Don’t go away, it’s time to play……….THE BLAME GAME!!!!!
Charges are beginning to fly of police neglect in the brutal beating death of Chicago Fenger High School honor student Derrion Albert. Folks in the embattled neighborhood are once again looking for someone, anyone, to blame for the senseless, savage beating that snuffed out the promising young life of the 16 year old innocent bystander. Anyone but the members of the community that is. Parents of other Fenger students are now blaming the tried and true scapegoat Chicago Police Department as being culpable for this gangland beat down. Others are blaming the Board of Education for changing teachers at the school.
The fatal beating occurred after school on Thursday. That same morning before classes commenced a Fenger student fired a shot at another student. Parents are claiming that because of that incident police should have known that there would be trouble after school. On the surface their reasoning seems sound. The only problem is that shots are fired on a regular basis in the neighborhood and gang fights are even more common between kids from the Altgeld Garden housing project and kids from the small area of the Chicago Roseland neighborhood known as the Ville where Fenger High School is located.
The Altgeld Garden kids are viewed as the outsiders and are frequent targets of neighborhood gang violence. It is the class A typical street gang mentality of protecting their turf against the dreaded foreign invaders from Altgeld. It is also class A stupid.
While community activists begin their campaign of news conferences to complain about the police, Chicago police detectives continue to be frustrated by the neighborhoods “Code of Silence” in their efforts to arrest all those responsible for the homicide. Four teenaged gangbangers have been arrested and charged with murder having been identified by a video of the beating from a cell phone of one of the more than 20 witnesses that stood by and watched. Police have made several appeals through the press and going door to door for additional information, but to no avail. They are currently working with the FBI to enhance the poor quality video in an attempt to identify more of those involved.
Switching blame to the police has become the standard operating procedure in these all too common and all too tragic gang related murders. The police have once again stated their commitment to uphold the peace, what little of it there is, but the community has to be a partner in that effort.
The gang activity in these neighborhoods is not only tolerated but in many ways celebrated. Gang membership has become a rite of passage and is all too often passed down from parent to child. Parental involvement has to begin long before the teary eyed news conference asking for information about a poor kid’s death. In the case of Derrion Albert, his parents led him away from gang activity and onto the honor roll at school. Unfortunately other parents did not do the same with their children.
Like the young teenager who fired a shot that morning at school. He didn’t buy that gun on his way to school. It came with him from home. And the young gang members responsible for Derrion’s death. They didn’t join a violent street gang that day. This violence has been going in this neighborhood for years. When police step up patrols and arrests the community lashes out with claims of racism and profiling. Good, promising young kids like Derrion die because the community accepts the violence as a way of life.
The Chicago Board of Education targeted Fenger this year as a “turnaround” school, firing ineffective teachers and increasing resources. The Chicago Police joined in with increased patrols and made the area a high priority for gang crime enforcement. But without an equal partner in the community all the money and all the increased patrols are for naught.
Instead of holding news conferences community activists need to get active in the community breaking the never ending cycle of gang violence and community apathy. It’s time to step up and start taking responsibility.
It will start with coming forward and identifying those responsible for Derrion’s murder.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Better Living Through Capitalism
It’s not that important to know how a drug works. It is far more important to know how drug companies work.
I had a conversation last week with a fellow I consider to be a fairly bright guy. He commented on the absurdity of the proposed ObamaCare package. He seemed to have a pretty good grasp on how government intervention into the medical system would negatively affect his ability to make his own medical choices and had no problem understanding the disastrous impact an additional trillion dollars in government spending would have on our already shaky economy. But then when all was said and done he made a most puzzling comment. He said “But the government really needs to do something about the cost of medicine.” When I asked him to explain he said “Well, medicine is too expensive and the government needs to do something about the cost.”
How very strange I thought. Here is a guy who is in business. He understands how businesses work. The last thing he would want is for the government to control or mandate what he was allowed to make on his products and services. Why, when it comes to drug companies, does he think it works any different?
We live in a remarkable time of unparalleled advances in just about every area of our lives. Advancements in technology have brought about remarkable breakthroughs in medicine and medical treatment. In the past decade alone we have witnessed the introduction of life-altering drugs for just about every disease known to man. The question one needs to ask is, were the pharmaceutical companies motivated to develop these new wonder-drugs for the purpose of being altruistic or were they motivated by the potential financial returns? The answer seems clear to me. We enjoy the lifesaving and life-improving qualities of these innovative medications because somebody took the risk of a huge capital investment in the hope of a successful outcome and making a buck in the end. Drug makers are publicly traded companies and have the same fiduciary responsibilities to their share holders as any other. They take great risk for the opportunity at great reward. The system that drives companies to make these new discoveries is capitalism at its finest.
Instead of looking at these corporate profits as a bad thing we should be applauding their success. Every dollar they make equates to lives saved or improved and enhances their ability to reinvest in further advancements. It is perhaps the routine success of new drug therapies that has jaded the American public into believing that we are somehow now deserving of the benefits garnered by years of trials and billions of dollars R & D. What once was viewed with gratitude has become an expectation.
We have lost our sense of astonishment and developed an attitude of self-entitlement. Medical treatments that would have been unthinkable only a few years ago are not only possible today but commonplace. So much so that we forget it not only requires enormous amounts of capital to get a new drug onto the market but that it takes just as much to have a new drug fail the trials and go nowhere. Billions of dollars are spent in developing and testing new drugs before anybody knows if the investment will pay off. The only possible motivation for such risky investments is the opportunity to recoup the investment on the failed drug trials with the profits from the successful ones. Unlike government drug companies use their own money and also unlike government deficits have to be repaid.
A drug company is only as good as their next success and to limit their return on investment would do nothing but stifle research and bring the almost daily breakthroughs of mind-boggling medical advancements to a screeching halt. As I told my friend during that recent conversation “If you think the price is too high, don’t take the pill.”
I’ve seen what the government can do when it gets involved in business. The last thing I want is a “Cash for Cardiac’s” program or a “Dollars for Diarrhea” rebate plan.
And just how do these wonder-drugs work?
They work just fine.
I had a conversation last week with a fellow I consider to be a fairly bright guy. He commented on the absurdity of the proposed ObamaCare package. He seemed to have a pretty good grasp on how government intervention into the medical system would negatively affect his ability to make his own medical choices and had no problem understanding the disastrous impact an additional trillion dollars in government spending would have on our already shaky economy. But then when all was said and done he made a most puzzling comment. He said “But the government really needs to do something about the cost of medicine.” When I asked him to explain he said “Well, medicine is too expensive and the government needs to do something about the cost.”
How very strange I thought. Here is a guy who is in business. He understands how businesses work. The last thing he would want is for the government to control or mandate what he was allowed to make on his products and services. Why, when it comes to drug companies, does he think it works any different?
We live in a remarkable time of unparalleled advances in just about every area of our lives. Advancements in technology have brought about remarkable breakthroughs in medicine and medical treatment. In the past decade alone we have witnessed the introduction of life-altering drugs for just about every disease known to man. The question one needs to ask is, were the pharmaceutical companies motivated to develop these new wonder-drugs for the purpose of being altruistic or were they motivated by the potential financial returns? The answer seems clear to me. We enjoy the lifesaving and life-improving qualities of these innovative medications because somebody took the risk of a huge capital investment in the hope of a successful outcome and making a buck in the end. Drug makers are publicly traded companies and have the same fiduciary responsibilities to their share holders as any other. They take great risk for the opportunity at great reward. The system that drives companies to make these new discoveries is capitalism at its finest.
Instead of looking at these corporate profits as a bad thing we should be applauding their success. Every dollar they make equates to lives saved or improved and enhances their ability to reinvest in further advancements. It is perhaps the routine success of new drug therapies that has jaded the American public into believing that we are somehow now deserving of the benefits garnered by years of trials and billions of dollars R & D. What once was viewed with gratitude has become an expectation.
We have lost our sense of astonishment and developed an attitude of self-entitlement. Medical treatments that would have been unthinkable only a few years ago are not only possible today but commonplace. So much so that we forget it not only requires enormous amounts of capital to get a new drug onto the market but that it takes just as much to have a new drug fail the trials and go nowhere. Billions of dollars are spent in developing and testing new drugs before anybody knows if the investment will pay off. The only possible motivation for such risky investments is the opportunity to recoup the investment on the failed drug trials with the profits from the successful ones. Unlike government drug companies use their own money and also unlike government deficits have to be repaid.
A drug company is only as good as their next success and to limit their return on investment would do nothing but stifle research and bring the almost daily breakthroughs of mind-boggling medical advancements to a screeching halt. As I told my friend during that recent conversation “If you think the price is too high, don’t take the pill.”
I’ve seen what the government can do when it gets involved in business. The last thing I want is a “Cash for Cardiac’s” program or a “Dollars for Diarrhea” rebate plan.
And just how do these wonder-drugs work?
They work just fine.
Monday, September 28, 2009
More Lynching's
There were several lynching’s in Chicago this weekend.
Well they may as well have been lynching’s as far as the poor victims are concerned. They’re just as dead.
It was another vivid example of what young blacks face in this country. These lynching’s were carried out without the use of rope or a tree, not by an angry group of white supremacists. They were committed by other young blacks, most of them in their teens. It was a rampage of violence carried out up close and personal. In the first there were no guns, no knives, just hands, feet and two by fours. In the end 16 year old Darrion Albert lie dead on the ground, having been savagely beaten. A beating that will likely be gracing the web site You Tube soon as it was caught on the video recorder of a witness’s cell phone, a common practice these days amongst black teens at gang fights. The beating occurred just outside Fenger High School where young Darrion was an honor roll student. It was part of a larger gang related melee between two rival gangs. Darrion just happened to be in the wrong place at the time as he was not a gang member.
Several other young black teens will not get to see their next birthday either, due to black on black gang violence. Some of the victims were in gangs but several more were not. One was a college student who had just returned home to pick up some additional clothes. As he stood on his front steps talking with a neighborhood friend a teenage gang banger walked up and shot both of them to death. There will be those that will foolishly focus on the gun rather than the hand that carried it, pointed it and pulled the trigger.
Once again just being young and black is enough to get you killed in the hood.
There were small rallies and 10 or 15 person marches protesting the senseless violence. News cameras recorded the tear filled faces of friends and families of the dead with local church pastors and neighbors trying to console them. But in Chicago, just like every other major city and smaller community nationwide, black on black crime is so commonplace that these tragic stories of death and family destruction will not garner a second day of newsprint. Not that they’re not important. It’s just that tomorrow there will be a whole new list of young blacks lynched without ropes by other young blacks.
But what do we hear from the black politicians? We hear that the problem in America is all about white racism. Newsweek’s recent cover story focused on the premise that white babies are actually racist. Blacks and liberal whites in Congress and the pundits that follow them claim that every dissenting vote against Barack Obama and every problem in the black community is caused by white racism. But the fear that grips the black community is not of racist white people. The fear that grips the black community is of the black community.
If whites had carried out these heinous killings the streets of the crime scenes would be jammed with news trucks and satellite dishes. The good Reverend JJ and his counterpart Jheri Curl Al would be ranting about how this was an example of the years of racist oppression. But Sharpton and Jackson didn’t attend the small rallies. Maybe their schedules were already filled or maybe they feared for their own safety on these mean streets. Or maybe their attendance at a rally against black on black violence wouldn’t support their rhetoric or lifestyle.
It’s a lot easier to blame white racism, especially when whites are willing to go along with the idea. But this constant drumbeat of racism does nothing to solve the real problem. In fact it just makes it worse.
16 year old Darrion Albert and the others from this past weekend are dead just because they were young and black. There were no ropes, no trees, no white hoods, no burning crosses, no swastikas, no discussion of hate crimes, no shaved heads, not a white face in the bunch except for the police trying to solve the crime.
No Racism. Just dead black kids and weeping black parents.
Well they may as well have been lynching’s as far as the poor victims are concerned. They’re just as dead.
It was another vivid example of what young blacks face in this country. These lynching’s were carried out without the use of rope or a tree, not by an angry group of white supremacists. They were committed by other young blacks, most of them in their teens. It was a rampage of violence carried out up close and personal. In the first there were no guns, no knives, just hands, feet and two by fours. In the end 16 year old Darrion Albert lie dead on the ground, having been savagely beaten. A beating that will likely be gracing the web site You Tube soon as it was caught on the video recorder of a witness’s cell phone, a common practice these days amongst black teens at gang fights. The beating occurred just outside Fenger High School where young Darrion was an honor roll student. It was part of a larger gang related melee between two rival gangs. Darrion just happened to be in the wrong place at the time as he was not a gang member.
Several other young black teens will not get to see their next birthday either, due to black on black gang violence. Some of the victims were in gangs but several more were not. One was a college student who had just returned home to pick up some additional clothes. As he stood on his front steps talking with a neighborhood friend a teenage gang banger walked up and shot both of them to death. There will be those that will foolishly focus on the gun rather than the hand that carried it, pointed it and pulled the trigger.
Once again just being young and black is enough to get you killed in the hood.
There were small rallies and 10 or 15 person marches protesting the senseless violence. News cameras recorded the tear filled faces of friends and families of the dead with local church pastors and neighbors trying to console them. But in Chicago, just like every other major city and smaller community nationwide, black on black crime is so commonplace that these tragic stories of death and family destruction will not garner a second day of newsprint. Not that they’re not important. It’s just that tomorrow there will be a whole new list of young blacks lynched without ropes by other young blacks.
But what do we hear from the black politicians? We hear that the problem in America is all about white racism. Newsweek’s recent cover story focused on the premise that white babies are actually racist. Blacks and liberal whites in Congress and the pundits that follow them claim that every dissenting vote against Barack Obama and every problem in the black community is caused by white racism. But the fear that grips the black community is not of racist white people. The fear that grips the black community is of the black community.
If whites had carried out these heinous killings the streets of the crime scenes would be jammed with news trucks and satellite dishes. The good Reverend JJ and his counterpart Jheri Curl Al would be ranting about how this was an example of the years of racist oppression. But Sharpton and Jackson didn’t attend the small rallies. Maybe their schedules were already filled or maybe they feared for their own safety on these mean streets. Or maybe their attendance at a rally against black on black violence wouldn’t support their rhetoric or lifestyle.
It’s a lot easier to blame white racism, especially when whites are willing to go along with the idea. But this constant drumbeat of racism does nothing to solve the real problem. In fact it just makes it worse.
16 year old Darrion Albert and the others from this past weekend are dead just because they were young and black. There were no ropes, no trees, no white hoods, no burning crosses, no swastikas, no discussion of hate crimes, no shaved heads, not a white face in the bunch except for the police trying to solve the crime.
No Racism. Just dead black kids and weeping black parents.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Nuts
Some events are just a complete waste of clean underwear.
Such is the case most days in the hallowed hall of peace and freedom known as the United Nations, but never was it more apparent to even a casual observer than the session held on Wednesday of this week.
To comprehend all of the money spent and time and attention paid to carry on the insultingly inane soap box rants of this completely feckless organization is to understand how utterly clueless we have become in the area of international diplomacy. Billions upon billions of dollars are spent on and channeled through this corrupt collection of professional speechmakers every year under the guise of world peace and international harmony, when in fact the only function this august body serves is to offer a prominent podium to deceitful third world dictators to vent their often psychotic and eminently paranoid view of the evil United States of America.
What may well have started off as a means to fulfill the dream of international unity has been denigrated into a hopeless parade of despotic autocrats who rage in a singular voice of the malevolent character of the United States while shaking their tin cup in hopes of garnering increased financial support for their junta dictatorships.
The only practical purpose served by this organization is to caste the harsh light of reality on just how useless it is to even attempt to carry out any form of meaningful negotiation with these ruthless mental midgets. The U.N. provides a forum of implied legitimacy for accusations so outrageous as to be completely beyond comprehension to the point that if the accusers were standing on the street professing similar manifesto’s they would likely be whisked away to a secure mental ward for psychiatric observation.
It is the U.N. podium where Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez said he could still smell the sulfur of hell a day after President Bush addressed the assembly. It was the U.N. podium where Iran’s puppet president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad repeatedly denied the occurrence of the World War II holocaust and basically told the world to kiss his nuclear missile toting ass. It is the U.N. podium where a clearly insane Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, who in keeping with the circus atmosphere arrived in New York with his own big top tent, almost incoherently rambled for over 90 minutes on the evils of the United States, Israel, the planet as a whole and the assassination of John F. Kennedy, while defending the rights of the felonious pirates off the coast of Somalia claiming “These men are not pirates. We are the pirates. We are all pirates”. The only thing missing was an eye patch and a parrot and he would have been ready for October 31st.
The concept of international diplomacy may sound like a venerable idea, but when you realize that the person you are trying to negotiate with is nuttier than a jar of Jif you quickly come to understand that you may as well be talking to your shoe.
These are the leaders that Barack Obama said he would meet with without any preconditions. These are the sick minds that are desperate for something, anything, to give them at least the feigned appearance of legitimacy. These are the inmates that are running the asylum. And we are the ones who get to foot the bill for the lion’s share of it.
Whoever came up with the expression “Talk is cheap” has never seen the United Nations. It is beyond saving. There is no hope of ever turning this dysfunctional diplomatic cabal into anything altruistic or even meaningful. Any major issues will always be deadlocked by the self-interest of the major power players and the minor issues will remain eternally unresolved but continuously funded by the U.S. taxpayer. Breakthrough agreements are measured in how much the US will concede. Enforcement for the other parties of those agreements is nonexistent except as the topic for the next round of rambling speeches. It serves no useful purpose for the United States to even be a member of this asinine assembly much less play host and caretaker. The U.S. needs to resign and the U.N. needs to move to a more suitable location.
Maybe Libya. The U.N. has the clowns. Gadhafi has the tent.
Such is the case most days in the hallowed hall of peace and freedom known as the United Nations, but never was it more apparent to even a casual observer than the session held on Wednesday of this week.
To comprehend all of the money spent and time and attention paid to carry on the insultingly inane soap box rants of this completely feckless organization is to understand how utterly clueless we have become in the area of international diplomacy. Billions upon billions of dollars are spent on and channeled through this corrupt collection of professional speechmakers every year under the guise of world peace and international harmony, when in fact the only function this august body serves is to offer a prominent podium to deceitful third world dictators to vent their often psychotic and eminently paranoid view of the evil United States of America.
What may well have started off as a means to fulfill the dream of international unity has been denigrated into a hopeless parade of despotic autocrats who rage in a singular voice of the malevolent character of the United States while shaking their tin cup in hopes of garnering increased financial support for their junta dictatorships.
The only practical purpose served by this organization is to caste the harsh light of reality on just how useless it is to even attempt to carry out any form of meaningful negotiation with these ruthless mental midgets. The U.N. provides a forum of implied legitimacy for accusations so outrageous as to be completely beyond comprehension to the point that if the accusers were standing on the street professing similar manifesto’s they would likely be whisked away to a secure mental ward for psychiatric observation.
It is the U.N. podium where Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez said he could still smell the sulfur of hell a day after President Bush addressed the assembly. It was the U.N. podium where Iran’s puppet president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad repeatedly denied the occurrence of the World War II holocaust and basically told the world to kiss his nuclear missile toting ass. It is the U.N. podium where a clearly insane Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, who in keeping with the circus atmosphere arrived in New York with his own big top tent, almost incoherently rambled for over 90 minutes on the evils of the United States, Israel, the planet as a whole and the assassination of John F. Kennedy, while defending the rights of the felonious pirates off the coast of Somalia claiming “These men are not pirates. We are the pirates. We are all pirates”. The only thing missing was an eye patch and a parrot and he would have been ready for October 31st.
The concept of international diplomacy may sound like a venerable idea, but when you realize that the person you are trying to negotiate with is nuttier than a jar of Jif you quickly come to understand that you may as well be talking to your shoe.
These are the leaders that Barack Obama said he would meet with without any preconditions. These are the sick minds that are desperate for something, anything, to give them at least the feigned appearance of legitimacy. These are the inmates that are running the asylum. And we are the ones who get to foot the bill for the lion’s share of it.
Whoever came up with the expression “Talk is cheap” has never seen the United Nations. It is beyond saving. There is no hope of ever turning this dysfunctional diplomatic cabal into anything altruistic or even meaningful. Any major issues will always be deadlocked by the self-interest of the major power players and the minor issues will remain eternally unresolved but continuously funded by the U.S. taxpayer. Breakthrough agreements are measured in how much the US will concede. Enforcement for the other parties of those agreements is nonexistent except as the topic for the next round of rambling speeches. It serves no useful purpose for the United States to even be a member of this asinine assembly much less play host and caretaker. The U.S. needs to resign and the U.N. needs to move to a more suitable location.
Maybe Libya. The U.N. has the clowns. Gadhafi has the tent.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
The Good War
Where did all the good wars go?
Not all war is good. Some are nothing more than a sad and tragic waste of blood and treasure. But to say no war is good is to completely ignore human history. And to say a war, any war, is unwinnable by the greatest fighting forces known to man is to be completely ignorant of the true purpose of war.
Allow me to explain to those unclear on the concept. The purpose of waging war is to win and you win by inflicting more damage than you receive. It is absolutely no more complicated than that. As General George S. Patton so eloquently said “No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.” Patton understood that the object of waging war is not to simply wage war. The object is victory. A master military tactician General Patton put it most simply when he said “I am a soldier, I fight where I am told, and I win where I fight.”
Barack Hussein Obama campaigned for 2 years under the banner of redirecting American forces toward the good war in Afghanistan. Time and again he decried the war in Iraq as useless and unwinnable, but said the war in Afghanistan against Taliban fighters was of the utmost importance to America’s safety. He repeatedly stated that the war in Iraq had nothing to do with the 9-11 attacks, but victory in Afghanistan was essential to our national security. But now as Commander and Chief of the greatest fighting force in the world, well, he’s just not sure. If the commander has lost the will to win those who he commands are doomed to defeat.
Obama came into power with this war already underway. He handpicked his own guy in General Stanley McChrystal to reevaluate our strategy and report back with what is needed to win. McChrystal did exactly what he was requested to do and prepared a report clearly showing the need for more troops. Now Obama, in typical neophyte fashion, wants to reevaluate the reevaluation.
Along with being a military historian and master tactician General Patton understood the importance of removing the enemy’s will to fight. Obama’s vacillation does nothing but embolden our enemies. He spent years claiming just about every move the Bush administration made was being used as an enlistment tool for the Taliban and Al Qaida. From holding prisoners at Guantanamo Bay to increased night raids on terrorist houses in Iraq to the increased troop surge which eventually brought victory, each was described by this community activist qua terrorism expert as empowering our enemies. But the truth is that nothing, absolutely nothing, emboldens our enemies more than having the Commander and Chief of the greatest fighting force on the planet looking weak and confused.
The United States did not declare this war. It was declared upon us. We either decide to fight it now or it will be brought to us later. The truly sad conclusion is that Obama’s re-re-re-reevaluation is nothing more than partisan politics. War is seldom popular but is sometimes necessary. Aggression will always trump nonaggression. The comparisons of Afghanistan to Vietnam are flying and perhaps with good cause. A complete military victory in Vietnam was not only possible but was being achieved until the weak knees of a pacifist partisan Congress snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by removing both the funding and the will to win. Tens of thousands of South Vietnamese were killed after the American withdrawal and tens of thousands more fled for their lives. The numbers in Afghanistan will dwarf those in Vietnam and this enemy will not be satisfied with remaining within their own borders.
The stakes for America in Afghanistan are great. Our national security depends on our ultimate victory. To retreat without a decisive victory is to simply delay the inevitable. The Taliban and Al Qaida will not go away and emboldened by the defeat of America will become a force the likes of which they can only now dream of. Afghanistan is indeed ruled by tribal warlords who know only peace through strength. If America shows vulnerability or indecision we will be swept away by Taliban fighters and their supporters that abhor weakness.
Victory will not be easy, but it is mandatory.
Not all war is good. Some are nothing more than a sad and tragic waste of blood and treasure. But to say no war is good is to completely ignore human history. And to say a war, any war, is unwinnable by the greatest fighting forces known to man is to be completely ignorant of the true purpose of war.
Allow me to explain to those unclear on the concept. The purpose of waging war is to win and you win by inflicting more damage than you receive. It is absolutely no more complicated than that. As General George S. Patton so eloquently said “No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.” Patton understood that the object of waging war is not to simply wage war. The object is victory. A master military tactician General Patton put it most simply when he said “I am a soldier, I fight where I am told, and I win where I fight.”
Barack Hussein Obama campaigned for 2 years under the banner of redirecting American forces toward the good war in Afghanistan. Time and again he decried the war in Iraq as useless and unwinnable, but said the war in Afghanistan against Taliban fighters was of the utmost importance to America’s safety. He repeatedly stated that the war in Iraq had nothing to do with the 9-11 attacks, but victory in Afghanistan was essential to our national security. But now as Commander and Chief of the greatest fighting force in the world, well, he’s just not sure. If the commander has lost the will to win those who he commands are doomed to defeat.
Obama came into power with this war already underway. He handpicked his own guy in General Stanley McChrystal to reevaluate our strategy and report back with what is needed to win. McChrystal did exactly what he was requested to do and prepared a report clearly showing the need for more troops. Now Obama, in typical neophyte fashion, wants to reevaluate the reevaluation.
Along with being a military historian and master tactician General Patton understood the importance of removing the enemy’s will to fight. Obama’s vacillation does nothing but embolden our enemies. He spent years claiming just about every move the Bush administration made was being used as an enlistment tool for the Taliban and Al Qaida. From holding prisoners at Guantanamo Bay to increased night raids on terrorist houses in Iraq to the increased troop surge which eventually brought victory, each was described by this community activist qua terrorism expert as empowering our enemies. But the truth is that nothing, absolutely nothing, emboldens our enemies more than having the Commander and Chief of the greatest fighting force on the planet looking weak and confused.
The United States did not declare this war. It was declared upon us. We either decide to fight it now or it will be brought to us later. The truly sad conclusion is that Obama’s re-re-re-reevaluation is nothing more than partisan politics. War is seldom popular but is sometimes necessary. Aggression will always trump nonaggression. The comparisons of Afghanistan to Vietnam are flying and perhaps with good cause. A complete military victory in Vietnam was not only possible but was being achieved until the weak knees of a pacifist partisan Congress snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by removing both the funding and the will to win. Tens of thousands of South Vietnamese were killed after the American withdrawal and tens of thousands more fled for their lives. The numbers in Afghanistan will dwarf those in Vietnam and this enemy will not be satisfied with remaining within their own borders.
The stakes for America in Afghanistan are great. Our national security depends on our ultimate victory. To retreat without a decisive victory is to simply delay the inevitable. The Taliban and Al Qaida will not go away and emboldened by the defeat of America will become a force the likes of which they can only now dream of. Afghanistan is indeed ruled by tribal warlords who know only peace through strength. If America shows vulnerability or indecision we will be swept away by Taliban fighters and their supporters that abhor weakness.
Victory will not be easy, but it is mandatory.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Curious George
Before the loyal liberal readers of BigFrick.com get there undies in a big bundle and start sending hate mail, the title of this piece refers to George Stephanopoulos.
Why? What did you think?
I just completed a 6 day solo sojourn of a few thousand miles cross country in my environmentally friendly, planet saving Prius.
Actually, if I wanted to ride in a Prius I would have to lie down and allow them to build it around me, so I drove my far less socially acceptable but remarkably more comfortable “Big Black Cadillac” (so named by my grandson for his favorite mode of transport). I can’t even imagine making a trip any farther than the end of my driveway in one of those new internal combustion roller-skates, but that’s a story for another day.
I spent most of my driving time listening to the satellite radio where the political pundits on both sides of the spectrum both chided and bemoaned the recent appearances of the Messiah on the Sunday morning talk shows promoting yet another new sales pitch for ObamaCare. Obama made the circuit of 5 network talk shows omitting Fox News as the only one not worthy of his presence.
Most of the appearances went according to the script with the adoring hosts obligingly lobbing softball questions and Obama answering with equally soft-boiled replies. The one standout in this presidential media love-fest was his appearance on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos”. George was curious indeed and asked the President some fairly pointed questions about the proposed surtax to be assessed on anyone that doesn’t buy private insurance under ObamaCare and what Obama thought of Congress pulling federal financial support from the Obama administrations BFF’s at ACORN.
Liberal pundits are howling that in treating Obama to such pointed and negative questions George Stephanopoulos has lost his card-carrying liberal mind. Conservative pundits, like Rush Limbaugh, are passing the heated exchange off as nothing more than a ratings grab in an attempt to differentiate “This Week” from the other gaggle of talk shows Obama appeared on.
Obama’s replies to Stephanopoulos were terse and abrupt. Morphing himself into victim mode, Obama attempted to accuse the host of misusing the term tax as it related to the money the government would be charging taxpayers. When a well prepared Stephanopoulos pulled out a collegiate dictionary and read the definition of tax Obama amazingly tried to use that as his defense, claiming that the fact that GS was prepared with the definition meant he knew it wasn’t true. He went on with his blatant prevarication in professing he hadn’t even paid attention to the ACORN debacle as it was of little or no importance to him.
All of Obama’s replies sounded eerily like a previous Democrat President who attempted to debate what the definition of is is and asserted with equal adjuration the fact that Monica Lewinski was just a low level intern of no particular import.
While historically it has been proven to be unwise to disagree with the El Rushbo, I view Obama’s answers to be the reason for George’s harsh approach rather than a mere play at a ratings boon.
George Stephanopoulos was a senior political advisor and later Communications Director for then President Bill Clinton. In his book entitled “All Too Human, A Political Education” Stephanopoulos discusses how he poured his heart and soul into the campaign and defense of a man he truly believed in only to be let down. I think GS is adroit enough to see many of the same disingenuous qualities in Obama that he became so painfully aware of in Clinton.
Obama’s performance on ABC’s This Week, as well as the other Sunday network talk-a-thons, was filled with the same jackleg hyperbole as the contraband Cuban cigar smoking, blue dress staining, land deal swindler Stephanopoulos used to work for. It's obvious the scars of that soul-shaking disappointment run too deep to be soon forgotten. It doesn’t mean that Stephanopoulos is any less a liberal than his past would dictate, only that he has walked down that primrose path before and knows what the fertilizer smells like.
He’s also learned to avoid stepping in it.
Why? What did you think?
I just completed a 6 day solo sojourn of a few thousand miles cross country in my environmentally friendly, planet saving Prius.
Actually, if I wanted to ride in a Prius I would have to lie down and allow them to build it around me, so I drove my far less socially acceptable but remarkably more comfortable “Big Black Cadillac” (so named by my grandson for his favorite mode of transport). I can’t even imagine making a trip any farther than the end of my driveway in one of those new internal combustion roller-skates, but that’s a story for another day.
I spent most of my driving time listening to the satellite radio where the political pundits on both sides of the spectrum both chided and bemoaned the recent appearances of the Messiah on the Sunday morning talk shows promoting yet another new sales pitch for ObamaCare. Obama made the circuit of 5 network talk shows omitting Fox News as the only one not worthy of his presence.
Most of the appearances went according to the script with the adoring hosts obligingly lobbing softball questions and Obama answering with equally soft-boiled replies. The one standout in this presidential media love-fest was his appearance on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos”. George was curious indeed and asked the President some fairly pointed questions about the proposed surtax to be assessed on anyone that doesn’t buy private insurance under ObamaCare and what Obama thought of Congress pulling federal financial support from the Obama administrations BFF’s at ACORN.
Liberal pundits are howling that in treating Obama to such pointed and negative questions George Stephanopoulos has lost his card-carrying liberal mind. Conservative pundits, like Rush Limbaugh, are passing the heated exchange off as nothing more than a ratings grab in an attempt to differentiate “This Week” from the other gaggle of talk shows Obama appeared on.
Obama’s replies to Stephanopoulos were terse and abrupt. Morphing himself into victim mode, Obama attempted to accuse the host of misusing the term tax as it related to the money the government would be charging taxpayers. When a well prepared Stephanopoulos pulled out a collegiate dictionary and read the definition of tax Obama amazingly tried to use that as his defense, claiming that the fact that GS was prepared with the definition meant he knew it wasn’t true. He went on with his blatant prevarication in professing he hadn’t even paid attention to the ACORN debacle as it was of little or no importance to him.
All of Obama’s replies sounded eerily like a previous Democrat President who attempted to debate what the definition of is is and asserted with equal adjuration the fact that Monica Lewinski was just a low level intern of no particular import.
While historically it has been proven to be unwise to disagree with the El Rushbo, I view Obama’s answers to be the reason for George’s harsh approach rather than a mere play at a ratings boon.
George Stephanopoulos was a senior political advisor and later Communications Director for then President Bill Clinton. In his book entitled “All Too Human, A Political Education” Stephanopoulos discusses how he poured his heart and soul into the campaign and defense of a man he truly believed in only to be let down. I think GS is adroit enough to see many of the same disingenuous qualities in Obama that he became so painfully aware of in Clinton.
Obama’s performance on ABC’s This Week, as well as the other Sunday network talk-a-thons, was filled with the same jackleg hyperbole as the contraband Cuban cigar smoking, blue dress staining, land deal swindler Stephanopoulos used to work for. It's obvious the scars of that soul-shaking disappointment run too deep to be soon forgotten. It doesn’t mean that Stephanopoulos is any less a liberal than his past would dictate, only that he has walked down that primrose path before and knows what the fertilizer smells like.
He’s also learned to avoid stepping in it.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
America's Intervention
America, we’ve gathered your friends and family here to help with this intervention. It’s time you come to terms with the fact that……well……..you have a drinking problem.
No, I’m not talking about slamming back a few brewskies with the boys at the bar or guzzling down a box of cheap wine by imitation candlelight with some Ritz crackers and a can of aerosol cheese. I’m not even talking about enjoying the company of our old pals Johnny Walker, Jim Beam or Jack Daniels. What I’m talking about is why, we as a nation, have become incapable of carrying out our most mundane daily tasks without an overpriced cup of coffee or a three dollar bottle of water on our persistently parched person. It has become almost comical.
I can remember not long ago, if you got thirsty you went to the water fountain (or bubbler as we used to call them) and slurped down a few mouthfuls of semi-cool H2O and went about your day. Not anymore. Now folks are filling up their “hydration bottles” with pure filtered water so they can survive the 6 block car ride to Starbucks.
Even at the peak of the gasoline price hikes last summer people would complain about paying just under $5.00 per gallon for gas while they were sucking down a bottle of lightly lemon flavored water that cost the equivalent of $10.00 per gallon.
When did we get so thirsty, and why?
It wasn’t long ago that folks would invest a buck to drink a fancy bottle of Perrier sparkling French drinking water in a green glass bottle with a metal screw top cap. It was mostly for show as the stuff inside the bottle tasted like watered down soda water. But nowadays folks think nothing of coughing up 2 bucks plus for a bottle of plain drinking water in a paper-thin plastic bottle just so they don’t have to face the next 10 minutes without some form of rehydration. Oh sure the label on the bottle says it’s pure mountain spring water but the reality is the water came down from that mountain 100 years ago, was eventually siphoned through miles of pipeline into a bottling plant where it came out of the same water main that feeds your garden hose.
Everywhere I look I see people with some form of beverage in their hand. Driving the car, shopping for groceries, in the mall, riding a bike, walking down the street, at work, in school, even at church. There are Bedouin spice traders that travel hundreds of miles of sand dunes on camelback that carry less potable liquid than most Americans on their way to the store.
My local grocery store has an entire aisle dedicated to various forms of drinking water. It also has a Starbucks right in the store so shoppers can sip their latte whilst choosing their bottle of water. I watched as a family of 5 strolled the aisle trying to come to a consensus on what water everybody preferred. Mom had her Starbucks, Dad had a reusable drinking bottle and the 3 kids each had a juice box. Am I missing something here? Was there some sort of nuclear attack and nobody told me?
I salute the marketing geniuses that were able to convince Americans to buy tap water for $10 per gallon and spend the better part of their day either drinking it or waiting in line for the restroom. I wonder if they worked for a water company or the American Urologist Association.
No wonder the Depends take up the next full aisle.
No, I’m not talking about slamming back a few brewskies with the boys at the bar or guzzling down a box of cheap wine by imitation candlelight with some Ritz crackers and a can of aerosol cheese. I’m not even talking about enjoying the company of our old pals Johnny Walker, Jim Beam or Jack Daniels. What I’m talking about is why, we as a nation, have become incapable of carrying out our most mundane daily tasks without an overpriced cup of coffee or a three dollar bottle of water on our persistently parched person. It has become almost comical.
I can remember not long ago, if you got thirsty you went to the water fountain (or bubbler as we used to call them) and slurped down a few mouthfuls of semi-cool H2O and went about your day. Not anymore. Now folks are filling up their “hydration bottles” with pure filtered water so they can survive the 6 block car ride to Starbucks.
Even at the peak of the gasoline price hikes last summer people would complain about paying just under $5.00 per gallon for gas while they were sucking down a bottle of lightly lemon flavored water that cost the equivalent of $10.00 per gallon.
When did we get so thirsty, and why?
It wasn’t long ago that folks would invest a buck to drink a fancy bottle of Perrier sparkling French drinking water in a green glass bottle with a metal screw top cap. It was mostly for show as the stuff inside the bottle tasted like watered down soda water. But nowadays folks think nothing of coughing up 2 bucks plus for a bottle of plain drinking water in a paper-thin plastic bottle just so they don’t have to face the next 10 minutes without some form of rehydration. Oh sure the label on the bottle says it’s pure mountain spring water but the reality is the water came down from that mountain 100 years ago, was eventually siphoned through miles of pipeline into a bottling plant where it came out of the same water main that feeds your garden hose.
Everywhere I look I see people with some form of beverage in their hand. Driving the car, shopping for groceries, in the mall, riding a bike, walking down the street, at work, in school, even at church. There are Bedouin spice traders that travel hundreds of miles of sand dunes on camelback that carry less potable liquid than most Americans on their way to the store.
My local grocery store has an entire aisle dedicated to various forms of drinking water. It also has a Starbucks right in the store so shoppers can sip their latte whilst choosing their bottle of water. I watched as a family of 5 strolled the aisle trying to come to a consensus on what water everybody preferred. Mom had her Starbucks, Dad had a reusable drinking bottle and the 3 kids each had a juice box. Am I missing something here? Was there some sort of nuclear attack and nobody told me?
I salute the marketing geniuses that were able to convince Americans to buy tap water for $10 per gallon and spend the better part of their day either drinking it or waiting in line for the restroom. I wonder if they worked for a water company or the American Urologist Association.
No wonder the Depends take up the next full aisle.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Hall Of Shame
Talk about a change in tune.
It wasn’t that long ago that most of the country was singing along with the snappy jingle in the Gatorade commercial “Like Mike, if I could be like Mike”. I am certain there are still a few die-hard fans that will hold that same reverence for unquestionably one of the greatest basketball players of all time. But I am equally certain that Michael Jordan’s induction speech into the Basketball Hall of Fame has even more switching their tune.
During his playing days Jordan was the embodiment of God-given gifts, well honed skill and interminable desire. He led the Chicago Bulls to a handful plus one of championship rings and held the citizenry of the Windy City in the palm of his ball-clinching hand. Sports fans from around the world knew his name and Chicago Bulls hats and number 23 jerseys were a fashion staple in places that had never seen a basketball prior to Jordan’s reign. I remember on numerous occasions seeing pictures of natural disaster victims from tiny little hamlets in third world countries waiting in line for Red Cross relief packages wearing Chicago Bulls baseball caps. His impact on sports around the world was immense; his impact on sports marketing was even greater.
That has been the key to success for Michael Jordan. He has made far more money off the court than he did on it. Even after losing the record amount of $168 million in a different kind of court, this one of the divorce variety, and having lost millions gambling and tens of millions in unsuccessful real estate deals, Jordan remains one of the wealthiest men in sports history. His marketing of the Michael Jordan name has been pure gold and continues to rake in cash through his endorsements of everything from golf equipment to underpants. Michael Jeffery Jordan was a winner and continues to be one almost everywhere but a casino or a golf course. So how is it that after all this triumph and adulation he chooses to be as petty and vindictive as he was successful?
Jordan’s acceptance speech into the Hall of Fame was so filled with cheap, narcissistic vitriol that it made this six foot six inch MVP millionaire look small. By the time he had finished it was apparent that even enshrining him into basketball immortality was not enough to soothe this savage ego. The only thing missing from his acceptance was a request to build a separate Hall of Fame just for him.
He demeaned players and team owners alike and made it clear that as far as he was concerned, he was the only thing that concerned him. He slammed Bulls GM Jerry Krause and Bulls owner Jerry Reinsdorf even though they treated him like royalty and arranged for his two year stint in minor league baseball for what I am still convinced was a secret gambling suspension. He slammed just about every player of note he ever played against and commended almost no one. He even went so far as to fly in his old high school teammate Leroy Smith to introduce him to the podium. This honor was not offered out of friendship for Smith but rather as a final slam to his old high school basketball coach Pop Herring, who kept Smith on the varsity squad over Jordan during his sophomore year. He admonished his coach and aired this nearly 30 year old resentment saying “I just wanted to make sure you understood: You made a mistake, dude.”
Some reporters have stated that the rambling bitch session was done mostly in good natured fun. They were either blinded by Jordan’s celebrity or by one too many pre-ceremonial cocktails. There was nothing good natured or funny about Jordan’s performance. Instead it was actually very sad.
Of course Jordan does not have to worry about his comments or the public reaction to them. He has enough money and fame to carry him through for the rest of his days. But it is depressing to see what happens to man when everything is just not enough.
Perhaps Jordan could sign on to do commercials for Avis. Maybe have him running through an airport, leaping over chairs to catch his flight while adoring fans chant “Go MJ Go”. Avis used to have another celebrity making those commercials but he also had a problem that having everything was just not enough.
He’s not with them anymore.
It wasn’t that long ago that most of the country was singing along with the snappy jingle in the Gatorade commercial “Like Mike, if I could be like Mike”. I am certain there are still a few die-hard fans that will hold that same reverence for unquestionably one of the greatest basketball players of all time. But I am equally certain that Michael Jordan’s induction speech into the Basketball Hall of Fame has even more switching their tune.
During his playing days Jordan was the embodiment of God-given gifts, well honed skill and interminable desire. He led the Chicago Bulls to a handful plus one of championship rings and held the citizenry of the Windy City in the palm of his ball-clinching hand. Sports fans from around the world knew his name and Chicago Bulls hats and number 23 jerseys were a fashion staple in places that had never seen a basketball prior to Jordan’s reign. I remember on numerous occasions seeing pictures of natural disaster victims from tiny little hamlets in third world countries waiting in line for Red Cross relief packages wearing Chicago Bulls baseball caps. His impact on sports around the world was immense; his impact on sports marketing was even greater.
That has been the key to success for Michael Jordan. He has made far more money off the court than he did on it. Even after losing the record amount of $168 million in a different kind of court, this one of the divorce variety, and having lost millions gambling and tens of millions in unsuccessful real estate deals, Jordan remains one of the wealthiest men in sports history. His marketing of the Michael Jordan name has been pure gold and continues to rake in cash through his endorsements of everything from golf equipment to underpants. Michael Jeffery Jordan was a winner and continues to be one almost everywhere but a casino or a golf course. So how is it that after all this triumph and adulation he chooses to be as petty and vindictive as he was successful?
Jordan’s acceptance speech into the Hall of Fame was so filled with cheap, narcissistic vitriol that it made this six foot six inch MVP millionaire look small. By the time he had finished it was apparent that even enshrining him into basketball immortality was not enough to soothe this savage ego. The only thing missing from his acceptance was a request to build a separate Hall of Fame just for him.
He demeaned players and team owners alike and made it clear that as far as he was concerned, he was the only thing that concerned him. He slammed Bulls GM Jerry Krause and Bulls owner Jerry Reinsdorf even though they treated him like royalty and arranged for his two year stint in minor league baseball for what I am still convinced was a secret gambling suspension. He slammed just about every player of note he ever played against and commended almost no one. He even went so far as to fly in his old high school teammate Leroy Smith to introduce him to the podium. This honor was not offered out of friendship for Smith but rather as a final slam to his old high school basketball coach Pop Herring, who kept Smith on the varsity squad over Jordan during his sophomore year. He admonished his coach and aired this nearly 30 year old resentment saying “I just wanted to make sure you understood: You made a mistake, dude.”
Some reporters have stated that the rambling bitch session was done mostly in good natured fun. They were either blinded by Jordan’s celebrity or by one too many pre-ceremonial cocktails. There was nothing good natured or funny about Jordan’s performance. Instead it was actually very sad.
Of course Jordan does not have to worry about his comments or the public reaction to them. He has enough money and fame to carry him through for the rest of his days. But it is depressing to see what happens to man when everything is just not enough.
Perhaps Jordan could sign on to do commercials for Avis. Maybe have him running through an airport, leaping over chairs to catch his flight while adoring fans chant “Go MJ Go”. Avis used to have another celebrity making those commercials but he also had a problem that having everything was just not enough.
He’s not with them anymore.
Monday, September 14, 2009
The Pot And The Kettle
I am really tempted to use the old “Pot calling the kettle black” analogy, but that would only elicit more hate mail accusing me of racism.
There has, however, never been a more fitting illustration of exactly what that well worn phrase describes than Barack Obama’s warning Wall Street executives about economic risk and ruin. I have to admit, if nothing else, this guy has orbs like pumpkins.
There he stood, the leader of the free world and chief architect of a liberal agenda slated to sink the United States into a catastrophic debt level totaling $9 trillion, putting Wall Street on notice that their irresponsible economic policies would no longer be tolerated. “Hear my words” he said, “we will not go back to the days of reckless behavior and unchecked excess at the heart of this crisis where too many were motivated by quick kills and bloated bonuses.”
To be sure, Wall Street cannot be held harmless in the collapse of all things financial. Their financial ingenuity at packaging and repackaging and re-repackaging mortgage backed securities and the credit default swaps attached to those securities certainly played a major part in the complexity of the economic meltdown that unraveled countless 401K’s, shuttered several historic Wall Street firms and imperiled the economies of countries large and small all over the world. But laying the entire blame on Wall Street is like blaming the gas station where you buy your cigarettes for your lung cancer.
It was Democrats in Congress that came up with the idea of creating an entity that would pump capital into the mortgage markets to increase the number of home owners. It was Democrats in Congress that created Fannie Mae and later Freddie Mac to serve that purpose. It was Democrats in Congress that appointed the political hacks to run those entities who lied about their balance sheets to garner the bloated bonuses of which Obama spoke. It was Democrats in Congress under the direction of Bill Clinton that then changed the focus of Fannie and Freddie to include borrowers that had no business getting a mortgage because they had no ability to pay the money back. Wall Street certainly jumped on the bandwagon, but it was Congress and the Democrat leadership that was pulling the wagon down Wall Street hollering “All aboard’.
Obama warned Wall Street that he would not tolerate their shortsighted behavior and that they could not count on him for any further bailouts. This little trip to the woodshed would have been far more appropriate for a UAW union hall in Detroit than the Federal Hall in the heart of Wall Street as the bailout money given to most of these major banks has brought the government coffers some much needed additional revenue in the form of repaid principle with interest.
Obama chose the one year anniversary of the collapse of Lehman Brothers to deliver his dire warning. But rather than using Lehman as an example of how things were broken I view Lehman as an example of how things worked exactly as they were supposed to. When you make bad business decisions you don’t stay in business no matter how big you are. Certainly government can take measures to protect the overall economy but businesses have the right to take risks and if they are on the wrong side of the bet they have the right to fail. That’s how business works.
To think this community activist qua inept economist and his band of Congressional drunken sailors can direct the world’s financial leaders is like thinking Amelia Earhart would make a good air traffic controller. Obama’s economic policies since taking office and plans for additional spending are nothing short of pandemic. He credits the near $1 trillion in supposed stimulus spending for turning the economy around yet unemployment figures and real economic data show his assessment to be far more pipedream than mainstream.
The question is not if the federal government will bailout Wall Street but who will bailout a federal government saddled with a debt load three times the size of their annual budget.
It is the pot calling the kettle black.
That’s not racist. It’s just reality.
There has, however, never been a more fitting illustration of exactly what that well worn phrase describes than Barack Obama’s warning Wall Street executives about economic risk and ruin. I have to admit, if nothing else, this guy has orbs like pumpkins.
There he stood, the leader of the free world and chief architect of a liberal agenda slated to sink the United States into a catastrophic debt level totaling $9 trillion, putting Wall Street on notice that their irresponsible economic policies would no longer be tolerated. “Hear my words” he said, “we will not go back to the days of reckless behavior and unchecked excess at the heart of this crisis where too many were motivated by quick kills and bloated bonuses.”
To be sure, Wall Street cannot be held harmless in the collapse of all things financial. Their financial ingenuity at packaging and repackaging and re-repackaging mortgage backed securities and the credit default swaps attached to those securities certainly played a major part in the complexity of the economic meltdown that unraveled countless 401K’s, shuttered several historic Wall Street firms and imperiled the economies of countries large and small all over the world. But laying the entire blame on Wall Street is like blaming the gas station where you buy your cigarettes for your lung cancer.
It was Democrats in Congress that came up with the idea of creating an entity that would pump capital into the mortgage markets to increase the number of home owners. It was Democrats in Congress that created Fannie Mae and later Freddie Mac to serve that purpose. It was Democrats in Congress that appointed the political hacks to run those entities who lied about their balance sheets to garner the bloated bonuses of which Obama spoke. It was Democrats in Congress under the direction of Bill Clinton that then changed the focus of Fannie and Freddie to include borrowers that had no business getting a mortgage because they had no ability to pay the money back. Wall Street certainly jumped on the bandwagon, but it was Congress and the Democrat leadership that was pulling the wagon down Wall Street hollering “All aboard’.
Obama warned Wall Street that he would not tolerate their shortsighted behavior and that they could not count on him for any further bailouts. This little trip to the woodshed would have been far more appropriate for a UAW union hall in Detroit than the Federal Hall in the heart of Wall Street as the bailout money given to most of these major banks has brought the government coffers some much needed additional revenue in the form of repaid principle with interest.
Obama chose the one year anniversary of the collapse of Lehman Brothers to deliver his dire warning. But rather than using Lehman as an example of how things were broken I view Lehman as an example of how things worked exactly as they were supposed to. When you make bad business decisions you don’t stay in business no matter how big you are. Certainly government can take measures to protect the overall economy but businesses have the right to take risks and if they are on the wrong side of the bet they have the right to fail. That’s how business works.
To think this community activist qua inept economist and his band of Congressional drunken sailors can direct the world’s financial leaders is like thinking Amelia Earhart would make a good air traffic controller. Obama’s economic policies since taking office and plans for additional spending are nothing short of pandemic. He credits the near $1 trillion in supposed stimulus spending for turning the economy around yet unemployment figures and real economic data show his assessment to be far more pipedream than mainstream.
The question is not if the federal government will bailout Wall Street but who will bailout a federal government saddled with a debt load three times the size of their annual budget.
It is the pot calling the kettle black.
That’s not racist. It’s just reality.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Back To Basics
I think it’s time we get down to the basics.
The President stood before the joint Houses of Congress and caste a stern, accusatory glare at the Republican side of the aisle, warning them that he and his administration will expose and do battle with any or all of them that spread what he deems to be “lies, plain and simple” about his nationalized healthcare plan.
Democrats in attendance nodded approvingly and showed their solidarity through applause.
Republicans sneered at the challenge and rolled their eyes in recalcitrant rebellion, waving printed copies of counter proposals and at one point vocally accusing the accuser of misdirection and prevarication himself.
It all made for some action packed television viewing, but when it was over we were no closer to a solution then we were before it started. For all the sanctimony of Democrats and all the insurrection of the Republicans, the basic question of how the hell we are going to pay for this or any other healthcare plan remains in the realm of magic money.
Never mind the “death panels”. Never mind if illegal aliens will only get the same level of free healthcare that they now enjoy and take full advantage of. Never mind the overwhelming deluge of paperwork that would be required by governmental intervention into healthcare. Never mind the dramatically increased costs to healthcare providers by the never-ending barrage of bureaucratic bungling historically evident anytime the government gets involved. Never mind the reduced payments to healthcare providers and reduced services those diminished payments will mandate. Never mind having most of your healthcare decisions made for you by an actuarial pivot table of synthesized cost versus life expectancy. Never mind that not a single person in attendance at the speech will be forced into coverage of this healthcare debacle like the rest if the country will.
Even if we were able to surmount these insurmountable obstacles, we still have absolutely no clue as to how we are going to pay for it.
We as a nation are projected to be heading into an abyss of a $9 trillion debt. Barack Obama spent two years on the campaign trail decrying the eminent collapse of our economy because of the Bush budget deficit forecasted at $410 billion. He constantly reminded voters that the Bush deficit was close to the historic high water mark set in 2004 of $413 billion. The entire Bush 2009 budget unveiled in February 2008 totaled $3.1 trillion in spending. That included $515 billion in defense spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. There was an additional $70 billion proposed for defense that raised the entire spending package to $3.17 trillion. That means that the entire spending package for the United States in 2009, including the war, was one third of the currently projected budget deficit of 2019. And that is before you add in this new $1 trillion in ObamaCare spending.
Because of the weakening economy George Bush froze almost all domestic spending programs in his 2009 budget. The fact that we are even engaged in conversation about a new $1 trillion spending package with the already looming economic catastrophe of a $9 trillion debt would be laughable of it weren’t so nauseating.
Obama spent a great deal of time detailing what he would or would not accept in this package of vitiate socialized medical temerity. But when it came to how it was going to be paid for he switched back into magician mode and brought out the smoke and mirrors.
Claiming to be able to pay for new spending through cost savings is the oldest political trick in the book. It means that the proposer has no idea how things will actually get paid. The President promised that this new program would not add a dime to the national debt. But when it came to detailing the math, well I guess that’s where the Hope he campaigned on comes in.
The discussion needs to stop. We’re broke. Hell, we’re worse than broke. Period. End of story.
It is a shame the rumors of those death panels are supposedly untrue. With a $9 trillion budget deficit we could use them to review the American way of life.
The President stood before the joint Houses of Congress and caste a stern, accusatory glare at the Republican side of the aisle, warning them that he and his administration will expose and do battle with any or all of them that spread what he deems to be “lies, plain and simple” about his nationalized healthcare plan.
Democrats in attendance nodded approvingly and showed their solidarity through applause.
Republicans sneered at the challenge and rolled their eyes in recalcitrant rebellion, waving printed copies of counter proposals and at one point vocally accusing the accuser of misdirection and prevarication himself.
It all made for some action packed television viewing, but when it was over we were no closer to a solution then we were before it started. For all the sanctimony of Democrats and all the insurrection of the Republicans, the basic question of how the hell we are going to pay for this or any other healthcare plan remains in the realm of magic money.
Never mind the “death panels”. Never mind if illegal aliens will only get the same level of free healthcare that they now enjoy and take full advantage of. Never mind the overwhelming deluge of paperwork that would be required by governmental intervention into healthcare. Never mind the dramatically increased costs to healthcare providers by the never-ending barrage of bureaucratic bungling historically evident anytime the government gets involved. Never mind the reduced payments to healthcare providers and reduced services those diminished payments will mandate. Never mind having most of your healthcare decisions made for you by an actuarial pivot table of synthesized cost versus life expectancy. Never mind that not a single person in attendance at the speech will be forced into coverage of this healthcare debacle like the rest if the country will.
Even if we were able to surmount these insurmountable obstacles, we still have absolutely no clue as to how we are going to pay for it.
We as a nation are projected to be heading into an abyss of a $9 trillion debt. Barack Obama spent two years on the campaign trail decrying the eminent collapse of our economy because of the Bush budget deficit forecasted at $410 billion. He constantly reminded voters that the Bush deficit was close to the historic high water mark set in 2004 of $413 billion. The entire Bush 2009 budget unveiled in February 2008 totaled $3.1 trillion in spending. That included $515 billion in defense spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. There was an additional $70 billion proposed for defense that raised the entire spending package to $3.17 trillion. That means that the entire spending package for the United States in 2009, including the war, was one third of the currently projected budget deficit of 2019. And that is before you add in this new $1 trillion in ObamaCare spending.
Because of the weakening economy George Bush froze almost all domestic spending programs in his 2009 budget. The fact that we are even engaged in conversation about a new $1 trillion spending package with the already looming economic catastrophe of a $9 trillion debt would be laughable of it weren’t so nauseating.
Obama spent a great deal of time detailing what he would or would not accept in this package of vitiate socialized medical temerity. But when it came to how it was going to be paid for he switched back into magician mode and brought out the smoke and mirrors.
Claiming to be able to pay for new spending through cost savings is the oldest political trick in the book. It means that the proposer has no idea how things will actually get paid. The President promised that this new program would not add a dime to the national debt. But when it came to detailing the math, well I guess that’s where the Hope he campaigned on comes in.
The discussion needs to stop. We’re broke. Hell, we’re worse than broke. Period. End of story.
It is a shame the rumors of those death panels are supposedly untrue. With a $9 trillion budget deficit we could use them to review the American way of life.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
The Messiah Versus Captain Obvious
Hey, Captain Obvious!!!! Thanks, but no thanks!!!!
Republican Representative Joe Wilson from South Carolina made a fool of himself and degraded his position by shouting “You Lie” at the President during his speech on ObamaCare to the joint Houses of Congress.
Unless the Congressman has turrets, it was a completely unacceptable outburst. It did nothing to bolster the Republicans opposition of this nationalization of healthcare and only served as fodder for all the liberals desperately seeking something to be offended by. Poor Nancy Pelosi even had a flashback to just about every George Bush speech delivered to Congress where Democrats hissed and booed like poltergeist snakes.
But the Democrats past boorish behavior is still no excuse for denigrating the office of the President by publicly shouting what most of those watching already knew.
Of course Obama was lying. He lied throughout most of the speech. He lied about healthcare coverage for illegal aliens (the point that made Wilson lose his mind and dignity), he lied about the cost, he lied about not having a penny go toward the already catastrophic national debt, he lied about cutting over $560 billion from Medicare without reducing service, he lied about Republicans not having any alternative plans and he lied about not wanting this to be a partisan healthcare package.
The purpose of this speech was not to make nice with Republicans. Obama made that clear in his threat to call out and expose any Republican that supposedly lies about what ObamaCare covers. He used the “death panels” as an example of what he called a “lie, plain and simple”. But in the ever changing sphere of Obama-speak it’s tough to tell if he was saying that there would absolutely not be anything like a death panel or if he was saying they would not necessarily be called by that name.
Obama made this speech for one reason and one reason only. Not to increase bipartisan participation but to rally his Democrats and put them back on the offensive. But while the speech was a rallying cry for the left wing of the Party I can’t see how it did much to bolster support from the few centrist Democrats left serving.
Obama said the plan he is considering would now only cost $900 billion over ten years versus the original plan of $1 trillion. Quite frankly at this level of spending cutting it back to $900 billion is like the grocery store charging $1.99 instead of 2 bucks.
For the first time Obama tried to garner support from doctors by claiming he is open to removing malpractice lawsuits from the courts and instituting panels that would resolve disputes. The obvious problem with that is who installs the members of the panel and that if they do not have any mandated direction as to settlements they will be no more likely to reduce costs then the existing system.
In what was initially reported as a step away from organized labor Obama is now willing to look at instituting a tax on higher end insurance plans. The AFL-CIO was quick to voice concern that this tax might harm the premium insurance plans their members now enjoyed.
But the truth is that this obstacle could be easily overcome with a separate law outside the healthcare bill forcing employers to absorb the additional cost. The report also doesn’t take into account the great number of new union healthcare workers ObamaCare mandates.
Oh, did Barack Obama fail to mention the union stipulations in his program? Imagine that.
The Senate version implements the same forced unionization plans endorsed by now dethroned Governor Rod Blagojevich. It reclassifies home healthcare workers as government employees thereby forcing them to join the very powerful and very political Service Employees Union International or SEUI. Perhaps you’ve heard of the SEUI but can’t remember where. It was in all the news stories about SEIU union thugs beating and harassing vocal opponents of ObamaCare at town hall meetings. Make sense now?
The House version (HR3200) goes even further requiring compulsory union dues for most healthcare workers including doctors. This requirement would immediately increase union dues paying members by the hundreds of thousands.
Congressman Wilson was wrong for what he did. But of course Barack Obama was lying.
His lips were moving.
Republican Representative Joe Wilson from South Carolina made a fool of himself and degraded his position by shouting “You Lie” at the President during his speech on ObamaCare to the joint Houses of Congress.
Unless the Congressman has turrets, it was a completely unacceptable outburst. It did nothing to bolster the Republicans opposition of this nationalization of healthcare and only served as fodder for all the liberals desperately seeking something to be offended by. Poor Nancy Pelosi even had a flashback to just about every George Bush speech delivered to Congress where Democrats hissed and booed like poltergeist snakes.
But the Democrats past boorish behavior is still no excuse for denigrating the office of the President by publicly shouting what most of those watching already knew.
Of course Obama was lying. He lied throughout most of the speech. He lied about healthcare coverage for illegal aliens (the point that made Wilson lose his mind and dignity), he lied about the cost, he lied about not having a penny go toward the already catastrophic national debt, he lied about cutting over $560 billion from Medicare without reducing service, he lied about Republicans not having any alternative plans and he lied about not wanting this to be a partisan healthcare package.
The purpose of this speech was not to make nice with Republicans. Obama made that clear in his threat to call out and expose any Republican that supposedly lies about what ObamaCare covers. He used the “death panels” as an example of what he called a “lie, plain and simple”. But in the ever changing sphere of Obama-speak it’s tough to tell if he was saying that there would absolutely not be anything like a death panel or if he was saying they would not necessarily be called by that name.
Obama made this speech for one reason and one reason only. Not to increase bipartisan participation but to rally his Democrats and put them back on the offensive. But while the speech was a rallying cry for the left wing of the Party I can’t see how it did much to bolster support from the few centrist Democrats left serving.
Obama said the plan he is considering would now only cost $900 billion over ten years versus the original plan of $1 trillion. Quite frankly at this level of spending cutting it back to $900 billion is like the grocery store charging $1.99 instead of 2 bucks.
For the first time Obama tried to garner support from doctors by claiming he is open to removing malpractice lawsuits from the courts and instituting panels that would resolve disputes. The obvious problem with that is who installs the members of the panel and that if they do not have any mandated direction as to settlements they will be no more likely to reduce costs then the existing system.
In what was initially reported as a step away from organized labor Obama is now willing to look at instituting a tax on higher end insurance plans. The AFL-CIO was quick to voice concern that this tax might harm the premium insurance plans their members now enjoyed.
But the truth is that this obstacle could be easily overcome with a separate law outside the healthcare bill forcing employers to absorb the additional cost. The report also doesn’t take into account the great number of new union healthcare workers ObamaCare mandates.
Oh, did Barack Obama fail to mention the union stipulations in his program? Imagine that.
The Senate version implements the same forced unionization plans endorsed by now dethroned Governor Rod Blagojevich. It reclassifies home healthcare workers as government employees thereby forcing them to join the very powerful and very political Service Employees Union International or SEUI. Perhaps you’ve heard of the SEUI but can’t remember where. It was in all the news stories about SEIU union thugs beating and harassing vocal opponents of ObamaCare at town hall meetings. Make sense now?
The House version (HR3200) goes even further requiring compulsory union dues for most healthcare workers including doctors. This requirement would immediately increase union dues paying members by the hundreds of thousands.
Congressman Wilson was wrong for what he did. But of course Barack Obama was lying.
His lips were moving.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
What's The Word
Going from “four score and seven years ago” to “87 years ago” may improve my understanding of the exact time reference described but that does not make it what the writer intended.
If Lincoln had wanted to say 87 years he certainly was capable of doing so. He chose the four score and seven phrase carefully, and changing it changes the reverence of the piece and the draw to the words that follow.
There is a certain lyrical cadence to a literary piece that is well written. Reading books written years ago is not necessarily easy, but overcoming outdated grammatical obstacles is not all that difficult either. As long as I have a desire to learn and understand what the text is purporting, I have the ability to seek further explanation of those words or phrases I do not understand.
The difference between the original text of classic writings and modernized versions can often mean the difference between what the writer originally intended and what the interpreter thinks that intent was.
I have seen modernized versions of some of Shakespeare’s classic works and quite frankly they are usually as hollow as they are boring and disjointed. Something is always lost in translation, either in the lyrical quality or in the actual meaning. When “Romeo, Oh Romeo. Where fore art thou Romero” becomes “Romeo, my man. Where you at” we lose all but the most base meaning of the quote. A deep and moving lovelorn lament becomes a peppy “wasssssup” that may as well have Juliet text messaging it as speaking off her balcony.
The same holds true for the most classic of all written word, the Holy Bible.
A Colorado Springs based company named Biblica holds the copyright to the NIV or New International Version of the Bible. The NIV version is the Bible of choice for most conservative evangelicals. The NIV was first published in 1978 and has more than 300 million Bibles in print worldwide. The text of this version was last updated 25 years ago, and Biblica has decided that due to changes in English language usage and supposed advancements in Biblical scholarship, they will be undertaking another grammatical update to be completed by 2011.
The CEO of Biblica, Ken Danby stated “We want to reach English speakers across the globe with a Bible that is accurate, accessible and that speaks to its readers in a language they can understand.” While I salute Mr. Danby in his quest for increased distribution I question the validity of his reasoning. I, like many others, have grave misgivings about the extent to which this holy text needs to be modernized.
There are currently 87 (four score and seven) English language versions of the Bible in distribution. That would indicate that these words are being delivered in just about every imaginable way. Some of these versions are religion specific like the Roman Catholic or Greek Orthodox versions, but the NIV is the leader of modern English non-religion specific versions. Updates to this version could have far reaching impact.
If Biblica updates the NIV to reflect advancements in translations of the original Greek or Aramaic text they will be doing all of us who read their version a great service. But if they decide to modernize the sacred text by incorporating political correctness they will very likely be faced with a revolt on a scale of biblical proportions.
It has been suggested by some that the NIV should be edited to expunge any gender specific verbiage such as changing the term “all men” to “people” and “sons of God” to “children of God”.
Such changes would completely change the intent and more importantly the historical value of the text.
The fact that American culture has changed does not mean that God has changed. If anything, the changes in modern culture have mostly served to move us farther away from God. It is not the function of biblical scholars to keep God hip enough to keep up with us.
I will reserve final judgment until after the revisions are complete. But in the end the Word is the Word.
And the Word is good.
If Lincoln had wanted to say 87 years he certainly was capable of doing so. He chose the four score and seven phrase carefully, and changing it changes the reverence of the piece and the draw to the words that follow.
There is a certain lyrical cadence to a literary piece that is well written. Reading books written years ago is not necessarily easy, but overcoming outdated grammatical obstacles is not all that difficult either. As long as I have a desire to learn and understand what the text is purporting, I have the ability to seek further explanation of those words or phrases I do not understand.
The difference between the original text of classic writings and modernized versions can often mean the difference between what the writer originally intended and what the interpreter thinks that intent was.
I have seen modernized versions of some of Shakespeare’s classic works and quite frankly they are usually as hollow as they are boring and disjointed. Something is always lost in translation, either in the lyrical quality or in the actual meaning. When “Romeo, Oh Romeo. Where fore art thou Romero” becomes “Romeo, my man. Where you at” we lose all but the most base meaning of the quote. A deep and moving lovelorn lament becomes a peppy “wasssssup” that may as well have Juliet text messaging it as speaking off her balcony.
The same holds true for the most classic of all written word, the Holy Bible.
A Colorado Springs based company named Biblica holds the copyright to the NIV or New International Version of the Bible. The NIV version is the Bible of choice for most conservative evangelicals. The NIV was first published in 1978 and has more than 300 million Bibles in print worldwide. The text of this version was last updated 25 years ago, and Biblica has decided that due to changes in English language usage and supposed advancements in Biblical scholarship, they will be undertaking another grammatical update to be completed by 2011.
The CEO of Biblica, Ken Danby stated “We want to reach English speakers across the globe with a Bible that is accurate, accessible and that speaks to its readers in a language they can understand.” While I salute Mr. Danby in his quest for increased distribution I question the validity of his reasoning. I, like many others, have grave misgivings about the extent to which this holy text needs to be modernized.
There are currently 87 (four score and seven) English language versions of the Bible in distribution. That would indicate that these words are being delivered in just about every imaginable way. Some of these versions are religion specific like the Roman Catholic or Greek Orthodox versions, but the NIV is the leader of modern English non-religion specific versions. Updates to this version could have far reaching impact.
If Biblica updates the NIV to reflect advancements in translations of the original Greek or Aramaic text they will be doing all of us who read their version a great service. But if they decide to modernize the sacred text by incorporating political correctness they will very likely be faced with a revolt on a scale of biblical proportions.
It has been suggested by some that the NIV should be edited to expunge any gender specific verbiage such as changing the term “all men” to “people” and “sons of God” to “children of God”.
Such changes would completely change the intent and more importantly the historical value of the text.
The fact that American culture has changed does not mean that God has changed. If anything, the changes in modern culture have mostly served to move us farther away from God. It is not the function of biblical scholars to keep God hip enough to keep up with us.
I will reserve final judgment until after the revisions are complete. But in the end the Word is the Word.
And the Word is good.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
The Audacity of Fear
It is a sad day.
That’s what my son-in-law called it. A high school teacher himself, he said “It is a sad day when teachers have to get permission from parents to show students our presidents' speech about civic responsibility.”
While I love my son-in-law dearly, he and I are rarely in agreement when it comes to anything political. But in this case, I must admit, I agree with him. It is a sad day indeed. Having said that, defining the rationale for our sadness is where he and I will again part company.
After only 8 months in office Barack Obama and his shortsighted idea of Change has not only divided the country along philosophical and political lines but has evoked a deep sense of fear throughout the entire political spectrum including many of his one-time supporters.
Obama’s address to students was proposed to help to kick off this new school year. That, in and of itself, seems innocent enough. The immediate and deep-seated fear that he would use this as an opportunity to further his political agenda was brought about by his rhetoric to date. Having already espoused the virtues of a very unpopular budget-busting nationalized healthcare system, his willingness to negotiate with known terrorist nations and dictators, his uninformed and apologetic attitude for America’s past foreign policy decisions, his profoundly distorted view of America’s history and his dangerously misguided economic policies that will burden these same young students under the yolk of almost insurmountable debt has triggered real fear, forcing some parents to react by fervently objecting to this presidential proclamation.
I never had a problem with the President giving a “Welcome Back” address to school kids. If there had been any inkling on his part, or the part if his political advisors, to include some partisan political rhetoric it was quashed long ago by the negative public reaction. An advanced copy of the speech was released late Monday, in part to allay that public fear of partisanship. The speech is nothing more than fatherly pep talk, but the speech itself is not the issue. The fear it caused and the reaction to that fear is.
Obama’s approval ratings continue to drop like a school boy’s pencil in a room full of miniskirts. The latest Zogby poll shows him at a 42% approval rating. That is a massive decline for a man who, only months ago, was being hailed amongst the pillars of a faux Greek temple as the new Messiah. The most noticeable decline is beginning to come from the black community where he once held an almost 100% approval rating having now dropped to 74%. Independents, a key support group in his presidential victory, are now at only a 37% approval rating and the elderly who foolishly thought he would be good for their healthcare are now rebelling with a drop in approval of over 10 points in the past 2 months. The concern of war and the impact of foreign policy have been completely wiped out by a palpable fear of lost medical choice and total economic collapse brought on by an ever increasing national debt now reaching intergalactic levels.
Americans are no longer willing to accept the vague promise of Hope and Change and have begun meticulously reviewing the fine print to every Obama promise. We have seen the Change and the one thing it does not inspire is Hope.
But it’s still early in the game and this trial by fire, on the job training Obama is garnering could help him to refocus his efforts onto more mundane tasks such as saving the economy rather than the world. It would be a big demotion going from a god to a president but unless he is willing to do so his chances of success are as fleeting as his approval rating.
The fear is real and it is not only spreading throughout the American public, it is spreading throughout the Halls of Congress as well. And rightfully so. They have an election coming in 2010 and Barack Obama could prove to be the greatest Messiah the Republicans could have hoped for.
September could be a defining month in this President’s legacy.
Sound familiar?
That’s what my son-in-law called it. A high school teacher himself, he said “It is a sad day when teachers have to get permission from parents to show students our presidents' speech about civic responsibility.”
While I love my son-in-law dearly, he and I are rarely in agreement when it comes to anything political. But in this case, I must admit, I agree with him. It is a sad day indeed. Having said that, defining the rationale for our sadness is where he and I will again part company.
After only 8 months in office Barack Obama and his shortsighted idea of Change has not only divided the country along philosophical and political lines but has evoked a deep sense of fear throughout the entire political spectrum including many of his one-time supporters.
Obama’s address to students was proposed to help to kick off this new school year. That, in and of itself, seems innocent enough. The immediate and deep-seated fear that he would use this as an opportunity to further his political agenda was brought about by his rhetoric to date. Having already espoused the virtues of a very unpopular budget-busting nationalized healthcare system, his willingness to negotiate with known terrorist nations and dictators, his uninformed and apologetic attitude for America’s past foreign policy decisions, his profoundly distorted view of America’s history and his dangerously misguided economic policies that will burden these same young students under the yolk of almost insurmountable debt has triggered real fear, forcing some parents to react by fervently objecting to this presidential proclamation.
I never had a problem with the President giving a “Welcome Back” address to school kids. If there had been any inkling on his part, or the part if his political advisors, to include some partisan political rhetoric it was quashed long ago by the negative public reaction. An advanced copy of the speech was released late Monday, in part to allay that public fear of partisanship. The speech is nothing more than fatherly pep talk, but the speech itself is not the issue. The fear it caused and the reaction to that fear is.
Obama’s approval ratings continue to drop like a school boy’s pencil in a room full of miniskirts. The latest Zogby poll shows him at a 42% approval rating. That is a massive decline for a man who, only months ago, was being hailed amongst the pillars of a faux Greek temple as the new Messiah. The most noticeable decline is beginning to come from the black community where he once held an almost 100% approval rating having now dropped to 74%. Independents, a key support group in his presidential victory, are now at only a 37% approval rating and the elderly who foolishly thought he would be good for their healthcare are now rebelling with a drop in approval of over 10 points in the past 2 months. The concern of war and the impact of foreign policy have been completely wiped out by a palpable fear of lost medical choice and total economic collapse brought on by an ever increasing national debt now reaching intergalactic levels.
Americans are no longer willing to accept the vague promise of Hope and Change and have begun meticulously reviewing the fine print to every Obama promise. We have seen the Change and the one thing it does not inspire is Hope.
But it’s still early in the game and this trial by fire, on the job training Obama is garnering could help him to refocus his efforts onto more mundane tasks such as saving the economy rather than the world. It would be a big demotion going from a god to a president but unless he is willing to do so his chances of success are as fleeting as his approval rating.
The fear is real and it is not only spreading throughout the American public, it is spreading throughout the Halls of Congress as well. And rightfully so. They have an election coming in 2010 and Barack Obama could prove to be the greatest Messiah the Republicans could have hoped for.
September could be a defining month in this President’s legacy.
Sound familiar?
Sunday, September 6, 2009
The Subliminal Culture Clash
Do you remember going (POPCORN) to the movies when they would (SODA POP) flash subliminal messages during the film to get you to go to the snack bar?
For those too young to remember, movie theaters actually used to flash a frame or two of a word or an image during the movie that would instill the urge for a trip to the snack bar. You would be watching the movie quite content and all of a sudden, for some unknown reason, you had an overwhelming desire for a big tub of popcorn or a soft drink. The use of this subliminal mind control was effective because your brain recognized the message before you were even aware of what your eyes had seen. But the practice was also pretty devious and eventually laws were passed to prohibit its use, at least as it related to subliminally influencing unsuspecting movie goers.
Today the advertising practice of subliminal influence is still alive and well and living right in your living room, or whatever room your TV set is in. Case in point: “A good honest beer at a tasty price.”
I don’t drink beer. But the new series of Miller Beer commercials makes me wish I did, if only to buy some other beer besides Miller High Life as my own little personal boycott. My aversion has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of their product but rather with the corporately approved message subliminally displayed in their ad campaign.
This several months old Miller Beer campaign must be fairly effective as the commercials are being broadcast repeatedly on just about every channel and time slot. A jocular black beer truck driver goes from place to place snatching away cases of Miller Beer from people that apparently do not deserve to enjoy the bubbly brew and then he redistributes it the thirsty masses. These numerous beernappings take place at various posh locations like the VIP section of a night club, the sky boxes at a baseball game, the owner’s area at a racetrack and from opulent hotel suite mini-bars. The common denominator in all these ads is that the product is removed from places where most folks will never get a chance to socialize.
The subliminal message is that the wealthy do not deserve this “good honest beer” because they are neither good nor honest. Rich, white ‘fat cats” are the enemy of the common man and this jovial black man, with his pithy comments and promise of awakening “common sense” is on an altruistic mission of property redistribution.
If you think I am exaggerating or just being paranoid let’s take a minute to examine the ads.
In each of these commercials the target of this rotund Robin Hood are all wealthy white people. The only blacks in the scene are employees or friendly hangers-on positioned well in the background. The “common sense” black man scolds the white people, not about their choice in beer, but rather about their lifestyle as he takes back what they, simply by being rich and white, do not deserve. In each situation the beer is then joyfully redistributed to the less prosperous, racially integrated masses. If race and culture is not the intended message in these commercials then let’s see Miller try it with a white beer driver taking beer away from a predominantly black crowd whilst scolding them for their lifestyle choices. Would you like to bet on how far that would fly?
The catch-phrase of these commercials is “A good, honest beer at a tasty price.” Is Miller really trying to suggest that their beer is honest? Of course not. The message is clear. Rich white people are not honest and that is why the beer is being taken. Miller has chosen to take advantage of the culture war perpetuated by Barack Obama and his socialist policies. They are subliminally tapping into the public sentiment that wealthy white people are the enemy and deserve to have the fruits of their wealth taken away and redistributed.
These commercials are far more about propagating the Obama driven culture clash than a festivities driven beer bash.
Enjoy your Labor Day.
Diet Coke anyone?
For those too young to remember, movie theaters actually used to flash a frame or two of a word or an image during the movie that would instill the urge for a trip to the snack bar. You would be watching the movie quite content and all of a sudden, for some unknown reason, you had an overwhelming desire for a big tub of popcorn or a soft drink. The use of this subliminal mind control was effective because your brain recognized the message before you were even aware of what your eyes had seen. But the practice was also pretty devious and eventually laws were passed to prohibit its use, at least as it related to subliminally influencing unsuspecting movie goers.
Today the advertising practice of subliminal influence is still alive and well and living right in your living room, or whatever room your TV set is in. Case in point: “A good honest beer at a tasty price.”
I don’t drink beer. But the new series of Miller Beer commercials makes me wish I did, if only to buy some other beer besides Miller High Life as my own little personal boycott. My aversion has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of their product but rather with the corporately approved message subliminally displayed in their ad campaign.
This several months old Miller Beer campaign must be fairly effective as the commercials are being broadcast repeatedly on just about every channel and time slot. A jocular black beer truck driver goes from place to place snatching away cases of Miller Beer from people that apparently do not deserve to enjoy the bubbly brew and then he redistributes it the thirsty masses. These numerous beernappings take place at various posh locations like the VIP section of a night club, the sky boxes at a baseball game, the owner’s area at a racetrack and from opulent hotel suite mini-bars. The common denominator in all these ads is that the product is removed from places where most folks will never get a chance to socialize.
The subliminal message is that the wealthy do not deserve this “good honest beer” because they are neither good nor honest. Rich, white ‘fat cats” are the enemy of the common man and this jovial black man, with his pithy comments and promise of awakening “common sense” is on an altruistic mission of property redistribution.
If you think I am exaggerating or just being paranoid let’s take a minute to examine the ads.
In each of these commercials the target of this rotund Robin Hood are all wealthy white people. The only blacks in the scene are employees or friendly hangers-on positioned well in the background. The “common sense” black man scolds the white people, not about their choice in beer, but rather about their lifestyle as he takes back what they, simply by being rich and white, do not deserve. In each situation the beer is then joyfully redistributed to the less prosperous, racially integrated masses. If race and culture is not the intended message in these commercials then let’s see Miller try it with a white beer driver taking beer away from a predominantly black crowd whilst scolding them for their lifestyle choices. Would you like to bet on how far that would fly?
The catch-phrase of these commercials is “A good, honest beer at a tasty price.” Is Miller really trying to suggest that their beer is honest? Of course not. The message is clear. Rich white people are not honest and that is why the beer is being taken. Miller has chosen to take advantage of the culture war perpetuated by Barack Obama and his socialist policies. They are subliminally tapping into the public sentiment that wealthy white people are the enemy and deserve to have the fruits of their wealth taken away and redistributed.
These commercials are far more about propagating the Obama driven culture clash than a festivities driven beer bash.
Enjoy your Labor Day.
Diet Coke anyone?
Friday, September 4, 2009
Big Frick Gets Sick
I hate to admit it.
Maybe Obama is correct. Maybe our healthcare system is broken and in need of an immediate overhaul from top to bottom. Maybe all those greedy, rotten drug companies are just in it for the money and need to be brought under government control. Maybe ObamaCare is the only answer.
I had my own experience in dealing with our current broken healthcare system over the past few days. I will not bore you with all the gory details but suffice it to say that what was a minor annoyance became a full-fledged medical emergency for me this week.
I am not one to go to the doctor for every ache and pain. I take a daily barrage of prescription drugs for existing conditions and get the usually prescribed series of tests to monitor my overall health and well being. But for Big Frick to see the doctor for something other than routine maintenance it’s got to be something pretty serious. Maybe it’s my Bohemian heritage; take a couple of aspirin or Tylenol and let it run its course. Maybe it’s my false sense of machismo. Or maybe it’s because the cure is often worse than the disease and involves me actually having to make changes in my lifestyle. At any rate the situation that presented itself this week was not one that could be ignored.
It broke down like this: After spending a few days in discomfort it became eminently apparent that I needed to seek medical attention. I called my doctor’s office when they opened at 8:30 AM. My doctor had a full schedule of patients for that day so seeing him wasn’t possible. The receptionist connected me to his nurse and after a brief discussion explaining the problem, she arranged for me to see one of his associates in the practice at 11:00AM. That’s a two and a half our delay in getting treatment. I can certainly see how one could draw the conclusion that our healthcare system is broken.
I arrived at my doctor’s new, very high tech office at the agreed time and was immediately taken in for some tests. All the tests necessary were conducted right there and the results were ready within 20 minutes. 20 minutes! Can you imagine having to wait 20 minutes! Broken, broken, broken.
I have a great relationship with my doctor. He is remarkably bright and has a personality that fosters the deep trust I have placed in him since he finished his residency and opened his general practice years ago. His associate was equally personable and articulate. Even though my doc had a full schedule he took some time to check in on me and had a brief consult with his associate regarding my condition and treatment. With healthcare like that I can see why Barack Obama would want to completely revamp the system.
The doctor treating me called in a few prescriptions directly to my pharmacy so they would be ready when I got there. He then went through in detail all the things I needed to do and what to do if I’m not significantly better in a few days. I have a follow-up appointment in two weeks. Wow, talk about broken, huh?
I began taking the drugs the doctor prescribed that afternoon. These drugs were developed and manufactured by one of those big drug companies that Obama says must be stopped. The pills made by the money hungry, profit driven, uncaring drug company began to work within 4 hours and by that evening, about 12 hours after I originally called my doctor’s office, my condition was greatly improved. More treatment may be necessary, but I have doctors that I trust to handle all that.
I sure can see why we desperately need to completely abandon this broken and ineffective healthcare system. I can see why drug companies and healthcare need to be put under the direction of Congress, who did such a stunning job with the comparatively miniscule Cash for Clunkers Program. I can see why doctors need to be reined in and their fees need to be governmentally mandated. I can also see that under ObamaCare I can go back to my old Bohemian remedy of take two aspirins and ride it out.
No wonder ObamaCare includes end of life counseling.
Maybe Obama is correct. Maybe our healthcare system is broken and in need of an immediate overhaul from top to bottom. Maybe all those greedy, rotten drug companies are just in it for the money and need to be brought under government control. Maybe ObamaCare is the only answer.
I had my own experience in dealing with our current broken healthcare system over the past few days. I will not bore you with all the gory details but suffice it to say that what was a minor annoyance became a full-fledged medical emergency for me this week.
I am not one to go to the doctor for every ache and pain. I take a daily barrage of prescription drugs for existing conditions and get the usually prescribed series of tests to monitor my overall health and well being. But for Big Frick to see the doctor for something other than routine maintenance it’s got to be something pretty serious. Maybe it’s my Bohemian heritage; take a couple of aspirin or Tylenol and let it run its course. Maybe it’s my false sense of machismo. Or maybe it’s because the cure is often worse than the disease and involves me actually having to make changes in my lifestyle. At any rate the situation that presented itself this week was not one that could be ignored.
It broke down like this: After spending a few days in discomfort it became eminently apparent that I needed to seek medical attention. I called my doctor’s office when they opened at 8:30 AM. My doctor had a full schedule of patients for that day so seeing him wasn’t possible. The receptionist connected me to his nurse and after a brief discussion explaining the problem, she arranged for me to see one of his associates in the practice at 11:00AM. That’s a two and a half our delay in getting treatment. I can certainly see how one could draw the conclusion that our healthcare system is broken.
I arrived at my doctor’s new, very high tech office at the agreed time and was immediately taken in for some tests. All the tests necessary were conducted right there and the results were ready within 20 minutes. 20 minutes! Can you imagine having to wait 20 minutes! Broken, broken, broken.
I have a great relationship with my doctor. He is remarkably bright and has a personality that fosters the deep trust I have placed in him since he finished his residency and opened his general practice years ago. His associate was equally personable and articulate. Even though my doc had a full schedule he took some time to check in on me and had a brief consult with his associate regarding my condition and treatment. With healthcare like that I can see why Barack Obama would want to completely revamp the system.
The doctor treating me called in a few prescriptions directly to my pharmacy so they would be ready when I got there. He then went through in detail all the things I needed to do and what to do if I’m not significantly better in a few days. I have a follow-up appointment in two weeks. Wow, talk about broken, huh?
I began taking the drugs the doctor prescribed that afternoon. These drugs were developed and manufactured by one of those big drug companies that Obama says must be stopped. The pills made by the money hungry, profit driven, uncaring drug company began to work within 4 hours and by that evening, about 12 hours after I originally called my doctor’s office, my condition was greatly improved. More treatment may be necessary, but I have doctors that I trust to handle all that.
I sure can see why we desperately need to completely abandon this broken and ineffective healthcare system. I can see why drug companies and healthcare need to be put under the direction of Congress, who did such a stunning job with the comparatively miniscule Cash for Clunkers Program. I can see why doctors need to be reined in and their fees need to be governmentally mandated. I can also see that under ObamaCare I can go back to my old Bohemian remedy of take two aspirins and ride it out.
No wonder ObamaCare includes end of life counseling.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Changing The Change
Brace yourself for Change and Hope Part 4 (or is it 5 or 6? I have lost track).
Posters and banners proclaimed it. A young inexperienced community activist promised it. Crowds of jubilant supporters chanted it. An entire nation became mesmerized by it.
Change and Hope were the mantra-like rallying cry of the masses. Nobody asked for a definition. None was needed. Change was coming and bringing with it Hope to the weary downtrodden voters who had been convinced that all their troubles could be cured by these two diaphanous, yet somehow proselyte verbs.
To his credit Barack Obama is about to once again deliver on his promise. Change is indeed coming, but not necessarily in the core issue.
The Change and Hope Obama will deliver is in the words he uses not in his intent. It’s what he does. It’s how he got to be where he is. He Changes the words and Hopes that nobody notices what he is saying is the exactly what he said before but with a new ring to it.
Hell, he even explained it when he gave the commencement speech at Notre Dame. Obama told the huddled masses of this far more political than Christian institution that while campaigning for the presidency he received an angry letter from a doctor complaining about his position on abortion as described on the official Obama for President web site. Obama, being a man of infinite vocabulary, took heed of the doctor’s complaint and changed the wording on the web site. Job done!
How very simple.
He did not change his position on the issue. He still supports abortion at any time including late term abortions and deplores anybody that would infringe on a “woman’s right” to kill her unborn baby. His views about abortion and Right to Life supporters remained exactly the same. He simply changed the words and hoped that folks would view that as him being amenable. And now, according to his chief political strategist and advisor, Chicago’s own David Axelrod, he’s about to try it again.
So far his various approaches to sell ObamaCare haven’t caught on the way he had hoped. He started by talking about the uninsured but got no positive response. He switched his direction toward the insured and only made matters worse. Folks who currently receive pretty good healthcare became vocally outraged at getting more than a rectal thermometer shoved up the old ying-yang. So now he’s going to flip through his well worn thesaurus and see if he can’t find a whole new way to say the same thing.
There are no advanced copies or drafts of the President’s proposed speech but I figure it will go something like this:
Republicans are unwilling to negotiate in good faith.
The current system of healthcare in this country is broken.
Did I mention that this is the Republicans fault too and they are not willing to negotiate?
Everything that you have heard so far is untrue. And even the stuff you haven’t heard is untrue.
The Republicans are spreading these lies because they are not willing to negotiate.
Nothing in the new plan will forbid you from seeing your own doctor.
It’s the Republicans who will make it impossible to see your old doctor because they are not willing to negotiate to fix the broken healthcare system.
None of the billions of dollars cut from Medicare will reduce the care you receive. I even know some old people.
Republicans don’t know any old people and they are the ones that won’t negotiate.
ObamaCare will not take away your decisions for end of life care.
But if the Republicans don’t negotiate we’re all going to die anyway.
It is tremendously unlikely that he will mention that he doesn’t need a single Republican vote to pass ObamaCare through either house of Congress.
The speech is tentatively scheduled for early September. I am certain that ABC and NBC are already clearing their schedules to make room for it. It will be interesting to see if they even allow a Republican rebuttal afterward.
Change is coming, but remember: If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it’s probably an Anatidae.
Posters and banners proclaimed it. A young inexperienced community activist promised it. Crowds of jubilant supporters chanted it. An entire nation became mesmerized by it.
Change and Hope were the mantra-like rallying cry of the masses. Nobody asked for a definition. None was needed. Change was coming and bringing with it Hope to the weary downtrodden voters who had been convinced that all their troubles could be cured by these two diaphanous, yet somehow proselyte verbs.
To his credit Barack Obama is about to once again deliver on his promise. Change is indeed coming, but not necessarily in the core issue.
The Change and Hope Obama will deliver is in the words he uses not in his intent. It’s what he does. It’s how he got to be where he is. He Changes the words and Hopes that nobody notices what he is saying is the exactly what he said before but with a new ring to it.
Hell, he even explained it when he gave the commencement speech at Notre Dame. Obama told the huddled masses of this far more political than Christian institution that while campaigning for the presidency he received an angry letter from a doctor complaining about his position on abortion as described on the official Obama for President web site. Obama, being a man of infinite vocabulary, took heed of the doctor’s complaint and changed the wording on the web site. Job done!
How very simple.
He did not change his position on the issue. He still supports abortion at any time including late term abortions and deplores anybody that would infringe on a “woman’s right” to kill her unborn baby. His views about abortion and Right to Life supporters remained exactly the same. He simply changed the words and hoped that folks would view that as him being amenable. And now, according to his chief political strategist and advisor, Chicago’s own David Axelrod, he’s about to try it again.
So far his various approaches to sell ObamaCare haven’t caught on the way he had hoped. He started by talking about the uninsured but got no positive response. He switched his direction toward the insured and only made matters worse. Folks who currently receive pretty good healthcare became vocally outraged at getting more than a rectal thermometer shoved up the old ying-yang. So now he’s going to flip through his well worn thesaurus and see if he can’t find a whole new way to say the same thing.
There are no advanced copies or drafts of the President’s proposed speech but I figure it will go something like this:
Republicans are unwilling to negotiate in good faith.
The current system of healthcare in this country is broken.
Did I mention that this is the Republicans fault too and they are not willing to negotiate?
Everything that you have heard so far is untrue. And even the stuff you haven’t heard is untrue.
The Republicans are spreading these lies because they are not willing to negotiate.
Nothing in the new plan will forbid you from seeing your own doctor.
It’s the Republicans who will make it impossible to see your old doctor because they are not willing to negotiate to fix the broken healthcare system.
None of the billions of dollars cut from Medicare will reduce the care you receive. I even know some old people.
Republicans don’t know any old people and they are the ones that won’t negotiate.
ObamaCare will not take away your decisions for end of life care.
But if the Republicans don’t negotiate we’re all going to die anyway.
It is tremendously unlikely that he will mention that he doesn’t need a single Republican vote to pass ObamaCare through either house of Congress.
The speech is tentatively scheduled for early September. I am certain that ABC and NBC are already clearing their schedules to make room for it. It will be interesting to see if they even allow a Republican rebuttal afterward.
Change is coming, but remember: If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it’s probably an Anatidae.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
The Exodus of Hope
So, how’s that whole Hopey Changey thing workin’ out for you?
Barack Obama recently complained that Americans were being unfair in their criticism of his fiscal policies and his vision for the future. He said folks are mad at him for not eliminating the national deficit he inherited within the first six months of his presidency. But when you inherit a debt in the billions and within six months raise that deficit level to a projected $9 trillion there may be more than a little disingenuous, butt-covering, deflection in that assessment. At least I hope so. If Obama truly believes Americans are upset because of what he hasn’t done rather than by what he has done, or at least is trying to do, we are all in for a long three years.
With his approval rating dropping faster than Barney Frank’s pants at a Fire Island barbeque, Obama finds himself in completely unfamiliar territory. This personable community activist qua ghost written autobiographer qua political rock star has never had to face even feigning disapproval much less outright rebellion. Mostly because he has been carefully schooled in the fine art of duplicitous political rhetoric over real accomplishments and the exploitation of his almost unparalleled duende.
Mainstream media outlets like ABC, NBC, CNN and the New York Times are going to great lengths to prop up Obama’s policies, with ABC and NBC going so far as refusing to air conservative backed commercials criticizing it. Their goal is to convince Americans that it is recalcitrant Republicans creating the public tempest. But as usual these supposed barometers of national sentiment are completely missing the point. The days of Bill and Hillary claiming a right wing conspiracy are long gone. Obama is in the enviable position of not needing a single Republican vote to change his vision into law. It is Congressional Democrats, fearful of having to find a real job in 2010, that are now the biggest roadblocks to this caravan to nationalized medicine and socialized government.
While it has become apparent that mathematics was never one of Barack Obama’s best subjects, many House and Senate Democrats are working the numbers and they don’t like how they are adding up.
Americans voted for change, what they got was more of the same Democrat tax and spend. The nearly one trillion dollars passed under the banner of stimulus has done nothing but increase the country’s need for foreign investment to buy our ever growing debt. Even the Cash for Clunkers program, which actually stimulated new car sales, was so poorly run that it only increased the light of reality caste on government operational inefficiencies. If the government has a meltdown trying to handle a simple car rebate program how are they going to handle the entire nation’s healthcare?
This complete ineptitude has caused our consumer driven economy to languish in a quagmire of fear, causing discretionary spending to be reduced to all time lows and sending tax revenues into a downward death spiral. While Obama’s approval rating has dropped significantly it is still being artificially supported in the high 40% area by an almost 100% approval rating in the black community. As the reality of dramatically diminished tax receipts cripples the budgets of state, county, city and local governing bodies, deep cuts in the tax supported welfare programs within the minority communities will quickly erode Obama’s manic support. Once support begins to waver in the black community there will be a mass defection that will surpass even that of a stained blue dress and the definition of sexual relations.
Democrats had been banking on the historic cycle of recession and recovery to cover for their trillion dollar spend-a-thon. But their spending only helped to fuel a longer and deeper recession ending any hope of a normal recovery. The only answer this White House has for the prolonged spending-induced pain is more spending. Americans aren’t buying it and fearful Democrats in Congress aren’t willing to take a bullet for it.
So how will we know when the tide of black support has truly begun to ebb? Simple, when you begin to hear blacks referring to Obama by the most insulting, derogatory term they can use.
No not that one.
They will start calling him white.
Barack Obama recently complained that Americans were being unfair in their criticism of his fiscal policies and his vision for the future. He said folks are mad at him for not eliminating the national deficit he inherited within the first six months of his presidency. But when you inherit a debt in the billions and within six months raise that deficit level to a projected $9 trillion there may be more than a little disingenuous, butt-covering, deflection in that assessment. At least I hope so. If Obama truly believes Americans are upset because of what he hasn’t done rather than by what he has done, or at least is trying to do, we are all in for a long three years.
With his approval rating dropping faster than Barney Frank’s pants at a Fire Island barbeque, Obama finds himself in completely unfamiliar territory. This personable community activist qua ghost written autobiographer qua political rock star has never had to face even feigning disapproval much less outright rebellion. Mostly because he has been carefully schooled in the fine art of duplicitous political rhetoric over real accomplishments and the exploitation of his almost unparalleled duende.
Mainstream media outlets like ABC, NBC, CNN and the New York Times are going to great lengths to prop up Obama’s policies, with ABC and NBC going so far as refusing to air conservative backed commercials criticizing it. Their goal is to convince Americans that it is recalcitrant Republicans creating the public tempest. But as usual these supposed barometers of national sentiment are completely missing the point. The days of Bill and Hillary claiming a right wing conspiracy are long gone. Obama is in the enviable position of not needing a single Republican vote to change his vision into law. It is Congressional Democrats, fearful of having to find a real job in 2010, that are now the biggest roadblocks to this caravan to nationalized medicine and socialized government.
While it has become apparent that mathematics was never one of Barack Obama’s best subjects, many House and Senate Democrats are working the numbers and they don’t like how they are adding up.
Americans voted for change, what they got was more of the same Democrat tax and spend. The nearly one trillion dollars passed under the banner of stimulus has done nothing but increase the country’s need for foreign investment to buy our ever growing debt. Even the Cash for Clunkers program, which actually stimulated new car sales, was so poorly run that it only increased the light of reality caste on government operational inefficiencies. If the government has a meltdown trying to handle a simple car rebate program how are they going to handle the entire nation’s healthcare?
This complete ineptitude has caused our consumer driven economy to languish in a quagmire of fear, causing discretionary spending to be reduced to all time lows and sending tax revenues into a downward death spiral. While Obama’s approval rating has dropped significantly it is still being artificially supported in the high 40% area by an almost 100% approval rating in the black community. As the reality of dramatically diminished tax receipts cripples the budgets of state, county, city and local governing bodies, deep cuts in the tax supported welfare programs within the minority communities will quickly erode Obama’s manic support. Once support begins to waver in the black community there will be a mass defection that will surpass even that of a stained blue dress and the definition of sexual relations.
Democrats had been banking on the historic cycle of recession and recovery to cover for their trillion dollar spend-a-thon. But their spending only helped to fuel a longer and deeper recession ending any hope of a normal recovery. The only answer this White House has for the prolonged spending-induced pain is more spending. Americans aren’t buying it and fearful Democrats in Congress aren’t willing to take a bullet for it.
So how will we know when the tide of black support has truly begun to ebb? Simple, when you begin to hear blacks referring to Obama by the most insulting, derogatory term they can use.
No not that one.
They will start calling him white.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
