Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Obama's Sins Emerging Clearly
Obfuscation Tactics
Let me see, how many obfuscation tactics are available to deflect the import of documented sins if one is totally ruthless? Here is a short and incomplete list that can appear at any stage in any order! These tactics hold for office holders and for defenders of the faith! Some have already appeared!
1. Shoot the messenger! First thing they do; check!
2. Shoot the author! Second thing!; check!
3. Call the collected data a “hit piece” by biased people!; check!
4. Call the evidence to be somehow tainted!; TBD
5. Pick one accusation and find a supposed flaw, which is then used to try to discredit the entire set; TBD
6. Assure the silence of key potential witnesses; UNKN
7. Stonewall each accusation, and hide the data; UNKN
8. Blanket denials, lies and destroy the evidence (illegal in itself!); UNKN
9. Use executive privelege to deny access to data; check
10. Simply deny access and ignore court orders, etc; check
11. Bush did it; check
12. Bush did it too!; check
13. Other excuses; TBD
13. Clinton did it; check
14. X group or X individual did it, not me; check
15. Mount a counter argument that deflects the thrust; check
16. Assume the authority and challenge questioners; check
17. Publish counter reports from a biased perspective; check
18. Tie up the arguments in definitional problems and legal snares; check
19. Tie up the arguments in alternate interpretations of laws; check
Instances of most of these tactics are documented in Limbaugh’s book: “Crimes Against Liberty.”
Reply
Click to Edit
Let me see, how many obfuscation tactics are available to deflect the import of documented sins if one is totally ruthless? Here is a short and incomplete list that can appear at any stage in any order! These tactics hold for office holders and for defenders of the faith! Some have already appeared!
1. Shoot the messenger! First thing they do; check!
2. Shoot the author! Second thing!; check!
3. Call the collected data a “hit piece” by biased people!; check!
4. Call the evidence to be somehow tainted!; TBD
5. Pick one accusation and find a supposed flaw, which is then used to try to discredit the entire set; TBD
6. Assure the silence of key potential witnesses; UNKN
7. Stonewall each accusation, and hide the data; UNKN
8. Blanket denials, lies and destroy the evidence (illegal in itself!); UNKN
9. Use executive privelege to deny access to data; check
10. Simply deny access and ignore court orders, etc; check
11. Bush did it; check
12. Bush did it too!; check
13. Other excuses; TBD
13. Clinton did it; check
14. X group or X individual did it, not me; check
15. Mount a counter argument that deflects the thrust; check
16. Assume the authority and challenge questioners; check
17. Publish counter reports from a biased perspective; check
18. Tie up the arguments in definitional problems and legal snares; check
19. Tie up the arguments in alternate interpretations of laws; check
Instances of most of these tactics are documented in Limbaugh’s book: “Crimes Against Liberty.”
Reply
Click to Edit
Labels: Blockers, Corruption, Democrats, Fiscal Responsibility, Honesty, Integrity, Limbaugh, Obama, Politics and Iraq, Radicalism
Monday, September 19, 2011
Government in Stasis
Unblocking the Economy
There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, the first kind of security (that is: the certainty of a given minimum of sustenance for all...) should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is, some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision." The Road to Surfdom": F. A. Hayek
Thus we have Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, ObamaCare, and other welfare and job loss provisions for all. What is being debated is how to continue to pay for it all in the face of overwhelming national debt and its interest payments over the next 20 years, give or take, and while maintaining our military capability at "sufficient" levels, and, oh by the way, spurring the economy to life and making a lot more jobs. All in the right Hayekian direction, theoretically, but needing really serious tuning and pruning for affordability, safeguarding of free market principles and prevention of fraud and abuse. Politically, however...
The Democrats seem to want to minimize cuts in their programs and our entitlements, and to gain more revenue to pay the Piper and to add to their social programs. The Republicans seem adamantly to want to cut spending and avoid higher taxes in the first instance. There is a stymied position because of a complete lack of trust in the Obama administration by Republicans, who seem to be gun shy of mere verbal promises to cut spending while having to accept tax increases up front, as has happened in the past by, let us say, "slight of hand in Congress;" cuts which would diminish the power of the Democrats, plus many serious concerns about the low morality of this administration. The Democrats likewise suspect the Republicans of wanting to decimate their already legislated social structures, especially ObamaCare, do want to hold or increase their monetary and political power, accuse the Republicans of bad faith, etc. and hence do not trust the Republicans. The verbal offer of Obama of a 5 for 1 split was rejected, I suppose, for all of the above distrust reasons, plus nothing in writing. One key to the impasse is the fact of Republican control of the House, where all money bills must begin.
Yet, most of us citizens go along with Hayek, I believe, not full bore, perhaps, but to an acceptable degree of expenditures, and we want action on all the key elements to begin sharply.
This is a titanic struggle for power and control of the nation, and I am pessimistic that we can get on the right track without ceding power to one or the other parties for control of the Senate and the Presidency via the next election, and with a providential, lucky selection of key players in the government.
We need some genius to write a bill that is acceptable to both parties and the public. My only thought is that the parties should come to a written agreement as to the principles of the way ahead, get public acceptance of it, and then write legislation that faithfully adheres to the agreement, pass it in both houses, and have the President sign it.
I hope that is what the supercommittee does!
There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, the first kind of security (that is: the certainty of a given minimum of sustenance for all...) should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is, some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision." The Road to Surfdom": F. A. Hayek
Thus we have Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, ObamaCare, and other welfare and job loss provisions for all. What is being debated is how to continue to pay for it all in the face of overwhelming national debt and its interest payments over the next 20 years, give or take, and while maintaining our military capability at "sufficient" levels, and, oh by the way, spurring the economy to life and making a lot more jobs. All in the right Hayekian direction, theoretically, but needing really serious tuning and pruning for affordability, safeguarding of free market principles and prevention of fraud and abuse. Politically, however...
The Democrats seem to want to minimize cuts in their programs and our entitlements, and to gain more revenue to pay the Piper and to add to their social programs. The Republicans seem adamantly to want to cut spending and avoid higher taxes in the first instance. There is a stymied position because of a complete lack of trust in the Obama administration by Republicans, who seem to be gun shy of mere verbal promises to cut spending while having to accept tax increases up front, as has happened in the past by, let us say, "slight of hand in Congress;" cuts which would diminish the power of the Democrats, plus many serious concerns about the low morality of this administration. The Democrats likewise suspect the Republicans of wanting to decimate their already legislated social structures, especially ObamaCare, do want to hold or increase their monetary and political power, accuse the Republicans of bad faith, etc. and hence do not trust the Republicans. The verbal offer of Obama of a 5 for 1 split was rejected, I suppose, for all of the above distrust reasons, plus nothing in writing. One key to the impasse is the fact of Republican control of the House, where all money bills must begin.
Yet, most of us citizens go along with Hayek, I believe, not full bore, perhaps, but to an acceptable degree of expenditures, and we want action on all the key elements to begin sharply.
This is a titanic struggle for power and control of the nation, and I am pessimistic that we can get on the right track without ceding power to one or the other parties for control of the Senate and the Presidency via the next election, and with a providential, lucky selection of key players in the government.
We need some genius to write a bill that is acceptable to both parties and the public. My only thought is that the parties should come to a written agreement as to the principles of the way ahead, get public acceptance of it, and then write legislation that faithfully adheres to the agreement, pass it in both houses, and have the President sign it.
I hope that is what the supercommittee does!
Labels: Government, Liberals, Morality, National Debt, Obama, Obamacare, Politics and Iraq, Republican
Sunday, September 04, 2011
Ranking Presidents?
How do we qualifiy a man to be President?
I would venture that none of the presidents actually trained to be the President, and therefore learned quite largely on the job what it means to run the administrative branch of the government, and the nation. I suspect further that few of them knew in any real detail just how things worked in Washington before they became President, nor did they grasp the wide-ranging subjects that had to be handled daily, or the external influences that may drive their every day. I do not know how to account easily (at this moment) for party affiliation or the makeup of Congress in ranking their success, but it must be a significant factor. I agree that executive experience per se may not be a telling differentiator.
Of all the traits one could wish upon a candidate for president, and I can readily think of several dozen, I select these four as crucial: prudence, temperance, justice, and fortitude. Of course, if you believe in the Unity of Virtues concept, having these four just about guarantees the rest will be favorable also!
How one could directly measure these traits before or during a campaign, I haven't a clue. It is simply an inner perception of worth. I do believe that if my candidate scored 8.5 to 9.0 or better on all three by some method he would end up ranking rather high on the list, as in my opinion did Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson and some others in these very traits.
Has any scholar attempted to rank the presidents specifically on such key virtues by some effective criteria, through their decisions, writings, or speeches for example, rather than by averaging polls?
How do we qualifiy a man to be President?
I would venture that none of the presidents actually trained to be the President, and therefore learned quite largely on the job what it means to run the administrative branch of the government, and the nation. I suspect further that few of them knew in any real detail just how things worked in Washington before they became President, nor did they grasp the wide-ranging subjects that had to be handled daily, or the external influences that may drive their every day. I do not know how to account easily (at this moment) for party affiliation or the makeup of Congress in ranking their success, but it must be a significant factor. I agree that executive experience per se may not be a telling differentiator.
Of all the traits one could wish upon a candidate for president, and I can readily think of several dozen, I select these four as crucial: prudence, temperance, justice, and fortitude. Of course, if you believe in the Unity of Virtues concept, having these four just about guarantees the rest will be favorable also!
How one could directly measure these traits before or during a campaign, I haven't a clue. It is simply an inner perception of worth. I do believe that if my candidate scored 8.5 to 9.0 or better on all three by some method he would end up ranking rather high on the list, as in my opinion did Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson and some others in these very traits.
Has any scholar attempted to rank the presidents specifically on such key virtues by some effective criteria, through their decisions, writings, or speeches for example, rather than by averaging polls?
Labels: The President
