Gov. Blago has picked Roland Burris to fill Obama's old Senate seat, putting the democrats in a lose-lose situation.
First, as this excellent Commentary Magazine piece by Jennifer Rubin points out, if the Senate Democrat's accept Burris, they run the risk of accepting a tainted candidate from an disgraced democratic governor.
Second, if they attempt to reject Burris, they not only could be acting unConstitutionally, but will also be rejecting an African-American.
Talk about Blago taking the scorched earth route - what democrat will now help him after this stunt.
And what I find all the more offensive is that Burris is 71! When most American's are told to retire at 65 or that they will have to work until they are 72 in order to live off of Social Security, why does this man get a Senate seat for at least the next two years that offers plum pension plans? Aren't there any other younger African-Americans who could have done this job? Ones that might actually have a chance at re-election?
The whole thing seems like calculated defiance and spite.
Friday, January 2, 2009
Be Skeptical, It's Your Damn Job
The Englightened Redneck is correct to call out Dan Froomkin of The Washington Post for wondering if he should be skeptical of Obama.
To paraphrase The Englightened Redneck, You are a journalist - it is your job to be skeptical of EVERYONE. How dare you consider anything less.
Not only does the media lean left, it is typically liberal lazy. Unwilling to do any real work, unwilling to challenge their own beliefs, and unwilling to accept new evidence when it overturns their ideology.
Is it any wonder newspapers are suffering. Who wants to read dreck when there are so many more honest avenues to information out there.
To paraphrase The Englightened Redneck, You are a journalist - it is your job to be skeptical of EVERYONE. How dare you consider anything less.
Not only does the media lean left, it is typically liberal lazy. Unwilling to do any real work, unwilling to challenge their own beliefs, and unwilling to accept new evidence when it overturns their ideology.
Is it any wonder newspapers are suffering. Who wants to read dreck when there are so many more honest avenues to information out there.
- United State of Pop 2008 (Viva La Pop)
A fantastic video mash-up of Billboard's Top 25 Pop Songs of 2008.
I suspect I'd prefer this to any individual song on the list. It's really good.
I suspect I'd prefer this to any individual song on the list. It's really good.
Thursday, January 1, 2009
More Intolerance Please
I completely agree with Jonah Goldberg, here, that we need more intolerance in the world.
More intolerance of terrorism.
More intolerance of rudeness.
More intolerance of crime.
More intolerance of reckless driving. (I'm looking at you talking on the cellphone)
More intolerance of divorce.
More intolerance of misbehaving children.
More intolerance of failing schools.
When we lower expectations of behavior, we end up with more bad behavior. When we lower our tolerance of evil, we get more evil.
I am sick of it. And I hope you are too.
Read Jonah's arguement and you'll soon agree.
More intolerance of terrorism.
More intolerance of rudeness.
More intolerance of crime.
More intolerance of reckless driving. (I'm looking at you talking on the cellphone)
More intolerance of divorce.
More intolerance of misbehaving children.
More intolerance of failing schools.
When we lower expectations of behavior, we end up with more bad behavior. When we lower our tolerance of evil, we get more evil.
I am sick of it. And I hope you are too.
Read Jonah's arguement and you'll soon agree.
Fighting Iran
Micheal Ledeen offers an insightful look at the real problem in the Middle East, Iran.
We definately should be helping Israel fight Hamas and destroy it but we also need to figure out a way to neutralize Iran. Even Egypt is sick of them.
Read for yourself what the right story is in this NRO article titled "Wrong Story".
We definately should be helping Israel fight Hamas and destroy it but we also need to figure out a way to neutralize Iran. Even Egypt is sick of them.
Read for yourself what the right story is in this NRO article titled "Wrong Story".
Wonders Never Cease
The New York Times actually got something right.
The 50th Anniversary of Castro taking power is a very BAD thing.
Who'd believe it. The New York Times actually did some accurate reporting!?!
The 50th Anniversary of Castro taking power is a very BAD thing.
Who'd believe it. The New York Times actually did some accurate reporting!?!
Outliers
If Thomas Sowell recommends reading something, then I, for one, will read it.
This Outliers book sounds fascenating.
This Outliers book sounds fascenating.
If It Works, Don't Fix It
Conservatives tend to make incremental improvements. Liberals tend to tear down and needlessly rebuild.
Conservatives learn from history. Liberals repeat it.
Looks like we're facing one of those repeating history things.
We now have a good idea of what NOT to do to an economy thanks to the examples provided by the players of the Great Depression but our democrat "leaders" are not learning from histories mistakes.
Amity Shlaes, author of the book I'm currently reading - The Forgotten Man, has an excellent article in The Washington Post today about just this subject and he says it much better than I.
Conservatives learn from history. Liberals repeat it.
Looks like we're facing one of those repeating history things.
We now have a good idea of what NOT to do to an economy thanks to the examples provided by the players of the Great Depression but our democrat "leaders" are not learning from histories mistakes.
Amity Shlaes, author of the book I'm currently reading - The Forgotten Man, has an excellent article in The Washington Post today about just this subject and he says it much better than I.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Oh, And...
I hope and pray for all of us that 2009 will be a happier new year.
Have fun tonight. Don't drink and drive.
And remember, tomorrow is another day, month, and year.
Have fun tonight. Don't drink and drive.
And remember, tomorrow is another day, month, and year.
2008 In Review
This is my husband's Year In Review.
Even if I weren't his wife, I would agree with him.
To quote his ending, "2008, you were a rotten year. No-one likes you. Go away!"
Even if I weren't his wife, I would agree with him.
To quote his ending, "2008, you were a rotten year. No-one likes you. Go away!"
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Faith Has Many Rewards
According to this study, being religious helps you control your impulses and lead a happier better life.
Why isn't this surprising to those of us with faith?
Why isn't this surprising to those of us with faith?
How Your Family Affects Your Brain
Finally, a scientific study that explains family relationships via your brain.
In short, there is a reason why they make you crazy.
In short, there is a reason why they make you crazy.
Monday, December 29, 2008
More Foreigner Predictions
I love it when foreign experts expound about the United States. My beloved husband didn't "get" American federalism for the first 3 years he lived here while working in DC (he gets it now).
So when I hear this Russian professor predicting the demise of the USA in 2010, I actually just have to smile. Seems more like a wishful thinking than actual understanding.
So when I hear this Russian professor predicting the demise of the USA in 2010, I actually just have to smile. Seems more like a wishful thinking than actual understanding.
Congratulations
Bristol Palin has given birth to a healthy baby boy.
Congratulations to the new parents and new grandparents.
All my best wishes for a happy, healthy, productive and long life.
A new baby is always a joy.
Congratulations to the new parents and new grandparents.
All my best wishes for a happy, healthy, productive and long life.
A new baby is always a joy.
From the good folks at Samizdata
A stirring defense of Freedom of Speech (especially on the internet) by the good folks at samizdata.net.
Thank you Perry de Havilland
Thank you Perry de Havilland
Political Correctness Vs. Freedom Of Thought
The Keith John Sampson Story
A video from Founding Bloggers which looks like a great site.
Watch the video, it is well worth knowing how important the fight against PCBS is!
And just remember this, if someone is attempting to control your speech, they are attempting to control your thinking.
While you are at it, visit FIRE, the good folks who fought for Keith John Sampson's liberty and won.
A video from Founding Bloggers which looks like a great site.
Watch the video, it is well worth knowing how important the fight against PCBS is!
And just remember this, if someone is attempting to control your speech, they are attempting to control your thinking.
While you are at it, visit FIRE, the good folks who fought for Keith John Sampson's liberty and won.
The False Collectivism of Liberal Progressives
Collectivism is a principle foundation of all left-wing ideologies. The Utopian idea that if we all agreed and worked toward a common goal we'd make a worker's paradise.
Or some such nonsense.
The point is that collectivism within the progressive framework is a red herring. It's a false ideal used to bludgeon folks into submission via groupthink, ideology, and indoctrination.
A good example of what I mean comes from my current reading - a book called The Forgotten Man by Amity Shlaes. This book is a deeply interesting review of the Great Depression and what people were actually thinking AT THE TIME. Not what people decided to think after events unfolded.
What do I mean? Well, like Jonah Goldberg's book "Liberal Fascism", Shlaes references the publications, newspaper articles, and government policies during the Great Depression as they were published so that you can easily see what the players were thinking then. You read about the events as they happened with citations, not an overview that interprets happened.
I found this moment illuminating. It deals with a gent called R. C. Tugwell, an economist with strong collectivist leanings (he went with others to the USSR to meet with Stalin). He and some like-minded economists published a college textbook on Economics with pictures and captions to illustrate their points.
One picture was of a skyscraper and the caption that states, "Collective effort built this; the inference is inescapable; but we sometimes attempt to avoid the logical further inference that more collective effort is needed. Sometimes we say that what we need is more individual enterprise. No individual ever built a skyscraper."
What a load of horsehooey!
If no individual ever built a skyscraper, then no collective ever built one either. There is ALWAYS a leader, a decision maker, a financier, an architect. Always.
Whether in a capitalist society or a collectivist society, someone has to make decisions and be responsible for them. The only difference is that in a capitalist society, the decision maker can also profit financially from the risks he or she takes, while in a collectivist society the decision maker will only be punished for failure and gain nothing from success.
No "individual enterprise" succeeds without workers but no random group of workers can succeed without an individual leader.
There is an "I" in TEAM. It's the "I" of Coach and the "I" of Team Captain. To claim otherwise is ignorance beyond bliss and well into oblivion.
And that is the big lie about liberalism, progressivism, and/or collectivism. It's never just a bunch of workers united. There is always a decider, a leader, a decision maker who emerges and leads. And he builds his leadership into power by convincing others they will make out better with him or her than with anyone else, by building a groupthink that supports him without question - often in fear.
Capitalism and conservatives have leaders too. But followers can disagree with their leaders, can go somewhere else. Followers of a practitioner of "individual enterprise" tend to make money, even the lowliest follower.
The same can not be said of liberal elites who expect blind faith from their followers while enjoying all the benefits of elitism.
At least, you can disagree with your capitalist boss, but woe betide the folks who speak up under collectivist rule. Remember the Gulag? Don't think Putin has forgotten.
When liberals start demanding that we all agree, they are a engaging in false collectivism. When liberals say we should all sacrifice but makes no sacrifice themselves, they are engaging in false collectivism. When liberals demand we accept the low life while they live the high life, they are engaging in false collectivism.
Engage in capitalism. You'll make out a lot better.
Or some such nonsense.
The point is that collectivism within the progressive framework is a red herring. It's a false ideal used to bludgeon folks into submission via groupthink, ideology, and indoctrination.
A good example of what I mean comes from my current reading - a book called The Forgotten Man by Amity Shlaes. This book is a deeply interesting review of the Great Depression and what people were actually thinking AT THE TIME. Not what people decided to think after events unfolded.
What do I mean? Well, like Jonah Goldberg's book "Liberal Fascism", Shlaes references the publications, newspaper articles, and government policies during the Great Depression as they were published so that you can easily see what the players were thinking then. You read about the events as they happened with citations, not an overview that interprets happened.
I found this moment illuminating. It deals with a gent called R. C. Tugwell, an economist with strong collectivist leanings (he went with others to the USSR to meet with Stalin). He and some like-minded economists published a college textbook on Economics with pictures and captions to illustrate their points.
One picture was of a skyscraper and the caption that states, "Collective effort built this; the inference is inescapable; but we sometimes attempt to avoid the logical further inference that more collective effort is needed. Sometimes we say that what we need is more individual enterprise. No individual ever built a skyscraper."
What a load of horsehooey!
If no individual ever built a skyscraper, then no collective ever built one either. There is ALWAYS a leader, a decision maker, a financier, an architect. Always.
Whether in a capitalist society or a collectivist society, someone has to make decisions and be responsible for them. The only difference is that in a capitalist society, the decision maker can also profit financially from the risks he or she takes, while in a collectivist society the decision maker will only be punished for failure and gain nothing from success.
No "individual enterprise" succeeds without workers but no random group of workers can succeed without an individual leader.
There is an "I" in TEAM. It's the "I" of Coach and the "I" of Team Captain. To claim otherwise is ignorance beyond bliss and well into oblivion.
And that is the big lie about liberalism, progressivism, and/or collectivism. It's never just a bunch of workers united. There is always a decider, a leader, a decision maker who emerges and leads. And he builds his leadership into power by convincing others they will make out better with him or her than with anyone else, by building a groupthink that supports him without question - often in fear.
Capitalism and conservatives have leaders too. But followers can disagree with their leaders, can go somewhere else. Followers of a practitioner of "individual enterprise" tend to make money, even the lowliest follower.
The same can not be said of liberal elites who expect blind faith from their followers while enjoying all the benefits of elitism.
At least, you can disagree with your capitalist boss, but woe betide the folks who speak up under collectivist rule. Remember the Gulag? Don't think Putin has forgotten.
When liberals start demanding that we all agree, they are a engaging in false collectivism. When liberals say we should all sacrifice but makes no sacrifice themselves, they are engaging in false collectivism. When liberals demand we accept the low life while they live the high life, they are engaging in false collectivism.
Engage in capitalism. You'll make out a lot better.
Support Israel
Another reason why the New York Post is a better newspaper than the New York Times, their articles are just so damn right.
Ralph Peters opinion piece is very sound. The headline alone sums it up...
He details the view that Israel is not allowed to defend itself but terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah are allowed to attack it.
Poppycock!
Could you imagine how long America would tolerate some kind of La Raza group lobbing hundreds of missiles a day into El Paso, Texas. About one New York minute is how long.
So how dare these liberal elites condemn Israel for defending itself?
Ralph Peters opinion piece is very sound. The headline alone sums it up...
DAMNED IF THEY DO
BUT ISRAEL'S DEAD IF THEY DON'T
He details the view that Israel is not allowed to defend itself but terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah are allowed to attack it.
Poppycock!
Could you imagine how long America would tolerate some kind of La Raza group lobbing hundreds of missiles a day into El Paso, Texas. About one New York minute is how long.
So how dare these liberal elites condemn Israel for defending itself?
Defining Moments
Rich Lowry's opinion piece in the New York Post is about both Obama's pick Rick Warren for his inaugeration invocation and about the larger culture war raging through America.
The article is worth a glance but its this summation which I think should be most remembered...
Because whether it is about gay marriage or abortion or scientific honesty, the fight between liberals and conservatives has always been between screamers and speakers. I, for one, am with Rich here. I no longer wish to speak politely to people who are too busy screaming at me to hear what I have to say.
I have frequently noticed that we all want the same ends (more or less) but the means to achieve those ends are where the principle differences lay. It seems however that you simply can not get your average liberal to admit something as simple as that.
Sincere there is no talking to these folks, I say break out the pitchforks and let's fight to preserve what is right.
The article is worth a glance but its this summation which I think should be most remembered...
Ah, yes, "gracefully step aside." That's essentially what the cultural left has been asking traditionalists to do for 30 years now, to politely shut up while it goes about redefining the country's mores. The answer must now be, as it has always been, "No way, no how."Why?
Because whether it is about gay marriage or abortion or scientific honesty, the fight between liberals and conservatives has always been between screamers and speakers. I, for one, am with Rich here. I no longer wish to speak politely to people who are too busy screaming at me to hear what I have to say.
I have frequently noticed that we all want the same ends (more or less) but the means to achieve those ends are where the principle differences lay. It seems however that you simply can not get your average liberal to admit something as simple as that.
Sincere there is no talking to these folks, I say break out the pitchforks and let's fight to preserve what is right.
More Media Bias
This time, the bias reveals itself in a compare and constrast of Presidential workout schedules.
As usual Michelle Malkin is scathingly entertaining.
I particularly like her ending....
As usual Michelle Malkin is scathingly entertaining.
I particularly like her ending....
Fit Republican president = Selfish, indulgent, creepy fascist.
Fit Democratic president = Disciplined, health-conscious Adonis role model.
The good news: In just a few short weeks, W. will be able to exercise in peace, free from the disapproving glares of journalists now rushing to mop the sweat — er, the glisten — from Barack Obama’s hallowed brow.
A Generation of Indoctrination
I think the subtitle of this article explains both the title and why you should read it.
After 30 years, it may be time to take Iran’s threats seriously.
Stabbing the Heart of Science
Competitive Enterprise Institute writer Richard Morrison has an article up on their website, here, about Obama's bad science picks.
These picks are scientists with alarmist agendas and do not bode good for the country or the scientific community.
Don't say you weren't warned.
(Disclosure - my husband works for CEI, it's a good place. Check out its website.)
These picks are scientists with alarmist agendas and do not bode good for the country or the scientific community.
Don't say you weren't warned.
(Disclosure - my husband works for CEI, it's a good place. Check out its website.)
This is Fun
Here is a link to a list of the best "Best of 2008" Lists.
I especially like the "Top 20 Mug Shots of 2008" - Classy.
Hat tip to Jonah Goldberg
I especially like the "Top 20 Mug Shots of 2008" - Classy.
Hat tip to Jonah Goldberg
Victor Davis Hanson on Sarah Palin
I liked this from NRO so much I am quoting it in full....
A Media Morality Tale [Victor Davis Hanson]
The putative Caroline Kennedy candidacy for senator has had the odd effect of reopening the media can of worms treatment of Gov. Palin. Compared to Sarah Palin's almost immediate immersion into crowds and public speaking, Kennedy seems like a deer in the headlights before the media that is either ignored or asked to submit written questions. Palin was a natural; Kennedy can't finish a single sentence without "You know" or "I mean." Palin's family saga and daily grind were populist to the core; Kennedy is a creature of a few blocks' radius in Manhattan and Martha's Vineyard.
Outsider and lower-middle-class Palin toughed it out in Wasilla for years of politicking on a 16-year slog through Alaskan old-boy politics; Caroline Kennedy in regal fashion apparently skipped voting in about half of New York elections, and has never run for anything.
Reporters swarmed over Palin's pregnancies, and her wardrobe, but apparently took on face value that Caroline's fluff books were really a sign of either erudition or scholarship.
Conservative Palin endured liberal Charlie Gibson's glasses0on-the nose pretentiousness, and Katie Couric's attack-dog questions; insider Kennedy I doubt will meet with either, much less sit down with a hostile questioner like a Glenn Beck or Bill O'Reilly. Her friendly New York Times "interview" proved an embarrassment—rarely have so many words been spoken with so little content.
But, no, the real embarrassment proves to be the media itself that apparently can't see this weird unfolding self-incriminating morality tale: It is not just that Palin is conservative, Kennedy politically-correct (e.g., pro-abortion, gun control, gay marriage, etc), or Palin a newcomer to public attention, Kennedy a celebrity since childhood. Rather it is the aristocratic value system of most NY-DC journalists themselves who apparently still assume that old money, status, and an Ivy-League pedigree are reliable barometers of talent and sobriety, suggesting that the upper-East Side Kennedy's public ineptness is an aberration, a bad day, a minor distraction, while Palin's charisma and ease are superficial and a natural reflection of her Idaho sports journalism degree.
A few generations ago, Democrats would have opposed Palin but appreciated her blue-collar story, and applauded a working mom who out-politicked entrenched and richer male elites. But now the new aristocratic liberalism has adopted the values of the old silk-stocking Republicans of the 1950s—and so zombie-like worship rather than question entitlement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
