Tuesday, August 25, 2009
"Animal Farm" or Politics in a Nutshell.
I might have been a bit hard on Obama in the preceding posts, and I want to make it clear that though I may occasionally disagree with his methods, being an American I will continue to support his efforts in any way I can. It is to be hoped that lacking any means of feedback between the American citizenry and the Obama administration and/or Congress, that perhaps somebody in Washington cares enough to skim through blogs from time to time to gauge their own performance and perhaps make adjustments when necessary. A much more civilized discourse, I think, than bleating like sheep at townhall meetings: “Four legs good! Two legs bad!” (see George Orwell’s Animal Farm).
Pursuing this analogy further, and knowing who most of the other characters in Animal Farm represent in our current political climate, I think it is important right now to find out who is our current Napoleon. Here’s a hint: it is not Obama.
P.S. Why are congressmen and the President wasting so much time with townhall meetings anyway? Do they actually think these individual, limited access events are in any way indicative of the national mood? Even FDR knew enough to communicate through fireside chats on the radio, hoping for the greatest audience. This is intelligent use of broadcasting media, and now with the internet, they don't even need to go for prime time, just use official, non-partisan e-mails—keep the troops informed.
Pursuing this analogy further, and knowing who most of the other characters in Animal Farm represent in our current political climate, I think it is important right now to find out who is our current Napoleon. Here’s a hint: it is not Obama.
P.S. Why are congressmen and the President wasting so much time with townhall meetings anyway? Do they actually think these individual, limited access events are in any way indicative of the national mood? Even FDR knew enough to communicate through fireside chats on the radio, hoping for the greatest audience. This is intelligent use of broadcasting media, and now with the internet, they don't even need to go for prime time, just use official, non-partisan e-mails—keep the troops informed.
Friday, August 21, 2009
Misguided good intentions are usually worse than inaction.
Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, the lone man convicted in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103, has been released from prison in Scotland. He has been diagnosed with terminal prostate cancer, and the Scottish correctional people or whomever the Scottish put in charge of rubber-stamping things, decided to take pity on him and allow him to spend his final days back in Libya with his peeps.
Here is why that was a bone-headed thing for Scotland to do:
By allowing Megrahi out of jail on his feet instead of in a box, the Scots have taken the bad feelings stemming from a heinous act upon themselves instead of where these feelings rightfully belong. By allowing him his dignity, they have affirmed that the right to grant leniency is not a power given to the victims of a crime, but an arbitrary decision based on some governmental, probably fiduciary expediency.
The 270 victims had their lives stolen from them in a fiery midair blast, their final seconds spent falling to earth in flames or in the town of Lockerbie, looking up at the sky just in time to be engulfed in falling wreckage. Not much dignity in that; yet the Scottish authorities feel justified in denying the full measure of justice granted by law to the families of the survivors. It was very arrogant of them to presuppose mercy without consulting all of the victims’ surviving families for approval.
A diagnosis of prostate cancer, whether deemed terminal or not, is still a situation subject to change, and now that Megrahi is free and back among loved ones, who’s to say that a ‘miraculous recovery’ for him is not now imminent? Megrahi was not merely a dying man, pathetic and sorrowful, repository of mercy at the hands of his fellow man; above all else he was a symbol of the inevitability of justice under the law. A mass-murderer held fully accountable for his crimes, and as such, any measure of pity granted to him was at cost to the credibility of so-called punishment by legal justice. It is amazing to me that the Scottish felt they were somehow empowered to go against the laws of justice and grant clemency where they were not in any way entitled to do so.
Megrahi was treated to a hero’s welcome when he deplaned in Tripoli, thereby granting legitimacy in the eleventh hour to the actions he was convicted of committing back in 1988. Way to go, Scotland!
Here is why that was a bone-headed thing for Scotland to do:
By allowing Megrahi out of jail on his feet instead of in a box, the Scots have taken the bad feelings stemming from a heinous act upon themselves instead of where these feelings rightfully belong. By allowing him his dignity, they have affirmed that the right to grant leniency is not a power given to the victims of a crime, but an arbitrary decision based on some governmental, probably fiduciary expediency.
The 270 victims had their lives stolen from them in a fiery midair blast, their final seconds spent falling to earth in flames or in the town of Lockerbie, looking up at the sky just in time to be engulfed in falling wreckage. Not much dignity in that; yet the Scottish authorities feel justified in denying the full measure of justice granted by law to the families of the survivors. It was very arrogant of them to presuppose mercy without consulting all of the victims’ surviving families for approval.
A diagnosis of prostate cancer, whether deemed terminal or not, is still a situation subject to change, and now that Megrahi is free and back among loved ones, who’s to say that a ‘miraculous recovery’ for him is not now imminent? Megrahi was not merely a dying man, pathetic and sorrowful, repository of mercy at the hands of his fellow man; above all else he was a symbol of the inevitability of justice under the law. A mass-murderer held fully accountable for his crimes, and as such, any measure of pity granted to him was at cost to the credibility of so-called punishment by legal justice. It is amazing to me that the Scottish felt they were somehow empowered to go against the laws of justice and grant clemency where they were not in any way entitled to do so.
Megrahi was treated to a hero’s welcome when he deplaned in Tripoli, thereby granting legitimacy in the eleventh hour to the actions he was convicted of committing back in 1988. Way to go, Scotland!
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Gold, the true key to change.
I am more than a little disgusted that the donations I made to the Obama campaign last year were also donations to the Democratic National Committee. I realize of course that it was necessary to dislodge as many Republicans as possible in order to grant clear control to a party that was professing a progressive agenda, but it stands to reason that the campaign promises of the DNC’s candidate would reflect the platform of the DNC. Unfortunately, it seems that indeed it does—except that as opposed to Obama being the leader he was advertised to be, he seems content to take all his marching orders from the DNC no matter how inane and conflicted these orders may be.
So Obama won the presidency and the democrats gained the control they said they needed to bring about real change in Washington. Unfortunately, this control has been handled by the DNC in such a way as to fully validate the reputation Democrats have for being the biggest wastrels in Washington. They have the control, yet they insist on courting this myth of bipartisanship, riding it like a burning Kamikaze plane into the decks of an already burning ship of state. And as usual, Washington again falls into their adversarial role against the American citizenry. The lobbyists and special interests are still the strongest voices in Washington.
I still get e-mails from Organizing For America; people like Mitch Stewart, and occasionally I get requests for feedback on the President’s proposals. Inevitably, these communiques’ are sprinkled liberally with little blue ‘donate’ links. These links when followed all take your donation to the same place: not the OFA, but instead to the DNC. The feedback requests once completed bring you to a donation page, and sometimes the feedback requests are closed to further input by the time one gets to them. Obama & Co. made great strides regarding the positive political uses of the internet, but as with the rest of his presidency, progressive agenda is gradually devolving into status quo. Its not about progress, its all about maintenance of the marginally functional DNC (they are rated marginal only because the RNC rates a full dysfunctional classification).
It kinda figures that Washington still would only listen to people willing to pay.
So Obama won the presidency and the democrats gained the control they said they needed to bring about real change in Washington. Unfortunately, this control has been handled by the DNC in such a way as to fully validate the reputation Democrats have for being the biggest wastrels in Washington. They have the control, yet they insist on courting this myth of bipartisanship, riding it like a burning Kamikaze plane into the decks of an already burning ship of state. And as usual, Washington again falls into their adversarial role against the American citizenry. The lobbyists and special interests are still the strongest voices in Washington.
I still get e-mails from Organizing For America; people like Mitch Stewart, and occasionally I get requests for feedback on the President’s proposals. Inevitably, these communiques’ are sprinkled liberally with little blue ‘donate’ links. These links when followed all take your donation to the same place: not the OFA, but instead to the DNC. The feedback requests once completed bring you to a donation page, and sometimes the feedback requests are closed to further input by the time one gets to them. Obama & Co. made great strides regarding the positive political uses of the internet, but as with the rest of his presidency, progressive agenda is gradually devolving into status quo. Its not about progress, its all about maintenance of the marginally functional DNC (they are rated marginal only because the RNC rates a full dysfunctional classification).
It kinda figures that Washington still would only listen to people willing to pay.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
The second amendment gives us the right to bear arms not to bully with them.
At recent “townhall meetings” in AZ and NH, states where it is legal to carry a loaded firearm in public, local dimwits have been showing up to these political events bearing small sidearms. In two instances, these included CAR-15 assault rifles, locked and loaded.
Since assault rifles are not intended for deer or duck hunting, but intended for use on human targets, I can only deduce from this that said dimwits were bearing arms in an attempt to intimidate anyone who disagrees with them. Ostensibly to assert their by-god Constitutional rights to free speech and to bear arms (let my friend Mr. Blammo do the talking), the real reasoning here, if such a term could be used in reference to such moronic behavior, is to threaten anyone with political views that differ from theirs.
It is obvious to see that the potential for mayhem here is too great to be ignored. If gun owners show the remarkable lack of common sense to go to a political rally armed, then gun-control advocates (of which I am not one) have more “ammunition” in the debate to further their cause. In short, these same pro 2nd amendment jokers, through their obvious lack of judgment skills, are going to inspire congress to pass the very gun control laws that are so onerous to maintenance of liberty in America.
Guns are not for threatening violence, they are tools intended to implement violence. To any reasonable gun owner, they are tools to be kept in reserve and to only be displayed in times of great national distress; times where there is a clear and present danger to our freedoms. No matter how much the agenda-driven media blows the health care debate out of proportion, this is not the case in America right now.
I would like to make it very clear right now that I am not intimidated by these morons, either armed with words or with bullets. I think I am far from alone in feeling this way, and posers with assault rifles should take note that once visual intimidation fails, they might have to actually shoot somebody. I doubt these people will have the stomach for it.
It is only to be hoped that these gun-totin’ “patriots” took the precaution of having a gunsmith file down the front sight tip of their toys, so that when those of us with little tolerance for this nonsense shove them up their asses, it won’t hurt as much.
Since assault rifles are not intended for deer or duck hunting, but intended for use on human targets, I can only deduce from this that said dimwits were bearing arms in an attempt to intimidate anyone who disagrees with them. Ostensibly to assert their by-god Constitutional rights to free speech and to bear arms (let my friend Mr. Blammo do the talking), the real reasoning here, if such a term could be used in reference to such moronic behavior, is to threaten anyone with political views that differ from theirs.
It is obvious to see that the potential for mayhem here is too great to be ignored. If gun owners show the remarkable lack of common sense to go to a political rally armed, then gun-control advocates (of which I am not one) have more “ammunition” in the debate to further their cause. In short, these same pro 2nd amendment jokers, through their obvious lack of judgment skills, are going to inspire congress to pass the very gun control laws that are so onerous to maintenance of liberty in America.
Guns are not for threatening violence, they are tools intended to implement violence. To any reasonable gun owner, they are tools to be kept in reserve and to only be displayed in times of great national distress; times where there is a clear and present danger to our freedoms. No matter how much the agenda-driven media blows the health care debate out of proportion, this is not the case in America right now.
I would like to make it very clear right now that I am not intimidated by these morons, either armed with words or with bullets. I think I am far from alone in feeling this way, and posers with assault rifles should take note that once visual intimidation fails, they might have to actually shoot somebody. I doubt these people will have the stomach for it.
It is only to be hoped that these gun-totin’ “patriots” took the precaution of having a gunsmith file down the front sight tip of their toys, so that when those of us with little tolerance for this nonsense shove them up their asses, it won’t hurt as much.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
The dew is now off the lily.
It has been months since my last post, and during that time I have chosen to observe that which has taken place since the election and let Obama have some time to unfuck some of the issues that plague this country. It is a monumental task, two wars, an economic collapse, unemployment numbers through the roof and a reputation abroad well-tainted by king George’s tomfooleries. I was confident he was up to the challenge.
But what I have observed during the last nine months and that I find to be most galling is that the pussy Democrats (of which Obama is apparently a member), seem to be quite non-plussed with the petty bickering of the powerless Republicans; and they are slavishly over-attentive to the Republican’s imbecilic objections so consistently raised to anything that might resemble true reform. They (the Democrats) are so obsessed with this myth of bi-partisanship that they are willing to ignore the voters who kicked the Republicans to the curb in ’08 in favor of allowing all attempts at getting things done to be metered and severely limited by these same, powerless Republicans. The tail is definitely wagging the dog here.
Democrats take heed. The Democratic victory in ’08 was not a victory for the Democrats! It was an overwhelming rejection of Washington status quo. The Demopublicans and Republicrats need to pull their head out of their collective asses and respond to popular needs, even perhaps when the overall good of the country might require decisions not favorable with their home constituencies. We the voters have given the Washington clown posse long enough, and the Dems, if they don’t seize the reigns given to them by the American citizenry and make something happen, then there will be an anti-encumbency drive in the 2010 elections, not of politicians, but of parties. Both the Republicans and the Democrats are looking at a possible third-party resurgence that will leave them both wondering what happened in 2010. I’m thinking the Libertarians.
Partisans, you have been warned.
But what I have observed during the last nine months and that I find to be most galling is that the pussy Democrats (of which Obama is apparently a member), seem to be quite non-plussed with the petty bickering of the powerless Republicans; and they are slavishly over-attentive to the Republican’s imbecilic objections so consistently raised to anything that might resemble true reform. They (the Democrats) are so obsessed with this myth of bi-partisanship that they are willing to ignore the voters who kicked the Republicans to the curb in ’08 in favor of allowing all attempts at getting things done to be metered and severely limited by these same, powerless Republicans. The tail is definitely wagging the dog here.
Democrats take heed. The Democratic victory in ’08 was not a victory for the Democrats! It was an overwhelming rejection of Washington status quo. The Demopublicans and Republicrats need to pull their head out of their collective asses and respond to popular needs, even perhaps when the overall good of the country might require decisions not favorable with their home constituencies. We the voters have given the Washington clown posse long enough, and the Dems, if they don’t seize the reigns given to them by the American citizenry and make something happen, then there will be an anti-encumbency drive in the 2010 elections, not of politicians, but of parties. Both the Republicans and the Democrats are looking at a possible third-party resurgence that will leave them both wondering what happened in 2010. I’m thinking the Libertarians.
Partisans, you have been warned.
