Are you, or have you ever been, a member of the house of representatives or senate? This is the question we must ask of everyone in November. If the answer is yes, vote for the other guy. I don't care if the opponent is a convicted felon. At least they've been convicted of their crimes and payed their debt to society. That would imply at least a semblance of self-reflection. Perhaps some humility and acceptance of the fact that you can't get away with it.
Look at the people that are now inhabiting the corridors of power in our nation. Look at what they've done. Ask yourself if you are okay with it. Ask yourself if this is what you elected them to do. If so, congratulations. You're winning. If not, do something about it.
Don't look at the letter in front of the name. It doesn't make any difference to them, why should it to you? They're all after the same thing, another term feeding at the public trough. None of them have ever done anything, produced anything, created anything in their lives. They are the very definition of 2nd raters - They are uncomfortable in their own uselessness, but hate anyone that has any use or purpose in life. "I can't do it, so I don't like anyone that can and I'm gonna take my ball and go home." Really? Please do. The only time they unhook the feedbag is when they want to lie to you to get you to vote for them...hello Scott Brown.
Here's the thing, It doesn't matter who represents you if they don't represent YOU. So look at the candiates, not the parties. Find out whatever you can about them. Don't listen to what they say when the microphones are on, look at what they do when they're not. For instance, would Nancy Pelosi survive a trip into a church of any kind? My mom once told me that if the devil set foot in a church, he would probably croak. And yet, here she is, talking about the importance of "The Word". What word is that Nancy? To my mind, the word is no, as in no more. No more shenanigans, no more ballyhoo.
Look at your choices, the democrat, the republican, the independent, and then look at people you know. Someone in your family, your church, your neighborhood. Think of someone that you admire. Ask yourself who would be a better representative for you, a career politician or someone that has actually had to fight and struggle to survive in the real world. Someone that has spent their entire adult life hiding from the reality that we face every day, that is to succeed or fail on your own merits, or someone that has embraced and thrived in that atmosphere. Think about who better understands your fate, your issues, your circumstance. Who would you like to speak for you?
I remember laughing at the story of my mom, who wrote in a vote for a candidate not even on the ballot. "What a waste of a vote" I thought. But isn't that the true essence of a vote. We give our support to a candidate. Shouldn't we get to choose that candidate? Isn't every vote a strike at the establishment, a cry in the darkness? Shouldn't we relish the opportunity to voice our opinion, whatever that may be? Was her vote any more a waste than my vote for Mccain? Was it an empty statement? No more than voting for empty promises from an empty suit. A vote for the lesser of 2 evils is still a vote for evil.
This is a remarkable time, in a remarkable nation. People that spew nonsense have an audience of millions. People that make sense have their reputations ruined. Which will you be? Will you bear the scars of a battle honorably lost, or the fruits of someone else's labor? Will you stand for what you believe in, or will you sit and watch as others you don't believe in speak for you? Will you determine your own destiny, or let someone else choose your fate? All you have is your voice, your choice, your vote. Don't waste it.
There are 2 kinds of people in this world, those who can, and those who wish they could. Which are you? Can you make a difference, or do you just wish you could? I wish I could, and I still believe I can. I will do everything in my power to save my country, for I believe it is worth saving. I believe in the ideas that were unleashed on the world in 1787. The simple and core truths that were embraced and expounded on by the founders of our nation, that all men are CREATED EQUAL, not guaranteed equal results. It's a hard world that we live in, and it takes a hard person to thrive in it. So be hard, live hard, and in the words of the immortal Dewey Cox, "walk hard"
TFD
Friday, May 21, 2010
Sunday, March 21, 2010
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, these include..." a well-paying job, a nice home, and free health care.
What, that's not right? Isn't that what Madison meant by inalienable rights? If you merely substitute the creator with the government, you get what this administration is driving towards. In fact, it has been the goal of the progressive movement to replace God with government since the turn of the 20th century. And so today is the date of their greatest victory. The government has bestowed another right on it's people. Never mind that rights can only come from God, however you refer to Him (or Her, or It). But wait, the government is now God. Or God is dead, according to Neitschke, He's been dead for a long time. According to Marx, we have no need for Him in the industrial age. According to democratic , and some republican, politicians, they are Him.
Let's get a few things straight. First of all, the government cannot grant rights, it can only take them away. That's what this health care reform bill is about. They are not giving citizens the right to health care, they are taking away the property rights of millions of Americans in order to play God. It's called redistribution of wealth. Maybe they believe it's the right thing to do. I'm sure Nancy Pelosi cares deeply about the plight of the downtrodden in this country, as do all of her fellow democrats. That's why they give so much of their money to charity. What? They don't give money to charity? Oh, they only give our money to charity. Well, at least it's going to a good cause. 16,000 more IRS agents. That'll put a dent in the unemployment numbers. That's almost one half of 1,000th of a percent of the country. This is about jobs after all. Never mind the 30 million jobs that will be lost in the next year. What will they say when unemployment hits 20 percent? Can they still blame Bush? What's the statute of limitations on that?
Second, and most importantly, this is not about health care at all, it's about power. It's about the government getting it's claws into your life, and never letting go. Everything in your life can be regulated through the prism of healthcare. What you eat, where you live, how many children you have, what you name them, how you raise them, etc. You get the idea. Once they are in, we can't ever get them out. Who knows a politician courageous enough to vote against social security, or medicare, or medicaid. They certainly won't repeal this entitlement. Once people get a taste of free stuff, woe to the man that tries to take it away. Take a look at what's happening in Greece. That's our future. I only hope that I'm not alive to see it. It's hard enough to look my children in the eyes knowing the kind of future they have in store for them. We've seen where huge government leads, and it ain't pretty. I'd tell you to ask 30 million Russians and 70 million Chinese, no to mention 5-6 million Jews, but they're all dead.
My mother asked me today what I disliked about the bill..."Not emotionally, but the actual bill" I can't answer that without the emotion, because I don't know what's in the bill. No one does. All I know is, they are destroying this country, step by step, and we're letting it happen. They are taking over the car industry, the banking industry, and now the health care industry. What's next, the carnival industry? It seems to me that most of the politicians we have elected would fit right in selling tickets to gawk at the bearded lady and the goatboy. We can rest easy though, at least now they'll have free health care.
What, that's not right? Isn't that what Madison meant by inalienable rights? If you merely substitute the creator with the government, you get what this administration is driving towards. In fact, it has been the goal of the progressive movement to replace God with government since the turn of the 20th century. And so today is the date of their greatest victory. The government has bestowed another right on it's people. Never mind that rights can only come from God, however you refer to Him (or Her, or It). But wait, the government is now God. Or God is dead, according to Neitschke, He's been dead for a long time. According to Marx, we have no need for Him in the industrial age. According to democratic , and some republican, politicians, they are Him.
Let's get a few things straight. First of all, the government cannot grant rights, it can only take them away. That's what this health care reform bill is about. They are not giving citizens the right to health care, they are taking away the property rights of millions of Americans in order to play God. It's called redistribution of wealth. Maybe they believe it's the right thing to do. I'm sure Nancy Pelosi cares deeply about the plight of the downtrodden in this country, as do all of her fellow democrats. That's why they give so much of their money to charity. What? They don't give money to charity? Oh, they only give our money to charity. Well, at least it's going to a good cause. 16,000 more IRS agents. That'll put a dent in the unemployment numbers. That's almost one half of 1,000th of a percent of the country. This is about jobs after all. Never mind the 30 million jobs that will be lost in the next year. What will they say when unemployment hits 20 percent? Can they still blame Bush? What's the statute of limitations on that?
Second, and most importantly, this is not about health care at all, it's about power. It's about the government getting it's claws into your life, and never letting go. Everything in your life can be regulated through the prism of healthcare. What you eat, where you live, how many children you have, what you name them, how you raise them, etc. You get the idea. Once they are in, we can't ever get them out. Who knows a politician courageous enough to vote against social security, or medicare, or medicaid. They certainly won't repeal this entitlement. Once people get a taste of free stuff, woe to the man that tries to take it away. Take a look at what's happening in Greece. That's our future. I only hope that I'm not alive to see it. It's hard enough to look my children in the eyes knowing the kind of future they have in store for them. We've seen where huge government leads, and it ain't pretty. I'd tell you to ask 30 million Russians and 70 million Chinese, no to mention 5-6 million Jews, but they're all dead.
My mother asked me today what I disliked about the bill..."Not emotionally, but the actual bill" I can't answer that without the emotion, because I don't know what's in the bill. No one does. All I know is, they are destroying this country, step by step, and we're letting it happen. They are taking over the car industry, the banking industry, and now the health care industry. What's next, the carnival industry? It seems to me that most of the politicians we have elected would fit right in selling tickets to gawk at the bearded lady and the goatboy. We can rest easy though, at least now they'll have free health care.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Get the barney
I guess Barney Frank is at it again. I read an article in the Herald that Barney is pushing for banks to lend more money. If they don't, he is threatening to give more lending power to credit unions. I have no problem with easing the restrictions on credit union lending. In fact, I think it's a good idea. The problem, as I see it, is Barney Frank having any say at all in who lends money to whom.
Let me explain the latest economic crisis in a nutshell. This is a simplistic version, but I am a simple man. Basically, the housing market was booming. Barney and his pals decided that everyone should own a home, whether they could afford it or not. He started pushing banks to lend money to people that had no way of repaying the loans. He used his power as congressman to rewrite the laws so that it would be easier for people to obtain credit. Banks were forced to write loans to people who , again, COULD NOT REPAY THEM. Mortgage companies and wall street investment firms caught on and a new market was created. Mortgage-backed securities were all the rage. I'm not too clear on what this means, but basically, people bought mortgages in bundles from banks and tried to dump them before they went bad. It was a race against time. Everyone knew these were bad investments, but it was a game of high-stakes hot potato. Whoever was left holding the bag at the end of the game, lost. When the adjustable rates started adjusting, people simply walked away. Meanwhile, instead of a seller's market, real estate became a buyer's market. Housing prices had been artificially inflated by the infusion of buyers (created by Mrs. Frank) and when the pool of buyers shrank, so did the value of the houses. Simple economics. Supply and demand. But in this case, the government, or Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, were waiting at the end of the rainbow to catch all the falling debris. When Freddy and Fanny were the ones at the end, we all lost. In spite of Barney's protestations, he told the world that Fanny and Freddy were in great shape while in fact, they were on the brink of collapse. Of course, he denies this. How can he be the smartest man in the world if he admits to a mistake?
The truth is, he didn't make a mistake. He still believes that everyone should own a home, whether they can afford it or not. And this is the problem. According to Barney, we as a nation are responsible for everyone's miscalculations. The rich should pay for the poor's overreaching. Big Daddy government should ensure this, even if Big Daddy government, in the person of Barney Frank, is the cause. Barney Frank is a gay politician in a state and district that believes it is their civic duty to elect and re-elect, and re-elect again a gay politician, no matter the consequences for the rest of the nation. Make no mistake, I have no problem with gay politicians, as long as they are elected on their accomplishments, not their sexual preferences. Barney Frank has been a disaster on the same level as the Titanic. He has done more harm to the nation's economy than the attacks of 9/11. And yet he will be re-elected without a challenge in his district of gray-haired, ponytailed, trustfund hippies. Something is wrong with this. Something is wrong when even an idiot like Bill O'Reilly can see that the real cause of the economic collapse is the kind of leadership given to us by Barney Frank and his ilk. And the supposed liberal elitists can't see it. It is in your hands, citizens of Newton. You can vote for Frank, or get the Barney. remember, the whole world is watching.
TFD
Let me explain the latest economic crisis in a nutshell. This is a simplistic version, but I am a simple man. Basically, the housing market was booming. Barney and his pals decided that everyone should own a home, whether they could afford it or not. He started pushing banks to lend money to people that had no way of repaying the loans. He used his power as congressman to rewrite the laws so that it would be easier for people to obtain credit. Banks were forced to write loans to people who , again, COULD NOT REPAY THEM. Mortgage companies and wall street investment firms caught on and a new market was created. Mortgage-backed securities were all the rage. I'm not too clear on what this means, but basically, people bought mortgages in bundles from banks and tried to dump them before they went bad. It was a race against time. Everyone knew these were bad investments, but it was a game of high-stakes hot potato. Whoever was left holding the bag at the end of the game, lost. When the adjustable rates started adjusting, people simply walked away. Meanwhile, instead of a seller's market, real estate became a buyer's market. Housing prices had been artificially inflated by the infusion of buyers (created by Mrs. Frank) and when the pool of buyers shrank, so did the value of the houses. Simple economics. Supply and demand. But in this case, the government, or Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, were waiting at the end of the rainbow to catch all the falling debris. When Freddy and Fanny were the ones at the end, we all lost. In spite of Barney's protestations, he told the world that Fanny and Freddy were in great shape while in fact, they were on the brink of collapse. Of course, he denies this. How can he be the smartest man in the world if he admits to a mistake?
The truth is, he didn't make a mistake. He still believes that everyone should own a home, whether they can afford it or not. And this is the problem. According to Barney, we as a nation are responsible for everyone's miscalculations. The rich should pay for the poor's overreaching. Big Daddy government should ensure this, even if Big Daddy government, in the person of Barney Frank, is the cause. Barney Frank is a gay politician in a state and district that believes it is their civic duty to elect and re-elect, and re-elect again a gay politician, no matter the consequences for the rest of the nation. Make no mistake, I have no problem with gay politicians, as long as they are elected on their accomplishments, not their sexual preferences. Barney Frank has been a disaster on the same level as the Titanic. He has done more harm to the nation's economy than the attacks of 9/11. And yet he will be re-elected without a challenge in his district of gray-haired, ponytailed, trustfund hippies. Something is wrong with this. Something is wrong when even an idiot like Bill O'Reilly can see that the real cause of the economic collapse is the kind of leadership given to us by Barney Frank and his ilk. And the supposed liberal elitists can't see it. It is in your hands, citizens of Newton. You can vote for Frank, or get the Barney. remember, the whole world is watching.
TFD
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
The Fort Hood tragedy is another sad chapter in the war on terror. Oops, I mean the overseas contingency plan. It also points out that maybe the left wing loons who blame America for everything may be right after all, at least in this instance. And no I'm not talking about the CIA or Army intelligence officers that may or may not have known that Nidal Hasan was a radical extremist. I'm not talking about his colleagues or associates who may or may not have heard him say some pretty strange things about America and Islam. They do share some culpability in the events that transpired, but the true villain here is America today.
Our culture of political correctness is on trial, as surely as Hasan will stand trial for his crime. Our unwillingness to speak out against certain protected minorities is caused by the vitriolic attacks levelled against anyone who has done so before us. If a coworker, who happens to be a woman, is not doing her job properly, she can't be reprimanded without several witnesses in the room for fear of charges of sexual discrimination. If a motorist is pulled over without a valid license, or even a minimal grasp of the English language, they can't be ticketed because they are latino. That would be racial profiling. We can't even question the policies of the president without being called racists and accused of hating poor people. And we certainly can't question the rantings of a radical islamic jihadist who is in the United States Army, that doesn't promote religious tolerance. The funny thing is, the people who have worked so hard to bring about this climate in America are the same ones that blame us for everything that happens to us or anyone else in the world. It's almost a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I'm all for tolerance, and live-and-let-live, and cultural diversity and all that. I think that one of the strengths of this nation is in the many different cultures and points of view that are able to be expressed here. I also am not advocating any sort of discrimination or bigotry on the basis of anything. I am simply stating the fact that policies such as racial quotas, hate-crime legislation, and politically correct guidelines aren't just figuratively killing this country, they have now literally killed 13 of our brave soldiers. The fact that people were afraid to speak out about this fanatical, nut-job jihadist because they would be branded as racists who were simply intolerant of his religion led directly to this tragedy. They were probably right, and that is wrong.
I am intolerant of anyone whose idealogy includes blowing me or someone I care about to kingdom come. I am unpologetically in favor of racial profiling if it is being used to keep Americans safe. The last time I checked, these whackos all have pretty definable characteristics in both manner and appearance. I know not all Muslims are radical jihadists, but I also know that all radical jihadists are Muslims. I don't think we should lock up any Muslim that walks down the street or into a gymnasium, but if it's one with a history of spouting anti-American rhetoric and happens to be carrying a couple of guns, let's stop and ask him a few questions next time, Okay? Maybe we'll be labelled racist, but at least we'll be alive to defend ourselves against the charges.
Our culture of political correctness is on trial, as surely as Hasan will stand trial for his crime. Our unwillingness to speak out against certain protected minorities is caused by the vitriolic attacks levelled against anyone who has done so before us. If a coworker, who happens to be a woman, is not doing her job properly, she can't be reprimanded without several witnesses in the room for fear of charges of sexual discrimination. If a motorist is pulled over without a valid license, or even a minimal grasp of the English language, they can't be ticketed because they are latino. That would be racial profiling. We can't even question the policies of the president without being called racists and accused of hating poor people. And we certainly can't question the rantings of a radical islamic jihadist who is in the United States Army, that doesn't promote religious tolerance. The funny thing is, the people who have worked so hard to bring about this climate in America are the same ones that blame us for everything that happens to us or anyone else in the world. It's almost a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I'm all for tolerance, and live-and-let-live, and cultural diversity and all that. I think that one of the strengths of this nation is in the many different cultures and points of view that are able to be expressed here. I also am not advocating any sort of discrimination or bigotry on the basis of anything. I am simply stating the fact that policies such as racial quotas, hate-crime legislation, and politically correct guidelines aren't just figuratively killing this country, they have now literally killed 13 of our brave soldiers. The fact that people were afraid to speak out about this fanatical, nut-job jihadist because they would be branded as racists who were simply intolerant of his religion led directly to this tragedy. They were probably right, and that is wrong.
I am intolerant of anyone whose idealogy includes blowing me or someone I care about to kingdom come. I am unpologetically in favor of racial profiling if it is being used to keep Americans safe. The last time I checked, these whackos all have pretty definable characteristics in both manner and appearance. I know not all Muslims are radical jihadists, but I also know that all radical jihadists are Muslims. I don't think we should lock up any Muslim that walks down the street or into a gymnasium, but if it's one with a history of spouting anti-American rhetoric and happens to be carrying a couple of guns, let's stop and ask him a few questions next time, Okay? Maybe we'll be labelled racist, but at least we'll be alive to defend ourselves against the charges.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Every circle of friends has that guy in it. The guy that noone really likes. Maybe he's loud, or obnoxious, or he drinks too much, or he engages in some other embarrassing activity in public that makes everyone else cringe. Any time we all go out, my friends and I have the same conversation. After we decide where we are going, what we are doing, and who will be coming along, we bring up the George debate. George is a lawyer. He's balding, fat, and annoying. He also makes a lot more money than the rest of us. the discussion usually goes something like this...
" So, should we call him?"
" I don't know, how much cash do you have?"
" Not much, You"
" Not much...do you want to call him or should I?"
You see, no matter how annoying he is, he usually picks up the check. We often wonder if he knows that the only reason we put up with him is his fat wallet. I think he does. I think this, not only because it justifies our shallow treatment of him, but also because I know he is not stupid. He is a lawyer after all. The way I see it, he pays the tab because he wants to be our friend. He needs to hang out with someone, and he knows that the only way anyone will put up with him is if he pony's up the dough. This may seem wrong to you, it does to me as well, but that's the way it is.
The United States under Barack Obama is turning into my friend George. In the push for trans-nationalism, we have lost sight of the fact that noone in the world likes us. We are the richest nation in the world. Our citizens are seen as fat, lazy, boorish, and unsophisticated. No other nation wants to be our friend, unless of course, we are willing to pay the freight. As long as we pick up the tab for the fight against global warming, the rest of the world will invite us to the party. The UN will put up with us, as long as we are responsible for all of their operating costs. If we prostrate ourselves before the altar of the international community, they will allow us to participate in their vision of one-world-governance.
The problem is, we don't need them, they need us. We can act unilaterally to protect our interests across the globe. We can take care of ourselves. The rest of the world cannot. They need us to foot the bill for their insane ideas like socialist medecine and entitlement spending in their own countries. They don't realize that if they convince us to go down the same path that they have, we will be as poor as them. Our wealth will disappear faster than a Frenchman when the first gunshot is fired in battle. So why do we continue to grovel and apologize for simply being ourselves? Why do we continue to buy the friendship and forgiveness of the rest of the world? Are we truly that bad? Or is it that the people in power right now believe that we are?
I happen to believe that America is the greatest nation on earth, and as long as we remember what made us great in the first place; individualism, innovation, ingenuity, and a willingness to work hard to achieve our dreams, it will remain so. It is only when we lose sight of the reasons for our astounding success that we risk failure. If we continue to elect politicians who see America as a bad place, as an evil cancer in the world, we are setting ourselves up for failure. We have made mistakes in our history, but what nation hasn't. We have also done more good in the world than anyone will give us credit for. And I don't mean the government, although they have done more than their share. I mean regular citizens who see someone in need and react. Did the nations of the European Union step up when the tsunami struck? Anytime an earthquake hits in some faraway land, do the people of France send money they can't afford to help out? Do the citizens of any other nation give as generously as the citizens of America? And we are the evil ones? We are the one's that need to apologize? I don't think so. I hope you don't either. Let's try to vote for some people that feel like we do, instead of the usual suspects for a change. An election year is upon us again. Don't listen to what they say. look at what they've said. Pay attention to what they did before they were trying to get your vote. And most of all, don't vote for anyone that feels a reflexive need to apologize for our nation's supposed failures. Let the rest of the world thank us for all the good we've done first.
" So, should we call him?"
" I don't know, how much cash do you have?"
" Not much, You"
" Not much...do you want to call him or should I?"
You see, no matter how annoying he is, he usually picks up the check. We often wonder if he knows that the only reason we put up with him is his fat wallet. I think he does. I think this, not only because it justifies our shallow treatment of him, but also because I know he is not stupid. He is a lawyer after all. The way I see it, he pays the tab because he wants to be our friend. He needs to hang out with someone, and he knows that the only way anyone will put up with him is if he pony's up the dough. This may seem wrong to you, it does to me as well, but that's the way it is.
The United States under Barack Obama is turning into my friend George. In the push for trans-nationalism, we have lost sight of the fact that noone in the world likes us. We are the richest nation in the world. Our citizens are seen as fat, lazy, boorish, and unsophisticated. No other nation wants to be our friend, unless of course, we are willing to pay the freight. As long as we pick up the tab for the fight against global warming, the rest of the world will invite us to the party. The UN will put up with us, as long as we are responsible for all of their operating costs. If we prostrate ourselves before the altar of the international community, they will allow us to participate in their vision of one-world-governance.
The problem is, we don't need them, they need us. We can act unilaterally to protect our interests across the globe. We can take care of ourselves. The rest of the world cannot. They need us to foot the bill for their insane ideas like socialist medecine and entitlement spending in their own countries. They don't realize that if they convince us to go down the same path that they have, we will be as poor as them. Our wealth will disappear faster than a Frenchman when the first gunshot is fired in battle. So why do we continue to grovel and apologize for simply being ourselves? Why do we continue to buy the friendship and forgiveness of the rest of the world? Are we truly that bad? Or is it that the people in power right now believe that we are?
I happen to believe that America is the greatest nation on earth, and as long as we remember what made us great in the first place; individualism, innovation, ingenuity, and a willingness to work hard to achieve our dreams, it will remain so. It is only when we lose sight of the reasons for our astounding success that we risk failure. If we continue to elect politicians who see America as a bad place, as an evil cancer in the world, we are setting ourselves up for failure. We have made mistakes in our history, but what nation hasn't. We have also done more good in the world than anyone will give us credit for. And I don't mean the government, although they have done more than their share. I mean regular citizens who see someone in need and react. Did the nations of the European Union step up when the tsunami struck? Anytime an earthquake hits in some faraway land, do the people of France send money they can't afford to help out? Do the citizens of any other nation give as generously as the citizens of America? And we are the evil ones? We are the one's that need to apologize? I don't think so. I hope you don't either. Let's try to vote for some people that feel like we do, instead of the usual suspects for a change. An election year is upon us again. Don't listen to what they say. look at what they've said. Pay attention to what they did before they were trying to get your vote. And most of all, don't vote for anyone that feels a reflexive need to apologize for our nation's supposed failures. Let the rest of the world thank us for all the good we've done first.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
There's been a lot of talk about social justice lately. Well, I guess it's not just lately, but I've been hearing about it more than usual. Social Justice stems from a nice idea, that everyone deserves the same opportunity in life. I agree with this concept to a point. That point is opportunity. Discrimination is wrong. I should have the same chance of landing a job as anyone else, regardless of race, religion, gender, and so on. I should have the same chance to succeed in life as well, and I believe I do. Sure, some people are born with advantages that I could never even dream of. Some are disadvantaged through no fault of their own as well. That's life. I can either whine about it, or do my best to make everything I can of every opportunity that presents itself to me. The problem comes when we try to artificially level the playing field. The playing field was never meant to be level, and no machinations can make it so.
I don't know about you, but when I was growing up we didn't get a trophy for participation. We may have gotten some credit for perfect attendance or some other token that acknowledged our effort, but that was it. They say that half of being successful in life is just showing up. While this may be true, that leaves the other half for actually doing something of worth while you're there. Trophy's were reserved for people who excelled in something, not for those who merely showed up. Encouragement is wonderful, but not at the expense of a true feeling of accomplishment. If everyone gets a trophy, doesn't that diminish the act of winning. I understand that urge to not make a child feel the pain of failure, but isn't that where most motivation stems from? The fear of failure is a powerful motivation to succeed. If one never experiences failure, one can never know the joy of overcoming that failure and achieving something truly noteworthy. I point to the story of a young man who was cut from his JV basketball team in High School. From that experience, he developed the drive that made him into the greatest basketball player since Dr Naismith hung a peach basket on a pole. Would Michael Jordan have been Mike if his school had a no-cut policy? I don't know, but since the thing that pushed him the most was his hyper-competitiveness, possibly spawned by his failures as a child, I doubt it.
I'm no psychologist, but I do know that you can't truly enjoy succes unless you have experienced failure. If we continue to shield our children from anything that might make them cry, if we continue to reward them for just showing up, if we continue to teach them that, regardless of the outcome, we're all winners, what are we teaching them? We are teaching them that mediocrity is okay. That they only need to raise their hand and say "here" to get an A in class. They will begin to feel entitled. And that is the death rattle of the nation as we know it. America was founded on the principle that if you work hard and succeed, you will be rewarded. We are teaching our children that hard work and success are no more important than just showing up, and just showing up is enough to reap the same benefits as the person that busted their tails to make something from nothing. We are robbing our children of the American Dream. And that is unconscionable.
I don't know about you, but when I was growing up we didn't get a trophy for participation. We may have gotten some credit for perfect attendance or some other token that acknowledged our effort, but that was it. They say that half of being successful in life is just showing up. While this may be true, that leaves the other half for actually doing something of worth while you're there. Trophy's were reserved for people who excelled in something, not for those who merely showed up. Encouragement is wonderful, but not at the expense of a true feeling of accomplishment. If everyone gets a trophy, doesn't that diminish the act of winning. I understand that urge to not make a child feel the pain of failure, but isn't that where most motivation stems from? The fear of failure is a powerful motivation to succeed. If one never experiences failure, one can never know the joy of overcoming that failure and achieving something truly noteworthy. I point to the story of a young man who was cut from his JV basketball team in High School. From that experience, he developed the drive that made him into the greatest basketball player since Dr Naismith hung a peach basket on a pole. Would Michael Jordan have been Mike if his school had a no-cut policy? I don't know, but since the thing that pushed him the most was his hyper-competitiveness, possibly spawned by his failures as a child, I doubt it.
I'm no psychologist, but I do know that you can't truly enjoy succes unless you have experienced failure. If we continue to shield our children from anything that might make them cry, if we continue to reward them for just showing up, if we continue to teach them that, regardless of the outcome, we're all winners, what are we teaching them? We are teaching them that mediocrity is okay. That they only need to raise their hand and say "here" to get an A in class. They will begin to feel entitled. And that is the death rattle of the nation as we know it. America was founded on the principle that if you work hard and succeed, you will be rewarded. We are teaching our children that hard work and success are no more important than just showing up, and just showing up is enough to reap the same benefits as the person that busted their tails to make something from nothing. We are robbing our children of the American Dream. And that is unconscionable.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
So, Kieth Olberman thinks Michelle Malkin is a "Bag of mashed-up meat with lipstick". I guess that is what passes for biting political commentary on MSNBC. I'm a little surprised that an erudite liberal elitist like Olberman couldn't come up with something a little more prosaic to describe Miss Malkin, but I suppose that is what the 'newspeople' and I use that term very loosely, have been reduced to at the least-watched cable news station in the country. At this point, I have a bigger audience than they do, and the only person reading me is my wife.
In what is the worst-kept secret in the news industry, CNN and MSNBC are competing for the title of 'Official mouthpiece of the Obama administration'. CNN had them on the ropes when Wolf Blitzer had his staff actually fact-check a comedy skit on Saturday Night Live that was not entirely supportive of the president. I can understand their confusion, since nothing funny has happenned on SNL in about 10 years, they probably assumed the segment was serious. Olberman's intelligent commentary on Malkin was undoubtedly in response to her new book detailing the corruption that the administration has brought to Washington from Chicago. I know, political corruption in Chicago, shocking. His leap to the defense of the crooks in the White House was definitely noticed in Washington. He may have single-handedly pushed his staion back into the lead. If not, at least when the lights go out for the last time at MSNBC, Olberman could be in line for an ambassadorship, or even a position in the NEA.
Unfortunately, this type of childish assault is truly the language of the left now. They no longer want to debate issues, or engage in political discourse. If you disagree with them, you are either a racist, an idiot, or a bag of mashed-up meat ; with or without lipstick.
I can only assume the lack of any outrage on the part of women's groups across the country is the fact that noone is watching or listening to Olberman and his giggling crony's. That's why there was no outcry about the abuse Sarah Palin has endured since her name was thrust into the spotlight during the last presidential campaign right? And yet, when some conservative commentators suggested that Hillary Clinton was crying crocodile tears during the primary, they were lambasted as rightwing paternalistic hate-mongers who only attacked Hillary because they were afraid of a strong, competent woman. It takes a great deal of fortitude to stand by your serial-philanderer of a husband simply to further your political ambitions, I mean, to protect your family.
Women's groups heard the 'attacks' on Hillary from the right because the people on the right actually have an audience. They matter. People like Olberman are voices in the wilderness, shouting inanities at the top of their lungs, hoping someone, somewhere will pay attention to them.
Michelle Malkin certainly doesn't need me to defend her. She can take care of herself. And anyways, I won't stoop to Olberman's level. So let me close with this...If the left wing loons in the so called mainstream media continue with their personal attacks and smear campaigns against people that speak out against the administration, their ratings and readership will continue to decline. Take that as a little piece of advice Mr. Olberman you big fat, flaming bag of dog feces...with a moustache. Sorry.
In what is the worst-kept secret in the news industry, CNN and MSNBC are competing for the title of 'Official mouthpiece of the Obama administration'. CNN had them on the ropes when Wolf Blitzer had his staff actually fact-check a comedy skit on Saturday Night Live that was not entirely supportive of the president. I can understand their confusion, since nothing funny has happenned on SNL in about 10 years, they probably assumed the segment was serious. Olberman's intelligent commentary on Malkin was undoubtedly in response to her new book detailing the corruption that the administration has brought to Washington from Chicago. I know, political corruption in Chicago, shocking. His leap to the defense of the crooks in the White House was definitely noticed in Washington. He may have single-handedly pushed his staion back into the lead. If not, at least when the lights go out for the last time at MSNBC, Olberman could be in line for an ambassadorship, or even a position in the NEA.
Unfortunately, this type of childish assault is truly the language of the left now. They no longer want to debate issues, or engage in political discourse. If you disagree with them, you are either a racist, an idiot, or a bag of mashed-up meat ; with or without lipstick.
I can only assume the lack of any outrage on the part of women's groups across the country is the fact that noone is watching or listening to Olberman and his giggling crony's. That's why there was no outcry about the abuse Sarah Palin has endured since her name was thrust into the spotlight during the last presidential campaign right? And yet, when some conservative commentators suggested that Hillary Clinton was crying crocodile tears during the primary, they were lambasted as rightwing paternalistic hate-mongers who only attacked Hillary because they were afraid of a strong, competent woman. It takes a great deal of fortitude to stand by your serial-philanderer of a husband simply to further your political ambitions, I mean, to protect your family.
Women's groups heard the 'attacks' on Hillary from the right because the people on the right actually have an audience. They matter. People like Olberman are voices in the wilderness, shouting inanities at the top of their lungs, hoping someone, somewhere will pay attention to them.
Michelle Malkin certainly doesn't need me to defend her. She can take care of herself. And anyways, I won't stoop to Olberman's level. So let me close with this...If the left wing loons in the so called mainstream media continue with their personal attacks and smear campaigns against people that speak out against the administration, their ratings and readership will continue to decline. Take that as a little piece of advice Mr. Olberman you big fat, flaming bag of dog feces...with a moustache. Sorry.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
