Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Bella Pelosi, that vampire from the land of habitrails and frightened gerbils, has finally shown her hubris, and lese majesty in full bloom. Hubris is god like pride, or excessive confidence. Lese Majesty is an act that violates the dignity of the sovereign or ruler. She has told the world she wants to save it. How lovely for her. I suppose she believes she is Jesus christ as well? She may be speaker of the house, but she is one of 435 members of the house of representatives. She is not the president, and she is not Jesus. May be she has been spending too much time with Al Gore, whose attempts at politicizing science in the name of man induced global warming will be looked at in hindsight as absurd as the church finding Gallileo guilty of heresy because he posited the earth revolved around the sun. The world does not need saving, as it has a way of self correcting anything that has come it's way. May be Bella Pelosi needs to look in the mirror and ask herself why she has a lower approval rating than a total failure. Then again, she wouldn't see her reflection.
Thank you for reading this blog.
Friday, July 25, 2008
I grew up in a republican household on suburban Long Island in the 1960's and 1970's. My dad worked for the county as a greenskeeper and my mother was self-employed as a paralegal/expeditor and had a lot of interface with local governments. Early on, I had a sense that perception and reality of politics of the republican party were two different entities. My dad was expected to "contribute" to the party as part of his job, volunteer at the republican club, and obviously vote republican. My dad witnessed several times where people made large contributions one day, went from being a subordinate to a higher position the next day. Ironically, my dad made the biggest advances in his career when Eugene Nickerson, a democrat, was elected as county supervisor. The local republican party was as corrupt as any political machine in power too long and left unchecked. You'd think I would be a democrat after this experience, but the values I learned from my parents were conservative and somewhat libertarian. The first presidential election, and in fact any election I voted in was in 1980. I voted for Ronald Reagan on the national level, but locally, I usually voted democrat, because of the corruption, which came to a head some years later when the republicans screwed up to the extent that they left the county in debt and in shambles. Now the democrats have their chance to screw things up there, as who ever is in power for too long, usually gets corrupted by it. Since then I have moved to Iowa, and after the 2004 presidential election, I found myself further disgusted with a party that gives us choices such that we end up choosing "the lesser of the two evils". Bush had become a spendthrift with the government and really didn't distinguish himself as a fiscal conservative. He also chose people for appointments that were considered loyal to him and the party, rather than who was best for the job. Machine politics at its best. After the 2006 elections, where the democrats gained a majority in the house, I felt that I had had the last straw. I would never again vote for the "lesser of two evils", nor would I vote party line just because. My discontent with this started with the Dole candidacy in 1996. While a decent man, putting someone forth because it is their turn is a lousy way to do politics. The wrong guy at the wrong time. So here we are in 2008, with our choices being McCain and Obama. I disagree with McCain on immigration, campaign finance reform, taxes, and in general, the role of government. I disagree with Obama on everything, or just about everything. Here we go again, having to choose between an ersatz democrat in republican clothes and a socialist. I have to say I am freaking sick of it. Now, as far as McCain the man, the guy who got his ass kicked for five and half years in Hanoi, I give my props. I respect him as an individual, and I think he has sand, as they say, but we don't agree enough on important issues. Obama is irrelevant as I see him as a cardboard cutout with the "can you here me now" crowd behind him shouting hope and change. He is a socialist in democrat's clothes, and I question his values, and his motives. At this point, I think that most people are deluding themselves in accepting a two party system that pays lip service to them and never gets it right. The two parties have become a self-serving political oligarchy, and all they see us as are sheeple that can be manipulated and led to vote to keep them in power. The british had that attitude 232 years ago and we kicked their ass. I think it's time to kick some ass again. Bona Fides and beliefs to follow...
Thank you for reading my blog.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Barack Hussein Obama is the new Jack Kennedy. Look at the parallels. Jack was a junior senator from Massachusetts, elected in 1952. Prior to that he was in the House of Representatives from 1947 to 1953. He had no executive experience, and in reality, not much political experience as well. In 1957, he won the Pulitzer Prize for his book, Profiles In Courage, which we have found out since then, that it was really written by Theodore Sorensen, Jack Kennedy's special advisor and speech writer. Ted's best work was "Ask not what your country can do for you; Ask what you can do for your country". Of course, Jack couldn't do it all himself, and his father supposedly enlisted the Chicago mob and political machine, which were pretty much the same thing, to get the cemeteries out to vote. Even so, Jack won by only 110,000 or so votes. Still, when you do the electoral math, even if Harry F. Byrd didn't run as an independent, Nixon would not have had the electoral votes. He would have won the popular vote, but lost the electoral vote. Shades of 2000? Having Johnson as a running mate, whose ability to get cemeteries voting in Texas, was second to the chicago machine, helped sow up the electoral side. With Obama, we have a Junior senator from Illinois, elected in 2004, no executive experience, and like Jack, has style, charisma and a smile. Oh yeah, we have hope and change. Like Jack, Barack has advisors to help him with his homework in becoming president, in fact 300 of them. Barack is 46, whereas Jack was 43 when he became President. Jack was the first Roman Catholic elected President, Barack will be the first half-black half-white president elected. Oops. Did I say will be? Yeah, if I had to put money on it, Obama will win. The republicans have no one else to blame but themselves. They seem bent on nominating people whose turn it is, particularly when the competition is stiff. Part of the problem is an old boys network, where they want the tried, true, and/or connected, but more importantly, the republicans have lost traction and seats locally and nationally because they did not adhere to their platforms, the values of the party, the values of their constituents and they continue this trend. The democrats have been truer to their party, their constituents and have the will to carry it out. Until the republican party decides it really stands for something, and has the will to carry it out, they will be in the back seat for quite some time. Their political pragmatism has not served anyone well. So come November 4th, you can bet Obama will draw 21 and it won't matter what McCain draws, as he is not the dealer, the mainstream media is. What did John Cutter say in Passenger 57?
Thank you for reading this blog.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
The democrats have shown, once again, how hypocritical they are. The DNC has made a deal to get fuel from the state of Colorado tax free during the democrat convention. Now, I am the first person to applaud tax free anything, but the tax break is for a party that: wouldn't suspend the fuel taxes to alleviate high fuel prices for all people, will not allow drilling for oil offshore, or allow drilling for oil in ANWR, and want to pass laws that would cripple our economy through things like carbon credits, which are useless and feckless. Now, the DNC will assert the republicans are doing it during their convention. Well, they are hypocrites too. They are supposed to be the party of low taxes, small government, pro-life and family values. During the Bush administration, we have seen the largest growth of the government, probably since FDR. Expanded medicare, prescription drug plan, the Department of Homeland Security, the TSA, etc. While the democrats are the drivers on the road to ruin, Bush and his neo-machiavellian consultant of how to win elections by taking your opponents positions have done everything to not only screw up the republican party, but make it possible for the democrats to take both houses and probably the White House in 2008. They helped put the democrats in the drivers seat. So what are we left with here are the major two parties that do not represent what the the american people want or believe and are out for themselves. They are hypocrites, drawn to the power of political position, while giving lip service to positions that they change with the change of the direction of the political winds.
Thank you for reading this blog.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Today I received an email from the Iowa Republican Party. Yes, that is correct, I am a registered Republican, although I must admit that it may change in the near future. Anyway, I received this email in regards to a fundraiser hosted by the party featuring Karl Rove as the guest. The luncheon cost $100 to attend. I understand that the party wants to raise money, but $100 for lunch is a little steep, but Ok, that is the deal. A little further on I find out that they want $1000 if you want your picture taken with Karl Rove. I was nearly speechless, apoplectic with blood shooting out of my eyes and smoke coming from my ears. Karl Rove should pay me for the photograph. $1000? Holy crap. It's Karl Rove, the mutant machiavellian nurd from Colorado. If Jesus came back, I might pay $1000 to be photographed with him. The gaul, the chutzpah! I emailed Wes Peterson from the Republican Party and promptly told him he is nuts. I also asked what the Lincoln Bedroom would cost if McCain got elected. I'd have to guess at least $250,000 and more like $500,000. Luckily I still have a sense of humor and not much money. The Lincoln Bedroom will be expensive no matter who is in the White House, and if I am going to spend $250,000 for a room, I'd rather stay at the Vatican, or may be Buckingham Palace. What irks me is that access to anyone beyond your local party leader costs money. It's like the damn mafia, only worse. At least the mob accomplishes it's goals. Republicans, particularly those in my state, with the possible exception of Steve King, who is in the congress, have become ersatz democrats. Clearly outnumbered in both state houses they have surrendered everything except the name republican. They would probably label their efforts as some sort of pragmatism, but when you look at the republican platform, and look how they have voted, there is a disparity. Family values, life, etc. Still, they find time to ask me to pay for lunch with Karl Rove, who I have no inclination to be with in the same hemisphere. Good luck with the pictures.
Thank you for reading this blog.
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Phil Gramm's resignation as John McCain's Campaign Co-Chairman underscores McCain's inability to deal truthfully with the American public and McCain would rather appease weak minded people and his opponent. Phil Gramm was correct in his assertion that we are in a "mental recession". While the dollar is weak and oil has been very high, causing rising costs for most things, americans seem to be getting along just fine thank you. I think this situation underscores issues regarding the change in the American psyche in the last 50 years. To put it plainly, Americans do not want, like or think they should have to suffer for anything. The sense of entitlement that many americans have is frightening and it is my belief that it will lead to a weaker America. We whine about many things. Take the Iraq war for instance. First let me say that I do not support Bush's assertion that promulgated the war. I believe he used an a priori supposition to get us into the conflict. I believe his true reasoning was to reshape the middle east by putting Iran in a vise between ready made democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq. Iran has been and is one of the bad guys in supporting terrorism. Now, over 4100 soldiers have died in the Iraq war since March of 2003. that is over 5 years. Peaceniks, and other left leaning americans bemoan this and you'd think we were losing a generation over there (I do not belittle the sacrifices made, but rather show the shallow indignation of the protesters). Even non-political americans are showing weariness of the war. Part of this is the coverage of the left leaning media, but most of it is because we just don't have the stomach for such things. For instance, in WW II, we lost a total of about 5100 soldiers in D-Day. That's more killed in one day than in 5 years in Iraq. I believe in the Battle of the Wilderness in the Civil War, the Union lost over 17,000 in one day. One day. We have lost our will, our ability to persevere, to endure. Can you say Sprechen Sie Deutsches?, Yukkuri hanashi te kudasai? or "I was born in the land of cotton....dixieland". We haven't had two consecutive quarters of negative growth. There is no recession. People are basically whining because of the free market and now they want the government to step in and end their minor suffering. During WW II, gas was rationed and people would run kerosine in their cars. They got by. No one whined, they worked harder. People are complaining about the mortgage crisis. Who told these people to over extend themselves? Where is personal responsibility? The entitlement mentality in this country has largely grown for the fact that people can get money without earning it. Want a new car? Apply for credit. Want that 3000+ sq ft house with 5 bed rooms and you only have 1 kid? no problem. Take two mortgages out and one of them is interest only. Want to eat out every night? No problem, I'll just use the mastercard. Credit allows people to live a lifestyle that not only they would not be able to afford without it, but they haven't earned it. What people do not realize, is that they have put themselves into a form of peonage that will continue until after they are even dead. My supposition is that when you do not earn what you have, it loses its value. It becomes meaningless, and the result is that you want more crap. When you pay cash for something, you had to work for it up front, and chances are you will appreciate it and cherish it. This entitlement mentality has infected many americans to the point that they do not value their very freedom and the capitalist democracy that guards it and promulgates it. In aversion to having to suffer, or in reality, earn their way, they would give up much for security. Ben Franklin said that "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic". So it is not enough that we can buy things unearned, but we also should enlist the government in giving us entitlements to things our founding fathers never considered, nor have we earned any of it. Of course there is no free lunch here as well. Nationalized healthcare, prescriptions, welfare, college tuition, etc would be paid through increased taxes (consider how poorly the government does in this area. social security pays back between 1 and 1 and a half per cent. A certificate of deposit in a bank pays at least 2.75%. So, if you get $1000 a month from SS, you'd get $2750 if you put it in a CD). Taxes are in a sense, peonage. You have to work to pay taxes and that time you work is time you will never get back. Time is one of the few commodities that is very limited, and whose quantity one never knows. The one entitlement I stand by is for every person to keep every bit of currency they earn. It should be up to the individual how it would be distributed. Now, I am sure there are people out there that would say, look what you get in return, look how society benefits as a whole. I would reply that such arguments were made by plantation owners that owned slaves. The greater good has been used oppress, to steal, to obfuscate, and to kill. Supporting and elevating individual rights and responsibilities does not hurt society. So where does this leave us as Americans? Credit is the chain around our neck and government entitlements are chains around our ankles. A future of a more socialist American government presents a picture of a servile, ignorant, feckless and pusillanimous people. How did we get here? I'll leave that for another post, but I will leave you with quotes from two famous and eloquent Americans:
"Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
"To make a contented slave, it is necessary to make a thoughtless one. It is necessary to darken the moral and mental vision and, as far as possible, to annihilate the power of reason."
Thank you for reading this blog.
Friday, July 18, 2008
When I saw the number 300 in the news online, at first I thought may be it had to do with Xerxes and the Battle of Thermopylae, and then I thought may be in light of his poor bowling skills, he actually bowled a 300...But no, poor Barak needs 300 advisors to understand how the world works, or may be he wants to give the impression of gravitas. Honestly, it reminds me of the movie Back to School, where a character played by Rodney Dangerfield, A wealthy businessman that goes back to school, hires professionals like Kurt Vonnegut to write his papers and do his homework. Considering his lack of executive experience, do we really want this guy in the White House? This election is becoming more like the one in 1960. Jack Kennedy had little political experience, no executive experience, and he was out of his league in dealing with the Russians and Cubans. He also had policies with Vietnam that we paid for years to come. Electing a paper cutout is bad for any country, and a critical mistake for our country.
Thank you for reading this blog.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Earlier in the week, John McCain characterized himself more like Theodore Roosevelt as opposed to a characterization by Barak Obama that a John McCain presidency would be like a third Bush presidency. Theodore Roosevelt was considered a progressive in his day, and by current conservative and even republican standards, he would have been more to the left with issues that the party holds dear. Theodore Roosevelt believed in the government helping the underclasses and he aggressively pursued business monopolies. I grew up on Long Island and toured Sagamore Hill, the residence of Theodore Roosevelt, more than a couple times. I consider him one of the greatest men to hold the office of the presidency, and he was a hero of mine growing up. Still, I find I have to reconcile a couple positions he took as president, as they wouldn't necessarily be mine. Even with with our differences (I am a believer in free trade and no/low taxes), I still feel he was a great man. He could talk the talk and walk the walk. He was a moral man that believed in justice, and believed in rugged individualism. He brought America to the fore as a preeminent nation in the world. I can see how McCain would consider himself more like Teddy, but I think he falls short in some ways. He probably not as smart as Theodore Roosevelt, and not as diverse in his knowledge and background. McCain does not have prior executive experience, and he doesn't seem to have the political prowess Roosevelt had, which only could be matched by Bill Clinton, May be. Teddy was as at ease talking with a ditch digger as he was with the Queen of England. Lastly, McCain's position of immigration, at least prior to the last few months, would not fly with Teddy. May be McCain should read Roosevelt's Hyphenated Americanism speech. Still, if McCain aspires to be like Theodore Roosevelt, I think that is fine and he could do much worse and is a lot better off than his political adversary. I don't know who Barak Obama fancies himself like, but my guess is a black Jack Kennedy. He does have the youth and charisma down, but Jack would be a right wing populist by today's standards and had he lived, the Vietnam War would have changed his legacy considerably. That being said, Barak is far left of Jack, as is Barak's wife, who I'd bet would have more to do with his administration than Hillary did with Bill's. If I had to guess, I bet they like people such as Fidel Castro, Karl Marx, and Chairman Mao. The good thing is that no matter how far left Barak is, it is unlikely that he could go through a presidency and enact all the socialist agendas he would like, but the idea of his presidency is disturbing to someone like myself that is an objectivist, libertarian in political bent, and a free trader. The underlying question that no one is asking, who is Barak Obama? Comedian's find it difficult to throw barbs on him, partly because he's black, partly because they like him. The complaint put forth is that he offers nothing for them to go after. If that doesn't cause alarm, I don't know what should. Not only is getting a free pass by the media, but he's hiding who he is. So who is Barak Obama? It'll take more space than I have now, and I will address this later, and hopefully with humor. Now on to plain idiots... Nancy Pelosi (Nancy Lugosi or Bella Pelosi?) wins this week's prize as Idiot for her comment that George W. Bush is a total failure. I will preface my next comment with the statement that I have been disappointed by Bush, and not in a small way, but... Her comment is from someone that has a lower approval rating than the president's approval rating, in fact it is in the single digits. So, my question for this cagna brutta, what is lower than a total failure? She would know.
Friday, July 04, 2008
Part of being an authentic and realised human being is to accept that everything we do at some point involves choices. Our own choices. We are responsible for our thoughts, words and deeds and all involve making choices. Many people deflect this reality by saying, it’s not my fault, I wasn’t responsible, I didn’t do it, etc even in the face of the obvious truth that they chose some action or behaviour that got them to that point. It’s easy to absolve oneself by pointing the finger the other way. Denial is a mechanism by which we avoid mental and emotional pain. Denying the responsibility of the choices we make ensures that we will make the same mistakes again and in the end causes more pain for everyone involved. To paraphrase Neil Peart, even if you do not choose, you still have made a choice. There is no way around this unless you are dead. Even if you have been wronged, or hurt, you have made choices that led to that situation. This in no way absolves other actors in our interactions, as they are responsible for their choices and transgressions as well. Just realise that everything you think, say and do has consequences.
Today is Independence Day. How apropos that I post my first message to this blog today. For those who ask “What are your bona fides?”, to that I reply, had the same been asked of Thomas Paine or Samuel Adams? Not that I consider myself worthy of the comparison or respect at this point, but someone has to take a stand. Today is the day we celebrate the blessings of our liberty. For most, it is an entitlement, a gift unearned. For those brave souls that 232 years ago pledged their sacred honour, their property, their lives, and the lives of their loved ones, I say thank you. Such men are rare indeed and today, nearly non-existent.
Posted by The Right Guy at 7/04/2008 10:35:00 AM