead of focusing their attentions on the people who were always intended to be accountable to them: elected officials.
They tell their sob stories of hundreds of thousands of dollars in student loan debt for their MFA degrees and living in parents’ basements, unable to get food stamps for their cats, or jobs that allow them to pay back their student loans. Each adds their plaintive voices to a chorus of whiney stories that call themselves “We Are the 99%” as opposed to the evil, greedy 1% of rich people who they feel entitled to “take” from. I’d call them “We Are The Falsely Entitled”. They talk about “new” economic models where workers have a say in how businesses are run, and how they have to “collapse the system” in order to build a society that is “fair” and doesn’t pick winners and losers, which is utter nonsense. If society didn’t pick winners and losers, then you should be able to go to the corner store and purchase an ice cold Chrystal Pepsi for yourself. They are immune to the suggestion that it is reasonable and understandable to be angry about a government that picks winners and losers, when its role is to act as referree.
This insistance on “firness” is the expression of the naive and those blinded by envy, both of whom are eminently willing to surrender a potential that they have been tricked into thinking that they do not have, or that they are too afraid to command for themselves, to people only too willing to harness for their own ends. In either event, their childish notion of “fairness” pervades their demands and beliefs. A fairness that betrays opportunity for a physical equality, doled out by beneficent “rulers” who decide what is best for all and make it the assigned task for society.
But what I find the most offensive is that this segment of society, clinging to their Noam Chomsky readers, talking about the need for greater Democracy everywhere, and approving of every new law made by activist federal courts over the last 40 years utterly rejects the Democratic apparatus we already have. It is urgent to “collapse the system” because “The Corporations” make all the choices for them, leaving the voter with only Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee when the time comes to cast the ballots. When you point out the flaws in this thinking, such as the success that the Tea Party had in backing and electing candidates in 2010, they only offer the electronic equivalent of a blank stare, followed by “That can’t be right. I saw all about the Tea Party is bad on MSNBC.”
When you suggest that if they really are the 99%, then it should be any problem for them to field and elect their own candidates, the only response is mumbling about corruption. And when you suggest that they simply don’t have the right to “collapse” a system that everyone else in society relies on, and has built their lives around, then they don’t have much to say at all, other than to condemn you as one of the 1% or as someone being led by the nose by that 1%.
As ridiculous as they appear to be, their ignorance and their appetites are dangerous. This is a mob that largely has no understanding of civics, of their political history, both the one that is their birthright, and the one they stupidly embrace, and yet believe that society can and should provide them with a life free from want, difficulty, or hard labor. They demonstrate no understanding that the democracy they cry out for is, at its core, only what 50%+1 wants, or that without safeguards for the minorities that are part of the system they want to collapse, they will inevitably be part of the 49%. While I don’t want to spare them the impact of learning that lesson firsthand, I do not want to live in the environment that would teach them, because revolutions are messy, and the temptation for the rest of the world to interfere is too great. That means that we HAVE to engage them, and let them know that they are nowhere near being 99%, and that the only reason this has gone on this long is because the rest of us had to get up and go to work in the morning.
Yes, Rutherford. By ALL MEANS, let’s hope they form a caucus.
Posted in 'dialogues' with the left, "It burrrrrrnnnnsssssss!", accountability, Correcting Revisionist History, Disrespect of Rule of Law., Faux Intellectualism, Hypocrisy, Miles Across and Inches Deep, Politics, propaganda as "entertainment", Taxes, The Politics of Lowered Expectations™, Why the Internet Is Fun and Informative, WordPress Political Blogs on September 18, 2011 | 25 Comments »
From yesterday’s “Occupy Wall Street” silliness, Moron.org gives us this eager useful idiot:
This guy is the reason why we should think long and hard about fixing the publick screwls by sending even more money to them.
Posted in 'dialogues' with the left, propaganda as "entertainment", Spoiled Hollyweird Children, What Really Matters, Why the Internet Is Fun and Informative, WordPress Political Blogs on July 12, 2011 | 3 Comments »
Sadly, subtlety is a lost art among the privileged denizens of Hollywood.
This means that as a result, sometimes when we seek entertainment, even when we know we might not agree with the message, we are instead disappointed with wasted potential, and bloodied by a point of view that you cannot begin to seriously consider because of the over-the-top delivery so weighed down in cynicism that you cannot even begin to believe that the messenger believes it.
And its a shame, because I wanted to like this movie. I really, really did.
The movie follows Brand Hauser, played by John Cusack, who is a character not unlike Martin Blank of Grosse Pointe Blank. Like Blank, he was trained by the government to be a killer and to eliminate problems. And like Blank, he left government service, but unlike Blank, he went to work for a huge multinational corporation, headed by a former US Vice President, played by Dan Akroyd.
The film opens with a brutal and blatant hit inside a bar in Iqualit. It is clear that Hauser is starting to feel the weight of his demons as he struggles to suppress his emotions about what he does for a living. Before long, he is discussing it with the disembodied voice that comes from the on-star-like device in all of the corporate vehicles he uses.
Hauser’s next gig is “producing” the corporation’s trade show in the capital of Turaqistan so he can get close to and kill Omar Shariff, the country’s President, who is trying to build an oil pipeline through his own country without the “help” of the ubiquitous corporation. On this journey, we are treated to flashbacks which slowly unfold the story of how the hot sauce guzzling hitman came to work for this corporation and walk through life seemingly oblivious to the ridiculous circumstances that surround him.
His mission gets bogged down, despite the best efforts of his right hand (wo)man, Melissa Dillon, played by Joan Cusack. He soon finds himself distracted by a comely leftist reporter, played by Marissa Tomei, and a middle-eastern pop-starlet played by Hillary Duff, both of whom start to turn Hauser around to face his many demons head on. Yes, you’re right to think that this sounds very similar to Grosse Pointe Blank. But frankly, it is nowhere near as good.
The problem is that WAR INC is so wrapped up in shrieking paranoia about the “military-industrial complex”, that it pushes the storytelling aside so that it can preach to you, and it doesn’t even succeed at that, because the story itself is so very unbelievable. The movie succeeds when Cusack and the other scriptwriters let the characters be human. One resonant moment was when Hauser finally lures his target to a hotel room, thinking he will get a chance to bed the beautiful reporter, but finds himself on the wrong end of Hauser’s gun and takes a moment to wax poetic about the situation.
Ah Hauser, love does get one into difficult situations. We’re in a constant state of war, Hauser. We kill our brothers, complete strangers, the guilty and the innocent. We are at war with our own hearts. Love is a cease-fire that’s destined to fail. But, as I said, it does get us into tricky situations… sometimes the back of a garbage truck.
This movie has some genuinely funny and touching scenes, and some of the clever dialogue that you might expect from Cusack playing a hitman. But it falls short of being anywhere near as good because where Blank walked away and reclaimed his soul, Hauser became human again, and did nothing with it. There was no redemption and the characters were all callously thrown away after the sermon was completed. Every bit of the story was too outrageous to be believable, whereas anyone who grew up in the 80s and felt alienated could identify with Martin Blank.
WAR INC is what happens when people who act for a living want to become political moralists. If you want to see an enteraining film about a hitman, put Grosse Pointe Blank in your DVD player, and spare yourself the wasting of approximately 2 hours.
Posted in 'dialogues' with the left, accountability, Barack Hussein Obama, Faux Intellectualism, Miles Across and Inches Deep, Politics, propaganda as "entertainment", The Politics of Lowered Expectations™, What Really Matters, Why the Internet Is Fun and Informative, WordPress Political Blogs on December 9, 2010 | 8 Comments »
…the results are not always pretty.
Yesterday, I posted on the inanities expressed by some of the inhabitants of fantasyland on the anniversary of John Lennon’s death. An internet sparing partner took significant umbrage with my post and follow-up remarks. In fact, he was so offended by it that he composed a post today taking me to task for my opposition in the lamebrained wishcasting set forth in the song “Imagine”.
You can read his psuedo-scold at his place, but since he seems to think that the song embodies aspirations that are noble and admirable, I thought it best to explain to him why it isn’t so. Like many on the Left, Rutherford would like to believe that his feelings take priority over reality. I’m sure that he would disagree with me, but the problem with a worldview where the default is to one’s feelings first, and the brainbox a distant second, if it is that high on the list, is that the result is a handicap where the sufferer loses the ability to process information in a way that helps him to really understand what he is trying to process. Hence the thought that seeing the filthy hippie’s ode as anything other than the expression of high-minded ideals we should all aspire to is to somehow reject optimism, and be guilty of the murder of an entire culture’s imagination. But let’s examine what Lennon was saying, shall we?
Imagine there’s no Heaven
It’s easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today
The only way a person thinks that this would be a wonderful state of affairs is if they never think of what that means.
Whether atheists and agnostics want to believe it or not, what normally keeps humanity’s baser impulses in check is a belief in the divine, and the thought of an eternity in which one is rewarded according to their behavior here when still shuffling about in a mortal coil. If you remove that governor on human behavior, you will have chaos. If you want what someone else has, what would stop you from taking it? The Law? In such a world, the law is only a set of rules created by someone else. It isn’t something to be obeyed or feared. And when people believe that when they die, that’s it, well then you get people who “live for today”. The problem is that living for today is that it is often synonymous with bad decisions. You don’t pay for that meal. You charge someone double. You ignore rules you don’t like. You borrow money you can never repay to buy things that make you feel good. You don’t pull out. The strong prey on the weak, and there is no recourse.
Our world isn’t perfect. Governments and individuals do things we don’t like. Sometimes there comes a reckoning that we witness. Sometimes the reckoning is one we never see, but without law, and the moral authority derived from a belief in the divine, we have the jungle. A place that is arbitrary, capricious, savage, and without hope for anything better. Rutherford thinks this is to be admired; I know it is to be reviled and avoided.
Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
Why would this be a good thing? First of all, are we not constantly preached to about the acceptance of those who are not like us? And often with the expectation that we hold these others and their own beliefs to be equal to or better than ourselves and what we believe in? Seriously, where are the champions of diversity when this little ditty is playing? Nodding their head in time to the notes from the piano, of course, because they never look for the consequences, only their feelings.
Then there is also the matter of the fact that some of us are quite attached to our countries, thankyouverymuch. I may be mad as hell about the perversions, deceptions, and lies that the Left have inflicted on my country and my government for the last 100 years, but I still would choose to be an American everyday of the week and twice on Sunday, because it was this country that recognized that rights come from GOD and not men, and not governments. Because it was this country that enshrined the ideal of the individual rather than a collective that exists to serve government. It isn’t always perfect, and as with any endeavor that relies on the participation of man, bad things have happened and been done in the name of freedom. Some are known, some remain unknown, and even more remain unrecognized, despite being perpetrated in broad daylight, but as long as we remain free to believe in the divine, the eternal, and the justice that is its to give, we can continually strive to meet the highest ideals expressed in our charter. That is worth killing for. That is worth dying for.
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace
Having done this dance with Rutherford for over a year now, I can certainly see why he thinks this would be marvelous. Our prior conversations have developed the picture of a man who believes that one can share basic moral convictions with a society without them being informed by a religion. To an extent, I will concede that this is true, but if he believes that a society without a common religion or a history of once having a common religion is going to share a set of common ideals of what is “good”, or that it would find the idea of living in peace to be a good and noble goal is naive, and no matter how much he wants to believe that parents can inculcate a knowledge of “right and wrong” or “good and evil” without having their own ideals informed, even subconsciously, by the shared moral beliefs of the society in which they live (i.e. by religion) is doubly naive.
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world
I can imagine how its been tried before. Its had so many names…socialism, marxism, communism, and yet the result has always been the same. A system that denies the dignity of the individual, that links a person’s worth to their value to the state, a system where invariably, despite all the flowery talk of equality, some end up being more equal than others…not because of their own abilities, and not because of equal opportunities, but because of their ability to capitalize and exploit the contributions of others. Think about the dreaded “group projects” inflicted upon each of us at some point in our educational careers. Now “imagine” that those who are sponging off of your contributions and the those of others actually making the effort also have the ability to commandeer the results for themselves and have you imprisoned or killed if you dare speak up about it, and you pretty much have it nailed. A potent combination of mediocrity, mendacity, misery, slavery, and death. This is why the song is regarded by many to be an ode to communism (no, Rutherford, that was not solely my conclusion) and they would be correct.
You may say that I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope someday you’ll join us
And the world will live as one
Join this nightmare? Not on your life. The only one who could make it work, and not exhibit every manner of repression and depravity in so doing is the one who will one day return to do just that. He is the only King whose claim has never been illegitimate, and until that happens, I am not surrendering my identity, my labor, and my soul to a collective.
Rutherford, however, cannot see past the perimeter of his feelings long enough to consider that those who chose not to guild the lily with empty optimism are not without hope, or a belief in something better, as he sips the bitter distillation of the death of his own optimism, and his casting about in search of others to blame for it:
BiW was back in the mode of so many conservatives who scoffed at Barack Obama’s Hope and Change rhetoric of the 2008 campaign. To believe the world could be a better place made you “perpetually naive”.
To be fair, there was plenty to scoff at. The glittering generalities and self-aggrandizing rhetoric would have seemed ridiculous tumbling from the lips of anyone else. The difference between me and my friends, and Rutherford and the rest of his friends chanting “Yes We Can!” and drooling over the crease of his pants, and how Presidential he looked was that we recognized it right away…largely because we did not default immediately to emotion, and succumb to wanting to believe more than wanting to understand. As a result, he wants to believe that we have no hope for something better. I find that ironic. As a conservative, I believe in this country, and I believe in the abilities of the American people. I don’t believe in a government that tells me that I can’t. I can’t succeed without its help. I can’t be content without it deciding what is fair. I can’t think for myself; it must do it for me. I can’t fail; it must protect me from consequences of my choices and actions. Rutherford, like many on the Left fear having the right to decide their own destiny. That’s what underlies the current movement of collective salvation. And placing your hopes in a vain and shallow man whose principle pastime was shameless self-promotion and preaching the gospel of collective salvation, which, strangely enough, empowers him and others like him was putting it in the wrong place. We are not without hope, and a belief in things better; we simply knew it was not to be found where you were looking, and now you know too.
The song is flawed because it describes a world that cannot be because it goes against human nature. But isn’t that what aspiration is all about? Aren’t we here to resist the baser parts of our nature? Aren’t we here to change the world for the better? Aren’t we here to share in the world’s riches?
Share in the world’s riches? No. As the bylaws state:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
That does not mean “share in the world’s riches”, and unlike some in Congress who would continue to give such things away in exchange for dependence and allegiance with insanity like the DREAM Act, I understand this. But then I also understand that making a better world doesn’t include simply giving those blessings away domestically, either. General welfare is not promoted by giving food, clothing, and shelter away to those who are not interested in earning it, and I am not interested in giving those things to them. If they want to earn them, and they need help, that’s different. Help is first and foremost showing them they can do it themselves, and making them do it. That spares them the shackles of dependency and the ingratitude of entitlement, and it spares the rest of us from slavery in having to fulfill that ever-growing sense of entitlement. That’s a win-win. That is paying it forward. That is making society grow, rather than fragmenting it, and that will ultimately make the world a better place.
Rather than the ode to a utopia that isn’t, I much prefer the wisdom of this song:
Posted in 'dialogues' with the left, accountability, Faux Intellectualism, Miles Across and Inches Deep, Politics, propaganda as "entertainment", The Politics of Lowered Expectations™, What Really Matters, Why the Internet Is Fun and Informative, WordPress Political Blogs on May 31, 2010 | 8 Comments »
The pre-dawn commando operation, which killed nine pro-Palestinian activists, was also sure to strengthen Gaza’s Islamic militant Hamas rulers at the expense of U.S. allies in the region, key among them Hamas’ main rival, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, as well as Egypt and Jordan.
“The attack on a humanitarian mission … will only further alienate the international community and isolate Israel while granting added legitimacy to Hamas’ claim to represent the plight of the Palestinian people,” said Scott Atran, an analyst at the University of Michigan.
I have to wonder if Scott, who I am ashamed to say is at my alma mater, actually took the time to find out about the conduct of those peace-loving humanitarians and “pro-Palestinian” activists? Because I’m not convinced the truth reflects the same thing he seems to be talking about in his quote:
Kinda puts a different perpective on the peace-loving pro-Palestinian activists the legacy media have come to know and love, doesn’t it?