Factcheck.org was made famous in the previous presidential elections, cited often by both sides as some sort of independent arbiter of campaign claims and counter-claims.
I beg to differ. Factcheck obviously bends over backwards in sometimes ridiculous attempts to show that both sides lie and distort the facts. But there are big differences between the lies of the Obama campaign and the sometimes arguable rhetoric of Romney's.
Since they think they must show balance by documenting lies and distortions on both sides, the impression they're going for with their readers is that both sides are liars to some degree or another. I think that's the strategy used by their fact-checkers who carefully construct their stories to ultimately benefit Obama.
Let's look at one example - Obamacare.
Factcheck says Obama fibbed when he promised Americans can keep their existing plans (ya think?)
But to achieve balance, they accuse Romney of misleading people by claiming that Obamacare will come between the patient and his/her doctor. They spin like a top in trying to convince the reader that ObamaCare's "Advisory Board" isn't at all going to resemble Sarah Palin's "Death Panel". Plus they're saying the only thing coming between us and our doctors is going to be the Insurance Company, as if that's going to be the only obstacle between us and the care we may actually need.
I think it's comical how Factcheck can't seem to make the linkage between the insurance companies and the advisory board and the obvious logical extension that the ultimate reason we might be denied the care we need is because our insurance company refuses to cover it because the advisory board told them not to cover it.
So where exactly is Romney's lie in saying, "And perhaps most troubling of all, Obamacare puts the federal government between you and your doctor".
Nearly every example on the website has a similar analysis that can be applied. The reality is that most of the Obama lies and distortions are truly lies and distortions, while most of the Romney accused lies and distortions are easily argued as truth or at least much less egregious cases of campaign rhetoric or overstatement.
In politics, both sides are definitively not equal when it comes to lies.
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
Monday, August 13, 2012
Finally the Football Withdrawal Ends
Even though I had to settle for listening on the radio, it was nice to finally catch the NFL on a Sunday afternoon again.
The Colts destroyed St. Louis while I coincidentally was driving from Indianapolis to St. Louis. It was certainly encouraging to listen while the Colts' rookie quarterback, Andrew Luck, matched Peyton Manning's debut by throwing a short pass to Donald Brown on his first play as an NFL QB that was turned into the first touchdown of the season.
The entire Colts team played well, racking up a 38-3 victory. It's not enough to gloat or declare the Colts are back. Because after all, it was the first preseason game and it was against the lowly Rams.
However, Luck seemed poised and effective. The offensive line seemed solid. The running backs corps seemed capable. The defense managed to mostly dominate.
But were these promising signs really showing us that the Colts' new front office and new coaching staff were successful at going out and finding a a bunch of great young players and preparing them to play well at the NFL level? Or did we just get a preview of how bad the Rams might be this year?
My hope is that the Colts have indeed found the right bunch of draft picks and free agents to give the fans an exciting and competitive season. My prediction is that the Colts will go about 6-10 and miss the playoffs. If they end 8-8 on the year, I think that would be an overachievement.
As long as they get better as the season goes along and give us hope for the future. That might at least ease the pain a little bit in February when we're watching Peyton and the Broncos going against the Packers in the Super Bowl.
Then again, the AFC South doesn't look particularly strong going into the season. The Texans are ahead of everyone else, while Jacksonville and Tennessee both look beatable. Who knows, maybe the Colts can steal a playoff berth by sweeping the weaker teams and splitting with Houston? It's not completely impossible, is it?
Whatever happens, it's all just fun.
The Colts destroyed St. Louis while I coincidentally was driving from Indianapolis to St. Louis. It was certainly encouraging to listen while the Colts' rookie quarterback, Andrew Luck, matched Peyton Manning's debut by throwing a short pass to Donald Brown on his first play as an NFL QB that was turned into the first touchdown of the season.
The entire Colts team played well, racking up a 38-3 victory. It's not enough to gloat or declare the Colts are back. Because after all, it was the first preseason game and it was against the lowly Rams.
However, Luck seemed poised and effective. The offensive line seemed solid. The running backs corps seemed capable. The defense managed to mostly dominate.
But were these promising signs really showing us that the Colts' new front office and new coaching staff were successful at going out and finding a a bunch of great young players and preparing them to play well at the NFL level? Or did we just get a preview of how bad the Rams might be this year?
My hope is that the Colts have indeed found the right bunch of draft picks and free agents to give the fans an exciting and competitive season. My prediction is that the Colts will go about 6-10 and miss the playoffs. If they end 8-8 on the year, I think that would be an overachievement.
As long as they get better as the season goes along and give us hope for the future. That might at least ease the pain a little bit in February when we're watching Peyton and the Broncos going against the Packers in the Super Bowl.
Then again, the AFC South doesn't look particularly strong going into the season. The Texans are ahead of everyone else, while Jacksonville and Tennessee both look beatable. Who knows, maybe the Colts can steal a playoff berth by sweeping the weaker teams and splitting with Houston? It's not completely impossible, is it?
Whatever happens, it's all just fun.
Saturday, August 11, 2012
Paul Ryan's a Star
Personally I think Romney made the perfect choice in tapping Paul Ryan as his running mate. Ryan's young, charismatic, brilliant, energetic - he's a GOP superstar and the model of the ideal conservative candidate. He's certain to rev up the conservative base, since he's got it all; unapologetic conservative ideology on both sides of the fiscal and social issues.
The old women in the GOP establishment are already wringing their hands and crying;
"The Obama campaign will demonize him for his budget cutting and entitlement reform bills", or
"He'll drive away the independents".
I find it refreshing and a bit of a contrast with the party's Presidential candidate to bring on a Veep candidate who's not afraid to talk out loud about the philosophies of our founders and other conservative icons like Ronald Reagan without apologizing or equivocating.
When the election returns are counted in November, regardless of the outcome, don't try to tell me Romney lost because he picked Ryan. I must believe it more likely he will win at least partly because he picked Ryan.
He won't win anything by trying to entice independent voters by pretending to be a more moderate version of Obama. That strategy's already been tried and it failed. Remember McCain? I continue to believe McCain would have been beaten even more severely had he picked a running mate other than Sarah Palin. He lost because he ran as Obama-lite and failed to fight back when the media set out to destroy Palin in the most misogynist campaign we never could have imagined when he chose her.
Romney can't win by trying to moderate his message or try to fool moderate-to-liberal voters into thinking he's not as conservative as the Obama campaign would like them to believe. Misleading voters is what Obama and the Democrats do; it must not be what Conservatives do.
We must stand or fall fighting for what is best for the country.
The old women in the GOP establishment are already wringing their hands and crying;
"The Obama campaign will demonize him for his budget cutting and entitlement reform bills", or
"He'll drive away the independents".
I find it refreshing and a bit of a contrast with the party's Presidential candidate to bring on a Veep candidate who's not afraid to talk out loud about the philosophies of our founders and other conservative icons like Ronald Reagan without apologizing or equivocating.
When the election returns are counted in November, regardless of the outcome, don't try to tell me Romney lost because he picked Ryan. I must believe it more likely he will win at least partly because he picked Ryan.
He won't win anything by trying to entice independent voters by pretending to be a more moderate version of Obama. That strategy's already been tried and it failed. Remember McCain? I continue to believe McCain would have been beaten even more severely had he picked a running mate other than Sarah Palin. He lost because he ran as Obama-lite and failed to fight back when the media set out to destroy Palin in the most misogynist campaign we never could have imagined when he chose her.
Romney can't win by trying to moderate his message or try to fool moderate-to-liberal voters into thinking he's not as conservative as the Obama campaign would like them to believe. Misleading voters is what Obama and the Democrats do; it must not be what Conservatives do.
We must stand or fall fighting for what is best for the country.
Friday, August 03, 2012
Campaign Mythology
The stunning show of support for Chick-Fil-A this week was a very hopeful sign that we still have a chance to stop the Obama project of American Transformation into a Socialist State.
I remain convinced that most of those who steadfastly cling to their support for Obama and the Democrats do so out of willful ignorance driven by fear. For example, I just read about mass mailings going to public employees in battleground states spreading the false message that a Romney presidency will lead to the destruction of all public employee pensions.
While it is true that public employee defined benefit pension plans are at or near the top of the list of costs that are bankrupting states and municipalities across the country, it is an outright lie to suggest that a President Romney would or could have the power to simply dictate the cancellation of such plans. Each state and municipality must make those decisions independently of the Federal government.
The Obama goal is to use Federal dollars (that don't exist) to prop up the budgets of States and Cities across the nation, so they won't have to make those tough decisions they're now facing on how to balance their shrinking budgets. As far as I know, none have yet cancelled their public employee pension plans, although Wisconsin famously tried to recall their governor for having the gall to require a modest contribution to the pension fund by that state's public workers. The dominoes now falling in California with cities declaring bankruptcy will force somebody to make very difficult decisions, but even in those cases I doubt pensions will be cancelled in their entirety.
Today's Obama supporters simply reject the facts about his misdeeds, from Solyndra and Green Energy corrupt boondoggles to illegally changing immigration laws to implement amnesty without a single vote by a citizen or citizen representative to using regulation to close down domestic coal and oil production to violating the First Amendment by forcing the Church to provide free abortifacients to their female employees.
They are unwittingly trading away their freedoms of religion and association. They're giving up their ability to choose what to drive, where to live, what to eat, what to believe, and what to do with their own property. In return, they hope to get free healthcare and a comfortable retirement from their government without having the freedoms they personally care about taken away.
Somehow all of us need to find a way to get the message to the citizens Ohio, Florida, Colorado, Nevada, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina that it's up to them to decide whether we have a chance to save our uniquely free way of life or give up to tyranny.
I remain convinced that most of those who steadfastly cling to their support for Obama and the Democrats do so out of willful ignorance driven by fear. For example, I just read about mass mailings going to public employees in battleground states spreading the false message that a Romney presidency will lead to the destruction of all public employee pensions.
While it is true that public employee defined benefit pension plans are at or near the top of the list of costs that are bankrupting states and municipalities across the country, it is an outright lie to suggest that a President Romney would or could have the power to simply dictate the cancellation of such plans. Each state and municipality must make those decisions independently of the Federal government.
The Obama goal is to use Federal dollars (that don't exist) to prop up the budgets of States and Cities across the nation, so they won't have to make those tough decisions they're now facing on how to balance their shrinking budgets. As far as I know, none have yet cancelled their public employee pension plans, although Wisconsin famously tried to recall their governor for having the gall to require a modest contribution to the pension fund by that state's public workers. The dominoes now falling in California with cities declaring bankruptcy will force somebody to make very difficult decisions, but even in those cases I doubt pensions will be cancelled in their entirety.
Today's Obama supporters simply reject the facts about his misdeeds, from Solyndra and Green Energy corrupt boondoggles to illegally changing immigration laws to implement amnesty without a single vote by a citizen or citizen representative to using regulation to close down domestic coal and oil production to violating the First Amendment by forcing the Church to provide free abortifacients to their female employees.
They are unwittingly trading away their freedoms of religion and association. They're giving up their ability to choose what to drive, where to live, what to eat, what to believe, and what to do with their own property. In return, they hope to get free healthcare and a comfortable retirement from their government without having the freedoms they personally care about taken away.
Somehow all of us need to find a way to get the message to the citizens Ohio, Florida, Colorado, Nevada, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina that it's up to them to decide whether we have a chance to save our uniquely free way of life or give up to tyranny.
Wednesday, August 01, 2012
Confession Required
While attending a Catholic Mass out of town last weekend, I was disappointed to hear a political prayer mixed in with the Prayers of the Faithful. It was not only political, but contrary to the true teachings of Jesus Christ.
Here's the prayer, paraphrased:
May our leaders take action to affect a more equal distribution of wealth among the people
The prayer may as well have been for all Catholics to cast their vote for Obama.
It's time someone took the time to refute this misguided attempt by liberal christians to mislead others about what charity really means.
The idea that Christians should support socialism is horribly wrong. If Jesus believed that Caesar should confiscate money from his wealthy Roman citizens and give it to the poor throughout the empire, perhaps he would have preached that lesson. Instead, he was very clear that it is each individual's responsibility to help the poor. If we encounter someone in need, he challenges us to meet that need - not by demanding someone else take care of them, but by meeting the need personally and immediately.
The major flaws in the philosophy proposed by that prayer are numerous, and helping someone in need on a person-by-person basis is far superior:
Whenever a liberal expounds on the need for government driven social welfare, the source of the money to be redistributed is never them. Proponents of government redistribution always intend for somebody else's wealth to be redistributed. Because it makes them feel better to tell themselves that they care, because they helped take care of the poor by voting for candidates who promised to take money from those who deserve to have their money taken from them. The liberal never considers himself someone who deserves to have his wealth redistributed.
Government socialism is inherently corrupting. When you give a bureaucrat authority to redistribute other people's money, you are guaranteed that the bureaucrat will stuff as much of that money in his own pocket as he thinks he can get away with. The less sophisticated bureaucrats just steal it, while the savvy bureaucrat makes sure to write volumes of rules and regulations that will allow him to steal it "legally".
Government socialism fails to recognize that people are individuals, and each individual has his own set of needs. Government socialism is by definition a "one size fits all" solution. Therefore, people truly in need will fall through the cracks of the system if they fail to meet some obscure regulation, while others who don't really need the help receive it in excess by simply learning how to exploit those regulations to their own benefit.
The fruits of socialism are corruption, waste, fraud, and failure. It fails to lift people out of dependence while teaching them how to turn their dependence into a money-making lifestyle. It fails to deal with people as individuals and solve each needy person's individual problem.
Worst of all, socialism is the last step on the way to dictatorship and authoritarianism. Because it kills initiative and industry by punishing achievers in order to reward bureaucrats and sloths.
Therefore, the prayer itself is a sin.
Here's the prayer, paraphrased:
May our leaders take action to affect a more equal distribution of wealth among the people
The prayer may as well have been for all Catholics to cast their vote for Obama.
It's time someone took the time to refute this misguided attempt by liberal christians to mislead others about what charity really means.
The idea that Christians should support socialism is horribly wrong. If Jesus believed that Caesar should confiscate money from his wealthy Roman citizens and give it to the poor throughout the empire, perhaps he would have preached that lesson. Instead, he was very clear that it is each individual's responsibility to help the poor. If we encounter someone in need, he challenges us to meet that need - not by demanding someone else take care of them, but by meeting the need personally and immediately.
The major flaws in the philosophy proposed by that prayer are numerous, and helping someone in need on a person-by-person basis is far superior:
Whenever a liberal expounds on the need for government driven social welfare, the source of the money to be redistributed is never them. Proponents of government redistribution always intend for somebody else's wealth to be redistributed. Because it makes them feel better to tell themselves that they care, because they helped take care of the poor by voting for candidates who promised to take money from those who deserve to have their money taken from them. The liberal never considers himself someone who deserves to have his wealth redistributed.
Government socialism is inherently corrupting. When you give a bureaucrat authority to redistribute other people's money, you are guaranteed that the bureaucrat will stuff as much of that money in his own pocket as he thinks he can get away with. The less sophisticated bureaucrats just steal it, while the savvy bureaucrat makes sure to write volumes of rules and regulations that will allow him to steal it "legally".
Government socialism fails to recognize that people are individuals, and each individual has his own set of needs. Government socialism is by definition a "one size fits all" solution. Therefore, people truly in need will fall through the cracks of the system if they fail to meet some obscure regulation, while others who don't really need the help receive it in excess by simply learning how to exploit those regulations to their own benefit.
The fruits of socialism are corruption, waste, fraud, and failure. It fails to lift people out of dependence while teaching them how to turn their dependence into a money-making lifestyle. It fails to deal with people as individuals and solve each needy person's individual problem.
Worst of all, socialism is the last step on the way to dictatorship and authoritarianism. Because it kills initiative and industry by punishing achievers in order to reward bureaucrats and sloths.
Therefore, the prayer itself is a sin.
Friday, July 27, 2012
Today's Important Stories
There are two stories today about the latest government outrages that should turn the people out with pitchforks to run the corrupt villians out of office.
The first is about an organization called the 'Voter Participation Center', which has been mailing pre-populated voter registration applications to over 200 thousand people who fit the profile of typical Democrat voters.
Despite the typical left-wing spin the story is getting in the so-called "mainstream press", there's a lot more to the story. Anyone with a curious mind might wonder, where did this database come from, and how did dead people and pets make it into the database? And why would the organization say they didn't know the database was faulty when it's clear they did and do?
This 'Voter Participation Center' is another one of those left-wing organizations of the same type as most of the others we hear about. It's run by the Center for American Progress and funded by Soros, of course. The organization of course has close ties to the Obama campaign. And it's not just doing this in Virginia, but in all of this year's "battleground" states.
Here's how it works: While Eric Holder sues all of the states that passed Voter ID laws in hopes he can stop them from being implemented until after November's election, this organization is mass-mailing pre-filled voter registrations to potential Democrat voters, plus convicted felons, illegal immigrants, pets, and dead folks. The strategy is to get living humans to forge signatures on the forms so they themselves or other operatives can show up at the polls to vote for Obama, either as themselves while being ineligible to vote or impersonating a pet or deceased person.
When Holder rails against GOP voter suppression, what he really means is the suppression of illegal votes.
The second story is about Chick Fil A. The mayors of Boston and Chicago have publicly promised to block any attempt of the food chain to open any stores in those cities. No, the company hasn't done anything wrong. Those mayors simply don't like the fact that Chick Fil A's Presidnet happens to be a Christian who has spoken out in favor of traditional marriage.
In response to the company president's statement of a personal opinion, these mayors are illegally trying to ruin the company and slandering its president. He would be more than justified to sue both cities for such fascist policies, whether he actually wants to open stores in those cities or not.
I think being slandered and banned by the Chicago gangster Emanuel is a badge of honor. If I can find a Chick Fil A near where I'm working next Wednesday, I would be happy to participate in the planned show of support by getting lunch there. I encourage anyone else who opposes oppressive government suppression by the thought police to do the same.
The first is about an organization called the 'Voter Participation Center', which has been mailing pre-populated voter registration applications to over 200 thousand people who fit the profile of typical Democrat voters.
Despite the typical left-wing spin the story is getting in the so-called "mainstream press", there's a lot more to the story. Anyone with a curious mind might wonder, where did this database come from, and how did dead people and pets make it into the database? And why would the organization say they didn't know the database was faulty when it's clear they did and do?
This 'Voter Participation Center' is another one of those left-wing organizations of the same type as most of the others we hear about. It's run by the Center for American Progress and funded by Soros, of course. The organization of course has close ties to the Obama campaign. And it's not just doing this in Virginia, but in all of this year's "battleground" states.
Here's how it works: While Eric Holder sues all of the states that passed Voter ID laws in hopes he can stop them from being implemented until after November's election, this organization is mass-mailing pre-filled voter registrations to potential Democrat voters, plus convicted felons, illegal immigrants, pets, and dead folks. The strategy is to get living humans to forge signatures on the forms so they themselves or other operatives can show up at the polls to vote for Obama, either as themselves while being ineligible to vote or impersonating a pet or deceased person.
When Holder rails against GOP voter suppression, what he really means is the suppression of illegal votes.
The second story is about Chick Fil A. The mayors of Boston and Chicago have publicly promised to block any attempt of the food chain to open any stores in those cities. No, the company hasn't done anything wrong. Those mayors simply don't like the fact that Chick Fil A's Presidnet happens to be a Christian who has spoken out in favor of traditional marriage.
In response to the company president's statement of a personal opinion, these mayors are illegally trying to ruin the company and slandering its president. He would be more than justified to sue both cities for such fascist policies, whether he actually wants to open stores in those cities or not.
I think being slandered and banned by the Chicago gangster Emanuel is a badge of honor. If I can find a Chick Fil A near where I'm working next Wednesday, I would be happy to participate in the planned show of support by getting lunch there. I encourage anyone else who opposes oppressive government suppression by the thought police to do the same.
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
A Sad Week
The whole week makes me sad. The Colorado movie theater shooting. The Penn State punishment. The Obama campaign calling all those opposed to his re-election racists. Those who try to use Colorado for political gain. The girl in Chicago who was killed by Planned Parenthood. Obamacare was upheld in clear violation of constitutional principles. Obama vilified all entrepreneurs with his "you didn't build that!" speech.
When I was young, no stories like these ever made the news. I think it's not because the stories were suppressed, but because they just didn't happen.
Faith and religion are under attack. People who support Christian and family values are ridiculed and called evil. Americans now call good evil and evil good. What was formerly the best country in the history of the planet is circling the drain. We're setting records in entitlements and welfare payments, children without a father, illiteracy, and the chronically unemployed.
It makes me sad.
When I was young, no stories like these ever made the news. I think it's not because the stories were suppressed, but because they just didn't happen.
Faith and religion are under attack. People who support Christian and family values are ridiculed and called evil. Americans now call good evil and evil good. What was formerly the best country in the history of the planet is circling the drain. We're setting records in entitlements and welfare payments, children without a father, illiteracy, and the chronically unemployed.
It makes me sad.
Saturday, July 14, 2012
Speaking of Truth and Liars
Ironically we've been subjected to the Obama campaign talking points hammering Romney as an outsourcer and perhaps criminal for stashing some money in Swiss and Bermuda banks.
The truth of the outsourcer charge is that it's a lie. There's no evidence that Romney personally ordered, suggested, or otherwise facilitated the outsourcing of American jobs to foreign countries while with Bain Capital. And of course, there's also no evidence that Romney broke any laws by opening offshore bank accounts.
But to the Obama campaign, the truth is irrelevant. The objective for them is never to tell the truth, but rather to create a narrative against Romney that will make him an unacceptable alternative to Obama to occupy the White House.
They understand that the typical voter doesn't pay any attention whatsoever to the campaign. So all they have to do is saturate the airwaves with simple themes that those uninformed folks can't avoid hearing.
So talk to the average American, and you might hear things like "Romney only cares about his rich friends", or "Romney's policies will destroy the environment", or "Romney wants to outsource even more jobs to China", or "Romney wants to destroy Medicare and Social Security", or "I heard Romney is a tax cheat who has millions of dollars stashed away in Swiss bank accounts".
Those people are Obama voters. Not one of those sentences is true, but they will believe them all anyway.
If Romney wants to play that game, he could saturate the airwaves with ads putting out his own simple messages against Obama. Like Obama's a communist who is transforming America into the Soviet Union. Or Obama's plan is to bankrupt America so he can rise from the rubble as our dictator. Or Obama will destroy the churches and trample the first amendment to impose a officially secular and atheistic society. Or Obama wants to deny us our home heating, air conditioning and electricity and purposely drive up our pump price for gas to an unaffordable 10 bucks a gallon.
Oh wait, most of those are probably true.
Doesn't matter though, because whatever message Romney wants to put out there is ignored by the press. What they can't ignore they'll just try to refute as racist propaganda. Romney can't get anything through the media filter, which is now the functional equivalent of the Soviet Pravda. Nothing that casts the great leader in less than a positive light will reach the ears of the public.
Word of mouth isn't going to work either. Obama democrats refuse to listen to anyone who would try to pass on the truth. Their worldview rejects the possibility that any conservative idea could ever be anything but evil.
It would be nice to be able to believe those few voices on the Right who are convinced Romney will sweep Obama out of office in a landslide on par with Reagan's beatdown of Jimmy Carter. But it requires more folks to actually start paying attention and begin trying to separate truth from lies.
We have about 4 months left to find out whether the majority chooses the door to slavery and tyranny or the door to continued freedom.
The truth of the outsourcer charge is that it's a lie. There's no evidence that Romney personally ordered, suggested, or otherwise facilitated the outsourcing of American jobs to foreign countries while with Bain Capital. And of course, there's also no evidence that Romney broke any laws by opening offshore bank accounts.
But to the Obama campaign, the truth is irrelevant. The objective for them is never to tell the truth, but rather to create a narrative against Romney that will make him an unacceptable alternative to Obama to occupy the White House.
They understand that the typical voter doesn't pay any attention whatsoever to the campaign. So all they have to do is saturate the airwaves with simple themes that those uninformed folks can't avoid hearing.
So talk to the average American, and you might hear things like "Romney only cares about his rich friends", or "Romney's policies will destroy the environment", or "Romney wants to outsource even more jobs to China", or "Romney wants to destroy Medicare and Social Security", or "I heard Romney is a tax cheat who has millions of dollars stashed away in Swiss bank accounts".
Those people are Obama voters. Not one of those sentences is true, but they will believe them all anyway.
If Romney wants to play that game, he could saturate the airwaves with ads putting out his own simple messages against Obama. Like Obama's a communist who is transforming America into the Soviet Union. Or Obama's plan is to bankrupt America so he can rise from the rubble as our dictator. Or Obama will destroy the churches and trample the first amendment to impose a officially secular and atheistic society. Or Obama wants to deny us our home heating, air conditioning and electricity and purposely drive up our pump price for gas to an unaffordable 10 bucks a gallon.
Oh wait, most of those are probably true.
Doesn't matter though, because whatever message Romney wants to put out there is ignored by the press. What they can't ignore they'll just try to refute as racist propaganda. Romney can't get anything through the media filter, which is now the functional equivalent of the Soviet Pravda. Nothing that casts the great leader in less than a positive light will reach the ears of the public.
Word of mouth isn't going to work either. Obama democrats refuse to listen to anyone who would try to pass on the truth. Their worldview rejects the possibility that any conservative idea could ever be anything but evil.
It would be nice to be able to believe those few voices on the Right who are convinced Romney will sweep Obama out of office in a landslide on par with Reagan's beatdown of Jimmy Carter. But it requires more folks to actually start paying attention and begin trying to separate truth from lies.
We have about 4 months left to find out whether the majority chooses the door to slavery and tyranny or the door to continued freedom.
Sunday, July 01, 2012
Living the Crazy Lie Life
It struck me that the average Democrat goes through life under a system of beliefs that are based on a very large compendium of lies. I was having a conversation this week in which we were discussing the question, are most folks of left-wing persuasion really true-blue believers, or just gullible victims of the false message of the left?
Let's examine a list of lies that most Democrats I know have swallowed, hook, line, and sinker.
9/11 was an inside job
If it wasn't an inside job, Bush parlayed it into an illegal and immoral war against Iraq
There would be no such thing as terrorism if our country just stopped greedily grasping for middle east oil
Bush lied, people died
Deficits and Debt don't really matter
Besides, if the rich just start paying their fair share, the deficits will go away
Voter ID laws disenfranchise voters
Undocumented immigrants (illegal immigrants is such a nasty phrase) only want a better life for their families
Those who want the government to enforce immigration law are racists
Fast & Furious was a failed Bush-era operation
All Eric Holder did was shut it down once he discovered its existence
The only reason Holder and Obama are withholding F&F documents from congress is because it's nothing but a partisan election-year witch hunt
There is no God
Life on Earth evolved from some chemical reactions that turned basic elements into single-celled organisms that over billions of years evolved and mutated into the human race, in gross violation of the theory of Entropy
Education will improve if only the rich pay their fair share in taxes so teachers salaries can be increased
Global Warming will destroy the planet 10 years ago
The only way to save the planet is for everyone to give up their cars, move to a big city and ride mass transit to work
The only solution to environmental disaster is global socialism
ObamaCare is about providing healthcare access to poor people
Healthcare is a basic human right, as is free contraception paid for by Roman Catholics
Catholics and Republicans want to outlaw contraceptives because they hate women
Conservatives oppose Obama because they are inherently racist
Nobody could possibly oppose Obama's policy priorities unless they are racist sexist homophobic bigots
Since Obama has quelled Islamic hatred and improved America's relationship with the rest of the world, we can disband the military and stop making war
When gas prices hit $4 during the Bush era, it was because Bush & Cheney were engaged in a conspiracy to enrich their buddies in the oil industry
This year, when gas hit $4 again under Obama, it was just because of market forces no president can control
Government subsidized windmills and solar panels will free us from awful global warming-causing carbon-based fuels
Unemployment is 8.2 percent
Obama had no other choice than to nationalize General Motors and give Chrysler away to Fiat
Excessive government union benefits have no effect on current federal, state, and local government budget crises
If only the nasty Republicans would stop blocking him, Obama will help us all make more money and no longer have to worry about our mortgages or medical expenses
I'm poor because somebody else is rich
Warren Buffet pays less taxes than his secretary
Democrats care about ordinary middle-class people
Obama's right: The only way the economy can recover is by having the government hand out money and free stuff to people
Easing up on regulatory and tax burdens won't help the economy recover, but will just go back to the evil Bush-era practices of licensing greedy corporate types to mistreat their workers
Republicans care only about rich people
The list goes on and on and on ...
Let's examine a list of lies that most Democrats I know have swallowed, hook, line, and sinker.
9/11 was an inside job
If it wasn't an inside job, Bush parlayed it into an illegal and immoral war against Iraq
There would be no such thing as terrorism if our country just stopped greedily grasping for middle east oil
Bush lied, people died
Deficits and Debt don't really matter
Besides, if the rich just start paying their fair share, the deficits will go away
Voter ID laws disenfranchise voters
Undocumented immigrants (illegal immigrants is such a nasty phrase) only want a better life for their families
Those who want the government to enforce immigration law are racists
Fast & Furious was a failed Bush-era operation
All Eric Holder did was shut it down once he discovered its existence
The only reason Holder and Obama are withholding F&F documents from congress is because it's nothing but a partisan election-year witch hunt
There is no God
Life on Earth evolved from some chemical reactions that turned basic elements into single-celled organisms that over billions of years evolved and mutated into the human race, in gross violation of the theory of Entropy
Education will improve if only the rich pay their fair share in taxes so teachers salaries can be increased
Global Warming will destroy the planet 10 years ago
The only way to save the planet is for everyone to give up their cars, move to a big city and ride mass transit to work
The only solution to environmental disaster is global socialism
ObamaCare is about providing healthcare access to poor people
Healthcare is a basic human right, as is free contraception paid for by Roman Catholics
Catholics and Republicans want to outlaw contraceptives because they hate women
Conservatives oppose Obama because they are inherently racist
Nobody could possibly oppose Obama's policy priorities unless they are racist sexist homophobic bigots
Since Obama has quelled Islamic hatred and improved America's relationship with the rest of the world, we can disband the military and stop making war
When gas prices hit $4 during the Bush era, it was because Bush & Cheney were engaged in a conspiracy to enrich their buddies in the oil industry
This year, when gas hit $4 again under Obama, it was just because of market forces no president can control
Government subsidized windmills and solar panels will free us from awful global warming-causing carbon-based fuels
Unemployment is 8.2 percent
Obama had no other choice than to nationalize General Motors and give Chrysler away to Fiat
Excessive government union benefits have no effect on current federal, state, and local government budget crises
If only the nasty Republicans would stop blocking him, Obama will help us all make more money and no longer have to worry about our mortgages or medical expenses
I'm poor because somebody else is rich
Warren Buffet pays less taxes than his secretary
Democrats care about ordinary middle-class people
Obama's right: The only way the economy can recover is by having the government hand out money and free stuff to people
Easing up on regulatory and tax burdens won't help the economy recover, but will just go back to the evil Bush-era practices of licensing greedy corporate types to mistreat their workers
Republicans care only about rich people
The list goes on and on and on ...
Monday, June 25, 2012
The Course of the Nation is Decided
The long-awaited supreme court decision is due this week, perhaps as early as today. It's the most consequential decision by the high court in my lifetime, with the possible exception of Roe v Wade. It's a decision about what sort of country we will have from this point forward; a socialist state with an all-powerful Federal government micromanaging the lives of all citizens, or a mostly free society that permits its citizens to make their own decisions.
The question asked of the government lawyer during the Obamacare hearing that was never clearly answered goes to the heart of the question (I paraphrase): "If the government has the power to force individuals to engage in private commerce for health insurance, is there any private commerce the government cannot force on them?"
As we've seen with the more recent anti-religion mandate dictating contraception, the attitude of the Obama administration is no, there is no limit to what we can force on the people. The same president just flaunted the law by making his own brand new immigration law without even consulting the other two branches of government. Dictators act like this, not United States Presidents.
The Supreme Court needs to send a strong message to the president that he's not King Barack, but must govern within the constitution and laws of the country. The best way to do so is to strike down the entire Obamacare law.
The law was passed against the will of the people. It was passed in the middle of the night by Democrats without a single Republican vote. It was passed with considerable arm-twisting, threats to Democrat legislators' careers, and bribes to other Democrat legislators. It deserves to be thrown out in its entirety.
If the court rules the law constitutional, the grand experiment that was the United States of America ends. Because that ruling will grant absolute power to the man who would be king. If our self-appointed king then hangs on to office by any means necessary in November, we'll experience something akin to Venezuela after Chavez took power, or Cuba under Castro.
That's why this decision is so vitally important. Everyone expects a single justice to make the final decision: Justice Kennedy, the man who hasn't discovered his core convictions yet.
Update: It wasn't Kennedy, but John Roberts who disappointed the nation by changing the law to manufacture a reason to uphold it. Apparently he was hyper-sensitive to being called a partisan hack by the Left. He didn't want to be the person responsible for the destruction of the Obama monarchy, so what he did was challenge all of us: "If you think Obamacare is bad law, fix it at the ballot box. Don't run to me like a child running to Daddy to complain about her brother's misdeeds."
Roberts can partially redeem this horrible precedent (changing a law to make it constitutional rather than simply ruling it unconstitutional) by striking down the Sebelius mandate denying the Catholic Church and other people of faith their first amendment rights.
The question asked of the government lawyer during the Obamacare hearing that was never clearly answered goes to the heart of the question (I paraphrase): "If the government has the power to force individuals to engage in private commerce for health insurance, is there any private commerce the government cannot force on them?"
As we've seen with the more recent anti-religion mandate dictating contraception, the attitude of the Obama administration is no, there is no limit to what we can force on the people. The same president just flaunted the law by making his own brand new immigration law without even consulting the other two branches of government. Dictators act like this, not United States Presidents.
The Supreme Court needs to send a strong message to the president that he's not King Barack, but must govern within the constitution and laws of the country. The best way to do so is to strike down the entire Obamacare law.
The law was passed against the will of the people. It was passed in the middle of the night by Democrats without a single Republican vote. It was passed with considerable arm-twisting, threats to Democrat legislators' careers, and bribes to other Democrat legislators. It deserves to be thrown out in its entirety.
If the court rules the law constitutional, the grand experiment that was the United States of America ends. Because that ruling will grant absolute power to the man who would be king. If our self-appointed king then hangs on to office by any means necessary in November, we'll experience something akin to Venezuela after Chavez took power, or Cuba under Castro.
That's why this decision is so vitally important. Everyone expects a single justice to make the final decision: Justice Kennedy, the man who hasn't discovered his core convictions yet.
Update: It wasn't Kennedy, but John Roberts who disappointed the nation by changing the law to manufacture a reason to uphold it. Apparently he was hyper-sensitive to being called a partisan hack by the Left. He didn't want to be the person responsible for the destruction of the Obama monarchy, so what he did was challenge all of us: "If you think Obamacare is bad law, fix it at the ballot box. Don't run to me like a child running to Daddy to complain about her brother's misdeeds."
Roberts can partially redeem this horrible precedent (changing a law to make it constitutional rather than simply ruling it unconstitutional) by striking down the Sebelius mandate denying the Catholic Church and other people of faith their first amendment rights.
Sunday, June 24, 2012
Girls Get Equal Outcomes
This weekend I'm seeing lots of articles singing the praises of Title IX. They universally celebrate the way the law gave the girls equal opportunities with the boys in sports. In these times it's not cool to suggest there might be any downside to this big government program.
I'm happy that girls have their own chances to play. But the bottom line to this issue is just like most other issues - the bottom line. The effect of Title IX was that it told schools that they had to create girls programs using money raised by the boys' programs. So the boys football and basketball teams bring in huge dollars at schools across the country. The law forced the schools to steal a big chunk of that money in order to fund a girl's sport.
Colleges around the country were forced to close down some of their men's varsity teams, because another unfortunate outcome of this law was that they had to guarantee equity in the number of varsity programs between the boys and girls. The schools couldn't figure out a way to add 2 or 3 or 4 more girls' teams to balance the number of boys' teams, so varsity sports like men's volleyball, track and field, hockey, swimming, and maybe even baseball got dropped.
For me, that's just silly. Reflecting the leftist attitude that everybody's got to get equal outcomes whether earned or not, there's plenty of unfairness in play while the government implements their own version of fair.
One article talked about a lawsuit challenging game schedules for high school boys and girls basketball. The suit complains that the boys get all the best game times, ie Friday nights, while the girls are stuck with games on weekday evenings and Saturdays. Come on, give me a break!
Oh well, it's just me again, that lonely voice crying out in the wilderness against the stupidity of our culture.
I'm happy that girls have their own chances to play. But the bottom line to this issue is just like most other issues - the bottom line. The effect of Title IX was that it told schools that they had to create girls programs using money raised by the boys' programs. So the boys football and basketball teams bring in huge dollars at schools across the country. The law forced the schools to steal a big chunk of that money in order to fund a girl's sport.
Colleges around the country were forced to close down some of their men's varsity teams, because another unfortunate outcome of this law was that they had to guarantee equity in the number of varsity programs between the boys and girls. The schools couldn't figure out a way to add 2 or 3 or 4 more girls' teams to balance the number of boys' teams, so varsity sports like men's volleyball, track and field, hockey, swimming, and maybe even baseball got dropped.
For me, that's just silly. Reflecting the leftist attitude that everybody's got to get equal outcomes whether earned or not, there's plenty of unfairness in play while the government implements their own version of fair.
One article talked about a lawsuit challenging game schedules for high school boys and girls basketball. The suit complains that the boys get all the best game times, ie Friday nights, while the girls are stuck with games on weekday evenings and Saturdays. Come on, give me a break!
Oh well, it's just me again, that lonely voice crying out in the wilderness against the stupidity of our culture.
Thursday, June 21, 2012
The Brand New Indy Colts
One way to address the disastrous 2011 season for the Indianapolis Colts was to start over. That's the one Irsay went with, from the GM all the way to the last man on the roster. This year's Colts look like an expansion team, with only a handful of players wearing the horseshoe who also wore it last year.
As a fan I was sort of hoping they'd figure out a way to keep Peyton Manning to help with rookie QB Andrew Luck's transition to the NFL. But the only realistic way to do that would have been to get Peyton to accept a contract that was heavy on incentives and light on guarantees, so he gets his money if he plays up to form and the Colts are reasonably well protected from a salary cap disaster if he doesn't.
But the Broncos were more than happy to pay Peyton and absorb the risk. They might ride that decision to a Super Bowl trophy, or they might lose Peyton to injury or damaged nerves in the first game. They rolled the dice in the craps game the Colts decided not to enter.
Reports from the Colts' mini-camp were that their rookie QB looked good. Strong and accurate, they say he looks great.
But he's still a rookie. As are many of his teammates. They might be good one day, but can they turn in a .500 record this season? I'm thinking maybe they can get 4 wins. But maybe, just like when Peyton was a rookie, we'll see the promise in Luck. Luck may have games where he throws a couple of terrific 60 or 80 yard touchdown passes while giving away 4 or 5 picks in yet another Colts loss.
The fan in me won't be able to help myself with the nausea that may come when Peyton's holding up the Lombardi trophy next February with that horse on his helmet instead of the horseshoe.
As a fan I was sort of hoping they'd figure out a way to keep Peyton Manning to help with rookie QB Andrew Luck's transition to the NFL. But the only realistic way to do that would have been to get Peyton to accept a contract that was heavy on incentives and light on guarantees, so he gets his money if he plays up to form and the Colts are reasonably well protected from a salary cap disaster if he doesn't.
But the Broncos were more than happy to pay Peyton and absorb the risk. They might ride that decision to a Super Bowl trophy, or they might lose Peyton to injury or damaged nerves in the first game. They rolled the dice in the craps game the Colts decided not to enter.
Reports from the Colts' mini-camp were that their rookie QB looked good. Strong and accurate, they say he looks great.
But he's still a rookie. As are many of his teammates. They might be good one day, but can they turn in a .500 record this season? I'm thinking maybe they can get 4 wins. But maybe, just like when Peyton was a rookie, we'll see the promise in Luck. Luck may have games where he throws a couple of terrific 60 or 80 yard touchdown passes while giving away 4 or 5 picks in yet another Colts loss.
The fan in me won't be able to help myself with the nausea that may come when Peyton's holding up the Lombardi trophy next February with that horse on his helmet instead of the horseshoe.
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Contempt
Eric Holder tried to delay Mr. Issa's plan to bring him before the House of Representatives for a vote on Contempt of Congress. They met, but Holder still refused to offer any more documents about that gun-running operation called Fast & Furious.
The questions Issa and the Congress wants answered are pretty simple. Who came up with the stupid idea for Fast & Furious? (And stop trying to say it was the Bush Administration, that's simply false). Who ordered it? Who planned it? What was its purpose?
Apparently Holder's been stonewalling to the point that he won't even verbally offer a hint about the answer to any of those questions. He hasn't produced a scapegoat, and we've never heard about anybody he fired over the scandal, except perhaps for the whistleblower that brought it to the country's attention. We still don't have any idea where the idea came from, what they hoped to accomplish, who ordered it, or who planned and implemented it.
There aren't too many possible reasons he's been so doggedly avoiding those questions. One reason would be that it was his idea, and the purpose was political advantage in the argument over gun control legislation. Another was that it came from Obama Himself, for the same political purpose.
The only other possible reason is that the responsible person is such a close personal friend of Holder that he's willing to sacrifice himself to protect that individual. That explanation is the weakest.
We've already had leaks and whispers from Justice employees suggesting that the first explanations are going to be the truth. Making that public at this stage of the campaign could and should destroy Obama's re-election chances. Therefore Holder will eat those documents with ketchup and salt before he will let Issa see them.
I wonder, will we ever find out why Brian Terry died?
The questions Issa and the Congress wants answered are pretty simple. Who came up with the stupid idea for Fast & Furious? (And stop trying to say it was the Bush Administration, that's simply false). Who ordered it? Who planned it? What was its purpose?
Apparently Holder's been stonewalling to the point that he won't even verbally offer a hint about the answer to any of those questions. He hasn't produced a scapegoat, and we've never heard about anybody he fired over the scandal, except perhaps for the whistleblower that brought it to the country's attention. We still don't have any idea where the idea came from, what they hoped to accomplish, who ordered it, or who planned and implemented it.
There aren't too many possible reasons he's been so doggedly avoiding those questions. One reason would be that it was his idea, and the purpose was political advantage in the argument over gun control legislation. Another was that it came from Obama Himself, for the same political purpose.
The only other possible reason is that the responsible person is such a close personal friend of Holder that he's willing to sacrifice himself to protect that individual. That explanation is the weakest.
We've already had leaks and whispers from Justice employees suggesting that the first explanations are going to be the truth. Making that public at this stage of the campaign could and should destroy Obama's re-election chances. Therefore Holder will eat those documents with ketchup and salt before he will let Issa see them.
I wonder, will we ever find out why Brian Terry died?
Why Obama Must Go
Obamacare
HHS anti-Catholic Free Contraception Mandate
Cap & Trade Implemented through EPA without a Law
Amnesty for Illegals without a Law
Nationalization of GM
Government gift of Chrysler to foreign automaker Fiat
White House closes Chrysler dealers based on owners' political alignment
Fast & Furious
New Black Panthers Voter Intimidation Case Dropped for political/racial reasons
DOMA defense dropped in courts
The Litany of Outrageous, Overreaching Regulation Suppressing, Closing, and Driving Companies overseas
Apologizing for America to Enemies
Policies that Pacify Enemies and Offend Friends
Anti-Israel Policies
Demonstrable Lies in Every Public Speech
Race Baiting Rhetoric
Coordinating and Directing Media Agendas of MSNBC, Media Matters, and Major News Networks
Shuffling Federal Dollars into Pockets of Political Supporters in Bogus "Green Energy" ventures
Incompetence
Failure to Lead
Failure to Negotiate with Congress to Achieve Results
Exploding Deficits and Unsustainable Debt
Suing States over Illegal Immigration Enforcement
Suing States over Voter ID Laws
Gay Marriage
Usurpation of States' Rights
Education Systemic Failure
TSA
Homeland (In)Security
Drones to be Used Domestically to Spy on Americans
Divisiveness, Partisanship, Alinsky Tactics in White House
Leaking Classified Information Endangering lives to Prop Up Campaign
HHS anti-Catholic Free Contraception Mandate
Cap & Trade Implemented through EPA without a Law
Amnesty for Illegals without a Law
Nationalization of GM
Government gift of Chrysler to foreign automaker Fiat
White House closes Chrysler dealers based on owners' political alignment
Fast & Furious
New Black Panthers Voter Intimidation Case Dropped for political/racial reasons
DOMA defense dropped in courts
The Litany of Outrageous, Overreaching Regulation Suppressing, Closing, and Driving Companies overseas
Apologizing for America to Enemies
Policies that Pacify Enemies and Offend Friends
Anti-Israel Policies
Demonstrable Lies in Every Public Speech
Race Baiting Rhetoric
Coordinating and Directing Media Agendas of MSNBC, Media Matters, and Major News Networks
Shuffling Federal Dollars into Pockets of Political Supporters in Bogus "Green Energy" ventures
Incompetence
Failure to Lead
Failure to Negotiate with Congress to Achieve Results
Exploding Deficits and Unsustainable Debt
Suing States over Illegal Immigration Enforcement
Suing States over Voter ID Laws
Gay Marriage
Usurpation of States' Rights
Education Systemic Failure
TSA
Homeland (In)Security
Drones to be Used Domestically to Spy on Americans
Divisiveness, Partisanship, Alinsky Tactics in White House
Leaking Classified Information Endangering lives to Prop Up Campaign
Friday, June 15, 2012
Glimpsing Truth
Recently the president's been giving us a glimpse of his true philosophy of government, which he went to great pains to conceal during his last campaign. It started with his statement that was later called a gaffe, that the private sector is doing just fine and it's the public sector that needs help.
It wasn't a gaffe if he meant what he said, and all the proof we need that he meant it is his explanation. He's spent the rest of the week after making the head-scratching comment expounding on it, not refuting it.
In Obama's world, government is supreme. Private economic activity exists only as the money tree that funds those government workers he values most. Obama's solution to the sour economy is to hire more teachers, cops, firefighters, and presumably all the other government professions.
Which points out another interesting part of his philosophy. In America, the Federal Government has nothing to do with teachers, cops, and firefighters. None of those folks work for Washington, but for their local communities that raise the funds to hire them, train them, and pay their salaries.
So now we know another fact about Obama's philosophy. In his world, the Federal Government reigns supreme, and local governments must be trumped by the Feds. Because the omnipotent federal government, led by the secularist Messiah Himself, is much wiser, more caring, and better managers than any state, county, or city.
The positive outcome of all this is it finally helps us understand the stark difference between the Republican and Democrat candidates. One wants to de-emphasize the federal government and promote the private sector, while the other wants to bankrupt the nation by hiring armies of government functionaries. Which is more likely to result in economic recovery?
The answer is obvious to all but the ignorant and brainwashed.
It wasn't a gaffe if he meant what he said, and all the proof we need that he meant it is his explanation. He's spent the rest of the week after making the head-scratching comment expounding on it, not refuting it.
In Obama's world, government is supreme. Private economic activity exists only as the money tree that funds those government workers he values most. Obama's solution to the sour economy is to hire more teachers, cops, firefighters, and presumably all the other government professions.
Which points out another interesting part of his philosophy. In America, the Federal Government has nothing to do with teachers, cops, and firefighters. None of those folks work for Washington, but for their local communities that raise the funds to hire them, train them, and pay their salaries.
So now we know another fact about Obama's philosophy. In his world, the Federal Government reigns supreme, and local governments must be trumped by the Feds. Because the omnipotent federal government, led by the secularist Messiah Himself, is much wiser, more caring, and better managers than any state, county, or city.
The positive outcome of all this is it finally helps us understand the stark difference between the Republican and Democrat candidates. One wants to de-emphasize the federal government and promote the private sector, while the other wants to bankrupt the nation by hiring armies of government functionaries. Which is more likely to result in economic recovery?
The answer is obvious to all but the ignorant and brainwashed.
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
My Proposal to Save CNN
This is an open post for CNN with my suggestions on how they can recover from their disastrous ratings slide. CNN has lost viewers dramatically with the emergence of Fox News. They've lost many from their left-wing audience to MSNBC, leaving them without a niche.
I have two ideas for how CNN can return to prominence. If they were to follow these two simple ideas, I believe their ratings growth would become phenomenal and force Fox to scramble in an attempt to catch up.
First, go back to CNN's roots. Return to being first and foremost a news channel. For most of the 24/7 cycle, use program blocks to rotate between Washington, the World, the Nation, and maybe a Sports segment. Do straight news, "just the facts, ma'am", without commentary. Stop managing the news to try to effect the viewers' opinions and attitudes. Stop protecting democrats and trashing republicans. Just gather and report the facts and don't stay away from stories (ie Fast & Furious or Solyndra) that might cast an unfavorable light on your favorite president. Just report the facts in a strightforward way and let the viewers decide for themselves how they feel about them.
Second, create a special debate program in primetime. Here's the idea: Bring a prominent liberal and conservative into the studio to have a moderated debate about an important issue of the day.
Imagine this: A debate between Rachel Maddow and Laura Ingraham about social issues, titled something like "Family Values or Sexual Diversity - Which is healthier for the United States Culture?"
Or imagine Al Gore debating Chris Horner on "Global Climate Change - Is it Real, and if so, What Should be Done About It?"
I know you won't get Maddow because she's at MSNBC, but you get the idea. Just make sure the debates are moderated fairly and the two people engaged for the debate are equally effective communicators.
It can be fun to imagine all sorts of possible debate matchups. Limbaugh vs Maher, Ted Nugent vs Alec Baldwin, Michelle Malkin vs Andrea Mitchell, Alan West vs Alan Grayson. So many fun possibilities. Talk about great TV.
Do those two things and I'd watch. I think lots of other folks would too.
I have two ideas for how CNN can return to prominence. If they were to follow these two simple ideas, I believe their ratings growth would become phenomenal and force Fox to scramble in an attempt to catch up.
First, go back to CNN's roots. Return to being first and foremost a news channel. For most of the 24/7 cycle, use program blocks to rotate between Washington, the World, the Nation, and maybe a Sports segment. Do straight news, "just the facts, ma'am", without commentary. Stop managing the news to try to effect the viewers' opinions and attitudes. Stop protecting democrats and trashing republicans. Just gather and report the facts and don't stay away from stories (ie Fast & Furious or Solyndra) that might cast an unfavorable light on your favorite president. Just report the facts in a strightforward way and let the viewers decide for themselves how they feel about them.
Second, create a special debate program in primetime. Here's the idea: Bring a prominent liberal and conservative into the studio to have a moderated debate about an important issue of the day.
Imagine this: A debate between Rachel Maddow and Laura Ingraham about social issues, titled something like "Family Values or Sexual Diversity - Which is healthier for the United States Culture?"
Or imagine Al Gore debating Chris Horner on "Global Climate Change - Is it Real, and if so, What Should be Done About It?"
I know you won't get Maddow because she's at MSNBC, but you get the idea. Just make sure the debates are moderated fairly and the two people engaged for the debate are equally effective communicators.
It can be fun to imagine all sorts of possible debate matchups. Limbaugh vs Maher, Ted Nugent vs Alec Baldwin, Michelle Malkin vs Andrea Mitchell, Alan West vs Alan Grayson. So many fun possibilities. Talk about great TV.
Do those two things and I'd watch. I think lots of other folks would too.
Wednesday, June 06, 2012
The Problem with Exit Polling
The media thought the Walker Recall election was going to be extremely close, based on their Exit Polls. Historically, Democrats have been much more enthusiastic than Republicans about talking to the pollsters after voting, so exit polls almost always overstate the number of votes for the Democrat.
In Wisconsin last night, the mainstream media were pumped. Until the actual results flowed in from around the state showing a pretty dominant victory for Governor Walker.
So today they're touting a 7-point or higher differential favoring Obama over Romney in November. Only problem is that Walker's margin of victory was pretty close to 7 percent. It's reasonable to conclude from the result that the Obama lead is nonexistent or at least impossible to call accurately based on those exit polls.
Watching returns early, when Walker was ahead by 20+ percentage points, I hoped his margin would stay that high or continue to widen. But apparently the larger cities take longer to report their results, so their results came in late and caused the margin to narrow to about 7 percent.
I find the phenomenon rather strange that the larger the city, the more liberal its residents. It would be very interesting to find out what factors make city dwellers so much more left-wing than farmers and small town folks.
In Wisconsin last night, the mainstream media were pumped. Until the actual results flowed in from around the state showing a pretty dominant victory for Governor Walker.
So today they're touting a 7-point or higher differential favoring Obama over Romney in November. Only problem is that Walker's margin of victory was pretty close to 7 percent. It's reasonable to conclude from the result that the Obama lead is nonexistent or at least impossible to call accurately based on those exit polls.
Watching returns early, when Walker was ahead by 20+ percentage points, I hoped his margin would stay that high or continue to widen. But apparently the larger cities take longer to report their results, so their results came in late and caused the margin to narrow to about 7 percent.
I find the phenomenon rather strange that the larger the city, the more liberal its residents. It would be very interesting to find out what factors make city dwellers so much more left-wing than farmers and small town folks.
Monday, June 04, 2012
On, Wisconsin
The unions in Wisconsin didn't like Scott Walker's budget reforms that included a scaleback of those things public unions can negotiate. That allowed him to proceed to increase public employees' contributions to their pensions and healthcare costs to relatively modest levels of 5 and 12 percent respectively.
The outraged unions proceeded to initiate a recall petition, which succeeded in collecting more than enough signatures to force a special election that happens tomorrow. They'll either succeed in replacing Walker with a democrat or will fail and keep the governor in office.
My primary thought on the whole event is that a recall isn't justified. Walker got elected and proceeded to implement the policies he promised. Mounting the recall over policies with which others disagree isn't justification for recall. If enough citizens disagree with Walker's changes, all they have to do is vote for his challenger in the next election who promises to roll them back.
In my opinion, recalls are only appropriate in cases of illegal or immoral behavior of the elected official, not just because of policy disagreements.
By all accounts, Walker's reforms are working wonderfully well. The state's enjoying budget surpluses without cuts in services. The outraged union folks are being exposed as a bit greedy, demanding free cadillac health coverage and outrageously generous pensions while their peers in the private sector have to contribute much more for much less health coverage and mostly have no pensions at all. Polling suggests the unions are making a losing argument, so Walker's opponent isn't even campaigning on the union "rights" issue anymore.
Whether or not a Walker victory tomorrow means Wisconsin becomes a Red state that will go into Romney's column in November remains to be seen. But the two sides of the argument are pretty clear.
Unions see this as Armageddon, as a Walker win will encourage many others to proceed to weaken their power, until one day soon they become irrelevant. Conservatives hope they're right, because unions are the primary source of funding for liberal democrats, and the coming irrelevance will translate into GOP dominance of politics over the long term. Both sides seem a bit delusional.
What seems to have occured over the last couple of decades, especially in the Blue states, is the public employee unions have accrued too much power. They helped establish a vicious cycle that pours their member dues into pro-union democrat candidates who promist to keep extending their compensation and benefits and created a machine that guarantees the government class receives benefits in excess of their private sector brothers.
I am optimistic that Walker will win. If the trend continues, will we see the pendulum swing back too far the other way, with public sector employees seeing their wages and benefits and working conditions eroded to unfair levels? I don't expect that will happen, but if it does and creates a backlash that brings the Left back into power, those who caused it will have nobody to blame but themselves.
The outraged unions proceeded to initiate a recall petition, which succeeded in collecting more than enough signatures to force a special election that happens tomorrow. They'll either succeed in replacing Walker with a democrat or will fail and keep the governor in office.
My primary thought on the whole event is that a recall isn't justified. Walker got elected and proceeded to implement the policies he promised. Mounting the recall over policies with which others disagree isn't justification for recall. If enough citizens disagree with Walker's changes, all they have to do is vote for his challenger in the next election who promises to roll them back.
In my opinion, recalls are only appropriate in cases of illegal or immoral behavior of the elected official, not just because of policy disagreements.
By all accounts, Walker's reforms are working wonderfully well. The state's enjoying budget surpluses without cuts in services. The outraged union folks are being exposed as a bit greedy, demanding free cadillac health coverage and outrageously generous pensions while their peers in the private sector have to contribute much more for much less health coverage and mostly have no pensions at all. Polling suggests the unions are making a losing argument, so Walker's opponent isn't even campaigning on the union "rights" issue anymore.
Whether or not a Walker victory tomorrow means Wisconsin becomes a Red state that will go into Romney's column in November remains to be seen. But the two sides of the argument are pretty clear.
Unions see this as Armageddon, as a Walker win will encourage many others to proceed to weaken their power, until one day soon they become irrelevant. Conservatives hope they're right, because unions are the primary source of funding for liberal democrats, and the coming irrelevance will translate into GOP dominance of politics over the long term. Both sides seem a bit delusional.
What seems to have occured over the last couple of decades, especially in the Blue states, is the public employee unions have accrued too much power. They helped establish a vicious cycle that pours their member dues into pro-union democrat candidates who promist to keep extending their compensation and benefits and created a machine that guarantees the government class receives benefits in excess of their private sector brothers.
I am optimistic that Walker will win. If the trend continues, will we see the pendulum swing back too far the other way, with public sector employees seeing their wages and benefits and working conditions eroded to unfair levels? I don't expect that will happen, but if it does and creates a backlash that brings the Left back into power, those who caused it will have nobody to blame but themselves.
Friday, June 01, 2012
Ramping Up
After a little bit of a spring slowdown, it looks like I'm going to be ramping back up in June. Projects are coming through for me that could suddenly find me overbooked for the rest of the summer and possibly into the fall.
It's good to be busy, but I have to admit it's been nice to have a looser schedule recently. It may take a couple of weeks to get back into busy mode, adjusting my sleep schedule and increasing my endurance for fulltime workdays and long airline trips.
Still I'd rather continue the variable work schedule that I can control than be a corporate drone living like a prarie dog in a cubicle pen, told what to do and when to show up and granted only 2 weeks vacation per year.
It's good to be busy, but I have to admit it's been nice to have a looser schedule recently. It may take a couple of weeks to get back into busy mode, adjusting my sleep schedule and increasing my endurance for fulltime workdays and long airline trips.
Still I'd rather continue the variable work schedule that I can control than be a corporate drone living like a prarie dog in a cubicle pen, told what to do and when to show up and granted only 2 weeks vacation per year.
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Burning Questions for Liberals
OK, I've got the message from all you rich entertainers. You love Obama and hate all conservatives. It's probably reasonable to assume that you have no conservative-thinking individuals among your circle of friends. So I've got some questions I'd love to get a chance to ask one of you rich and famous guys or girls.
If you live in New York or LA, you're already paying somewhere north of half of all your income to the various levels of government. Since you seem to agree with Obama that rich people should pay more, please tell me how much more? What percentage of your income do you consider fair?
You apparently love being green, just like Kermit the Frog. I figure you don't care about $4 gas, but I also would predict you keep your hybrid car in the garage just to be cool, but would rather drive around in that sweet V8 sports car. You can afford it, but how do you feel about the poor factory workers out here who have to shell out 70 bucks a week to get to their 250/week job? How do you think your activism to save the planet is working out to save them from losing everything when they can no longer afford to get to work?
I get it, you're an atheist. Would you please go ahead and admit that the Freedom of Religion part of the Constitution means nothing to you? How far do you think the government should take such mandates - do you favor outlawing Christianity altogether?
You're loud and clear on the subject of war. War is bad. How could I disagree? Do you really believe that if we just dismantle our military and pacify our enemies, war will go away all by itself? Are you convinced that your self, family, and property will be safe and unaffected if we just open the borders to all comers?
Sure, you feel compassion for poor folks from other countries who sneak into our country just because they're looking for a better life for their families. Does that mean you're willing to pony up the cash to cover their children's education and their families' medical care?
Do I understand you to be perfectly OK with Obama borrowing billions from China only to hand it out to his friends to blow all of it on bad business ventures (ie Solyndra)? You actually don't see a problem with that?
You're also just fine with the federal government nationalizing the nation's largest automaker and giving another one to a foreign company nearly for free? How about nationalizing healthcare? Do you think the government should do the same with other American companies, such as banks, energy companies, telecommunications, transportation? Where, if anywhere, would you draw the line?
All I want is honest answers to my questions. At least it would help me resolve a debate I'm having with myself, about whether these folks are true believers or truly ignorant.
If you live in New York or LA, you're already paying somewhere north of half of all your income to the various levels of government. Since you seem to agree with Obama that rich people should pay more, please tell me how much more? What percentage of your income do you consider fair?
You apparently love being green, just like Kermit the Frog. I figure you don't care about $4 gas, but I also would predict you keep your hybrid car in the garage just to be cool, but would rather drive around in that sweet V8 sports car. You can afford it, but how do you feel about the poor factory workers out here who have to shell out 70 bucks a week to get to their 250/week job? How do you think your activism to save the planet is working out to save them from losing everything when they can no longer afford to get to work?
I get it, you're an atheist. Would you please go ahead and admit that the Freedom of Religion part of the Constitution means nothing to you? How far do you think the government should take such mandates - do you favor outlawing Christianity altogether?
You're loud and clear on the subject of war. War is bad. How could I disagree? Do you really believe that if we just dismantle our military and pacify our enemies, war will go away all by itself? Are you convinced that your self, family, and property will be safe and unaffected if we just open the borders to all comers?
Sure, you feel compassion for poor folks from other countries who sneak into our country just because they're looking for a better life for their families. Does that mean you're willing to pony up the cash to cover their children's education and their families' medical care?
Do I understand you to be perfectly OK with Obama borrowing billions from China only to hand it out to his friends to blow all of it on bad business ventures (ie Solyndra)? You actually don't see a problem with that?
You're also just fine with the federal government nationalizing the nation's largest automaker and giving another one to a foreign company nearly for free? How about nationalizing healthcare? Do you think the government should do the same with other American companies, such as banks, energy companies, telecommunications, transportation? Where, if anywhere, would you draw the line?
All I want is honest answers to my questions. At least it would help me resolve a debate I'm having with myself, about whether these folks are true believers or truly ignorant.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)