Like, Totally Political, Dude!: history

Showing posts with label history. Show all posts

Who wants to reduce all citizens' liberty? Is it Obama or the NRA?

President Obama (see article, link at bottom) said that gun lobbyists' "grip" on Congress is, in effect, to blame for mass murders with guns. So, simply, crazy killers are the blame of the NRA, or any other firearms education and civil rights organization with millions of members. And, I imagine, we can include all the gun manufacturers in that list of evil lobbyists, too. But Obama doesn't cite them, specifically, because then he'll have cops and the military on his ass, as he does the NRA, gun owners and hunters. That LEOs and the armed services aren't already chastising him in unison is a matter of THEIR patience and respect for order, I'd gather. It has little to do with Obama.

The has a grip, indeed, though it is on the clear purpose of the Second Amendment, not the bent one the nanny state left promotes. Unlike Mr. Obama, who seems to have a very loose grip on the Constitutional idea of a citizenry free from government tyranny.

Criminals will NOT bring in their guns to the nearest police station because you ask them to, Mr. President. It is beyond buffoonery to continue to propel the myth that restricting public's gun ownership would have prevented or other mass murders, with guns or without.

What a shame that a group which insists upon upholding the rights of law-abiding citizens to own guns and not have to register them is bashed by the people who lead us, and entire PARTY system that wants to lead us exclusively.

Too bad that the POTUS of a once free country promotes the idea that the lack of freedom for all will improve the odds of horrible crimes from happening. That will assure only one thing: only police, military and criminals (true criminals and renegade gun owners, which could be grandmas in Harlem or cowboys in Texas) will then have firearms. Which is how citizens plummet into the serfdom of democratic socialism and other forms of soft tyranny.

I think we should and can trust the government, but only insofar as they are willing to trust law abiding citizens, and respect their right to join any civil rights groups they choose, such as the noble -- and totally, completely and undeniably anti-crime -- NRA. If you're not a member, if you don't read their publications, then you know nothing about them, except what statist haters want to tell you (inaccurately) about the NRA. It's members are all about gun safety.

Obama, meanwhile, seems to be for government expansion -- of debt, deficit and tyrannical potential. The Second Amendment isn't about "lax" gun laws, it is about superior gun rights, and so is the NRA.

Obama blames the NRA for 'lax gun laws' and gun violence (at IBT.com)

- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

Good Muslim states would do better to learn from Israel rather than attack it

I am sick of seeing supposedly informed, aware, non-radical Muslims bitching about "Zionists" and the Western World. They even do so while living right here in the United States. These people seem to be nothing other than shills, or worse.

One, a cleric named Omar Suleiman (search him), in Dallas, TX, posted comments about radicals and those who supported them. Yet, in other posts this same imam complains about "Zionists" but seems not to really have any opinion about democracy ever popping up in the rest of the Middle East. Yet, he lives in the United States. In TEXAS, no less! Check out his Facebook page (his official one --?!).

It's simple: nothing will change for the better in the contentious Middle East until the wealthy Middle Eastern countries start really fighting their own terror war.

Muslim countries are overdue for "putting on their big boy pants," as we say in the States. I heard nothing of "hate crimes" provoked by the French satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo, but Imam Suleiman recently suggested that there were plenty. I noticed that there was not a single Muslim theocratic state that doubled down on squashing radicals in their midst after Hebdo. (Perhaps I only forgot, though; maybe the Saudis took some out, or Bahrain bombed some. No, not really.) I do recall hearing of Western kids trying to escape to jihadist enclaves, however.

I'm sure there were some contentious moments for Muslims after Charlie Hebdo, and I truly regret any of that. But when good people let the voices of monsters overcome their own, guess what? Bad things happen to good people. Good people who are cowardly about their principles, as well as those who are willing to stand up for positive principles.

Rational, clear-headed, non-Islamist people in Muslim countries, as well Muslims in places where they are minorities, need to go after these murdering monsters with every words and with military vigor. This is a war, and you seem to expect others to wage it for you, then complain about it.

Please, Muslims countries, do not complain about "anti-Muslim" foreign policies of Western countries when it seems you expect the USA to go after these radical groups for you, by default. What I see from your states is effectively trying to ignore these murdering radicals (those who are not quietly cheering them) like the British tried to ignore Hitler in the 1930s.

The "Muslim World" had 30 years to rid of the monster Saddam Hussein, but did you? No. You needed the US and allies (few Arab soldiers) to kick him out of Kuwait, and look at the thanks we got from most of the Muslim World as a result of that. Appreciation didn't seem to last very long. Find the appreciation upon Hussein's removal in 2003. I am not seeing it. Does anyone else? Only the Kurds seemed to appreciate it.

The "Muslim World" could have rid of the Taliban, but did you? No. You could have stopped bin Laden, but did you? I find it difficult to believe that Pakistan wasn't hiding him, frankly, seeing as he was living a few miles from the major military training center of the country. Yet Muslims note the mistakes that the Western allies made in attacking Afghanistan and Iraq, when they were comparably few, by contrast to the shameful habits of Muslim countries in matters of brutal totalitarian dictatorships over many, many decades.

Please, Muslims, for your good and the world's, quit your mere whining and go after these beasts yourselves. No more Talibans, no more bin Ladens, no more Husseins, no more ISIS. This is your internal problem, not ours, but you made it ours by your seeming inaction or weakness of will against this evil.

I'm not simply watching today's news. I have read Middle Eastern history. I respect the realities of the Sykes-Picot Agreement and other imperial maneuvers by Western European countries after the end of the Ottoman Empire. The West -- namely France and Great Britain in the aforementioned case -- only helped mess it up. That was 100 years ago, though. More intervention was done. But Muslim states also colluded with Hitler during WW II. He was a Western leader, yeah, but he's no Western statesmen of good repute. They were not exactly ready to be their own states then. But oil changed that. But that's history.

What now? Tiny Israel is to blame for all of the Middle East's troubles? Please, Muslim states and Palestinian apologists. Quit being cowards and racists, and rid of the beasts in your midst and enforce civility in the Palestinian non-states. So they can some day become states.

We've seen recent actions by Gulf states fighting ISIS. It's about time. The Saudis and others should get their hands dirty, very dirty, and dedicate some of their treasure to destroying Muslim extremism. That, or quite whining about Western action in the region. You can't have it both ways.

As for Arab states involvement against ISIS and all radical Islamists, it's not yet enough. Sure, we have some wacky televangelists and other Christians or just plain unaffiliated types who believe all Muslims are dangerous or at least divisive. They're wrong. But they have not bombed buildings for it in neighborhoods, like terrorists. If they did, they would be arrested or killed in a war with police (their choice, really), if they did. I fight a war of words against their war of words online. Even amongst my friends.

Ignorance is everywhere. I'm certainly not free of it. But I am not blissful in it, not when it comes to extremism. Too many are blissful in the peace and quiet of their own home or cities or nations while others are dying at the hands of -- quite sane, but cruel -- murderers in the "the name of Islam." Muslims need to learn how to be effective activists, not against Israel, but against Muslim extremists. And yes, that is a very accurate term for it.

When the "Western World" won't need to try and rid of the monsters in your midst, Muslim World, they will not have a reason to be in your lands. They will only be there to do business, or as tourists.

Of late ( thanks to something called freedom of speech, which you don't seem to like all that much), we are less and less able to practice in overseas propaganda wars (as we did in South American countries in the 1960s-80s). Speech is more wide open than ever now, which makes it harder to low to smarter people.

Meanwhile, some continue to quietly, or loosely, refer to us as the great Satan, just as your extremist friends do. It's simple: nothing will change for the better in the contentious Middle East until the wealthy Middle Eastern countries start really fighting their own terror war. You're kidding yourselves if you think you are.

Those who know liberty are proud to defend the ideas of liberty, even for those who are too ignorant to know what it is. Oppressive leaders of one kind or another don't really give people much hope or insight into human freedom and liberty. But they do cultivate an attraction to leaders such as bin Laden.

I recognize evil and good. I've had some unfortunate run-ins with them, in paradox. Forget utopia, either New Age or Muslim. It sounds great, but utopia is like heaven: it's not of this Earth. Wake up and face the real world, Muslims. Israel and Western cultures are not your enemy, your own radicals are.

- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

(Revised)

GW Bush, mass panic gave us Patriot Act, let's curtail it now

In context of the time when it was passed, the Patriot Act was a forgivable overreaction, perhaps. But today, it's just more big government that we cannot afford.

Sometimes, scary things happen in politics. Here's an example: far right web sites agree with the wildly leftist (and silly) MoveOn.org on something. They agree that we need to END THE PATRIOT ACT.

Thank goodness some polar political opposites can agree on something, huh? The left and right can't even manage to agree on which death-lusting terrorists are worth ridding off: The fringe left wants to provide jobs, food and education to some terrorists, while the fringe right believes everyone who is Muslim is a terrorist. But, we can agree that nosing in on Americans, not merely inconveniencing them at airports (TSA), but listening on without lawful purpose (Patriot Act, potentially), is bad.

Of course, I dislike the Patriot Act because there's clear principles being shoved out of the way, and they were given a clear voice in the U.S. Constitution. That matters. Some who I would generally disagree with on political matters seem concerned that black extremists (but they think of them as merely put-upon poor people), Occupy Wall Street dweebs, pederasts (simply gay people), or potheads (pot is no worse than alcohol, so it should be at every kitchen bench) might be among those snared by officials who are supposedly looking for terrorists. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and the whole of the Bill of Rights, are just a convenient table to stand on while they're fighting the Progressive-Statist power-grab fight. (Yeah, I'm not a fan of Obama Democrats, if you didn't guess.)

I think it's simple: the USA Patriot Act needs to go. As least, it needs generous curtailing. Tell your US Representative and your US Senator, and tell anyone to do the same. Here's a link to save you some time in reaching your reps.

But don't bother with Senate boss Mitch McConnell (R - KY), who is all for it, it seems. Not much of a Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell is proving to be in the era of Obama statism. He plays right along. (As does House Speaker John Boerner of Ohio.) Radio and nonfiction book great, Mark Levin, has bashed McConnell as never before, in recent weeks (one time and another; and then some).

If the Patriot Act is extended as it looks like it will be -- a mistake -- it's still going to require a vote another day. Make it stop. The Patriot Act is GW Bush's contribution, along with DHS, TSA, and a massive military debt, to the nanny state, to his legacy as BIG GOVERNMENT REPUBLICAN. He was not a complete modern American conservative, he was a religious and social conservative only. He isn't a bad man, but he was, fiscally, a very expensive president. He is not solely to blame, of course, but his presidency will keep that reputation into the future telling of it in history books, I believe. You cannot blame him alone, as plenty of citizens were all for the Patriot Act back in the day. They were afraid.

Frightened people are not good at making rational decision, or making up sensible rules. You've watched a horror movie or two, right? Scared people are bad at making decisions --- VERY BAD! The Patriot Act proves it, I think. In context of the time when it was passed, the Patriot Act was a forgivable overreaction, perhaps. But today, it's just more big government that we cannot afford (I mean "afford" in every sense of the word that comes to mind). It's not a Prohibition Act for security, because that would look like a totalitarian police state; but perhaps it was as bipartisan and as reactionary as Prohibition.

We must fix the damage added in GW Bush's time along with Obama's. I am very comfortable pointing out that Obama has done nothing but add to the problem of a massive and ever-growing federal debt and bureaucracy. But I refuse to be partisan in my disgust with big government.

This comes with burdens that have been added for decades by an ever-growing federal government that has weakened the states, and the citizens, and hurt liberty for every person.

WAKE UP. Stop big government.

We went from the GREATEST generation during World War Two, to the MOST SELFISH GENERATION. Well, to be nice, let's call it the most distracted generation -- that of the 1950s-1980s. Now we're ringing in the STATIST GENERATION, as a result.

It's not too late, but it's time to change tack. Because, as so many FINALLY recognized in the economic upset of 2007-2009, things have gotten out of hand. Either government stays in control, or we get some control of it.

WAKE UP. Obama and other far left so-called liberal Democrats (they're statists, not liberals, dammit) have taken a bad thing -- the Great Recession -- and extended it. It is high time to stop it.

- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

While polls find King's 'Dream' is elusive, so are commonsense attitudes about racism

Check out this quote from a recent Pew Research finding on race in America (under the heading King's Dream Remains an Elusive Goal... ). I make a few points in reaction to it, and the circular problem of misusing racism in today's America:

Incarceration. Black men were more than six times as likely as white men in 2010 to be incarcerated in federal and state prisons, and local jails, the last year complete data are available. That is an increase from 1960, when black men were five times as likely as whites to be incarcerated.

SIX TIMES as likely?! Some want to call that racism. They are FOOLS of the highest order. Or, sad, piteous, willing victims of narrow-minded suspicions.

The disparity of prison time for whites versus blacks is about as much to do with race bias as someone being overweight has to do with food being advertised on TV. Not to mock actual racism, but those blame, the victimhood, and the paranoia that surrounds so much allegations of racism. That is: one's weight is about them, not food ads.

With criminal incarceration, it is about people being criminals, not some grand scheme to "keep them down." Racism exists, light and hard, but to run to it every time there's a philosophical or physical scuffle is a cycle of failure. That's not to minimize the matter, when facts prove racism had a hand in some event, but unreasonable aspersions ought not to be batched in with actual racist activities. Paranoia and habitual distrust isn't a reliable source for social change.

Committing crime and going to prison is a problem that cannot be solved through blame, racial or otherwise, but through improving one's plight. That's not easy, or simple, when one is steeped in a culture of victimhood, self-pity, misleading heroes, and a habit of blaming others for your problems. Changing the response of those who cry victim when it's not the case is what will change such a disparity as this prison one, not crazed claims of rampant racism in the courts.

Such lashing out is a cycle of failure, whether it is about racism or any other suspicion of being wronged. There is an understandable lingering sense of betrayal, frustration and anger in impoverished or dysfunctional communities, but that does not prove systemic racism.

How can getting jailed for committing a crime be racist, certainly to such an overwhelming degree, without it being proven as more than a mere suspicion? These claims amount to claims of having seen Bigfoot, though. Sometimes there is racial problems, but often, it's something else. You cannot call someone a racist for jailing a black criminal -- unless they let white criminals go SIX TIMES for every black criminal, for the same crime. Is this happening? Where's the exposés on that today?

Are we to all damn our lying eyes with regard to race and racial biases, or racial hypocrisy? I hope we can recover MLK's dream, but it won't be easy while people insist on pointing the finger, like stabbing their sword at imaginary dragons.

Let freedom ring, indeed. And let REASON reign!

See the findings and comments by Pew Research: King's Dream Remains an Elusive Goal

- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

Independence is not a thing you can enforce

HAPPY INDEPENDENCE DAY. Note: You cannot enforce liberty.

The Founding Fathers, in the 1700s, understood the dire risks of pursuing liberty, and did not do so by enforcing some imagined (utopian) equality (see a Spearhead piece on equality), but by carefully separating themselves from an autocratic leader, by realizing and establishing not just a new government, but essentially a new form of government. That's a big deal. I think too many take it for granted, or only give it some general lip service today. The patriots of that age wanted to allow citizens who were law-abiding proceed in their lives, not be pinched at every turn of luck or at every respectable success.

The Founders' decision to leave the tyranny of Britain's King George was the promise of their ruin (Snopes.com), not knowing the outcome. They still took that chance. A calculated risk? Certainly. (What's the biggest risk of your life you've ever taken? Driving a car? Motocross? Bungie jumping? Or serving your country at a time of war? Saving someone from a burning building? Only the last two count.) Thanks to the Founding Fathers and many of their fellow patriots, the USA won its freedom, implausibly, from the most powerful sea and land force on the planet.

Look how far we've come, huh?

We can't say that today our leaders have the same thoughts that the Founders, or any patriots of the 1700s, had. We are a nation spoiled by our comforts, to the least engaged among us. The difference we can make is in recognizing those aspects of our lives that are spoiling us, and living beyond them.

The current Democratic chief in the White House (and by extension, those who surround him or share his ideas) has the notable trait of blaming others -- not a leadership trait. If you search for "Barack Obama blame" online, there are 58 million hits. That is the trait not of a true leader, but of an abuser, or a lowly wheeler-dealer, not a heroic and principled change agent. Of course, some of those are about average people seeing his lack of blame (Economist, unscientific poll), while others point out the irony of his claim and blame paradox (Economist article, June 2012). His rhetorical soundbites and longwinded speech-lectures too commonly amount to lies in the long run. See, just because you think something might be true doesn't excuse you when it is exactly wrong -- that's delusional. That's, apparently, a lot of Obama true believers in a nutshell. For instance, he pledged in 2009 that the ACA, or Obamacare, would help the needy and make costs go down for the middle class. Not happening.

Power grabs of one type or another have been too common since Sept. 11, sadly. Borne of concern for safety, they are obviously affecting freedoms, and it is far worse under Obama and the federal agencies under his umbrella than it had started out with under the equally security-over-liberty minded George Bush. The supposedly forward-thinking White House of 2013 is not an antidote to power over the people, but fully a part of that allegedly well-meaning, but nonetheless overbearing, attitude of enforcing fairness by playing favorites. This current condition is not in any way Americanism, it a whiff of totalitarianism.

In Texas, it seems that we've learned -- if one has no understanding of it for one's own -- that the support of abortion after 20 weeks is a right. Aborting a child after five months is a kind of liberty? For whom?! Unwilling mothers who are too dumb or delusional to decide to give up a child, in the worst way possible, before five months? Nationwide, we've seen the view that registering all legal guns is the only right thing to do, according to our president and those on the overbearing, nanny state, big government side of America. This is so, while letting arms slip into hands of known bands of killers to try and track the guns, and losing track of them (what the hell?!) is good for liberty. As well, while giving deadly arms to rogue activists akin to the Taliban, in this case, the Syrian rebels, is also acceptable. But. not entrusting Americans with their right to bear arms, a central tenet of the idea of liberty envisioned by our Founding Fathers. What liberty is Obama and the left in favor of? That which limits the rights of all in favor of coddling to the favored labels? How un-American have we gotten?

Slavery wasn't abolished by our founders and, out of context, that's shameful to me. In context, I realize that the civil war would have happened on the heels of the revolution, had that move been pushed. Still tragic, but to manage freedom from the King of England was a first step. The Founders were not perfect men. Obama is far from that himself, farther than they. That wrong does not translate well to the idea that the broad freedoms they envisioned in the 1700s were incorrect. Today, how is it that granting, to the government, more power over law-abiding citizens somehow makes anyone more "free"? I think leaving aside slavery at the outset was a compromise, no matter how regrettable it was. We live in different times, but how dare people suggest that these times also call for a government that nannies us? That isn't liberty, that's comfort to the disinterested and lazy. We shouldn't be regarding independence as something administered by the government. Because it can only be taken from us by a government. We freed the slaves not by limiting their freedom, but by preventing their enslavement. There is a huge difference.

- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

Stewart-Colbert Rally Mixes Sober Message with Silly People - Newsmax (AP)

BAGHDAD, IRAQ, JUNE 7: In this handout image ...

Image by Getty Images via @daylife

The Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear was ... a success? Yeah, sure. Why not. Proved a lawn full of mostly liberal types can be rational. This is part of the AP article from Newsmax.com (look up title to the read complete article, they don't do links well, at least not for mobile devices).

Stewart-Colbert Rally Mixes Fun with Sober Message
Saturday, 30, October 2010 07:06:50

NEW YORK (AP) — Jon Stewart was right. As promised, his rally was fun.

Then, at the end, he took a few moments for "some sincerity." For some viewers, those clearly heartfelt remarks on the innate goodness of Americans may have upstaged everything that went before.

Fun was about as specific as Stewart had gotten in the weeks leading up to the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear, which he hosted and produced with fellow Comedy Central star Stephen Colbert.

Exactly what the rally would be, and what big names might show up for it, had been a guessing game for fans of "The Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report," as well as the media, for weeks beforehand — at least until Wednesday, when a few names leaked.

On Saturday, viewers of Comedy Central's live telecast — and online streaming — of the three-hour shindig saw a dandy music-and-comedy concert with an inarguable social message. It was staged on Washington's National Mall, with the U.S. Capitol as the glorious backdrop.

The overarching theme was to redeclare Americans' ability to get along and work together, regardless of their ideological differences. And to chastise the media and politicians for promoting polarization.

To put this message across comedically, the rally harnessed the familiar on-air personalities of Stewart, who, as anchor of the "Daily Show" satirical newscast, radiates bemused reasonableness, and Colbert, who inhabits a bloviating right-wing pundit on "The Colbert Report."

Their make-believe clashing in comic bits during the rally was exemplified when Colbert defended the value of unreasonable fear, as in the Garden of Eden.

"If Eve had just had a healthy phobia of snakes, she would not have eaten that apple and cursed us all with original sin," he blustered. "Then I'd be able to walk around naked everywhere."

"You're just creating bogeymen," Stewart protested.

"Bogeymen?" Colbert erupted in alarm. "Where?"

Later, Stewart introduced Yosef (once known as pop star Cat Stevens), who sang his gentle 1970s anti-war anthem, "Peace Train," until Colbert brought out Ozzy Osbourne, who ripped into his classic hit with lyrics including, "I'm going off the rails on a crazy train."

These dueling songs led to a standoff, which was settled when the O'Jays arrived to perform "Love Train."

Other musical guests included the Roots, John Legend, Kid Rock, Sheryl Crow, Jeff Tweedy, Mavis Staples and Tony Bennett, who sang "America the Beautiful."

But the proceedings never strayed too far from funny business, however pointed.

Addressing a crowd in the tens of thousands, Stewart reminded them: "It doesn't matter what we say or do here today. It matters what is reported about what we said or did here today."

Demonstrating how the media could slant a given event in wildly different ways, he let two of his "Daily Show" correspondents take a whack.

... Stewart took time for some closing remarks and, playing it serious, attempted to explain the rally's purpose — in his mind, at least. ...

Americans, he said, do "impossible things every day that are only made possible through the little, reasonable compromises we all make."

But these are compromises the current crop of politicians are unwilling to make and the media are unwilling to recognize.

"The image of Americans that is reflected back to us by our political and media process is false. It is us through a fun house mirror," he said.

Americans work together to get things done every day, he said.

"The only place we don't is here," he said, pointing behind him at the Capitol building, "or on cable TV."

As a stirring pep talk and reality check, Stewart's remarks were the sanest moments on TV in memory — and the surprise many viewers were seeking from the rally.

Comedy Central is owned by Viacom.

Online: http://www.rallytorestoresanityandorfear.com

EDITOR'S NOTE — Frazier Moore is a national television columnist for The Associated Press. He can be reached at fmoore(at)ap.org

Newsmax Home

Points go to the dueling fakes for being sane, though typically more harsh on the right than against the left. The rally was less crass, from what I have read, than the sloppy words and piles of signs from OneNation. The inherent theme was, as the shows' overtones also convey, that modern liberalism maintains the majority and 'sane' view, since that is where the two comics' views sit, clearly. But it was less crass than many town halls and rallies and political campaign speeches within the last three years.

- jR (AirFarceOne on Twitter)

'Baby' Obama seems to prefer adulation over taking responsibility

GRAND KREMLIN PALACE, MOSCOW. Signing of docum...

Obama and Medvedev - Image via Wikipedia

When I was in fourth grade, what we called blamers -- kids who blamed everything on others, some inanimate object, their dog, or some private event -- were "babies," "sissies," or far more crass names. Some of us adults moved on from blaming others to distract attention from us or to keep ourselves from culpability. And some of us moved on from the juvenile thinking of the fourth grade.

With some amusement, but also in bemusement, I wonder: is President Obama caught in the juvenile fourth grade blame-game? He blames most problems under his responsibility, and his failures, on others. Who didn't know that Obama stepped into office in the midst of lots of problems? I suspect that the Obama camp is trying to get more than docile agreement from fans and liberals out of the blaming rhetoric, but I don't see how they could honestly expect anything but true-believer support. That they do this constant blaming, and that they seem to think it will serve them well, both mystify me. It's childish!

So should we call him "Baby" Barack Obama? I think that's hardly appropriate for the long-term, but for the sake of argument, let's try it on, see how it fits. (It's better than "Sissy" Obama.) The POTUS's, and others', blaming, of former Pres. G.W. Bush and the "failed policies" of the past -- in addition to BP, corporate customers of general aviation, banking CEOs, small town cops, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, conservatives, "tea baggers" (as he referred to Tea Party activists on at least one public occasion) and a host of others -- have increased the divide in the States. The blaming certainly has not reduced the nation's divide. That sourness, a plague on our political discourse, is further enhanced by the echoes from Obama's now-ironic vow to bring us together in a "post-partisan" age. Not at all arrogant, that presumption! (Yes, that is sarcasm.)

G.W. Bush was no champion of careful budgeting or small government, he is not a smooth talker nor the embodiment of a crafty personal narrative like Obama. But "W" had a crisp respect for his office, for people who saw things differently, and for his duties as POTUS and Commander-in-Chief. Not so sure how we fare, on those counts, with Obama.

Beyond the blaming, Obama seems as if he's working up to the point where he is actually being president. Some day. Oh, yeah, there's the speeches and the signing events, the political fundraising, and those arts evenings at the White House (haven't you watched them all on PBS, or been invited?). He is confident, he plays a great president for the cameras, he is a stubborn political presence, but where's the, uh, presidential-ness?

Those of us who willingly follow an historic track in the build to greatness of the United States of America can see what's wrong with Obama's blaming ways. The USA's greatness was affirmed with the victory of WW II and proven by the subsequent holding back of the godless, closed-off, aggressively expansionist, intimidating Soviet tyranny and our dominance as an economic engine. (That greatness has nothing to do with the dark spots, like Native American injustices, slavery, bias against Blacks in the "Old South," putting Japanese citizens in camps during WW II, or other travesties. Informed Americans take ownership of the mistakes, and the greatness, and don't gloat, at least not much. They know how great things are in the U.S., by comparison.)

The U.S.A. is supposed to be a country which is both rationally self-interested and respectfully world-aware. Being world-aware has nothing to do with genuflecting to others (physically, or figuratively through words or actions) while chastising this nation too much. Obama has even turned American-style civility on it's head, at times, with his "Apology Tour" and similar farces. He presumes that America needs a president who tells the world we've made mistakes. Who's in need of hearing that?! The people under the autocratic rule of Iran? Saudi Arabia? The anarchists in France, or Germany? Who needs to know we have made mistakes?!

The ways of "Baby" Obama are failing America, at this point, in most Americans' opinions, thought only a slim majority of Americans currently agree (as of July 2010). With specific subjects, such as the economy, foreign affairs, etc., the margin grows much broader against him. I believe MORE Americans will see through the fog of Obama idolatry in time. Early November 2010 would be a nice point for people to have turned from fawning to comprehension, but 2012 will do.

Obama's artful dodging -- of his primary job duties, when it comes down to it -- seems to be serving him just fine, in an ivory tower of power and protection. Or, it seems that he thinks it is serving him well. For someone who is all about telling the world, literally, that "America is arrogant" (look it up), he sure puts a face on that belief for many of us non-Democratic Party people. His arrogance and static confidence is strangely left widely unquestioned, as if it is granted, or as if he's given a pass for it. Is it reverse liberal political pandering, or is it political correctness because he's Black? I don't know, but I don't get it.

His actions tell a story of narcissism: lecturing fellow leaders, even on subjects for which he has no qualified experience, nor practical education, such as business or economics). His self-centered rhetoric is impossible to sit through without shaking my head: Remember when people were counting each time he said "I" in his speeches? His lack of ability to see the very broad reach of the office he holds, on so many occasions, and his clumsy results from selling his commonness to the average citizen, only emphasize his monarch-style overconfidence in his current and future greatness. He seems to think he's running a small community, maybe even a fancy camp site, not an economic, cultural and military giant. And he seems to think stale gestures to regular people make him respected by the even less naive among them, not as some academic with a chip on the shoulder.

We could use a smart, sincere, clever leader right now. We seem to have a lot of smart, clever, self-interested ones in charge, ones who have never run anything but campaigns (and that, only in name and reputation, as their campaigns are run by others who do those things for a living) and know how to spend but not budget other people's money. Obama is leading that amusing pack, as a man who takes his responsibility seriously, so long as he can blame everything on others. But that's not really accepting the role of POTUS, is it?

- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)
(updated & revised on Jul 22, 2010)

GOP selects black dude, 'what?' moment courtesy of NY Times

The Mexican-sponsored, conservative-bashing, often deceptively liberal clarion (OK, The Nation and TIME do it as much, so perhaps "clarion" is harsh) publication, the NY Times, continued its jab and run efforts to brazenly distort the ranks and reach of the biggest party for conservatives and political right of America upon the selection of the new Republican Nat'l Committee chairman.

While reporting on the election of the new, -- take a breath in order to state some "obvious," "bigoted" reasons why they did it, lefties -- black (!!!) RNC chairman, they might as well have belabored the fact that the guy is not a black space alien, thus the RNC is still -- as they see it -- the small-minded party of bigots. After all, they took Al Gore from the White House, the bad people.

Republicans Choose First Black Party Chairman - NYTimes.com

From the start, Mr. [Katon] Dawson, while well-liked in the party, was hampered by worries that his selection would reinforce the notion that Republicans are increasingly becoming a Southern regional party.

What? The GOP is risking being considered a regional party. Seriously? Notion, huh? Of whom? And barbecue-lovin', drawlin', Democratic Party paragons Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, are what, exactly? Too far into the past, are they? Not sure they would agree.

Is that quote the dumbest sentence in the NY Times for the day? I want to hope so, but I can only guess. It is a poorly written sentence (but since I note it in a hastily written blog, I will only point that out in passing, adding that the NYT piece was not from a blog).

I suppose around the NY Times offices, GOP chairman Michael Steele might be nicknamed Uncle, uhh, Mike, for being in with the slave owners of the GOP, too. Next there'll be a cartoon on their opinion page with Uncle Mike being denied service at the GOP's HQ cafeteria.

The paper also mentioned this, before bothering to go into Steele's win any further:

Mr. Dawson also withdrew from an all-white country club he belonged before he started running for office, a point that was raised by Republicans concerned that it would provide a bad contrast in a year when the country elected its first African-American president.

Now, the fact that there exists clubs that are intentionally (I don't care what they claim, I mean a presumed intent) all-white anywhere is disgusting to me (unless, of course, there are nothing but white people in the general area). But, to me, such clubs simply remind us that there are more white snobs than other types of snobs in the country. I wish they'd spend more time in those clubs, and less time ruining the fight for scraps of the rest of us.

Democrats should really beat this one to death, even though this Dawson dude didn't get the chairmanship. You know there's never, ever been a white Democrat member of an all-white country club, that's simply unimaginable. And never were any of the important members of the Democratic Party ever in any groups such as the Ku Klux Klan, or some all-white frat or anything, or directing hoses to be fired in the direction of blacks, or anything like that. Nope! Never!

Mr. Steele made no mention of his race in his acceptance speech, and members said that was not a major factor in their decision. Nonetheless, it was clearly a force, playing out at a time when the nation has just inaugurated its first black president.

In addition to Mr. Duncan’s experience with a white country club, another candidate for candidate — Chip Saltsman of Tennessee — came under fire after distributing a Christmas CD with a song parody entitled, “Barack the Magic Negro.”

The song was a parody, and it actually was a response, meant in humor, to a LA Times article from which that phrase came. But don't confuse anyone with the facts, just poop out propaganda for sucker liberals to step onto -- and walk it around.

As usual, the liberal obsession is with things such as race, sexual interests, and how to ban dodge ball and God from playgrounds. Let's hope at least one knows how to save the world from the bums that hate America. A JFK-type of Democrat. In other words, not a rabid, bellowing liberal.

Ron Brown was the first and only black chairman of the DNC, from 1989 to 1992.

- jR

Chavez not dropping oil program, but the way to pay was questionable

Chavez says US heating oil program never suspended - Americas AP - MiamiHerald.com

At a news conference, however, Kennedy said Citgo made it clear the decision was not a cancellation of the program. "But at the end of the day, the tankers are not going to be in front of this building," he said.

Citgo Chief Executive Alejandro Granado later said in Boston that the company had found a way to continue paying for oil shipments.

On Saturday, Chavez poked fun at analysts who said he was cutting the assistance to make relations difficult with President-elect Barack Obama, saying they made him laugh.

"They build this analysis on a lie," he said.

I still hold to my anger that a U.S. oil company, and a nonprofit, and our country, cannot buck up and cover this and tell Chavez "thanks, but no thanks." As I wrote a few days ago in this post: Like, Totally Political, Dude!: Chavez dropping oil program for U.S. poor, who's to blame?

It seems rather unbelievable that the same thing was not possible through anyone else, that this was even an option for Chavez to use -- ironically, it did some good. I don't like the power-happy guy, as he's religiously self-lauding and stunningly arrogant, but I cannot dislike his doing as he did.

You should recognize that the oil for poor program is a perfect, and self-serving, way for Chavez to appear to be a benefactor to U.S. poor. It is only honorable on the face of it. If I rna everyone's lives, this is the least I would do. But I do not, fundamentally and wholeheartedly, believe in any system where one-party, one dictator rule serves the greater good. On the whole, it does not. It is a simple truth. Those who wish to live in such a system are welcome to. Don't even address it in this country -- this country is and God-willing will always be about ridding the world of stupid people with stupid ideas like dictatorships, fascism, communism, and socialism. People will still try, and it might make for insteresting reading (Karl Marx did well with it) but it isn't a system that can properly fix itself. Our is dangerously close to being an elitist-ruled country that cheats the poor for the good fo the rich, we can't fix that with socialism. Not the answer.

There has never been any good consistently carried through in a country that was ruled over by one person or one party. The USSR was a disaster. China is still, more than not, a screwy, impoverished backwater. Europe is full of nations that are struggling under the weight of their too-generous welfare-type programs, leaving not enough room for helping when a crisis hits. Why do we want more of that in the world?

One ruler nations run the great risk that individuals are limited throughout. Ass-kissers excel in dictatorships. I hate ass-kissers. We have lots of little dictatorships -- companies -- in America. I don't like that kind of company, or even one office of any company, and I don't like that kind of nation. Such systems are effective for killing inventiveness -- thus why many sectors in the U.S. lack ingenuity these days. It is that simple.

As for nations, any socialist leaders ever came to power through manipulation and exploitation of the poor. They pulled down the educated and many highly effective people, ultimately making the country, on the whole, less than it would be under a free society sort of leadership. Look at Cuba, for crying out loud.

Chavez is an ultimate arrogant politician. That is a simple fact. I am glad he is not the ever-loving-the-killing Pinochet or similar autocratic South American socialist-communist. He's only politically dangerous to a free, liberty-loving, democratic society. For now, at least.

But this shows the gritting teeth underneath the smile of the supposedly concerned oil and other wealthy leaderships of the U.S. They all ought to be put to task for leaving such a basic and obvious hole opened for Chavez to serve our poor.

I can't fault Chavez for this -- I fault us for being to uncreative to squash his ability to do this BY DOING IT OURSELVES.

Shame on the rhetorically wealthy oilmen in the U.S. who, along with their snob friends, choose to argue that the poor, uneducated, struggling and fundamentally overlooked in this country ought to just get off their duff or they deserve to freeze throughout the winter. Social conservatism fails completely when it enters the realm of choosing to not create a clever way to afford to help the tragically poor to get through the cold winters that half the nation faces

- jR

Relax! The government is here to help us.

Watch this. Unless you know nothing at all about economics, and you want to know nothing, and you want to ignore everything about economics.

Former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.) on fixing the economy...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKc4XFK0iVY

Ouch.

If you think he's coming off as a bit smug, then consider that he's trying to keep his disgust with the stupid approach to this disaster in check.

If you think he's a bit cynical, then you get the point. We should all be cynical about how the government led us to economic ruin and are now guiding us out.

The crux of our problems aren't, as some believe and would lead you to believe, inherent to the system in which we live. Oooo, capitalism is bad, it is all about greed and selfishness. Yeah, unlike Soviet communism, which was about individuality. C'mon! The breakdown is that some people have the power and others don't. This is still a free society and the media -- real news is getting harder to find, but it is out there -- is still free.

The CRA mortgage lunacy -- the mortgages that were pegged to a policy of housing prices never, ever going down -- were not just part of this, but the lead-in to this mess, plus they were only ONE sign of the lack of insight of government into being the finance and economy's watchdogs. So there's subprime (the mortgages), Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, derivatives, hedge funds, and that's the short list of things they let ride with little control: the White House and Legislature. Mostly, our legislature -- they are the ones influencing regulation directly. The White House can only send bills to the legislature, and wait to approve it once Congress does. It's simple.

These big boys and girls in Washington DC ought to have very few responsibilities, unless you believe we ought to be a socialist country and most people in the country ought to work directly for the government. They ought to run the military, be a watchdog of unethical capitalist behavior and watch the people with the money. Instead, we have people who directly colluded with the companies who brought us here running the show and using more and more money to bolster CEOs and companies that sat on their butts and watched things fail.

No, I am not happy. But am I wrong? I think I am correct. See here. Or, go through all of this.

-jR

[via email]

Organizer: check. Money-spender: check. Who's entering office?

The two things that are clear now that the election is over are (one) that Obama spent a lot lot lot more money toward the cause of winning and still barely took the win and (two) the Obama campaign was a damned well-run organization. My hope is that the community organizer turned campaign organizer turned country organizer -- I mean he became the country's president, Skippy -- is what predominates in the White House, and not the vigorous money-spender. After all, only taxes can fund his spending now. And many millions cannot even get a job at this point, let alone pay more taxes.

I hope the organizer is who shows up for the economic recovery work and for keeping the world's militant terrorists and other cretins at bay. We don't have money, not any longer, and if Obama expects to raise taxes as expertly as he raised campaign cash, we're all in deep doo-doo. Exclamation point.

America: wake up and start thinking like a businessman, not a welfare or "bailout" proponent. Capitalism is about selfishness, you say? So socialism is the opposite of selfishness? Please! In a perfect world, perhaps no one would work and all our problems would be solved. If you live in that world, let me in! Otherwise, let's talk about making the real world function.

Here's the problem: a socialist country with lots of power is dangerous, far more dangerous than we could be -- really -- and all the examples of extremely socialistic powers ought to be proof of it. The USSR, for instance, in WW II and afterward, under Premier Stalin. Supposely a nation rules by the common man. As if. Enough said.

Socialism is akin to communism (the real world thing, not the idealistic thing that Marx supposed could work but has been proven a failed idea, because people cannot stick to it, seeing as they are diverse humans and not simple-minded widgets) and they are akin to totalitarianism and fascism. They are not safe models of a national structure for countries with power. Look at what the USSR did for the world: not much. Killed millions upon millions for the will of one leader. That's a wrong idea. Capitalism and republicanism and democracy are far safer, since in our case at least, they are also propped up by ideas and a rule of law (not a rule of man).

We have far too much power, still, in this darker time, than most nations can dream of. We are not Sweden. So, snap the heck out of it, folks. We need to stay at least modestly individualist-minded. That way, losers can learn to win, or they remain losers. The bitter can learn to solve problems, or continue to have them. I have loads of problems. My life will always suck unless I solve them. Simple. That is not a bad system. One where Joe Stalin can rise to the top is a bad system, not one where Obama, or GW Bush, can rise. They are not inhuman, madly paranoid, or otherwise unseemly, no matter how badly you want to believe it. They are not Blagojovichs, for instance. Or even silly, unethical Ted Stevenses.

There is a very clear line to be drawn, and that is going to determine if this economic problem turns out to continue far too long (allegedly) as did the American Great Depression and the Japanese deep recession of the 1990s. Mind you, there are fair arguments that it was not Roosevelt's socialistic ideas that pulled us out of depression, but extended it. It was the efforts to get people back to work, quite simply, that got us out of depression. Social programs don't solve money woes, they exacerbate them. Work and commerce solve money woes. We can only print money so long until it weakens the dollar so much that it is worthless, too, so don't count on that solving the woes, either.

See this post ("In the end, did money win the White House?") for more about money, winning, and what spending tons of cash versus the election outcome means in a fairly rational sense, as opposed to what Obama's fanatics want it to mean. In short, call this a landslide, and what will come eventually is a blow back -- a very painful one for Obama, Democrats, and the government leaders who seem to never learn how to govern.

- jR

Recession, recovery, or other: Word definitions and other confusing things

Forbes, as I've noted before, tends to report against the predominant ignorance of mainstream (middling educated) media, popular opinion and political convenience. The magazine's pieces tend to follow some sort of logic -- imagine that.

In early December 2008, it was announced that the U.S. had been in a recession for roughly a year, to the surprise of anyone who actually knows that a recession is. I mistakenly assumed that this meant the quarterly GDP reports for that period were to be officially adjusted. I was wrong. But did the mainstream media grab onto this? No, they didn't. However, Forbes actually looked at the numbers and filled in the holes that I found in the government's assertion.

Congratulations, It's A Recession - Forbes.com

They pointed out that a "popular yardstick for recession -- two successive quarters of GDP decline, has not yet been reached. The economy dipped (-.2% GDP) in the fourth quarter of 2007. But in the first quarter of 2008 it grew .9%, and in the second quarter, it grew 2.8%.

The economy tends to be well on the road to recovery before unemployment starts to fall. In 1990-91, it was 15 months after the bottom of the recession that unemployment peaked. After the bursting of the dot-com bubble in 2001, unemployment peaked 19 months later. That means the unemployment rate of 6.5% is likely to get worse for some months before it gets better.
Minding the maxim on investment prospectuses, past performance is not a guarantee of future results. The NBER puts it tersely: "The committee does not forecast." The amount of time until recovery depends largely on what happens to falling home prices and troubled credit markets.
But at least it's nice to be talking about "recovery" instead of tip-toeing around "recession."

Surprise! We've had a recession for a year already! Even though GDP has not been in the negative consistently, we have been in a recession. The definition is changed, it would appear. That's fine -- I would rather see economists err on the side of caution than -- it sounds pale just thinking it, seeing it is how we got here -- to approach things with too much (bloated) confidence.

What kills me is these folks who have been stammering around proclaiming we were in a recession, a deep recession, a depression, without even actually comprehending outside of the self-centered little universe they live in, what any of that actually is, will now think they are brilliant for having been proclaiming recession since they lost their CRA-mortgaged house when their unemployment ran out. Or something.

Those folks, though, will never learn. They don't want to learn, they just want to complain. That's what they do. Perhaps under Obama, they will hold their tongue for a while longer at least, since the great Prince of Darkness will no longer be (a) the president, (b) the vice-president, (c) the Treasury secretary, (d) host of the Tonight Show...

- jR

NARA, not NRA: election history

Questions about election numbers throughout history? Look here: The National Electoral College site. So long as they keep this site up, and accurate, I guess they can stick around. But if they start some kinda trickery -- look out!

Sean Penn: Mountain of questionable, umm, conclusions?

Sean Penn: Mountain of Snakes

Sean Penn is a writer. Why is he a writer? I can only guess it is because he is a celebrity and a fan of communism versus capitalism. Because he is part and parcel of the Hollywood elite. Here's a quote from this article that I suspect explains how Sean Penn has been entitled to speak for America, and specifically, American liberals (poor liberals): "...the fact is,[sic] that our most respected, call that mainstream media, in print and on television are, in part, conscious manufacturers of deception." I bolded the important words so the commas and garbage wouldn't get in the way. What is it? And why is he writing it? Why him, and to what end? Am I required to read this entire piece of bunk to "get it"? Sorry, I have to have a life outside of being mystified by celebrity writers.

So glad that's OK with you, Mr. Penn. Liberals, oddly, have not been bothered by propaganda in journalism, perhaps, is his point. It is certainly loud and clear in the example of MSNBC and TIME magazine. So why does Penn have an issue with it? One can only interpret his broad point, since that sentence, his words generally, make no sense on their own.

Here's another piece of valuable commentary, perhaps it is his self-centeredness that is driving his exposure of the media: "Meanwhile, I challenge anyone to hunt up the few pictures that were taken by the random photojournalists who'd stumbled upon me, and find a single one that would've passed the test of my own narcissistic scrutiny."

Dear Sean Penn: Nobody with a good reason to live cares about your self-adulation. But, in that topic, I should note that it doesn't mix well with your liberal white guilt (see 'Milk' interview by Penn with Charlie Rose).

Please, Mr. Penn, please continue writing. You are good entertainment for those who know how to write, for real.

Despite multiple assassination attempts by the CIA on his older brother Fidel, the destabilization tactics of Robert F. Kennedy and the Bay of Pigs, The Platt Amendment with the taking of Guantanamo Bay, and even despite an endless and unjustified embargo (in effect: blockade) on Cuba by the United States, here we were in 2008, and Raul Castro said flat out that if the American people, who today stand with candidate Barack Obama, continue to stand with President Barack Obama, then "meaningful and productive advances could be achieved in Cuba and the world."

He must have accidentally left out the Mariana Boatlift, in which Castro sent his worst -- WORST -- criminials to American shores. That must have been America's fault, too.

Says the economist, Penn: "Free market capitalism and greed in the hands of humans are, in fact, a marriage that never rids itself of the demon. They are of one body."

"In the hands of humans"? As opposed to under the hooves of jackasses? What's the need for that phrase? Wait: Is that a terribly naive question? Yes, it is, considering the topic inspiring the question.

Well, the real impression for me here is this: Can it get any better than this for Americans with a clue? I mean ones who are not socialists or communists, of course. If you buy into socialism -- the Bolivarian type -- and Castro's governing tactics. But real Socialists and Communists, not to be confused with far-left Democrats. They do pose as far-left Dems, like Penn here does, clearly. He is clearly confusing freedom with popular oppression. But that's throwing stones.

I guess Sean might take after his dad the accused communist. While Joe McCarthy's un-American committee was not right, neither is Sean Penn's obfuscate attack on the system that netted him, too, tons of cash. TONS. Did I mention that Sean Penn is rich thanks to the system he hates, and seems far from loathing himself for it? If his dad was a communist, that certainly rubbed off on Sean, even judging this writing liberally; if he was hypocrite, then Sean didn't fall far from that tree.

The Huffington Post is desperate for writers, enough to put this garbagge on their site? I find that hard to believe. They must be simply desperate for the inclusion of far-leftist celebrities who are willing to write odd little mementos from far-leftist countries.

- jR

The fall of rational liberalism, in 1968

What's wrong with liberal ideals? Part II

For American liberals, there seems to be selfish, ridiculous, outright ignorant, and spoiled-brat viewpoints on many issues that extend far beyond social fairness into a desire for the contortion or destruction of harmless traditions. Being assaulted are: the idea of marriage, First and Second Amendment rights, instilling a revamped "Fairness Doctrine" onto radio (but conveniently not on TV broadcasts or print media), and other such self-serving, limited sight, or non-issue issues. There are energetic evocations from the liberal end of politics that, like it or not, verge on Socialist ideals. And not positive ones, either. There's a running list of conservatives in Hollywood on the Internet, for instance. What, pray tell, for? Leftist Fascists can use it for reference? What?

Jeanne Kirkpatrick, who some on the left regard as a vicious Reagan Era ideological attack ogre, recorded her lack of taste for liberal ideas publicly - at a GOP convention during Reagan's leadership. Kirkpatrick was a Democrat, and at one time considered herself a liberal. The liberals went too far, from civil rights to running naked through the streets having sex rights. No, not literally, figuratively. They went a bit kooky, frankly, and somehow the rational liberals let to kooks and goof balls take center stage. Have a look at some reflections on her and that long ago time known as the early 1980s, in this posting and the links within it.

I took the following from a Time magazine article dated Nov. 13, 2008. It fairly well explains why I am freaked out by today's liberalism, though it loses some value in its desire to keep it short by bundling everything together with the Vietnam War protests. Perhaps there's something in this for you, too. Read this, read the whole piece since it goes somewhere with the liberalism definition. Then contrast that with Kirkpatrick, and you'll understand where I am coming from, almost. (Yes, the anonymous-author-of-this-blog me, "jR".)

Right up front I want to point out that I was not old enough to vote, not even old enough to wear underpants, in 1968. Second, I am white. My ideas, flatly, do not align with the comment on racial freedom (equaling riots and crime), but I suppose some folks saw it as such, in the racial sense, in some locations. I was not raised with any racial epithets passing the tongues of my parents. Never, ever. Perhaps some similar feelings are held today to some degree, by some far-flung whites, but not by me or the majority. If there's evidence I am wrong about the population at large, then feel free to pass it along.

Obama, if he is to personify the next wave of positive change, will be a sensible leader akin to FDR and Reagan, he will not be like clueless Carter or tread-too-lightly Clinton or, say, Abbie Hoffman as president. The parallels to JFK that Obama gets are missing the point: JFK stepped into office when the greatest social upheaval was television for the masses. Yes, there was civil rights activism, and we know how far things went after JFK was elected, racial and social equality became the great change of the 1960s, but this was after JFK was elected. We have more issues today - Obama must work at being FDR and Reagan.

The New Liberal Order - TIME

By the beginning of the 1960s, though, liberalism was becoming a victim of its own success. The post-World War II economic boom flooded America's colleges with the children of a rising middle class, and it was those children, who had never experienced life on an economic knife-edge, who began to question the status quo, the tidy, orderly society F.D.R. had built. For blacks in the South, they noted, order meant racial apartheid. For many women, it meant confinement to the home. For everyone, it meant stifling conformity, a society suffocated by rules about how people should dress, pray, imbibe and love. In 1962, Students for a Democratic Society spoke for what would become a new, baby-boom generation "bred in at least modest comfort," which wanted less order and more freedom. And it was this movement for racial, sexual and cultural liberation that bled into the movement against Vietnam and assembled in August 1968 in Grant Park.

Traditional liberalism died there because Americans — who had once associated it with order — came to associate it with disorder instead. For a vast swath of the white working class, racial freedom came to mean riots and crime; sexual freedom came to mean divorce; and cultural freedom came to mean disrespect for family, church and flag. Richard Nixon and later Reagan won the presidency by promising a new order: not economic but cultural, not the taming of the market but the taming of the street.

A thought: 'Booby traps' are not limited to the Bush legacy

Upon reading the "Booby traps" piece by Rosa Brooks, one favoring left-wing ideology (read the whole thing here), I pondered thusly:

Were there any bothers by this well-educated (that is to say, learned so as not to accidentally write in a biased manner) author regarding the actual booby traps left by Clinton, the political John the Baptist to the Obama-Jesus? I don't have the time to waste, but maybe this is something worth looking at.

What was the viewpoint after 9/11 from her? That GW Bush asked for it? That GW Bush's policies in their infancy invited this inordinately bold move? Was it was his dad's fault, GHW Bush, for keeping Kuwait Saddam Hussein-free? Or was Clinton's lack of interest in the overall values to a solid military - for the country nut-job Islamic terrorists love to hate the most, the U.S. - the thing that most certainly hurt us and
practically invited 9/11? What is her view on that end of the Afghanistan-Iraq issues?

Was there a reflection on the, umm, REAL tripwires that Clinton left for Bush, and the U.S.? Like a smaller, softer and otherwise less-prepared military, and such welcome signs for the 9/11 terrorists? "According to the latest national intelligence estimate" might have fit as an introduction to some lop-sided opinion pieces back then, and immediately after we took Hussein out of control. What did you say in those instances? It was Bush's fault then, too? He intentionally got the NIE's to favor what he wanted, did he?

You will indeed deserve the candidate-in-Chief should he get what the media expects. You will deserve him, you and all Pelosi-type liberals who believe in do-nothing, blame politics above all else. You will so sorely deserve him. Of course, who knows? Obama may be an entirely different person come one year from now. Being a puppet for far-left faction of the Democratic Party might only have been the pass he used; he might run things altogether differently. Unlike Pelosi, Dodd, Biden, Frank, Reid ... he might actually DO SOMETHING aside from awaiting the explosion of poorly drawn mortgages by his buddies in Fannie Mae and elsewhere.

If I were to dream a little dream, an Obama presidency might involve not simply denying responsibility then pushing nearly socialist fixes to serious financial issues.

Sadly, one thing Ms. Brooks nailed accurately was the Bush Admin's lack of thorough, truly forward-looking proactive leadership in the wars:

We know from Iraq that countering insurgencies requires a long, hard slog -- success not guaranteed -- and that the presence of foreign troops can help fuel nationalist insurgencies. More troops in Afghanistan might have turned things around if those troops -- and a less stingy reconstruction package -- had arrived five years ago, when Afghan hopes were high. After years of Bush administration malfeasance, increasing U.S. troop levels without an accompanying dramatic shift in regional strategy risks turning Afghanistan into another Iraq.

However, since I think she uses her brains too little for solid argument or logic and too much for bias, I react as such: It is all too convenient to point these failings out, and be a Monday morning quarterback. She ought to know better. Policy, public opinion, and a need to dangle the carrot of self-reliance in front of these long-oppressed countries makes it quite hard to try to dress this up as an abject failure of leadership. It is not what I would have preferred, but are truly reliable experts saying this is indeed what is occurring, or is this simply one talking head firing yet again at an easy target?

One thing that is clear to me: Ms. Rosa Brooks is opinionated, but a thorough, and I would dare to say baseless, nay-sayer regarding U.S. chances in our current military actions and generally in the so-called war on terror. She is, without question, a liberal commentator. Why she is not billed as such by the L.A. Times, I do not understand. Perhaps, like was made evident in the finance crisis, denying your ideals and your role in anything is a common trait among liberal commentators and politicians. Hmm. I guess we'll just have to see about that, just like if those "booby traps" go off in Obama's, or McCain's face.

Booby traps, indeed. Placed by boobs, protected by boobs, and now blamed on some other boobs by the initial booby-trap-causing boobs. Excellent work, Congress. Excellent.

Related articles

Stewart-Colbert Rally Mixes Fun with Sober Message

Related articles

Related articles by Zemanta

Head count