An Open Letter to The Weather Channel and storm-chasing meteorologists in general.
To All This Concerns,
Recently I have noticed a trend towards making the presentation of weather and weather-related stories exciting and "extreme". This is hardly a surprise in a day and age where attention spans are shorter than the half-life of the average campaign promise, and only loud, bright and flashing can even attract anyone's attention anymore. Still, I would wish for a certain degree of decorum and consideration.
Earlier this evening I viewed part of the "Vortex II" storm-chasing show on The Weather Channel. The images were fascinating, the presentation was quite good... and the meteorologists and storm chasers appeared to be completely detached from reality.
We understand that a meteorologist would be excited about his/her work; we would hope so. But America has just experienced several absolutely hellish tornado impacts with horrific death tolls, and here we have a show where it's all glee and hope that the storm conditions will come to form a tornado.
We also understand that it's the purpose of the team to catch and observe tornadoes for much-needed scientific research that may someday save lives; we welcome this and are glad for it. But would it be too much ask for a reasonable degree of solemnity from these researchers as they hope for something that could quite easily end up killing people or at least destroying everything they have and turning their lives inside-out?
Please, Weather Channel and meteorologists in general, show some respect. Remember that this thing you're getting so excited about could easily be tantamount to a bombing run on a city or town near you. Remember the people. Thank you.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Glenn Beck and the Battered Nation Syndrome
I was a fan of Glenn Beck back in my bad old Florida days, back when both Glenn and I spent a lot of time in and around bottles. He was no nonsense, he made sense (most of the time) and he was funny. You don't have to be funny to get my attention, you just have to make sense and talk about something worth discussing. I like watching sports sometimes, but I honestly wonder about the kind of people who can tell you all the stats about a former player from their favorite team who was traded or retired years ago. On the other hand, I'm fascinated by information that pertains to where the country and the world are headed, sometimes to the point that it freaks people out.
To be honest with you, I don't remember what Beck talked about 10 years ago. I don't think it was politics, at least not at the level he's been on since joining Fox News Channel. But I do remember that he was a fairly "normal" talk radio type.
Then something changed. I suspect the biggest part of it was quitting drinking. From what I can guess, he and I probably quit near the same time. For me, I became a follower of Jesus Christ in the summer of 2003 and learned that the Holy Spirit wasn't thirsty. From the night I gave my life to Christ I never drank again. (Not saying you can't have a drink, just saying I can't.) For Glenn, something a little different. I'm not sure if he got married first or became a Mormon first. I'm guessing the former wasn't allowed until the latter happened, but I don't really know that. I'm not that interested.
Before my change, I wasn't really that interested in politics, although 911 got me into talk radio because I wanted to understand why this thing had happened. Rush Limbaugh was about the only one who seemed to make any sense, saying things I'd never heard before, and I soon found my liberal ideas drying up and blowing away. Pretty soon I came to the conclusion that there were two sides here: the left, whose "reasoning" appears to be based on emotion and being against anything a conservative might approve, and the right, whose reasoning appears to be based on logic and reality and so can sometimes come off as a little harsh because, well, reality can be a little harsh.
I was very curious when Glenn Beck appeared on CNN because he sounded conservative and that made him such a horrible fit for CNN. He wisely moved to Fox News, and while he claimed not to take either side, he clearly came off conservative/libertarian, and I really liked what he was doing. Then the religious stuff started creeping in and I began to get uneasy. Mormon stuff began filtering in under the guise of Christianity. (I'm sorry, but if you believe Jesus and Lucifer are brothers, you're not a Christian in the biblical sense.) This misled many. The ecumenical push reached its height with the huge rally he did in Washington DC. Or so I thought.
Yesterday Beck announced another major rally in the works. This one is called "Restoring Courage". Its purpose is to get all the major religions together. Its location... Jerusalem. As in Israel. Get all he major religions together in support of Israel. From The Jerusalem Post: "The aim is simple: to persuade as many people as possible from all faiths that the time has come to show support for Israel and the Jews." A quick look at jpost.com makes it pretty clear that Glenn Beck is seen as a true friend of Israel.
I know this is a little off topic, not being political and all, but it's always bugged me, this biblical idea that at some point the antichrist would make a seven year peace treaty with Israel and break it half way through. I couldn't imagine a people who'd been through so much, who had contributed so many brilliant innovations to society, would be that gullible. But I guess I see it now. If what I'm seeing in the Jerusalem Post is indicative, the nation of Israel appears to have developed a national battered woman syndrome. No need to look too closely, he says he's our friend and that's good enough for us. I'm not being critical; I can't imagine living in their position. But at least now I can understand how they could one day look right past the obvious and enter the ultimate abusive relationship.
To be honest with you, I don't remember what Beck talked about 10 years ago. I don't think it was politics, at least not at the level he's been on since joining Fox News Channel. But I do remember that he was a fairly "normal" talk radio type.
Then something changed. I suspect the biggest part of it was quitting drinking. From what I can guess, he and I probably quit near the same time. For me, I became a follower of Jesus Christ in the summer of 2003 and learned that the Holy Spirit wasn't thirsty. From the night I gave my life to Christ I never drank again. (Not saying you can't have a drink, just saying I can't.) For Glenn, something a little different. I'm not sure if he got married first or became a Mormon first. I'm guessing the former wasn't allowed until the latter happened, but I don't really know that. I'm not that interested.
Before my change, I wasn't really that interested in politics, although 911 got me into talk radio because I wanted to understand why this thing had happened. Rush Limbaugh was about the only one who seemed to make any sense, saying things I'd never heard before, and I soon found my liberal ideas drying up and blowing away. Pretty soon I came to the conclusion that there were two sides here: the left, whose "reasoning" appears to be based on emotion and being against anything a conservative might approve, and the right, whose reasoning appears to be based on logic and reality and so can sometimes come off as a little harsh because, well, reality can be a little harsh.
I was very curious when Glenn Beck appeared on CNN because he sounded conservative and that made him such a horrible fit for CNN. He wisely moved to Fox News, and while he claimed not to take either side, he clearly came off conservative/libertarian, and I really liked what he was doing. Then the religious stuff started creeping in and I began to get uneasy. Mormon stuff began filtering in under the guise of Christianity. (I'm sorry, but if you believe Jesus and Lucifer are brothers, you're not a Christian in the biblical sense.) This misled many. The ecumenical push reached its height with the huge rally he did in Washington DC. Or so I thought.
Yesterday Beck announced another major rally in the works. This one is called "Restoring Courage". Its purpose is to get all the major religions together. Its location... Jerusalem. As in Israel. Get all he major religions together in support of Israel. From The Jerusalem Post: "The aim is simple: to persuade as many people as possible from all faiths that the time has come to show support for Israel and the Jews." A quick look at jpost.com makes it pretty clear that Glenn Beck is seen as a true friend of Israel.
I know this is a little off topic, not being political and all, but it's always bugged me, this biblical idea that at some point the antichrist would make a seven year peace treaty with Israel and break it half way through. I couldn't imagine a people who'd been through so much, who had contributed so many brilliant innovations to society, would be that gullible. But I guess I see it now. If what I'm seeing in the Jerusalem Post is indicative, the nation of Israel appears to have developed a national battered woman syndrome. No need to look too closely, he says he's our friend and that's good enough for us. I'm not being critical; I can't imagine living in their position. But at least now I can understand how they could one day look right past the obvious and enter the ultimate abusive relationship.
Saturday, May 14, 2011
In The Middle East, When They Say "Freedom", They Mean...
Several months ago, populist uprisings began in Tunisia and Egypt, and quickly spread through the middle east. The ignorati in left-wing American politics and media immediately sprang forward to hail this activity as a yearning for democracy that we should support wholeheartedly. Had they been correct, I would agree; a true push for democracy in the form of representative government is something the United States should support by default. However, this is not that.
It's at the same time fascinating and terrifying how ignorant, willfully or otherwise, the American left is on the entire concept of Islam as it exists in the places where these uprisings are occuring. President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton nearly tripped over themselves to come out in support of these "democratic uprisings" early on. When I saw that, I knew it was time to start digging. As snarky as it may sound, it's only taken two short years to come to understand that whatever those two say is good is going to be very bad... and I'm now more convinced than before.
Americans in general are unaware of the differences between a representative republic form of government, democracy, and the basic concept of freedom. I am convinced that asked to explain any or all of them, most Americans would fail miserably. Freedom is good, democracy is good, we should want those, right? Is there a difference between a people fighting for freedom from a particular form of government and people fighting for a democratic form of government? Is there a difference between a people fighting for democratic reforms and for a democratic form of government? Why is it that no one is even mentioning the idea of representative government?
What the American left completely swings and misses on is that the mindset of the actual people doing the fighting makes all the difference. There is a light-year of difference between westerners fighting for freedom from oppression and Muslim populations fighting for freedom from secular or semi-secular dictatorships like Assad of Syria, Mubarak of Egypt and Gaddafi of Libya. Yes, these people are fighting for freedom on the face of it. But freedom to do exactly what?
The people in the middle east are not fighting for freedom in the vague "I get to do whatever I want" sense in which Americans understand it. The people in the middle east are fighting for the right to self-determination. Sounds good so far. Remember, it depends on the mindset of the people. These people want to be able to vote... to implement Islamic Sharia law.
I urge you to take some time and learn about Islam and Sharia. Look up the word "taqiyya". Learn the mindset and understand a few things. Fundamentalist Islam sees Israel as the "Little Satan", and you see how exercised they get about Israel. Well, they see the United States as the "Great Satan". Should we think that would change if they somehow actually managed to conquer Israel? Islam expects its adherents to take over the entire world, by the sword if necessary. Look up the history of Cordoba, Spain as regards what they did when they conquered it, where they built their mosque. Consider that they want to build a mosque called Cordoba House at Ground Zero. Why is that so important? Why do dogs urinate on every tree they can? These guys are laughing at us, and if we don't wise up, they'll win before most of us realize anything's wrong.
There have already been several court cases in the United States where judges have ruled in favor of allowing Muslims to be adjudicated according to Sharia law. The drive has begun to try to implement Sharia law in communities in the US. There's likely never going to be another big attack, or even a war we can fight with weapons. They've learned that we are morally weak and soft as a nation. We are so politically correct that we would rather be shot than take a chance on offending anyone. That, not losing a major war, will likely be the end of this nation as we know it.
Islam is much more than a religion, but our government and media act as though it is simply another religion on par with Judaism and Christianity. It is not. It is a form of government and it demands that its adherents institute that form of government as soon as they have the ability. Three years ago I would have said that ability was at least decades away in America, if it was possible at all. With this new administration, all bets are off. If Obama is re-elected, he would have nothing to lose in his second term and God only knows what could happen. I don't suggest that Obama is a Muslim, not a real one anyway. He may fancy himself one in some "I was born into it" kind of sense. At the very least he is far more sympathetic in his actions to Islam than to his professed Christianity, which he continually belies by using an unbroken string of misinterpretations of Scripture to support non-Christian positions. I think he's a Muslim "wannabe". And that's scary, because a wannabe tends to open doors to things he only thinks he understands, like supporting this revolution in the middle east that will only end with the United States having more enemies there than ever before.
It's at the same time fascinating and terrifying how ignorant, willfully or otherwise, the American left is on the entire concept of Islam as it exists in the places where these uprisings are occuring. President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton nearly tripped over themselves to come out in support of these "democratic uprisings" early on. When I saw that, I knew it was time to start digging. As snarky as it may sound, it's only taken two short years to come to understand that whatever those two say is good is going to be very bad... and I'm now more convinced than before.
Americans in general are unaware of the differences between a representative republic form of government, democracy, and the basic concept of freedom. I am convinced that asked to explain any or all of them, most Americans would fail miserably. Freedom is good, democracy is good, we should want those, right? Is there a difference between a people fighting for freedom from a particular form of government and people fighting for a democratic form of government? Is there a difference between a people fighting for democratic reforms and for a democratic form of government? Why is it that no one is even mentioning the idea of representative government?
What the American left completely swings and misses on is that the mindset of the actual people doing the fighting makes all the difference. There is a light-year of difference between westerners fighting for freedom from oppression and Muslim populations fighting for freedom from secular or semi-secular dictatorships like Assad of Syria, Mubarak of Egypt and Gaddafi of Libya. Yes, these people are fighting for freedom on the face of it. But freedom to do exactly what?
The people in the middle east are not fighting for freedom in the vague "I get to do whatever I want" sense in which Americans understand it. The people in the middle east are fighting for the right to self-determination. Sounds good so far. Remember, it depends on the mindset of the people. These people want to be able to vote... to implement Islamic Sharia law.
I urge you to take some time and learn about Islam and Sharia. Look up the word "taqiyya". Learn the mindset and understand a few things. Fundamentalist Islam sees Israel as the "Little Satan", and you see how exercised they get about Israel. Well, they see the United States as the "Great Satan". Should we think that would change if they somehow actually managed to conquer Israel? Islam expects its adherents to take over the entire world, by the sword if necessary. Look up the history of Cordoba, Spain as regards what they did when they conquered it, where they built their mosque. Consider that they want to build a mosque called Cordoba House at Ground Zero. Why is that so important? Why do dogs urinate on every tree they can? These guys are laughing at us, and if we don't wise up, they'll win before most of us realize anything's wrong.
There have already been several court cases in the United States where judges have ruled in favor of allowing Muslims to be adjudicated according to Sharia law. The drive has begun to try to implement Sharia law in communities in the US. There's likely never going to be another big attack, or even a war we can fight with weapons. They've learned that we are morally weak and soft as a nation. We are so politically correct that we would rather be shot than take a chance on offending anyone. That, not losing a major war, will likely be the end of this nation as we know it.
Islam is much more than a religion, but our government and media act as though it is simply another religion on par with Judaism and Christianity. It is not. It is a form of government and it demands that its adherents institute that form of government as soon as they have the ability. Three years ago I would have said that ability was at least decades away in America, if it was possible at all. With this new administration, all bets are off. If Obama is re-elected, he would have nothing to lose in his second term and God only knows what could happen. I don't suggest that Obama is a Muslim, not a real one anyway. He may fancy himself one in some "I was born into it" kind of sense. At the very least he is far more sympathetic in his actions to Islam than to his professed Christianity, which he continually belies by using an unbroken string of misinterpretations of Scripture to support non-Christian positions. I think he's a Muslim "wannabe". And that's scary, because a wannabe tends to open doors to things he only thinks he understands, like supporting this revolution in the middle east that will only end with the United States having more enemies there than ever before.
Friday, May 13, 2011
Oh Yes You Will!
Everyone, listen. It's the fouth quarter, two minute warning, and we're down by six. Time is short and options are few. We are going to have to resign ourselves yet again to the same thing we are forced to resign ourselves to every four years: no political reincarnation of Reagan is going to magically materialize and join the fray. In fact, we can pretty much count on the opposite, as we always can; that the field will be filled with RINOs and the utterly unelectable.
So, I don't like this, you're not going to like it, but this is me slapping your face and yelling "SNAP OUT OF IT!" I keep hearing, "No way I'd vote for candidate X", where X is one of the sorry choices in evidence thus far on the Republican side. Oh. Yes. You. Will! Did you get that? In the primaries, you do your best to get the most conservative candidate nominated, and then no matter WHO it is, you get out there and you vote for that person in November. I don't care if it IS Sarah Palin or Ron Paul. I don't care if it's Mitt Romney. I may cry as I turn in my ballot, but even if it's Newt Gingrich. If it's a head of cabbage with an "R" next to it, I'm voting cabbage!
This ain't warmups anymore. This is the big time. We have one chance in 2012 to change the suicidal course we're on, and the time for circular firing squads is long past. Be fractured and allow Obama to be re-elected, and I promise you with something that almost lends itself to being called prescience that what he's done in his first term will seem quaint and "good old days" compared to what he will do in a second term when there's no longer anything left to lose.
You see, Obama has realized something I always wondered about, always wondered why presidents didn't do: Rule rather than serve since there really is no one to stop them. No one really seems to be getting around yet to understanding the gravity of the situation, but our dictator with training wheels appears to be grasping it. Term two the training wheels come off. Term two will see this president not serving but ruling, not approving legislaton but acting by executive order. This is a guy who thinks that the way America is and was designed is incorrect, and has plans to "fundamentally remake" it. His words, not mine. What do you think the czars are for? All those executive branch power grabs? He has no intention of working with Congress, he intends to bypass it completely and rule.
In November of 2012, you will be faced with a choice. You can stand in the gap, or you can stand aside and be a passive party to the destruction of America. Which will it be? You don't have to like the "R" on the ballot, in fact, from what I'm seeing so far I'll be holding my nose too. But hold it you'd better, and get out there and revoke Obama's hall pass. No apathy. No self-defeating "principle". We're stuck in a lesser of two evilssituation, choosing not to choose is still a choice, and it's the wrong one.
So get your head on straight now ladies and get ready for the year-and-a-half two-minute drill. Losing is not an option.
So, I don't like this, you're not going to like it, but this is me slapping your face and yelling "SNAP OUT OF IT!" I keep hearing, "No way I'd vote for candidate X", where X is one of the sorry choices in evidence thus far on the Republican side. Oh. Yes. You. Will! Did you get that? In the primaries, you do your best to get the most conservative candidate nominated, and then no matter WHO it is, you get out there and you vote for that person in November. I don't care if it IS Sarah Palin or Ron Paul. I don't care if it's Mitt Romney. I may cry as I turn in my ballot, but even if it's Newt Gingrich. If it's a head of cabbage with an "R" next to it, I'm voting cabbage!
This ain't warmups anymore. This is the big time. We have one chance in 2012 to change the suicidal course we're on, and the time for circular firing squads is long past. Be fractured and allow Obama to be re-elected, and I promise you with something that almost lends itself to being called prescience that what he's done in his first term will seem quaint and "good old days" compared to what he will do in a second term when there's no longer anything left to lose.
You see, Obama has realized something I always wondered about, always wondered why presidents didn't do: Rule rather than serve since there really is no one to stop them. No one really seems to be getting around yet to understanding the gravity of the situation, but our dictator with training wheels appears to be grasping it. Term two the training wheels come off. Term two will see this president not serving but ruling, not approving legislaton but acting by executive order. This is a guy who thinks that the way America is and was designed is incorrect, and has plans to "fundamentally remake" it. His words, not mine. What do you think the czars are for? All those executive branch power grabs? He has no intention of working with Congress, he intends to bypass it completely and rule.
In November of 2012, you will be faced with a choice. You can stand in the gap, or you can stand aside and be a passive party to the destruction of America. Which will it be? You don't have to like the "R" on the ballot, in fact, from what I'm seeing so far I'll be holding my nose too. But hold it you'd better, and get out there and revoke Obama's hall pass. No apathy. No self-defeating "principle". We're stuck in a lesser of two evilssituation, choosing not to choose is still a choice, and it's the wrong one.
So get your head on straight now ladies and get ready for the year-and-a-half two-minute drill. Losing is not an option.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
The Border Fence Is Complete!
Here it is! There is your border fence, America! President Obama says it's completed, so shall it be written, so shall it be done, and all that. Only idiots like those Republicans who want a moat with alligators would dare to question the impassibility of this demoralizing obstacle of insurmountableness...
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
The Hypocrisy of Left-Wing "Morality"
The idiom goes, "Give X enough rope and he'll hang himself." The only problem with this is that the "hanging" part generally implies consequences to the individual or group due error made. It used to be true. But with the left in Obama's America, there are no consequences for anything short of murder, and even then it's kind of iffy.
The 2008 presidential campaign was laden with proclamations, promises and scoldings from candidate Obama pertaining to "enhanced interrogation techniques" (intentionally incorrectly called "torture" in the attempt to inspire moral outrage in people who often wouldn't know moral outrage if it lit them on fire) and the existence of the Guantanamo Bay "can't try you and can't let you go" prison in Cuba. We were pontificated to repeatedly that America is better than this, that we can't do such things, these "torture techniques" don't work, that these detainees were due a trial (because candidate Obama didn't understand the difference between a criminal and a combatant, a distinction apparently still lost on his Attorney General Eric Holder), and so on ad nauseam.
Well, a funny thing happened on the way to the Moral High Ground. President Obama quietly decided not to close Guantanamo Bay (although Holder still insists he's going to do it). With only a couple of detainees having gone to trial, the administration has decided military tribunals weren't such a bad idea after all. And to ice the stupid-cake, it turns out that if the Bin Laden assassination isn't a hoax (no pictures, no body, take my word for it disloyal subjects!), apparently it was those enhanced interrogation techniques that led to locating him.
How embarrassing. Putting water up the noses of mass murderers and fighters whose goal is the downfall of the United States of America as a nation actually led to the downfall of public enemy #1. It wasn't supposed to work, at least that was the constant sermon at the Church of the One. In fact, a local talk show this morning read an article in which an interrogated combatant recommended that the interrogators use the waterboarding technique if they wanted to get the information!
But something has been lost in all the excitement. As Obama does his 90th "not spiking the footbal" victory lap, no one seems to have noticed that the president who said we can't put water in their noses signed the order to put a bullet in Bin Laden's eye. I mean, isn't that a little harsh? Shouldn't we have arrested him and sent him to a prison with prayer rugs, copies of the Qu'ran and no offensive American flags in sight? What about the right to a criminal trial? I mean, just because it's impossible doesn't mean we shouldn't do it, right?
The inconsistency of the concept of morality on the left is never more apparent than when the left sees itself as victorious. When it does, it is nearly without fail because it did something it demanded the right should never do and should be prosecuted for if it ever did. The left will tell you all day long something is wrong, until they're the ones doing it. Waterboarding killed zero terrorists. Barack Hussein Obama signed an order that resulted in the execution of Osama Bin Laden, whether you think it should have happened or not.
Rapid Intra-ocular Lead Projectile Incursion. Now THAT's torture. But don't fret, I'm sure AG Holder is investigating the actions of Navy Seal Team Six and preparing indictments as we speak.
The 2008 presidential campaign was laden with proclamations, promises and scoldings from candidate Obama pertaining to "enhanced interrogation techniques" (intentionally incorrectly called "torture" in the attempt to inspire moral outrage in people who often wouldn't know moral outrage if it lit them on fire) and the existence of the Guantanamo Bay "can't try you and can't let you go" prison in Cuba. We were pontificated to repeatedly that America is better than this, that we can't do such things, these "torture techniques" don't work, that these detainees were due a trial (because candidate Obama didn't understand the difference between a criminal and a combatant, a distinction apparently still lost on his Attorney General Eric Holder), and so on ad nauseam.
Well, a funny thing happened on the way to the Moral High Ground. President Obama quietly decided not to close Guantanamo Bay (although Holder still insists he's going to do it). With only a couple of detainees having gone to trial, the administration has decided military tribunals weren't such a bad idea after all. And to ice the stupid-cake, it turns out that if the Bin Laden assassination isn't a hoax (no pictures, no body, take my word for it disloyal subjects!), apparently it was those enhanced interrogation techniques that led to locating him.
How embarrassing. Putting water up the noses of mass murderers and fighters whose goal is the downfall of the United States of America as a nation actually led to the downfall of public enemy #1. It wasn't supposed to work, at least that was the constant sermon at the Church of the One. In fact, a local talk show this morning read an article in which an interrogated combatant recommended that the interrogators use the waterboarding technique if they wanted to get the information!
But something has been lost in all the excitement. As Obama does his 90th "not spiking the footbal" victory lap, no one seems to have noticed that the president who said we can't put water in their noses signed the order to put a bullet in Bin Laden's eye. I mean, isn't that a little harsh? Shouldn't we have arrested him and sent him to a prison with prayer rugs, copies of the Qu'ran and no offensive American flags in sight? What about the right to a criminal trial? I mean, just because it's impossible doesn't mean we shouldn't do it, right?
The inconsistency of the concept of morality on the left is never more apparent than when the left sees itself as victorious. When it does, it is nearly without fail because it did something it demanded the right should never do and should be prosecuted for if it ever did. The left will tell you all day long something is wrong, until they're the ones doing it. Waterboarding killed zero terrorists. Barack Hussein Obama signed an order that resulted in the execution of Osama Bin Laden, whether you think it should have happened or not.
Rapid Intra-ocular Lead Projectile Incursion. Now THAT's torture. But don't fret, I'm sure AG Holder is investigating the actions of Navy Seal Team Six and preparing indictments as we speak.
Friday, May 6, 2011
The Right to Choose
Governor Walker has given the public employee the right to choose... whether or not to be in the union. In a signal that the Supreme Court Justice election recount must actually be happening somewhere close to legally, some of the larger unions are talking about giving up and not trying to re-certify.
Here's what it always came down to: "Under Walker's legislation, public employers could no longer collect membership dues on behalf of unions and workers would no longer have to pay dues to unions if they decline to do so. All that leaves little incentive for unions to keep their official status, Kennedy said." The right to choose, aka freedom, was the thing the union leaders were always so upset about. Everything else aside, letting public employees decide for themselves was always unacceptable. In America. Go figure.
Here's what it always came down to: "Under Walker's legislation, public employers could no longer collect membership dues on behalf of unions and workers would no longer have to pay dues to unions if they decline to do so. All that leaves little incentive for unions to keep their official status, Kennedy said." The right to choose, aka freedom, was the thing the union leaders were always so upset about. Everything else aside, letting public employees decide for themselves was always unacceptable. In America. Go figure.
Hit Me With The Race Card
Watched a good chunk of the SC GOP debate last night on FNC. A few observations.
Wouldn't it be something to see if Herman Cain was actually elected president! Not only is he also black, but he's successful, articulate... and unabashedly conservative. The left would have a complete meltdown, and it would start with the implosion of MSNBC, something I would savor like a fine cigar or a perfectly undercooked prime rib. How long before O'Donnell or Maddow would call him President Uncle Tom? Ooh, ooh, imagine Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton! They'd be completely reverendy and above board, I'm sure. Nothing untoward from them... I can't frankly guess what the NAACP would do, but then, they've been kind of quiet lately. Seriously, how long before someone said that Cain isn't a "real" black man?
But you know what would be even better? Imagine a Cain/Palin ticket... that wins. Yeah, it's a mighty longshot, and I'm not even arguing that it would be the best thing for the country, I'm just saying imagine it. The left would be apoplectic. I'd vote for that ticket just for that (and of course because it would still be light-years better than re-electing the transformer-in-chief). The inherent racism and sexism of the left would burst forth, and the true colors of the party that tolerates everything except anyone who disagrees with them would be plain for all to see. And I'm betting they'd still continue to call conservatives racist and sexist, they'd just use more foul language for emphasis.
- Who is Gary Johnson and how did he just pop up all of a sudden? Why if they let him in did they basically ignore him most of the time? If you're going to have the guy in, then ask the same number of questions. Maybe they did, it just didn't seem like it, to the point where he even spoke up and said so.
- Why did they pummel Rick Santorum with more difficult, complex and multi-faceted questions? At one point he seemed aggravated and I kind of didn't blame him. Good for him on the English language answer.
- Tim Pawlenty moves like GWB, it's a little weird. I'm thinking that guy who did the awesome impersonation of GWB must be beside himself hoping Pawlenty gets elected.
- Ron Paul is generally right but struggles to express himself and that doesn't help when people already have been convinced that he's a kook. It's a shame, because he has some very valid points on a lot of things and they should be part of the real discussion.
- Where was Mitt Romneycare, the most invisible presidential candidate ever?
- Herman Cain pretty much won the portion I saw, which led me to an interesting thought...
Wouldn't it be something to see if Herman Cain was actually elected president! Not only is he also black, but he's successful, articulate... and unabashedly conservative. The left would have a complete meltdown, and it would start with the implosion of MSNBC, something I would savor like a fine cigar or a perfectly undercooked prime rib. How long before O'Donnell or Maddow would call him President Uncle Tom? Ooh, ooh, imagine Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton! They'd be completely reverendy and above board, I'm sure. Nothing untoward from them... I can't frankly guess what the NAACP would do, but then, they've been kind of quiet lately. Seriously, how long before someone said that Cain isn't a "real" black man?
But you know what would be even better? Imagine a Cain/Palin ticket... that wins. Yeah, it's a mighty longshot, and I'm not even arguing that it would be the best thing for the country, I'm just saying imagine it. The left would be apoplectic. I'd vote for that ticket just for that (and of course because it would still be light-years better than re-electing the transformer-in-chief). The inherent racism and sexism of the left would burst forth, and the true colors of the party that tolerates everything except anyone who disagrees with them would be plain for all to see. And I'm betting they'd still continue to call conservatives racist and sexist, they'd just use more foul language for emphasis.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Silence is Golden, Amongst Other Things
I have to grudgingly give the president credit for doing something right today: He chose not to give one of his haughty, condescending campaign speeches at Ground Zero. Thank you, Mr. President. Seriously. If you had degraded the memory and suffering of the fallen and surviving with your unending partisanship, I think my head would have blown clean off.
Osama Bin Laden is dead. Whether you pushed this or were driven into it by the people around you, I don't know if we'll ever know for certain. We're glad it's over. Finally, justice for the families and the fallen... but then you go and do this weird ritual Islamic funeral rite with hurry-up burial at sea... and refuse to release the pictures. Why? You really believe that the jihadis will like us better and not kill us so fast if we're nice to their dead mass-murdering terrorist leaders? I thought you went to Columbia and Harvard, don't you have to be smarter than that to get into those schools? And what's the hurry ditching the body anyway? If this guy was a Jew, with similar burial issues, I bet he'd still be chilling in the freezer, so to speak.
There are two real possibilities here. One is that Al Qaeda is a for-real, existential threat to America, and the other is that it is not. If it is, apparently I am supposed to believe that for the past ten years they've had operatives waiting around to attack America if we ever got around to killing Bin Laden, but otherwise pretty much doing nothing in the meantime. And now they're hopping mad, and if you really want to see them have a kiniption, just release those photos and watch them go nuclear, perhaps literally. Yeah. We'd better kowtow to them and make sure we don't do or say anything to agitate them. This seems to be the president's position. He told us OBL didn't represent Islam, he told us Islam was the religion of peace, but then he's tripping over himself to make sure we treat the body in some (apparently incorrect it turns out) Islamic ritual so we don't anger the soldiers of the religion of peace the former owner of the body wasn't really a part of so they don't kill the snot out of us. Man, I'm getting a headache. Are you kidding me?
Then there's the other possibility, that Al Qaeda isn't really much of a threat at all. This one's almost scarier. If Al Qaeda is a real and serious threat, then our president's behavior looks a little chicken-youknowwhat, but otherwise makes a sorry sort of sense. However, if Al Qaeda is not a real threat, and they know it, that's where things get ugly. Then, this business is about making Al Qaeda look like a real threat, and the question becomes, "Why?" And off we go into the deepest end of conspiracy theory. But also, we then have to find another reason for the president's bowing and scraping to "muslim sensitivities". (I know, I know, he insists he's a Christian, and he goes to churches that have "baptist" in the name every few months for street cred and the media and the slower among professing Christianity eat it up. Problem is, he keeps picking churches that aren't actually Christian in the Jesus sense. He picks churches that preach something other than the plain gospel of Christ. Why would he do that? Ignorance? Columbia and Harvard. The smartest president since, well, ever. Brilliant, intelligent, thoughtful... and ignorant? No, there has to be something else to this.)
I want to think that the problem is simply that the president is misguided in his understanding of Christianity, a little over-tolerant when it comes to Islam, but otherwise sincere. However, it's like trying to put a square peg in a round hole. It just don't go. I keep coming back to two ideas. One, the president is somewhere on a line between wannabe-Muslim (look up "taqiyya") and Muslim sympathizer, and two, making Al Qaeda seem scarier than the Arabic-speaking Keystone Cops that they are serves a purpose... or maybe both are true; there's nothing mutually exclusive about them. Never let a crisis go to waste... and if you end up solving your crisis, just go on acting like it's still a crisis?
Osama Bin Laden is dead. Whether you pushed this or were driven into it by the people around you, I don't know if we'll ever know for certain. We're glad it's over. Finally, justice for the families and the fallen... but then you go and do this weird ritual Islamic funeral rite with hurry-up burial at sea... and refuse to release the pictures. Why? You really believe that the jihadis will like us better and not kill us so fast if we're nice to their dead mass-murdering terrorist leaders? I thought you went to Columbia and Harvard, don't you have to be smarter than that to get into those schools? And what's the hurry ditching the body anyway? If this guy was a Jew, with similar burial issues, I bet he'd still be chilling in the freezer, so to speak.
There are two real possibilities here. One is that Al Qaeda is a for-real, existential threat to America, and the other is that it is not. If it is, apparently I am supposed to believe that for the past ten years they've had operatives waiting around to attack America if we ever got around to killing Bin Laden, but otherwise pretty much doing nothing in the meantime. And now they're hopping mad, and if you really want to see them have a kiniption, just release those photos and watch them go nuclear, perhaps literally. Yeah. We'd better kowtow to them and make sure we don't do or say anything to agitate them. This seems to be the president's position. He told us OBL didn't represent Islam, he told us Islam was the religion of peace, but then he's tripping over himself to make sure we treat the body in some (apparently incorrect it turns out) Islamic ritual so we don't anger the soldiers of the religion of peace the former owner of the body wasn't really a part of so they don't kill the snot out of us. Man, I'm getting a headache. Are you kidding me?
Then there's the other possibility, that Al Qaeda isn't really much of a threat at all. This one's almost scarier. If Al Qaeda is a real and serious threat, then our president's behavior looks a little chicken-youknowwhat, but otherwise makes a sorry sort of sense. However, if Al Qaeda is not a real threat, and they know it, that's where things get ugly. Then, this business is about making Al Qaeda look like a real threat, and the question becomes, "Why?" And off we go into the deepest end of conspiracy theory. But also, we then have to find another reason for the president's bowing and scraping to "muslim sensitivities". (I know, I know, he insists he's a Christian, and he goes to churches that have "baptist" in the name every few months for street cred and the media and the slower among professing Christianity eat it up. Problem is, he keeps picking churches that aren't actually Christian in the Jesus sense. He picks churches that preach something other than the plain gospel of Christ. Why would he do that? Ignorance? Columbia and Harvard. The smartest president since, well, ever. Brilliant, intelligent, thoughtful... and ignorant? No, there has to be something else to this.)
I want to think that the problem is simply that the president is misguided in his understanding of Christianity, a little over-tolerant when it comes to Islam, but otherwise sincere. However, it's like trying to put a square peg in a round hole. It just don't go. I keep coming back to two ideas. One, the president is somewhere on a line between wannabe-Muslim (look up "taqiyya") and Muslim sympathizer, and two, making Al Qaeda seem scarier than the Arabic-speaking Keystone Cops that they are serves a purpose... or maybe both are true; there's nothing mutually exclusive about them. Never let a crisis go to waste... and if you end up solving your crisis, just go on acting like it's still a crisis?
Operation Got Caught and Still Not Telling You
WASHINGTON- At a House Judiciary Committee hearing yesterday, House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa confronted Attorney General Eric Holder on the DOJ’s Operation Fast and Furious, a highly controversial operation where federal authorities facilitated the purchase of assault weapons for drug cartels and chose not to interdict them before being transported to Mexico.
While Attorney General Holder was unwilling to provide answer about who at the Department of Justice authorized, knew about, and even whether he still defended Operation Fast and Furious, three new documents provide information that Attorney General Holder did not address in response to questions posed by Rep. Issa.
Snatching Defeat From The Jaws Of Victory
Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. He's turning OBL into the Jihadi Elvis. Al Qaeda refuses to believe he's dead and the Pakistanis are now saying the whole thing was a staged stunt and OBL wasn't there. The people who need to know he's dead are watching Obama turn him into a legend. There's a big difference between claiming victory and proving it. We've done nothing so far but claimed we've killed OBL.
Do I believe we did it? Yes, but only because I believe BHO wants to get re-elected too badly to chance OBL popping back up around election time. But Al Qaeda doesn't know that.
The victims of 911, the troops who have died in these wars and all of their families bought those photos with their blood and tears over the past decade. I don't think BHO has any right to decide that the survivors and families don't get to see them just because we might upset people who should be glad we got rid of this cancer in their midst, and I think it is most arrogant of him to think he does.
I'm beginning to think that by the time this is all over the president will be giving up those SEALS to an international court to be tried for war crimes. I know they're saying that the order was kill or capture. But capture would have meant a huge mess, a la AG Eric Holder criminal trials in NYC, etc. It would make more sense that the order was to kill on site. And so I begin to wonder if there's something about those photos they won't release that proves it...
Do I believe we did it? Yes, but only because I believe BHO wants to get re-elected too badly to chance OBL popping back up around election time. But Al Qaeda doesn't know that.
The victims of 911, the troops who have died in these wars and all of their families bought those photos with their blood and tears over the past decade. I don't think BHO has any right to decide that the survivors and families don't get to see them just because we might upset people who should be glad we got rid of this cancer in their midst, and I think it is most arrogant of him to think he does.
I'm beginning to think that by the time this is all over the president will be giving up those SEALS to an international court to be tried for war crimes. I know they're saying that the order was kill or capture. But capture would have meant a huge mess, a la AG Eric Holder criminal trials in NYC, etc. It would make more sense that the order was to kill on site. And so I begin to wonder if there's something about those photos they won't release that proves it...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)