Meet The New War; Same as the Old War...
Palestinians (can we stop using that term, please? There is no such place as 'Palestine') are at it again. And once again, Israelis are forced to act in self-defense, and yet again, the chattering rectum class piles on the Joos and calls them 'murderers' and 'warmongers' and 'babykillers', conveniently forgetting that there's several tens of millions of Ay-rabs whipping up rockets and land mines, and explosive belts in their basements and kitchens with which they hope to kill Joos. They only launch rockets indiscriminately every goddamned day. They only send suicide bombers out every goddamend day to take out a pizzeria in a crowded shopping mall. They only try to kidnap Israelis daily to hold them for ransom, or simply to torture them.
We've seen this show before, and we know how it ends:
The Ay-rabs blow up Joos, and the Joos -- who have the capacity to kill an awful lot of Ay-rabs in return -- don't. The Ay-rabs then hide behind women and children knowing the Joos are reluctant to shoot at human shields, cry they are victims, and continue to escalate the violence.
The Joos, their supplies of forbearance having been exhausted by continuously escalating violence, retaliate, but they are extremely circumspect in their retaliation; they target only combatnats and the people who lead them, they destroy only those buildings they reasonably believe aid the enemy. This is in marked contrast to the Ay-rabs indiscriminate use of force, but somehow the Joos are guilty of 'disproportionate responses'.
Eventually, the Joos lay a mighty beating on the Ay-rabs, but having been chastized by the EU, the American press, the Berkeley Faculty and every advocate of complete surrender to the dark forces of militant Islam, they don't follow up that victory in any meaningful way (i.e. in such a way that will leave these parasites starving to death and in no position to continue launching rockets at Joos) for fear of looking like bullies. They let their enemies off the mat, and the Ay-rabs simply wait for the new checks from the EU, the Saudis and Iranians to clear, before renewing the cycle.
You know what? It's been 60 years already. Enough is enough.
Someone should realize that despite the lip-service they pay to it, the Ay-rabs don't want peace. They don't want economic prosperity. They don't want freedom and democracy. Hell, they were given the opportunity to elect a democratic government and they only managed to elect Hamas, a group that makes the Nazi SS seem like a bunch of pansy, bed-wetting Boy Scouts.
My advice, if you want to take it, Joos: before you prematurely end this conflict, perhaps you should make certain these people suffer horrendously. Only people who have surrendered after suffering horrendously disavow violence. Just ask Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.
Sunday, January 04, 2009
Friday, December 12, 2008
Labor Reveals it's True Colors, and is Finished...
I've just watched the incredible (and I use that word in the cynical fashion) diatribe delievered by the head of the UAW Union this morning, and was shocked and appalled. The Big Three automakers (and can we stop talking about them this way, please? If they were that Big would they be in this mess right now?) are about to go tits-up. Normally, this might be considered A Very Bad Thing, but with the state of the current economy, it's probably more like a necessary evil, and the union refuses to co-operate (naturally) in an effort which will save their own jobs and allow a reorganization to take place.
Now, about the speech itself, I will say this: it was standard communist boilerplate. All about how the workers will suffer, and how the republican party (the party of Big Business, you know) is once again shovelling cash into the pockets of their capitalist allies at the expense of 'the Little Guy', and about how the UAW has made valiant efforts to do their level-best to help GM/Ford/Chrysler through this difficult time, yada, yada, yada. The speech woudl have made great theatre in 1930, but now it's a bag of bullshit.
The UAW, under the current Plan To Save Detroit, would have to give something back. And naturally, it refuses to do so, claiming ont he one hand that it is impossible to give back what they don't have (sniff, sniff, get me a Kleenex), and on the other (although they never say so openly) that it would be wrong to ask labor to give back benefits that they negotiated in 'good faith' when GM, etc. were ripe for rape (i.e. flush with cash). Human nature being what it is, the Union is reluctant to give anything back and tries to make the case that it is the Auto Companies which hold all the cards in these negotiations. This is the standard position of all unions (nd let's face it, it's all our default position): I don't have anything to give, so you'll have to.
Of course, if the Unions refuse to do that which they should, GM, etc. go into bankruptcy and any contracts they had with the Union become null and void, so perhaps the Union is biting it's nose off to spite it's face. Or perhaps the Union hopes that Washington (particularly the democraic party) will simply nationalize (i.e. Bail out) GM, etc. as a reward for union support over the years. The whole idea that GM, etc. would get a bridge loan to tide them over until Mach of next year begins to smell even more; the government should tide them over until Obama gets into office, when the full communist agenda of nationalization can forge ahead, full steam.
There was a time in this nation's history when labor unions actually did some good things, and improved the lives and working conditions of millions. They no longer do so. They now exist solely to collect worker dues to be used for political purposes and extort business to pay for it. The fact is, that the UAW is no longer an true partner in the labor/management relationship, and is instead interested solely in maintaining a status quo wth regards to wages and benefits, which have financially crippled their employers, while non-union manufacturers make profits and provide jobs in Right-to-work states.
Depending on who's numbers yo believe, the average autoworker, taking into consideration wages and benefits, makes roughly $70 an hour. I did some research (quickly, I'll admit) and found out that the average wage/benefit-per-hour of the autoworker was greater than that of computer programmers, ER nurses, firefighters and police officers, teachers and communications specialists. Consider also that the average autmobile is mostly produced by machine, and that hourly wage becomes even less defensible. No wonder American manufacturers flee for overseas labor markets (a practice I duly detest).
The unions have almost accomplished what business and government could not in a century: they have been busted. And the irony is that they have done it to themselves. They have priced themselves right out of a job, and destroyed their employers in the process.
Now, I'm not going to defend GM, etc., since they were a) stupid enough to enter into these contracts, and b) appallingly mismanaged. But at what point does the UAW beginb to realize that they are about to shoot themselves in the foot, and take a couple of million other 'working men and women' with them (those who work in the industries which supply the auto industry)?
My guess, based on The Speech, is that they never will. Primarily because they have not realized their interst in being flexible, and secondarily because the Union Mentality is simply a reflexive "Gimme!". Then again, they can't be blamed for this mentality; they've been encouraged by their past successes, and cheered on by a political clique which sees everything in terms of class warfare and romantic notions of revolution, and not reasoned discourse or cold, hard facts.
After hearing The Speech, if I were a manager or shareholder of GM, etc., I would be jumping for joy this morning. The Unions have now forced GM, etc. to do The RIght Thing (go bankrupt gracefully) and put the Unions in the position of having to beg for even half of what they had before when the dust settles. They may be depending on Team Obama to save them from having to lose anything, but they are about to be sadly disappointed, because if we have learned anything about The Lightworker to this point, it is that the best way to get kicked in the teeth is to have his back. He's your best buddy in the world until it comes time to toss you to the lions. The current crisis, bleak prospects for the future, and growing public furor over bailouts of Big Business will ensure that Zookeeper Obama will be ready to feed his best buddies to the exhibits faster than you can say "Which way to the Unemployment Line?"
I've just watched the incredible (and I use that word in the cynical fashion) diatribe delievered by the head of the UAW Union this morning, and was shocked and appalled. The Big Three automakers (and can we stop talking about them this way, please? If they were that Big would they be in this mess right now?) are about to go tits-up. Normally, this might be considered A Very Bad Thing, but with the state of the current economy, it's probably more like a necessary evil, and the union refuses to co-operate (naturally) in an effort which will save their own jobs and allow a reorganization to take place.
Now, about the speech itself, I will say this: it was standard communist boilerplate. All about how the workers will suffer, and how the republican party (the party of Big Business, you know) is once again shovelling cash into the pockets of their capitalist allies at the expense of 'the Little Guy', and about how the UAW has made valiant efforts to do their level-best to help GM/Ford/Chrysler through this difficult time, yada, yada, yada. The speech woudl have made great theatre in 1930, but now it's a bag of bullshit.
The UAW, under the current Plan To Save Detroit, would have to give something back. And naturally, it refuses to do so, claiming ont he one hand that it is impossible to give back what they don't have (sniff, sniff, get me a Kleenex), and on the other (although they never say so openly) that it would be wrong to ask labor to give back benefits that they negotiated in 'good faith' when GM, etc. were ripe for rape (i.e. flush with cash). Human nature being what it is, the Union is reluctant to give anything back and tries to make the case that it is the Auto Companies which hold all the cards in these negotiations. This is the standard position of all unions (nd let's face it, it's all our default position): I don't have anything to give, so you'll have to.
Of course, if the Unions refuse to do that which they should, GM, etc. go into bankruptcy and any contracts they had with the Union become null and void, so perhaps the Union is biting it's nose off to spite it's face. Or perhaps the Union hopes that Washington (particularly the democraic party) will simply nationalize (i.e. Bail out) GM, etc. as a reward for union support over the years. The whole idea that GM, etc. would get a bridge loan to tide them over until Mach of next year begins to smell even more; the government should tide them over until Obama gets into office, when the full communist agenda of nationalization can forge ahead, full steam.
There was a time in this nation's history when labor unions actually did some good things, and improved the lives and working conditions of millions. They no longer do so. They now exist solely to collect worker dues to be used for political purposes and extort business to pay for it. The fact is, that the UAW is no longer an true partner in the labor/management relationship, and is instead interested solely in maintaining a status quo wth regards to wages and benefits, which have financially crippled their employers, while non-union manufacturers make profits and provide jobs in Right-to-work states.
Depending on who's numbers yo believe, the average autoworker, taking into consideration wages and benefits, makes roughly $70 an hour. I did some research (quickly, I'll admit) and found out that the average wage/benefit-per-hour of the autoworker was greater than that of computer programmers, ER nurses, firefighters and police officers, teachers and communications specialists. Consider also that the average autmobile is mostly produced by machine, and that hourly wage becomes even less defensible. No wonder American manufacturers flee for overseas labor markets (a practice I duly detest).
The unions have almost accomplished what business and government could not in a century: they have been busted. And the irony is that they have done it to themselves. They have priced themselves right out of a job, and destroyed their employers in the process.
Now, I'm not going to defend GM, etc., since they were a) stupid enough to enter into these contracts, and b) appallingly mismanaged. But at what point does the UAW beginb to realize that they are about to shoot themselves in the foot, and take a couple of million other 'working men and women' with them (those who work in the industries which supply the auto industry)?
My guess, based on The Speech, is that they never will. Primarily because they have not realized their interst in being flexible, and secondarily because the Union Mentality is simply a reflexive "Gimme!". Then again, they can't be blamed for this mentality; they've been encouraged by their past successes, and cheered on by a political clique which sees everything in terms of class warfare and romantic notions of revolution, and not reasoned discourse or cold, hard facts.
After hearing The Speech, if I were a manager or shareholder of GM, etc., I would be jumping for joy this morning. The Unions have now forced GM, etc. to do The RIght Thing (go bankrupt gracefully) and put the Unions in the position of having to beg for even half of what they had before when the dust settles. They may be depending on Team Obama to save them from having to lose anything, but they are about to be sadly disappointed, because if we have learned anything about The Lightworker to this point, it is that the best way to get kicked in the teeth is to have his back. He's your best buddy in the world until it comes time to toss you to the lions. The current crisis, bleak prospects for the future, and growing public furor over bailouts of Big Business will ensure that Zookeeper Obama will be ready to feed his best buddies to the exhibits faster than you can say "Which way to the Unemployment Line?"
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
John Edwards...Again...
I've just read this...and gagged:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/11/john-edwards.html
Now, I have been incredibly harsh on the subject of John Edwards for quite some time now, as all three regular readers of this screed know. But in this case, I think I can find a little forgiveness in my stone-cold heart for John this time around. I mean, the American people just proved their overriding stupidity by electing an unqualified, quasi-socialist, lying sack of feline fecal matter President of the United States last week, so John can be forgiven the sin of drawing the obvious conclusion that the country is indeed full of blithering idiots who will swallow anything if it comes in an attractive package (Granted, their choice was one between bullshit and attractively-packaged bullshit, but I digress).
But, really, must we be so forgiving that the very act of forgiveness itself requires an exercise in mental gymnastics so complex and convoluted that it makes Orwell's Doublethink seem like a simple parlor trick?
Just in case you have forgotten all about John-boy, I'll remind you of the highlights of a spectacular career which began with a bang and ended with a whimper.
This is the man who:
- Made a fortune as a trial attorney by sucking the lifeblood from the medical malpractice system in North Carolina, even going as far as to conduct seances in court (he called it 'Channeling the spirit of a child who could not speak for herself' or somesuch nonsense) and presenting that as 'evidence' to juries. He made a pile of cash running doctors out of business (benefit of the doubt; he probably did get a few bad doctors along the way, but probably not enough to justify the effort), and then decried the horrible state, and blatant unfairness, of the American health care system -- the very system which he helped to destroy.
- Ran a successful Senate election campaign on the symbol of his dead son. A tragic death which, if I recall, involved an automobile accident. He waved his dead boy's picture and a uttered a bunch of high-minded rhetoric in a manner reminiscent of Jesse Jackson vis-a-vis Martin Luther King's bloody shirt. He trotted his distraught wife out to cry before television cameras (I wonder if she was a witting accomplice, or not) over the memory of her dear boy, and got the well-meaning voters of North Carolina to send him to the Senate. Where he began to run for higher office just as soon as he was sworn in, hardly lifting a finger to do the people's business....unless the people's business happened to coincide with building his democratic bonafides.
- Accepted the nomination as John Kerry's running mate in 2004, which shows an incredible lack of both judgement and intelligence. Accepting that job was paramount to accepting the position of Officer-in-charge-of-lifeboats on the Titanic, but he did add a dash of personality to an otherwise moribund campaign which was run by a man who reminded you of Droopy Dog and a the Cigar Store Wooden Indian. The highlight of this run was that Edwards managed to say 'lesbian' to Dick Cheney eight times, on national television, and survive. He later went on, after Kerry's defeat, to yap like an apoplectic poodle about 'fighting on'. A pledge which he quickly reneged on when it became painfully obvious that a) John Kerry wasn't worth fighting for, and b) the sympathy that could be garnered from defeat was the perfect launching platform for another run. As with his Senate campaign, John Edwards would court sympathy as a means to an end. That and his wife's newly-announced cancer, were apparently the right sort of fuel to launch John Edwards to the political moon.
- Left politics (for too short a time) to take a job as a high muck-a-muck at some tony hedge fund, where he made several million dollars per. When Edwards began a second presidential run, and trotted out his infamous Two-Americas routine (the populist creed pitting rich versus poor), and folks with half a brain noted that he made obscene amounts of money at his job, Edwards simply replied that he had taken the job to 'study the economics of poverty'. One could not understand poverty, he intoned, unless one first understood just how the economic system of this country works. It wasn't his fault that the 'study project' came with a seven-figure income.
That's when he wasn't accepting $50K-plus for 'speaking engagements'.
- Castigated Wal-Mart as an un-American organization dedicated to swindling the American consumer and cheating the working man of his just wages and benefits, and swore to defend the 'Other America' from the ravages of corrupt corporate monstrosities who seek nothing beyond profit which would not be shared with the people who helped make it. Every day, practically, Edwards was out there, bashing Wal-Mart, and growing his socialist street cred. Right up until the point when he couldn't get a Playstation for his kids. Then he turned his attention from destroying Wal-Mart to attempting to extort a Playstation from them.
- Began a second Presidential campaign with his usual pap about Two Americas, and trotted his ailing wife out to garner yet more sympathy. He showed poorly in the primaries and caucuses, but continued to "fight on" for all those "forgotten" by America, while he strenuously "fought" to keep the media from exposing his affair with a mistress and a child he apparently "forgot" he had, humiliating himself and his poor wife and family, in the process.
Now John Edwards believes that he can step forward, the public distracted by other things like a failing economy, the historic nature of the last election, and heated arguments in favor of the BCS instead of a national college-football-playoff-system, and revitalize his image. On the Q.T. and hidden from the press and public behind closed doors.
In the Middle Ages, there were a group of men known as Alchemists who sought to find ways of turning base metals, like lead, into gold. They were, ultimately, unsuccessful. I wonder now if John Edwards, in true alchemist spirit, believes he can perform a similar impossibility and revitalize a reputation which consists mostly of bullshit, deceit and selfishness into a viable political career? Apparently, he does, and if one looks back a week in time, it's easy to see why he may hold that belief.
After all, we've just elected someone who in his associations with former terrorists, racists, socialists, criminals and swindlers, might be infinitely worse. I would wish John good luck, but it is obvious that luck will not be required.
I've just read this...and gagged:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/11/john-edwards.html
Now, I have been incredibly harsh on the subject of John Edwards for quite some time now, as all three regular readers of this screed know. But in this case, I think I can find a little forgiveness in my stone-cold heart for John this time around. I mean, the American people just proved their overriding stupidity by electing an unqualified, quasi-socialist, lying sack of feline fecal matter President of the United States last week, so John can be forgiven the sin of drawing the obvious conclusion that the country is indeed full of blithering idiots who will swallow anything if it comes in an attractive package (Granted, their choice was one between bullshit and attractively-packaged bullshit, but I digress).
But, really, must we be so forgiving that the very act of forgiveness itself requires an exercise in mental gymnastics so complex and convoluted that it makes Orwell's Doublethink seem like a simple parlor trick?
Just in case you have forgotten all about John-boy, I'll remind you of the highlights of a spectacular career which began with a bang and ended with a whimper.
This is the man who:
- Made a fortune as a trial attorney by sucking the lifeblood from the medical malpractice system in North Carolina, even going as far as to conduct seances in court (he called it 'Channeling the spirit of a child who could not speak for herself' or somesuch nonsense) and presenting that as 'evidence' to juries. He made a pile of cash running doctors out of business (benefit of the doubt; he probably did get a few bad doctors along the way, but probably not enough to justify the effort), and then decried the horrible state, and blatant unfairness, of the American health care system -- the very system which he helped to destroy.
- Ran a successful Senate election campaign on the symbol of his dead son. A tragic death which, if I recall, involved an automobile accident. He waved his dead boy's picture and a uttered a bunch of high-minded rhetoric in a manner reminiscent of Jesse Jackson vis-a-vis Martin Luther King's bloody shirt. He trotted his distraught wife out to cry before television cameras (I wonder if she was a witting accomplice, or not) over the memory of her dear boy, and got the well-meaning voters of North Carolina to send him to the Senate. Where he began to run for higher office just as soon as he was sworn in, hardly lifting a finger to do the people's business....unless the people's business happened to coincide with building his democratic bonafides.
- Accepted the nomination as John Kerry's running mate in 2004, which shows an incredible lack of both judgement and intelligence. Accepting that job was paramount to accepting the position of Officer-in-charge-of-lifeboats on the Titanic, but he did add a dash of personality to an otherwise moribund campaign which was run by a man who reminded you of Droopy Dog and a the Cigar Store Wooden Indian. The highlight of this run was that Edwards managed to say 'lesbian' to Dick Cheney eight times, on national television, and survive. He later went on, after Kerry's defeat, to yap like an apoplectic poodle about 'fighting on'. A pledge which he quickly reneged on when it became painfully obvious that a) John Kerry wasn't worth fighting for, and b) the sympathy that could be garnered from defeat was the perfect launching platform for another run. As with his Senate campaign, John Edwards would court sympathy as a means to an end. That and his wife's newly-announced cancer, were apparently the right sort of fuel to launch John Edwards to the political moon.
- Left politics (for too short a time) to take a job as a high muck-a-muck at some tony hedge fund, where he made several million dollars per. When Edwards began a second presidential run, and trotted out his infamous Two-Americas routine (the populist creed pitting rich versus poor), and folks with half a brain noted that he made obscene amounts of money at his job, Edwards simply replied that he had taken the job to 'study the economics of poverty'. One could not understand poverty, he intoned, unless one first understood just how the economic system of this country works. It wasn't his fault that the 'study project' came with a seven-figure income.
That's when he wasn't accepting $50K-plus for 'speaking engagements'.
- Castigated Wal-Mart as an un-American organization dedicated to swindling the American consumer and cheating the working man of his just wages and benefits, and swore to defend the 'Other America' from the ravages of corrupt corporate monstrosities who seek nothing beyond profit which would not be shared with the people who helped make it. Every day, practically, Edwards was out there, bashing Wal-Mart, and growing his socialist street cred. Right up until the point when he couldn't get a Playstation for his kids. Then he turned his attention from destroying Wal-Mart to attempting to extort a Playstation from them.
- Began a second Presidential campaign with his usual pap about Two Americas, and trotted his ailing wife out to garner yet more sympathy. He showed poorly in the primaries and caucuses, but continued to "fight on" for all those "forgotten" by America, while he strenuously "fought" to keep the media from exposing his affair with a mistress and a child he apparently "forgot" he had, humiliating himself and his poor wife and family, in the process.
Now John Edwards believes that he can step forward, the public distracted by other things like a failing economy, the historic nature of the last election, and heated arguments in favor of the BCS instead of a national college-football-playoff-system, and revitalize his image. On the Q.T. and hidden from the press and public behind closed doors.
In the Middle Ages, there were a group of men known as Alchemists who sought to find ways of turning base metals, like lead, into gold. They were, ultimately, unsuccessful. I wonder now if John Edwards, in true alchemist spirit, believes he can perform a similar impossibility and revitalize a reputation which consists mostly of bullshit, deceit and selfishness into a viable political career? Apparently, he does, and if one looks back a week in time, it's easy to see why he may hold that belief.
After all, we've just elected someone who in his associations with former terrorists, racists, socialists, criminals and swindlers, might be infinitely worse. I would wish John good luck, but it is obvious that luck will not be required.
Sunday, November 09, 2008
America Can Take Pride In This Historic, Inspirational Disaster...
I will now link to Iowahawk, a blogger I have read for some time and have admired. Here is his latest;
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2008/11/election-analysis-america-can-take-pride-in-this-historic-inspirational-disaster.html
Amen.
I will now link to Iowahawk, a blogger I have read for some time and have admired. Here is his latest;
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2008/11/election-analysis-america-can-take-pride-in-this-historic-inspirational-disaster.html
Amen.
Just in Case You Thought Otherwise...
Fascinating take on what the author calls Elite Blacks; that is, African-Americans who have attended Ivy League Schools, have attained positions of power and responsibility, and live in tony suburbs. You know, the people who decide who is 'authentically black' -- while looking down their noses -- but who would be called 'Uncle Tom' (and worse...) is they ever entered a real ghetto?
Anyways, here it is:
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/columnists.nsf/zdwightbillingsly/story/0F65A2211E2B470A862574EA007A0D75?OpenDocument
I say this: both your President-Elect, and his loudmouth wife, fall into this category.
As an interesting aside, yesterday at President-Elect Obama's Press conference he was surrounded by his flock of economic/financial advisers who will, supposedly, give him excellent advice on how to correct the nation's troubled economy. I noticed that not one of them was African-American, and when I read this article, I could see why.
Fascinating take on what the author calls Elite Blacks; that is, African-Americans who have attended Ivy League Schools, have attained positions of power and responsibility, and live in tony suburbs. You know, the people who decide who is 'authentically black' -- while looking down their noses -- but who would be called 'Uncle Tom' (and worse...) is they ever entered a real ghetto?
Anyways, here it is:
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/columnists.nsf/zdwightbillingsly/story/0F65A2211E2B470A862574EA007A0D75?OpenDocument
I say this: both your President-Elect, and his loudmouth wife, fall into this category.
As an interesting aside, yesterday at President-Elect Obama's Press conference he was surrounded by his flock of economic/financial advisers who will, supposedly, give him excellent advice on how to correct the nation's troubled economy. I noticed that not one of them was African-American, and when I read this article, I could see why.
Expect More of This...
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/194806.php
Really, some people just are that stupid. This woman now believes she has the right to assault police officers, free of punishment, because there is now a black man about to be sworn in as President of the United States? As if Obambi is handing out pardons (at least not yet!) for stupidity if the perpetrator happens to be black?
Or is it something deeper? I mean, American Blacks have been told (mostly by white liberals) that they have been victims of a cruel and unjust white power structure (regardless of a Civil War, Constitutional Amendments, Civil Rights and Voting Acts, Affirmative Action, the Welfare State, watered-down standardized scholastic tests, and a host of other programs, conventions and laws, all propagated by the same white power structure, btw) , why shouldn't they start to believe that once that structure has been penetrated by one of their own, that they are entitled to do as they damn well please. And if it happens to be done to a white person, and even better, a white police officer, so much the better. They believe they are owed.
What gall.
Expect to see more of this kind of shit in the coming days.
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/194806.php
Really, some people just are that stupid. This woman now believes she has the right to assault police officers, free of punishment, because there is now a black man about to be sworn in as President of the United States? As if Obambi is handing out pardons (at least not yet!) for stupidity if the perpetrator happens to be black?
Or is it something deeper? I mean, American Blacks have been told (mostly by white liberals) that they have been victims of a cruel and unjust white power structure (regardless of a Civil War, Constitutional Amendments, Civil Rights and Voting Acts, Affirmative Action, the Welfare State, watered-down standardized scholastic tests, and a host of other programs, conventions and laws, all propagated by the same white power structure, btw) , why shouldn't they start to believe that once that structure has been penetrated by one of their own, that they are entitled to do as they damn well please. And if it happens to be done to a white person, and even better, a white police officer, so much the better. They believe they are owed.
What gall.
Expect to see more of this kind of shit in the coming days.
Friday, November 07, 2008
Night of the Long Knives II...
Republican insiders (supposedly from the McCain campaign) have been piling on Sarah Palin in the press. Thus, we get this:
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Politics/Story?id=6196407&page=1
Of course, I consider the source. Even though they quote FoxNews extensively (I suppose so that disappointed republicans would believe the otherwise-unbelievable ABC), and I would also take into consideration that the criticism is both very petty, and lacking in context --- and always anonymous.
If I had to guess (with no evidence to support such a hypothesis), Sarah Alaska got under the skin of the Washington pros because she showed their man up. She has to be destroyed, and not only by a liberal media who hates everything she stands for and is, but by a consortium of political advisers and media consultants, et. al. whose playbook she has just torn to shreds. They're (the meida pros and political advisory class) used to plastic people -- politicians who understand that a campaign is all about image and marketing -- and when confronted by real people (we peasants) believe that we can do nothing right, that we know nothing, and that we have to be saved from ourselves. When we don't do what our betters tell us, we have to be vilified and condescended to, and on occasion, smeared, too.
The same process that is at work within republican party circles (i.e. assigning blame to everyone other than those who deserve it) is occurring here. Sarah Palin is about to be blamed for something she had no control over, and if the reports of discord within the McCain camp for months are accurate, was probably never included in to begin with. It was all inside baseball.
So far, the only thing these criticisms of Palin seem to zero in on are her wardrobe and shopping habits. I'm certain Hillary Clinton's people are criticizing her for her shopping habits, too. I wonder if Obama had lost, would anyone be taking Michelle Obama to task for her clothing?
If that's all they can point to when they try to substantiate the claim that Palin lost McCain the election, they are deadly wrong and extraordinarily nitpicky. Not to mention petty and craven. If we keep people like that around to run the next campaign, we'll certainly lose again, and deserve to.
Republican insiders (supposedly from the McCain campaign) have been piling on Sarah Palin in the press. Thus, we get this:
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Politics/Story?id=6196407&page=1
Of course, I consider the source. Even though they quote FoxNews extensively (I suppose so that disappointed republicans would believe the otherwise-unbelievable ABC), and I would also take into consideration that the criticism is both very petty, and lacking in context --- and always anonymous.
If I had to guess (with no evidence to support such a hypothesis), Sarah Alaska got under the skin of the Washington pros because she showed their man up. She has to be destroyed, and not only by a liberal media who hates everything she stands for and is, but by a consortium of political advisers and media consultants, et. al. whose playbook she has just torn to shreds. They're (the meida pros and political advisory class) used to plastic people -- politicians who understand that a campaign is all about image and marketing -- and when confronted by real people (we peasants) believe that we can do nothing right, that we know nothing, and that we have to be saved from ourselves. When we don't do what our betters tell us, we have to be vilified and condescended to, and on occasion, smeared, too.
The same process that is at work within republican party circles (i.e. assigning blame to everyone other than those who deserve it) is occurring here. Sarah Palin is about to be blamed for something she had no control over, and if the reports of discord within the McCain camp for months are accurate, was probably never included in to begin with. It was all inside baseball.
So far, the only thing these criticisms of Palin seem to zero in on are her wardrobe and shopping habits. I'm certain Hillary Clinton's people are criticizing her for her shopping habits, too. I wonder if Obama had lost, would anyone be taking Michelle Obama to task for her clothing?
If that's all they can point to when they try to substantiate the claim that Palin lost McCain the election, they are deadly wrong and extraordinarily nitpicky. Not to mention petty and craven. If we keep people like that around to run the next campaign, we'll certainly lose again, and deserve to.
Night of the Long Knives...
The backstabbing has already started amongst the Republican rank-and-file. If you follow any of the "Conservative" echo-chambers online, the defeat of John McCain is due to RINO's, Libertarians, Fag-lovers, Rockefeller-Republicans and Godless Nanny-staters disguised as 'moderate' Republicans (This, despite the fact that many of the same McCain Defenders could be quoted as saying ""I will vote for McCain over my dead body!"). In other words, the same people who are always blamed by the Bible-thumping-kill-the-abortionists-see-a-commie-under-every-rock-one-percenter-Buchannanites. So far as they are concerned, if the party had run a 'real' conservative (definition: Evangelical-pro-life-flamethrowers-for-everyone-gay-bashers), 'we' would have won. Despite an economic crisis, a terrible reputation amongst congressional republicans and a President who's less popular than Ebola. Yeah, I can see how that might happen.
If only we'd been even more conservative, they always wail, we could have won. This, incidentally, has been the battle cry of every losing zealot in history: The Turks would not have been defeated at Lepanto if only their fleet had been more pious Muslims. As if vast armies infused with religious zealotry could compensate for bad tactics and antiquated weapons. Japan would have won the Second World War if only the Japanese people had made even more strenuous efforts on behalf of their divine Emperor, as if Kamakaze attacks weren't strenuous enough. In fact, I can recall a quote from a Japanese general in Burma to his troops in the field before they were slaughtered "Lack of weapons is no excuse for defeat on the battlefield", or words to that effect. John McCain was, in this analogy, part Sultan-part Hirohito, let down by faithless backstabbers and incompetents.
Always, the root cause of failure is one of devotion. One of a lack of proper effort or mindframe. Environmental factors, cultural factors and so forth, are never even considered. To consider them would cause people to question the dogma attendant to whatever principle it is you were supposed to be fighting for. In order to correct the mistakes and fundamental errors made by the McCain-Palin ticket (and the Republican party as a whole over last decade), one has to ask questions, even when the questions are unpleasant or unexpected, even blasphemous. If you don't ask the questions, all you get is conspiracy theory and pointless blame.
Of course, there are those in the republican establishment who know this, but who will never admit it. They are wedded to the One-percenters, and so, when they do a thorough post-mortem on this latest fiasco, they will not tell the One-percenters the whole truth -- the reason we were defeated wasn't because people weren't fervent enough or unprincipled; it occurred because the ground had been prepared by disastrous policies enacted by both the Bush Administration and the previously-Republican-controlled, Congress. Those people were only in a position to cause this train wreck because all of us, and that includes the One-percenters, abrogated our responsibilities as both citizens and republicans, and let them get away with it.
The reasons why we abandoned our responsibilities are numerous, and I've written about them for years here.
But, we did not lose because McCain-Palin wasn't 'conservative' enough, nor because of an evil conspiracy between East Coast 'establishment' media/Libertarians/and the so-called RINOs. That lose was a self-inflicted wound. And an even more strident brand of conservatism is the wrong band-aid for it. The proper medicine for this wound is a prescription of responsibility, objectivity and honesty.
The backstabbing has already started amongst the Republican rank-and-file. If you follow any of the "Conservative" echo-chambers online, the defeat of John McCain is due to RINO's, Libertarians, Fag-lovers, Rockefeller-Republicans and Godless Nanny-staters disguised as 'moderate' Republicans (This, despite the fact that many of the same McCain Defenders could be quoted as saying ""I will vote for McCain over my dead body!"). In other words, the same people who are always blamed by the Bible-thumping-kill-the-abortionists-see-a-commie-under-every-rock-one-percenter-Buchannanites. So far as they are concerned, if the party had run a 'real' conservative (definition: Evangelical-pro-life-flamethrowers-for-everyone-gay-bashers), 'we' would have won. Despite an economic crisis, a terrible reputation amongst congressional republicans and a President who's less popular than Ebola. Yeah, I can see how that might happen.
If only we'd been even more conservative, they always wail, we could have won. This, incidentally, has been the battle cry of every losing zealot in history: The Turks would not have been defeated at Lepanto if only their fleet had been more pious Muslims. As if vast armies infused with religious zealotry could compensate for bad tactics and antiquated weapons. Japan would have won the Second World War if only the Japanese people had made even more strenuous efforts on behalf of their divine Emperor, as if Kamakaze attacks weren't strenuous enough. In fact, I can recall a quote from a Japanese general in Burma to his troops in the field before they were slaughtered "Lack of weapons is no excuse for defeat on the battlefield", or words to that effect. John McCain was, in this analogy, part Sultan-part Hirohito, let down by faithless backstabbers and incompetents.
Always, the root cause of failure is one of devotion. One of a lack of proper effort or mindframe. Environmental factors, cultural factors and so forth, are never even considered. To consider them would cause people to question the dogma attendant to whatever principle it is you were supposed to be fighting for. In order to correct the mistakes and fundamental errors made by the McCain-Palin ticket (and the Republican party as a whole over last decade), one has to ask questions, even when the questions are unpleasant or unexpected, even blasphemous. If you don't ask the questions, all you get is conspiracy theory and pointless blame.
Of course, there are those in the republican establishment who know this, but who will never admit it. They are wedded to the One-percenters, and so, when they do a thorough post-mortem on this latest fiasco, they will not tell the One-percenters the whole truth -- the reason we were defeated wasn't because people weren't fervent enough or unprincipled; it occurred because the ground had been prepared by disastrous policies enacted by both the Bush Administration and the previously-Republican-controlled, Congress. Those people were only in a position to cause this train wreck because all of us, and that includes the One-percenters, abrogated our responsibilities as both citizens and republicans, and let them get away with it.
The reasons why we abandoned our responsibilities are numerous, and I've written about them for years here.
But, we did not lose because McCain-Palin wasn't 'conservative' enough, nor because of an evil conspiracy between East Coast 'establishment' media/Libertarians/and the so-called RINOs. That lose was a self-inflicted wound. And an even more strident brand of conservatism is the wrong band-aid for it. The proper medicine for this wound is a prescription of responsibility, objectivity and honesty.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
How to Fix the Republican Party...
Nasty defeat. Well-deserved, too. Here's some ideas on how to fix things:
This movement is in dire need of reform. It is stale and the personalities on point are mostly ticket-punchers. We don't need cosmetic changes posing at reform, but a fundamental rebuild, from the bottom, up (not the top down, which is what the party leadership would like). These changes will not occur unless we first demand them, and then hold the party to account on their implementation.
As for the changes needed:
- It is not enough to demand accountability from the other side, particularly when we try to hide our own dirty laundry. No more defending the indefensible. No more Foleys, no more Craigs, no more DeLays. For those who of you who cry about moral equivalency from democrats, don't forget how some of our leadership went to bat for these guys. This primary principle must not only be obeyed now, in defeat, it must be obeyed if and when the republicans get back into a position of responsibility, or else it's just hot air.
- The message needs changing. The old mantra of "smaller government, moral values, national security...and a tax cut, to boot!", should now also include this: "we say what we mean, and we mean what we say". Not only does that need to be hammered home in words, it needs to be demonstrated by actions. This means no more Katrinas, no more busted budgets, no more Bridges to Nowhere. As McCain said, make the folks who backslide 'famous'.
- A new formulation of Gingrich's Contract with America shoud be put forward as the guiding principles for the republican party for the next decade. It should include;
a. a plan to prevent American corporations from offshoring/outsourcing (euphamistically - 'encouragement' to stop this practice) and generally screwing the American worker. This nation's industrial complex must be rebuilt both to provide jobs and future economic activity. This may be a no-no for free-marketeers, but we have to put people in this country back to work. Give them incentives (or punishments) to bring the jobs back home. Sometimes you need to break eggs to make omlettes. We shoujld no longer give a rat's ass about whether the Chinese can afford to buy American products when it's becoming clear that Americans can no longer afford to buy them.
b. Present a challenge to American industry and science to produce a viable, sustainable alternative fuel -- and just as important, the machinery which can utilize it. If it worked for NASA, it'll work for Exxon-Mobil and GM. It's about time American industry (what's left of it) started doing what it used to do; making actual products, that people want, at a price they can afford.
c. Get the party off the Christain Right teat, and put the Godbots back in the pews where they belong. Morality will never be legislated; it has to be nutured -- outside of the political system -- on an individual level -- which (ironically) is where the churches of this country historically do their best work. Simply packing the Supreme Court will not get rid of abortion-on-demand. Create the culture first outside of politics, and then the newly-created culture will reshape the politics. Not the other way around.
d. Change the immigration debate not by stigmatizing immigrants (after all, we are all the descendants of immigrants), but rather by advocating policies which steer new immigrants towards assimilation. Punish those who break the law, espcially employers (instead of milking them for campaign contributions and votes). No more welfare applications in Spanish, no more voting forms in Swahili, no more money for bi-lingual education. The only time a foreign language should be used/transmitted by the US government is if it is matter of public health or safety. Assimilation is the most important solution to the immigration problem, enforcement of existing law is the second. Armed marines with orders to shoot lawbreakers would be the third.
e. Fight like hell to revoke the monstrosity called Campaign Finance Reform (three lies for the price of one). John McCain hung himself with his own rope, which is appropos. The stupidity of this particular legislation was obvious from the very start. It's appropriate that McCain's system, which was really nothing more than a way for elected politicians to achieve tenure, should be at the very foundation of his failure to achieve higher office.
f. Demand accountability. Every member of Congress should be required to keep a website in which their day-to-day activities, in minute detail, are updated every day. That includes every meeting, every vote, every bill they sponsor, every dollar they spend in their offices, every contribution and endorsement they receive. Each member should be required to explain their votes on it, too, in excruciating detail.
- Find a way to not only communicate 'the message' but find a better way of actually describing how your message will translate into action, also. We get it, we just don't know how you intend to do it. Details, details, details...and then explain why the details are consistent with both republican and conservative principles.
- New blood, new blood, new blood. Stop with the litmus tests which prevent that new blood from entering the party debate. If this is truly a Big Tent Party, then the price of admission to that Big Tent must not be anti-gay, pro-gun, anti-regulation-only; if we have a fiscal conservative or constitutional literalist who's weak on a social issue, we must stop labeling him/her RINO and then showing them the exit. Orthodoxy should never trump effectiveness, or utility.
Nasty defeat. Well-deserved, too. Here's some ideas on how to fix things:
This movement is in dire need of reform. It is stale and the personalities on point are mostly ticket-punchers. We don't need cosmetic changes posing at reform, but a fundamental rebuild, from the bottom, up (not the top down, which is what the party leadership would like). These changes will not occur unless we first demand them, and then hold the party to account on their implementation.
As for the changes needed:
- It is not enough to demand accountability from the other side, particularly when we try to hide our own dirty laundry. No more defending the indefensible. No more Foleys, no more Craigs, no more DeLays. For those who of you who cry about moral equivalency from democrats, don't forget how some of our leadership went to bat for these guys. This primary principle must not only be obeyed now, in defeat, it must be obeyed if and when the republicans get back into a position of responsibility, or else it's just hot air.
- The message needs changing. The old mantra of "smaller government, moral values, national security...and a tax cut, to boot!", should now also include this: "we say what we mean, and we mean what we say". Not only does that need to be hammered home in words, it needs to be demonstrated by actions. This means no more Katrinas, no more busted budgets, no more Bridges to Nowhere. As McCain said, make the folks who backslide 'famous'.
- A new formulation of Gingrich's Contract with America shoud be put forward as the guiding principles for the republican party for the next decade. It should include;
a. a plan to prevent American corporations from offshoring/outsourcing (euphamistically - 'encouragement' to stop this practice) and generally screwing the American worker. This nation's industrial complex must be rebuilt both to provide jobs and future economic activity. This may be a no-no for free-marketeers, but we have to put people in this country back to work. Give them incentives (or punishments) to bring the jobs back home. Sometimes you need to break eggs to make omlettes. We shoujld no longer give a rat's ass about whether the Chinese can afford to buy American products when it's becoming clear that Americans can no longer afford to buy them.
b. Present a challenge to American industry and science to produce a viable, sustainable alternative fuel -- and just as important, the machinery which can utilize it. If it worked for NASA, it'll work for Exxon-Mobil and GM. It's about time American industry (what's left of it) started doing what it used to do; making actual products, that people want, at a price they can afford.
c. Get the party off the Christain Right teat, and put the Godbots back in the pews where they belong. Morality will never be legislated; it has to be nutured -- outside of the political system -- on an individual level -- which (ironically) is where the churches of this country historically do their best work. Simply packing the Supreme Court will not get rid of abortion-on-demand. Create the culture first outside of politics, and then the newly-created culture will reshape the politics. Not the other way around.
d. Change the immigration debate not by stigmatizing immigrants (after all, we are all the descendants of immigrants), but rather by advocating policies which steer new immigrants towards assimilation. Punish those who break the law, espcially employers (instead of milking them for campaign contributions and votes). No more welfare applications in Spanish, no more voting forms in Swahili, no more money for bi-lingual education. The only time a foreign language should be used/transmitted by the US government is if it is matter of public health or safety. Assimilation is the most important solution to the immigration problem, enforcement of existing law is the second. Armed marines with orders to shoot lawbreakers would be the third.
e. Fight like hell to revoke the monstrosity called Campaign Finance Reform (three lies for the price of one). John McCain hung himself with his own rope, which is appropos. The stupidity of this particular legislation was obvious from the very start. It's appropriate that McCain's system, which was really nothing more than a way for elected politicians to achieve tenure, should be at the very foundation of his failure to achieve higher office.
f. Demand accountability. Every member of Congress should be required to keep a website in which their day-to-day activities, in minute detail, are updated every day. That includes every meeting, every vote, every bill they sponsor, every dollar they spend in their offices, every contribution and endorsement they receive. Each member should be required to explain their votes on it, too, in excruciating detail.
- Find a way to not only communicate 'the message' but find a better way of actually describing how your message will translate into action, also. We get it, we just don't know how you intend to do it. Details, details, details...and then explain why the details are consistent with both republican and conservative principles.
- New blood, new blood, new blood. Stop with the litmus tests which prevent that new blood from entering the party debate. If this is truly a Big Tent Party, then the price of admission to that Big Tent must not be anti-gay, pro-gun, anti-regulation-only; if we have a fiscal conservative or constitutional literalist who's weak on a social issue, we must stop labeling him/her RINO and then showing them the exit. Orthodoxy should never trump effectiveness, or utility.
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)