Today, anonymous posted this offering from Michael Moore. As a public service to the non whackos in the audience, the Wizer will now analyze and comment on the letter. Talk about a target rich environment! Please understannd, that the message is directed to conservatives and republicans, but I couldn't resist the urge to answer for them. Not all of them agree with me, just as not all dems agree with MM.
Tuesday, November 14th, 2006
A Liberal's Pledge to Disheartened Conservatives ...by Michael Moore
Translation: Grab your wallets!
To My Conservative Brothers and Sisters,
I know you are dismayed and disheartened at the results of last week's election. You're worried that the country is heading toward a very bad place you don't want it to go. Your 12-year Republican Revolution has ended with so much yet to do, so many promises left unfulfilled. You are in a funk, and I understand.
Mike, are you talking to conservatives or republicans here? If you don't know the difference, there is much to fill you in on...I'll let it go for now.
Well, cheer up, my friends! Do not despair. I have good news for you. I, and the millions of others who are now in charge with our Democratic Congress,
Millions? Don't you mean dozens of others who are now in charge?
have a pledge we would like to make to you, a list of promises that we offer you because we value you as our fellow Americans. You deserve to know what we plan to do with our newfound power -- and, to be specific, what we will do to you and for you.
Why do the words "do to you" cause shivers to race up my spine?
Thus, here is our Liberal's Pledge to Disheartened Conservatives:
Dear Conservatives and Republicans,
Well, that's 55% of us, anyway.
I, and my fellow signatories, hereby make these promises to you:
1. We will always respect you for your conservative beliefs. We will never, ever, call you "unpatriotic" simply because you disagree with us. In fact, we encourage you to dissent and disagree with us.
Did you get all your millions of friends to agree to this? Seems like you are in the minority in your particular wing on this. Just wanted to make sure there was a consensus.
2. We will let you marry whomever you want, even when some of us consider your behavior to be "different" or "immoral." Who you marry is none of our business. Love and be in love -- it's a wonderful gift.
Of course, it will be necessary for all of us to subsidize your preferences by extending benefits to whoever you want to call your wife. Or whatever, as the case may be. Admit it. This is a scam to get corporations to pay for health benefits for your friends. As such, it's a program I'm not interested in subsidizing. No thanks, Mike.
3. We will not spend your grandchildren's money on our personal whims or to enrich our friends. It's your checkbook, too, and we will balance it for you.
I'm not hearing Robert Rubin, Harry Reid, or Nancy Pelosi say this. Have you checked with them? They are talking about higher energy costs, higher environmental controls and higher taxes right off the bat. My grandchildren will have a much easier time holding onto my inheritance if you keep those jokers away from the policymaking.
4. When we soon bring our sons and daughters home from Iraq, we will bring your sons and daughters home, too. They deserve to live. We promise never to send your kids off to war based on either a mistake or a lie.
If you bring them home in such a way as to allow Iraq to fall back into the hands of terrorists, our sons and daughters will know they are not safe until they go back and do the job for good. The only lie is the one you are telling when you say this wasn't necessary.
5. When we make America the last Western democracy to have universal health coverage, and all Americans are able to get help when they fall ill, we promise that you, too, will be able to see a doctor, regardless of your ability to pay. And when stem cell research delivers treatments and cures for diseases that affect you and your loved ones, we'll make sure those advances are available to you and your family, too.
When the health care system is run by the bureaucrats, there won't be anyone working on stem cells. First of all, the money never gets there. Second of all, the doctors will be payed the same for playing golf or working up stem cells. The worlds greatest health care system will be destroyed. Mike, why do you think it is the best system in the world? Because it is the closest thing to a free market medical system that exists.
6. Even though you have opposed environmental regulation, when we clean up our air and water, we, the Democratic majority, will let you, too, breathe the cleaner air and drink the purer water.
When there's a difference worth paying for, come tell me about it. Right now it's just a game you're playing with a bunch of biased government dependent researchers.
7. Should a mass murderer ever kill 3,000 people on our soil, we will devote every single resource to tracking him down and bringing him to justice. Immediately. We will protect you.
How can you say that one with a straight face given A) Bill Clinton's total lapse on Bin Laden, and B) what you just said on item #4 above? My God Michael, at least disguise your hypocrisy a little better than that.
8. We will never stick our nose in your bedroom or your womb. What you do there as consenting adults is your business. We will continue to count your age from the moment you were born, not the moment you were conceived.
What are you saying here? That the unborn are expendable? Man, that hardly makes you seem like the magnanimous, inclusive figure you want to be seen as. "To all conservatives and republicans who have made it this far...."
9. We will not take away your hunting guns. If you need an automatic weapon or a handgun to kill a bird or a deer, then you really aren't much of a hunter and you should, perhaps, pick up another sport. We will make our streets and schools as free as we can from these weapons and we will protect your children just as we would protect ours.
Okay, so, I should not feel so bad that the person who just shot me did it with a gun that was illegal. Let's make more of them illegal. That will make me feel safer. Not. I don't even have to invoke the second amendment to show the folly of this reason.
10. When we raise the minimum wage, we will pay you -- and your employees -- that new wage, too. When women are finally paid what men make, we will pay conservative women that wage, too.
What you want is for everybody to be paid the same. And for that wage to be low for everybody. It's been tried before, you know. But the Soviet Union crashed and burned. It fails every time it is tried. You want to see everybody in the toilet paper line? Oh, I forgot. You've already made your millions. You can tough it out from here.
11. We will respect your religious beliefs, even when you don't put those beliefs into practice. In fact, we will actively seek to promote your most radical religious beliefs ("Blessed are the poor," "Blessed are the peacemakers," "Love your enemies," "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God," and "Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me."). We will let people in other countries know that God doesn't just bless America, he blesses everyone. We will discourage religious intolerance and fanaticism -- starting with the fanaticism here at home, thus setting a good example for the rest of the world.
What about your favorite radical religion: environmentalism? Isn't it disengenuous to be pushing your pagan agenda against the backdrop of accusing religious groups of doing the same? It's called freedom of religion for a reason. And it is well known that God blesses America. Live with it.
12. We will not tolerate politicians who are corrupt and who are bought and paid for by the rich. We will go after any elected leader who puts him or herself ahead of the people. And we promise you we will go after the corrupt politicians on our side FIRST. If we fail to do this, we need you to call us on it. Simply because we are in power does not give us the right to turn our heads the other way when our party goes astray. Please perform this important duty as the loyal opposition.
Nice words. Talk to me about William Jefferson of Louisiana.
I promise all of the above to you because this is your country, too. You are every bit as American as we are. We are all in this together. We sink or swim as one. Thank you for your years of service to this country and for giving us the opportunity to see if we can make things a bit better for our 300 million fellow Americans -- and for the rest of the world.
Signed,
Michael Moore
mmflint@aol.com
(Click here to sign the pledge)
www.michaelmoore.com
Michael, I have not seen this many fat pitches since the company picnic. Thanks for letting me swing away.
Sincerely,
The Wizer.
P.S. Please feel free to pass this on.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Friday, November 10, 2006
After further review...
When a fellow tells me he is bipartisan, I know he's going to vote against me. -- Harry S Truman
I was considerably more optimistic yesterday before I heard the press conference from George W. Bush. You recall, I was talking about gridlock, and how much better things were going to be because of it. Then, I heard George tell anyone who is still listening that he is claiming defeat on all sorts of things not even at issue. He plans to resurrect the guest worker program. He plans to find "common ground" with Nancy Pelosi (Ha! ...Ha! Ha!) on minimum wage.
Was he a democrat all along? Don't blame me. I voted for Phil Gramm. I do think that things are going to get worse here, before they get better. But that creates a wonderful opportunity to illustrate the differences between good and evil for 2008.
I was considerably more optimistic yesterday before I heard the press conference from George W. Bush. You recall, I was talking about gridlock, and how much better things were going to be because of it. Then, I heard George tell anyone who is still listening that he is claiming defeat on all sorts of things not even at issue. He plans to resurrect the guest worker program. He plans to find "common ground" with Nancy Pelosi (Ha! ...Ha! Ha!) on minimum wage.
Was he a democrat all along? Don't blame me. I voted for Phil Gramm. I do think that things are going to get worse here, before they get better. But that creates a wonderful opportunity to illustrate the differences between good and evil for 2008.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
We WON!
Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy. – US House Congressional Resolution 48 "A Republic; not a Democracy", sponsored by Ron Paul, 3/6/01.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. – James Madison (1751-1836)
By the end of the election season, the best any of us could hope for was gridlock. and That's what I voted for.
If the vote is our only weapon, then it must be thusly leveraged. We are often forced into bad decisions to illustrate badness to a new generation of voters. And a new generation of congressmen is not a bad result per se'. It's just that a wrong turn, whether it's right or left, still leaves us short of our goal.
The press is quick to claim that the war in Iraq had something to do with the results of the election. That is simply wrong. As I've repeated here many times, the war has been over for 2 years. So a lot of people still don't know what this was about.
What it was about is this: The republicans were acting like democrats by squandering the country's resources without good cause. In the process, they were creating the biggest and most intrusive government since the Great Society. No wonder people were confused enough to vote for democrats.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. – James Madison (1751-1836)
By the end of the election season, the best any of us could hope for was gridlock. and That's what I voted for.
If the vote is our only weapon, then it must be thusly leveraged. We are often forced into bad decisions to illustrate badness to a new generation of voters. And a new generation of congressmen is not a bad result per se'. It's just that a wrong turn, whether it's right or left, still leaves us short of our goal.
The press is quick to claim that the war in Iraq had something to do with the results of the election. That is simply wrong. As I've repeated here many times, the war has been over for 2 years. So a lot of people still don't know what this was about.
What it was about is this: The republicans were acting like democrats by squandering the country's resources without good cause. In the process, they were creating the biggest and most intrusive government since the Great Society. No wonder people were confused enough to vote for democrats.
Monday, November 06, 2006
Let's have our election
A democracy is a place where numerous elections are held, at great cost, without issues, and with interchangeable candidates. – Gore Vidal
Lets have our election, shall we? It's really a lot like the Super Bowl for political aficianados. For most of us regular guys, it resembles the Super Bowl that has two teams we don't really care about; but you know we have to root for someone. They only let two teams play in it after all, and one of them is usually favored to win by 51% or so of the populace.
On the one side, we have the underdog republicans, who after fumbling away nearly every scoring opportunity since 1994 find themselves in a position to tie the game at the final gun. On the other sideline is the democrats who had benefitted from the republican ineptitude that seemed to get worse with every election cycle. Inexplicably, they put John Kerry in at QB, and he singlehandedly resurrected the chances for the GOP by throwing an interception to the military.
It's easy to believe that John Kerry changed the dynamic, but I think differently; I believe that most Americans already knew who John Kerry is. The real reason the polls are shifting now is that ---surprise!--- they were never accurate to begin with. The interesting fact of polling is that you can design a poll to get whatever results you want. If you want a 15% Democrat lead, you can manufacture one. The motivation to do so is very strong.The psychology of weak minded people is that they want to side with the winner; so the polls are designed to sway the last of the weak minded individuals over to one side. The polling organizations have to show a closing gap, or be exposed to high levels of error when the true results are counted.
So, look for all the polls to close to within 2 % (the real difference) sometime today. They probably have enough weak minded voters by now to get the job done. It might be fun to see the underdog pull one out, though.
Lets have our election, shall we? It's really a lot like the Super Bowl for political aficianados. For most of us regular guys, it resembles the Super Bowl that has two teams we don't really care about; but you know we have to root for someone. They only let two teams play in it after all, and one of them is usually favored to win by 51% or so of the populace.
On the one side, we have the underdog republicans, who after fumbling away nearly every scoring opportunity since 1994 find themselves in a position to tie the game at the final gun. On the other sideline is the democrats who had benefitted from the republican ineptitude that seemed to get worse with every election cycle. Inexplicably, they put John Kerry in at QB, and he singlehandedly resurrected the chances for the GOP by throwing an interception to the military.
It's easy to believe that John Kerry changed the dynamic, but I think differently; I believe that most Americans already knew who John Kerry is. The real reason the polls are shifting now is that ---surprise!--- they were never accurate to begin with. The interesting fact of polling is that you can design a poll to get whatever results you want. If you want a 15% Democrat lead, you can manufacture one. The motivation to do so is very strong.The psychology of weak minded people is that they want to side with the winner; so the polls are designed to sway the last of the weak minded individuals over to one side. The polling organizations have to show a closing gap, or be exposed to high levels of error when the true results are counted.
So, look for all the polls to close to within 2 % (the real difference) sometime today. They probably have enough weak minded voters by now to get the job done. It might be fun to see the underdog pull one out, though.
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Mid-term elections
Political elections do not choose leaders of society. Rather, they are an exercise in which groups of people choose individuals who will assist them in looting other groups of individuals, those folks who were unfortunate enough not to be able to elect their own political strongman. The process can be downright blatant, as is the case in African and Asian countries, or it can be relatively subtle as it is in the United States, where the trappings of "constitutionality" and "rule of law" hide many of the more nefarious goings on. – William Anderson, Are Politicians Leaders? 10/19/2000
An election is coming. Universal peace is declared, and the foxes have a sincere interest in prolonging the lives of the poultry. – George Eliot
As you can probably tell from the lack of posts, I've had a hard time mustering up a commentary on the state of the elections. However, a quick review of previous posts will show that I tend to post here on matters that have long-term impact. Supreme Court nominations; government entitlement programs, things like that. That is why there isn't much to say about the upcoming elections. Either way the bulk of the races go, the likelihood of real progress is exceedingly low. The party in power has squandered 90-95% of the opportunity to reverse decades of abuse and waste. The democrats could hardly "improve" on that number.
Sure, there are things that still matter: The necessity of showing our enemies that they have no future in this world. The blessings of the world"s greatest economy. The true dividend of freedom and prosperity, which is the betterent of all humankind. These things stand to take some hits if the wrong party gets elected (note to anonymous, the democrats are still the wrong party).
But the republicans don't stand for what is right any more, either. Yes I know that the next two years could be a major setback for all of us, but I think we get that either way. The only thing I can be sure of is if the democrats get in, they will decimate and make a total botch job of Operation Iraqi Freedom, and then will spend the rest of their time trying to undo the meager economic improvements of the last six years. The only good that will come out of a republican defeat is the proverbial "wake-up call" that they've been needing. I can't think of a good reason to vote for a democrat, but that one comes close.
I believe that 90% of everybody sees through the phony Mark Foley issue, and the Harry Reid stuff on the other side of the aisle. The 10% who don't always vote for dems anyway. So, what will the other 90 be thinking going into election season? I suspect it will be "let's give these other guys a shot at it". It would have all been so unnecessary if the republicans would have simply dusted off the Contract With America, and used it as a playbook for the last two years.
If the democrats win, I think Newt runs in 2008.
An election is coming. Universal peace is declared, and the foxes have a sincere interest in prolonging the lives of the poultry. – George Eliot
As you can probably tell from the lack of posts, I've had a hard time mustering up a commentary on the state of the elections. However, a quick review of previous posts will show that I tend to post here on matters that have long-term impact. Supreme Court nominations; government entitlement programs, things like that. That is why there isn't much to say about the upcoming elections. Either way the bulk of the races go, the likelihood of real progress is exceedingly low. The party in power has squandered 90-95% of the opportunity to reverse decades of abuse and waste. The democrats could hardly "improve" on that number.
Sure, there are things that still matter: The necessity of showing our enemies that they have no future in this world. The blessings of the world"s greatest economy. The true dividend of freedom and prosperity, which is the betterent of all humankind. These things stand to take some hits if the wrong party gets elected (note to anonymous, the democrats are still the wrong party).
But the republicans don't stand for what is right any more, either. Yes I know that the next two years could be a major setback for all of us, but I think we get that either way. The only thing I can be sure of is if the democrats get in, they will decimate and make a total botch job of Operation Iraqi Freedom, and then will spend the rest of their time trying to undo the meager economic improvements of the last six years. The only good that will come out of a republican defeat is the proverbial "wake-up call" that they've been needing. I can't think of a good reason to vote for a democrat, but that one comes close.
I believe that 90% of everybody sees through the phony Mark Foley issue, and the Harry Reid stuff on the other side of the aisle. The 10% who don't always vote for dems anyway. So, what will the other 90 be thinking going into election season? I suspect it will be "let's give these other guys a shot at it". It would have all been so unnecessary if the republicans would have simply dusted off the Contract With America, and used it as a playbook for the last two years.
If the democrats win, I think Newt runs in 2008.
Monday, September 18, 2006
Drawbridges
"The danger is if they decide to pull up the drawbridge and disengage." -- Tony Blair
" Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." -- Winston Churchill
"However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results." -- Winston Churchill
"You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else." -- Winston Churchill
“Regimes planted by bayonets do not take root.” -- Ronald Reagan
I can think of several good outcomes if we simply do raise the drawbridge. Starting, of course, with the deportation of the United Nations. "Nobody else wants to deal with the serious issues of the planet? Fine. We were only playing this silly geopolitical game of yours to be good global citizens." If the work of the UN is patently against our interests (and the evidence continues to pile on that it is), we should take the hint, and be happy to go play in our own back yard.
What happens in 2012 when Turkey is overrun by Iran? Will the euro-clowns across the Mediterranean then begin to see the danger? Maybe the only way to prepare Europe is to let it happen. We'll all be better off when the French and the rest of the world have to face and deal with this crisis. They'll be much easier to get along with once they realize that we are not the problem. I'm tired of being the solution to the problem they don't think they have.
We need to be vigilant and respond with urgency to every threat on US person and property. Beyond that, I can count on one hand the number of countries we actually need to protect and support.
" Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." -- Winston Churchill
"However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results." -- Winston Churchill
"You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else." -- Winston Churchill
“Regimes planted by bayonets do not take root.” -- Ronald Reagan
I can think of several good outcomes if we simply do raise the drawbridge. Starting, of course, with the deportation of the United Nations. "Nobody else wants to deal with the serious issues of the planet? Fine. We were only playing this silly geopolitical game of yours to be good global citizens." If the work of the UN is patently against our interests (and the evidence continues to pile on that it is), we should take the hint, and be happy to go play in our own back yard.
What happens in 2012 when Turkey is overrun by Iran? Will the euro-clowns across the Mediterranean then begin to see the danger? Maybe the only way to prepare Europe is to let it happen. We'll all be better off when the French and the rest of the world have to face and deal with this crisis. They'll be much easier to get along with once they realize that we are not the problem. I'm tired of being the solution to the problem they don't think they have.
We need to be vigilant and respond with urgency to every threat on US person and property. Beyond that, I can count on one hand the number of countries we actually need to protect and support.
Monday, September 11, 2006
The Bush Doctrine
America has entered a great struggle that tests our strength, and even more our resolve. Our nation is patient and steadfast. We continue to pursue the terrorists in cities and camps and caves across the earth. We are joined by a great coalition of nations to rid the world of terror. And we will not allow any terrorist or tyrant to threaten civilization with weapons of mass murder. Now and in the future, Americans will live as free people, not in fear, and never at the mercy of any foreign plot or power. -- George W. Bush, 9/11/2002.
The Bush Doctrine, based on a recognition of the dangers posed by non-democratic regimes and on committing the United States to support the advance of democracy, offers hope to many dissident voices struggling to bring democracy to their own countries. The democratic earthquake it has helped unleash, even with all the dangers its tremors entail, offers the promise of a more peaceful world. -- Natan Sharansky, 4/24/2006
It is, indeed, a war that one might believe only a Wilsonian Democrat was capable of starting. But it was not Woodrow Wilson or Lyndon Johnson who ordered the march on Baghdad; it was President Bush, who had previously proclaimed his contempt for “nation-building” in foreign places, only to embark on one of this country’s greatest nation-building crusades. -- Jon Harrison, August 2006
I'm not into celebrating the anniversaries of national tragedies, like all other media seem to be doing today, however it does seem like a good time to see where the last five years have taken us. It is important to understand why there is such a distinction being drawn between the war on terror and the war in Iraq. Most Patriots would agree that the correct response to 9/11 is to raze Afghanistan and wipe Taliban from the world's vocabulary. For good measure, a total decimation of Al Qaeda seemed necessary. In short, slapping down our enemies and anyone who looks like them is an appropriate and necessary thing to do. It sends the right message at the right time to the terrorists.
Now, here's the thing. I don't give a damn whether Iraq becomes a democracy. I don't think it is at all necessary for us to define the type of republic Iraq should become. Nobody over there is ever going to like or trust a government established by a foreign country, let alone the US of A. Sure, we have total faith in the way we do things, but hey, it's their country; let them sort it out on their own. The quicker we leave it to their collective judgement, the quicker they will find peace. Now, I know what you are going to say: "The region will deteriorate into civil war and chaos when we leave". Guess what? That will happen whether we leave in 2008, or 2018, or 2118. This is a godless society that may never recognize truth, faith, and fundamental freedom. They certainly won't be more inclined to embrace it just because we are camped out in their back yard.
Do I have a problem with what happened to Saddam? Not at all. He was begging to be taken out. The Iranians and Syrians are doing pretty much the same. Does it have to be us doing the dirty work? Probably so. But, we don't need to be putting up oil wells, roads, and schoolhouses everywhere we go. This Wilsonian view of George's (i.e., make the world safe for democracy) is going to make matters worse for some time. After further review, I have concluded that the healing does not start until we go home.
Yes, we need to continue to eradicate terrorists, and a few taped phone calls don't make me nervous at all about our essential freedoms (It's funny how many of our laws really only protect the guilty). I assure you our freedoms are being more insidiously attacked in other areas than in this one. We did it to ourselves by letting the government get as big as it is. The solution to that is to retire 80% of the government, but then that would put the average congressman's best friends out of work. I digress.
If, as it appears to me, all of our enemies are terrorists, we should do everything we need to do to defeat them. This means "profiling". This means "stealth bombing". This means necessary and messy miltary ops. But there should be no question of what our military should be used for. It is not an orphanage. It is not a bridge building crew. It is not a diplomacy entourage. I'm not asking for a "timetable" I'm simply noting that the parts of this mission that are related to nation building are fundamentally flawed.
The Bush Doctrine, based on a recognition of the dangers posed by non-democratic regimes and on committing the United States to support the advance of democracy, offers hope to many dissident voices struggling to bring democracy to their own countries. The democratic earthquake it has helped unleash, even with all the dangers its tremors entail, offers the promise of a more peaceful world. -- Natan Sharansky, 4/24/2006
It is, indeed, a war that one might believe only a Wilsonian Democrat was capable of starting. But it was not Woodrow Wilson or Lyndon Johnson who ordered the march on Baghdad; it was President Bush, who had previously proclaimed his contempt for “nation-building” in foreign places, only to embark on one of this country’s greatest nation-building crusades. -- Jon Harrison, August 2006
I'm not into celebrating the anniversaries of national tragedies, like all other media seem to be doing today, however it does seem like a good time to see where the last five years have taken us. It is important to understand why there is such a distinction being drawn between the war on terror and the war in Iraq. Most Patriots would agree that the correct response to 9/11 is to raze Afghanistan and wipe Taliban from the world's vocabulary. For good measure, a total decimation of Al Qaeda seemed necessary. In short, slapping down our enemies and anyone who looks like them is an appropriate and necessary thing to do. It sends the right message at the right time to the terrorists.
Now, here's the thing. I don't give a damn whether Iraq becomes a democracy. I don't think it is at all necessary for us to define the type of republic Iraq should become. Nobody over there is ever going to like or trust a government established by a foreign country, let alone the US of A. Sure, we have total faith in the way we do things, but hey, it's their country; let them sort it out on their own. The quicker we leave it to their collective judgement, the quicker they will find peace. Now, I know what you are going to say: "The region will deteriorate into civil war and chaos when we leave". Guess what? That will happen whether we leave in 2008, or 2018, or 2118. This is a godless society that may never recognize truth, faith, and fundamental freedom. They certainly won't be more inclined to embrace it just because we are camped out in their back yard.
Do I have a problem with what happened to Saddam? Not at all. He was begging to be taken out. The Iranians and Syrians are doing pretty much the same. Does it have to be us doing the dirty work? Probably so. But, we don't need to be putting up oil wells, roads, and schoolhouses everywhere we go. This Wilsonian view of George's (i.e., make the world safe for democracy) is going to make matters worse for some time. After further review, I have concluded that the healing does not start until we go home.
Yes, we need to continue to eradicate terrorists, and a few taped phone calls don't make me nervous at all about our essential freedoms (It's funny how many of our laws really only protect the guilty). I assure you our freedoms are being more insidiously attacked in other areas than in this one. We did it to ourselves by letting the government get as big as it is. The solution to that is to retire 80% of the government, but then that would put the average congressman's best friends out of work. I digress.
If, as it appears to me, all of our enemies are terrorists, we should do everything we need to do to defeat them. This means "profiling". This means "stealth bombing". This means necessary and messy miltary ops. But there should be no question of what our military should be used for. It is not an orphanage. It is not a bridge building crew. It is not a diplomacy entourage. I'm not asking for a "timetable" I'm simply noting that the parts of this mission that are related to nation building are fundamentally flawed.
Saturday, July 29, 2006
Minimum Rage
The high rate of unemployment among teenagers, and especially black teenagers, is both a scandal and a serious source of social unrest. Yet it is largely a result of minimum wage laws. We regard the minimum wage law as one of the most, if not the most, anti-black laws on the statute books. – Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize-winning economist
"There ain't a dime's worth of difference between em, Hoss" --Waylon Jennings, quoting George Wallace.
So now the GOP house is passing laws in order to kill them. Swell. They are sounding and acting like Democrats more with each passing day. Okay, so the Democrats are hopelessly conflicted and rudderless. This doesn't really matter with the Republicans doing all your heavy lifting for you. What still puzzles me is why putting all our young people out of work is considered a good way to end the death tax....or maybe not because we can count on the senate to kill it. Sheesh.
Meanwhile, the media is pointing over to the middle east, and saying "Look! Fireworks!" Yeah, like that hasn't happened before. It's not that I'm unsympathetic, it's just that Isreal vs. Iran already sounds like a fair fight. Let them go at it for a while, and give me monthly status reports. I really don't see what interests are at stake for us. We already went the extra mile on Al Qaeda. That should demonstrate to the third world that we are not pussy-footing around. To have us get sucked in to every mortar shelling going on around the world is truly mindless and dissipative.
Hello, media, the action is right here! The government is doing more damage to us than Hezbollah's wildest dreams! How about defending the constitution for a change? How about picking on a few national tragedies that truly create division, poverty, strife, and dependence?
The saddest thing about 9/11 is that we gave up so much freedom in exchange for a security that does not and can not ever exist. By defeating Al Qaeda we did all that was possible and necessary. Every time a new provision of the Patriot Act is implemented we give the enemies of freedom another sign that they are having an effect. Let's get off this hellbound train before it consumes us all.
Meanwhile, all we are getting from our representation is warmed over socialism as a mechanism to fool the people. Hard to be a political junkie in this environment.
I'm sure I'll find more to remark upon soon, but pobably not before election season. Even the thought of that is a little demoralizing right now. I predict the GOP in a yawner followed by more of the same. As I've said before, the only thing worse would be a Democrat win, but now more than ever, I don't see a dime's worth of difference to be had.
"There ain't a dime's worth of difference between em, Hoss" --Waylon Jennings, quoting George Wallace.
So now the GOP house is passing laws in order to kill them. Swell. They are sounding and acting like Democrats more with each passing day. Okay, so the Democrats are hopelessly conflicted and rudderless. This doesn't really matter with the Republicans doing all your heavy lifting for you. What still puzzles me is why putting all our young people out of work is considered a good way to end the death tax....or maybe not because we can count on the senate to kill it. Sheesh.
Meanwhile, the media is pointing over to the middle east, and saying "Look! Fireworks!" Yeah, like that hasn't happened before. It's not that I'm unsympathetic, it's just that Isreal vs. Iran already sounds like a fair fight. Let them go at it for a while, and give me monthly status reports. I really don't see what interests are at stake for us. We already went the extra mile on Al Qaeda. That should demonstrate to the third world that we are not pussy-footing around. To have us get sucked in to every mortar shelling going on around the world is truly mindless and dissipative.
Hello, media, the action is right here! The government is doing more damage to us than Hezbollah's wildest dreams! How about defending the constitution for a change? How about picking on a few national tragedies that truly create division, poverty, strife, and dependence?
The saddest thing about 9/11 is that we gave up so much freedom in exchange for a security that does not and can not ever exist. By defeating Al Qaeda we did all that was possible and necessary. Every time a new provision of the Patriot Act is implemented we give the enemies of freedom another sign that they are having an effect. Let's get off this hellbound train before it consumes us all.
Meanwhile, all we are getting from our representation is warmed over socialism as a mechanism to fool the people. Hard to be a political junkie in this environment.
I'm sure I'll find more to remark upon soon, but pobably not before election season. Even the thought of that is a little demoralizing right now. I predict the GOP in a yawner followed by more of the same. As I've said before, the only thing worse would be a Democrat win, but now more than ever, I don't see a dime's worth of difference to be had.
Friday, June 30, 2006
News Media
The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but the newspapers. – Thomas Jefferson
The liberty of the press is not confined to newspapers and periodicals. It necessarily embraces pamphlets and leaflets. These indeed have been historic weapons in the defense of liberty, as the pamphlets of Thomas Paine and others in our history abundantly attest. – Charles Evans Hughes (1862-1948), U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Lovell v. City of Griffin, 1938
A body of men holding themselves accountable to nobody ought not to be trusted by anybody. – Thomas Paine
It seems that the motto of the Mainstream Media is that the truth is no longer newsworthy. This was certainly the case during the 2004 elections, in which no media attention was given to the accounts of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. It is not surprising for the media to have sat on that news when you consider that wide dissemination of that truth would not have sold more newspapers. In effect, it marked the end of the election, and people would clearly have rejected the candidate and moved on. No need to read anything more about Kerry since he was a damaged candidate, so the motivation of keeping the game close for newspaper sales can be seen as purely capitalistic (something the Wizer will much more easily forgive than he would intentional political bias).
Indeed, CBS then did their best to keep the election close by publishing false accounts of the potentially damaging National Guard story. Sure, the "news" would sell, but the truth takes a hit. That's where the News Media begins to lose their halo.
Now, we have the confirmation of a truth that we all already knew, that there were in fact weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Now, I would surmise that a headline that said "WMD's Found" would have sold the day's quota of newspapers, so profit was clearly not the motivator for suppressing this news.
It was also a good opportunity for the newspapers to show that they are balanced, because the erroneous "no WMD" storyline was advanced for 3 years as if it had some credence.
Consumers of truth are now moving on to other more reliable news outlets, ones collectively known as "The New Media". You are reading one now. You can find them on the internet 24/7 as long as there are those who care enough to bring it to you. This is something to celebrate.
As for the Mainstream Media, well, I would avoid buying stock in these outlets.
The liberty of the press is not confined to newspapers and periodicals. It necessarily embraces pamphlets and leaflets. These indeed have been historic weapons in the defense of liberty, as the pamphlets of Thomas Paine and others in our history abundantly attest. – Charles Evans Hughes (1862-1948), U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Lovell v. City of Griffin, 1938
A body of men holding themselves accountable to nobody ought not to be trusted by anybody. – Thomas Paine
It seems that the motto of the Mainstream Media is that the truth is no longer newsworthy. This was certainly the case during the 2004 elections, in which no media attention was given to the accounts of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. It is not surprising for the media to have sat on that news when you consider that wide dissemination of that truth would not have sold more newspapers. In effect, it marked the end of the election, and people would clearly have rejected the candidate and moved on. No need to read anything more about Kerry since he was a damaged candidate, so the motivation of keeping the game close for newspaper sales can be seen as purely capitalistic (something the Wizer will much more easily forgive than he would intentional political bias).
Indeed, CBS then did their best to keep the election close by publishing false accounts of the potentially damaging National Guard story. Sure, the "news" would sell, but the truth takes a hit. That's where the News Media begins to lose their halo.
Now, we have the confirmation of a truth that we all already knew, that there were in fact weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Now, I would surmise that a headline that said "WMD's Found" would have sold the day's quota of newspapers, so profit was clearly not the motivator for suppressing this news.
It was also a good opportunity for the newspapers to show that they are balanced, because the erroneous "no WMD" storyline was advanced for 3 years as if it had some credence.
Consumers of truth are now moving on to other more reliable news outlets, ones collectively known as "The New Media". You are reading one now. You can find them on the internet 24/7 as long as there are those who care enough to bring it to you. This is something to celebrate.
As for the Mainstream Media, well, I would avoid buying stock in these outlets.
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
Talk Radio
I often marvel at the phenomenon that is Rush Limbaugh. As a former radio personality in the 70's I can admire what he has accomplished in the radio game, a series of achievements that us lesser mortals couldn't foresee from behind our microphones (gold plated or not).
On the surface it is pretty simple to analyze. He has a talk show where his success derives from advocating popular positions, and then painting a vivid picture of "the other guy", this many headed monster which can be branded with an L. Never mind that there is no such thing as the L-monster...Rush is able to convince his audience that the same person who advocates unlimited immigration is the same one who would vote against prop 187. Not too likely that that person exists, but it's a useful boogeyman for what Rush tries to do.
For those who would try to be the antidote to Rush, well, the first mistake is they play on his terms. Namely, they will advocate the positions Rush does not (by definition, the "unpopular" ones), and then try to defend the L-monster, which as I said does not really exist. They wind up lookinf pretty stupid.
Those people are doomed to failure, at least if success means radio audience share (and I think it does). Rush is about as prescient as Nostradamus, who proves only to be "right" after the fact. Rush, for example, is very late weighing in with an opinion on immigration, despite acknowledging for several years that a lot of people care about it. Well, sure, or he wouldn't even have mentioned it in the first place.
So, what would be a reasonable approach for someone who would like to emulate Rush's radio success? Well, for starters, talk about popular things, like budget discipline, limited government, and NAFTA related issues. These are topics Rush avoids for some reason. Then, try to assemble a credible enemy monster comprised with the many heads of Arlen Specter, Lincoln Chafee, and Chuck Schumer; and I guarantee better results than Air America and the sum total of the nuveau commie communicative collective.
The guy is good because he's mostly right. The persons who go against him typically do so by advocating the "wrong". What's keeping the talent away? Surely there's no monopoly on truth. The problem is many radio wannabes feel they must start from the corner Rush paints them into.
Brian Maloney follows the talk radio scene with his informative blog.
On the surface it is pretty simple to analyze. He has a talk show where his success derives from advocating popular positions, and then painting a vivid picture of "the other guy", this many headed monster which can be branded with an L. Never mind that there is no such thing as the L-monster...Rush is able to convince his audience that the same person who advocates unlimited immigration is the same one who would vote against prop 187. Not too likely that that person exists, but it's a useful boogeyman for what Rush tries to do.
For those who would try to be the antidote to Rush, well, the first mistake is they play on his terms. Namely, they will advocate the positions Rush does not (by definition, the "unpopular" ones), and then try to defend the L-monster, which as I said does not really exist. They wind up lookinf pretty stupid.
Those people are doomed to failure, at least if success means radio audience share (and I think it does). Rush is about as prescient as Nostradamus, who proves only to be "right" after the fact. Rush, for example, is very late weighing in with an opinion on immigration, despite acknowledging for several years that a lot of people care about it. Well, sure, or he wouldn't even have mentioned it in the first place.
So, what would be a reasonable approach for someone who would like to emulate Rush's radio success? Well, for starters, talk about popular things, like budget discipline, limited government, and NAFTA related issues. These are topics Rush avoids for some reason. Then, try to assemble a credible enemy monster comprised with the many heads of Arlen Specter, Lincoln Chafee, and Chuck Schumer; and I guarantee better results than Air America and the sum total of the nuveau commie communicative collective.
The guy is good because he's mostly right. The persons who go against him typically do so by advocating the "wrong". What's keeping the talent away? Surely there's no monopoly on truth. The problem is many radio wannabes feel they must start from the corner Rush paints them into.
Brian Maloney follows the talk radio scene with his informative blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)