It is simply unimaginable to the left that there are any rational minds opposing them. The majority of news channels, newspapers, entertainment channels, and pretty much anything out of Hollywood comes from the single viewpoint of the left. It is very probable that a person can go throughout their early years and reach their twenties without ever hearing a conservative point of view.
Oh, they might hear the isolated pundit or candidate argue for a responsible stance, but it is unlikely that they would ever really be engaged by a conservative explaining their views. The propensity to scream and name call their ideological opponents makes it even less likely that a non-pundit conservative would stick their neck out and confront a leftist idea that really needs to be challenged.
So, when a leftist encounters a conservative on Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, or any of the other fine conservative talkers and writers, they are shocked to hear a viewpoint that disagrees with what they have been spoon fed for years. They may disagree or simply not understand the new viewpoint to which they are being exposed, but they don't think it's reasonable to disagree with everything they have always heard. So ideas such as the Orwellian Fairness Doctorine or Net Neutrality appeal to them.
The rank and file leftist simply doesn't realize that by shutting down conservative voices they are crushing the diversity that they really need, diversity of thought.
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Friday, July 31, 2009
Naturally Wrong
"Then the idiot who praises with enthusiastic tone, all centuries but this and every country but his own." The Mikado.
Although possibly a function of malignant egalitarianism, the penchant for the left for firing off snarky remarks aimed at our country bears comment.
I have heard recently in various social circumstances a remark that Mexican children are more sweet and respectful than American children. This gem came from the a public school teacher and mother of American children.
This woman was perfectly comfortable slandering her own children along with her students just to satisfy her snarky self indulgent desire to appear more "enlightened." The comical element of this is that the Mexican children in question were so impoverished that they needed a well off American to come and teach them.
I have also heard in a social gathering about how American's have "a lot to learn about our medical care system from Canada." This idiot was funny in that there was no evidence provided nor was any needed. It was merely accepted as a fact that we Americans would of course be provincial and ill-informed.
When asked to explain, with some specific challenges both quickly retreated from their obviously foolish remarks. Usually something as simple as "Canada is kinda close, you might want to emigrate there instead of denigrating the system here." or "I am sorry you aren't satisfied with your own children's sweetness and courtesy."
These two examples have an unquestioned idea that the foreign is sophisticated and the domestic is somehow naturally inferior. Both Naturally wrong.
Although possibly a function of malignant egalitarianism, the penchant for the left for firing off snarky remarks aimed at our country bears comment.
I have heard recently in various social circumstances a remark that Mexican children are more sweet and respectful than American children. This gem came from the a public school teacher and mother of American children.
This woman was perfectly comfortable slandering her own children along with her students just to satisfy her snarky self indulgent desire to appear more "enlightened." The comical element of this is that the Mexican children in question were so impoverished that they needed a well off American to come and teach them.
I have also heard in a social gathering about how American's have "a lot to learn about our medical care system from Canada." This idiot was funny in that there was no evidence provided nor was any needed. It was merely accepted as a fact that we Americans would of course be provincial and ill-informed.
When asked to explain, with some specific challenges both quickly retreated from their obviously foolish remarks. Usually something as simple as "Canada is kinda close, you might want to emigrate there instead of denigrating the system here." or "I am sorry you aren't satisfied with your own children's sweetness and courtesy."
These two examples have an unquestioned idea that the foreign is sophisticated and the domestic is somehow naturally inferior. Both Naturally wrong.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Magnificent contempt
The behavior of Barack Obama in the context of his treatment of the police officer who arrested his professor friend is contemptible, but beyond that. It is contemptible on an absolute scale. invoking the power of the presidential bully pulpit down on an individual police officer and calling the man stupid is magnificently contemptible.
No one private person should be singled out for derision by a man in the position of the president, a man who holds sway over a literal and figurative army of people whether they are administrative beurocrats such as IRS agents, military and police personal or the slavish allies in the mainstream media.
The focus of attention this police officer will receive in the coming days will make his life a living hell.
It's really a pity that the main stream media didn't do their duty during the run up to the presidential election. We could have used some of that powerful scrutiny in avoiding this calamitous president and his contempt for others.
No one private person should be singled out for derision by a man in the position of the president, a man who holds sway over a literal and figurative army of people whether they are administrative beurocrats such as IRS agents, military and police personal or the slavish allies in the mainstream media.
The focus of attention this police officer will receive in the coming days will make his life a living hell.
It's really a pity that the main stream media didn't do their duty during the run up to the presidential election. We could have used some of that powerful scrutiny in avoiding this calamitous president and his contempt for others.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Friday, July 17, 2009
Lost Language
"Bill O'Reilly is lying when he says 'most Americans oppose Sotomayor'"
Assuming contrary to this opinion piece but in line with this one that the statement of opposition to Sotomayor is false.
That would still only be half of the equation, a lie is an untrue statement intentionally communicated. How would the speaker even know what O'Reilly meant by passing on debatable information.
My principle objection to this redefinition of language is the automatic assumption that political opponents are not merely wrong but are necessarily intentionally wrong.
The "Bush lied, people died" remark is particularly odious, no advocate of this moronic little rhyme ever explained how an understandable misstatement of fact made by the President, all of his advisors, Congress, and many intelligence officers around the world was somehow an intentional misrepresentation when it was originally uttered.
Other than being arguably wrong how do they even know what his intent was.
Once again I go back to the observation I make over and over. Republicans and conservatives believe that rank and file democrats are wrong, misinformed or uninformed, Democrats and liberals believe that rank and file republicans are evil and selfish.
With this toxic atmosphere on the left we will not get a reasoned debate. I don't chant along with calls for unity, I like there to be a debate. But this has become toxic in the extreme.
Assuming contrary to this opinion piece but in line with this one that the statement of opposition to Sotomayor is false.
That would still only be half of the equation, a lie is an untrue statement intentionally communicated. How would the speaker even know what O'Reilly meant by passing on debatable information.
My principle objection to this redefinition of language is the automatic assumption that political opponents are not merely wrong but are necessarily intentionally wrong.
The "Bush lied, people died" remark is particularly odious, no advocate of this moronic little rhyme ever explained how an understandable misstatement of fact made by the President, all of his advisors, Congress, and many intelligence officers around the world was somehow an intentional misrepresentation when it was originally uttered.
Other than being arguably wrong how do they even know what his intent was.
Once again I go back to the observation I make over and over. Republicans and conservatives believe that rank and file democrats are wrong, misinformed or uninformed, Democrats and liberals believe that rank and file republicans are evil and selfish.
With this toxic atmosphere on the left we will not get a reasoned debate. I don't chant along with calls for unity, I like there to be a debate. But this has become toxic in the extreme.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Adversity sometimes reveals character
The appointment of Sotomayor could be viewed as a lasting setback to the country and to the legal profession as a whole. The good news could be that as setbacks go, Sotomayor isn't as much as a setback as a character defining instrument for leftist supporters.
Her obvious leftward slant and her rather poor attempts to conceal them have angered even liberal law proffessors that are inclined to support a true unapologetic leftist. Sotomayor is playing to win and get the appointment. As such, she says little, answers in as few words as possible and lets her democrat defenders in congress do most of the talking.
What she is effectively doing, however, is displaying the profound lack of experience, executive ability and character that the Obama administration and Obama himself posess. Even Lindsay Graham succeeded in painting Obama as small for his failure to support an idealogical opponent who was clearly as qualified as some think Sotomayor is for a lesser post than Supreme court justice.
Obama hasn't come out in defense of Sotomayor, I speculate that this is due to a legitimate concern he may have over being linked to some of her more liberal statments.
Time will tell, and the more we know Sotomayor the more we will learn about Obama.
Her obvious leftward slant and her rather poor attempts to conceal them have angered even liberal law proffessors that are inclined to support a true unapologetic leftist. Sotomayor is playing to win and get the appointment. As such, she says little, answers in as few words as possible and lets her democrat defenders in congress do most of the talking.
What she is effectively doing, however, is displaying the profound lack of experience, executive ability and character that the Obama administration and Obama himself posess. Even Lindsay Graham succeeded in painting Obama as small for his failure to support an idealogical opponent who was clearly as qualified as some think Sotomayor is for a lesser post than Supreme court justice.
Obama hasn't come out in defense of Sotomayor, I speculate that this is due to a legitimate concern he may have over being linked to some of her more liberal statments.
Time will tell, and the more we know Sotomayor the more we will learn about Obama.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Liberal Motivations
Liberalism is a subject that has fascinated me since college. I was trying to find out what causes someone to believe liberal ideas with such fervor.
I was struck when a journalism major told me that so-and-so was an atheist but that was alright since was a socialist and so he had a heart. Further, this same journalism student told me what I have come to hear repeated constantly ever since in a myriad of circumstances. She chose journalism to "make the world a better place"
When I heard Evan Sayet's first speech his main point was the desire to be indiscriminate. Very powerful idea, and it seems to resonate throughout the entire ideology. His second speech is very powerful and helpful to this analysis the main thrust there is why liberals choose evil, failed and wrong.
His second speech lead me to conclude that the leftist analysis regarding indiscriminateness must pervade their entire ideology. Some call this Moral Equivalence, but it goes beyond mere moral distinctions, the equivalence attaches to people, things and countries. The logical extension of this indiscriminateness is egalitarianism. When carried out to its most ridiculous level it becomes malignant egalitarianism. The absolute belief that there are no absolutes and the firm resolve that everything, person or country is as valuable as every other thing person or country. The malignant egalitarian will equate the right of Iran to possess nuclear weapons with the US's possession of nuclear weapons. A great example is that American exceptionalism is the same as Iranian exceptionalism. They will equate abu graib under Sadam Hussein with all the horrible maiming and killing with the abu graib abuses of a few miscreant soldiers. They will offer themselves as "human sheilds" dictators and then be surprised when the dictator wants to place them in front of military assets. To Malignant Egalitarians there is no, there can be no objective truth, only subjective truth.
To what degree someone subscribes to malignant egalitarianism will greatly determine how liberal or left someone's beliefs will be.
I was struck when a journalism major told me that so-and-so was an atheist but that was alright since was a socialist and so he had a heart. Further, this same journalism student told me what I have come to hear repeated constantly ever since in a myriad of circumstances. She chose journalism to "make the world a better place"
When I heard Evan Sayet's first speech his main point was the desire to be indiscriminate. Very powerful idea, and it seems to resonate throughout the entire ideology. His second speech is very powerful and helpful to this analysis the main thrust there is why liberals choose evil, failed and wrong.
His second speech lead me to conclude that the leftist analysis regarding indiscriminateness must pervade their entire ideology. Some call this Moral Equivalence, but it goes beyond mere moral distinctions, the equivalence attaches to people, things and countries. The logical extension of this indiscriminateness is egalitarianism. When carried out to its most ridiculous level it becomes malignant egalitarianism. The absolute belief that there are no absolutes and the firm resolve that everything, person or country is as valuable as every other thing person or country. The malignant egalitarian will equate the right of Iran to possess nuclear weapons with the US's possession of nuclear weapons. A great example is that American exceptionalism is the same as Iranian exceptionalism. They will equate abu graib under Sadam Hussein with all the horrible maiming and killing with the abu graib abuses of a few miscreant soldiers. They will offer themselves as "human sheilds" dictators and then be surprised when the dictator wants to place them in front of military assets. To Malignant Egalitarians there is no, there can be no objective truth, only subjective truth.
To what degree someone subscribes to malignant egalitarianism will greatly determine how liberal or left someone's beliefs will be.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Mandated Health Coverage
It may seem fair to mandate insurers provide health coverage for all people regardless of pre-existing conditions, but the unintended consequences are quite large.
Young people will simply not enroll, they may be healthy, poor, carefree and unaware of their risk, whatever the reason you would have to force the younger demographic into the system to get them coverage.
Older folks who do not have coverage and find they need it, usually have had something happen to them that will be considered a pre-existing condition.
Forcing the insurance industry to insure those with pre-existing conditions will force the insurance industry to insure only those who have pre-existing conditions and it will allow those who are healthy enough to drop their coverage until they need it. If there is no risk involved in waiting, why would anyone insure for health risks if it could be acquired after the fact.
Young people will simply not enroll, they may be healthy, poor, carefree and unaware of their risk, whatever the reason you would have to force the younger demographic into the system to get them coverage.
Older folks who do not have coverage and find they need it, usually have had something happen to them that will be considered a pre-existing condition.
Forcing the insurance industry to insure those with pre-existing conditions will force the insurance industry to insure only those who have pre-existing conditions and it will allow those who are healthy enough to drop their coverage until they need it. If there is no risk involved in waiting, why would anyone insure for health risks if it could be acquired after the fact.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Impeachable Offenses
Not really, but worth keeping watch. A long story made short these are all VERY bad things that Obama has done or has had done under his color of authority. If, however, perjury, an actual "crime" isn't grounds for impeachment I am certain these won't get him thrown out or help his opposition.
1. Impeachment Some background More Background Basically High Crimes and Misdemeanors
2. Obama's 'high crimes and misdemeanors' by Anthony Martin
I completely relate to the desire to see Obama removed from office. I am very comfortable saying "I hope he fails" to destroy our economy, liberty, country, culture, national sovereignty, national security, etc. At the same time, removing Obama isn't the solution, relegating him to a national laughing stock and demolishing the credibility of those who brought this clown to power is a far better approach.
Impeachment of Obama: will be a monsterous pain for anyone attempting this, republicans will be creamed in the following election and Obama will be viewed as a victim. a) once removed (if he actually can be) Biden will be president. President Biden... repeat that a few times before you say impeach Obama. "Biden is a clown, we can impeach him too" ok... President Pelosi. If THAT doesn't scare you, you aren't thinking.
If you believe the country is ready for three back to back impeachments you really aren't thinking.
Biden and Pelosi are the best impeachment/removal insurance Obama could have.
1. Impeachment Some background More Background Basically High Crimes and Misdemeanors
2. Obama's 'high crimes and misdemeanors' by Anthony Martin
I completely relate to the desire to see Obama removed from office. I am very comfortable saying "I hope he fails" to destroy our economy, liberty, country, culture, national sovereignty, national security, etc. At the same time, removing Obama isn't the solution, relegating him to a national laughing stock and demolishing the credibility of those who brought this clown to power is a far better approach.
Impeachment of Obama: will be a monsterous pain for anyone attempting this, republicans will be creamed in the following election and Obama will be viewed as a victim. a) once removed (if he actually can be) Biden will be president. President Biden... repeat that a few times before you say impeach Obama. "Biden is a clown, we can impeach him too" ok... President Pelosi. If THAT doesn't scare you, you aren't thinking.
If you believe the country is ready for three back to back impeachments you really aren't thinking.
Biden and Pelosi are the best impeachment/removal insurance Obama could have.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Lost language
It burns be up these days to hear a divorced mother or father identifying themselves as "single parents". It absolutely enrages me to conflate illegal immigration with immigration. I am sure as this blog continues I'll recall more examples from daily life that properly demonstrate that language is losing it's meaning.
Single parenthood. When someone is a divorced parent and they are seeking a new paramour or even a soul mate do they identify themselves as single, implying that they were never actually married? No, not only would it be deceptive, but to imply that a divorced person had never been married would conceal their relative experience with the opposite sex. Why then do divorced parents identify themselves as single parent when there is a perfectly descriptive term that works well. Divorced parent. I am convinced that of the divorced parents that I know, it is a matter of merely not examining the issue, it's really not that important in the grand scheme of things and it's easy to let something small slide.
When as a culture small things slide they change into large things. Single parents, as opposed to divorced parents have the worst track record around for raising children to grow up as functioning members of society. Divorced parents fare a little better, there are usually a role models of the opposite sex somewhere in the picture, to give at least an idea to the developing child of what qualities might be desirable or undesirable in a potential mate.
Equating immigration with illegal immigration is simply dishonest, and it gets people upset and angry over nothing. Democrats, journalists and pollsters will leave off the descriptor "illegal" and throw the entire issue, news story or poll out of the realm of useful or reasonable by the omission.
That one word changes the idea of "coming to a new country to build a better life" into "breaking the law and entering the new country AS A CRIMINAL to build a better life" No rational person has a problem with immigrants who enter this country legally. Who wouldn't welcome someone who follows the rules and wants to work hard for a better life. Criminals, however, are a vastly different issue.
Losing the use of even small descriptions and passing these statements on into the collective cultural consciousness without a fight is akin to yielding before the cultural war before the fight even truly begins. The battle for the culture is really the battle for the hearts and minds of the next generation of Americans. And if we lose the language we lose the ability to explain what is being lost.
Single parenthood. When someone is a divorced parent and they are seeking a new paramour or even a soul mate do they identify themselves as single, implying that they were never actually married? No, not only would it be deceptive, but to imply that a divorced person had never been married would conceal their relative experience with the opposite sex. Why then do divorced parents identify themselves as single parent when there is a perfectly descriptive term that works well. Divorced parent. I am convinced that of the divorced parents that I know, it is a matter of merely not examining the issue, it's really not that important in the grand scheme of things and it's easy to let something small slide.
When as a culture small things slide they change into large things. Single parents, as opposed to divorced parents have the worst track record around for raising children to grow up as functioning members of society. Divorced parents fare a little better, there are usually a role models of the opposite sex somewhere in the picture, to give at least an idea to the developing child of what qualities might be desirable or undesirable in a potential mate.
Equating immigration with illegal immigration is simply dishonest, and it gets people upset and angry over nothing. Democrats, journalists and pollsters will leave off the descriptor "illegal" and throw the entire issue, news story or poll out of the realm of useful or reasonable by the omission.
That one word changes the idea of "coming to a new country to build a better life" into "breaking the law and entering the new country AS A CRIMINAL to build a better life" No rational person has a problem with immigrants who enter this country legally. Who wouldn't welcome someone who follows the rules and wants to work hard for a better life. Criminals, however, are a vastly different issue.
Losing the use of even small descriptions and passing these statements on into the collective cultural consciousness without a fight is akin to yielding before the cultural war before the fight even truly begins. The battle for the culture is really the battle for the hearts and minds of the next generation of Americans. And if we lose the language we lose the ability to explain what is being lost.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Best article on Gay Marriage and its consequences.
The single best article I have ever read on the subject of Gay Marriage brings in important topics left unsaid by other excellent commentators that have come before.
Sam Schulman hits upon the issue of kinship and the fact that in gay marriage, the issue of kinship and extended family unit building is irrelevant.
He also effectively asks the question that so many ignore "what comes next?" His phrasing is clear
"As kinship fails to be relevant to gays, it will become fashionable to discredit it for everyone. The irrelevance of marriage to gay people will create a series of perfectly reasonable, perfectly unanswerable questions: If gays can aim at marriage, yet do without it equally well, who are we to demand it of one another? Who are women to demand it of men? Who are parents to demand it of their children's lovers--or to prohibit their children from taking lovers until parents decide arbitrarily they are "mature" or "ready"? By what right can government demand that citizens obey arbitrary and culturally specific kinship rules--rules about incest and the age of consent, rules that limit marriage to twosomes? Mediocre lawyers can create a fiction called gay marriage, but their idealism can't compel gay lovers to find it useful. But talented lawyers will be very efficient at challenging the complicated, incoherent, culturally relative survival from our most primitive social organization we call kinship. The whole set of fundamental, irrational assumptions that make marriage such a burden and such a civilizing force can easily be undone."
The "what comes next" question often undoes liberal or leftist ideas. In the case of gay marriage it is often unclear what actually follows from lifting the restriction. Sam Schulman paints a clear picture.
Sam Schulman hits upon the issue of kinship and the fact that in gay marriage, the issue of kinship and extended family unit building is irrelevant.
He also effectively asks the question that so many ignore "what comes next?" His phrasing is clear
"As kinship fails to be relevant to gays, it will become fashionable to discredit it for everyone. The irrelevance of marriage to gay people will create a series of perfectly reasonable, perfectly unanswerable questions: If gays can aim at marriage, yet do without it equally well, who are we to demand it of one another? Who are women to demand it of men? Who are parents to demand it of their children's lovers--or to prohibit their children from taking lovers until parents decide arbitrarily they are "mature" or "ready"? By what right can government demand that citizens obey arbitrary and culturally specific kinship rules--rules about incest and the age of consent, rules that limit marriage to twosomes? Mediocre lawyers can create a fiction called gay marriage, but their idealism can't compel gay lovers to find it useful. But talented lawyers will be very efficient at challenging the complicated, incoherent, culturally relative survival from our most primitive social organization we call kinship. The whole set of fundamental, irrational assumptions that make marriage such a burden and such a civilizing force can easily be undone."
The "what comes next" question often undoes liberal or leftist ideas. In the case of gay marriage it is often unclear what actually follows from lifting the restriction. Sam Schulman paints a clear picture.
Monday, June 8, 2009
Anonymity
I make no pretense and I throw no bombs. I like to express my opinions and if you don't like them don't read them.
Being "outed" would probably have no real effect on my life. Even if I keep writing year after year I doubt that I could every generate enough vitriol to actually get hate mail.
We'll see. I'll keep writing even if no one actually reads this. I write it for me, to get these ideas down not to make people angry or to generate publicity or even make money (though if some wealthy reader wants to hand me cash I'll gladly accept. Pretty sure I won't be changing my writing or opinions, I might hire a proofreader though.)
One important thing. my opinions are my opinions, they have no backing from my past, my education, my experience, the jobs that I have had or the things that I have observed. If my ideas can't stand without the context of my life they are not worthy of standing at all. I have faith in those ideas and I put them out there hoping they stand the test of scrutiny by those who do not know me.
Being "outed" would probably have no real effect on my life. Even if I keep writing year after year I doubt that I could every generate enough vitriol to actually get hate mail.
We'll see. I'll keep writing even if no one actually reads this. I write it for me, to get these ideas down not to make people angry or to generate publicity or even make money (though if some wealthy reader wants to hand me cash I'll gladly accept. Pretty sure I won't be changing my writing or opinions, I might hire a proofreader though.)
One important thing. my opinions are my opinions, they have no backing from my past, my education, my experience, the jobs that I have had or the things that I have observed. If my ideas can't stand without the context of my life they are not worthy of standing at all. I have faith in those ideas and I put them out there hoping they stand the test of scrutiny by those who do not know me.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Malignant Egalitarianism
President Barack Obama is possessed of a peculiar viewpoint. He believes firmly in equality of outcomes, Equality is a moral imperative. How does one achieve equality? Elevating the downtrodden or lowering the achievers? Does one elevate same sex marriage to the special status heterosexual marriage enjoys or do we reduce heterosexual marriage to just another in a long series of life choices. Little boy, are you going to marry a boy or a girl when you grow up? Would you like paper or plastic? Are these questions equivalent in weight? Are they equal?
Even on the international stage Barack Obama's rose colored glasses are incapable of diferentiating between ally and enemy, tyrant or benevolent constitutional monarch, he can't even diferentiate between American exceptionalism and any other countries national pride.
Obama has stated that American exceptionalism is no different from any other countries "exceptionalism". This mistaken belief has led him to believe that American's cannot impose our values on others.
These statements by Obama need clarification. What American values can't be imposed on others? Freedom, life, liberty, our desire to pursue happiness? I never considered these ideas to be much of an imposition.
Does Obama really believe that the exceptionalism of the American experiment is really just nationalism to be dismissed as the pride in one's lands... one's team? Does this mean that President Obama believes there are other countries that have the freedoms we enjoy here? Other countries with the same history of saving other countries from power mad oppressors, fighting for smaller countries against larger forces. Getting involved to save lives not take them.
This president is a posesses a view that can only be described as malignant egalitarianism.
Even on the international stage Barack Obama's rose colored glasses are incapable of diferentiating between ally and enemy, tyrant or benevolent constitutional monarch, he can't even diferentiate between American exceptionalism and any other countries national pride.
Obama has stated that American exceptionalism is no different from any other countries "exceptionalism". This mistaken belief has led him to believe that American's cannot impose our values on others.
These statements by Obama need clarification. What American values can't be imposed on others? Freedom, life, liberty, our desire to pursue happiness? I never considered these ideas to be much of an imposition.
Does Obama really believe that the exceptionalism of the American experiment is really just nationalism to be dismissed as the pride in one's lands... one's team? Does this mean that President Obama believes there are other countries that have the freedoms we enjoy here? Other countries with the same history of saving other countries from power mad oppressors, fighting for smaller countries against larger forces. Getting involved to save lives not take them.
This president is a posesses a view that can only be described as malignant egalitarianism.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Legal remedy
Will there ever really be a remedy to the run away spending that we are seeing today.
In the past we had a slow incremental growth of entitlement spending. The tricky thing with entitlement spending is that it grew, and fought attempts to clear it. Once something is a property right it becomes very tricky to remove. The takings clause of the constitution makes that so. A hearing and just compensation for what is being taken away by the government.
Entitlement spending is basically a one way trip to national bankruptcy.
What we have been seeing looks a little different. There is no entitlement to bailouts, the companies being bailed out are important sectors of the economy to be sure. If the companies went under others would take their place as leaner and meaner companies without the debt and entanglements of their predecessors.
Bankrupting the company to prop up failing businesses doesn't even make that much sense if you are effectively buying the businesses for the government. With the debt load and entanglements the companies currently bear, there is no way those companies can become solvent.
What is the real endgame here? What would be gained by literally bankrupting the US. I don't see Socialism successfully rising to fill the vacuum when socialist/marxist policies would have been largely the cause of the collapse.
Is it that the democrat machine isn't thinking far enough ahead? Is it some goofy utopian plan? Do they believe that once the government collapses that Marxism will rise to the top?
None of this really makes all that much sense.
In the past we had a slow incremental growth of entitlement spending. The tricky thing with entitlement spending is that it grew, and fought attempts to clear it. Once something is a property right it becomes very tricky to remove. The takings clause of the constitution makes that so. A hearing and just compensation for what is being taken away by the government.
Entitlement spending is basically a one way trip to national bankruptcy.
What we have been seeing looks a little different. There is no entitlement to bailouts, the companies being bailed out are important sectors of the economy to be sure. If the companies went under others would take their place as leaner and meaner companies without the debt and entanglements of their predecessors.
Bankrupting the company to prop up failing businesses doesn't even make that much sense if you are effectively buying the businesses for the government. With the debt load and entanglements the companies currently bear, there is no way those companies can become solvent.
What is the real endgame here? What would be gained by literally bankrupting the US. I don't see Socialism successfully rising to fill the vacuum when socialist/marxist policies would have been largely the cause of the collapse.
Is it that the democrat machine isn't thinking far enough ahead? Is it some goofy utopian plan? Do they believe that once the government collapses that Marxism will rise to the top?
None of this really makes all that much sense.
Tin Woodsman
I used to blog under my own name, started to lose business and friends. I guess I can't express myself under my own name without hurting my other efforts.
It is truly sad that the "most tolerant" are only tolerant of their own opinions.
I guess since great writers have written under pseudonyms perhaps some allowance can be made for someone who would like to become a great writer.
I guess if I were to be like my friends on the left and I had a heart like they did, I could condemn them and unfriend them on facebook, deny them business and un-friend them in person as I have had happen to me.
It seems the "compassion impaired" conservatives are truly the only tolerant people left.
I know this experience isn't new, and I guess I knew it would happen. I just need to earn a living and express myself. So Tin Woodsman it is.
It is truly sad that the "most tolerant" are only tolerant of their own opinions.
I guess since great writers have written under pseudonyms perhaps some allowance can be made for someone who would like to become a great writer.
I guess if I were to be like my friends on the left and I had a heart like they did, I could condemn them and unfriend them on facebook, deny them business and un-friend them in person as I have had happen to me.
It seems the "compassion impaired" conservatives are truly the only tolerant people left.
I know this experience isn't new, and I guess I knew it would happen. I just need to earn a living and express myself. So Tin Woodsman it is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
