Showing posts with label propaganda. Show all posts
Showing posts with label propaganda. Show all posts

WHAT'S FAIR: Minimum Skills Earning Minimum Wages

Are you worth $30,000 a year?
For those fast food employees, and their nannies in public office, thinking they deserve $15 an hour, or more, let's do some math.
> At $15 an hour, someone slinging burgers would make $31,200 annually.
> An E1 (Private) in the military makes $18,378.
> An E5 (Sergeant) with 8 years of service only makes $35,067 annually.
So you're telling me, Woody Likefrieswithat , that you deserve as much as those kids getting shot at, deploying for months in hostile environments, and putting their collective asses on the line every day protecting the rights of YOUR unskilled butt!?
Here's the deal, Frank Andbeans: you are working in a job designed for a teenager in high school or working his way through trade school or college. It's a job for someone who is learning how to work. Have you thoroughly learned how to work? These jobs are designed for those looking to earn enough for shared rent, beer, and some food and gas, and hanging out with their equally goofy young pals.
If you have CHOSEN this basic means of making a living as your lifelong profession, you have not planned very well. Time to accept the consequences or to firm up, work your way out of the lower rungs, and rely on yourself, not count on foul promises of a few rise from low wages to high with little or no stops to learn skills that deserve a higher wage. It is a tough lesson, but you either learn it, or you stay where you are. The ones misleading you into believing you deserve higher pay for the same minimum role in life might sound like your hero, but they are only your big talking "better." They are fooling you. Wake up!
Here's what is fair to everyone: If you don't want minimum wage, don't settle on your minimum skills,  don't put forward minimum effort, be the example of a great employee that can move past the minimum job. And please don't expect someone else to pave your way, without you advancing your skills, for a smooth ride to $30k and better in earnings. That's how it might work in your dreams, but in real life, a solid person seeks rewards for effort, not for whining.
I revised this considerably. A version of this, no doubt a chain email, was sent to me by a retired person. He understands what working means. No one promised him a cake walk to a better life.
- J Ruse

Put a name to the FAIL: Obama Arab Spring, Obama IRS, Obama Recovery, ObamaMedia

I've got something figured out here, and I'm really excited about it. It is time for some name changes.

It seems to me, where Prezzy Barry O is involved, if a problem doesn't have his name on it, he will not take any blame for it. None. It's Bush's fault. It was the video (Benghazi). It was the weather system. It was the House's fault (shutdown, budget not being passed, etc., etc).

But if his name is on it... it seems even the ever-conceited Obama can't pretty talk his way out of it. OBAMACARE is creating a climate where insurance companies are tossing folks overboard like buckets of water on a sinking ship. Democrats who are up for election aren't thrilled, nor are former Democratic officials. And Obama had to apologize for it. Like, literally said "I am sorry."

SORRY? What a guy. He insisted, 24 times, and there's even content on WhiteHouse.gov that IF YOU LIKE YOUR COVERAGE YOU GET TO KEEP YOUR COVERAGE. PERIOD. But he's sorry. Oopsie!

I'm sorry I ever spanked my kitten for clawing the underside of my foot at night. That's something to be sorry over. People have lost their insurance, a Mr. Obvious outcome of the way Obamacare so infringes on segments of the insurance market. And he's sorry.

The problem of millions losing their insurance is just the latest lameness, of course. It's in addition to lots of other problems with the law and it's policies. It's expected to almost universally raise rates for insurance, not lower them. Plus, there's the unimpressive performance that is known even by those not paying much attention: the failed Healthcare.gov site booting millions off it; in one state, Tennessee, merely 600 people had signed up as of this week; any number of felons could be taking personal financial data over the phone as Obamacare "navigators," because there is no criminal history screening for the position.

The problems with the Affordable Care Act, mind you, were widely expected problems, and widely predicted problems. People chose to ignore it, including the majority of news outlets.

Luckily, I've figured it out. This is what has to happen: We name the IRS, Benghazi, the Arab Spring, the Muslim Brotherhood, jobless claims, the jobless recovery, the debt, the budget deficit, the ensuing doctor shortage, the lack of a federal budget, NSA data mining, and media spying tactics, after Obama.

Maybe we should name the mainstream media after Obama, too. Heck, much of the media has managed to be the Obama media for the last six years, haven't they?

Maybe if we name all of these things after Obama, then he'll be cornered into owning up to what's going on with them, too.

That's no bullObama. 


- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

GUN CONTROL PATROL: so now it's only about "expanded background checks"?

Obama says it's all about "expanded background checks" now. (Facebook post)

GUN CONTROL PATROL - Suddenly it's all about "expanded background checks"?

This started as nothing short of a call for complete gun registration, a ban (or, witch hunt, mostly by Democrat nitwits) on rifles only because they LOOKED like military guns, and a severe limit on magazine capacity of 7 rounds in a handgun. (Here's one hilariously obvious thing non gun owners, and blissfully uninformed "leaders" in Congress, might not know: most non-revolver handguns today hold 8 or more rounds, so this was either a clown posse from the start (idiot kings trying look responsive after a tragedy), or it was an attempt by snakes leading doleful mice to the nest (cynical attempt to ban virtually all handguns, or require customization of virtually every gun, or magazine, out there).

A retired police chief wrote an op/ed, just after Sandy Hook occurred, saying the FIRST THING we should do in response to Sandy Hook is repeal the 2nd Amendment (#2A on Twitter). The first thing! An anti-Constitutionalist sissy with a law enforcement badge (must've sucked working for him, unless you thought as simply as him). Of course, he is not alone, as a search of the Internet would show. Didn't hear anyone from the White House reacting to that insanity. So what? Well, this self-interested, blame-gaming, absent-minded professor in the White House had a beer summit after a minor misunderstanding in Cambridge, Mass. But Obama can't react to an op/ed, or other rants, insisting we repeal the 2nd Amendment? His, and the Justice Department's, silence on these few calls to end 2A is deafening. The clowns are running the circus. They are not in charge of it all, thankfully, as shown by this fall back from demanding gun registration and gun and magazine bans, to a call for broader background checks. The typical, supportive DailyKos readers of the world are not controlling the rest of us (their numbers are far too small).

This change in priorities by the anti-gun brigade in August shows the regrouping, behind their lines, of the cynical power ploy that's standard by the nastily control- and power-hungry Democratic leadership today. They will grab for it all in moments of upset or advantage - as they did with ObamaCare - and retreat if they must, as they had to with gun control. But they are going to instead slowly work their way back to that big goal, which is centralized control of anything possible to wrench control of, weakening states and creating a stronger federation run from DC, all the while insisting it isn't about control, but doing what's better for every individual.

So to them and their supporters it makes sense that a massive federal bureaucracy can offer more attention to individuals than individuals can on their own? Or that a centralized, Soviet-like state can care better for everyone than several somewhat sovereign states? That's what the Democratic Party political idea is today. Not democratic at all, but socialistic. Like, the Borg, from Star Trek, if the term Soviet makes you think of Stalin and Lenin too much and hurts your feelings. No matter, is that such a good idea?

I'll take my government in SMALL DOSES, just as the US Constitution demands, thanks.


- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

Ultimate Fighting: solar cooling versus global warming

Nothing's funnier to me than an atheist follower of the Green Movement or Climate Change activism. "I think God is a cruel lie, but unproven theories and reasons to hate industry and people having jobs, and civil expansion, are AWESOME!" That said...

TG Daily - Harvard astrophysicist: Sunspot activity correlates to global climate change
Harvard astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon tells us that Earth has seen a reduced level of sunspot activity for the past 18 months, and is currently at the lowest levels seen in almost a century. Dr. Soon says "The sun is just slightly dimmer and has been for about the last 18 months. And that is because there are very few sunspots." He says when the sun has less sunspots, it gives off less energy, and the Earth tends to cool. He notes 2008 was a cold year for this very reason, and that 2009 may be cold for the same.

As of today, there have been 15 days in a row without any sunspots. In 2008 there were 266 days scattered throughout the year without sunspots, and in 2007 there were 163 days without sunspots. These are the #2 and #9 fewest sunspots years seen since 1911.
Earth warming, sun cooling. What kind of climate change should we be watching out for, and why does Al Gore insist on lying about 200-foot rises in ocean levels just to get us to stop using so much oil? Groan.
Dr. Soon's field of specialty is the sun. He explains that sunspots are planet-sized pockets of magnetism with much greater energy output and matter expulsion, some of which strikes the Earth's atmosphere as extra energy from the sun. He says when sunspots are present, the temperature goes up, when they are not present the temperature goes down. He also told a reporter at WBZ, CBS TV 38 (in Boston, MA) that beginning in 1645 and continuing through 1715, there were no observed sunspots. This is the period known as the Little Ice Age.

He also explains that sunspots go in cycles, which are around 11 years. There are periods of maximum activity (called the Solar Max) and periods of minimal or no activity (called the Solar Min).

Around the year 2000, the current cycle had reached its maximum. As of right now in 2009, it is at a period of zero sunspot activity. Still, he explains that no one knows for sure how long the cycles will last, and there are precedents that sunspots can persist for long periods of time, or there can be few or none for long periods of time (as happened between 1645 and 1715 during the Little Ice Age).
Could it be that the universe is more significant than people, and it is less stout (that is, we must protect it, like it's more pliable than we are)? Somebody ask Al Gore his views of a self-correcting planet and universe. Because apparently he's the poster child for all things "science", right? For the current leadership and the sore winners of the recent U.S. election? Will we simply find reason to start a broad-reaching, formal sun worship religion in the U.S.? Hmmm... legislating nature worship -- making Gore's mission complete....
Dr. Soon is an astrophysicist whose field of expertise is the sun for Harvard and the Smithsonian. He said, "The Sun is the all encompassing energy giver to life on planet Earth." And presently it's getting a lot of attention from scientists. He expects that if 2009 is another cold year which correlates to the decreased sunspot activity, that the global warming theories which attribute temperature fluctuations to increases in the levels of atmospheric CO2 will need to take notice.

He says, "If this deep solar minimum continues and our planet cools while CO2 levels continue to rise, thinking needs to change. This will be a very telling time and it's very, very useful in terms of science and society in my opinion".
So we're set to lower our CO2, except China isn't. I think that's great, it helps. But what is coming? Cooling? Warming? One and then the other? Why is cooling going to still create a rise in ocean levels? Are we just being scammed by some scientists like people in the Middle Ages, etc., were being scammed -- and some today, still, of course -- by a shamelessly power-seeking clergy/political leadership? Is this really just to get us all to behave in the ways they want us to, despite any solid evidence of anything?

Today is not the day that question will be answered. Come back tomorrow....

Not really.

Al Gore as much as has said he's exaggerated all along about "global warming" to get people to react. That's called propaganda: lies to achieve a desired goal is plain old political propaganda. Yet, all these sad little minds adore the Gore.

Just wait for Al Gore to give you your orders, children, for further response to nature's activity. You know -- be a mindless dweeb that blames industry for everything and adores the losers of most elections, so long as they are not Republicans. And good luck with that.


- AirFarceOne (twitter)


Powered by ScribeFire.

Iran blocks the competition's Web sites: how insular and autocratic of them

This is the story as offered by AP, on the Fox News Web site:

FOXNews.com - Iran Blocks Web Sites Promoting Reformist Khatami
"[Moderate] Khatami declared on Feb. 8 he would run again for president, setting the stage for a major political showdown... between the popular reformist — who made dialog with the West a centerpiece of his eight years as president — and the country's ruling hard-liners.

"[Opposition Web sites] could not be accessed from inside Iran on Saturday, though they were viewable outside."

Among other things the "ready to talk" Iranian power-mongers have done in order to control their society:

Reformists have suffered setbacks in past years as hard-liners and conservatives have consolidated power. Hundreds of reformist newspapers have been shut down, and the Guardian Council barred thousands of reformist candidates from running in parliamentary elections in 2004 and 2008.

See the sites at http://www.yaarinews.com and http://www.yaari.ir. They are not in English, but Persian (or Farsi, I believe), mind you. The sites were set up last summer in anticipation of Khatami's candidacy.

- jR


Powered by ScribeFire.

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

Powered by ScribeFire.

The People's Voice: a babbling manifesto for the rest of, umm, them


Part 2 of series:
Blogs with no purpose except to whine
about the world not fitting their fantasy
Label to look for: slobbering blog

The People's Voice
Need proof of the systemic rot eroding the very cores of our souls? Look no further than the meteoric rise of the grossly under-qualified, hyper-ambitious, morally retarded narcissist who still has a realistic chance to be one heart-beat away from ostensibly ruling the most powerful nation in the world. Palinesque tendencies to “drill, drill, drill,” exploit obscene technological advantages to “cull predatory species,” employ our “justice” system to accelerate the extinction of yet another species (to advance the interests of Big Oil no less), and perpetuate the murderous “sport” of hunting with the intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt justifications of “necessity” and “cultural tradition” serve to shred our ridiculously thin façade of humanity and reveal the truly barbarous nature of Western “civilization” and the “American Way of Life.”

I'm sorry, were you saying something? I was busy watching the paint dry on my secret tree house.

If you think that I am simply anti-liberal, try again.

This site includes among its troupe of sensible activists a pack of mixed nuts who say the Internet as we know it will cease to exist in 2012, maybe sooner. One of them, a gal who wears a near dominatrix (but friendlier) outfit, was earlier offering to have sex with guys who sign on to the activist effort to keep the Net free. Virgins only, though. Sorry, Noam Chomsky.

And these people are taken seriously by someone out there. Awesome.

These people are genuine kooks! These are the folks that gun laws are created to protect... to protect others from them should their nut-job ideas and worries turn into urban assaults on the dangerous "enemy others" with their legally-procured guns (if you aren't diagnosed, you're still considered sane, sadly).


- jR

Powered by ScribeFire.

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

Powered by ScribeFire.

MoveOn.org pretends it only wants realistic change - Fwd: Want a poster?

MoveOn.org claims these are the central concerns for the Obama White House: clean energy, health care for all Americans, and an end to the war in Iraq.

Here's my question: if it is only the changes they list here that Obama intends, then what is the big deal? What divided us for the whole campaign? Are we all just a bunch of idiots??!

The items listed by MoveOn.org are "do you still beat your wife" kinds of issues. They are Miss America questions. They are soft-shoe and easy listening for the dull-witted masses. What else would they be, though? This is from the "General Betray Us" folks suddenly turned earthy and populist. It is these populist misleadings by groups who are so virulently campaigning for left-wing agendas that makes them so despicable. What is the real agenda? It is not (1)health care for all, (2) end of the Iraq War, or (3) clean energy. These are populist, not progressive (so-called) or liberal ideas. But, that said, I am glad even MoveOn.org is getting behind them.


1. Health care for all has been a thing that the Democrats have owned since Prez Clinton and Lady Hillary tried to make it so. Good for them, but I hope the approach is different this time around. I hope it is less Sweden and Canada (40% taxes might be fine if I can live through a heart attack and receive a colonoscopy every year without going into debt, but what if I can't afford food because retail prices rise 40% or more, too??!), more SMART regulation and streamlining of the bull involved with insurance and health care.

Shame on the GOP for not taking the knife of regulation and sticking it into insurance companies that are letting the under-covered and the poor to drop dead or live in misery rather than develop truly reasonable coverage alongside government. Not that this is an insurance problem -- it is a national problem. Our leaders need to act on it or they are not our leaders, they are elected lobbyists for insurance companies and eventually the voting will reflect this and they will be fired.

Insurance companies are getting rich while everyone from the poor to the middle class insured (under-insured) cannot afford to see doctors for "preexisting" conditions that include acid reflux and back pain. They must instead either ring up large bills or claim poverty and live in an ER waiting room to be helped.

To say "this system sucks" is a generous estimation of American health coverage and insurance and how it interacts with the humans on the one end and the doctors on the other. It is failing us. Utterly failing many, not only the uninsured. Failing. Is that a word Americans like to hear? No. So, fix it. It is failing. FAILING.

Personal example: I received a rejection letter from my general doctor months after I lost a job in 2008 (a contract abruptly and inequitably was ended, I did nothing wrong) and could not pay on what the insurance company refused to pay. I was trying, through an intermediary group, to make sense of why they refused to pay for things, as it was not simply preexisting coverage, not reasonably, anyways. Other doctors visits, for things I was never before treated for, were completely rejected.

Conveniently, the insurance company claimed despite the contrary that I and my providers (the doctors) had not provided necessary forms. This is while the intermediary was working with me and the providers to get a reason for not covering my visits.I have the bills to prove that health coverage falls short even when one is "insured" and earning well over minimum wage. I was earning $62,000.00+ (none of your business, but I am telling you) and had coverage that cost me about 15% of each paycheck, and that was the best I could afford. It was diddly, clearly.


ERs: This is our system of care for our tired masses. Forcing ERs to see everyone, for things like colds? Our answer to coverage of all is putting the burden, in a backhanded way, on hospitals and on taxpayers (public and county hospitals gotta be funded somehow!)? Meanwhile, insurance companies investing in Peter Pan markets such as AIG must be bailed out. That's just pathetic.

After 25 years or more of failure in bringing modern, excellent health care to everyone, while other countries manage it, I wish Obama luck. However, I say we must stay away from higher taxes to fund it, for all our sakes!!! We are dangerously close to what they call the "European model" and this country does not need it. There's better ways to do it! There simply has to be -- this is a country that behaves differently than other countries in many ways, and that is why we are the only remaining superpower; that is why we are admired by other countries, even those who resent us! (Jealousy is a strong motivator in people who are not endowed with a solemn or calmed intellect.)

Since no one cares and can get organized enough to truly fix the problem, America ought to be as ashamed of itself. In this day and age, we ought to be as ashamed as we would rightfully be for slavery, child labor in the 1800s-1900s, relocating Native tribes, and other such distasteful blights on our history.

There's a term for America's handling of health care in the last 25 years or so: Disgustingly irresponsible.


2. The "Iraq War" is ended, and has been ended, really, since a new government launched there (however insecure it is, to this day). I never cease to be amazed at how much traction this idea of "ending the War in Iraq" gets, seeing as it is tantamount to race baiting. Call it pacific-spoiled-brat baiting. Now we are supporting a struggling government there, not toppling it, and thus we are fighting a war on terrorism today. A ware against some rather dangerous extremists who cannot tolerate anything but a Taliban-like Islamic state. But MoveOn.org cannot bait people by being anti-American by going against the war on terror, so they choose to use the old language. Obama did not go down that road, thankfully; he moved to a rhetoric of going after the terrorists and the people who caused Sept. 11, 2001, and talked of "responsibly" ending the War in Iraq (whatever that ever meant to him, I do not know; sounds like a deceptive change of his earlier opinion to me).

So what MoveOn.org is accidentally or intentionally saying is that they want to end the war on terrorism, as if that action is a bad thing. This is propaganda, and it is tiring. This is either an horrendous dumbing-down of the issue, or outright anti-military, anti-American sentiment. Despicable either way, but I am confident they are simply pandering to the pacifistic ideas of anyone who wishes war were a thing of the past. (Naive, yes, but tactical to exploit in a land of spoiled media-addicted college students and the like.)


3. Where the Sun does Shine: The refusal, over the past 30 years, of bringing solar and wind power to the masses, is now changed; it is thanks more to the stubborn and simple campaign by an oil man at his own cost, and with capitalist and realist motivations, not the far leftists and Al Gore's fans. I find it fascinating that there is such a tenor, in mass media, that capitalist motivations to go to clean energy is suddenly OK, because T. Boone Pickens says so. We will eventually see resentment over this, as we have seen resentment by liberals over the fact that our military is not a police force, but a force to be reckoned with.

Recently, Pickens backed down on his wind farm plans, since the oil price has dropped so low. Does that mean that the interest, as it had died in the 1970s, will go, too? In Washington, it had better not. The question is whether Washington, on this issue, will lead with the apathy of people in mind (I think you'll find that energy change is still merely a pop issue, not a "real" issue, to many) or with its eagerness to create industry and new wealth for businesses and communities. Dependence on oil, foreign oil especially, is risking our very stability, especially in times such as we are in right now, with questionable economic conditions reverberating through industry after industry.


I hope the Obama Admin focus on these things, and I hope this type of change succeeds. Fully! Since all these are good things, and they don't require infantile deception and snippets of facts, I hope MoveOn.org can focus on them, too, and not the other things, such as making all conservatives out to be ogres.


Here's a copy of the message (linked) that inspired this posting, for what that is worth.