I see people are "outraged" that the Lockerbie bomber was released. Why are these people "outraged?" Have they no compassion for this man who has terminal cancer?
Of course I am being facetious. The guy killed almost 300 people and he's being released? I would have other ideas on punishment for him, but I am a Neanderthal.
Why, though, are people "outraged?" The Brits elect the same kind of people we elect--and re-elect and re-elect.... Apparently, working on computers for all these years now and some things still haven't sunk in: Garbage in, Garbage out.
Out to stain and shellac....
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Socialism
We've heard a lot about the "socialist" nature of the proposed health care reform. Well, we've been going "socialist" for a long time now. Imagine the uproar if we proposed giving up Social Security, Medicare, etc. What about all the hidden "socialism" in the form of gov't subsidies?
I was upset a bit with the normally rational Congressman McCotter and his support for the clunkers program. It seems very, ahem, inconsistent with his overall philosophy. A much better solution would be a tax credit or deduction for the clunkers/new purchases. Then, people who have been keeping abreast of better mileage cars wouldn't be paying for others' cars.
These "anointed" go after the CEOs and other corporate types because of their salaries, bonuses, etc. Why haven't they gone after athletes, entertainers, etc.? How can there not be "outrage" at some baseball player, playing a kids' game, making tens of millions of dollars? Why aren't these folks who know better than the rest of us making comments about Tom Brady, Kobe Bryant, Derek Jeter, and tons of other professional jocks? For that matter, where is the concern with the millions Oprah makes? Why is her income sacrosanct, yet the pay of the head of Microsoft fair game for criticism? And, what about the Kennedies and the other millionaires on Capitol Hill? The hypocrisy is nauseating.
And, come to think of it, if we are buying other people's houses, cars, etc., when will we start paying for their groceries, fuel, and other necessities? After all, if "the anointed" hold that owning a house is "a right," how far behind can eating be?
A good insight to socialism was found in Scott Turow's book, Ordinary Heroes. With my take on it, it goes something like this: Under socialism, ordinary people are "entitled to want more, while the rich [are obligated] to want less." Isn't that so?
I was upset a bit with the normally rational Congressman McCotter and his support for the clunkers program. It seems very, ahem, inconsistent with his overall philosophy. A much better solution would be a tax credit or deduction for the clunkers/new purchases. Then, people who have been keeping abreast of better mileage cars wouldn't be paying for others' cars.
These "anointed" go after the CEOs and other corporate types because of their salaries, bonuses, etc. Why haven't they gone after athletes, entertainers, etc.? How can there not be "outrage" at some baseball player, playing a kids' game, making tens of millions of dollars? Why aren't these folks who know better than the rest of us making comments about Tom Brady, Kobe Bryant, Derek Jeter, and tons of other professional jocks? For that matter, where is the concern with the millions Oprah makes? Why is her income sacrosanct, yet the pay of the head of Microsoft fair game for criticism? And, what about the Kennedies and the other millionaires on Capitol Hill? The hypocrisy is nauseating.
And, come to think of it, if we are buying other people's houses, cars, etc., when will we start paying for their groceries, fuel, and other necessities? After all, if "the anointed" hold that owning a house is "a right," how far behind can eating be?
A good insight to socialism was found in Scott Turow's book, Ordinary Heroes. With my take on it, it goes something like this: Under socialism, ordinary people are "entitled to want more, while the rich [are obligated] to want less." Isn't that so?
Friday, August 14, 2009
Chutzpah and more....
Imagine BO castigating the national media!!!! The media that fawns over him, refuses to really dwell on his many faults, that, in reality, is responsible for his election to the Presidency (well, that and the very mediocre opponent he faced). Ha. What is it? Is he calling them to get back to toeing the line? Is he worried he has lost his "sainthood?" Hmmm.
I know he's a politician, through and through, and maybe this says more about my own naivete than anything, but he's one disingenuous, dishonest, hypocritical man. My fear is that people will return to their almost perpetual hibernation (football season is about to start, along with the new reality shows!) and he'll get the ignorant, pliant, "anointed" Congress to pass his junk.
Did you hear the TX Congresswoman who thinks NASA has landed a man on Mars? How about Stabenow who knows there is global warming because she feels it on the airplanes she flies? Is there any surprise Gov Jennie is advocating new taxes?
I know he's a politician, through and through, and maybe this says more about my own naivete than anything, but he's one disingenuous, dishonest, hypocritical man. My fear is that people will return to their almost perpetual hibernation (football season is about to start, along with the new reality shows!) and he'll get the ignorant, pliant, "anointed" Congress to pass his junk.
Did you hear the TX Congresswoman who thinks NASA has landed a man on Mars? How about Stabenow who knows there is global warming because she feels it on the airplanes she flies? Is there any surprise Gov Jennie is advocating new taxes?
Thursday, August 13, 2009
They're Still at It
I heard this on the radio and, if I hadn't heard it with my own ears, I certainly would not have believed it.
Congressman John Dingell was "dispelling" all of the "rumors" about the health care bill he "authored." "Oh," he insisted, this "wasn't going to happen," that's "not in there," etc. Then, the radio host asked Dingell if he himself had read the bill. "Well, no, not all of it." Huh....
Now, there are three things that are very, very disturbing. One, if Dingell is the "author," as he claimed, how can it be he hasn't read the bill? Two, if Dingell hasn't read the bill, how in the world can he vote for/support it? Three, Dingell didn't sound the least bit embarrassed or shamed when he admitted not reading the bill, yet (see "One" and "Two").
I listen to the radio show talking heads more for entertainment than anything else. (I don't like the music played on most stations most of the time.) OK, I listen to the conservative ones, mostly because the liberal ones are absolutely nuts (and hypocritical--while they decry our system of, say, capitalism, they certainly aren't loathe to partake of the creature comforts it provides!) instead of just a little wacky. But, more and more, their name-calling of our elected officials, "fools," "idiots," "bozos," "clowns," etc. seem like pretty accurate labels.
And what is most frightening is that these elected officials think they are smarter than we are, that they are saving us from ourselves or the system or whatever. Boy, Thomas Sowell was just brilliant in identifying these guys as "the anointed."
BTW, I sent two letters to The Oakland Press, both taking to task its columnists/editors for a lack of knowledge of history. I see neither one has been posted/printed. OK, one, at least, was pretty harsh. I guess it's one thing to be ignorant, but quite another to be ignorant yet still be brash enough to preach to others. Very insufferable....
Congressman John Dingell was "dispelling" all of the "rumors" about the health care bill he "authored." "Oh," he insisted, this "wasn't going to happen," that's "not in there," etc. Then, the radio host asked Dingell if he himself had read the bill. "Well, no, not all of it." Huh....
Now, there are three things that are very, very disturbing. One, if Dingell is the "author," as he claimed, how can it be he hasn't read the bill? Two, if Dingell hasn't read the bill, how in the world can he vote for/support it? Three, Dingell didn't sound the least bit embarrassed or shamed when he admitted not reading the bill, yet (see "One" and "Two").
I listen to the radio show talking heads more for entertainment than anything else. (I don't like the music played on most stations most of the time.) OK, I listen to the conservative ones, mostly because the liberal ones are absolutely nuts (and hypocritical--while they decry our system of, say, capitalism, they certainly aren't loathe to partake of the creature comforts it provides!) instead of just a little wacky. But, more and more, their name-calling of our elected officials, "fools," "idiots," "bozos," "clowns," etc. seem like pretty accurate labels.
And what is most frightening is that these elected officials think they are smarter than we are, that they are saving us from ourselves or the system or whatever. Boy, Thomas Sowell was just brilliant in identifying these guys as "the anointed."
BTW, I sent two letters to The Oakland Press, both taking to task its columnists/editors for a lack of knowledge of history. I see neither one has been posted/printed. OK, one, at least, was pretty harsh. I guess it's one thing to be ignorant, but quite another to be ignorant yet still be brash enough to preach to others. Very insufferable....
Thursday, August 6, 2009
"We have met the enemy...
...and he is us!"
Some of you (two or three?) remember my post about this a few months ago (actually, I posted it and was reminded of that when I reposted it later!). Those of you who oppose what the administration is doing is/are the enemy!!!!!
Freedom of speech/expression? Nope, throw it out the window. If you don't like what Obama and the Congress are doing you are the enemy, not a patriotic American citizen exercising rights guaranteed in the Constitution/Bill of Rights.
No, I'm not being paranoid again. Check the White House official Web site, under "blogs" and see what the White House is asking citizens to do. Turn in the names of those whose opinions (about the health care bill, for example) are "fishy." It's right there; I read it. And the Speaker of the House has intimated that those at Town Hall Meetings who protest are "Nazis," with "swastikas." The Sen from Calif, B. Boxer, suggested the "protesters" are really American citizens; they are "dressed too well." Ah, "the anointed."
For all the people who express "outrage," "indignation," "disgust," etc., who "aren't going to take it any more," well, now's your opportunity. Let your elected officials know how you feel and that you vote!
Of course, my two US Sens either don't respond or, when they do (and they have been better recently), send irrelevant answers. For instance, I protested all the garbage that is being passed by the Congress to Sen Levin. His response? A letter outlining what bills he's sponsored, supported, and helped to pass. Apparently he or his interns/aides don't read very well. I think on several occasions I've quoted the WSJ, "Don't do something; just stand there." Makes me wonder if a Harvard education isn't all it's cracked up to be.
I was going to send a letter of protest to the White House Web site, to the e-mail address it set up for citizens to report "fishy" ideas. But, you know, for the first time, I hesitated. I know my history. What does having citizens turn in other citizens to compile a list of opponents remind you of? Read your history.
It's truly frightening. I'm not a swastika-wearing Nazi. I'm not even a Republican, never have been and likely never will be.
Oh, Phil Hart is likely turning over in his grave. Of course, I wonder if our two Sens from Mich even know who he was or, if they do, what he stood for.
Some of you (two or three?) remember my post about this a few months ago (actually, I posted it and was reminded of that when I reposted it later!). Those of you who oppose what the administration is doing is/are the enemy!!!!!
Freedom of speech/expression? Nope, throw it out the window. If you don't like what Obama and the Congress are doing you are the enemy, not a patriotic American citizen exercising rights guaranteed in the Constitution/Bill of Rights.
No, I'm not being paranoid again. Check the White House official Web site, under "blogs" and see what the White House is asking citizens to do. Turn in the names of those whose opinions (about the health care bill, for example) are "fishy." It's right there; I read it. And the Speaker of the House has intimated that those at Town Hall Meetings who protest are "Nazis," with "swastikas." The Sen from Calif, B. Boxer, suggested the "protesters" are really American citizens; they are "dressed too well." Ah, "the anointed."
For all the people who express "outrage," "indignation," "disgust," etc., who "aren't going to take it any more," well, now's your opportunity. Let your elected officials know how you feel and that you vote!
Of course, my two US Sens either don't respond or, when they do (and they have been better recently), send irrelevant answers. For instance, I protested all the garbage that is being passed by the Congress to Sen Levin. His response? A letter outlining what bills he's sponsored, supported, and helped to pass. Apparently he or his interns/aides don't read very well. I think on several occasions I've quoted the WSJ, "Don't do something; just stand there." Makes me wonder if a Harvard education isn't all it's cracked up to be.
I was going to send a letter of protest to the White House Web site, to the e-mail address it set up for citizens to report "fishy" ideas. But, you know, for the first time, I hesitated. I know my history. What does having citizens turn in other citizens to compile a list of opponents remind you of? Read your history.
It's truly frightening. I'm not a swastika-wearing Nazi. I'm not even a Republican, never have been and likely never will be.
Oh, Phil Hart is likely turning over in his grave. Of course, I wonder if our two Sens from Mich even know who he was or, if they do, what he stood for.
Saturday, August 1, 2009
The Importance of History
The Oakland Press makes the same mistake many people make. Now, the outcome that works might be the one the OP advocates, but the reasoning is flawed. It's something history teaches, but we all know that "history isn't important."
The OP reasons "Logic tells us the answer is somewhere in between." Well, history tells us something else: the answer, the truth is where we find it. And sometimes we find it is not "somewhere in between."
Example: For decades, Western opponents of Stalin claimed he murdered 3 to 4 million Ukrainian kulaks in the 1933-34 "Harvest of Sorrows." Oh, no, countered Stalin's apologists. The number was maybe, maybe 1 million (as if that weren't so bad!). Well, history has told us the answer wasn't "somewhere in between." In fact, it wasn't close. The answer, the truth was where we found it. And we found that the number was 9 to 13 million (with records destroyed, that's as close as we can come). So much for "the truth is somewhere in the middle."
Economics, again, "not important," teaches us similar things, namely the concept of "margin." But that is something for another day/post.
I'm tired and Cody needs to be put to bed. Out. But I do wish those who purportedly give us food for thought were better educated.
The OP reasons "Logic tells us the answer is somewhere in between." Well, history tells us something else: the answer, the truth is where we find it. And sometimes we find it is not "somewhere in between."
Example: For decades, Western opponents of Stalin claimed he murdered 3 to 4 million Ukrainian kulaks in the 1933-34 "Harvest of Sorrows." Oh, no, countered Stalin's apologists. The number was maybe, maybe 1 million (as if that weren't so bad!). Well, history has told us the answer wasn't "somewhere in between." In fact, it wasn't close. The answer, the truth was where we found it. And we found that the number was 9 to 13 million (with records destroyed, that's as close as we can come). So much for "the truth is somewhere in the middle."
Economics, again, "not important," teaches us similar things, namely the concept of "margin." But that is something for another day/post.
I'm tired and Cody needs to be put to bed. Out. But I do wish those who purportedly give us food for thought were better educated.
There They Go Again
Well, the "anointed" are at it again. E.J. Dionne wrote this AM, "There is nothing wrong with asking the wealthy to pay for covering the uninsured...."
Well, yes there is something "wrong" with it. First, by having Congress tax the "very wealthy," nobody is "asking" anyone for anything. The money is being taken from the wealthy, presumably whether they like it or not.
Second, it's easy to spend other people's money. Here's a different approach--how about if we "ask" Dionne and others with views like him "to pay for covering the uninsured?" Surely, with such lofty humanitarianism he wouldn't be at all opposed to that, would he?
Third, he's making the same disingenuous (dishonest?) case about health care in the US. Sooner or later the media must finally admit the real numbers involved in the health care issue, the numbers the independent Pacific Research Institute has uncovered. (Is it any surprise that the numbers have been inflated three-, four-, and even five-fold? Is it any surprise that the mainstream media merely accepts these numbers as the Gospel, rather than challenging their veracity?)
Higher taxes, health care, global warming--is there any end to the hypocrisy of some people or the negligence of the media in failing to expose it?
Well, yes there is something "wrong" with it. First, by having Congress tax the "very wealthy," nobody is "asking" anyone for anything. The money is being taken from the wealthy, presumably whether they like it or not.
Second, it's easy to spend other people's money. Here's a different approach--how about if we "ask" Dionne and others with views like him "to pay for covering the uninsured?" Surely, with such lofty humanitarianism he wouldn't be at all opposed to that, would he?
Third, he's making the same disingenuous (dishonest?) case about health care in the US. Sooner or later the media must finally admit the real numbers involved in the health care issue, the numbers the independent Pacific Research Institute has uncovered. (Is it any surprise that the numbers have been inflated three-, four-, and even five-fold? Is it any surprise that the mainstream media merely accepts these numbers as the Gospel, rather than challenging their veracity?)
Higher taxes, health care, global warming--is there any end to the hypocrisy of some people or the negligence of the media in failing to expose it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
