Friday, May 29, 2009
Thursday, May 28, 2009
The government has no business defining marriage.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.It's not that government should define marriage as being between a man and a woman. It's that government shouldn't define it at all. It can recognize it as a contract to be enforced. But that's the extent of it.
Ultimately, since this is about social engineering to undermine a religious position, and not legal rights -- gay couples already have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples in California. It's about the word. They want "Marriage" to be the defined, legally proper way to refer to a gay union. So that they can then turn around and use it as a hammer. And it'll be used to violate that abridging the freedom of speech bit. "You say it's not marriage? HATER!!!! HATE SPEECH!!!!" That's the next step.
And don't get me started on "hate" crimes. Crimes are crimes.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
And here is is:
Another of my favorite Dennis observations is his feeling that if waterboarding is torture, then it's got to be the Nerf® of torture.
Dennis: I think it is a superfluous question because even if it is torture, we're talking about 'do you ever do it?', and I just happen to think there is a set of circumstances under which I would do it.
Now the second thing is, I don't think that they're strict adherents to the Geneva Conventions, so to give them all the benefits of the Geneva conventions seems a little silly to me. BUT
And I have to throw a third thing in here. I have not read it yet, but Salman told me something to me during the last commercial break that I'm going to ask him to explain. If somebody who I respect enough comes in, and tells me that they think that it is hurting the cause, I would change my mind and ... I'd have to read more about it. But Sal, tell me what you've heard about Patreus. I hope it's direct from him.
Sal: Yes it is.
Dennis: He wrote the piece?
Sal: Well, he's commented, directly, you know, in an interview.
Dennis: Well, it's on the Huffington Post, though, right?
Sal: Yes, it's on the Huffington Post.
Dennis: I don't believe the Huffington post, so it would have to be ... well, tell me what it says.
Sal: Well, let me just pull this up. And, it basically says ...
Dennis: Not basically, what's his quote?
Sal: Ok, getting to it...
Dennis: Well, find it during the break, and when we get back, Sal ... there's a piece on the Huffington Post, and I need his direct quote because quite frankly I don't trust that thing as far as I could throw it.
Dennis: Sal has found something out of Huff Po out of Patreus' mouth, and Sal, read that first part of it.
Sal: Ok, this is Patreus interviewed on Radio Free Europe and he says
Sal (quoting article attributed to Patreus): "I think on balance that those moves help us", said the Chief of Central US Command. "In fact, I have long been on record as having testified, and also in helping write doctrine for interrogation techniques that are completely in line with the Geneva Convention. And as a division commander in Iraq in the early days, we put out guidance very early on to make sure that our soldiers, in fact, knew that we needed to stay within those guidelines."
Dennis: Well, listen, I obviously concur there, I don't think soldiers can get involved in these interrogation techniques, I think it has to be the CIA, and I think it has to be an extraordinary set of circumstances. I'm just saying, you know, I notice that everybody in the world says "well I never say never" -- unless it's about waterboarding. That's the only point where people are willing to say "no, never". And I just ... I'm sorry, it might paint me as a Hessian, but I don't agree with that. I think if somebody comes in and puts together an extraor- but I agree, our soldiers should never get involved, or they're going to end up being crucified. For God's sake, you've got soldiers who watch guys laying on the floor of a building they're going through in Tikrit or something flinch or something and if they shoot them, you know they're going to be called up in a 24/7 news cycle [welieid?] now as the villain. So, no, I think soldiers have to stay way far away from violating Geneva rules visavi interrogation. But does our intelligence agency have to? No, I don't think so.
As far as Gitmo, there was a further quote from Patreus, it sounds like the responsible closing of Gitmo is something that he stands behind. I guess I just have to agree to disagree on that one having been down there and seen it, I just think it works. I hate to say that, I know there's a whole bunch of other considerations that we use to make decisions nowadays, i.e. does it feel good? Does it make other people that we're fighting against feel good? Does it ... you know I don't buy the theory that there was a lot of right-minded people over there who were driven over to the Jihadist side by the existence of Guantanamo Bay. I just don't. I think that they're crazier than that to think that they sit there with a check list and say "well, I was on the right side of this just enjoying my tea this morning, but they haven't closed that Gitmo down. I'm gonna become a Jihadist." I don't buy that. I think they're crazy, I think what runs through their veins is croaking westerners, infidels, and Jews, and they get up every morning and that's their life blood. So, I think think it runs a lot deeper and it's a lot more corrosive, than them, like I said,than them going over a punch list of things that bother them and the indignity of Gitmo is not a big ticket, I think.
I think that -- I'd be surprised if Patreus doesn't change down the road if they start to find that everybody has a reason they don't want this. And indeed, they won't put wind farms in most places. You really want a terrorist out there spinning his 'copter hat? Of course you don't. They're going to end up saying, "Guess what? They might be in the best place right now." As I would be willing to come around if I was presented with enough evidence, and again I concur completely with Patreus that our soldiers should adhere strictly to Geneva techniques when it comes to interrogation. I do think that in 99% of the cases so should our CIA, even though these guys on the other side have not adhered to Geneva at all. I also have to leave open the possibility that somewhere along the line, if it dictates it, if it's going to save lives, that you waterboard them. If you want to call that torture, fine. Whatever you want to call it, I'm just calling it "waterboarding".
Dennis: I think I was somewhat inconsistent in the last couple of segments when I queried the caller as to why John McCain's opinion on torture would change his mind and then saying Patreus would change my mind. All I can say about John McCain is, he was tortured so I certainly understand some sort of reflexive aversion to it. I'd be intrigued to find out if John was ever waterboarded, though. I know he was tortured. I have not heard him specify that he was waterboarded. And indeed if he was given the "Torture a la Carte" menu in the Hanoi Hilton, it probably would've been the one that he would have preferred.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Sadly, but not surprisingly ... a very leftist college friend of mine "joined" which is what brought it to my attention.
It has such nuggets of activism as:
"Telling Dick Cheney to shut the hell up 100,000 fans of telling Dick Cheney to shut the hell up? Looks like we'll hit it tonight. The people have spoken! Why won't Dick listen? Discuss."
Leftist Activism. A lot of yelling and screaming to make themselves feel good about themselves, and as part of a group. And telling anybody they don't agree with to shut the hell up.
Now in her defense she goes on to talk about how appeals courts need to take more time with their decisions and think about how their decisions will be used in future court cases and what effect that will have. Which is true. That's they way our court system works, for better or worse. We use precedent a lot.
Clearly, she knows she said something wrong, though. One wonders what she would have gone on to say had she not remembered she was being taped.
When you think about how your judicial decisions will be used in the future, you shouldn't be basing it on whether or not it'll likely mean more, say, Latinos, or Purple Polka-Dotted people in jail. You should be ensuring that your decision is consistent with the intent of the law as the lawmakers wrote it, and whether or not it is inconsistent with the Constitution. Not on empathy for any particular group, or what you'd like to see or the direction you'd like to steer society.
The thought of a judge dismissing the facts in a case as secondary to this thought process should scare the crap out of you as a citizen possibly directly subject to a judgment that was handed down -- with a soft focus on the facts of a case.
The cavalier attitude with which it was laughed off is cause for concern, especially when coupled with what I talked about in my previous post.
“I would hope that a wise European-American man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn’t lived that life” - Same statment, gender and race reversed.
One is racist and sexist, and the other is not. Apparently. All I did was switch the relative position of gender and race. So obviously, the difference doesn't have anything to do with race or gender. Which is the definition of racism and sexism. And stuff.
No, no, no. Clearly ... since ALL I DID was just reverse race and gender and in so doing I completely changed whether or not the statement was racist and sexist ... 180 degrees... you know, obviously.... there's no racism involved. Or sexism. In one statement. But there is in the other.
What do you mean you still don't get it?
Monday, May 25, 2009
Mr Obama has conceded, in effect, that the Bush administration was right about this. Where the previous administration went wrong was in resisting all constitutional constraints on its response. Its attitude was: “We will do whatever it takes – and that is as much as you need to know.”Because drumbeat chanting from the Left aside, I've never seen any credible evidence that Bush ran roughshod over the Constitution in any of this as far as the WOT is concerned. There was clearly a lot of legal consultation within the administration, and whenever the Supreme Court contradicted the administration, the administration ceased the activities in question.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Thursday, May 21, 2009
This guy just has to lie from beginning to end through his setup of his opposition's position in order to advance any of his ideas at all, none of which have any proof to them at all.
Sez you.He talked about "sleaze" and "Spiro Agnew" and mischaracterizes what Cheney said, and to illustrate what Cheney didn't any proof of he then spews speculation that Bush and Cheney "knew" the 9/11 attacks "were coming" and that they were going to use airliners and did nothing.
At best, he's fighting what he has defined as "lies" with what by his own definition are also "lies". I know the memo O'Donnell speaks of. It was some vague information that looked pretty important only in hindsight.
O'Donnell doesn't have any proof that Cheney doesn't have any proof, so I guess he's lying too. Of course, a lot of the evidence (TIK #1) Cheney is talking about is in the memos the Obama administration has selectively decided not to release.
So he's basically saying, "don't go listen to Cheney. Hisssssssssssss!!!!! He's EEEEEEEEEvil. Hisssssssssssssss! He's a Liar™! Hissssssssssssssss!!!" (do I detect indirect shut uppery again? And remember when Gollum convinced Frodo that Samwise was bad? Lotta hissin' goin' on there, too.)
O'Donell is on the level of the "Truthers".
Go read Cheney's words and Obama's words yourself and then watch this rabid guy's reaction and you decide who is "lying".
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
(Fire can't melt steel? Radical Christians are just as dangerous as radical Muslims? Anyone? Bueller?)
I watched the first segment on Glenn's site, uncut. Glenn correctly said they ambushed him.
On the one hand, it was partially his fault. A week or so ago he recounted a recent meeting on a train between himself and Barbara Walters and Whoopie Goldberg. And he made it sound as if the meeting was uncomfortable for him due to judgementalism he perceived on their part.
Now if you don't believe that the judgementalism he perceived was there and real (which Woopie boldly admitted upfront), I've got some property in the Everglades to sell you -- BUT ... that's not the point. He gave them ammo BEFORE his guest appearance -- and they used it.
When Whoopie saw his characterization of their meeting, she was offended. I'm sure Barbara was, too. This is because in their heads, they were trying very hard to be civil. I'm sure they were. The dual point being a) they had to try very hard, and b) their voices and body language I'm pretty sure (opinion here, I know, but I also know their political views and I know human nature. I don't think I'm stretching credulity here) gave away their feelings. Glenn's mistake was doing the bit in the first place. He may even know that now, especially if he already knows what I'm about to point out.
These women are Progressives. They disagree with him 180 degrees and at high velocity. They think he is a dangerous force in our society. And they know they have a big audience of people who, if they watched Glenn and some of them might, might actually listen to him. Glenn had to be discredited. But he's pretty hard to discredit, because he is, in fact, a pretty reasonable man, he does care about checking his facts, and he's waaaaaay more open minded than the left makes him out to be.
He's a kinder, gentler Rush Limbaugh. And I mean that in a good way.
So what did they do? First, they used his version of the story, his perception of what happened to call him a Liar™. Hitting him from both sides and making sure he didn't really have time to answer their insinuating questions, Barbara came in with prong two -- Glenn doesn't check his facts. She started with "you're an investigative reporter" ... Glenn said "no", and then ... some other kind of journalist. "No", said Glenn. I'm a commentator. "So you don't check your facts." "Liar™", and "you don't check your facts" were repeated over and over again without any time for a coherent response for the first 7 minute segment, over something frankly out of the blue (who walked up to whom when they introduced themselves on the train) so that Mr. Beck would be spending many more mental cycles on "what the heck are they talking about?" rather than have an answer to a substantive but perhaps tough question.
Glenn, that was the game plan from the beginning. Those who aren't familiar with you and weren't paying attention to what was going on ... after that first 7 minute segment had two take-aways. 1) Glenn Beck is a Liar™ . 2) Glenn Beck doesn't check his facts.
Glenn Beck is untrustworthy. Don't listen to this man. (a sublter form of shut uppery. It's don't listen-ery).
Mission accomplished. It doesn't matter that they were full of shit about a bogus "issue". That's what the majority of their audience probably came away with and that was their intent.
The second segment went a little better. After Joy Behar said that she never heard him criticizing Bush and the Republicans (which Glenn quickly pointed out that she never watched his show, and she had to agree -- I know he's right because I have watched and listened to his shows and I've heard him make just such statements and arguments) ... after that, he got to talk about the fact that the parties stand for getting people in their parties elected. And there was much applause.
At one point Barbara said "you cry, it's one of your trademarks", and then asked what his real convictions are. Glenn complained that he was being made fun of "on the quintessential chick show" for crying. Barbara objected, but the show opened with Joy asking him if he was really crying or if he had to pull some eyelashes to cry. I don't blame him for being defensive.
Anyway, that's my take on it.
Does Sarah Palin think Africa is a continent or a country?
I don't know, does Barack Obama think there are 50 states or 57? Does Barack Obama think there is an Austrian language? Does he think a tornado in Kansas really killed more than three times, almost four times -- as many people (10,000) than were killed in the WTC on 9/11? Does he think Iraqis and Afghans speak the same language?
And let's not get started on Biden. Ms. Behar.
Like this one:
Obama to have military pledge oath to President rather than to Constitution.
Apparently satire. I don't think he's that stupid. But it was worth checking out. Just don't "pass it on". Stuff like this doesn't help anybody's credibility. Always check first, or at LEAST say you haven't checked it out if you haven't.
I got it in a private email from someone who was asking me if it was true. That works, too.
Thus they completely duck the issue that the word "Socialist" actually means something, and it's not just mindless name calling. Thus they try to duck the argument.
Once again, by getting you to ... "Shut Up".
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Rarely has an official from one administration moved so quickly and aggressively to criticize a new president.
I had to respond.
Rarely has a new administration and it’s lackeys in congress spent so much of their "Progressive”, “MoveOn”, Hopey, Changey time sniping at the previous administration while making rumblings about proscecution.
Well not here anyway. Happens a lot in third world countries. Which is where we seem to be headed.
Besides, I thought Dissent is Patriotic™.
Isn't Cheney just being a Patriot?
Oh, that's right. We went through a Change™.
Shut Uppery in action.
Well Emporer Misha of Anti-Idiotarian fame ... apparently has about the same story. As my local academic friend does. And there are lots of others.
Most casual readers of the Rottweiler would likely be taken by surprise by this, as I was. But good on you, Misha.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Friday, May 15, 2009
I find the Westborough Baptist Church's behavior disgusting. Abhorrent. Idiotic.
But to my knowledge they have not killed anyone nor advocated, as a matter of Church Policy, killing anyone.
That all being said, they were apparently here protesting a domestic partnership registry recently approved in Columbia. (As an aside, I'm ok with that although I still don't think the government should be involved in such things).
And I was watching the news last night, and the anchor started the report out by saying that a "Hate Group™" was here in town to protest it. That was the story headline, and that was the term used throughout the story referring to them.
Now ... I don't really have a huge problem with calling them a group that "hates", as you can see "God Hates You" on their protest signs and all... so saying they "hate" is really not my issue.
Again, it's the double-standard. They were here to protest. They did nothing illegal. They were exercising their rights to assemble and associate and speak freely.
The media won't call terrorists terrorists, but they can call an obnoxious church group a "Hate Group™".
And the ™ I put there for a reason. It signifies that the term is being used as more than an adjective, more than a label, even -- almost a brand name -- and it's a brand being bestowed upon things by self-appointed branders, like the FDA of culture. For that same label is used on every commentator on Fox News, as well as Glenn Beck (well I guess he is a Fox News commentator now), Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Charles Krauthamer, Mark Steyn, etc, etc, etc. It's Newspeak. You aren't supposed to think about, or even listen to what they have to say to form your own opinion. They're just ungood, and that's all you need to know. Just be faithful to Big Brother and ignore them.
As a matter of fact, since I have actually listened to and read quite a bit from these people (Beck, Steyn et al, not Westborough), I know immediately anyone who labels them as Haters™ is either deliberately misleading or they have never actually listened to anything more than soundbites taken out of context if they have heard or read anything at all by any of them. The Hate Labelers™ are merely instructing you what to believe.
Journalists say they are impartial, just reporting the facts. No judgements. That's what the "we can't call them terrorists" meme is about.
Well here's the facts. Westborough Baptist Church. Where they're from. Who they are. Here's what they've done. Here's why they say they're here. Here's pictures of them and their signs. This is what happened. We report. You decide. That's the way it's supposed to work.
You do that, report some of the tactics they've used, and you'll find that most of us will decide they're disgusting idiots.
But if you can call them a Hate Group™, why can't you call someone who purposely targets civilians with the intent of inflicting fear on other civilians to pressure them into supporting their political goals .... a terrorist?
Update: Last night's headline covering a "peaceful alternative" protest to Westborough's protest. Only it really wasn't an alternative protest, it was an opposing protest. An alternative is a different way to accomplish the same thing.
The headline? "Fighting Hate With Peace"
IMHO, the best way to fight groups like Westborough is to ignore them.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Here's this byronic French poet with big hair, lost in a tangle of abstract nouns and this is what passes for "intellectual" to the casual observer.Hmmm.... sound like anyone else getting lots of glowing headlines over the last year and a half or so? Brilliant. I don't know anything about Dominique, but the phrasing describes so many people, actually -- to a "T".
In February, California's Democratic-controlled Legislature, faced with a $42 billion budget deficit, trimmed $74 million (1.4 percent) from one of the state's fastest growing programs, which provides care for low-income and incapacitated elderly and cost the state $5.42 billion last year. The Los Angeles Times reports that "loose oversight and bureaucratic inertia have allowed fraud to fester."Federal aid --> Dependency --> Coersion
But the Service Employees International Union collects nearly $5 million a month from 223,000 caregivers who are members. And the Obama administration has told California that unless the $74 million in cuts are rescinded, it will deny the state $6.8 billion in stimulus money.
Like a drug dealer handing out free samples.
We have come far from the Founders' vision.
Update: Just listening to yesterday's Dennis Miller Show and his interview with Mark Steyn, and Steyn nutshells another reason pretty nicely as well:
The short version of what has happened in the entire western world western governments have out-spent this generation. So now the question is can they out-spend the children and grandchildren who haven't yet been born?But it's all ok. Susan Roesgen says our $400 tax breaks will make up for it all.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
But he's been busy out at Pajamas Media, and doing good things. I wouldn't expect anything else from him.
His whole blog at http://www.ejectejecteject.com/ has been moved over to Pajamas Media, but his important, excellent essays seem to have lost their index. I had them indexed on my blog, but those pointers now just get re-directed to his home PJMedia page.
A very minor complaint I have. But then again, I have bought three copies of his book. One to give to my step son when he went to Iraq. One to lend out. And the other is mine.
Of particular interest to me are two videos he has out there. Bill's a video editor out in California, so he knows a thing or two about putting one together. It's simple. Mainly him as a commentator. Well done.
One is The Truth about the Atomic Bombs. The other is What Media Bias Really Costs the Republic.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
For God's sake, tell people to read a newspaper. Not just to save the newspaper industry - though Lord knows I'd miss my Daily Jumble - but because having a public that actually knows something is our best defense against ever again electing a President who knows nothing.Read: tell people to get their news through Progressive Outlets so that never again will they elect a president who disagrees with the Progressive worldview.
There's a name for people who do the right thing for their country, even if it involves sacrifice. And no, it's not "socialists." It's "patriots." We all know the modern definition of a patriot: It's the person who pays the least taxes and listens to the most A.M. radio. But that wasn't what it always meant.The country isn't the government. The Constitution put limits on Federal Government power that has been ignored for decades. A very large portion of that abuse has been by people with socialist ideals, slowly but surely making more and more people more and more reliant on government and less and less reliant on themselves and their immediate communities. If the people who pay the least taxes and listen to the most A.M. radio happen to be against this trend and for a return to limited government, then they are patriots -- not because of the former two traits but because of the latter two.
Patriots want their fellow citizens to be able to go to the hospital. They want to make sure no one sells them bread made out of Chinese skulls. They want a country where the deer and the antelope can still play - and not just so Sarah Palin can shoot them from a helicopter. Patriots want to burn less coal and buy less oil.The country isn't your neighbor, either. The country isn't your Nanny. The Country was outlined in the Constitution. It's an ideal, and it says nothing about hospitals, skull bread, or wildlife management practices uninformed people may find distasteful.
During the campaign, Obama suggested that one simple thing Americans could do to help with fuel-efficiency was check their car's tire pressure. And Republicans freaked, because to them, every suggestion for the common good is a direct attack on their personal liberty, and it's unpatriotic to interfere with anyone's God-given right to be big, dumb and selfish.Maher is convienently
When the President suggests things that will help the greater good, that's not a slight against your fragile manhood. I know, you're a rugged individualist. But you're not - you're just a schmuck.Ah, on to the belittling. And name-calling. You know, things you need to do to attempt to make it sound like you have an argument when you really don't. And history shows that every time someone goes on about government forcing people to do things for "the greater good" or "the common good" it seems to end up in tyranny and leaving massive numbers of dead people in its wake. So pardon us for flinching when that term gets used.
Going back to Reagan, all of our leaders have predictably and reliably told us that government is always the problem, never you my precious, perfect American citizen. You are always perfect just the way you are, like a precious little snowflake. A beautiful, precious, 350-pound, pig-ignorant snowflake.And they told us why and gave examples with data to back it up rather than calling us more names or ridiculing our choices because you know better, Mr. Maher. Liberty is about choices. And people reap the rewards of their good ones, and suffer the consequences of their bad ones. It's not that we think all Americans are perfect and should never change. We just don't presume to tell them that we know they aren't and try to dictate how and when they will change.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Friday, May 08, 2009
Now I work in the main building for our department, but we have another building about a mile away that houses a signigicant portion of our employees. It was that other building where he worked, and that other building where he entered with the item(s) in question.
In the newspaper story, they had the guy bringing it into THIS building, though. It was an assumption, I'm sure, as this is where the Director for the department works. The main office is here. Since our department is listed as being in this building, the reporter likely assumed that this is where the incident took place. But the reporter reported, but obviously didn't ask.
The reporter also got at least one other fact wrong, but that fact probably came from a question the reporter presumably asked.
Now we talk about "I read it somewhere", or "I read in the news", and we hear newspeople say their reporting isn't biased. Not that this story wasn't reported fairly, and that second fact wasn't corrected the next day. However, reading the paper the first "fact", that this building was the location ... that will probably be left.
The whole point of this post is this. We all have biases. Biases can lead to assumptions, and assumptions aren't facts. If 80% of the people in the press are progressives, which direction do you suppose most of the assumptions that slip through as facts ... tend to go?
There was a free regional tourism promoting magazine in the motel lobby. I had to pick this one up.
It sums up soooooo much.
Thomas Sowell, while not talking about the tea parties at all, still makes a nice summary here about why those of us who went to them, went to them. This really does sum up what they were all about. And they weren't about Obama himself, they were about the leftist vision. The big-government vision, which goes way beyond Big Government's current head champion.
Barack Obama's vision of America is one in which a President of the United States can fire the head of General Motors, tell banks how to bank, control the medical system and take charge of all sorts of other activities for which neither he nor other politicians have any expertise or experience.Condescending and snide comments in the media about odd sexual practices aside, the Media made the point that the original Boston Tea Party was about "Taxation Without Representation", and since today's Tea Partiers have representation (well, we are allowed to vote in elections anyway) -- they must be ignorant of history. No attempt was made to understand -- from the Tea Party Protester's point of view -- why they were there. A few frustrated ignorant redneck racists. Nothing to see here. And aren't they funny? They don't even know about "tea bagging". [snicker ... aren't we smart?? ... tee hee! ]
The Constitution of the United States gives no president, nor the entire federal government, the authority to do such things. But spending trillions of dollars to bail out all sorts of companies buys the power to tell them how to operate.
Appointing judges to the federal courts-- including the Supreme Court-- who believe in expanding the powers of the federal government to make arbitrary decisions, choosing who will be winners and losers in the economy and in the society, is perfectly consistent with a vision of the world where self-confident and self-righteous elites rule according to their own notions, instead of merely governing under the restraints of the Constitution.
The Purveyors of Nuance™ never stopped to draw any other possible parallel with the original Boston Tea Party. The main rallying issue was indeed taxation without representation, but it was really about being fed up with an overbearing, tyrannical government and abuses of power -- taxation without representation being a glaring example.
Our founding fathers went to great lengths in the Constitution to curb and restrain government power. Democrats and Republicans alike have abused these restraints over the years -- clearly Democrats far more than Republicans, to be sure. But both are guilty, and both were admonished at the tea parties. To hear the media talk, these were organized by Republicans for Republicans.
There is a reason the number of people who identify themselves as conservative outnumber the people who identify themselves as Republicans. The reason is that most people who are conservatives (a label that gets applied these days to Classical Liberals such as the founding fathers... that's why I tend to use the word "Progressive" these days over "Liberal". It doesn't mean what it used to mean, but Progressives want it both ways. I don't want to give it to them) ... anyway, the reason is that more conservatives tend to consider themselves independents. Their allegiance is to the Constitution, not to a political party. They tend to vote Republican, but swear no fealty to the party and may punish it by voting independent or not at all if the party doesn't offer up someone who represents their ideals well enough.
This is what I mean by Republicans needing to deepen their base rather than broaden it.
The other nuance that the progressive media miss is that printing up trillions of dollars in new, un-backed money amounts to a huge tax, no matter what you call it. You either devalue the dollar to give the government the authority to spend this new money ... amounting to a transfer of wealth from the people to the Government, or you put the burden of paying that "borrowed" money on future generations. Just because you don't call it a tax doesn't mean it doesn't amount to the same thing.
When most people are against it, but most legislators vote for it... isn't that taxation without representation? They may have been elected, but they ain't representin'.
The "reporter" who got in the face of one protester about Obama's big tax "cut" was laughable. And the argument that the Bush Administration pushed through a big bailout package isn't an argument -- the people at these protests were against that, too. It goes back to that party allegiance thing. Democrats assume that Conservatives blindly support Republicans. In most cases, they reluctantly support Republicans because the only viable alternative is far worse.
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
Appoint enough Supreme Court justices with "empathy" for particular groups and you would have, for all practical purposes, repealed the 14th Amendment, which guarantees "equal protection of the laws" for all Americans.
A progressive member starts in with the passive-aggressive giggle of dismissal, and then the condescending "you mean you watch Fox News?"
And the conservative member says "Yup. Fair and balanced."
More giggles. "Oh, gosh! Do you know how many lies they tell?"
Now normally when this progressive member disparages Fox News (this is certainly not the first time) I keep my mouth shut in the name of family harmony. Which I think, unfortunately, only re-enforces the idea in such people's minds that their assertion is correct.
But I decided I needed to chime in this time. The giggles are one thing. The condescension I usually gloss over. But the "lies" thing. I wasn't going to let that drop.
"No. I don't know. Tell me a lie Fox News has told."
Giggles. "Well I don't watch it."
"So you don't watch it, but you know they tell lies? How do you know they tell lies?"
"Well I read somewhere..."
"You read somewhere? How do you know that wasn't a lie?"
"Well I don't. They all do it, that's what I'm saying."
"Then why single out Fox?"
"Well I read somewhere that they were the worst."
"And you believe what you read?"
"Well let's not get into anything political. Why can't people just talk about things anymore?"
Why not indeed. Who brought it up? Who got nasty about it?
Fortunately, I suppose, the phone rang. It was for the progressive.
So I'm sitting here thinking ... "Fox News lies, but you don't have any examples and you don't watch it. They all lie, but you know Fox is 'the worst' because you read something one of the other liars wrote?"
The problem is, they're used to people either politely keeping quiet, backing down, or patting them on the head for echoing what they've been instructed to believe and many others have accepted ... typically the people they hang out with.
Don't let it happen anymore. When anyone tries to espouse how "hateful" conservative-friendly networks and show hosts are, make them back it up. Watch them back down. Stop an echo.