When we see liberal policies in action, we realize that the overwhelming sense of "we know best" is at the root of the problem. The liberals simply believe that every person and every group that has failed or encountered hard times is inherently unable to function without their help.
The liberal can excuse the most heinous murder committed by some Third World denizen. They will simply accept the most brutal things done to women and gays by Islamic radicals. And in America, liberal politicians treat human beings like children. They feed them, house them, and take
care of their medical needs. Thus a childish level of behavior is really predictable, completely expected. The petulant fits of rage, the angry striking out at those who might tell them "no," and the refusal to accept even a basic level of self-reliance are all behaviors associated with children. And the liberals always seem surprised when those people who they've treated as children act childishly. Grown-ups take responsibility for their actions. Children are not held so accountable. And when someone takes responsibility for you for long enough, you never learn how to behave.
Our political betters tell us it's our fault, we are racist, we are anti-immigrant, we are stingy, we are mean, we are intolerant. Yet many of us can look back at our own families - only a generation or two back - and see that our grandparents or our neighbors didn't rely on government aid and didn't let language barriers, poverty, culture, or education stop them from assimilating into the American melting pot. I'm tired of being told it's my fault that people aren't making it in life and that I must pay their way. I'm tired of my children's future being imperiled by the vast numbers of those who will not do for themselves. Their great-grandparents didn't come here to enslave them to a government bureaucracy aligned with a ne'er-do-well sub-culture of native-born America haters, simply along for the ride, and immigrants who don't desire the better way of life that America has always promised, but rather wish to enjoy a more materially affluent version of their homelands.
These politicians who have promoted this are essentially giving their children toys rather than teaching them to to play ad make toys. Liberal politicians throw a few crumbs to those who have nothing. The recipients respond with fealty to the politicians. A few scurrilous figures in the community profit handsomely by constantly telling the children that they need the politicians. Most people remain only a little better off than they were before, but now many of them are less equipped to escae the cycle. And those who've made it out are forced to pay for it all. It's been said that democracy is doomed once people realize that government gives them the tools and the authority to dip into other people's pockets. The question before us then, is the one asked by children: "Are we there yet?"
Saturday, September 29, 2012
Thursday, September 27, 2012
A world of changes
I marvel at the things I hear said in political ads. Anyone trying to learn about America from what our political candidates say would think we're on the verge of totalitarianism or mass starvation. America's economy is still a mess and I just don't see how printing money and borrowing from China will help us in the long run. We're going to have to take some harsh medicine. I doubt that any politician has the will to make us take it. Still, millions of humans, everyone who can physically get here, is attempting to escape from other countries to get here. And as bad as it is right now, nobody is about to flee America to get to those other countries.
We have to shake off the culture of victimization. Too many Americans buy into the image of being victims, self appointed wards of the state. Romney may have spoken clumsily, but his point about the 47% who are dependent on government was a good one. There are too many people taking and too few giving, too many in the wagon and too few pulling it. I know that many public employees work hard. But there are just too many on the books. I don't know where the breaking point is, but it may be close. There are too many who contribute little to society, while they expect that society owes them something for nothing. And always, the barely veiled threat of violence if the mob isn't placated.
We have to teach people that this is still the land of dreams, the one place on earth where everyone has a chance. The formula is the same for EVERYONE. Get an education, learn some marketable skills, become an expert in your field, work hard, use your money wisely, and exercise some responsibility and self reliance. Too many people do destructive things -dropping out of school, having kids they can't support, drugs, criminal acts, and allowing themselves to become addicted to the sweet candy of government handouts. We're able to provide a tolerable life on the dole; surely it isn't one people should choose. If we, as a people, think politicians can take from one man to give to another, what stops them from taking from all men? I'm told over and over that our healthcare - doctors, nurses, hospitals, equipment - have all become too costly. How will doctors, nurses, hospitals, equipment, AND government bureaucrats be cheaper? Terrible politicians and commentators stir the crowd with talk of the pervasive racism of America. One would think it's 1963 and that Bull Connor and George Wallace are on the loose. No, this is a nation where a black man with an African, Muslim name can win the White House over a decorated war hero/fighter pilot/prisoner of war, a white man married into wealth. Why do we listen to these voices? We keep replacing societal norms and expectations, what we have used for decades, what has worked, what is tested and proven, replacing it with good intentions and wishful thinking. This is foolish gambling with our society's future. It is destructive, and it has to be answered, not with new ideas, but with the values and standards we have always held. We must hold to these timeless truths with fierce conviction. Or we shall be plunged into tumult and tyranny.
We have to shake off the culture of victimization. Too many Americans buy into the image of being victims, self appointed wards of the state. Romney may have spoken clumsily, but his point about the 47% who are dependent on government was a good one. There are too many people taking and too few giving, too many in the wagon and too few pulling it. I know that many public employees work hard. But there are just too many on the books. I don't know where the breaking point is, but it may be close. There are too many who contribute little to society, while they expect that society owes them something for nothing. And always, the barely veiled threat of violence if the mob isn't placated.
We have to teach people that this is still the land of dreams, the one place on earth where everyone has a chance. The formula is the same for EVERYONE. Get an education, learn some marketable skills, become an expert in your field, work hard, use your money wisely, and exercise some responsibility and self reliance. Too many people do destructive things -dropping out of school, having kids they can't support, drugs, criminal acts, and allowing themselves to become addicted to the sweet candy of government handouts. We're able to provide a tolerable life on the dole; surely it isn't one people should choose. If we, as a people, think politicians can take from one man to give to another, what stops them from taking from all men? I'm told over and over that our healthcare - doctors, nurses, hospitals, equipment - have all become too costly. How will doctors, nurses, hospitals, equipment, AND government bureaucrats be cheaper? Terrible politicians and commentators stir the crowd with talk of the pervasive racism of America. One would think it's 1963 and that Bull Connor and George Wallace are on the loose. No, this is a nation where a black man with an African, Muslim name can win the White House over a decorated war hero/fighter pilot/prisoner of war, a white man married into wealth. Why do we listen to these voices? We keep replacing societal norms and expectations, what we have used for decades, what has worked, what is tested and proven, replacing it with good intentions and wishful thinking. This is foolish gambling with our society's future. It is destructive, and it has to be answered, not with new ideas, but with the values and standards we have always held. We must hold to these timeless truths with fierce conviction. Or we shall be plunged into tumult and tyranny.
Sunday, September 16, 2012
To Support and Defend
Every military member takes an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Perhaps it is the ultimate expression of the phrase, I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it. Our troops stand in defense of Larry Flynt and Larry Elder, Billy Graham and Bill Clinton, George Bush and George Stephanopolis. They don't fight harder for ideals they like and they don't slack off if the Commander In Chief isn't the one they voted for. That's what makes General Martin Dempsey's actions so bizarre and troubling.
For the second time in a few weeks that General Dempsey has acted against free speech. He recently spoke against the veterans who've expressed political opposition to the Obama Administration. Perhaps he needs to take action to posthumously demote Dwight Eisenhower and US Grant. And how does he feel about John McCain and Joe Sestak?
Now Marty's calling the producer of this ridiculous video that has so riled the Muslims unto the point of murdering our ambassador in Libya and three other men. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff calling a private citizen because he doesn't like that citizen's beliefs is intimidation, no matter how you slice it. A lot of people, many in the military, have defended General Dempsey because he's trying to protect the troops. Well, this stuff angers the enemy. So does Christian religion, Western women's attire, Salman Rushdie, Jewish people, pork, alcohol, and a thousand other things. Which do we stop doing? Which of your values, what of your personal beliefs and habits do you surrender in order to placate someone?
I simply can't accept the premise that these actions - Koran burning or making videos - are responsible for the violence. If that's the case, then The DaVinci Code and the Piss Christ "artwork" should have led to riots across America. Why do we excuse such violence? We simply hold these people to a lower standard than we do ourselves. How condescending are these bigots?
These issues are a cover - the imams, Al Qaeda, and such love violence because to them, it's doing God's work. Most of the "protesters" have not seen the video. Now, this video may be hateful junk, but if free speech doesn't risk offending someone, then it's not free. I'm reminded of the Danish cartoons that caused such a deadly ruckus in the Muslim world. We're allowed to be offensive. Our culture, our values are built for this. We expect it as a part of the marketplace of ideas. And even in our society, offending Christians is tolerated. Maybe that's because the last time the Lutherans or the Baptists took to the streets is long past living memory.
Should there be a call for the Muslims to stop saying bad things about Christians and Jews? I can find countless calls for the death of all Jews in Muslim writings. Has General Dempsey called any of the Muslim clerics who spout this stuff? I wonder what General Dempsey's view might be of a competent Hollywood production about Muhammad - including his child bride, sexual enslavement of captive women, and murder of Jewish captives. These are aspects of the Muslim heritage that are inexplicable to most of us. But I know what we did to our World War II enemies who took comfort women and murdered Jews.
Perhaps General Dempsey should concentrate on the military role he's there to play: Either win the war or bring our kids home. War means fighting and fighting means killing. It's that simple, as Nathan Bedford Forrest said 150 years ago. We need to kill the enemy and wreck their will and capacity to carry on the fight. General Curtis LeMay said, "if you kill enough of them, they stop fighting." I don't care what the enemy thinks, so long as he understands to never again raise his hand against the United States, and to never ever let anyone come from his soil to kill Americans. Ralph Peters said on Fox News (9/14), that when they kill four of ours, we need to kill 400 of theirs. Brute force is all that works with some people. Much as we'd like to make nice, that's the way it is. And NEVER should we curb our freedoms to please some seventh-century minded despot.
For the second time in a few weeks that General Dempsey has acted against free speech. He recently spoke against the veterans who've expressed political opposition to the Obama Administration. Perhaps he needs to take action to posthumously demote Dwight Eisenhower and US Grant. And how does he feel about John McCain and Joe Sestak?
Now Marty's calling the producer of this ridiculous video that has so riled the Muslims unto the point of murdering our ambassador in Libya and three other men. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff calling a private citizen because he doesn't like that citizen's beliefs is intimidation, no matter how you slice it. A lot of people, many in the military, have defended General Dempsey because he's trying to protect the troops. Well, this stuff angers the enemy. So does Christian religion, Western women's attire, Salman Rushdie, Jewish people, pork, alcohol, and a thousand other things. Which do we stop doing? Which of your values, what of your personal beliefs and habits do you surrender in order to placate someone?
I simply can't accept the premise that these actions - Koran burning or making videos - are responsible for the violence. If that's the case, then The DaVinci Code and the Piss Christ "artwork" should have led to riots across America. Why do we excuse such violence? We simply hold these people to a lower standard than we do ourselves. How condescending are these bigots?
These issues are a cover - the imams, Al Qaeda, and such love violence because to them, it's doing God's work. Most of the "protesters" have not seen the video. Now, this video may be hateful junk, but if free speech doesn't risk offending someone, then it's not free. I'm reminded of the Danish cartoons that caused such a deadly ruckus in the Muslim world. We're allowed to be offensive. Our culture, our values are built for this. We expect it as a part of the marketplace of ideas. And even in our society, offending Christians is tolerated. Maybe that's because the last time the Lutherans or the Baptists took to the streets is long past living memory.
Should there be a call for the Muslims to stop saying bad things about Christians and Jews? I can find countless calls for the death of all Jews in Muslim writings. Has General Dempsey called any of the Muslim clerics who spout this stuff? I wonder what General Dempsey's view might be of a competent Hollywood production about Muhammad - including his child bride, sexual enslavement of captive women, and murder of Jewish captives. These are aspects of the Muslim heritage that are inexplicable to most of us. But I know what we did to our World War II enemies who took comfort women and murdered Jews.
Perhaps General Dempsey should concentrate on the military role he's there to play: Either win the war or bring our kids home. War means fighting and fighting means killing. It's that simple, as Nathan Bedford Forrest said 150 years ago. We need to kill the enemy and wreck their will and capacity to carry on the fight. General Curtis LeMay said, "if you kill enough of them, they stop fighting." I don't care what the enemy thinks, so long as he understands to never again raise his hand against the United States, and to never ever let anyone come from his soil to kill Americans. Ralph Peters said on Fox News (9/14), that when they kill four of ours, we need to kill 400 of theirs. Brute force is all that works with some people. Much as we'd like to make nice, that's the way it is. And NEVER should we curb our freedoms to please some seventh-century minded despot.
Saturday, September 8, 2012
Academics and Credit
The National Geographic Society has published a book entitled "1001 Inventions: The Enduring Legacy of Muslim Civilization." I believe we must be forthright about giving credit to other societies for advances and inventions. It is intelligent, morally right, and truthful to do so. It also gives us insight into the capabilities and history of our neighbors, competitors, and opponents.
But this book is full of garbage. Among the wonders credited to Islam: Chess; Running Water; Surgery; Tents; Observatories; Paper; and the ever-popular algebra (they must have invented it, it's an Arabic word)
Now, remember Muhammad lived from 570 to 632 AD, and the Islamic faith dates from 622 AD, so Muslims clearly invented nothing before the 7th century.
Chess was played in India before 600 AD.
The Greeks and Romans had running water systems - aquaducts, baths, plumbing. And they did surgeries - but surgery goes back into ancient Egypt and India.
Tents? I'm guessing the first cavemen who realized that some animal skins on sticks planted in the ground would keep you dry might have invented the tent. The Bible describes the Apostle Paul as a tentmaker (Acts 18:3). Paul died 500 years before Muhammad was born.
Observatories? I could mention Stonehenge, but clearly Hipparchus in Greece and Chinese astronomers had observatories hundreds of years before the birth of Christ.
Muslims didn't invent paper - the Chinese did that before the birth of Christ.
And the so-called Muslim advances in mathematics? The Babylonians and Greeks were doing algebra a thousand years before Muhammad was born. Even the numbers we call "Arabic numerals" are actually Indian. You'll recall from your travels in the Middle East that they still don't use Arabic numerals, but their own system. It's as if we went to Italy and found Roman numerals in common use today.
We should always give credit where due, even if we don't like it. But when we try to credit civilizations and cultures with accomplishments beyond their actual achievements, we devalue the contributions of those who did the real advancements. The Soviets claimed credit for inventing everything from the telegraph to the airplane to baseball. We laughed at those outrageous lies. Now we promote such stories in some warped attempt at feel-good kumbaya harmony. To say Muslims invented a bunch of stuff they did not is to lie. And we need to call the liars on their lies.
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Every Word You Say Offends Me
Did you know the State Department has a "Chief Diversity Officer?" Me neither. The State Department's Chief Diversity Officer John Robinson tells us in the latest issue of Slate Magazine that such plain English terms such as "hold down the fort," "handicap," and "rule of thumb" are offensive.
Hold down the fort is not some "Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee" reference. It seems to have originated in a hymn written by a preacher who served under William Tecumseh Sherman in the Civil War. Sherman used the expression in ordering men to hold a position while his forces advanced elsewhere. As far back as Elizabethan England, Handicap was a gambling game where players would hide their hands in their caps during the wagering. The term applied to the disabled is of twentieth century origin and has nothing to do with begging with the cap in hand, as the esteemed Mr. Robinson would have us believe. Even Snopes has dispelled that rumor. And rule of thumb is not at all related to the size of a stick to beat your wife. Woodworkers have used the thumb as a measurement as far back as we can trace. Indeed the word for thumb and inch are similar and derived from the same root in many Romance languages.
Now, speaking for the millions of us who are pretty sure we have Indian ancestry, although I really can't prove it - but you should see a photo of my grandma and her dad - I think Chief might be offensive. I always thought the Air Force was on shaky ground with the Indian headdress regalia surrounding the Chief Master Sergeants. So perhaps Mr. Robinson needs to come up with another title.
Hold down the fort is not some "Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee" reference. It seems to have originated in a hymn written by a preacher who served under William Tecumseh Sherman in the Civil War. Sherman used the expression in ordering men to hold a position while his forces advanced elsewhere. As far back as Elizabethan England, Handicap was a gambling game where players would hide their hands in their caps during the wagering. The term applied to the disabled is of twentieth century origin and has nothing to do with begging with the cap in hand, as the esteemed Mr. Robinson would have us believe. Even Snopes has dispelled that rumor. And rule of thumb is not at all related to the size of a stick to beat your wife. Woodworkers have used the thumb as a measurement as far back as we can trace. Indeed the word for thumb and inch are similar and derived from the same root in many Romance languages.
Now, speaking for the millions of us who are pretty sure we have Indian ancestry, although I really can't prove it - but you should see a photo of my grandma and her dad - I think Chief might be offensive. I always thought the Air Force was on shaky ground with the Indian headdress regalia surrounding the Chief Master Sergeants. So perhaps Mr. Robinson needs to come up with another title.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)