Posts
I have decided to end any further writing on this site.
I haven't written anything since July 4th, and that fact has been bugging me ever since. In all fairness to you, my readers (all glorious 3 of you), I will cease any activity on this site effective immediately.
I am currently working on a project that I hope will impact politics in this country with a friend of mine. He and I will be devoting our time and efforts solely to it's success, and as such, we cannot afford the distraction of attempting to write about the "Daily Grind" of American Politics.
I appreciate your dedication in following me, and I want to thank you for your kind words of encouragement during my brief tenure as an amateur journalist.
I may from time to time write something here about the project and give you the "inside scoop" as to it's progress, but that will not be for some time.
Thanks again, and God bless you all.
Goodbye...
...for now.
-Evil Monk
“The secret to a rich life is to have more beginnings than endings.” ~ David Weinbaum
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Happy Independence Day!
I will offer you today no inspiring words or stories, the muse is not upon me. However, I will give you my best wishes for you and your family on this, our country's 233rd birthday!
Now, on to the news:
So, Palin has resigned as Governor. Wow. Her interesting and vague statement regarding "lame-ducks" as a reason for her decision is...
...bizarre.
Aside from my belief that the retired writers of the now defunct "Guiding Light" have begun to write the script for American Politics, I am thoroughly surprised by this move from Alaska's erstwhile Governor.
After only a little over 30 months in office, and a particularly vicious Vice-Presidential run, she is effectively throwing in the towel. From Wasilla, we hear a resounding "No Mas!"
Why? I suppose that I must give some credence to the theory that a scandal of Alaskan proportions is looming, but most politicians prefer to ride out storms as opposed to simply abandoning ship before they hit. Perhaps it is to give her constituents a Governor who has less distractions from lawsuits and media coverage. Maybe the weight of her family is finally taking it's toll. We may never know.
Regardless of these thoughts, I feel that her action here is a dereliction of duty. While I have never been her greatest fan, I have always respected her as a tough person who has taken quite a beating in the public eye and continued to smile throughout. This move may forever taint (in my eyes at least) her image as a consistent and dependable leader.
She was elected by the Alaskan People to lead them, and now she has, for whatever reason, decided to abandon them. Perhaps if her explanation was a little more detail and reason, and a little less vague and mysterious, my opinion would be different. As it stands though...
Oh well, as Charles Krauthammer said, she's young, and she'll be back.
But will her supporters?
In other news, I have to weigh in on Mark Sanford and his self imposed Catastrophic Kill of his career (and family).
I have heard some defend politicians in general and their sex scandals. While I understand the reasoning behind the idea that, "As long as they do their jobs, I don't care what they do", I must strongly disagree.
Consider the responsibility that these people carry. All that they are entrusted to do. The oath of office that demands a higher echelon of service and dedication. Now consider the fact that anyone who would do to their own family what people like Mark Sanford has done to his, would likely not think twice about doing to a complete stranger, regardless of their votes, districts, or other assorted political ties to them.
It breaks the sacred faith between a leader and their people. I know that I am waxing idealistic here, but should we not hold these politicians to a higher standard? If we don't already, isn't it about time we start? In addition to the irreparable damage that Mr. Sanford has done to his own family, he has also damaged our party, our trust, and our ability to take anyone in politics seriously.
For these reasons, I must insist on denouncing him.
It is time for him to step down.
Plus, his idiotic and childlike handling of all this is NOT what I want to see in a Presidential Hopeful.
Okay, it's out of my system now. Happy Independence Day!
H/T: Hot Air
Now, on to the news:
So, Palin has resigned as Governor. Wow. Her interesting and vague statement regarding "lame-ducks" as a reason for her decision is...
...bizarre.
Aside from my belief that the retired writers of the now defunct "Guiding Light" have begun to write the script for American Politics, I am thoroughly surprised by this move from Alaska's erstwhile Governor.
After only a little over 30 months in office, and a particularly vicious Vice-Presidential run, she is effectively throwing in the towel. From Wasilla, we hear a resounding "No Mas!"
Why? I suppose that I must give some credence to the theory that a scandal of Alaskan proportions is looming, but most politicians prefer to ride out storms as opposed to simply abandoning ship before they hit. Perhaps it is to give her constituents a Governor who has less distractions from lawsuits and media coverage. Maybe the weight of her family is finally taking it's toll. We may never know.
Regardless of these thoughts, I feel that her action here is a dereliction of duty. While I have never been her greatest fan, I have always respected her as a tough person who has taken quite a beating in the public eye and continued to smile throughout. This move may forever taint (in my eyes at least) her image as a consistent and dependable leader.
She was elected by the Alaskan People to lead them, and now she has, for whatever reason, decided to abandon them. Perhaps if her explanation was a little more detail and reason, and a little less vague and mysterious, my opinion would be different. As it stands though...
Oh well, as Charles Krauthammer said, she's young, and she'll be back.
But will her supporters?
In other news, I have to weigh in on Mark Sanford and his self imposed Catastrophic Kill of his career (and family).
I have heard some defend politicians in general and their sex scandals. While I understand the reasoning behind the idea that, "As long as they do their jobs, I don't care what they do", I must strongly disagree.
Consider the responsibility that these people carry. All that they are entrusted to do. The oath of office that demands a higher echelon of service and dedication. Now consider the fact that anyone who would do to their own family what people like Mark Sanford has done to his, would likely not think twice about doing to a complete stranger, regardless of their votes, districts, or other assorted political ties to them.
It breaks the sacred faith between a leader and their people. I know that I am waxing idealistic here, but should we not hold these politicians to a higher standard? If we don't already, isn't it about time we start? In addition to the irreparable damage that Mr. Sanford has done to his own family, he has also damaged our party, our trust, and our ability to take anyone in politics seriously.
For these reasons, I must insist on denouncing him.
It is time for him to step down.
Plus, his idiotic and childlike handling of all this is NOT what I want to see in a Presidential Hopeful.
Okay, it's out of my system now. Happy Independence Day!
H/T: Hot Air
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Gay Rights, Or The "Carrot On A Stick" For The Left
For about two decades now, the Left has been promising one of it's constituent groups their fair share of rights, but they've taken very little real action to prove their good intentions.
Gay Rights have been dangled out in front of the Gay Community every election cycle like clockwork to garner the votes of approximately 5-7% of all Americans (current estimate puts the Gay population at around 10% so I'm giving a rough conservative estimate). Following the election, the whole idea is shelved until needed again in two years. This dishonest and disrespectful treatment of a constituency is a golden opportunity for us on the Right.
It occurs to me that if the GOP wants to break the image of "The Party of No", as well as the impression that we are out of touch, and shake up the opposition, we should address this matter.
I have written about how the issue of Gay Marriage should be handled, so I won't reiterate it here. However, the approach to such would be a win-win-win situation if we only had the testicular fortitude to use it.
Basically, we would do the following:
1. Secretly write up a bill outlining the above linked idea.
2. Introduce the bill directly after the mid-term elections. This would be somewhat underhanded, as we would be going against our base. So, to counter that effect, give the people lots of time before the next available election to get used to the idea. Given that no Democrat worth his membership to Progressionism would dare to attack us on the measure, the only ones to worry about would be the Republican Junior Representative and their Senate counterpart hopefuls in 2012.
3. Watch the fur fly on the Left.
Obama would be in a bad spot as he would have to make a no-kidding real tough decision. Would he anger the Gay Community by Vetoing the bill, or would he risk the ire of the Black and Latino Communities who indubitably gave their support with the inclusion of a "short list" of things to not do (Gay Rights being on it, I assure you)? Either way, he would lose votes (roughly 5-7% either way in my estimation), and we would gain them. In addition to the direct fallout from his actions, we would also enjoy a measure of sympathetic gratitude from (mostly moderate) voters who would see this as a real "change" in our party.
The Left in general would seethe over having this issue ripped out from under them. The base would scream bloody murder at us, but they would be more angry with their own for letting us take the glory on it. In Washington, every Democrat in Congress and the Senate would have to smile and praise us publicly while cursing our existence in (very) private.
The Serpent Immortal of the Gay Rights issue would be at last defanged, with only Military Service remaining as a semi-serious bone of contention.
You see, as soon as the Black and Latino Communities realize that Obama will need an extra boost to his polls to get through the 2012 election, they may give the "Green Light" for such action on the Left. As such, we need to preempt them by "poaching" it for ourselves.
I believe though, that the greatest benefit from this action (aside from votes) would be the improvement in PR and Brand Image. Even our fiercest detractor would have to acknowledge this as a move in the right direction (no pun intended).
The only problems that I could see would be the base's reaction to such a thing. Many would rail against it, and the Left would certainly help that along, but with proper presentation and planning, we could minimize the "homefront backlash" and call out any Democrats attempting to assist the opposition from the right.
To conclude, I will say this:
I have always found myself more respectful and even trusting of an honest enemy than a dishonest friend.
Gay Rights have been dangled out in front of the Gay Community every election cycle like clockwork to garner the votes of approximately 5-7% of all Americans (current estimate puts the Gay population at around 10% so I'm giving a rough conservative estimate). Following the election, the whole idea is shelved until needed again in two years. This dishonest and disrespectful treatment of a constituency is a golden opportunity for us on the Right.
It occurs to me that if the GOP wants to break the image of "The Party of No", as well as the impression that we are out of touch, and shake up the opposition, we should address this matter.
I have written about how the issue of Gay Marriage should be handled, so I won't reiterate it here. However, the approach to such would be a win-win-win situation if we only had the testicular fortitude to use it.
Basically, we would do the following:
1. Secretly write up a bill outlining the above linked idea.
2. Introduce the bill directly after the mid-term elections. This would be somewhat underhanded, as we would be going against our base. So, to counter that effect, give the people lots of time before the next available election to get used to the idea. Given that no Democrat worth his membership to Progressionism would dare to attack us on the measure, the only ones to worry about would be the Republican Junior Representative and their Senate counterpart hopefuls in 2012.
3. Watch the fur fly on the Left.
Obama would be in a bad spot as he would have to make a no-kidding real tough decision. Would he anger the Gay Community by Vetoing the bill, or would he risk the ire of the Black and Latino Communities who indubitably gave their support with the inclusion of a "short list" of things to not do (Gay Rights being on it, I assure you)? Either way, he would lose votes (roughly 5-7% either way in my estimation), and we would gain them. In addition to the direct fallout from his actions, we would also enjoy a measure of sympathetic gratitude from (mostly moderate) voters who would see this as a real "change" in our party.
The Left in general would seethe over having this issue ripped out from under them. The base would scream bloody murder at us, but they would be more angry with their own for letting us take the glory on it. In Washington, every Democrat in Congress and the Senate would have to smile and praise us publicly while cursing our existence in (very) private.
The Serpent Immortal of the Gay Rights issue would be at last defanged, with only Military Service remaining as a semi-serious bone of contention.
You see, as soon as the Black and Latino Communities realize that Obama will need an extra boost to his polls to get through the 2012 election, they may give the "Green Light" for such action on the Left. As such, we need to preempt them by "poaching" it for ourselves.
I believe though, that the greatest benefit from this action (aside from votes) would be the improvement in PR and Brand Image. Even our fiercest detractor would have to acknowledge this as a move in the right direction (no pun intended).
The only problems that I could see would be the base's reaction to such a thing. Many would rail against it, and the Left would certainly help that along, but with proper presentation and planning, we could minimize the "homefront backlash" and call out any Democrats attempting to assist the opposition from the right.
To conclude, I will say this:
I have always found myself more respectful and even trusting of an honest enemy than a dishonest friend.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Properly Directed Outrage
This will probably turn out to be more of a true rant than usual, but here goes...
I have seen today a lot of Right-wing sites criticizing Obama for taking his girls out for ice cream while Iran burns. The main cry from these sights has been "What if Bush did this?" Of course they are referring to the fact that the MSM would have been quite critical of such a thing and would have stretched the story out for days to support the meme of an uncaring President. Well, to turn this question on it's ear just a bit:
We would have defended him, and rightly so.
Are we to believe that Obama cannot take out his daughters for some ice cream because the world is doing it's absolute best to forget the words to "Kumbayah"? Must his duties to his family suffer for the "good" of whatever ideal we choose to apply? It has been pointed out that while no one really has the black heart to say that he cannot take his family out, appearances are meaningful, and he should have chosen a better time to do such a thing.
Like when? When the world stops being full of hateful and evil people who desire death upon their neighbors? Not gonna happen folks, not gonna happen.
I see this more as an onset of ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome) than anything else. Especially when there are so many other things to be rightly critical of (See, I am still a Conservative, I just reserve my ire for those issues that deserve it):
1. North Korea threatening to provide a fireworks display for Hawai'i on the 4th of July and the Media silence that enshrouds it. This little problem is, in my mind, an open act of war. I know that we are deploying missile defense (funny how those have become useful now, hunh?) units to shield the 50th state, but them used to be "fightin' words" back in the day. I even have my doubts about us actually doing anything of substantial value if they try it, and I get the distinct impression that even if they launch, and we shoot down a Taepodong-2 missile, it will be news for about a week, and then watch it quietly sink beneath the waves of Socialized Healthcare and Unemployment.
2. The ABCNEWS plug for Obama's Healthcare. They have refused any opposing viewpoints to be broadcast as part of a one-hour "Infomercial" regarding Obama's proposed outline for Socialized Medicine. Not only is this a disgrace to objectivity in the media, but it smacks quite loudly of desperation. The polls are now dead even (from higher support earlier this year) when it comes to support for these measures, and I would ask anyone who challenges this assertion to answer me this: If it is such a popular move, why is he trying so hard to sell it?
3. Obama cut the spending for pro-democracy groups in Iran via the State Department. Recently. Like during the Iranian crisis that is currently getting worse. This is a perfect example of a horrifying mixed message, and I wouldn't be surprised to find out that it was an oversight by some well-meaning staffer who didn't know what they were cutting. I certainly hope so, at least.
4. Uighers (terrorists) now living in Bermuda. Watch the video (You only need the first half...). Look around your house. Look at your checkbook. Check the stock market. Remember that the economy is really bad off. Remember that you are an American Citizen. Sharpen the pitchforks. Prepare the torches. Get back to me. One word: Inexcusable.
See? These are legitimate sources of outrage. You can feel wholesome and angry all at the same time. Sometimes these things just come together.
Oh, and another thing. Remember when the Iranians were bad? I do. I am going to be cynical here and say that I think that this situation is one of those "support today, fight tomorrow" kinds of things. I know that Mousavi and the others were the only choices that the Iranian people had, and that he was the "lesser of the available evils", but I will reserve my undying love for those who have proven that they deserve it.
Do not take from that statement that I wish any harm on anyone. I cheer the demonstations that cry out for democracy and peace. I am moved to tears by some of the horrific videos that we are seeing. I applaud the Iranian people's courage in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds. I just remain guarded and cautious when it comes to a country that has a history of enthusiastically hating us. I remember (barely) the Iranian Hostage Crisis, and I seem to recall seeing cheers in the streets all over the muslim world when 9/11 happened.
Let's just say that I am taking a stance of "We'll see..."
How do you conclude a widely ranged rant like this one? I suggest a quote:
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." ~Molly Ivins
H/T: AofSHQ, FOXNEWS, Rasmussen, The Daily Show
I have seen today a lot of Right-wing sites criticizing Obama for taking his girls out for ice cream while Iran burns. The main cry from these sights has been "What if Bush did this?" Of course they are referring to the fact that the MSM would have been quite critical of such a thing and would have stretched the story out for days to support the meme of an uncaring President. Well, to turn this question on it's ear just a bit:
We would have defended him, and rightly so.
Are we to believe that Obama cannot take out his daughters for some ice cream because the world is doing it's absolute best to forget the words to "Kumbayah"? Must his duties to his family suffer for the "good" of whatever ideal we choose to apply? It has been pointed out that while no one really has the black heart to say that he cannot take his family out, appearances are meaningful, and he should have chosen a better time to do such a thing.
Like when? When the world stops being full of hateful and evil people who desire death upon their neighbors? Not gonna happen folks, not gonna happen.
I see this more as an onset of ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome) than anything else. Especially when there are so many other things to be rightly critical of (See, I am still a Conservative, I just reserve my ire for those issues that deserve it):
1. North Korea threatening to provide a fireworks display for Hawai'i on the 4th of July and the Media silence that enshrouds it. This little problem is, in my mind, an open act of war. I know that we are deploying missile defense (funny how those have become useful now, hunh?) units to shield the 50th state, but them used to be "fightin' words" back in the day. I even have my doubts about us actually doing anything of substantial value if they try it, and I get the distinct impression that even if they launch, and we shoot down a Taepodong-2 missile, it will be news for about a week, and then watch it quietly sink beneath the waves of Socialized Healthcare and Unemployment.
2. The ABCNEWS plug for Obama's Healthcare. They have refused any opposing viewpoints to be broadcast as part of a one-hour "Infomercial" regarding Obama's proposed outline for Socialized Medicine. Not only is this a disgrace to objectivity in the media, but it smacks quite loudly of desperation. The polls are now dead even (from higher support earlier this year) when it comes to support for these measures, and I would ask anyone who challenges this assertion to answer me this: If it is such a popular move, why is he trying so hard to sell it?
3. Obama cut the spending for pro-democracy groups in Iran via the State Department. Recently. Like during the Iranian crisis that is currently getting worse. This is a perfect example of a horrifying mixed message, and I wouldn't be surprised to find out that it was an oversight by some well-meaning staffer who didn't know what they were cutting. I certainly hope so, at least.
4. Uighers (terrorists) now living in Bermuda. Watch the video (You only need the first half...). Look around your house. Look at your checkbook. Check the stock market. Remember that the economy is really bad off. Remember that you are an American Citizen. Sharpen the pitchforks. Prepare the torches. Get back to me. One word: Inexcusable.
See? These are legitimate sources of outrage. You can feel wholesome and angry all at the same time. Sometimes these things just come together.
Oh, and another thing. Remember when the Iranians were bad? I do. I am going to be cynical here and say that I think that this situation is one of those "support today, fight tomorrow" kinds of things. I know that Mousavi and the others were the only choices that the Iranian people had, and that he was the "lesser of the available evils", but I will reserve my undying love for those who have proven that they deserve it.
Do not take from that statement that I wish any harm on anyone. I cheer the demonstations that cry out for democracy and peace. I am moved to tears by some of the horrific videos that we are seeing. I applaud the Iranian people's courage in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds. I just remain guarded and cautious when it comes to a country that has a history of enthusiastically hating us. I remember (barely) the Iranian Hostage Crisis, and I seem to recall seeing cheers in the streets all over the muslim world when 9/11 happened.
Let's just say that I am taking a stance of "We'll see..."
How do you conclude a widely ranged rant like this one? I suggest a quote:
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." ~Molly Ivins
H/T: AofSHQ, FOXNEWS, Rasmussen, The Daily Show
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Iran's Turmoil And Obama
Well, on the lighter side, I guess we all have a momentary reprieve from the "threat" of an Iranian Nuclear Device.I suppose that everyone there in the various seats of theocratic power is busy dealing with those troublesome youths and their uppity ideas about fair elections and something called "Democracy".
Poor fellows. Couldn't have happened to a nicer group of guys, I tell you what.
In all seriousness, the reports and images leaking out of Iran are describing a political movement of such scale as to make any number of Washington politicians throw their wallets and pocket change and run screaming in the other direction.
I do so wonder what Mr. Ahmedinejhad is doing right about now. Does he have an "Undisclosed Location" guarded in this instance by Hamas and possibly Hezbollah thugs? Is he beginning to question the legitimacy of his regime, or at least reading the writing on the wall? Has he seen the banners at the soccer games that say "Go To Hell Dictator"? Does he realize that that is his glorious self to which they are referring? Does he care?
Information is slowly coming out, and we are all watching carefully to see how this develops. I must admit that while I would like to hear more definitive statements from Obama to the effect of supporting the Democratic Process and the Will of the People, I suppose that he is being cautious due to the fact that we have become the World's de facto Iranian Negotiator and he needs to avoid overtly taking a side (other than the people's) due to the unfortunate possibility that he will be back to the Talkin' Table with the one guy that has just GOT to be a blast at parties.
I know, I know, I'd like to see him rend his shirt from off his chiseled pectorals and announce from atop the Rotunda that America will not stand for such injustices too, but then how could he sit down with the World's Most Cheerfully Brutal Dictator and talk about peace (No really, the guy looks just so happy almost all of the time. Like he's just having the time of his life hanging folks from cranes all day. Creepy...)?
The truth is that I am not surprised to see France, Germany, and now Canada display their solidarity with the Iranian People. This time, they get to make US look like panty-waists. Thanks guys... I suppose it is easier to pick a side and cheer when you don't have the testicular fortitude to actually be the one (no pun intended) to talk to this wretched little man.
Look, I am not the biggest supporter of Obama, but he is our President and I honestly think that he is taking what may very well be a prudent course of action. It will hurt him here, and as reported by Kianoosh Sanjari (via: Gateway Pundit):
"The people of Iran will not forgive Barack Obama for siding with the evil regime."
As much as it will damage our "Public Image", retaining the chance to negotiate Iran out of the Nuke is an important card to keep in our hand. Besides, he may be privy to more information than we are getting.
Or I could just be hoping that that is the strategy...
Regardless of here at home, the real issue is the Iranian people. They are finally demonstrating their displeasure with the current way of doing things, and have made quite clear their desire for a more moderate leadership. I understand that Mousavi is hardly a saint, but a step in the right direction is always a good one.
I congratulate them on their bravery and perseverance, and wish them the best for their future's sake. I will pray for them all.
Oh, and the Mullahs' claim that America is meddling? "Bovine Leavings", you say?
I don't suppose you can "Tweet" back on Twitter to any of those Iranian Student "Citizen Journalists" with your encouragement can you?
Because if you can, that may become evidence on some kid's cell phone or computer to convict them of treason. Such evidence would be catalogued, remembered, and pushed in our faces. Maybe Obama shouldn't worry about trying to save the remaining few shreds of diplomacy for Ahmedinejhad and just start climbing the Capitol Building after all...
H/T: (Gateway Pundit) and Hot Air
Thursday, June 11, 2009
David Letterman's Shameful Remarks
Recently, an indicator of our country's further social division reared it’s ugly head. David Letterman, a comedian of some note, made some rather horrific remarks in regards to Sarah Palin’s daughter.The disgraceful attempt at humor came during the opening monologue of the “Late Show” when he made the statement that Mrs. Palin’s 14-year-old daughter Willow had been raped at a baseball game by Alex Rodriguez, a baseball player.
I am not the biggest fan of Mrs. Palin, but I am a human and a father. Such horrendous and disgusting vitriol would anger me if it had been said about the Obama girls or any other individual’s children. To brutally attack someone’s family with such words for the purported purposes of humor is an abhorrent act. This is not levity or good-natured ribbing, this is cruel and vicious degradation.
What further angers me about this situation is the fact that it is apparently up for debate as to the “merits” of the statements themselves. As though these remarks made in supposed “jest” have any business being uttered over the airwaves and sent into our homes by someone whom we have invited into them. As though the comments were well within the standards of basic Human Decency. As though it is acceptable to attack an individual’s family due to their difference from yourself in any way.
The repulsive issue has prompted some to state that Letterman was simply making a joke, or that as an entertainer, he has free license and carte blanche to say whatever he pleases about anyone. I fully support Freedom of Speech, but there is a line of respect and decency that should not be crossed when performing for such a broad swath of the public. To say such things in private is still reprehensible, but it is in private, and the damage done is minimal and self-punishing. To say such things in public, before a live studio audience, and with the reasonable expectation to be heard by millions is a blatant and irresponsible disregard for one’s own Humanity and Society’s basic principles of conduct.
Mr. Letterman, for all his seniority in television, and as a father, should have known better and refrained from such low and classless behavior.
The CBS apple, it would seem, has fallen very far from the Murrow Tree…
H/T: Gateway Pundit
UPDATE: I was apparently in error when I reported that Mr. Letterman had said that Willow, Sarah Palin's 14 year old daughter had been raped at a baseball game. He said that her daughter (allegedly referring to 18-19 year old Bristol) had been "knocked up".
I apologize for the shoddy reporting and will do better in the future. That having been said, I still feel it to be in poor taste to make such jokes about someone's family. Class by example is sorely lacking as it is in this country...
Saturday, May 30, 2009
The "Gun Run" And Obama
I have heard a lot of buzz since November concerning Obama's alleged desire to eradicate Responsible Gun Ownership in this country.After some thought, this becomes almost a laughable idea.
Consider the fact that of all the industries in this nation, the only "recession-proof" example is the Firearm Industry. What I wouldn't give for stock in Glock right about now...
In a market that has seen entire calibers of ammunition become practically extinct overnight due to mass sales (.380 ACP, I'm looking at you...), I have begun to wonder how much money is being put into legal defense and 2nd Amendment Support Organizations. Since no one else has any money, I would guess that it's quite an impressive amount.
Obama is busy printing money that is going to be about as solvent as currency as Pelosi is as a credible witness, and the Gun Industry is sitting on a fat mound of liquid capitol. Hmm... I'm no economic expert, but I think that I see a small speedbump forming for the "gun-grabber" crowd. We all got so worried about the possible policies of the far Left, that we all went right out and supported our rights in the most effective way possible. We bought into the market and bought their products (yes, me too). Some people went for the big and bad .45 ACP, while others stayed in the high capacity and availability route with the 9mm. Shotguns, rifles (both assault and hunting), pistols of every type and size, you name it; if it shoots something out the muzzle, it got purchased by someone.
All that money is now in the hands of the manufacturers who will make very sure that you will continue to legally buy their products as soon as you can afford them.
I'm by no means attempting to place a dark patina on the industry here, I'm just stating a fact. They most likely like being in business, so they will protect that business as much as possible. No kidding, hunh?
Furthermore, now that the ratio of guns to populace has indubitably changed to an increased percentage, it would be even harder to get all the guns now than ever before.Not just because now even more people are armed, but because of the fact that America has spoken quite clearly in regards to it's desire to continue owning guns. Rather than the "usual suspects" of White Conservative Men being the only market for weaponry, women are buying them in droves too. Hold fast Dear Reader, for I have heard tell that Liberals are making the occasional purchase of the World's Most Demonized Tool as well. I guess they figure that perhaps they might want to live the novelty that is Responsible Gun Ownership before it becomes a thing of the past. You know, just in case, or something.
(As a note to any Liberals out there who fit this description, please be careful with your new firearm. It is not a toy, and we don't want any more statistics. Read all instructions before use, and practice safe handling techniques. Thank you!)
Heck, at this rate, and with Obama receiving honors such as the Gun Salesman Of The Year Award, I wouldn't be surprised if the Gun Industry gives a donation to the DNC just for a kicker to the 2010 sales forecast.
I'm joking, of course.
"A lawyer with a briefcase can steal more than a thousand men with guns." ~Mario Puzo
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Memorial Day (A Promise Kept)
When I was in Iraq, I lost a very good friend. I will not say his name here as I do not have the family's permission to do so.
Suffice it to say, he gave his life for the freedoms that we all enjoy and occasionally take for granted. In return, I will finally honor a promise made to him that I couldn't carry out at the time.
My friend wanted me to tell everyone at his memorial service (if such occurred, it did and I had to go out on a mission during such...) that he hated false motivation and the professed love of the Marine Corps for just it's sake alone.
In the Marine Corps, a certain variety of person can be found: The Motard. This brand of individual can best be described as someone who is very much into all of the verbal reinforcement and trappings of the organization and means well, but misses the real underlying purpose of the experience as a whole. In other words, a motivated retard. The Military is not known for it's subtlety...
This kind of Marine will accost you with an inexhaustible supply of "Ooh-rahs", "Yuts", and "Semper Fi's", but they only seem to do it because they are in love with the idea of being a Marine rather than simply accepting the fact and doing their jobs quietly and efficiently.
What they fail to comprehend is that all the "jaded" Marines (mostly Infantry) have an innate understanding about the way men and women are motivated in the most important facet of the organization's structure: War.
Those Marines have come to understand that no amount of "Ooh-rah" will carry your buddy back to Charlie Medical, no amount of "Yut" will kill or capture the enemy, and no amount of "Semper Fi" will bring lost friends back to life.
We don't require verbal reinforcement to carry out the duties that can bring us life-long heartbreak. We do it because we said we would and we never want our families and friends back home to ever see or do the things that we have.
I don't blame those who are overly excited about being a Marine, I was too when I first graduated from Boot Camp in '04, but at some point the shine wears off and you have to get down to the business of carrying out your sometimes odious duties. The job can be an incredible rush, and an interminable bore. It is not for everyone.
I will stop here and offer to all those who have gone before me and given their ultimate sacrifice for the life I love today my thanks.
May God bless and keep you in His love.
On thy grave the rain shall fall from the eyes of a mighty nation! ~Thomas William Parsons
Suffice it to say, he gave his life for the freedoms that we all enjoy and occasionally take for granted. In return, I will finally honor a promise made to him that I couldn't carry out at the time.
My friend wanted me to tell everyone at his memorial service (if such occurred, it did and I had to go out on a mission during such...) that he hated false motivation and the professed love of the Marine Corps for just it's sake alone.
In the Marine Corps, a certain variety of person can be found: The Motard. This brand of individual can best be described as someone who is very much into all of the verbal reinforcement and trappings of the organization and means well, but misses the real underlying purpose of the experience as a whole. In other words, a motivated retard. The Military is not known for it's subtlety...
This kind of Marine will accost you with an inexhaustible supply of "Ooh-rahs", "Yuts", and "Semper Fi's", but they only seem to do it because they are in love with the idea of being a Marine rather than simply accepting the fact and doing their jobs quietly and efficiently.
What they fail to comprehend is that all the "jaded" Marines (mostly Infantry) have an innate understanding about the way men and women are motivated in the most important facet of the organization's structure: War.
Those Marines have come to understand that no amount of "Ooh-rah" will carry your buddy back to Charlie Medical, no amount of "Yut" will kill or capture the enemy, and no amount of "Semper Fi" will bring lost friends back to life.
We don't require verbal reinforcement to carry out the duties that can bring us life-long heartbreak. We do it because we said we would and we never want our families and friends back home to ever see or do the things that we have.
I don't blame those who are overly excited about being a Marine, I was too when I first graduated from Boot Camp in '04, but at some point the shine wears off and you have to get down to the business of carrying out your sometimes odious duties. The job can be an incredible rush, and an interminable bore. It is not for everyone.
I will stop here and offer to all those who have gone before me and given their ultimate sacrifice for the life I love today my thanks.
May God bless and keep you in His love.
On thy grave the rain shall fall from the eyes of a mighty nation! ~Thomas William Parsons
Sunday, May 17, 2009
A Note To Ms. Pelosi
Nancy, Nancy, Nancy. What are we going to do with you? I know that barring a catastrophic meltdown of the Democratic Party, you will be re-elected in perpetuity. After you finally pass the Cadaver's Rights Initiative, your mummified and exceptionally well preserved corpse will still have a seat in Congress. You will never leave us.
Now, if we could just get you to stop lying, or at least get you to do it better. Lying is part and parcel to your job, we get that, but we also get the idea that someone of your degree of importance should be an expert with a twisted truth. This whole CIA business is a glorious example of your highly vaunted "transparency in government" for the simple reason that you're not fooling anybody.
Some people are calling for your resignation, and I have to laugh. You aren't going to let this be your pink-slip moment; you will persevere with your usual aplomb and go right on being yourself. Quit? Ha! You scoff at such notions. However...
Your actions have damaged others. Oh, I know that anything you say to the detriment of the CIA in your district is golden political currency and only serves to bolster your voting base, but consider all those coat-tailers who rode into DC-town on whims and prayers with Obama. This is going to hurt them, and in 2010 or 2012, you could be seeing less friendly faces in the workplace. Less Liberals in the House makes for a more difficult time trying to pass all those Fairy-dust Funded Fripperies.
More care should be taken with your less fortunate Sisters and Brothers in Congress. You may be secure, but many of them are, as we say in Internetspeak, "Noobs". They have fragile and delicate platforms with their constituents who have only just met and elected them into office. Your actions endanger their positions and weaken the party as a whole.
But that's not really a concern for you, now is it? Such piddling issues are beneath your contempt. Let the lesser beings fend for themselves I guess? Of course, I agree with you being as how I'm a Conservative. The truth is, I am enjoying this display of rampant disregard for your Party. I am pleased with your inability to behave in a politically viable fashion. I am so glad that you didn't offer a simple, direct, and honest answer to an otherwise softball-like question. That one would have just "whiffed" on by with barely a flicker on the radar, but no, you had to try and cover up your involvement with torture.
With approval ratings at all-time lows for Congress, you continue to offer good reason to perpetuate such sentiments with your backpeddling, your blame shifting, and your greasy retractions. Some folks might begin to realize that the low confidence scores roughly coincide with the Democratic Majority in the House. They might start to wonder why they still elect people into High Office who they wouldn't trust to drop a rock with the Laws of Gravity.
Oh well, maybe Rahm and Obama will find a way to turn your crisis into a bountiful harvest of Distraction-Assisted Policy Changes. Then we can all get back to business as usual with your words retaining their meaning and integrity for only so long as the echoes of their passing reverberate...
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Obama's True Political Masters
I want you to do me a favor. Humor me (because I suck at the whole "put in a video thing") and go to YouTube right quick and search for “crying hippies, trees”. Watch the corresponding video (it will be obvious when you find it…) and answer me this:
What would the Black Vote think about these people?
Consider this too. Quick, how many Minority Objective Initiatives can you name that are in the news right now? How about Eco-Conscious ones? Disparity there? Yes, I arrived at the same answer.
I couldn’t think of anything that works towards the “betterment” of Minorities (with the exception of possibly the “GIVE Act”), but I could think of Cap-and-Trade, the EPA report concerning doubts about CO2, pressure on GM to build more eco-friendly cars, and the perpetually funded but mysteriously non-committal search for the “Energy Source of the Future”.
This means only one thing folks:
The Black Vote only counts in an election year. Their political currency dries up immediately following the final count. Eco-Friends however, have a habit of collecting money for lobbying groups and political entities to bring about their will on the Legislature. The Blacks do too, but apparently their money is less…green.
I would love to see the reaction from Black communities if I showed them that video and then asked them about who is really being listened to in their party. I would relish the opportunity to explain how various projects of an environmentally sound nature will end up costing the poorest people the most over the next few decades by raising energy costs, directly in keeping with the words of Barack Obama himself.
I find it interesting that the one person who was billed as the “Post-partisan President” has turned out to be a *gasp* politician! He sells people out! He smiles benevolently at them in their misery and commiserates, but then takes his marching orders from people and groups that are largely well endowed financially!
What. A. Shocker.
I predicted that this election in either of its outcomes would damage the black vote, but I didn’t think that it would be so…blatant. It has been said that he is just returning favors right now, and soon he’ll get down to the “Brass Tacks” of the Presidency, but I think he’s going to be paying long after his term(s) is (are) over. Some people worked miracles to get him in there, and miracle workers expect miraculous payments. I wouldn’t hold my breath on the “getting down” thing unless it’s at another celebrity award dinner. I predict that the Black Community will wonder what, aside from the first Black President, tax debt (your withholdings are lowered, but your dues are the same meaning you’ll OWE money next year), decades of inflated deficit, and oppressive Green Initiated Legislature Obama really gave them.
Or they could just simply be ecstatic that a Black man is in Office, regardless of his abilities, intentions, or actions.
I would point out though that even the Gay and Lesbian issues are getting more concentrated press time than that of any Minority of any other kind. Such issues are historically looked down upon by the Black, Latino, and even Asian Communities, but they are never-the-less an integral part of the Party Platform. Especially considering the lower percentage of Gay people (+/- 10%) in this country compared to the amount of Blacks (+/- 14%), you might think that Party Leadership would tell someone to wait their turn as more pressing matters are at hand.
Then again, perhaps it really is as one man told me, “The Blacks have nothing else to ask for. What does the NAACP do these days? What laws need to be written to give me more opportunity to succeed? When was the last time you saw a serious protest or political drive to change something other than who sits in some office in DC? We won and we don’t even know it yet.” You might be able to guess his paint job from the words there…
Having “Won” is a burden that the Democratic Party may eventually have to start dealing with. If people begin to view themselves as being taken for granted, they tend to wander away.
Aside from differences of opinion concerning Abortion and Capitol Punishment, the Black Vote really isn’t that far removed from our traditional stance. Hey, I’ll take an extra 14% At the Polling Station…
P.S. Can anyone name more Demographic Disparities in the Democratic Party? Better question (?): Can you name any in ours?
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Napolitano's "No Confidence"
It occurs to me that Department of Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano doesn’t realize one very important aspect of American Culture:Party lines are not drawn around families, they go through them.
Within one immediate family, you can have Liberals and Conservatives. I married a Liberal, albeit one who is rapidly being alienated from her traditional stances by the current administration. Dick Cheney’s daughter is purportedly a Liberal while Mr. Cheney is, well, you get the picture.
The recent report that asserts that returning Veterans of OIF/OEF may in fact become terrorists themselves after fighting them and losing friends in the process, demonstrates her inability to grasp the concept that several families have within them not only different political views, but Military members and veterans as well. This insult was felt far and wide.
Added to this, and the implied and widely understood importance of her position, she may have irreparably damaged at the very least her standing in the average American’s eyes when it comes to our combined safety. If she cannot grasp the idea that we are a mixed people politically, then maybe there are other, more dangerous omissions in her conceptualization of her duties.
Even the Boston Globe, a Liberal leaning paper, has called her to task for her ineptitude in not only the report itself, but also the resulting backlash that it incurred to her Office. Her stumbling explanations were a further insult to our intelligence when a simple apology would have made most of this flack go away.
Also, given the new problem involving the Swine Flu (which will be better known as a real threat or a simple scare by the end of the week), she concerns me. Ms. Napolitano will be instrumental in either combating the possible epidemic or hindering the proper response with her action or inaction. Given her record so far, I cannot say that I am confident in our National Security under her watch.
Perhaps it might be best if she stepped down before any real and lasting damage is done.
UPDATE:
The Obama administration has no:
1. Surgeon General
2. None of the 19 posts or Secretary positions filled in the Dept. of Health and Human Services
3. No confirmation on the FDA Head.
We might safely assume that the DHS will have to (along with other Departments) pick up the slack if the Swine Flu becomes a major issue. I'd like it to be someone who can handle a daily routine at least...
H/T: Hot Air
Monday, April 27, 2009
The Elephant Is Getting Back Up
The GOP is actually on the right path.This is suggested by the two pronged attack that we have begun to make in response to the current Administration’s reckless political behavior.
The political sector of our Party is ridiculed as the “Party of No”. Ridicule, being what it is, is a good sign. It demonstrates the fear of our opposition that we won’t be holding much, if any, of this baggage in 2010 or especially 2012. As our Party continues to vote “No” on every Boondoggle Bonanza of Spending that floats down the Potomac, we are gambling, but with rather good odds, that the Democrats will be left trying to explain and rationalize away the various consequences that will eventually come from this Orgy of Conspicuous Consumption.
In addition, by taking to task the Obama Administration for whatever its newest bungle might be, the Political Class is keeping pressure where it’s needed, the weakest point. The constant scrutiny will wear quickly on the President, and will ensure that he continues to provide us with ammunition.
Meanwhile, the rest of us, complete with our Tea Parties and other assorted frivolities, will continue to demonstrate our frustration and anger with a Government that has forsaken our values and chosen to embrace its own ideals. The ridicule displayed by erstwhile professionals in the media is all the evidence that I require to see that it has the desired effect.
The only thing that we need now is someone to front us in the Presidential Primaries, and the only thing that we have to fear is the Personality Cult that may very well re-elect Obama despite all the evidence to his ineptitude in the Oval Office.
“He’s so cool!” will be a powerful enemy to defeat. Watch and see.
So I beg you to not lose your faith, and continue doing everything you can to further our agenda of a more responsible and less intrusive Government. We will be called racists for opposing the Nation’s first Black-American President, we will be singled out and dissected for our fortitude, and we will sustain grievous wounds from the derision heaped upon us by those who are afraid that they may have bought the Presidential version of the Edsel.
In the end, I believe that it will come down to Public Opinion versus Public Relations.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
An Examination of Torture
The subject of torture is a difficult one to broach and examine. Its inherent sensitivity renders it a particularly incendiary topic, and it presents some very unpleasant questions.
As a former Marine Infantryman, I can recall how our intelligence units would interrogate certain detainees for information pertaining to the area and even their knowledge of the “Bigger Fish”. I remember being on heightened alert after various enemy combatants were “processed” due to the unveiling of threats unknown prior to the capture.
Lives were saved, families were spared the agony of a lost loved one, and another day dawned to which we were awake.
The same effect is evident following the torture of numerous known terrorists in recent years, but the very idea of torture is disturbing or even abhorrent to some people.
I must admit unease in regards to it myself.
However, allow me to put this into some perspective.
These cases are not isolated incidents of randomly captured individuals; they are hardened terrorists whose goals are your demise. They are actively seeking the means to destroy everything that they can that has anything to do with America. They are vile and inhuman people who would kill you and your whole family if given half a chance. They were identified through intelligence networks as key members of various organizations whose ultimate interests lie in the removal of Democracy from the world to be replaced by their theocratic dictatorships of oppression. They are incapable of accepting rehabilitation, they cannot be “cured” or won over, and they will continue their evil enterprises upon release from their incarceration.
In short, they deserve much worse than the current treatment that many of them now enjoy in places like Guantanamo Bay.
In light of recent reports suggesting that 9/11-scale attacks were avoided by the use of “enhanced interrogation” techniques, I would still caution against its widespread use, if at all. The danger that I see is precedent.
We of the Right have pointed out the Law of Unintended Consequences as the bane of the Left for some time now, but it works both ways, and I will cite the Slippery Slope that can best be exampled by the expression, “Where does it stop?” We have given the legitimate arguments that if we allow for the Re-definition of Marriage for homosexuals; will we be opening the door for adult-children unions later? How about adults and animals, or even inanimate objects? If we make provisions for the Legalization of Marijuana, when will we be allowing for Cocaine and Opium to be legalized? They are also grown naturally, right (the difference is chemical processing, but that's another post...)?
Humor me as I present a hypothetical and admittedly extreme scenario:
You own a large arsenal of firearms (so far, not a stretch?) and in six years time, the 2nd Amendment is repealed, effectively making all your guns illegal. You must surrender them to the proper authorities, or face investigation and subsequent prosecution by the Federal Government. With your weapons legally registered with the local law enforcement, it is easily discovered that you have hidden them in a cache somewhere. In a vocal protest that is televised, you state something to the effect of “Molon Labe” and make some reference to “your cold dead hand”. The Feds arrive and take you to an undisclosed location and proceed to submit you to waterboarding and other forms of torture until you relinquish the where-abouts of your firearms.
Sounds crazy? In a world that saw the DHS issue an unrepentant report that labels returning veterans of OIF/OEF as (paraphrased) “at-risk to be enlisted or recruited into Right-wing Extremist groups and racist organizations”? Food for thought…
I don’t have an answer, but perhaps we should be more cynical or critical of issues and ideologies that we are only currently happy with the results of. Otherwise, something like this could severely bite us in the hindquarters.
As a former Marine Infantryman, I can recall how our intelligence units would interrogate certain detainees for information pertaining to the area and even their knowledge of the “Bigger Fish”. I remember being on heightened alert after various enemy combatants were “processed” due to the unveiling of threats unknown prior to the capture.
Lives were saved, families were spared the agony of a lost loved one, and another day dawned to which we were awake.
The same effect is evident following the torture of numerous known terrorists in recent years, but the very idea of torture is disturbing or even abhorrent to some people.
I must admit unease in regards to it myself.
However, allow me to put this into some perspective.
These cases are not isolated incidents of randomly captured individuals; they are hardened terrorists whose goals are your demise. They are actively seeking the means to destroy everything that they can that has anything to do with America. They are vile and inhuman people who would kill you and your whole family if given half a chance. They were identified through intelligence networks as key members of various organizations whose ultimate interests lie in the removal of Democracy from the world to be replaced by their theocratic dictatorships of oppression. They are incapable of accepting rehabilitation, they cannot be “cured” or won over, and they will continue their evil enterprises upon release from their incarceration.
In short, they deserve much worse than the current treatment that many of them now enjoy in places like Guantanamo Bay.
In light of recent reports suggesting that 9/11-scale attacks were avoided by the use of “enhanced interrogation” techniques, I would still caution against its widespread use, if at all. The danger that I see is precedent.
We of the Right have pointed out the Law of Unintended Consequences as the bane of the Left for some time now, but it works both ways, and I will cite the Slippery Slope that can best be exampled by the expression, “Where does it stop?” We have given the legitimate arguments that if we allow for the Re-definition of Marriage for homosexuals; will we be opening the door for adult-children unions later? How about adults and animals, or even inanimate objects? If we make provisions for the Legalization of Marijuana, when will we be allowing for Cocaine and Opium to be legalized? They are also grown naturally, right (the difference is chemical processing, but that's another post...)?
Humor me as I present a hypothetical and admittedly extreme scenario:
You own a large arsenal of firearms (so far, not a stretch?) and in six years time, the 2nd Amendment is repealed, effectively making all your guns illegal. You must surrender them to the proper authorities, or face investigation and subsequent prosecution by the Federal Government. With your weapons legally registered with the local law enforcement, it is easily discovered that you have hidden them in a cache somewhere. In a vocal protest that is televised, you state something to the effect of “Molon Labe” and make some reference to “your cold dead hand”. The Feds arrive and take you to an undisclosed location and proceed to submit you to waterboarding and other forms of torture until you relinquish the where-abouts of your firearms.
Sounds crazy? In a world that saw the DHS issue an unrepentant report that labels returning veterans of OIF/OEF as (paraphrased) “at-risk to be enlisted or recruited into Right-wing Extremist groups and racist organizations”? Food for thought…
I don’t have an answer, but perhaps we should be more cynical or critical of issues and ideologies that we are only currently happy with the results of. Otherwise, something like this could severely bite us in the hindquarters.
The Human Clone's Imminent Arrival?
At some point the Human Clone will be upon us, and we will learn to deal with this new facet of Human Existence.I’ve heard of many complaints and concerns surrounding the possibility that these beings will be without souls, and while I can not verify or deny these fears, I will refer to the classic story of Frankenstein by Mary Shelley.
In the story, it was feared (to a great degree, and thus a major plot point…) that the Monster would mate with a woman, either a natural human, or coerce his Maker, Doctor Frankenstein to make him a partner of sorts in the same way that he himself was created.
The resulting horror and abomination was then thought to have been a hideous conglomeration of festering wounds and disjointed limbs, but in the eyes of a modern reader, this assertion is rather silly (hence, in my opinion, the decline of the story’s prestige in recent decades). The offspring of these two would have depended entirely on the sexual organs alone and even if separate from the other parts in origin, they would have produced a normal and healthy child.
Quite the let-down in the Horror world, eh?
Yet today, we have once again a new and terrifying prospect, the Human Clone. A being contrived through science and reason, devoid of any soul, lacking even a vestigial remnant of its True Human Fore-bearer’s spirit!
Dross, crap, and poppycockery.
We will never run out of things to run screaming into the hills from, will we? Another amazing advancement in science to be greeted as an insufferable evil. Of course, you must never let it pass your mind that God may have intended for us to do things like use a tool, or attempt to bring order to chaos, or to improve our lives past the drudgery that was the 14th century. Nope, such thoughts are a plague, an insidious attack by The Horned One who can quote the Bible to further his own infernal ends! Egad!
I would certainly advise caution, restraint, and perhaps even regulation, but I will not engage in the random and baseless fear mongering that can lead to scientific stagnancy.
This does not offend my religious sensitivities; neither does it raise my Hackles of Reason. We progress. It is what we do best. Perhaps we get ahead of ourselves sometimes, and we have certainly taken on projects that have proven our match and greater from time to time, but such is trial and error, the way of learning.
Relax and observe; you may yet see the Glory of God in a scientific advancement…
H/T: Hot Air
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
The Marijuana Question
Today, I’m weighing in on the possible Legalization of Marijuana. Those of you (three, maybe four?) who have been reading me for a while now, might have noticed that I can deviate from the Party Line some when it comes to Social Conservatism. As such, it will come as no surprise when I say the following:
We should legalize Marijuana, and “grandfather” out of prison anyone who is currently there for ONLY Marijuana charges.
Breathe… Again… Ok? Good.
Now, the only way that I’ve ever seen anyone’s life become ruined by Marijuana is when they get caught.
I’m not talking about those people who were out to destroy themselves anyway, and you know who I’m talking about. If you’ve ever spent any time around less-than-stellar personages, you know exactly of whom I’m referring. The people who need no chemicals in their system to behave in a catastrophically inhumane fashion? The ones who can throw away their entire lives and sometimes those of their family's in the process? They’re already lost causes. Let them go. Everyone else? Well…
It is my belief that as Conservatives, we have some cognitive dissonance of our very own. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the term, I’ll elaborate:
Cognitive Dissonance- A condition of conflict or anxiety resulting from inconsistency between one's beliefs and one's actions, such as opposing the slaughter of animals and eating meat. ~ Answers.com
The left has been afflicted before with very exemplary instances of this malady, such as:
The organization Queers For Palestine (They would be put to death there)
Supporting Iran and Promoting World Peace
Claiming to be the Party of Humane Action, and then allowing rampant abortions
And so on…
In the case of Marijuana, we find the Right-wing’s secret Cognitive Dissonance Enabler. Consider how we view responsible gun ownership:
1. Human responsibility should be placed on the human responsible.
2. Do not assign moral values to an inanimate object.
3. Removal of one outlet of human nature will ensure a replacement of said outlet.
The above three tenets of such are listed here in my article on the matter. Soon after writing this piece, I noticed something. We give very good and logical reasons for our continued right to keep and bear arms, but somehow, these same applicable laws of reason don’t apply to drugs.
I’ve heard Marijuana referred to in all seriousness as “The Devil’s Weed” and much worse. I realize that drugs alter perception and thought unlike guns, but you must still acknowledge that the choice to become “high” is still a human responsibility. The application of moral values to an inanimate object is still illogical and therefore shouldn’t be allowed into the debate. I don’t care if your “second cousin once smoked pot and decided to jump off a roof” or some other silly and implausible scenario comes up, I will still hold that no one put the joint, bowl, bong, pipe, vaporizer, or other paraphernalia up to his or her lips and pulled the trigger on the lighter. The same three principles apply to Marijuana, and to not recognize such is hypocrisy.
Furthermore, the fact that we can not get rid of the drug in this country, and I can recall being able to get high when my friends and I couldn’t afford or score cigarettes (age 14 or so) underscores the (paraphrased) point that comedian Bill Hicks made in his stand-up routine:
“We have a War on Drugs, and the people on drugs are winning!”
Alcohol was completely out of the question in my youth (regulation works, how about that…), but we sure could find pot most nights to wile away the hours in suburbia.
I’m not going to get into the economic side of the issue, as I am no economist, but I will say that if we legalized Marijuana, we would see some annual profit from the substance. I’ll go you one further and say that if we grandfathered out of jails and prisons all those who were put away on Marijuana charges, we would save an additional amount of money every year.
Those people with whom I am acquainted who smoke it are usually very responsible folks who simply go about their daily routines and don’t start any trouble. In fact, they go out of their way to avoid it. Illegality aside, they just don’t want to deal with the added stress of whatever situation threatens to “bring them down”. They’re mostly peaceful and generous in their intoxication, unlike another, more legal variety of inebriant.
Make it just like Alcohol in regards to its regulation. Don’t smoke and drive, don’t go to work high, don’t do it in public (bars acceptable), frown upon its use around children, and so on. Allow for it to be bought and sold under licensed and overseen transactions. Tax it, import it, export it, grow it (with license), and capitalize on it.
This drug is a mainstay of gangs and drug dealers. Without it to hold them up, they will lose revenue. Right now, in an economic downturn, I can guarantee that sales are up for illicit recreational pharmaceuticals. Without Marijuana, a good portion of them would be very much so out of luck and out of business.
As a parent of my Step-daughter’s friend once said, “The only thing that is keeping it from being legal is the fact that as of yet, they cannot determine if you have smoked in the immediate past”. They can take you to a hospital for a urinalysis test, but that only shows the last thirty days, not that you were intoxicated while, say, driving twenty minutes ago. When they have established a test for immediate use that is:
1. Non-invasive
2. Economical
3. On-the-spot
4. Reliable
…then they will begin the legislation for its regulated legalization. I can almost promise you that when the “breath-a-lyzer” test comes, so will the serious examination of the end of Marijuana prohibition.
I have flown once again in the face of my Party’s traditional stance here, but I believe in personal freedom and responsibility. In the end, it all comes down to your individual choice to do the right or wrong thing at any given moment, and I like having the decision all to myself.
Feels like… Liberty.
We should legalize Marijuana, and “grandfather” out of prison anyone who is currently there for ONLY Marijuana charges.
Breathe… Again… Ok? Good.
Now, the only way that I’ve ever seen anyone’s life become ruined by Marijuana is when they get caught.
I’m not talking about those people who were out to destroy themselves anyway, and you know who I’m talking about. If you’ve ever spent any time around less-than-stellar personages, you know exactly of whom I’m referring. The people who need no chemicals in their system to behave in a catastrophically inhumane fashion? The ones who can throw away their entire lives and sometimes those of their family's in the process? They’re already lost causes. Let them go. Everyone else? Well…
It is my belief that as Conservatives, we have some cognitive dissonance of our very own. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the term, I’ll elaborate:
Cognitive Dissonance- A condition of conflict or anxiety resulting from inconsistency between one's beliefs and one's actions, such as opposing the slaughter of animals and eating meat. ~ Answers.com
The left has been afflicted before with very exemplary instances of this malady, such as:
The organization Queers For Palestine (They would be put to death there)
Supporting Iran and Promoting World Peace
Claiming to be the Party of Humane Action, and then allowing rampant abortions
And so on…
In the case of Marijuana, we find the Right-wing’s secret Cognitive Dissonance Enabler. Consider how we view responsible gun ownership:
1. Human responsibility should be placed on the human responsible.
2. Do not assign moral values to an inanimate object.
3. Removal of one outlet of human nature will ensure a replacement of said outlet.
The above three tenets of such are listed here in my article on the matter. Soon after writing this piece, I noticed something. We give very good and logical reasons for our continued right to keep and bear arms, but somehow, these same applicable laws of reason don’t apply to drugs.
I’ve heard Marijuana referred to in all seriousness as “The Devil’s Weed” and much worse. I realize that drugs alter perception and thought unlike guns, but you must still acknowledge that the choice to become “high” is still a human responsibility. The application of moral values to an inanimate object is still illogical and therefore shouldn’t be allowed into the debate. I don’t care if your “second cousin once smoked pot and decided to jump off a roof” or some other silly and implausible scenario comes up, I will still hold that no one put the joint, bowl, bong, pipe, vaporizer, or other paraphernalia up to his or her lips and pulled the trigger on the lighter. The same three principles apply to Marijuana, and to not recognize such is hypocrisy.
Furthermore, the fact that we can not get rid of the drug in this country, and I can recall being able to get high when my friends and I couldn’t afford or score cigarettes (age 14 or so) underscores the (paraphrased) point that comedian Bill Hicks made in his stand-up routine:
“We have a War on Drugs, and the people on drugs are winning!”
Alcohol was completely out of the question in my youth (regulation works, how about that…), but we sure could find pot most nights to wile away the hours in suburbia.
I’m not going to get into the economic side of the issue, as I am no economist, but I will say that if we legalized Marijuana, we would see some annual profit from the substance. I’ll go you one further and say that if we grandfathered out of jails and prisons all those who were put away on Marijuana charges, we would save an additional amount of money every year.
Those people with whom I am acquainted who smoke it are usually very responsible folks who simply go about their daily routines and don’t start any trouble. In fact, they go out of their way to avoid it. Illegality aside, they just don’t want to deal with the added stress of whatever situation threatens to “bring them down”. They’re mostly peaceful and generous in their intoxication, unlike another, more legal variety of inebriant.
Make it just like Alcohol in regards to its regulation. Don’t smoke and drive, don’t go to work high, don’t do it in public (bars acceptable), frown upon its use around children, and so on. Allow for it to be bought and sold under licensed and overseen transactions. Tax it, import it, export it, grow it (with license), and capitalize on it.
This drug is a mainstay of gangs and drug dealers. Without it to hold them up, they will lose revenue. Right now, in an economic downturn, I can guarantee that sales are up for illicit recreational pharmaceuticals. Without Marijuana, a good portion of them would be very much so out of luck and out of business.
As a parent of my Step-daughter’s friend once said, “The only thing that is keeping it from being legal is the fact that as of yet, they cannot determine if you have smoked in the immediate past”. They can take you to a hospital for a urinalysis test, but that only shows the last thirty days, not that you were intoxicated while, say, driving twenty minutes ago. When they have established a test for immediate use that is:
1. Non-invasive
2. Economical
3. On-the-spot
4. Reliable
…then they will begin the legislation for its regulated legalization. I can almost promise you that when the “breath-a-lyzer” test comes, so will the serious examination of the end of Marijuana prohibition.
I have flown once again in the face of my Party’s traditional stance here, but I believe in personal freedom and responsibility. In the end, it all comes down to your individual choice to do the right or wrong thing at any given moment, and I like having the decision all to myself.
Feels like… Liberty.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Hard Times Ahead
Given the recent DHS report that seeks to demonize Veterans and other “Right-wing Extremists”, the poorly veiled smear from CNN on the coverage of the Tea Parties, and now the epitome of Mental Stability, Janine Garofalo insisting that we’re racist for protesting Big Government Spending, I fear that things will get worse before they get better.
For several decades now, the Left has floated itself on the idea that it is the Anti-discrimination party. It began with the Civil Rights Movement, where the moral authority to call out those in power who were truly attempting to keep various peoples in “their place” was a strong and virtuous one.
The Left has retained its claim on these actions and most especially on the claim that it has the unquestionable right and indeed the obligation to continue laying blame at the feet of those who would see others oppressed. The only problem is that laws have been passed, organizations have been formed (or shattered), and changes are in evidence to support the notion that perhaps we have moved on from that era.
But why let a good tool go to waste?
Having the perceived moral authority to claim that someone is racist, fascist, or a general example of non-humanity is a great boon to their efforts. We are seeing this being applied liberally to our efforts right now.
On April 15th, we witnessed a massive gathering of peoples from all different walks of life who wanted to be heard in regards to their displeasure concerning the rampant spending that will lead to high taxes for at least another generation of Americans. An off-the-top estimate appears to be 500,000 across the nation. This was a great start that will propel us forward towards our ability to effect real change in Washington as well as bolster our candidate in 2012.
This fact is quite frightening to those of the Left.
Our ability to organize and stage such protests is a very real threat to them as evidenced by the above stated reactions and pre-emptive strikes. These despicable acts of misrepresentation and libel will only increase. We can all look forward to being smeared, jeered, and threatened with increasing ferocity and frequency.
The fact is that we are becoming the counter-culture. We are the new “hippies”, although we might very well be awarded some other title such as “suitee”, “squarey”, or even “righty-whiteies”. Ridicule, anti-coverage, and dismissal will be our foes. Misrepresented policies and messages will plague us. Our fervent, but misguided friends will take us backwards with their ravings. This will not be easy.
Hope is never far however, from those who continue to push forward.
So gather your wits about you, call your allies, and sally forth towards the fray…
…it has only just begun.
H/T: Hot Air
For several decades now, the Left has floated itself on the idea that it is the Anti-discrimination party. It began with the Civil Rights Movement, where the moral authority to call out those in power who were truly attempting to keep various peoples in “their place” was a strong and virtuous one.
The Left has retained its claim on these actions and most especially on the claim that it has the unquestionable right and indeed the obligation to continue laying blame at the feet of those who would see others oppressed. The only problem is that laws have been passed, organizations have been formed (or shattered), and changes are in evidence to support the notion that perhaps we have moved on from that era.
But why let a good tool go to waste?
Having the perceived moral authority to claim that someone is racist, fascist, or a general example of non-humanity is a great boon to their efforts. We are seeing this being applied liberally to our efforts right now.
On April 15th, we witnessed a massive gathering of peoples from all different walks of life who wanted to be heard in regards to their displeasure concerning the rampant spending that will lead to high taxes for at least another generation of Americans. An off-the-top estimate appears to be 500,000 across the nation. This was a great start that will propel us forward towards our ability to effect real change in Washington as well as bolster our candidate in 2012.
This fact is quite frightening to those of the Left.
Our ability to organize and stage such protests is a very real threat to them as evidenced by the above stated reactions and pre-emptive strikes. These despicable acts of misrepresentation and libel will only increase. We can all look forward to being smeared, jeered, and threatened with increasing ferocity and frequency.
The fact is that we are becoming the counter-culture. We are the new “hippies”, although we might very well be awarded some other title such as “suitee”, “squarey”, or even “righty-whiteies”. Ridicule, anti-coverage, and dismissal will be our foes. Misrepresented policies and messages will plague us. Our fervent, but misguided friends will take us backwards with their ravings. This will not be easy.
Hope is never far however, from those who continue to push forward.
So gather your wits about you, call your allies, and sally forth towards the fray…
…it has only just begun.
H/T: Hot Air
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Hey folks, I've been up for 24 hours (or more, I've lost track...). So... I'm outta here. Good night! More tomorrow from today!
Wow! A Lot Of People In Cincinnati Came Out For Tea!
Well, I'm back from the Party, and as promised, here's some lovely pictures for you...Official estimates are in the 5-8k range... Lots of "Party People"!
Great energy, refreshing dose of action, just an all around good day! If you want any photos for yourself, leave a comment with a generic (temporary) e-mail address, or other means of getting hold of you.
Oh, and the Press can't hide from this one, they were there all right...
I'm down here at the Cincinnati Tea Party. I'm going to try the live blogging thing, but I'll give you a better story later today. Stay tuned. All three of you!
Understanding Our Fundamental Differences
I’ve been meaning to do an examination of the fundamental differences between the thought processes of Liberals and Conservatives. In the spirit of Progressive Understanding, I figured that I could contribute to the dialogue by examining the two different methodologies of looking at any given situation.
As has been pointed out to me by my friend Rob, Conservatives are more comfortable keeping the status quo so to speak, and simply remain going about the daily business of life in the same routine as it has always been done. Liberals on the other hand are almost always looking for new things to try. These principles can best be related to the general public as:
Conservative: If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
Liberal: There’s gotta be a better way.
If you look at many recent hot-button issues, you’ll see that this is largely the case. Conservatives fight for things to remain the same, while Liberals fight to bring about change (no pun intended).
The most obvious examples of differences in this vein are demonstrated by what we name our organizations:
Conservative: Heritage Foundation
Liberal: ACORN or Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now
“Heritage” implies long-held traditional values, while “Reform” and “Now” imply the progressive sense of forward movement.
Keep in mind one important fact: Neither of these viewpoints is invalid. While it could be argued that the Conservative outlook gives us tradition and a sense of culture, similarly, the Liberal outlook demonstrates invention and progress.
Another way we differ is when it comes to national security or foreign policy. This has been remarked upon before within the blogsphere, but I’ll repeat it again.
Conservative: Crime Prevention
Liberal: Law Enforcement
The essential gist if this idea is that while Conservatives tend to be pro-active in the defense of themselves or the nation, Liberals tend to wait for something to happen before taking any measures. While Conservatives will arm themselves due to their natural distrust of the unknown, “Just because it’s never happened, doesn’t mean that it can’t”, Liberals will be more prone to trust their fellow man and believe that goodwill and charity will suffice in their daily interactions, “I believe that all people are inherently good”.
Again, the general ideas themselves are not bad, but they might be misplaced or even inappropriate under certain circumstances.
As a generalization, Conservatives are more independent, while Liberals are more community-oriented. This can be illustrated by looking at the differing approaches in everything from child-rearing to economics:
Conservative: “Tightly-knit Nuclear Family”
Liberal: “It takes a village to raise a child”
A Conservative will be more likely to consider home-school for their children, usually with a religious based curriculum, but a Liberal will demand that the local (and secular) public school be adequately funded so as to afford the finest available education for their offspring.
Conservative: I give to charities of my own accord.
Liberal: Our taxes should pay for the less fortunate.
While many strong arguments have been made concerning the negating effect on charity by mandatory charity through allocated taxation, others have stated that it should be a wealthy nation’s responsibility to take care of as many people as possible.
Conservative: Privatized Healthcare
Liberal: Universal Healthcare
The current administration wishes to make available a government run system of providing healthcare to any that cannot afford to take on the fiscal responsibility of privately funded healthcare. While this matter is a hotly debated sticking point between the parties, the idea is not necessarily a bad one. The primary reasons for it being so divisive are the unintended consequences seen by one side, and the desire for humane action viewed by the other.
Conservative: I should keep as much of my money as possible to decide its uses as I see fit, such as investing in our economy.
Liberal: High taxes are patriotic, and allow my country to grow stronger through the government’s direct guidance.
Conservatives argue that keeping most of their money will allow them to spend it on free enterprise items that will stimulate the economy, and invest it in stocks thus “floating” the industries on capitol. Liberals believe that through government programs and regulation of business, sustainable economic prosperity can be achieved.
In conclusion, I would say that while all of the above can be argued ad Nauseum as to whether or not it is logically applicable to various political issues, has moral value to be assigned, or is right, wrong, evil, or the best thing for everyone; at the core of every thought process is what I hope to be a good intention. I do realize that a certain avenue of approach to a locale that features deplorable living conditions is manufactured from only the finest of desires for other’s and one’s own well-being, but they have worked out for the best as well.
Perhaps through the understanding that we all want what is best, and that the goal is often approached from different angles and may even yield different conclusions, you will alleviate the tension in your next argument or debate with whomsoever you enjoy such lively political discourse.
After all, understanding another person’s point of view is a crucial factor in the ultimate goal of elucidating your own…
As has been pointed out to me by my friend Rob, Conservatives are more comfortable keeping the status quo so to speak, and simply remain going about the daily business of life in the same routine as it has always been done. Liberals on the other hand are almost always looking for new things to try. These principles can best be related to the general public as:
Conservative: If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
Liberal: There’s gotta be a better way.
If you look at many recent hot-button issues, you’ll see that this is largely the case. Conservatives fight for things to remain the same, while Liberals fight to bring about change (no pun intended).
The most obvious examples of differences in this vein are demonstrated by what we name our organizations:
Conservative: Heritage Foundation
Liberal: ACORN or Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now
“Heritage” implies long-held traditional values, while “Reform” and “Now” imply the progressive sense of forward movement.
Keep in mind one important fact: Neither of these viewpoints is invalid. While it could be argued that the Conservative outlook gives us tradition and a sense of culture, similarly, the Liberal outlook demonstrates invention and progress.
Another way we differ is when it comes to national security or foreign policy. This has been remarked upon before within the blogsphere, but I’ll repeat it again.
Conservative: Crime Prevention
Liberal: Law Enforcement
The essential gist if this idea is that while Conservatives tend to be pro-active in the defense of themselves or the nation, Liberals tend to wait for something to happen before taking any measures. While Conservatives will arm themselves due to their natural distrust of the unknown, “Just because it’s never happened, doesn’t mean that it can’t”, Liberals will be more prone to trust their fellow man and believe that goodwill and charity will suffice in their daily interactions, “I believe that all people are inherently good”.
Again, the general ideas themselves are not bad, but they might be misplaced or even inappropriate under certain circumstances.
As a generalization, Conservatives are more independent, while Liberals are more community-oriented. This can be illustrated by looking at the differing approaches in everything from child-rearing to economics:
Conservative: “Tightly-knit Nuclear Family”
Liberal: “It takes a village to raise a child”
A Conservative will be more likely to consider home-school for their children, usually with a religious based curriculum, but a Liberal will demand that the local (and secular) public school be adequately funded so as to afford the finest available education for their offspring.
Conservative: I give to charities of my own accord.
Liberal: Our taxes should pay for the less fortunate.
While many strong arguments have been made concerning the negating effect on charity by mandatory charity through allocated taxation, others have stated that it should be a wealthy nation’s responsibility to take care of as many people as possible.
Conservative: Privatized Healthcare
Liberal: Universal Healthcare
The current administration wishes to make available a government run system of providing healthcare to any that cannot afford to take on the fiscal responsibility of privately funded healthcare. While this matter is a hotly debated sticking point between the parties, the idea is not necessarily a bad one. The primary reasons for it being so divisive are the unintended consequences seen by one side, and the desire for humane action viewed by the other.
Conservative: I should keep as much of my money as possible to decide its uses as I see fit, such as investing in our economy.
Liberal: High taxes are patriotic, and allow my country to grow stronger through the government’s direct guidance.
Conservatives argue that keeping most of their money will allow them to spend it on free enterprise items that will stimulate the economy, and invest it in stocks thus “floating” the industries on capitol. Liberals believe that through government programs and regulation of business, sustainable economic prosperity can be achieved.
In conclusion, I would say that while all of the above can be argued ad Nauseum as to whether or not it is logically applicable to various political issues, has moral value to be assigned, or is right, wrong, evil, or the best thing for everyone; at the core of every thought process is what I hope to be a good intention. I do realize that a certain avenue of approach to a locale that features deplorable living conditions is manufactured from only the finest of desires for other’s and one’s own well-being, but they have worked out for the best as well.
Perhaps through the understanding that we all want what is best, and that the goal is often approached from different angles and may even yield different conclusions, you will alleviate the tension in your next argument or debate with whomsoever you enjoy such lively political discourse.
After all, understanding another person’s point of view is a crucial factor in the ultimate goal of elucidating your own…
Monday, April 13, 2009
Another Example Of Legislative Idiocracy
(Author's Note: I apologize for the crappy video placement. I'm still learning the whole HTML thing. Click on the video to go to YouTube to see it in full...)
After viewing this video earlier today (thanks to a family friend…) I wondered if anyone in Washington D.C. ever actually bothers to read, consider, discuss, ask professionals about, or otherwise investigate any of the House Resolutions that come across their respective desks.
I don’t think that this will pass, but it brings into question the competence and diligence of our Governing Bodies. Surely someone on the Hill has slapped their forehead and gone, “Oh, wait a minute, this is a terrible idea!” as they begin to bury the travesty before they can become a laughing-stock on the House or Senate floors.
Right? Um, yeah…
I haven’t even bothered to research this revoltingly torrid piece of refuse as I am that sure of its eventual failure. I am going to have faith (with fingers crossed…) and simply believe that no one could be that dense…
Except:
Del. Madeleine Bordallo [D-GU] the Delegate from Guam (She is the lead Sponsor…)
And these fine folks who said they would go along (Co-Sponsors) with this glittering example of mental derangement:
Rep. Grace Napolitano [D-CA]
Del. Eni Faleomavaega [D-AS]
Rep. Neil Abercrombie [D-HI]
Rep. James McGovern [D-MA]
Rep. Lynn Woolsey [D-CA]
Rep. Raul Grijalva [D-AZ]
Rep. Barbara Lee [D-CA]
Rep. Barney Frank [D-MA]
Rep. Alcee Hastings [D-FL]
Rep. Ronald Kind [D-WI]
Rep. Dale Kildee [D-MI]
Rep. Ron Klein [D-FL]
Rep. George Miller [D-CA]
Oops. I have seen some of these names before, and I have not been at all pleased with the things that I have heard about them or their politics. Perhaps I had better do more than cross my fingers…
I suppose that dealing with a crumbling economy, handling two wars, and nationalizing everything in sight, one has to have a diversion to take one’s mind off of the pressing concerns of one’s job, but backing legislation that would adversely affect almost everyone who owns a pet?
Are they serious?
I wasn’t even aware that this was an issue. Is this the new environmentalist battle-front? Our pets? Do you feel threatened by hamsters, Mr. Frank? Do you suffer from Ophidiophobia, Ms. Napolitano? Do you dissolve into a shivering cold sweat at the mere thought of someone owning a parakeet, Mr. Mc Govern?
The Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act is a preposterous and guffaw-inducing illustration of the idiocy that is currently serving as our House of Representatives.
There oughta be a law…
H/T:Thanks Ian!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)