Obligatory Election Blogging, Part I...
I kinda have to do this because everyone else is. I know, I know -- if everyone else were jumping off bridges, etc, etc. Then again, I have so much mental energy invested in this thing I would be remiss if I didn;t give ya a blow-by-blow of what's happening today as the Nation goes to the voting booth.
As of 1:00 PM, EST:
- Two polling places in a heavily-Republican district in New Jersey were attacked by a sicko who ran in, tossed white powder in the air, and quickly ran out. The white powder has been identified as salt in one of these attacks, and the other is still pending. Eveacuations and hazmat teams were precautions, and no one apparently, is hurt. However, this will hold up voting for several hours in both pool stations and I can almost guarentee that Republicans (if they're worth their...ahem...salt) will be in a courtroom immediately to ensure that lost time is made up, despite mandatory poll-closing times. I'll give ya one guess as to what political-affiliation the lone lunatic has, allegedly.
- In Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, home of the 104% voter turnout in 2000, poll-watchers have found four voting machines with votes on them before the polls even opened. Approximately 2000 votes were recorded before Election Day even started. If I had to take a guess, the overwhelming majority of those votes (say 1999-1, have to make it look fair) were for Kerry. Philadelphia is rapidly becoming the new Chicago.
- Also in Philadelphia, there are reports of a gun being displayed and presumably used to intimidate people, although it is not clear if the targets were voters or poll workers. No new information on this is available yet.
- The early returns from Ohio tend to indicate the state is leaning towards Bush. More on this as the day goes on.
- In South Dakota, Sentaor Tom Daschle (Dashole) attempted to sue his way back into office before the polls even opened last night. His claim was based on reports of republican voter intimidation at SD's indian reservations in 2000. This intimidation amounted to taking down license plate numbers (5 of them), taking notes at polling places and rolling eyes at folks. The only witness called by Daschle was a formerDean campaign worker from Iowa, who was never in SD before yesterday. The idea is to have republican pollwatchers kicked out of reservation polling places. If I recall, there was a huge scandal in 2000 about Indian votes being bought (for cash) by Gore supporters. Perhaps Tom has the same idea? P.S. The judge in this case is a good friend of Daschle and is the guy who helped him sue his way into office in 1978 in the first place. Let's watch this one closely.
- Reports from Wisconsin indicate that someone slashed the tires of 30 vehicles intended to get republican voters to the polls. If I had to guess, these 30 vegicles would have transported the blind, the crippled and the sick to exercise their sacred right to vote. I wonder, if in all the almost-certain-post-election-turmoi, when African-Americans and loser democrats yell, scream and cry about "disenfranchisement", that they will even remoember or acknowledge what they did to the elderly and sick of Milwaukee this morning. In effect, these people will have a more difficult time getting to the polls. Wouldn't that be disenfranchisement?
- In a related story, also from Wisconsin, asssumed-republicans retaliated by blocking the driveway to a Kerry campaign office and spitting on vehicles. I'm waiting on reports to come in on the expected, nasty snowball fight and perhaps the round of short-sheeting and reciprocal panty raids later in the evening.
Tuesday, November 02, 2004
Friday, October 29, 2004
Progress Via Mortality...
Yasser Arafat is very ill according to numerous sources. No one, at this point, has been able to pinpoint the exact illness, but we have been given a plethora of symptoms and maladies which the old goat might be suffering from, running the gamut from a severe flu to gallstones. In any case, Arafat is to be taken to Paris for medical treatment, provided the Israelis let him leave and return. I believe they will let him go, but I have a feeling he won't be coming back.
The man is ancient. It's time for the old-man-bane of pneumonia to set it and finish him off. In a socialized-medicine French hospital (which usually doesn't even have air conditioning in the summer) he's almost sure to die. I for one, will shed no tears at his passing. However, the death of this piece of shit will give me a glimmer of hope.
Hope because now the "Palestinian people" will have some form of choice before them: they can either continue on the present course of attrition against a superior Israeli foe that will continue to deplete their gene pool while affecting the Israelis very little, or they can get serious and start behaving like civilized people who actually go about getting what they say they want --- peace and a nation of their own. The biggest stumbling block to both was always Arafat who loved the perogatives of power but who also knew that power was largely symbolic and linked to ensuring that conflict was constant. Arafat could never make peace and still walk around, let alone be accorded the wealth, respect and dignity afforded to a legitimate leader.
In the final analysis, when this reprobate finally shuffles off this mortal coil, a few scenarios come to mind, all of which make me somewhat giddy:
1. Palestinians get serious and conclude peace - someone emerges from the cesspool of Palestinian politics to offer the olive branch, and a Palestinian state is finally born. Any peace will, of course, be subject to several variable factors (what to do about Hamas? What happens when Pallies all over the Middle East start coming home without jobs or means of support? Do the Palestinians actually form something resembling a government? etc). An infant Palestinian state offers a great chance to observe, close up, the future --- do these people actually have the capacity for self-rule in a peaceful, meaningful manner, or was all the talk of a Free Palestine just a joke as they continue to butcher for no other reason than they have nothing else to do?
When Arafat kicks the bucket, the Palestinians will have no more excuses. They will either have to belly up to the bar and prove they are civilized folks or follow their "leader" in circling the bowl. The onus will now be where it has always belonged: on them. No more excuses about the West, the Israelis or the Boogeyman. They either produce, for their own sake, or they continue to be beggars.
2. A Bankrupt Palestinian state is formed - and millions of folks from around the Mid East suddenly show up, swamping what little social and economic system there is. The state will be stillborn, a cesspool, and a breeding ground for future terrorists. It will be found out that Arafat and his cronies siphoned off all the money and what is left will be a hollow shell: a mass of government buildings with no real government, twenty-five competing "political parties", and a return to "might-makes-right" power politics over a country and apparatus with no power. Palestinians will finally demostrate that Arabs are incapable of forming a state without outside help, if not outright occupation. All sides in the resulting chaos will cry for western help, especially American, while at the same time buying into conspiracy theories about how the West, espeically America, rigged this sorry state of affairs to hurt, embarrass, demean and humiliate the Palestinian people. The "intifada" (which is Arabic for "rock-throwing-discontents") will continue, proving once and for all that a Palestinian state was never anything more than a set of words. Palestinians will simply devolve into Boston Red Sox fans: denied their Holy Grail forever, and now having achieved it, will find something else to be miserable about.
Hamas and Al-Aqsa and all the rest of them will fight for control over the rubble (and more importantly, the EU aid that will be sure to pour in, but which will mysteriously never arrive), in which case Palestinians will be doing the world a favor by turning on each other, becoming less of a threat to Israelis and assorted passers-by.
I would probably guess that 2 happens before 1. In ether case, the targets of Palestinian violence will be other Palestinians, and while this a bad thing (violence of any kind is a bad thing, usually), at least this violence will have a good result --- the terrorists wil now kill each other. Let's see how Palestinian rhetoric about peace marches with reality when the biggest obstacle to it has been reclaimed by the earth.
Yasser Arafat is very ill according to numerous sources. No one, at this point, has been able to pinpoint the exact illness, but we have been given a plethora of symptoms and maladies which the old goat might be suffering from, running the gamut from a severe flu to gallstones. In any case, Arafat is to be taken to Paris for medical treatment, provided the Israelis let him leave and return. I believe they will let him go, but I have a feeling he won't be coming back.
The man is ancient. It's time for the old-man-bane of pneumonia to set it and finish him off. In a socialized-medicine French hospital (which usually doesn't even have air conditioning in the summer) he's almost sure to die. I for one, will shed no tears at his passing. However, the death of this piece of shit will give me a glimmer of hope.
Hope because now the "Palestinian people" will have some form of choice before them: they can either continue on the present course of attrition against a superior Israeli foe that will continue to deplete their gene pool while affecting the Israelis very little, or they can get serious and start behaving like civilized people who actually go about getting what they say they want --- peace and a nation of their own. The biggest stumbling block to both was always Arafat who loved the perogatives of power but who also knew that power was largely symbolic and linked to ensuring that conflict was constant. Arafat could never make peace and still walk around, let alone be accorded the wealth, respect and dignity afforded to a legitimate leader.
In the final analysis, when this reprobate finally shuffles off this mortal coil, a few scenarios come to mind, all of which make me somewhat giddy:
1. Palestinians get serious and conclude peace - someone emerges from the cesspool of Palestinian politics to offer the olive branch, and a Palestinian state is finally born. Any peace will, of course, be subject to several variable factors (what to do about Hamas? What happens when Pallies all over the Middle East start coming home without jobs or means of support? Do the Palestinians actually form something resembling a government? etc). An infant Palestinian state offers a great chance to observe, close up, the future --- do these people actually have the capacity for self-rule in a peaceful, meaningful manner, or was all the talk of a Free Palestine just a joke as they continue to butcher for no other reason than they have nothing else to do?
When Arafat kicks the bucket, the Palestinians will have no more excuses. They will either have to belly up to the bar and prove they are civilized folks or follow their "leader" in circling the bowl. The onus will now be where it has always belonged: on them. No more excuses about the West, the Israelis or the Boogeyman. They either produce, for their own sake, or they continue to be beggars.
2. A Bankrupt Palestinian state is formed - and millions of folks from around the Mid East suddenly show up, swamping what little social and economic system there is. The state will be stillborn, a cesspool, and a breeding ground for future terrorists. It will be found out that Arafat and his cronies siphoned off all the money and what is left will be a hollow shell: a mass of government buildings with no real government, twenty-five competing "political parties", and a return to "might-makes-right" power politics over a country and apparatus with no power. Palestinians will finally demostrate that Arabs are incapable of forming a state without outside help, if not outright occupation. All sides in the resulting chaos will cry for western help, especially American, while at the same time buying into conspiracy theories about how the West, espeically America, rigged this sorry state of affairs to hurt, embarrass, demean and humiliate the Palestinian people. The "intifada" (which is Arabic for "rock-throwing-discontents") will continue, proving once and for all that a Palestinian state was never anything more than a set of words. Palestinians will simply devolve into Boston Red Sox fans: denied their Holy Grail forever, and now having achieved it, will find something else to be miserable about.
Hamas and Al-Aqsa and all the rest of them will fight for control over the rubble (and more importantly, the EU aid that will be sure to pour in, but which will mysteriously never arrive), in which case Palestinians will be doing the world a favor by turning on each other, becoming less of a threat to Israelis and assorted passers-by.
I would probably guess that 2 happens before 1. In ether case, the targets of Palestinian violence will be other Palestinians, and while this a bad thing (violence of any kind is a bad thing, usually), at least this violence will have a good result --- the terrorists wil now kill each other. Let's see how Palestinian rhetoric about peace marches with reality when the biggest obstacle to it has been reclaimed by the earth.
Thursday, October 28, 2004
The Cult of Celebrity...
(Note: this commentary also appears on StopDemocrats.com)
I was watching Fox News this afternoon and saw something that always makes me laugh. John Kerry was campaigning this fine day in Wisconsin, and standing right there, singing to get out the Kerry vote, was Bruce Springsteen.
Now, I found this funny for a slew of reasons:
1. I do not know the depth or breadth of Mr. Springsteen's political accumen, but I'm pretty positive you could write everything he knows about politics on a matchbook cover. I know where Bruce would stand on nationalised health care, for example (I can afford better, leave me out of it!), and I can make a fairly accurate guess as to how he stands on foreign policy (keep me from being blown up, but don't expect me to fight). So, why was Bruce singing for Kerry today? One the wone hand, it's face time, which in marketing terms means millions of buck, especially when he's seen fronting for a man who seems to command the attention of tens of millions. Perhaps some of that attention rubs off on Springsteen and he makes a few extra bucks. Fine. That's capitalism at work. Then again, Springsteen in Wisconsin makes as much sense as gunpowder in baby formula, so there must have been a hidden message: New Jersey, I care about your votes, but can't get there to actually campaign, but THE MOST FAMOUS-EST of New Jersey-ians is with me! Be like Bruce!
In the end, it's all marketing.
2. The continued love affair Americans have for their celebrities is still mystifying to me. Yes, Bruce Springsteen has infinitely more musical talent than I ever will or could ever hope for, but because he's a famous musician doesn't mean he can formulate tax policy, or that he can broker a nuclear agreement with North Korea. We have this silly notion here in America that because someone has attained fame, he/she MUST be a well-rounded, all-knowing individual whose opinions mean much more than anyone elses. This is certainnly not true, as one listen to Al Franken, Janeane Garofalo or Alec Baldwin will attest to.
Again, it's all marketing.
3. When Bruce Springsteen came to national prominence, it was during the Regan administration and was launched by a song entitled "Born in the USA". It was catchy tune that dealt with the disaffection and unemployment of a Vietnam vet and the country which seemed to not notice how bad life was for him. Not exactly a conservative view of life, but since Reagan had already started the "Morning in America" rebirth, the tune came along at the right time. The conditions were right for Bruce Springsteen to vault up the charts and make a ton of money singing about the bad side of America because all we heard was "Born in the USA", thanks to the Gipper.
Marketing pure and simple, and by the way, I do NOT mean to imply that Springsteen would not have been a success without Reagan. Only that the tone had been set in this country that made us receptive to that sort of tune, or at least to the refrain.
Now, Marketing is a very important thing, to be sure, when you have something to sell. Everyday, people see Shaquille O'Neill, Derek Jeter, Michael Vick, Tiger Woods and Mike Modano hawking everything from sports drinks to automobiles to hockey sticks to rap albums, and there are millions of people who admire their athletic talent enough to want to emulate them, and so they buy the products they've attached their name and faces to. Fair enough.
Supermodels flood the airwaves with commercials selling cosmetics, perfumes, excercise equipment, clothing and lingerie. Again, fair enough. Enough women admire something about how these gals look and dress that triggers envy or admiration, just like sports figures do for men. As a result, tons of cosmetics, perfumes, and clothing get sold.
Ed McMahon hawks magazine subscriptions, Alec Trebek sells insurance, BB King sells diabteic monitoring supplies. In the area of pushing goods and sevices to the American public, a celebrity endorsement is worth it's weight in gold. It's effective marketing.
But we're talking politics here. We're not discussing a hair spray, a dishwasher or a car --- we're discussing the policies and personalities that will affect our way of life in this country. That is a toatally different ballgame.
Bruce Springsteen might be a great musician, but that doesn't make his opinion worth more than yours. Ahhh-nold may have become governor of California, but that doesn't mean he's a political genious (although I will say this about Austrians, they seem to have the ability to always give a rousing speech!), even if I agree with him.
On the other hand, there are celebrities out there who are engaged in what we might consider tertiary political activities that do not advocate on behalf of a candidate or policy. P. Diddy, for all the nonsense I believe he stands for otherwise, is running a very effective voter registration program entitled "Vote of Die", which seems a little extreme, but at least it has a worthy goal.He doesn't endorse any candidate.
Gary Sinsise (one of the finest actors alive, in my opinion) is running a charity which supplies Iraqi schoolchildren with pencils and notebooks and assorted sundries. Again, no advocacy of a policy or candidate, just a worthy goal, and a true humaitarian effort.
But in the final analysis, if you make your most important decisions by what gets written in People magazine or what someone says during a halftime show, then you have a serious problem. You've given up the right, and the process, of individual thinking and are willing to have your life dictated by someone you'd like to be, or to meet, but in all likelihood never will. There's a disconnect that often comes with fame, and for a lot of people who have it, there's an egoism involved too -- the ability to effect the mores, habits and thoughts of millions can have that affect on a person.
It doesn't mean they're right. It doesn't mean they're wiser than the typical person in the street. When it comes to your politics, that's a decision you need to make for yourself, BY YOURSELF.
With no outside influences, you have to sift throught the information, the statistics, the policies and the bullshit and figure out for yourself what your individual core beliefs are. Bruce, or any other celebrity, ain't gonna help you do that. John Kerry is not selling consumer products, he's pushing a political agenda and the methods used to sell toothpaste don't exactly translate well in this arena. Remember that before you pull the lever next week because Bruce told you to.
(Note: this commentary also appears on StopDemocrats.com)
I was watching Fox News this afternoon and saw something that always makes me laugh. John Kerry was campaigning this fine day in Wisconsin, and standing right there, singing to get out the Kerry vote, was Bruce Springsteen.
Now, I found this funny for a slew of reasons:
1. I do not know the depth or breadth of Mr. Springsteen's political accumen, but I'm pretty positive you could write everything he knows about politics on a matchbook cover. I know where Bruce would stand on nationalised health care, for example (I can afford better, leave me out of it!), and I can make a fairly accurate guess as to how he stands on foreign policy (keep me from being blown up, but don't expect me to fight). So, why was Bruce singing for Kerry today? One the wone hand, it's face time, which in marketing terms means millions of buck, especially when he's seen fronting for a man who seems to command the attention of tens of millions. Perhaps some of that attention rubs off on Springsteen and he makes a few extra bucks. Fine. That's capitalism at work. Then again, Springsteen in Wisconsin makes as much sense as gunpowder in baby formula, so there must have been a hidden message: New Jersey, I care about your votes, but can't get there to actually campaign, but THE MOST FAMOUS-EST of New Jersey-ians is with me! Be like Bruce!
In the end, it's all marketing.
2. The continued love affair Americans have for their celebrities is still mystifying to me. Yes, Bruce Springsteen has infinitely more musical talent than I ever will or could ever hope for, but because he's a famous musician doesn't mean he can formulate tax policy, or that he can broker a nuclear agreement with North Korea. We have this silly notion here in America that because someone has attained fame, he/she MUST be a well-rounded, all-knowing individual whose opinions mean much more than anyone elses. This is certainnly not true, as one listen to Al Franken, Janeane Garofalo or Alec Baldwin will attest to.
Again, it's all marketing.
3. When Bruce Springsteen came to national prominence, it was during the Regan administration and was launched by a song entitled "Born in the USA". It was catchy tune that dealt with the disaffection and unemployment of a Vietnam vet and the country which seemed to not notice how bad life was for him. Not exactly a conservative view of life, but since Reagan had already started the "Morning in America" rebirth, the tune came along at the right time. The conditions were right for Bruce Springsteen to vault up the charts and make a ton of money singing about the bad side of America because all we heard was "Born in the USA", thanks to the Gipper.
Marketing pure and simple, and by the way, I do NOT mean to imply that Springsteen would not have been a success without Reagan. Only that the tone had been set in this country that made us receptive to that sort of tune, or at least to the refrain.
Now, Marketing is a very important thing, to be sure, when you have something to sell. Everyday, people see Shaquille O'Neill, Derek Jeter, Michael Vick, Tiger Woods and Mike Modano hawking everything from sports drinks to automobiles to hockey sticks to rap albums, and there are millions of people who admire their athletic talent enough to want to emulate them, and so they buy the products they've attached their name and faces to. Fair enough.
Supermodels flood the airwaves with commercials selling cosmetics, perfumes, excercise equipment, clothing and lingerie. Again, fair enough. Enough women admire something about how these gals look and dress that triggers envy or admiration, just like sports figures do for men. As a result, tons of cosmetics, perfumes, and clothing get sold.
Ed McMahon hawks magazine subscriptions, Alec Trebek sells insurance, BB King sells diabteic monitoring supplies. In the area of pushing goods and sevices to the American public, a celebrity endorsement is worth it's weight in gold. It's effective marketing.
But we're talking politics here. We're not discussing a hair spray, a dishwasher or a car --- we're discussing the policies and personalities that will affect our way of life in this country. That is a toatally different ballgame.
Bruce Springsteen might be a great musician, but that doesn't make his opinion worth more than yours. Ahhh-nold may have become governor of California, but that doesn't mean he's a political genious (although I will say this about Austrians, they seem to have the ability to always give a rousing speech!), even if I agree with him.
On the other hand, there are celebrities out there who are engaged in what we might consider tertiary political activities that do not advocate on behalf of a candidate or policy. P. Diddy, for all the nonsense I believe he stands for otherwise, is running a very effective voter registration program entitled "Vote of Die", which seems a little extreme, but at least it has a worthy goal.He doesn't endorse any candidate.
Gary Sinsise (one of the finest actors alive, in my opinion) is running a charity which supplies Iraqi schoolchildren with pencils and notebooks and assorted sundries. Again, no advocacy of a policy or candidate, just a worthy goal, and a true humaitarian effort.
But in the final analysis, if you make your most important decisions by what gets written in People magazine or what someone says during a halftime show, then you have a serious problem. You've given up the right, and the process, of individual thinking and are willing to have your life dictated by someone you'd like to be, or to meet, but in all likelihood never will. There's a disconnect that often comes with fame, and for a lot of people who have it, there's an egoism involved too -- the ability to effect the mores, habits and thoughts of millions can have that affect on a person.
It doesn't mean they're right. It doesn't mean they're wiser than the typical person in the street. When it comes to your politics, that's a decision you need to make for yourself, BY YOURSELF.
With no outside influences, you have to sift throught the information, the statistics, the policies and the bullshit and figure out for yourself what your individual core beliefs are. Bruce, or any other celebrity, ain't gonna help you do that. John Kerry is not selling consumer products, he's pushing a political agenda and the methods used to sell toothpaste don't exactly translate well in this arena. Remember that before you pull the lever next week because Bruce told you to.
Sunday, October 24, 2004
Britain Speaks!
A couple of weeks ago a newspaper in London (that's England for those of you not up on your geography), The Guardian, asked it's readers (all 12 of them) to engage in a letter-writing campaign to one particular county in Ohio, urging them not to vote for George W. Bush in the upcoming election.
I have a thing or two to say about that.
Firstly, the Guardian is about as close to a communist newspaper as it is still possible to find outside of Red China. It still mourns the passing of the Soviet Union, nelieves that Socialist Utopia is just around the corner, and generally, doesn't make sense to anyone not thoroughly indoctrinated in old-style revolutionary rhetoric. In case no one has told the Guradian and it's readers, Communism died the death it deserved when the Soviet Union fell, and just in case you missed it, even Communist China has introduced market reforms, which reek to high heaven of capitalism, in order for the party to merely survive. Americans have rejected communism for near on 100 years, and will continue to do so, your pleas notwithstanding.
Secondly, you show a great deal of nerve (to say the least) making an attempt to influence the election in foreign country. Americans are not writing letters to Englishmen asking them to dump Blair, re-elect Thatcher, or beatify Harold Wilson. Nor are average Americans screaming atthe tops of their lungs for Britain to refrain from joining the nasty Continentals in that EUtopia nonsense the French have planned. Basically, the reasons why boil down to: a) we don't care, and b) it's not our country, now, is it?
And this one is not yours.
Remember that old saw about opinions: they're like rectums. Everyone has one and they should rarely be heard.Especially not after a steady diet of Communist Crap.
A couple of weeks ago a newspaper in London (that's England for those of you not up on your geography), The Guardian, asked it's readers (all 12 of them) to engage in a letter-writing campaign to one particular county in Ohio, urging them not to vote for George W. Bush in the upcoming election.
I have a thing or two to say about that.
Firstly, the Guardian is about as close to a communist newspaper as it is still possible to find outside of Red China. It still mourns the passing of the Soviet Union, nelieves that Socialist Utopia is just around the corner, and generally, doesn't make sense to anyone not thoroughly indoctrinated in old-style revolutionary rhetoric. In case no one has told the Guradian and it's readers, Communism died the death it deserved when the Soviet Union fell, and just in case you missed it, even Communist China has introduced market reforms, which reek to high heaven of capitalism, in order for the party to merely survive. Americans have rejected communism for near on 100 years, and will continue to do so, your pleas notwithstanding.
Secondly, you show a great deal of nerve (to say the least) making an attempt to influence the election in foreign country. Americans are not writing letters to Englishmen asking them to dump Blair, re-elect Thatcher, or beatify Harold Wilson. Nor are average Americans screaming atthe tops of their lungs for Britain to refrain from joining the nasty Continentals in that EUtopia nonsense the French have planned. Basically, the reasons why boil down to: a) we don't care, and b) it's not our country, now, is it?
And this one is not yours.
Remember that old saw about opinions: they're like rectums. Everyone has one and they should rarely be heard.Especially not after a steady diet of Communist Crap.
Brownshirts...
Ann Coulter, a conservative columnist and author, and a cute little number who makes my heart go all a-pitter-patter, was assaulted by two pie-throwing lunatics this weekend as she gave a speech. It is safe to assume that the girly-men who ran by at top speed and tossed pastry are associated with one side of the political spectrum (left) and that they were exercising their right to free-speech, while hypocritically attempting to deny Ann hers.
Random gunshots, pie throwing, union thugs rampaging through republican campaign offices, vandalism, physical violence, ripping campaign posters from the hands of children. This is the sort of Brownshirt political discourse that Al Gore has been screaming his vein-popping head off about for the last year year.
I guess it never occured to Al that it's HIS side doing it all. Or perhaps Al is just being Al: willfully stupid when it suits his needs.
Miss Coulter will, no doubt, travel with bodyguards from now on. Perhaps armed guards will be necessary at republican campaign offices. Maybe, just maybe, people will start to arm themselves for protection against lunatic protestors, union gatherings, at political rallies and against the great, unwashed college children who attend them. The democrats and their fellow-travelers are asking for trouble, because one day, one of these little stunts is going to get someone killed.
It's not the act that's of paramount importance (although all should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, where applicable), it's the goddamn tone. It's threatening. Frightening. For a bunch of folks who fear that America is devolving into a fascist state, they sure as hell do their best to ensure that it does.
Ann Coulter, a conservative columnist and author, and a cute little number who makes my heart go all a-pitter-patter, was assaulted by two pie-throwing lunatics this weekend as she gave a speech. It is safe to assume that the girly-men who ran by at top speed and tossed pastry are associated with one side of the political spectrum (left) and that they were exercising their right to free-speech, while hypocritically attempting to deny Ann hers.
Random gunshots, pie throwing, union thugs rampaging through republican campaign offices, vandalism, physical violence, ripping campaign posters from the hands of children. This is the sort of Brownshirt political discourse that Al Gore has been screaming his vein-popping head off about for the last year year.
I guess it never occured to Al that it's HIS side doing it all. Or perhaps Al is just being Al: willfully stupid when it suits his needs.
Miss Coulter will, no doubt, travel with bodyguards from now on. Perhaps armed guards will be necessary at republican campaign offices. Maybe, just maybe, people will start to arm themselves for protection against lunatic protestors, union gatherings, at political rallies and against the great, unwashed college children who attend them. The democrats and their fellow-travelers are asking for trouble, because one day, one of these little stunts is going to get someone killed.
It's not the act that's of paramount importance (although all should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, where applicable), it's the goddamn tone. It's threatening. Frightening. For a bunch of folks who fear that America is devolving into a fascist state, they sure as hell do their best to ensure that it does.
Voting for Dummies...
There is a ton of anguish these days about the act of voting. There's also a ton of crapola surrounding the issue. Depending on what side of the political spectrum you reside on, your thoughts about voting revolve around:
1. It's a sacred right. So sacred that there should be no rules governing it.
2. It's a sacred right, but one that has responsibilities attached to it and which should be exercised in a legal and responsible manner.
Guess which party espouses which position? I'll give you half a nanosecond because that's all it should take to figure out who believes what.
According to a democrat, a vote is such an important thing that we should give to it to people who have no intention of using it responsibly. We should allow them to vote wherever the heck they want to, as many times as they see fit. Voters should never have to identify themselves, nor even prove their eligibility, nor citizenship. Ballots should be passed out in prison because, well, you know, criminals are after all, the most reasonable and responsible people on earth.
And if the rest of us don't agree, well, they have regiments of lawyers standing by to make sure we do.
Yes, the vote is a sacred right, which is exactly why there were laws written to protect the right, and to protect the integrity of the vote.
I don't see why it's unfair to ask people for identification when they vote. Why is it such a nasty thing to ask people to vote where they registered to do so? Why is it that if a vote is invalidated because the voter screwed up the process, can't produce the identification, can't prove citizenship or eligibility, that somehow that voter has been disenfranchised? The laws of this country, while often contradictory or sometimes stupid, ARE written down. They can be referenced. They can be read. Polling places are full of people who are there to help -- to make sure you vote properly (according to the law and to help with the details). Signs abound in polling places, with instructions on how to vote or how to get help in order to vote. Voter registration is something available to the public year-round, every year, not just an election year. Heck, some states even register you to vote when you get a driver's license.
How friggin' difficult is it to get it right? It's the citizen's responsibility to make sure they're eligible to vote and that that they comply with the law. It's the government's job to make sure the law is complied with. Have we become such a society of morons that we need to be lead by the hand to engage in this "sacred right"? Have we become so lazy and retarded that we can't even do this properly? I mean, hell, we're only asking that the laws be obeyed!
But the democrats don't wan the law to be obeyed. They want the law to be changed. On the fly. As it suits their needs. Fine, if you want the laws changed, let's do it after this is all over (heck, we've been having this debate, on and off, for 4 years already!). Only now, when it's close to Election Day and John Kerry needs every social sycophant vote he can get, NOW we decide is a good time to review the voting process? Gee, I wonder how THAT happened?
Here's the skinny on your vote:
1. You have the right to vote provided you are an American citizen.
2. It is your responsibility to know: the date of the election, your polling place, your party affiliation (if any), what documentation you need. If you don't any of this, we have wonderful devices like telephones and the internet where people can find this information for themselves. Surprisingly, most of it is provided by some government agency. Surprisingly, it's all free, too.
3. It is your responsibility to obey the law.
4. You have not been "disenfranchised" if you have failed to do any of the above. What you are is a victim of your own stupidity if voting is that important to you.
5. Get it out of your head that we live in a democracy. We don't. We live in a representational republic. We only use democratic means to select our representatives. Hence, the Electoral College, which has served the country pretty well for 230 years. The Electoral College is supposed to protect us from the lunacy we're seeing now (the Kerry Mob).
6. It's your responsibility to make sure you punched the right chad, pulled the correct lever or wrote in the proper name, in the proper place and in the proper way. If you have any doubts, there are poll workers to help you out. When in doubt, ask. Simple advice, huh?
7. Never in the history of the world has there ever been a psychic poll worker. They cannot divine "your true intent" after the fact, and after you voted for the wrong guy. That was your responsibility, you dope, and it's not theirs to correct any mistake you might have made.
8. Something needs to be done to standardize the system, to ensure only the eligible vote and to do something to straighten this mess out. I wouldn't count on democrats to do it because that would entail applying thought and logic to the problem. It would also deprive them of the means with which to continue to steal elections, where possible.
9. Literacy, or rather the lack of it (or perhaps the will to utilize it) has repercussions at the voting booth. Instead of decrying the "disenfranchising" of minority voters, perhaps the Reverends Sharpton and Jackson could take a serious look as to whether such minorities actually KNOW what the hell they're doing before they enter the voting booth. Oh, I forgot; nothing is the black man's fault. Silly me...
10. The cacophony, the collection of legal beagles, the insinuation of racism, the media hysteria, are all being orchestrated by the democratic party which will once again attempt to win in the Court of Appeals what it could not win in the Court of Public Opinion. It's cynical and it's corrupt and I hope sincerely that on Jan 21st, the day after G.W. Bush is inaugurated a second time, that Congress sits down and hammers something out or else your local election for dog catcher will someday end up in court.
There is a ton of anguish these days about the act of voting. There's also a ton of crapola surrounding the issue. Depending on what side of the political spectrum you reside on, your thoughts about voting revolve around:
1. It's a sacred right. So sacred that there should be no rules governing it.
2. It's a sacred right, but one that has responsibilities attached to it and which should be exercised in a legal and responsible manner.
Guess which party espouses which position? I'll give you half a nanosecond because that's all it should take to figure out who believes what.
According to a democrat, a vote is such an important thing that we should give to it to people who have no intention of using it responsibly. We should allow them to vote wherever the heck they want to, as many times as they see fit. Voters should never have to identify themselves, nor even prove their eligibility, nor citizenship. Ballots should be passed out in prison because, well, you know, criminals are after all, the most reasonable and responsible people on earth.
And if the rest of us don't agree, well, they have regiments of lawyers standing by to make sure we do.
Yes, the vote is a sacred right, which is exactly why there were laws written to protect the right, and to protect the integrity of the vote.
I don't see why it's unfair to ask people for identification when they vote. Why is it such a nasty thing to ask people to vote where they registered to do so? Why is it that if a vote is invalidated because the voter screwed up the process, can't produce the identification, can't prove citizenship or eligibility, that somehow that voter has been disenfranchised? The laws of this country, while often contradictory or sometimes stupid, ARE written down. They can be referenced. They can be read. Polling places are full of people who are there to help -- to make sure you vote properly (according to the law and to help with the details). Signs abound in polling places, with instructions on how to vote or how to get help in order to vote. Voter registration is something available to the public year-round, every year, not just an election year. Heck, some states even register you to vote when you get a driver's license.
How friggin' difficult is it to get it right? It's the citizen's responsibility to make sure they're eligible to vote and that that they comply with the law. It's the government's job to make sure the law is complied with. Have we become such a society of morons that we need to be lead by the hand to engage in this "sacred right"? Have we become so lazy and retarded that we can't even do this properly? I mean, hell, we're only asking that the laws be obeyed!
But the democrats don't wan the law to be obeyed. They want the law to be changed. On the fly. As it suits their needs. Fine, if you want the laws changed, let's do it after this is all over (heck, we've been having this debate, on and off, for 4 years already!). Only now, when it's close to Election Day and John Kerry needs every social sycophant vote he can get, NOW we decide is a good time to review the voting process? Gee, I wonder how THAT happened?
Here's the skinny on your vote:
1. You have the right to vote provided you are an American citizen.
2. It is your responsibility to know: the date of the election, your polling place, your party affiliation (if any), what documentation you need. If you don't any of this, we have wonderful devices like telephones and the internet where people can find this information for themselves. Surprisingly, most of it is provided by some government agency. Surprisingly, it's all free, too.
3. It is your responsibility to obey the law.
4. You have not been "disenfranchised" if you have failed to do any of the above. What you are is a victim of your own stupidity if voting is that important to you.
5. Get it out of your head that we live in a democracy. We don't. We live in a representational republic. We only use democratic means to select our representatives. Hence, the Electoral College, which has served the country pretty well for 230 years. The Electoral College is supposed to protect us from the lunacy we're seeing now (the Kerry Mob).
6. It's your responsibility to make sure you punched the right chad, pulled the correct lever or wrote in the proper name, in the proper place and in the proper way. If you have any doubts, there are poll workers to help you out. When in doubt, ask. Simple advice, huh?
7. Never in the history of the world has there ever been a psychic poll worker. They cannot divine "your true intent" after the fact, and after you voted for the wrong guy. That was your responsibility, you dope, and it's not theirs to correct any mistake you might have made.
8. Something needs to be done to standardize the system, to ensure only the eligible vote and to do something to straighten this mess out. I wouldn't count on democrats to do it because that would entail applying thought and logic to the problem. It would also deprive them of the means with which to continue to steal elections, where possible.
9. Literacy, or rather the lack of it (or perhaps the will to utilize it) has repercussions at the voting booth. Instead of decrying the "disenfranchising" of minority voters, perhaps the Reverends Sharpton and Jackson could take a serious look as to whether such minorities actually KNOW what the hell they're doing before they enter the voting booth. Oh, I forgot; nothing is the black man's fault. Silly me...
10. The cacophony, the collection of legal beagles, the insinuation of racism, the media hysteria, are all being orchestrated by the democratic party which will once again attempt to win in the Court of Appeals what it could not win in the Court of Public Opinion. It's cynical and it's corrupt and I hope sincerely that on Jan 21st, the day after G.W. Bush is inaugurated a second time, that Congress sits down and hammers something out or else your local election for dog catcher will someday end up in court.
Friday, October 22, 2004
Apparently only the Right has Whackos...
I'm getting pretty sick and tired of a particular term that seems to be tossed around American left-wing circles pretty frequently, blatantly and with considerable ignorance. That term is "the religious-Right Wing".
Typically, the term has adjectives placed before it. They tend towards words like rabid and extreme, words designed to give the impression that we live under the constant threat of being overrun by some pseudo-Taliban, God-sanctioned, Neo-Nazi-like state that is currently being crafted in the Evangelical Christian churches of America. There is an evil plan afoot to replace the American ideals of personal liberties with a program of forced adherence to the Ten Commandments and the Book of Revelations. Ridiculous.
While it is somewhat provable that most Christians of the most devout stripe often do vote en-bloc for Republican and Conservative candidates and espouse many of the same causes that these political philosophies do, it is never imagined that very often this is merely a marriage of convenience. There is no other viable alternative for people of religious and conservative social views as far as political parties. You will find that Evangelical Christians are every bit diverse in their thinking as anyone else in America. However, they care about social decorum and thus throw their weight behind the party that best (although not perfectly) represents their views. The second premise that I'm trying to get at is that when pointing out that there is a "Religious Right" the obvious existence of a "Religious Left" is forgotten.
There is a Religious Left, and it is every bit as rabid and extreme, or as representative of thought, as their counterparts, but they do have better press. One need only turn on his or her television set to see the anointed representatives of the Religious Left, and their names usually begin with "Reverend" too.
Why is it that Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan, et. al. and the people who follow them are never described in the same terms as Jerry Falwell, Donald Wildmon, and the Pope?
The distinction is the same: all base their support on their own social visions and use the authority vested in them by the Almighty as a bully pulpit to advance their agendas, don't they?
All attempt to advance a social agenda based upon their religious beliefs (presumably) and their vision of the world, don't they? Why is it that only the Right Wing of American politics can be burdened with a group of vicious, extreme, rabid and Fascist religionists and the corresponding Left Wing versions discounted?
Because to tell the truth would be disastrous to the Left, that's why. To point out hypocrisy would be to disarm the other side in any debate (when they allow one, of course).
Of course, the left-wing hypocrisy and stupidity are not merely defined by religion either. There are Greens who ascribe to a worldview where we are all returned to our pristine, noble savage state, but in which we somehow manage to keep the cappucino machines running and pay for open heart surgery for everyone. There are Atheists running around who base their world view not on religion but upon their own personal morality, which usually tends to be opportunistic, selfish and cynical, and who espouse the power of another God; the Law. This bunch feels that since they do not believe in religion the rest of us are obliged to surrender any belief we ourselves have, despite the fact that the God of Law says we don't have to. Let's not forget the other bugbears of the Left, the various groups who find it perfectly acceptable to be contrarian as it suits their needs and tastes: capital punishment bad, abortion good. Personal freedom good, owning a gun/driving an SUV/smoking/home schooling bad. People who speak of personal freedom and then attempt to force the rest of us to live under their own regime.
There is a psychological term for someone who is compelled to point at the defects of others while dismissing his or her own, but I'm having trouble remembering what it is. I believe it's called narcissism, but I might be wrong.
However, I think I'm right when I say I believe the "other side" is whackier than some bunch of Bible Thumpers from the interior of Mississippi. At least the Bible Thumpers have access to a philosophy that has existed for more than 20 minutes and which hasn't been focus-grouped.
I'm getting pretty sick and tired of a particular term that seems to be tossed around American left-wing circles pretty frequently, blatantly and with considerable ignorance. That term is "the religious-Right Wing".
Typically, the term has adjectives placed before it. They tend towards words like rabid and extreme, words designed to give the impression that we live under the constant threat of being overrun by some pseudo-Taliban, God-sanctioned, Neo-Nazi-like state that is currently being crafted in the Evangelical Christian churches of America. There is an evil plan afoot to replace the American ideals of personal liberties with a program of forced adherence to the Ten Commandments and the Book of Revelations. Ridiculous.
While it is somewhat provable that most Christians of the most devout stripe often do vote en-bloc for Republican and Conservative candidates and espouse many of the same causes that these political philosophies do, it is never imagined that very often this is merely a marriage of convenience. There is no other viable alternative for people of religious and conservative social views as far as political parties. You will find that Evangelical Christians are every bit diverse in their thinking as anyone else in America. However, they care about social decorum and thus throw their weight behind the party that best (although not perfectly) represents their views. The second premise that I'm trying to get at is that when pointing out that there is a "Religious Right" the obvious existence of a "Religious Left" is forgotten.
There is a Religious Left, and it is every bit as rabid and extreme, or as representative of thought, as their counterparts, but they do have better press. One need only turn on his or her television set to see the anointed representatives of the Religious Left, and their names usually begin with "Reverend" too.
Why is it that Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan, et. al. and the people who follow them are never described in the same terms as Jerry Falwell, Donald Wildmon, and the Pope?
The distinction is the same: all base their support on their own social visions and use the authority vested in them by the Almighty as a bully pulpit to advance their agendas, don't they?
All attempt to advance a social agenda based upon their religious beliefs (presumably) and their vision of the world, don't they? Why is it that only the Right Wing of American politics can be burdened with a group of vicious, extreme, rabid and Fascist religionists and the corresponding Left Wing versions discounted?
Because to tell the truth would be disastrous to the Left, that's why. To point out hypocrisy would be to disarm the other side in any debate (when they allow one, of course).
Of course, the left-wing hypocrisy and stupidity are not merely defined by religion either. There are Greens who ascribe to a worldview where we are all returned to our pristine, noble savage state, but in which we somehow manage to keep the cappucino machines running and pay for open heart surgery for everyone. There are Atheists running around who base their world view not on religion but upon their own personal morality, which usually tends to be opportunistic, selfish and cynical, and who espouse the power of another God; the Law. This bunch feels that since they do not believe in religion the rest of us are obliged to surrender any belief we ourselves have, despite the fact that the God of Law says we don't have to. Let's not forget the other bugbears of the Left, the various groups who find it perfectly acceptable to be contrarian as it suits their needs and tastes: capital punishment bad, abortion good. Personal freedom good, owning a gun/driving an SUV/smoking/home schooling bad. People who speak of personal freedom and then attempt to force the rest of us to live under their own regime.
There is a psychological term for someone who is compelled to point at the defects of others while dismissing his or her own, but I'm having trouble remembering what it is. I believe it's called narcissism, but I might be wrong.
However, I think I'm right when I say I believe the "other side" is whackier than some bunch of Bible Thumpers from the interior of Mississippi. At least the Bible Thumpers have access to a philosophy that has existed for more than 20 minutes and which hasn't been focus-grouped.
Sunday, October 17, 2004
Why Orwell is Still Relevant...
Writer, poltical analyst and essayist extraordinaire George Orwell had the "liberals" sized up 60 years ago. I have been re-reading my Orwell as of late, because I feel it is important to continue to remind myself just why so-called liberals are dangerous. The following quotations are taken from an Orwell essay entitled "the Lion and the Unicorn".
"It should be noted that there is now no intelligentsia that is not in some sense "Left"....Since about 1930 everyone describable as "intellectual"has lived in a state of chronic discontent with the existing order. Necessarily so, because society as it was constituted had no room for him....The mentality of the left-wing English Intelligentsia can be studied in a half dozen weekly and monthly papers. The immediately striking thing about all these papers is their generally negative, querulous attitude, their complete lack at all times of any constructive suggestion. There is little in them except the irresponsible carping of people who have never been and never expect to be in a position of power. Another marked characteristic is the emotional shallowness of people who live in a world of ideas and have little contact with physical reality...And underlying this is the really important fact about the English Intellegentsia --- their severance from the common culture of the country.
In intention, at any rate, the English Intellegentsia are Europeanized. They take their cookery from Paris and their opinions from Moscow. In the general patriotism of the country they form a sort of island of dissident thought. England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals are ashamed of their own nationality. In left-wing circles it is always felt that there is something slightly disgraceful in being an Englishman and that it is a duty to snigger at every English institution, from horse racing to suet puddings. It is a strange fact, but it is unquestionably true, that almost any English intellectual would feel more ashamed of standing to attention at "God Save the King" than of stealing from a poor box. All through the critical years many left-wingers were chipping away at English morale, trying to spread an outlook that was sometimes squashily pacifist,sometimes violently pro-Russian, but always anti-British...If the English people suffered for several years a real weakening of morale, so that the Fascist nations judged that they were 'decadent' and that it was safe to plunge into war, the intellectual sabotage from the left was partly responsible."
Sums up our liberals quite well, doesn't it? How about this little gem:
"It is clear that the special position of the English intellectuals during the past ten years, as purely NEGATIVE creatures, mere anti-Blimps (a Blimp is middle-class English imperialist -- i.e. someone whose well-being and position are tied up within the Imperial system), was a by-product of ruling class stupidity. Society could not use them, and they had not got it in them to see that devotion to one's country meant 'for better, for worse'. Both Blimps and Highbrows took for granted,as though it were a law of nature, the divorce between patriotism and intelligence. If you were a patriot, you read Blackwood's Magazine, and publicly thanked God that you were 'not brainy'. If you were an intellectual you sniggered at the Union Jack and regarded physical courage as barbarous. It is obvious that this preposterous convention cannot continue...A modern nation cannot afford either of them. Patriotism and intellegence will have to come together again. It is the fact that we are fighting a war, and a very peculiar kind of war, that may make this possible."
Eerily reminiscent of today's situation, isn't it? Of course, Orwell was speaking of his day's greatest threats: Soviet Communism and the Nazis. But this can quite easily be transferred to the modern day with regards to terrorism and Islamonazism. On the subject of pacifism, as practiced by the slackers of Generation X, Orwell had this to say:
"Pacifism is a psychological curiosity rather than a political movement. Some of the extremer pacifists, starting out with a complete renunciation of violence, have ended by warmly championing Hitler...'Pure pacifism'...can only appeal to people in very sheltered positions. Moreover, being negative and irresponsible, it does not inspire much devotion....One need not doubt that a 'peace' movement is on foot somewhere in high places; probably a Shadow Cabninet has already been formed. These people will get their chance not in the moment of defeat but in some stagnant period when boredom is reinforced by discontent. They will not talk about surrender, only peace; and doubtless they will persude themselves, and perhaps other people, that they are acting for the best." If you ask me, that sums it up perfectly: a shallow, emotional philosophy totally detatched from reason. George also had this to say about 'liberal, 'progressive' political parties:
"In England there is only one Socialist party that has ever seriosuly mattered, the Labour party. It has never been able to achieve any major change, because except in purely domestic matters it has never possessed a genuinely independant policy. It was and is primarily a party of the Trade Unions, devoted to raising wages and improving working conditions. This meant that all through the critical years it was directly interested in the maintenance of the British Empire, for the wealth of England was drawn mainly from Asia and Africa. The standard of living of the Trade Union workers, whom the Labour party represented, depended directly on the sweating of Indian coolies. At the same time, the Labour Party was a socialist party, using socialist phraseology, thinking in terms of an old-fashioned anti-imperialism and more or less pledged to make restitution to the colored races. It HAD to stand for 'independance' for India, just as it had to stand for 'progress' and 'disarmament' generally. Nevertheless, everyone was aware that this was nonsense. Once in power the same dilemma would always have faced it (the Labour Party); carry out your promises and risk revolt, or continue with the same policies as the Conservatives, and stop talking about Socialism. The Labour leaders had never found a solution...they had degenerated into a Permanent Opposition."
Sounds just like the democratic party to me. George also had this to say about the continued use of divisive tactics that run along lines of class and race:
"A Socialist party which genuinely wished to achieve anything would have started by facing several facts which to this day are considered unmentionable in left-wing circles. It would have recognized that England is more united than most countries, that the British workers have a great deal to lose besides their chains, and that the differences in outlook and habits between class and class are rapidly diminishing. In general, it would have recognized that the old fashioned "proletarian revolution" is an impossibility. But all through the between-war years no Socialist programme that was both revolutionary and workable ever appeared; basically, no doubt, because no one wanted any major change to happen. The Labour leaders wanted to go on and on and on, periodically swapping jobs with the Conservatives. The Communists wanted to go on and on and on, suffering a comfortable martyrdom, meeting with endless defeats and afterwards putting the blame on other people. The left-wing intelligentsia wanted to go on and on and on, sniggering at the Blimps, sapping away at middle-class morale, but still keeping their favoured position as the hangers-on of the dividend drawers. Labour party politics had become a variant of Conservatism, 'revolutionary' politics had become a game of make believe."
On fashionable liberalism:
During the past twenty years the negative...outlook which has been fashonable among English left-wingers, the sniggering of the intellectuals at patriotism and phsyical courage, the persistent effort to chip away at English morale and spread of a hedonistic, what-do-I-get-out-of-it attitude to life, has done nothing but harm. It would have been harmful even if we had been living in the squishy League of Nations universe that these people imagined. In a world of Fuherers and bombing planes it was a disaster. However little we may like it, toughness is the price of survival. A nation trained to think hedonistically cannot survive amid peoples who work like slaves and breed like rabbits, and whose chief industry is war. English Socialists of all stripes have wanted to make a stand against facism, but at the same time they have aimed at making their own countrymen unwarlike. They have failed because in England traditional loyalties are stronger than new ones. But in spite of all the 'anti-fascist' heroics of the left-wing press, what chance would we have had stood when the real struggle with fascism came, if the the average Englishman had been the kind of creature that the New Statesman, the Daily Worker, or even the News-Chronicle, wished to make him?"
Orwell had democrats, and Kerry in particular, pegged over half a century ago. When you go to the polls on November 2nd, remember that despite what the democrats offer you, it is not new. Never has been and never will be. They have been reduced to the level of permanent gainsayers and molly-coddlers and haven't had a new idea since Lenin. And we all know how that turned out, don't we?
Writer, poltical analyst and essayist extraordinaire George Orwell had the "liberals" sized up 60 years ago. I have been re-reading my Orwell as of late, because I feel it is important to continue to remind myself just why so-called liberals are dangerous. The following quotations are taken from an Orwell essay entitled "the Lion and the Unicorn".
"It should be noted that there is now no intelligentsia that is not in some sense "Left"....Since about 1930 everyone describable as "intellectual"has lived in a state of chronic discontent with the existing order. Necessarily so, because society as it was constituted had no room for him....The mentality of the left-wing English Intelligentsia can be studied in a half dozen weekly and monthly papers. The immediately striking thing about all these papers is their generally negative, querulous attitude, their complete lack at all times of any constructive suggestion. There is little in them except the irresponsible carping of people who have never been and never expect to be in a position of power. Another marked characteristic is the emotional shallowness of people who live in a world of ideas and have little contact with physical reality...And underlying this is the really important fact about the English Intellegentsia --- their severance from the common culture of the country.
In intention, at any rate, the English Intellegentsia are Europeanized. They take their cookery from Paris and their opinions from Moscow. In the general patriotism of the country they form a sort of island of dissident thought. England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals are ashamed of their own nationality. In left-wing circles it is always felt that there is something slightly disgraceful in being an Englishman and that it is a duty to snigger at every English institution, from horse racing to suet puddings. It is a strange fact, but it is unquestionably true, that almost any English intellectual would feel more ashamed of standing to attention at "God Save the King" than of stealing from a poor box. All through the critical years many left-wingers were chipping away at English morale, trying to spread an outlook that was sometimes squashily pacifist,sometimes violently pro-Russian, but always anti-British...If the English people suffered for several years a real weakening of morale, so that the Fascist nations judged that they were 'decadent' and that it was safe to plunge into war, the intellectual sabotage from the left was partly responsible."
Sums up our liberals quite well, doesn't it? How about this little gem:
"It is clear that the special position of the English intellectuals during the past ten years, as purely NEGATIVE creatures, mere anti-Blimps (a Blimp is middle-class English imperialist -- i.e. someone whose well-being and position are tied up within the Imperial system), was a by-product of ruling class stupidity. Society could not use them, and they had not got it in them to see that devotion to one's country meant 'for better, for worse'. Both Blimps and Highbrows took for granted,as though it were a law of nature, the divorce between patriotism and intelligence. If you were a patriot, you read Blackwood's Magazine, and publicly thanked God that you were 'not brainy'. If you were an intellectual you sniggered at the Union Jack and regarded physical courage as barbarous. It is obvious that this preposterous convention cannot continue...A modern nation cannot afford either of them. Patriotism and intellegence will have to come together again. It is the fact that we are fighting a war, and a very peculiar kind of war, that may make this possible."
Eerily reminiscent of today's situation, isn't it? Of course, Orwell was speaking of his day's greatest threats: Soviet Communism and the Nazis. But this can quite easily be transferred to the modern day with regards to terrorism and Islamonazism. On the subject of pacifism, as practiced by the slackers of Generation X, Orwell had this to say:
"Pacifism is a psychological curiosity rather than a political movement. Some of the extremer pacifists, starting out with a complete renunciation of violence, have ended by warmly championing Hitler...'Pure pacifism'...can only appeal to people in very sheltered positions. Moreover, being negative and irresponsible, it does not inspire much devotion....One need not doubt that a 'peace' movement is on foot somewhere in high places; probably a Shadow Cabninet has already been formed. These people will get their chance not in the moment of defeat but in some stagnant period when boredom is reinforced by discontent. They will not talk about surrender, only peace; and doubtless they will persude themselves, and perhaps other people, that they are acting for the best." If you ask me, that sums it up perfectly: a shallow, emotional philosophy totally detatched from reason. George also had this to say about 'liberal, 'progressive' political parties:
"In England there is only one Socialist party that has ever seriosuly mattered, the Labour party. It has never been able to achieve any major change, because except in purely domestic matters it has never possessed a genuinely independant policy. It was and is primarily a party of the Trade Unions, devoted to raising wages and improving working conditions. This meant that all through the critical years it was directly interested in the maintenance of the British Empire, for the wealth of England was drawn mainly from Asia and Africa. The standard of living of the Trade Union workers, whom the Labour party represented, depended directly on the sweating of Indian coolies. At the same time, the Labour Party was a socialist party, using socialist phraseology, thinking in terms of an old-fashioned anti-imperialism and more or less pledged to make restitution to the colored races. It HAD to stand for 'independance' for India, just as it had to stand for 'progress' and 'disarmament' generally. Nevertheless, everyone was aware that this was nonsense. Once in power the same dilemma would always have faced it (the Labour Party); carry out your promises and risk revolt, or continue with the same policies as the Conservatives, and stop talking about Socialism. The Labour leaders had never found a solution...they had degenerated into a Permanent Opposition."
Sounds just like the democratic party to me. George also had this to say about the continued use of divisive tactics that run along lines of class and race:
"A Socialist party which genuinely wished to achieve anything would have started by facing several facts which to this day are considered unmentionable in left-wing circles. It would have recognized that England is more united than most countries, that the British workers have a great deal to lose besides their chains, and that the differences in outlook and habits between class and class are rapidly diminishing. In general, it would have recognized that the old fashioned "proletarian revolution" is an impossibility. But all through the between-war years no Socialist programme that was both revolutionary and workable ever appeared; basically, no doubt, because no one wanted any major change to happen. The Labour leaders wanted to go on and on and on, periodically swapping jobs with the Conservatives. The Communists wanted to go on and on and on, suffering a comfortable martyrdom, meeting with endless defeats and afterwards putting the blame on other people. The left-wing intelligentsia wanted to go on and on and on, sniggering at the Blimps, sapping away at middle-class morale, but still keeping their favoured position as the hangers-on of the dividend drawers. Labour party politics had become a variant of Conservatism, 'revolutionary' politics had become a game of make believe."
On fashionable liberalism:
During the past twenty years the negative...outlook which has been fashonable among English left-wingers, the sniggering of the intellectuals at patriotism and phsyical courage, the persistent effort to chip away at English morale and spread of a hedonistic, what-do-I-get-out-of-it attitude to life, has done nothing but harm. It would have been harmful even if we had been living in the squishy League of Nations universe that these people imagined. In a world of Fuherers and bombing planes it was a disaster. However little we may like it, toughness is the price of survival. A nation trained to think hedonistically cannot survive amid peoples who work like slaves and breed like rabbits, and whose chief industry is war. English Socialists of all stripes have wanted to make a stand against facism, but at the same time they have aimed at making their own countrymen unwarlike. They have failed because in England traditional loyalties are stronger than new ones. But in spite of all the 'anti-fascist' heroics of the left-wing press, what chance would we have had stood when the real struggle with fascism came, if the the average Englishman had been the kind of creature that the New Statesman, the Daily Worker, or even the News-Chronicle, wished to make him?"
Orwell had democrats, and Kerry in particular, pegged over half a century ago. When you go to the polls on November 2nd, remember that despite what the democrats offer you, it is not new. Never has been and never will be. They have been reduced to the level of permanent gainsayers and molly-coddlers and haven't had a new idea since Lenin. And we all know how that turned out, don't we?
Thursday, October 07, 2004
Nitpicking for Fun and Profit...
We've had two presidential debates in the past week and a half (One between Kerry and Bush and the other between Cheney and what appears to be a potted plant), and we've heard fairly broad arguments about foreign policy, especially in the WOT (War on Terror), and Iraq. Both sides, in my opinion made mistakes, both in presenting their cases and in sending their messages (although Dick Cheney, as usual, made a brilliant argument for his man's stands).
However, when we go to television to the pointy-headed people we call "pundits" (asshole cannot be used on television), we get nit-picking reviews and precious little analysis.
Instead of explaining just how Kerry could be for and against something at the same time, we get semantic arguments over what definition of the word "global" Kerry intended to convey. Instead of someone making the case that while Bush may be inarticulate, we get very little news about the consistency of his ideas. We go back and forth with accusations of lying, most of it based on suspect statistics and the parsing of words. Need to speak clearly about what troubles the nation faces? Bring up the Veep's gay daughter and change the subject to something most Americans could give a damn about. Want serious questions on policy and viable alternatives? Look elsewhere please. We only criticize (when we aren't actually attempting to pass the current policy of our opponents off as our own, only with style), we never suggest a corrective.
Ask a candidate a direct question, expecting a direct answer? Sorry, we have to hit every talking point and we have no time to make logical arguments. Your man (or men) loses out in debates? Sorry, we can't take that into account -- we have to spin like tops at the moment.
There are two fundamental problems, in my opinion, about the way these sorts of things are reported and analyzed. First, there is the assumpton by the punditocracy that the average American doesn't understand what's being said to them anyway, so why bother. Secondly, we're really here to talk inside baseball and can't be bothered to make an effort to clarify or expound on what the "little people" just heard.
We can yack about Dick Cheney's lack of personality all night. We can praise John-and-John's hair all week. We can make fun of the president for using the wrong word at the wrong time or mangling the pronunciation of the right word, for the next month.
The real story is this: in 27 days we are going to have an election. It is generally estimated that a significant segment of the population has not decided who to vote for yet (around 10% this time around). That they haven't decided is symptomatic of three things: 1) they're not interested in politics, even when it should be important to their lives, 2) they have attention spans measured in MPH and 3) perhaps some have become so cynical about politicians that that sometimes they need to be reminded about their civic duty or the effect upon their own lives that choosing the wrong man might have.
I would vote for #3 as being the primary reason why there are so many undecided swing-voters. They haven't made up their mind about which man is the lesser of two evils (in their worldview). They need to be educated, and the media is dropping the ball by spending an inordinate amount of time on icing, and neglecting the cake.
I haven't watched a pointy-head show for the last week, and this is why. I know what both candidates have said. I know what they both mean (even if it wasn't artfully conveyed). I care not for a haircut. I could give a tinker's cuss about "nuances". I don't give a good Goddamn about "flash polls" or "focus groups" or "internals". I want information, and very few people are providing it.
We've had two presidential debates in the past week and a half (One between Kerry and Bush and the other between Cheney and what appears to be a potted plant), and we've heard fairly broad arguments about foreign policy, especially in the WOT (War on Terror), and Iraq. Both sides, in my opinion made mistakes, both in presenting their cases and in sending their messages (although Dick Cheney, as usual, made a brilliant argument for his man's stands).
However, when we go to television to the pointy-headed people we call "pundits" (asshole cannot be used on television), we get nit-picking reviews and precious little analysis.
Instead of explaining just how Kerry could be for and against something at the same time, we get semantic arguments over what definition of the word "global" Kerry intended to convey. Instead of someone making the case that while Bush may be inarticulate, we get very little news about the consistency of his ideas. We go back and forth with accusations of lying, most of it based on suspect statistics and the parsing of words. Need to speak clearly about what troubles the nation faces? Bring up the Veep's gay daughter and change the subject to something most Americans could give a damn about. Want serious questions on policy and viable alternatives? Look elsewhere please. We only criticize (when we aren't actually attempting to pass the current policy of our opponents off as our own, only with style), we never suggest a corrective.
Ask a candidate a direct question, expecting a direct answer? Sorry, we have to hit every talking point and we have no time to make logical arguments. Your man (or men) loses out in debates? Sorry, we can't take that into account -- we have to spin like tops at the moment.
There are two fundamental problems, in my opinion, about the way these sorts of things are reported and analyzed. First, there is the assumpton by the punditocracy that the average American doesn't understand what's being said to them anyway, so why bother. Secondly, we're really here to talk inside baseball and can't be bothered to make an effort to clarify or expound on what the "little people" just heard.
We can yack about Dick Cheney's lack of personality all night. We can praise John-and-John's hair all week. We can make fun of the president for using the wrong word at the wrong time or mangling the pronunciation of the right word, for the next month.
The real story is this: in 27 days we are going to have an election. It is generally estimated that a significant segment of the population has not decided who to vote for yet (around 10% this time around). That they haven't decided is symptomatic of three things: 1) they're not interested in politics, even when it should be important to their lives, 2) they have attention spans measured in MPH and 3) perhaps some have become so cynical about politicians that that sometimes they need to be reminded about their civic duty or the effect upon their own lives that choosing the wrong man might have.
I would vote for #3 as being the primary reason why there are so many undecided swing-voters. They haven't made up their mind about which man is the lesser of two evils (in their worldview). They need to be educated, and the media is dropping the ball by spending an inordinate amount of time on icing, and neglecting the cake.
I haven't watched a pointy-head show for the last week, and this is why. I know what both candidates have said. I know what they both mean (even if it wasn't artfully conveyed). I care not for a haircut. I could give a tinker's cuss about "nuances". I don't give a good Goddamn about "flash polls" or "focus groups" or "internals". I want information, and very few people are providing it.
Of Bugs and Windshields...
If you required, even at this late date, any evidence that John Kerry lived on another planet, you got it last night in the form of John Edwards. If you required further evidence of how low democrats will go toscore political points, Mr. Edwards also provided ample proof.
As for Kerry's mental illness, somehow, a one-term, no-show Senator from my adopted state, with scarcely more experience in government than I have of rocket science, went before the American public last night and proved that the general population and a jury of tobacco-chewing, one-step-removed-from-sharecropping Carolina rednecks are not the same thing.
Perhaps convincing a bunch of bible-thumping, slightly-backwards people with nothing better to do (what usually sits on juries around here) that you are capable of channelling the spirit of a dead child in order to make a case for malpractice, inflates one's ego. Perhaps assuming that because you were once the scion of a dirt-farming inbred, who's managed to pull himself up by his bootstraps to become one of the richest people in the state, engenders arrogance. A sense of superiority, so to speak. None of this means you have the accumen to run a country.
John Edwards hasn'tlearned that lesson yet. John Edwards will not have a job after the next Senate election (he won't have the one he wants after the next Presidential election, either), but he's too smug, too arrogant, to notice. A popular saying around here is that "slick won't wash off". Neither will stupid, but that feeling of superiority often blinds a man to his own shortcomings.
Edwards was handed his behind by Dick Cheney last night. I've heard the debacle described as Edwards "getting smacked like a puppy that has just soiled the carpet". There was a cry about "sending a boy out to do a man's job". Edwards was soundly trounced, and in the end, all he could do was to throw up a smokescreen about Haliburton and drag Cheney's gay daughter into the argument. Cheney handled that one, by the way, with class.
We've seen both idiots up close now: Kerry with his statesman-like, focus-group-tested-flip-flopping rhetoric, always conditioned with a but, and Opie Taylor on steriods dressed up like he's gonna meet the preacher.
I've said it before and I will say it again: if you're a democrat, you have to wonder if your party apparatchiks were serious when they put these two forward. I have to question your sanity if you still intend to vote them.
If you required, even at this late date, any evidence that John Kerry lived on another planet, you got it last night in the form of John Edwards. If you required further evidence of how low democrats will go toscore political points, Mr. Edwards also provided ample proof.
As for Kerry's mental illness, somehow, a one-term, no-show Senator from my adopted state, with scarcely more experience in government than I have of rocket science, went before the American public last night and proved that the general population and a jury of tobacco-chewing, one-step-removed-from-sharecropping Carolina rednecks are not the same thing.
Perhaps convincing a bunch of bible-thumping, slightly-backwards people with nothing better to do (what usually sits on juries around here) that you are capable of channelling the spirit of a dead child in order to make a case for malpractice, inflates one's ego. Perhaps assuming that because you were once the scion of a dirt-farming inbred, who's managed to pull himself up by his bootstraps to become one of the richest people in the state, engenders arrogance. A sense of superiority, so to speak. None of this means you have the accumen to run a country.
John Edwards hasn'tlearned that lesson yet. John Edwards will not have a job after the next Senate election (he won't have the one he wants after the next Presidential election, either), but he's too smug, too arrogant, to notice. A popular saying around here is that "slick won't wash off". Neither will stupid, but that feeling of superiority often blinds a man to his own shortcomings.
Edwards was handed his behind by Dick Cheney last night. I've heard the debacle described as Edwards "getting smacked like a puppy that has just soiled the carpet". There was a cry about "sending a boy out to do a man's job". Edwards was soundly trounced, and in the end, all he could do was to throw up a smokescreen about Haliburton and drag Cheney's gay daughter into the argument. Cheney handled that one, by the way, with class.
We've seen both idiots up close now: Kerry with his statesman-like, focus-group-tested-flip-flopping rhetoric, always conditioned with a but, and Opie Taylor on steriods dressed up like he's gonna meet the preacher.
I've said it before and I will say it again: if you're a democrat, you have to wonder if your party apparatchiks were serious when they put these two forward. I have to question your sanity if you still intend to vote them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)