Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Hypocrisy Reigns
Verbal political battles are rife with hypocrisy.
The tactic of saddling a political party or an individual with historical misadventures is a well-developed art. It presumes that the misadventure of years ago in different circumstances and for rather uniquely different reasons is cause to believe that the same or very similar decision or policy would be promoted the next time the party or the individual is in a power position. So beat them over the head with it till they bleed!
Such a tactic wilfully ignores several points: 1) Parties and people do learn from their mistakes and will most likely take a far better position the next time out; 2) The accusers most often do not have all of the facts, and wilfully ignore what actually was the case for political reasons. Then too, hindsight is so much more accurate than foresight! The real factual basis quite often turns a trumped up losing proposition into a winner if you maintain your objectivity; 3) Quite a few of the accusers are simply twisting the facts around to create a (false) club with which to clobber the opposition and influence the average voter; 4) The emphasis should be on the NOW and not the past; and, just to be a tad facetious, 5) Political promises are not worth very much in the scheme of things to begin with. We have ample proof of that in the last two years from Obama, and from other Presidents as well, as we all know! Circumstances alter cases, as the saying goes, just to make things more difficult for you and me.
You know who your are and which tactics you use–honest or dishonest!
Labels: Honesty, hypocrisy, politics
Monday, February 15, 2010
Truly Annoying Things-- II
The Next Set of Annoying and Hateful Things
Number five in my list of truly annoying things is overzealous environmentalism. This includes attempting to save a few bugs from extinction by preventing homeowners from saving their houses from erosion, and the entire scam of Anthropogenic Global Warming or AGW. From the small bugs to the sweeping impact of supposed fixes demanded by AGW proponents such as Al Gore, this is the most egregious con job on the public since eugenics.
The moral degeneration of our society is the next (or sixth) hateful thing. From teen pregnancies to abortions, to unfaithful husbands to hookups, and to the blatant TV and PC porn shows, we have become hedonistic and nihilistic. This trend has been wildly supported by leftists that appear to want our society to fall apart.
In seventh place is the almost total disregard for the provisions of our Constitution on the part of the Congresses and the Presidents, both current and past. We are in a Post-Constitutional period where any idea can be turned into law without regard to its constitutionality. This will lead us into chaos sooner or later. The abdication of our courts of their duty to preserve and protect, and to interpret and define the Constitution in favor of judicial activism is a prime cause for this situation.
The eighth place goes to the two political parties for their disregard of their duties to the public in favor of party confrontations, ideological stances that destroy bipartisanship and meaningful compromise, and the ever-widening gap between the left and the right as to the directions of the nation. It is the far left that has wrecked our government and economy, moved away from constitutionality, and will undoubtedly wreck the military and diplomatic posture of the nation in due time.
These eight annoying and hateful situations can only be corrected by our citizens electing to office at every level very qualified conservatives that know where to steer the ship, and to keep a wary eye on them while they are in office.
Labels: Constitution, Environmentalism, Moral Degeneration, politics
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
A Cautionary Tale: Eugenics Redux
Tis is a little-remembered story of science and politics gone mad.
From “War Against the Weak”, by Ed Black
"In the first three decades of the 20th Century, American corporate philanthropy combined with prestigious academic fraud to create the pseudoscience eugenics that institutionalized race politics as national policy. The goal: create a superior, white, Nordic race and obliterate the viability of everyone else.
How? By identifying so-called “defective” family trees and subjecting them to legislated segregation and sterilization programs. The victims: poor people, brown-haired white people, African Americans, immigrants, Indians, Eastern European Jews, the infirm and really anyone classified outside the superior genetic lines drawn up by American raceologists.
The main culprits were the Carnegie Institution, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Harriman railroad fortune, in league with America’s most respected scientists hailing from such prestigious universities as Harvard, Yale and Princeton, operating out of a complex at Cold Spring Harbor on Long Island. The eugenic network worked in tandem with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the State Department and numerous state governmental bodies and legislatures throughout the country, and even the U.S. Supreme Court. They were all bent on breeding a eugenically superior race, just as agronomists would breed better strains of corn. The plan was to wipe away the reproductive capability of the weak and inferior.
Ultimately, 60,000 Americans were coercively sterilized — legally and extra-legally. Many never discovered the truth until decades later. Those who actively supported eugenics include America’s most progressive figures: Woodrow Wilson, Margaret Sanger and Oliver Wendell Holmes."
Perhaps we should be wary of scientists with power. I know that a basketful of initialed organizations, including the NSF, have come out saying that global warming/climate change is serious stuff. But, you see, the fever has risen to the point that a scientist cannot get research grants, and PhD candidates cannot get their degrees unless they sign up the the orthodoxy of a grave problem. It smacks of the eugenics thrust in spades, where everyone was convinced it was for the best to sterilize those 60,000 people. Since GW is a highly scientific area, and since we are relying on "prestigious scientists" for technical advice, and highly dubious leaders of the movement, such as Algore, I believe we should go very slowly and carefully into this issue.
Find the good scientists, one's that have no axe to grind, no carbon offsets to sell, and no accolades to garner from collegues.
Labels: Global Warming, hypocrisy, politics, Science, World Opinion
Friday, July 27, 2007
Iraq versus Vietnam: Inferences From History
Lessons from Military History
What can History contribute to our issues and conflicts of today? This question has bothered me since I have observed many of my favorite bloggers struggling to make comparisons between a current situation and one from the past—sometimes from the very far past.
Almost from the start of any discussion today, the argument turns from the situation at hand and what to do about it, to an argument about whether some past situation is a proper analogy from which to draw lessons. A cogent example is the attempts to compare our situation in
Meanwhile, we are at war, and need to make many hard decisions about where we are going, what we are willing to do, and how to go about it. I get the feeling that some people had much rather win the argument about the analogy than to win the real war going on under their noses, especially if their main conclusion quite obviously fits their preconceived notions of the answer.
Misuse of historical analogies is a game anyone can play if they have the evil motives and unprincipled mindset of charlatans. Ignoring inconvenient facts is often used, for instance, to make a shady point. Again, the example of
Still, there must be value in perusing history for its relevance to today. Why should we repeat the mistakes of the past if by realizing that the past situation is sufficiently analogous that we must heed that lesson from history? The answer lies in accounting for the constants and variables in each situation, together with the strength of the general inferences and conclusions that can be drawn from the current and past situations.
Constants include: human nature; geography; topology; terrain and vegetation; population centers; road and rail system; general or average (expected?) weather conditions; types of warfare, including classic opposition of forces, and asymmetrical warfare;
Variables include: Existing political situations; actual weather conditions; current dispositions of forces; morale; will to win of the troops and of the civilian populations; relative strength of forces; quality of leadership; weapon and equipment advantages and disadvantages; logistics; strategy and tactics; mobility and speed; training and experience; command and control; communications; computers; intelligence; attack versus defense; the fog of war; adherence to the rules of war; and just plain luck.
Inferences and conclusions: In this maze of constants and variables, it is easy to abstract the wrong inference or conclusion from a situation.
Again,
The inference I draw from all of this is that one must beware of loose inferences from history that are without substantial factual backup. Then too, is the effort to properly substantiate the analogy really worth the effort, as opposed to simply applying intelligence, common sense, and experience to the situation?
Labels: hypocrisy, Iraq, politics, Vietnam
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Stalemated Nation
Greed is the bellwether
I am angry, frustrated, disgusted, depressed, furious, disappointed, upset, emotionally drained, and ready to do something drastic. What drastic thing, I do not know, but the polarization of our national leaders and legislators into two totally disparate but almost evenly-divided camps is wrecking our country. Political gain, money, partisan loyalties and ensuring reelection appears to take complete precedence over our national interest. Every issue is fought to a standstill, and our enemies abroad are looking on with high glee as our democracy is failing to persevere against them.
The principal schisms are easy to identify:
Democrats (Liberal Leftists, actually)
End of the
End of the War on Terror
Reduction of our Military Forces
Bigger Government
More Tax Revenue for Liberal Causes, Progressive Taxes
Constitutional Changes for Same Sex Marriage
Moral Relativism
Total Separation of Church and State
Tolerance for Porn and Prostitution
Pro Choice
Inclusive Foreign Policy, Deferring to Others
Refusal to Recognize the Evils We are Confronted With
Support for a
Open Borders
Federal Control of Education
National Health Program Paid by Taxpayers
Support of the United Nations and World Government
Tax and Spend
Republicans (Conservatives particularly)
Victory in the
Victory in the War on Terror
Augmentation of our Military Forces
Smaller Government
Lesser Taxes and a Flat Tax
Prevention of Same Sex Marriages
Moral Absolutism
Non-Interference of Church and State, but State Choice
Restriction of Porn and Prostitution
Pro Life
American Interests First in Foreign Policy
Clear Recognition of the Evils in the World
Support for Individual Responsibility and Initiative
Controlled Borders and Stricter Immigration Laws
Local Control of Education
Reform of the Medical System, but Free Enterprise
Delimiting the Role of the UN, Preservation of Sovereignty
Balanced Budget, Buy-Down of Debts
However, our legislators do come together on a few issues:
Raising Congressional Salaries
Avoiding Election Campaign Reforms
Preserving Privileges and Perks of Congressmen
Silencing Reformers in their Midst
Protecting their own from Prosecution where they can
Protecting their own from Ethics Violation Charges
The one good thing about this stalemate is that the opposition cannot pass their agenda even though they have a slight majority!
The same was true when we Republicans had a majority. At least the most harmful items of legislation are stopped, for now.
Labels: Conservatism, Democratic, Liberalism, politics, Republican
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Iran, Iraq, Immigration: Cut to the Chase!
Does History Apply?
For some time, I have noticed that many prominent bloggers (who shall remain unnamed here) have the style of searching for the origins of issues, and only gently deriving any actionable conclusions from their efforts. It appears to be a fetish to delve into history as far back as the Crusades when focusing on Iraq or Iran, and to discuss the benefits of the Scotch-Irish immigrations when weeding through the issues hidden in the current immigration debate. There seems to be an enormous investment in past events, outcomes, and ideas that are supposed to inform our current debates. Perhaps so and perhaps not.
We are in the 21st century, and the contrasts in practically every category of life you can name in America are vastly changed, even from the early to mid 20th century till now. Thus, arguments by analogy can be terribly flawed because of: misuse of the comparison by a straining author; data from the past or present being incomplete, biased or in error; by the changed technology available today; or by the prevailing attitudes, spirit, conviction, or patriotism prevalent in the past or today. It seems then, that only the most gross comparisons can have real meaning and utility.
Vietnam versus Iraq is one to think about. The one comparison that has any real meaning is the abject defeatism of the media in both cases. In the Vietnam instance, it eventually turned military victory into a political defeat for America, and a genocidal disaster for the people of Southeast Asia. It is apparent that the lesson here has not been learned by the media for Iraq.
So I have little use for the media, which is yet another user of false comparisons to make their negative points.
There are many new factors to be accounted for, including: WMD; GPS; logistics and transport capabilities; communications; intelligence; modern weapons; speed of execution; and the commander's and the troops knowledge of the battle today. While some ruses and tactical or strategic ploys from the past still work today, they must be carefully tempered by these new factors, or even rejected because of them. This is not to say that study of the past of warfare is not meaningful. It is. It provides grounding for new officers in grasping the thinking of the excellent soldiers and generals of the past. Then it is up to them to apply these methods to the present, or to update them with their newly available capabilities.
In most cases that I have familiarity with, both bloggers and the media tend to misuse historical comparisons blatantly, causing untold confusion in the public mind. It is happening today in the totally politicized Iraqi situation.
There is no cure, either, I believe.
Labels: History, Immigration, Iran, Iraq, politics
Friday, June 08, 2007
Erase Amnesty
We should be clear about what we want!
Never mind the screaming idiots from the Left shouting: Bigot! or Racist! The fact is that we see no reason to mortgage our society in favor of a rag-tag swarm from Mexico. What could these people have been thinking when they promoted such a sell-out bill? Open borders deluxe!
We do not need more workers. We need fewer abortions.
We need migrant fruit pickers who pick and go home.
Day laborers who give a good job for their pay we always need.
But, do we have to subsidize them to the tune of $32,000 per family per year? I think not.
Do we have to pay for their health care? Why? Just tell me why.
Can’t these workers stand on their own two feet? Buy insurance?
Why do we have to give them amnesty, including criminals and gang members? What are these Senators trying to do here? Madness! They will not get my vote.
We do not want amnesty for illegal immigrants. We want to send them home. We want employers to stop hiring them.
We do not want criminals or terrorists to be given amnesty. We want them in jail, and then deported.
We do not want open borders. We want the borders fully controlled, and a big multi-fence installed for at least the lawful 800 miles.
We CAN send the illegals home if we so desire. It would be a big job, yes, but doable also! Over a four year period in WWII, we drafted, processed, housed, fed, clothed, gave medical care, trained, and transported over 12,000,000 men and women all over the states and many foreign countries, and then back home. So stop the nonsense that it cannot be done! Of course it can be done if we have the will to do it!
I have often thought it very odd that we seem to want 45 million lawbreaking, low-skill foreigners to come into the US essentially for free and to subsidize them as well. At the same time, or since Roe versus Wade passed, we have permitted 45 million abortions of our own potential citizens at a rate of over 1.5 million per year.
Doesn’t this strike anyone as nuts? It is morally reprehensible!
Labels: Immigration, politics
Friday, April 20, 2007
Save Us From the Dems!
The score is getting far too high. Taxes are going to be raised, really trying to raise the white flag in Iraq, ERA reintroduced, Pelosi wandering into foreign policy, impeachment proceedings being introduced, they have made a wreck of things for 6 years, and now they are compounding it! I am really sick of the Dems and the Leftwing.
For that matter, I am not very happy with the Republicans in the Congress, either. They haven't exactly shined lately. If amnesty for illegals passes, I have no idea what I will do. Get over it, I guess, but I do not have to like it one bit. Next will be bans on guns, or something worse. In a way, I am glad these things are coming out of the woodwork. Might make it easier for the Republicans in 08.
Labels: politics
Friday, February 23, 2007
Politics 2007, 2008
Standing Above the Fray?
There is much merit to the idea of staying above the political storms this year, and next. After all, there is only one chance to vote for anyone, and that vote has already been decided, at least by me. Several points are relevant:
1. Politicians promise what they cannot deliver most of the time.
2. Politicians promise to buy votes, indirectly of course, by increasing entitlements of citizens.
3. Politicians scare up arguments designed to put fear in you if you vote against them.
4. Politicians accept funds from unknown sources, or from obscure sources, thereby obligating themselves in some unknown manner to these unknown parties.
5. Politicians are basically corrupt and unethical, and their lust for power and high office drives them to commit ever more unethical acts. Some are more clever than others at it.
6. Politicians today are without honor, without patriotism, and without truth. It is all about money, adulation, and power, not the welfare of citizens.
7. Politicians today have a hidden agenda, which is to further their idea of a collective, Utopian society where everyone is provided for from cradle to grave, if only they are elected!
8. Politicians today want to rewrite the Constitution to suit their Utopian ideas.
9. Politicians are hypocrites, and the longer they are around the more hypocritical they become.
10.Politicians are vacillators, testing the winds of opinion before they commit themselves to a proposition, and reversing themselves if they missed the right opinion early on, or reverse again if the winds change. Flip-Floppers!
11. Politicians today have no sense of what is right. Cut and run is their motto. Sickening!
12. Politicians love to spend other people's money. Tax and spend!
13. Politicians today are two-faced: one face to the voters, and a different face once in power.
It is say one thing and do quite another, trusting they won't be called on it: they see the public as having very short memories. Sheep are what we are called by them.
14. Politicians cater to the "elites." I would certainly love to have a full list of these "elites;" they need to see the sunshine of exposure for what they are.
Added: 15. Politicians are not generals (and vice versa!).
Seems I mainly listed the sins of Dimdems, especially of the Clinton variety! Oh well! I will try harder next time, if only I can stand above the fray!
Labels: politics
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Pelosi Wants a Big Plane!
Why should the taxpayer afford Mrs. Pelosi a really big ride? We will next hear from every new Dimdem committee chairman in the House and Senate that they too should have a nice, comfortable plane to ride around in, and campaign in, in the guise of “fact-finding” or some such.
This neatly sidesteps the problem of accepting rides from fat-cat supporters; the Dimdem Congressmen will have their own big, long-range planes! We, the taxpayers, will drool as the progressive airplane purchases escalate to 747s or Dreamliners for the most influential Dimdems.
Just think about it!
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Bits and Pieces
Election Season
There is simply far too much hypocrisy in Democratic Party politics. Flip Flopping is truly a Democratic Art. Screams for four years about too few troops in Iraq have turned around to moans and groans that Bush is sending more troops now. The only moan I have made is that he didn’t commit to a much larger new troop commitment.
Billery/Hillary
After being appalled for eight years with Bill as President and Hillary as First Female, the current candidacy of Hillary, with Bill as First Man, gives me the shudders. This is how we will lose the GWOT, gain lassiaz faire, relative morality, and free everything from birth to death, all at the expense of the well-to-do. Free college, free health care, a minimum wage for everyone whether they work or not, and giving much of our sovereignty away to the UN. Who needs the Clintons? Not me!
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Unions, Iraq and 2008 Elections
A Few Tuesday Notes
The Union Movement: The unions are still around, and still want pay and benefit increases that make them better paid than non-union workers. (The average weekly earnings of union workers are $781, while non-union workers earn $612.) Embedded and in control of today’s movements, particularly in John Sweeney’s AFL-CIO, and Andy Stern’s Service Employee’s International Union (SEIU), are radical socialists and communists who are dedicated to the principles of Marx. Fortunately, they represent fewer workers than in their heyday—a combined 15 million members now, all told, and perhaps about 11% of the
These people bear watching.
More Troops for
The 2008 Election: The only politician that makes sense to me is Newt Gingrich. He has the intellect, the understanding of politics, and the patriotism to carry the nation proudly through the early 21st century. Newt has stated that he will not announce his intentions until the Fall of 2008, but he has Fox News as his platform, from which to show his mettle.
He is worth listening to on most subjects you can name.
Thursday, November 16, 2006
What Mandate?
The lesson of the election is being distorted, in my opinion.
We hear daily blurbs that the people have spoken and we need to pull out of Iraq. That is the Dems version of the election results. We, the American people, have said via our votes that we deplore the war, and want out, according to the Dems.
I have a different take. We the people want a victory in Iraq. We haven't seen sufficient progress over the past years to feel satisfied that we have been doing all we could to effect our success. Thus the Bush Team is faulted for not pursuing the war aggressively enough . We do not want an abject pullout, but a convincing win in Iraq. Many of us feel that more manpower on the ground, and more aggressive pursuit of the radical Islamists and militias of the clerics would rapidly dry up the insurgency. We seem to have kept our troop levels steady and modest while the insurgents have reinforced themselves from Syria and Iran. We do not own the night, and the day is iffy too. Granted, it is Iraq in the end that must control their own security, but we need a thorough cleansing of the radical population right now.
Such a cleansing would take a large commitment of forces, on the order of another 150,000 to 200,000 men, to close off Baghdad, seal the borders, and to lead the Iraqi forces further into self-supporting effectiveness. Then, too, it would be handy to have such a force in Iraq in case the Iranian situation goes sour, and the Syrians act up with them.
Some people have complained that this force augmentation would mean multiple tours in Iraq for many soldiers. That is why our soldiers serve. As long as we need to fight in Iraq, soldiers will fight and stay there to ensure their victory. We need more troops as well, which should lead to a draft again, but with a major difference. Let the volunteers fight, and let the draftees man the US stations left by the volunteers. Let the draftees decide to join the regular forces if they so desire after they have been trained up thoroughly.
Of course this is all against the Dems objectives, which is to let us lose in Iraq. So the loss of thousands of our men dead and many thousands wounded, will have been in vain. What a crock!
Labels: Dimdems, politics, Politics and Iraq, The Leftwing
