The Hill produced a piece titled "Obama's European blueprint bad for US" (by Judd Gregg) yesterday, January 30, 2012. The comments to that are full of rants by people claiming what the current administration has been doing is not socialism. Here's one comment for example: "That's not socialism. I suggest you consult a dictionary. Socialism is
public ownership of the means of production. None of Obama's proposals
are remotely socialism. And taxation is not socialism."
Here's my reply to his comment: Maybe you should read a dictionary too. Mirriam-Webster says socialism
is: "any of various social systems based on shared or government
ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution
of goods ". Note the word "shared". Our government owns most of several
companies now and their control over all businesses and entire industries(!) is growing rapidly
via regulations and 'rules'. It's fair to call this 'socialism lite' so
far but there is no doubt we're on an increasingly socialistic
trajectory. The "government's share" of ownership and control are both
increasing. Also check Wikipedia: "A primary goal of socialism is social
equity and a distribution of wealth based on one's contribution to
society, and an economic arrangement that would serve the interests of
society as a whole." President Obama and other progressives say the same
thing ... ALL the time.
Please pay attention people! Socialism is NOT defined as ONLY government OWNERSHIP of the production and delivery of goods and services. Yes, it can involve outright ownership but the truth, in case you're interested in truth, is that "socialism" ALSO INCLUDES government CONTROL over those things. The whole point of socialism is that it's the counterpoint to the 'evils of capitalism'. The control over capitalism that socialists desire can be accomplished by outright ownership of businesses OR by controlling what they can and cannot do. That's not only common sense, it happens to be true by any respected definition of socialism. And to those favoring capitalism there is no difference in effect ... either approach accomplishes what socialists desire and what capitalists oppose.
Of course(!) you're entitled to believe that what President Obama is doing is good for the country but you're living in denial of fact to claim it's not socialism AND an increasingly socialistic trajectory he's putting us on. Your belief in his objectives makes you a socialist by definition. Denying it doesn't make it untrue. Why not just embrace the terminology when it's what you want? What are you afraid of? It's like someone saying I only eat vegetables, fruits, grains, nuts, and, perhaps some milk and cheese but that doesn't make me a vegetarian. C'mon folks! Just be honest.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Friday, January 27, 2012
Obama And The Pipeline Non-Decision: It Does NOTHING To Protect The Environment
Regarding my previous blog on this subject, one has to wonder which of the following are the actual reasons President Obama said more information was needed about the pipeline's environmental impact:
What's hilarious is that the president's decision doesn't do anything to protect the environment. The risk to the environment is no different whether the pipeline crosses the USA or Canada to their west coast. In fact, the president's "no" decision increases the environmental risks! Once Canada's oil gets to their west coast it'll be put on ships and hauled all the way across the Pacific. Ships leak and crash. That's a NET INCREASE IN RISK to the planet's environment in a place where it's much harder to clean up than on land. Also, that oil will be used in China in ways that are more environmentally harmful than the ways we'd use it. Also, that pipeline would have allowed us to bring in less oil from other countries by ship. That's an opportunity lost to reduce the risk of an offshore oil spill from tankers ... another UNNECESSARY RISK TO THE ENVIRONMENT that could have been diminished if the pipeline had been approved.
So to say no due to environment reasons is laughably absurd. It defies logic in so many ways it makes me wonder how smart they are. Or how stupid they think we are.
- He and all his so-called experts on the environment really don't know what the impact will be even though they've had three(!) years to investigate it or
- This administration's desire to drive up the cost of fossil fuels to make 'clean energy' cost-competitive overrides all other considerations so it's better to just cut off a debate that's based on science and reason or
- They do know the answers to the environmental questions but they don't like the answers because they affirm the pipeline won't cause any significant environmental damage ... so they need to keep studying it until they get answers that support their agenda-driven biases.
What's hilarious is that the president's decision doesn't do anything to protect the environment. The risk to the environment is no different whether the pipeline crosses the USA or Canada to their west coast. In fact, the president's "no" decision increases the environmental risks! Once Canada's oil gets to their west coast it'll be put on ships and hauled all the way across the Pacific. Ships leak and crash. That's a NET INCREASE IN RISK to the planet's environment in a place where it's much harder to clean up than on land. Also, that oil will be used in China in ways that are more environmentally harmful than the ways we'd use it. Also, that pipeline would have allowed us to bring in less oil from other countries by ship. That's an opportunity lost to reduce the risk of an offshore oil spill from tankers ... another UNNECESSARY RISK TO THE ENVIRONMENT that could have been diminished if the pipeline had been approved.
So to say no due to environment reasons is laughably absurd. It defies logic in so many ways it makes me wonder how smart they are. Or how stupid they think we are.
On The Pipeline Deal The President Voted 'Present' ... Again
The president's excuse for disapproving the Canadian pipeline shows poor leadership skills. It's a teachable moment in which to describe what comprises good leadership skills regarding decision-making and doing what's best for the entity for whom you work.
Competent leaders keep an eye on key areas affecting a company's future so they can either take advantage of an opportunity before it evaporates or be properly prepared to say no to an opportunity rather than risk rushing into something that will most likely be bad for the entity. Note that I said properly prepared. The more important an area is to the entity's future, the bettter prepared competent leaders are to make a decision before any important deadlines occur after which the opportunity will evaporate.
Would you say that energy is one of our most important issues? President Obama claims it is. He has said so in pretty much every speech he's given as president or as a president candidate. It's important to the future of our energy supplies, to manufacturing, to our economy, and to national security, right? Problem is, after 3 years of evaluating the pipeline's impacts, President Obama is still not done getting information about its environmental impacts. Or so he claims.
A competent leader would have made sure he/she found out all he/she needed to know before Canada's deadline passed. It's irrational to think we couldn't have found out the answers to all relevant questions within three years. We've won world wars in less time and the people in this administration claim to be experts on the environment. Do you really think that this pipeline and its effects on the environment is as complex as winning those world wars? The president has a literal army of self-proclaimed experts looking into the environment issues, including thousands in the private and not-for-profit sectors and they can't figure out the impacts in approximately the time it took to win world wars?
So, either he and his administration are nowhere near as competent on environmental issues as they claim or his pipeline decision is strictly political. Neither answer ought to be acceptable to our citizens. This is too important an issue not to be prepared to make a decision by a deadline we knew has been coming for three years.
Real leaders take responsibility to make sure they're ready to make a decision on important issues based on merit (pros/cons) by deadlines beyond which a decision becomes moot. Real leaders find a way to be ready by deadlines in order to do the right thing for those for whom they work. Not being ready to make a decision is an abdication of responsibility. President Obama really didn't make a decision. In effect, he voted 'present' ... again.
So, we're going to let a very important opportunity pass that we may never get back because he didn't make sure that he knew enough to make a decision yet based on merit (pros/cons). Unacceptable sir. It's your job(!) to become ready. Making excuses for why you weren't ready is weak and irresponsible. You chose the worst of three options ... yes, for specific merit-based reasons, no, for specific merit-based reasons or I don't know yet. This is as weak as saying you didn't turn in your homework because the dog ate it. You knew when it was due. It was your responsibility to get it done on time.
Competent leaders keep an eye on key areas affecting a company's future so they can either take advantage of an opportunity before it evaporates or be properly prepared to say no to an opportunity rather than risk rushing into something that will most likely be bad for the entity. Note that I said properly prepared. The more important an area is to the entity's future, the bettter prepared competent leaders are to make a decision before any important deadlines occur after which the opportunity will evaporate.
Would you say that energy is one of our most important issues? President Obama claims it is. He has said so in pretty much every speech he's given as president or as a president candidate. It's important to the future of our energy supplies, to manufacturing, to our economy, and to national security, right? Problem is, after 3 years of evaluating the pipeline's impacts, President Obama is still not done getting information about its environmental impacts. Or so he claims.
A competent leader would have made sure he/she found out all he/she needed to know before Canada's deadline passed. It's irrational to think we couldn't have found out the answers to all relevant questions within three years. We've won world wars in less time and the people in this administration claim to be experts on the environment. Do you really think that this pipeline and its effects on the environment is as complex as winning those world wars? The president has a literal army of self-proclaimed experts looking into the environment issues, including thousands in the private and not-for-profit sectors and they can't figure out the impacts in approximately the time it took to win world wars?
So, either he and his administration are nowhere near as competent on environmental issues as they claim or his pipeline decision is strictly political. Neither answer ought to be acceptable to our citizens. This is too important an issue not to be prepared to make a decision by a deadline we knew has been coming for three years.
Real leaders take responsibility to make sure they're ready to make a decision on important issues based on merit (pros/cons) by deadlines beyond which a decision becomes moot. Real leaders find a way to be ready by deadlines in order to do the right thing for those for whom they work. Not being ready to make a decision is an abdication of responsibility. President Obama really didn't make a decision. In effect, he voted 'present' ... again.
So, we're going to let a very important opportunity pass that we may never get back because he didn't make sure that he knew enough to make a decision yet based on merit (pros/cons). Unacceptable sir. It's your job(!) to become ready. Making excuses for why you weren't ready is weak and irresponsible. You chose the worst of three options ... yes, for specific merit-based reasons, no, for specific merit-based reasons or I don't know yet. This is as weak as saying you didn't turn in your homework because the dog ate it. You knew when it was due. It was your responsibility to get it done on time.
Monday, January 23, 2012
We Need To Have A Better Appreciation Of What America Has Accomplished In So Short A Time; Keeping A Promise
Growing older has a funny(?) way of helping one put history into perspective. From this end of my life, 70 years ago when I was born doesn't seem so long ago. 70 'sounds' kinda old in a way (I always thought 70 was old until I got here!) but now 1942 seems closer than that number implies.
What got me thinking about that is our country's history relative to my life. We talk about America's founding and important events in our 'early' history as if they were eons ago but then I realized this. My 70 years seem short in time. If 70 isn't so long ago then twice that isn't so far back as it might otherwise feel either. Just over twice my age ago the civil war began! And then I marvelled at how far we have come since then ... in so short a time ... and I marvel at the two documents, a declaration and a challenge/promise, that made it possible.
There are two ways to look at that of course. Either I'm really, really old or the civil war wasn't really that long ago in the scheme of things. (Guess which I choose!) 150 years ago (only twice my age or so) is a time we can almost reach out and touch historically speaking. Then I marvel at how far we've come as a nation in so few as twice my years. We ought to appreciate that more.
Our wonderfully constructed Constitution gave us an opportunity, a challenge and a promise. That is, if we hold the course it set us on we would, recognizably over short increments of time, continuously(!) make our country more perfect. Not perfect, mind you. In fact, never perfect. Just ever more perfect. It's a promise and a challenge that encourages us to be patient but persistent.
Implied in that promise is a warning that straying too far from the founding principles would invalidate the warranty our founders gave to us. Just as a car warranty requires one to maintain the car in specific ways in order to maintain the integrity(!) of the product, so too the Constitution requires regular checkups to ensure it remains in good working order ... as designed. It's worth considering that changing the design of a car too much invalidates the warranty ... ie, the promise.
What got me thinking about that is our country's history relative to my life. We talk about America's founding and important events in our 'early' history as if they were eons ago but then I realized this. My 70 years seem short in time. If 70 isn't so long ago then twice that isn't so far back as it might otherwise feel either. Just over twice my age ago the civil war began! And then I marvelled at how far we have come since then ... in so short a time ... and I marvel at the two documents, a declaration and a challenge/promise, that made it possible.
There are two ways to look at that of course. Either I'm really, really old or the civil war wasn't really that long ago in the scheme of things. (Guess which I choose!) 150 years ago (only twice my age or so) is a time we can almost reach out and touch historically speaking. Then I marvel at how far we've come as a nation in so few as twice my years. We ought to appreciate that more.
Our wonderfully constructed Constitution gave us an opportunity, a challenge and a promise. That is, if we hold the course it set us on we would, recognizably over short increments of time, continuously(!) make our country more perfect. Not perfect, mind you. In fact, never perfect. Just ever more perfect. It's a promise and a challenge that encourages us to be patient but persistent.
Implied in that promise is a warning that straying too far from the founding principles would invalidate the warranty our founders gave to us. Just as a car warranty requires one to maintain the car in specific ways in order to maintain the integrity(!) of the product, so too the Constitution requires regular checkups to ensure it remains in good working order ... as designed. It's worth considering that changing the design of a car too much invalidates the warranty ... ie, the promise.
Saturday, January 21, 2012
The Sinking Of The Costa Concordia: A Metaphor For A Sinking West Or For Increasingly Spineless Men?
I was going to add comments of my own but after a few failed attempts I couldn't improve on what Mark Steyn said about the sinking of the Costa Concordia this week:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/288778/sinking-west-mark-steyn
I'll only add a few questions for you to ponder. To what extent is Captain Schettino's ME FIRST attitude a metaphor for much of what's going on with men all around us today? What is happening to men's sense of responsibility? To what extent has abandon ship (re. responsibility, self-respect, honesty, morality, integrity, family, neighbors, community, etc) become a man's first, if not completely over-riding, impulse? How many of the men you know or know about do you respect? Can you in all honesty say you expect them to man up when a situation calls for it or will they all look around for someone else to do what's necessary? What has been the negative role of feminism, if any, in all this? To the extent family values have eroded significantly, what percentage of it lies at the feet of irresponsible men versus women? Why are there so many out of wedlock births and single mothers? Why are so many kids not completing their K-12 education? Why do so many kids shun technical fields in college?
Having given thought to the answers to those questions, how much better off would we be in those areas if American men had better and stronger values, principles, self-respect, integrity, and morals?
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/288778/sinking-west-mark-steyn
I'll only add a few questions for you to ponder. To what extent is Captain Schettino's ME FIRST attitude a metaphor for much of what's going on with men all around us today? What is happening to men's sense of responsibility? To what extent has abandon ship (re. responsibility, self-respect, honesty, morality, integrity, family, neighbors, community, etc) become a man's first, if not completely over-riding, impulse? How many of the men you know or know about do you respect? Can you in all honesty say you expect them to man up when a situation calls for it or will they all look around for someone else to do what's necessary? What has been the negative role of feminism, if any, in all this? To the extent family values have eroded significantly, what percentage of it lies at the feet of irresponsible men versus women? Why are there so many out of wedlock births and single mothers? Why are so many kids not completing their K-12 education? Why do so many kids shun technical fields in college?
Having given thought to the answers to those questions, how much better off would we be in those areas if American men had better and stronger values, principles, self-respect, integrity, and morals?
Friday, January 20, 2012
More Hypocritical Distortions By The Media And The Left About These Republican Candidates
MSNBC headline today: "History flubs in Republican debate". Candidates say an incredible number of things to promote their candidacy. If you had to talk that much to promote yourself for a job would you get an occassional fact incorrect? How accurate is YOUR understanding of history? And you expect Republicans to be perfect but not Democrats?
When you took classes in high school or college did you ever get a fact incorrect or did you always get 100% on all your tests and homework? Did you even tell a boss something that turned out not to be correct?
Take their criticism of Romney. They make a big deal of a couple of errors he made and then very quietly (brief simple statement) mentioned that he corrected them but the headline is he FLUBBED HISTORY.
Take their criticism of Gingrich. When Gingrich was talking about Carter's presidency, Gingrich said Carter gave us an 10.8% unemployment rate. MSNBC has a field day with that reminding us that the unemployment rate Ginrich mentioned didn't happen until two years after Carter left office, under Reagan.
So Gingrich is wrong and MSNBC had another opportunity to say Reagan was bad ... he caused the 10.8% unemployment rate? We have to give MSNBC credit for then agreeing with Gingrich by explaining the facts: "Most economists attribute the jobless increase to a sharp rise in interest rates engineered by then-Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker in an ultimately successful effort to choke off inflation. Unemployment began to fall in 1983 and dropped to 7.2 percent in November 1984, when Reagan easily won re-election."
The inflation that Reagan inherited(!) was caused by Carter's economic and monetary policies. For those of you who weren't alive or don't remember, the inflation rate was killing our economy. The prime interest rate rose to a staggering and record(!) 21.5%. What is it now, 0.5%? Can you imagine what it was like to try to buy something at a 25-30% lending interest rate? Fixing that problem happens to result in an increase in unemployment. It just does by the nature of the required fixes. The unemployment rate was doomed to keep heading up early in Reagan's first term because Carter so messed up our economy. Yes, the unemployment rate went up during Reagan's first two years but it was because of a problem he inherited.
But MSNBC's headline was Republicans flubbed history by blaming that on Carter. The truth (if you're interested!) is, it WAS Carter's doing!!! If Reagan's unemployment rate was not Carter's fault, why is MSNBC reluctant to blame Clinton for the recession Bush inherited? Why do the liberal media and liberals accept as fact that Obama blames Bush for the unemployment rate of the past three years? Bush caused the unemployment rate of the past three years but the unemployment rate under Reagan his first two years was his fault, not Carter's. Do you detect any hypocrisy or dishonesty in that?
When you took classes in high school or college did you ever get a fact incorrect or did you always get 100% on all your tests and homework? Did you even tell a boss something that turned out not to be correct?
Take their criticism of Romney. They make a big deal of a couple of errors he made and then very quietly (brief simple statement) mentioned that he corrected them but the headline is he FLUBBED HISTORY.
Take their criticism of Gingrich. When Gingrich was talking about Carter's presidency, Gingrich said Carter gave us an 10.8% unemployment rate. MSNBC has a field day with that reminding us that the unemployment rate Ginrich mentioned didn't happen until two years after Carter left office, under Reagan.
So Gingrich is wrong and MSNBC had another opportunity to say Reagan was bad ... he caused the 10.8% unemployment rate? We have to give MSNBC credit for then agreeing with Gingrich by explaining the facts: "Most economists attribute the jobless increase to a sharp rise in interest rates engineered by then-Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker in an ultimately successful effort to choke off inflation. Unemployment began to fall in 1983 and dropped to 7.2 percent in November 1984, when Reagan easily won re-election."
The inflation that Reagan inherited(!) was caused by Carter's economic and monetary policies. For those of you who weren't alive or don't remember, the inflation rate was killing our economy. The prime interest rate rose to a staggering and record(!) 21.5%. What is it now, 0.5%? Can you imagine what it was like to try to buy something at a 25-30% lending interest rate? Fixing that problem happens to result in an increase in unemployment. It just does by the nature of the required fixes. The unemployment rate was doomed to keep heading up early in Reagan's first term because Carter so messed up our economy. Yes, the unemployment rate went up during Reagan's first two years but it was because of a problem he inherited.
But MSNBC's headline was Republicans flubbed history by blaming that on Carter. The truth (if you're interested!) is, it WAS Carter's doing!!! If Reagan's unemployment rate was not Carter's fault, why is MSNBC reluctant to blame Clinton for the recession Bush inherited? Why do the liberal media and liberals accept as fact that Obama blames Bush for the unemployment rate of the past three years? Bush caused the unemployment rate of the past three years but the unemployment rate under Reagan his first two years was his fault, not Carter's. Do you detect any hypocrisy or dishonesty in that?
Thursday, January 19, 2012
A Limit Of 3 In-Class Bathroom Breaks In Each Teacher's Class Each Week Is A Problem Why?
Check this out:
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/19/10190991-teacher-limits-kids-bathroom-trips-3-per-week
The Media is of course opposing a 'limit' of 3 bathroom breaks per class per week because of a manufactured claim that it infringes on the rights and natural needs of kids. Let's see, for me that would have limited my bathroom breaks to about 8 to 10 opportunities to go to the bathroom every day. 4 different teachers/day x 3 = 12 per week. Plus the following every day(!): breaks between classes plus lunch break plus morning and afternoon recesses plus going to the bathroom before schools starts and right after school is over.
Good Lord! Why isn't that enough? I'm sure that any reasonable teacher would honor a parent's request for special consideration (for even more due to medical/emotional needs). Every teacher knows how students will try to game the system and get out of class at every opportunity. Every teach knows how some students use bathroom breaks they don't really need to manipulate teachers/schools if for no other reason than it's fun to tweak adults and 'the system'.
I rarely ... RARELY ... needed to leave class to go to the bathroom all during my K-12 education. Having the ability to do that about twice per day (approx 4 different teachers x 3 times each per week equals 2 to 3 breaks during classes every day) seems not only fair but generous to me.
One of our growing problems is excessive(!) permissiveness with kids. They NEED boundaries. Ask ANY child counsellor. Leave control over the classroom to the teachers!
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/19/10190991-teacher-limits-kids-bathroom-trips-3-per-week
The Media is of course opposing a 'limit' of 3 bathroom breaks per class per week because of a manufactured claim that it infringes on the rights and natural needs of kids. Let's see, for me that would have limited my bathroom breaks to about 8 to 10 opportunities to go to the bathroom every day. 4 different teachers/day x 3 = 12 per week. Plus the following every day(!): breaks between classes plus lunch break plus morning and afternoon recesses plus going to the bathroom before schools starts and right after school is over.
Good Lord! Why isn't that enough? I'm sure that any reasonable teacher would honor a parent's request for special consideration (for even more due to medical/emotional needs). Every teacher knows how students will try to game the system and get out of class at every opportunity. Every teach knows how some students use bathroom breaks they don't really need to manipulate teachers/schools if for no other reason than it's fun to tweak adults and 'the system'.
I rarely ... RARELY ... needed to leave class to go to the bathroom all during my K-12 education. Having the ability to do that about twice per day (approx 4 different teachers x 3 times each per week equals 2 to 3 breaks during classes every day) seems not only fair but generous to me.
One of our growing problems is excessive(!) permissiveness with kids. They NEED boundaries. Ask ANY child counsellor. Leave control over the classroom to the teachers!
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
A Welfare State At What Cost?
Here's a link that's very relevant to the root cause of all the red ink we have nationally and I'll introduce it with a quote from it: "Democrats are in charge of 35 of the 40 chambers in states
with the 20 largest deficits, including control of both the Senate and
House in 17 of these 20 states". There's no way to interpret this than the more Democrat-controlled the state is the greater the debt problems are. This illustrates a major flaw in their welfare state type governance.
http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/smartpolitics/2009/03/democraticcontrolled_legislatu.php
The article examines data before and after the last election and compares the relationship before and after the 2008 election, ie before and after the economic collapse. The only difference is that after the 2008 election the states that went more Republican are on firmer gound today and those still controlled by Democrats are still in as much trouble as before.
Republican policies, including Bush's(!), did not cause their debt troubles. (Whatever Bush did that you disagree with affected states more or less equally so this big difference between states is not his doing.) Guess which party's policies did cause these debt problems? Hello!?!? Guess which party's policies are getting states out of trouble that were in trouble after the 2008 elections? Hello!?!?
By the way, very liberal, highly progressive MSNBC just published an article describing which states still have big debt problems. Why do you suppose it is that they didn't mention the above correlation? Do you think they would have if the data showed it was Republican states in the biggest trouble? ;-) Here's their article:
http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/11/10126535-nevada-illinois-among-states-that-cant-pay-their-bills
As I said in a recent post below, you can't make up stuff that's more laughable than this. Trouble is, the joke's on the citizens of those states and, unfortunately, on the rest of us whose state leadership have been more fiscally responsible because we will continue paying a price for bad governance in troubled states until they get their budgets balanced.
http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/smartpolitics/2009/03/democraticcontrolled_legislatu.php
The article examines data before and after the last election and compares the relationship before and after the 2008 election, ie before and after the economic collapse. The only difference is that after the 2008 election the states that went more Republican are on firmer gound today and those still controlled by Democrats are still in as much trouble as before.
Republican policies, including Bush's(!), did not cause their debt troubles. (Whatever Bush did that you disagree with affected states more or less equally so this big difference between states is not his doing.) Guess which party's policies did cause these debt problems? Hello!?!? Guess which party's policies are getting states out of trouble that were in trouble after the 2008 elections? Hello!?!?
By the way, very liberal, highly progressive MSNBC just published an article describing which states still have big debt problems. Why do you suppose it is that they didn't mention the above correlation? Do you think they would have if the data showed it was Republican states in the biggest trouble? ;-) Here's their article:
http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/11/10126535-nevada-illinois-among-states-that-cant-pay-their-bills
As I said in a recent post below, you can't make up stuff that's more laughable than this. Trouble is, the joke's on the citizens of those states and, unfortunately, on the rest of us whose state leadership have been more fiscally responsible because we will continue paying a price for bad governance in troubled states until they get their budgets balanced.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
The Media's Bias Is Showing Again
When I first checked on national issues yesterday morning one thing was prominent in The Media: how dare the Republicans schedule a president candidate debate on MLK Day and hinting (of course!) that it demonstrates how racist they are for doing that!
All those comments disappeared a couple hours later and I just found out it was because they were reminded that Democrats conducted a president candidate debate on MLK day in the previous presidential campaign. If Democrats do it, it's automatically ok. If Republicans do it it's automatically bad because, y'know, they're Republicans. You can't make this stuff up folks ... it's hilarious.
All those comments disappeared a couple hours later and I just found out it was because they were reminded that Democrats conducted a president candidate debate on MLK day in the previous presidential campaign. If Democrats do it, it's automatically ok. If Republicans do it it's automatically bad because, y'know, they're Republicans. You can't make this stuff up folks ... it's hilarious.
Monday, January 16, 2012
Martin Luther King And Our Founding Documents
It's becoming popular for people, including African Americans, to make a point of MLK's imperfections as a person. Of course it's useful to understand the person as well as his accomplishments but let's remember what he stood for. He was human but his message is good and right.
It has become 'popular' to call MLK's movement as one seeking "social justice" and that, in order to honor, respect and preserve what he started we should therefore extend his "fight for social justice". Unfortunately, that's a dishonest hijacking of his values for modern political correctness purposes.
In fact, Dr. King was a Christian first and his movement was "faith-based". What he pushed for was not secular, rather Christian. Judgement based on moral character was a pre-eminent need to him. To him, the expansion of and dependency on a welfare state would represent a failure of society, including African Americans who seem to have no problem with their increasing dependency resulting largely from a willingness to be okay with it. To Dr. King, this trend would no doubt represent a significant decrease in self-respect, a diminished will to succeed on one's own merit ... by choice more than by circumstances. Accepting the role of victim would be reviled by Dr. King.
Dr. King saw the original principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as foundational to economic and social freedom for all. He said(!), his dream was one "deeply rooted in the American dream" embedded in "the magnificent(!) words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence". He said as much many different times in many different ways but he believed it to be true. How one can say he didn't respect or love the principles(!) of those documents defies logic. To say he must not have really understood them is an ignorant thing to say about this man who studied philosophers and old cultures. He understood the value of those documents as unique(!) counterpoints to historical evils.
The greatest surviving highly politically correct claim is that those documents are racist in nature. Dr. King certainly didn't think so. Doesn't that matter? In fact, the most often repeated example is nothing but PC nonsense and twisting of historical truth for purely political purposes.
Yes, the Constitution made Blacks three fifths of a person ... for apportionment sake ... but one has to take it totally out of context to conclude it was racist in a negative sense. Southerners, a large Democratic(!) block of states in those days ("Dixiecrats"), wanted to preserve slavery and wanted to institutionalize it in the Constitution by counting slaves as whole persons for enumeration purposes but still not giving Blacks the right to vote. Being able to count slaves as whole persons without giving them the right to vote would have given Southern Democrats the POWER in congress to fight AGAINST freedom for slaves. The slaves wouldn't have gotten ANY more power by being counted as whole persons, only racist(!) Southern politicians would have been the benefactors!!!
The constitution convention delegates were faced with this dilemma. Either yield to Southern states and give them the power to resist freedom for slaves (by giving them enumeration numbers sufficient to do so, free of voting opposition by slaves) OR say no in which case the Southern states were prepared to remain separate from the United States. The former choice would, at a minimum delay freedom for slaves if not render it impossible and the latter would probably enshrine slavery as a fact of life in whatever country The South decided to create separate from the USA. Either way(!), southern slaves (minorities in general) would have been big losers if NOT for the three-fifths rule.
Then someone decided to try a compromise: count Blacks as three-fifths of a person. The southern states agreed to that because they thought they could still resist freedom for slaves (rights, voting, etc) while deriving the benefits from being part of a larger federation of states. What that three-fifths rule did was PRESERVE the ability of the Constitution's principles to migrate our laws to provide rights to minorities. Indeed, that the three-fifths law was eliminated is proof that the three-fifths approach worked. That would NOT have been possible if slaves had been counted as whole persons for enumeration sake without the ability to vote OR if the southern states had chosen to separate from the USA. If today's PC crowd had its way, slaves would have been counted as whole persons which probably would have led to the institutionalization of slavery in the South. Counting them as three-fifths of a person gave us the opportunity to overcome that detestable practice over time.
The Constitution, therefore, was ANTI-RACIST because the three-fifths compromise preserved the union in way that allowed us to eventually eliminate slavery in the South and give minorities all the rights that the Constitution promised. Without the three-fifths rule, the South would be far less free than it is today.
As far as Democrats being the historical fighters for minorities rights, that's complete nonsense. For nearly 200 years Democrats or those who were to become Democrats fought strongly for slavery and no rights for Blacks. In fact, they opposed most civil rights legislation until the 1940's. Too few people remember or know, for example, that it was Democrats who fought AGAINST the Civil Rights Act the strongest by a margin of 2 to 1 over Republicans. As recently as 50 years ago it was Democrats who outright fought for(!) segregation the most by far.
Don't believe the revisionist history of the PC left. MLK's movement was a faith-based movement for equal rights. He was a strong believer in "natural rights", ie, God-given rights, which was the basis for the way our founders constructed both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. MLK loved the principles of the Constitution. The Constitution that MLK loved was and is NOT a racist document, rather it held the Union together (for the benefit of southern slaves) and set us on a trajectory to eliminate discrimination. Yes, we're not done getting rid of it even yet but we're still headed in the right direction.
In case you're thinking I have no clue what was going on regarding MLK's movement and my opinions are therefore invalid, I lived in the Biloxi Mississippi area in 1964/1965. Those of you who might criticize me but didn't experience real racism in that place/time may want to consider I just might have a better perspective. Even though I am a conservative.
By the way, you might find the following links interesting backup for my comments above. They don't talk about Democrat opposition to the CRA (Civil Rights Act) but that's a matter of public record easily found on the internet.
http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2011/01/a-dream-not-an-illusion
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/08/30/martin-luther-king-holds-these-truths/
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2006/01/martin-luther-kings-conservative-legacy
http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/the-conservative-virtues-of-dr-martin-luther-king
It has become 'popular' to call MLK's movement as one seeking "social justice" and that, in order to honor, respect and preserve what he started we should therefore extend his "fight for social justice". Unfortunately, that's a dishonest hijacking of his values for modern political correctness purposes.
In fact, Dr. King was a Christian first and his movement was "faith-based". What he pushed for was not secular, rather Christian. Judgement based on moral character was a pre-eminent need to him. To him, the expansion of and dependency on a welfare state would represent a failure of society, including African Americans who seem to have no problem with their increasing dependency resulting largely from a willingness to be okay with it. To Dr. King, this trend would no doubt represent a significant decrease in self-respect, a diminished will to succeed on one's own merit ... by choice more than by circumstances. Accepting the role of victim would be reviled by Dr. King.
Dr. King saw the original principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as foundational to economic and social freedom for all. He said(!), his dream was one "deeply rooted in the American dream" embedded in "the magnificent(!) words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence". He said as much many different times in many different ways but he believed it to be true. How one can say he didn't respect or love the principles(!) of those documents defies logic. To say he must not have really understood them is an ignorant thing to say about this man who studied philosophers and old cultures. He understood the value of those documents as unique(!) counterpoints to historical evils.
The greatest surviving highly politically correct claim is that those documents are racist in nature. Dr. King certainly didn't think so. Doesn't that matter? In fact, the most often repeated example is nothing but PC nonsense and twisting of historical truth for purely political purposes.
Yes, the Constitution made Blacks three fifths of a person ... for apportionment sake ... but one has to take it totally out of context to conclude it was racist in a negative sense. Southerners, a large Democratic(!) block of states in those days ("Dixiecrats"), wanted to preserve slavery and wanted to institutionalize it in the Constitution by counting slaves as whole persons for enumeration purposes but still not giving Blacks the right to vote. Being able to count slaves as whole persons without giving them the right to vote would have given Southern Democrats the POWER in congress to fight AGAINST freedom for slaves. The slaves wouldn't have gotten ANY more power by being counted as whole persons, only racist(!) Southern politicians would have been the benefactors!!!
The constitution convention delegates were faced with this dilemma. Either yield to Southern states and give them the power to resist freedom for slaves (by giving them enumeration numbers sufficient to do so, free of voting opposition by slaves) OR say no in which case the Southern states were prepared to remain separate from the United States. The former choice would, at a minimum delay freedom for slaves if not render it impossible and the latter would probably enshrine slavery as a fact of life in whatever country The South decided to create separate from the USA. Either way(!), southern slaves (minorities in general) would have been big losers if NOT for the three-fifths rule.
Then someone decided to try a compromise: count Blacks as three-fifths of a person. The southern states agreed to that because they thought they could still resist freedom for slaves (rights, voting, etc) while deriving the benefits from being part of a larger federation of states. What that three-fifths rule did was PRESERVE the ability of the Constitution's principles to migrate our laws to provide rights to minorities. Indeed, that the three-fifths law was eliminated is proof that the three-fifths approach worked. That would NOT have been possible if slaves had been counted as whole persons for enumeration sake without the ability to vote OR if the southern states had chosen to separate from the USA. If today's PC crowd had its way, slaves would have been counted as whole persons which probably would have led to the institutionalization of slavery in the South. Counting them as three-fifths of a person gave us the opportunity to overcome that detestable practice over time.
The Constitution, therefore, was ANTI-RACIST because the three-fifths compromise preserved the union in way that allowed us to eventually eliminate slavery in the South and give minorities all the rights that the Constitution promised. Without the three-fifths rule, the South would be far less free than it is today.
As far as Democrats being the historical fighters for minorities rights, that's complete nonsense. For nearly 200 years Democrats or those who were to become Democrats fought strongly for slavery and no rights for Blacks. In fact, they opposed most civil rights legislation until the 1940's. Too few people remember or know, for example, that it was Democrats who fought AGAINST the Civil Rights Act the strongest by a margin of 2 to 1 over Republicans. As recently as 50 years ago it was Democrats who outright fought for(!) segregation the most by far.
Don't believe the revisionist history of the PC left. MLK's movement was a faith-based movement for equal rights. He was a strong believer in "natural rights", ie, God-given rights, which was the basis for the way our founders constructed both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. MLK loved the principles of the Constitution. The Constitution that MLK loved was and is NOT a racist document, rather it held the Union together (for the benefit of southern slaves) and set us on a trajectory to eliminate discrimination. Yes, we're not done getting rid of it even yet but we're still headed in the right direction.
In case you're thinking I have no clue what was going on regarding MLK's movement and my opinions are therefore invalid, I lived in the Biloxi Mississippi area in 1964/1965. Those of you who might criticize me but didn't experience real racism in that place/time may want to consider I just might have a better perspective. Even though I am a conservative.
By the way, you might find the following links interesting backup for my comments above. They don't talk about Democrat opposition to the CRA (Civil Rights Act) but that's a matter of public record easily found on the internet.
http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2011/01/a-dream-not-an-illusion
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/08/30/martin-luther-king-holds-these-truths/
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2006/01/martin-luther-kings-conservative-legacy
http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/the-conservative-virtues-of-dr-martin-luther-king
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)