This blog is dedicated to logical Reasoning, political consciousness, religious dialogue, intelligent thoughts, uncommon wisdom, current events, and humor.
At first, the idea unreservedly appealed to me. I was proud of the Tea Party folks. It was all about people standing up and coming together for what they believed. To me, the cause didn’t matter. Fox News’ involvement didn’t matter. I was ecstatic to see Americans congregating around a common issue and getting involved in mass. I truly believe that kind of action is good for our country – whatever the cause may be.
But now, my respect for Tea Parties is completely evaporated. They’ve been infiltrated by Neo Cons, and the entire idea has become too political. Not only have they shunned Ron Paul (he was one of the original instigators of Tea Parties), they’ve inducted Sarah Palin as the leader. Tea Parties were all about ordinary people, neighbors and friends coming together. There was no clear leader. No more! It is now all about grooming Palin to run for President. Wake up tea party folks! The ’cause’ is no longer yours. You are now sheep following Neo Con directives.
Fortunately, it appears that several grassroots Tea Party organizations have recognized this sneaky infiltration. One example is Dale Robertson, the founder of teaparty.org, who recently posted the following on his website:
“[W]hat I am witnessing is an attempted defilement of the concept of what the Tea Party’s purposes are and where we are going. The bastardization of our message I find bilious and disingenuous on its face.
Tea Party members are being eyed as just another piece of voting meat.”
Oh, one more thing! You may now cough up $500/plate for dinner with leader Sarah Palin in the name of Tea Party fund raising.
A major news story recently is about Afghanistan and how President Obama must make a decision to either send more troops there or scale down the forces. This reminded that earlier this month, AP published a photo of a dying American soldier in Afghanistan. Aside from objections from the family (I’ll address this later), most of the outcry came from Conservatives (don’t tell me it’s not true, you know it is!). The basic premise was that publishing the photo is an attempt by the liberal media to break the resolve of the American people for support of the war(s).
First, that argument is pathetically disingenuous. Not a day goes by that I don’t hear Conservatives cry foul about Obama’s policies. The phrase most used is socialism. The objection most aired is that the government is taking over everything.
Let’s examine that argument for a moment. In a socialist state, the government controls everything and the people are along for the ride. The American government was established based on a constitution with a pre-amble of ‘we the people‘. Have we forgotten that? ‘We the people‘ should run the government (we haven’t for a long time, but work with me), not the other way around. Therefore, ‘we the people‘ have every right to see pictures of war casualties. That is our right, and it is the only way ‘we the people‘ can decide for ourselves whether the sacrifice is worth the price.
Second, although I whole-heartedly support the right of ‘we the people‘ to see war pictures, I see no altruism in AP’s act of publishing this picture. Director of AP photography, Santiago Lyon defended publishing the photo by saying:
“We feel it is our journalistic duty to show the reality of the war there, however unpleasant and brutal that sometimes is.”
I don’t believe a word of it! Where has AP been for the past 8 years? Their claim of ‘journalistic duty’ doesn’t impress me. This is nothing more than a stunt in search of more readers, attention and revenue.
Third, my heart goes out to the family of the soldier. ‘We the people‘ have every right to view such photos if we wish, but that should not be at the expense of a grieving family. That soldier’s face could easily have been pixellated with the click of a mouse. His identity was not germane to the story; the rest of the picture conveyed the narrative adequately.
Finally, if you’re in the slightest bit afraid of what such pictures may do to the resolve of ‘we the people‘, or if you’re unable to stomach the gruesome nature of such pictures, then perhaps it’s time to rethink our war strategy.
Are we still ‘the people’ referred to in the preamble to the US Constitution?
Those who know me are well aware that I don’t have a strong stand, either way, about climate change as a result of human activities. I never miss an opportunity to speak with people on both sides of the issue, which has yielded an interesting pattern for me.
Without too much generalization, we can all agree that most conservatives do not believe in global warming as a result of human activities, while most liberals do. We can further agree that religion is a strong pillar of conservatism. That doesn’t imply, and I didn’t say, that liberals are not as strong in their religious faith. Do not leave me irrelevant comments.
That said, the entire equation of global warming is a simple one for most religious individuals. God created everything, and gave full dominion of it to his most awesome creation (humans):
Genesis 1:26
Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
On the right side of the spectrum are most religious people who believe that because God created everything and because humans are the designated beneficiaries of everything on earth, using earth’s natural resources could not possibly harm it, much less cause its destruction.
In the middle are religious folks who believe that dominion does not imply domination. Hence, it is not only possible to harm the earth, it is the responsibility of humans to protect and preserve God’s creations. On the left side of the spectrum are non-religious people who, of course, believe earth can easily be harmed by humans because there’s no Divine power to stop it.
If you don’t believe in a higher power, then you are well versed in the concept of randomness and evolution. As such, have you ever considered that perhaps it is our natural evolutionary programming and destiny to destroy ourselves and our home? Therefore, there may be nothing we can do to prevent this inevitable conclusion. That doesn’t mean you should remain silent about your core beliefs. It merely implies that all efforts to conserve and preserve the environment may be fruitless at the end in light of humans’ built-in mechanism of destruction. The end may be a foregone conclusion.
If you do believe in a higher power, then you are likely to not worry about carbon dioxide in the atmosphere or drilling for oil. Earth is only a temporary home for humans, and we simply do not have the power or the influence to destroy God’s earthly creations. Species go extinct by God’s will, not by humans’ carelessness. Ice caps melt as God desires, not because humans spew CO2 into the atmosphere. Therefore, there’s nothing to worry about.
Here’s the interesting dichotomy. Religion and conservatism are all about doing the right thing and personal responsibility. The one glaring exception seems to be in the area of environmental movement. In this case, religion appears to give us a free pass.
I found this interesting. On April 22, Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) talked about carbon dioxide in the context of global warming, climate change, or whatever it is called these days.
“Carbon dioxide, Mister Speaker, is a natural byproduct of nature. Carbon dioxide is natural. It occurs in Earth. It is a part of the regular lifecycle of Earth. In fact, life on planet Earth can’t even exist without carbon dioxide. So necessary is it to human life, to animal life, to plant life, to the oceans, to the vegetation that’s on the Earth, to the, to the fowl that — that flies in the air, we need to have carbon dioxide as part of the fundamental lifecycle of Earth.”
“Carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful, but there isn’t even one study that can be produced that shows that Carbon Dioxide is a harmful gas. It is a harmless gas. “
I personally have not decided whether human activity is harmful to the environment. Tag me as indecisive. I don’t care. We simply do not have sufficient evidence, or time line, to irrefutably prove it one way or another, and we never will.
But I’m sufficiently intelligent to know one thing: natural does not necessarily equate to harmless. To think otherwise is just un-naturally stupid.
Do you know what else is natural Congresswoman? Poo. Is poo harmless in your world?
To say that Newt Gingrich, former Congressman and potential 2012 Presidential candidate, has lots of ideas for America is a monumental understatement.
Some of Newt’s ideas are refreshingly radical and yet suspiciously alarming at the same time. He would like to require exercise for school children, extend tax breaks to grocery stores that open in the inner city, give bonuses to food stamp recipients who buy fruits and vegetables, make students walk to school if they live close enough, and lots more. → source
Wow, for a die-hard Republican, he certainly walks a thin tight rope of socialism. Government mandates? Really? I wonder what Boss Limbaugh thinks of all this. Gee, I sure hope Newt doesn’t have to apologize!
Anyway, Newt has a fabulously unbelievable – and to some extent deliciously unthinkable – idea for reforming health care. He believes it’s time to consider paying teenage girls not to get pregnant. → same source as above
Yes, you read right! Pay teenagers to not get pregnant. Ironically, his plan does not include paying teenagers to not have sex. That would be too logical – and admittedly difficult to verify without a chastity belt. Just pay them for not getting pregnant . . . while they inevitably engage in sex.
Forgive my ignorance, but isn’t that what Republicans typify as socialism? Isn’t it an example of government hand-out? Can it not be construed as a type of affirmative action? Doesn’t it circumvent personal responsibility without incentivising by the government? Will it require a bail-out at the end?
Newt also believes that states should consider paying teenage girls who become pregnant to take prenatal vitamins to forestall paying additional health expenses for neonatal care down the road. → same source as above
Pay careful attention to the above paragraph: states should consider . . . Some one please leave me a comment and explain conservatism idea of less government to me. How do we the people end up with less government in our lives if, at the end, we shift regulations and mandates from the federal government to the states?
Talk about a power vacuum in the Republican Party. Actually, it resembles a rift in the Republican continuum.
Technically, Rush is a Conservative. You may not agree with his views but, like it or not, he’s a force in the American politics. He possesses political powers and capital that very few can match. He’s the de facto leader of the Conservative movement in America today. You don’t believe me? Name someone else. I dare you.
But watch out! He’s also a very intelligent, calculating, and revengeful individual.
He’s intelligent because he has invented the right combination of message, insult and vision to have gathered over 20 million die-hard and uncharacteristically loyal listeners. That’s not easy to achieve. No one can match him.
He’s calculating because he can do the math. In clear absence of a powerful, visionary and proven leader, the Republican party is in desperate need of direction. Limbaugh understands, all too clearly, that this is his chance to unite Conservatives and, hopefully, Republicans.
He’s revengeful because he has sent a clear message to all Conservatives and Republicans: you’re either with him or you’re against him. Wow, where have I heard that before! Cross Rush and he will destroy your political future. I listen to him a couple of times a week for about 15 minutes as I go to lunch, and his message has been exceptionally clear. Conservatives must unite and destroy liberalism at any cost.
Even Michael Steele has bowed to him in submission → source
Michael Steele told Politico on Monday: “I went back at that tape and I realized words that I said weren’t what I was thinking,” Steele said. “It was one of those things where I thinking I was saying one thing, and it came out differently. What I was trying to say was a lot of people … want to make Rush the scapegoat, the bogeyman, and he’s not.”
Rahm Emanuel
I will now pause so you contemplate Limbaugh’s power in amazement.
It is now clear to everyone that proving Rush is the leader of the right has been the Administration’s plan all along.
Rahm Emanuel must be happy; he got exactly the fight he was seeking. It’ll be a very dangerous and dirty fight. Rush is much more adept at it than Rahm.
I admit it. I did not listen to or watch President Obama’s speech on Tuesday addressing the joint sessions of Congress. I did, however, watch the Republican response by Bobby Jindal. I always listen to the opposition response (Democrat or Republican). That’s where I learn more detail, and I use that as my measuring stick. I had no intention of blogging about Jindal’s response. It’s already been blogged to death. But what the heck . . .
Where did Republicans find this guy? He’s as charismatic on camera as John Kerry. His uncomfortable reading of the tele-prompter was as non-engaging as watching Mr. Rogers anchor the nightly news. Mr. Jindal, didn’t anyone inform you that a story about your immigrant parents is now cliche? It’s been doen already by Obama – and masterfully. If you keep talking about it, the Republicans may begin investigating the authenticity of your birth certificate too. The only portion of Jindal’s speech that I could get into was the last few minutes when he spoke about what conservative values mean.
Rachael Maddow’s views are too far to the left for me, but I got a chuckle out of her reaction to Jindal’s rebuttal. She’s really funny sometimes.
But watch out everyone. Rush Limbaugh is mad and he’s not going to take it anymore. During his radio show on Wednesday, 2/25/09, he gave a stern warning to conservatives:
“Because if you think people on our side, I’m talking to you, those of you who think Jindal was horrible, in fact, I don’t want to hear from you ever again if you think that what Bobby Jindal said was bad or what he said was wrong or not said well, because, folks, style is not going to take our country back.”
No Rush. You’re wrong. Style counts. Reagan’s success was not accidental. He had style. He had charisma. He brought people to his side. He spoke elegantly. He didn’t fumble through his speeches. And, more importantly, he fully comprehended the concept and importance of being popular.
By the way, here’s a nice article about 10 things you probably don’t know about Bobby Jindal.
This is why journalists to go Journalism school. This is why plumbers are not journalists.
Did you catch that? Joe said “I don’t think journalists should be anywhere allowed war.” Aside from the obvious fact that Joe is unable to put a coherent sentence together, he’s forgetting why he’s in Israel . . . as a journalist. Oh, excuse me! He’s there as a war correspondent.
I am so sick of Joe the Plumber. He’s everywhere. I’m saddened by how Republicans are eating up his every word and coughing up money for his pathetic book. He’s gone from a plumber to a conservative analyst and a role model. Wake up people. He’s just a plumber. He doesn’t know any better than you, me or anyone else. Trust me on this.
There seems to be no end to his appearances on mostly conservative shows. And boy, you know we are in trouble when Joe the nobody Plumber is more in touch with current events than media personalities such as Glenn Beck. On second thought, we are talking about Glenn Beck, so I recant my earlier statement.
On December 9 (yes, it’s old news, but interesting never the less), Glenn Beck hosted Joe on his radio show. Among other things, they talked about Hillary becoming Secretary of State. Here’s an excerpt of the transcript of that show from Glenn Beck’s own website:
JOE: “. . . Hillary Clinton, the whole deal with her as far as becoming Secretary of State. You know, it’s kind of against – well, it’s not kind of. It’s against the Constitution right now where it stands. But they’re talking about getting around it. You know, seems like every time they want to do something, if something’s in the way, they will get around it. What are we teaching our children? What are we teaching people, just even ourselves? You know, if something’s in the way, we’re going to get around it.”
The educated and the informed among us knew exactly what Joe was referring to. Hillary could not constitutionally accept the job of Secretary of State because, in effect, she (as a Senator) approved a salary increase for it.
GLENN: “Well, I think you are right on the money. I will tell you this in talking to one of my guys who’s deep in the Constitution, he’s saying that she can’t have two offices. That’s the problem. She can’t occupy the two offices and then two different branches, but it’s kind of iffy on that. It’s not really clear. And if she gets rid of her office, then it should be fine. But she couldn’t be a senator and Secretary of State. That’s the real problem there.”
No, Mr. Beck. The problem is not that Hillary wants to be a Senator and Secretary of State at the same time. And you don’t need one of your “guys who’s deep in the Constitution” to tell you that. You are clearly not staying current with political news and events. How in the world did you get a radio and TV show?
OK readers, I hope you’re depressed today. I truly hope that you’re in desperate need of a good laugh because I’m about to cheer you up. Get ready to laugh.
John H. Hinderaker is a lawyer and a conservative blogger at the Power Line weblog. In a recent post titled “The Importance of Being Careful“, Mr. Hinderaker felt compelled to provide President Elect Obama some free advice. Read the following excerpt for yourself and enjoy the irony.
Obama thinks he is a good talker, but he is often undisciplined when he speaks. He needs to understand that as President, his words will be scrutinized and will have impact whether he intends it or not. In this regard, President Bush is an excellent model; Obama should take a lesson from his example. Bush never gets sloppy when he is speaking publicly. He chooses his words with care and precision, which is why his style sometimes seems halting. In the eight years he has been President, it is remarkable how few gaffes or verbal blunders he has committed. If Obama doesn’t raise his standards, he will exceed Bush’s total before he is inaugurated.
I will now pause for a moment and allow you to pull yourselves together. Wipe those tears of laughter off your face.
You must be joking Mr. Hinderaker. President Bush is neither a skilled speaker nor a thoughtful one. Even many Republicans admit that much. To label George Bush as a dynamic and ‘precision’ speaker instantly reveals your own blind partisan and one-sided views.
Please allow me to assist you, Mr. Hinderaker, with presenting your case. Perhaps the message you really meant to convey was that Obama is a skilled speaker, but his message is void of meaning and substance. I’m positive that is the idea you attempted to communicate. However, you presented this thesis in the context of comparing Obama with Bush. In that regard, all roads lead to failure. President Bush is not only a horrible speaker, he lacks the ability to formulate his thoughts in a coherent manner. And worse, he utterly lacks the ability to connect with his audience. President Bush had 8 years to study President Reagan’s style and to learn from it. Bush failed.
Here’s one small sample in a sea of evidence that proves my point.
Tea Parties!
Posted by jmjorat 
We the people
To say that Newt Gingrich, former Congressman and potential 2012 Presidential candidate, has lots of ideas for America is a monumental understatement.
I admit it. I did not listen to or watch President Obama’s speech on Tuesday addressing the joint sessions of Congress. I did, however, watch the Republican response by Bobby Jindal. I always listen to the opposition response (Democrat or Republican). That’s where I learn more detail, and I use that as my measuring stick. I had no intention of blogging about Jindal’s response. It’s already been blogged to death. But what the heck . . .
RSS Feed This Blog
