The only people that these kinds of comparisons are a problem for are those that don't believe that even NEWSWEEK! is biased. I'm thinking that if you don't believe that by now, then it just isn't going to be possible for you to have any problems with anything that is reality based. How about BO being on the cover of Time in very flattering light something like 8 times already? Or the famous Time "GingGrinch" cover of Time with "How Mean Is He" after the Republicans took over the House for the first time in 50 years.
Other than the media that are labled biased (which they are -- just 180 degrees from the rest of them), it is pretty clear who the MSM in this country cheers for and whom then HATE!
Sounds like BO is having a heck of a time figuring out what to do in Afghanistan. Here are the options he must decide between:
Immediate unconditional cut and run
Small troop buildup for cover, cut and run when enough of those die to call it hopeless
Lots of talking / apologizing to NATO allies, begging for help, cut and run when they don't give enough.
Declare big "mission change", maybe move some troops around, give some speeches, then cut and run in a controlled fashion and declare victory.
Sounds like BO is really stressed about all these big decisions. He has to get back to throwing some more staff under the bus for the fact he can't get Gitmo closed, and has to start picking out some sacrificial lambs to throw under there because the stimulus is a failure and the dollar is going down like a neutron balloon in a black hole.
Remember when BO was going to follow Bin Ladin all the way to his hole in Pakistan? It only it were true -- and he would just crawl in there with him, it could save us TRILLIONS of dollars and millions of jobs!
How often do we hear of the "radical right" with various statements about the "danger" of everything from Evangelical Churches not having Gay Clergy, to Tea Parties as being "hateful, divisive, etc"? The general MSM response to the Fort Hood shootings is "gee, I hope nobody thinks badly of Muslims because of it". Does anyone else just have a second where they think; "How does the treatment of this compare with the last nut that killed an abortionist?". Recall a bunch of MSM stories trying to minimize the connection between the killer and normal every day folks who just disagree with killing babies that are viable to live outside the womb?
He demonstrated that being a trained psychiatrist provides no immunity to ancient hatreds and religious fanaticism, nor does psychiatric training provide much acuity in spotting such things in others. For example, the London Telegraph reports that, in what was supposed to be a medical lecture, Hassan instead gave an hourlong briefing on the Koran, explaining to colleagues at Walter Reed Army Medical Center that nonbelievers should be beheaded, have boiling oil poured down their throats and set on fire.
So, does that sound kind of "radical" to you? or is beheading, pouring oil down the remaining throat hole and setting the beheaded torso ablaze just one of those "cultural differences" that we all need to "respect and honor" since all cultural practices are equal, and to think that ours are somehow "better" is American exceptionalism -- something BO apologizes for regularly. What would it take to be seen as a "radical Muslim" or even a (dare we say it) "terrorist"??
Which raises the most troubling revelation: For a very large number of people, the idea that he is a Muslim fanatic, motivated by other Muslim fanatics, was -- at least initially -- too terrible to contemplate. How else to explain the reflexive insistence after the attack that the real culprit was "post-traumatic stress disorder"? The fact that PTSD is usually diagnosed in people who've been through trauma (hence the word "post"), and that Hasan had never in fact seen combat, didn't seem to matter much.
So how would the MSM treat something remotely "similar" from the "right"? Well, we have something that isn't all that similar, in fact it is really beyond the pale to even see how ANYONE but a confirmed "right hater" could even imagine a connection, but never the less, they did ...
A few months ago, an anti-Semitic old nut named James von Brunn allegedly took a gun to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum to get payback against "the Jews" and killed a black security guard in the process.
In response to this horrific crime, the leading lights of American liberalism knew who was to blame: Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and the GOP. One writer for the Huffington Post put it succinctly: "Thank you very much Karl Rove and your minions."
How can we possibly make anything of this OTHER than our general media has enough blind rage toward anyone that disagrees with their views from the political right that they can find a supposedly important and even "scary" connection where there clearly is none, yet be completely unable to connect an obvious radical Muslim terrorist with his self-identified group even when there is loads of documentation, even including him yelling "Allahu Akbar"as he opened fire!!!
Assuming that we are sober and sane, there isn't any other conclusion. Our media and vast swaths of Democrats have drifted completely off the leftward side of the highway of reality.
Lest there be any misunderstanding of the what "right" means, it is LESS GOVERNMENT, meaning MORE FREEDOM. Note that this is clearly not "Fascist" or "Nazi", both of which refer to completely oppressive to totalitarian government.
Here's a story you may have missed because it flies in the face of the dreary conventional wisdom: When advocates of public programs take on the right-wing anti-government crowd directly, the government-haters lose.
Dionne is refreshingly honest and clear that the "right-wing is anti-government" -- which is honest and factual for a change. Therefore, we see that even the left fully recognizes that the right is NOT Fascist or Nazi. They just love to use those terms to scare everyone.
So what about "government haters"? Does wanting LESS government equate to wanting NO government? I'd think only in a world where "government lovers" -- certainly a reasonable name for the forces of the left given Dionne's rhetoric would want TOTAL government, in other words TOTALITARIAN government. If Dionne admits that is his goal, then I'll give some credence to the idea that anyone that wants any sort of limit at all on government wants NO government!
Dionne strongly praises the electoral win worked out by the opponents of the "Taxpayer Bill of Rights" which was based on the idea that such bills would CUT government programs. What the bill's would do is limit the GROWTH in government to a rate tied to inflation, income growth and population growth. Government could still grow, it just couldn't grow without any restriction.
In the haste to pile on restriction after restriction on business and individuals, the left finds ANY restriction on government to be entirely unpalatable. No question that proponents of reasonable measures to control the growth of government have a lot of work to do -- the MSM forces of misrepresentation won this one!
And if Tea Party Republicans do win big next year, what has already happened in California could happen at the national level. In California, the G.O.P. has essentially shrunk down to a rump party with no interest in actually governing — but that rump remains big enough to prevent anyone else from dealing with the state’s fiscal crisis. If this happens to America as a whole, as it all too easily could, the country could become effectively ungovernable in the midst of an ongoing economic disaster.
The point is that the takeover of the Republican Party by the irrational right is no laughing matter. Something unprecedented is happening here — and it’s very bad for America
And there you have it! California is in deep deep trouble. Why? Well, it is because of that teeny tiny rump Republican party! Certainly not due to the vast numbers of Democrats spending, taxing and borrowing as if there were no limits on what sort of fruitcake programs ought to be funded in lala land. Nope, it is those pesky Republicans. Damn!
Just think for one second here. The Democrats have a filibuster proof Senate and a huge majority in the house, but Republicans complaining at all is "paranoid"? Let's wind the clock back to just after the election in '04 when Republicans were like 6 votes SHORT of filibuster proof, and one would have thought the world had ended. Now Nobel Prize Krugman is afraid of there being ANY Republicans? That sounds BEYOND "paranoid" to me, it sounds borderline genocidal!
As a regular MPR/NPR listener, I'm well versed on the horror of the NY 23rd district. The "sad facts" (but then why do they sound so happy on the air?) are that Republicans are absolutely killing themselves in a "safe district". The local "reasonable Republicans" selected a "suitable moderate" -- pro-abortion, pro-BO stimulus, etc. The kind of "electable Republican" that is the ONLY HOPE for ANY gains in '10. Now, as per usual, those stupid ideologues on the right have created a "classic no win" -- especially since the endorsed Republican candidate dropped out and endorsed ... the Democrat! (thus proving how reasonable she is!)
If the Democrat wins, obviously that means that Republicans are in far worse shape than they thought! Losing a seat that was "safe". If the conservative candidate wins, it might give the national Republicans FALSE IDEAS! (and we know how much the MSM and the Democrats want to avoid THAT happening!!). Why everyone knows that conservatives are "unelectable", especially in fairly liberal districts that have traditionally swung Republican like NY 23! If a conservative gets elected there, it is PROOF that ... er? ah yes, that "conservatives are UNELECTABLE"!!! Simple!!
Now, without even looking at the attached top secret piece of information -- seen nowhere in the MSM, one could just think of Joe Lieberman. Did the fact that he stood up for his own principles and was thrown out of the Democrat party somehow destroy the Democrats in '08? Was there a lot of coverage of old Joe at all? AFAIK, the Democrat VP candidate in '04 might be vacationing on Mars for all the attention he gets.
But DO go read the article. Why is it that the MSM isn't concerned at all -- the the level of not even reporting it, that MoveOn is raising millions of dollars to defeat moderate Democrats?
I think we know. To the MSM, the "moderate Democrats" are BO, Nancy, Harry, John Kerry and all the rest of what they see as "decent Democrats". Any Democrat that would even CONSIDER voting against BOcare is some sort of a "reactionary right wing ideologue that may as well be Rush Limbaugh or Glen Beck!! BTW, any media outlet that might have an alternate view of that is so biased that one must question their right to broadcast!
This article covers a number of the BO Bush bashes, in some detail. I find this to be just another example in differential treatment between Democrat and Republican presidents taking over. Can you imagine the press cutting Reagan any slack for complainin he had to deal with hostages in Iran upon taking office? They were released the day he took office, that MUST have been because Iranians like Republicans! ... or maybe actors. How about Reagan complaining that the economy was bad, deficits were huge, unemployment was high and rising? Nope. The economy sucked when Reagan took office, and it still sucked in '82 when there was an off-year election and "the failure of Reaganomics" was one of the issues. As Reagan said in '83, he really knew his programs were working when the media stopped talking about Reaganomics!
How about Bush taking over in a recession in '01 with the stock market already sharply lower from it's highs in 2000? Did he get to complain about the "hangover from Slick Willie"? Not that I know of. How about Bush complaining about the security situation left over from Clinton when 9-11 happened? Can you imagine how THAT would have gone over? The MSM was all excited to somehow "blame Bush" even though terrorism was a rising tide all through the '90s. The idea that the MSM would allow any blame to fall on the previous Democrat administration is patently nuts. We know that no matter how many women Slick was groping and fondling in the oval office, his focus was never moved from the weighty issues of his office!
Considering the length of the terms, I'd say that the MSM treats the REPUBLICANS correctly!! After all, what job did BO think he was running for? When a CEO takes over a company, do they get a lot of slack because "the other guy was bad"? How about when a new coach takes over a sports team? Do they get to be surprised by the job they took? How in the world COULD they be? That would mean that they didn't do a careful assessment of the job they were taking before they took it, which would indicate that they were someone that should NOT be in any leadership position at all!! Leaders are HIRED to take positions of RESPONSIBILITY -- that is one of the cores of what it means to be a leader. Why hire a new guy if he is just going to bitch and whine about the old guy?
But they do not know if he possesses the trait that is more important than intellectual sophistication and, in fact, stands in tension with it. They do not know if he possesses tenacity, the ability to fixate on a simple conviction and grip it, viscerally and unflinchingly, through complexity and confusion. They do not know if he possesses the obstinacy that guided Lincoln and Churchill, and which must guide all war presidents to some degree.
I think the sad part is that they DO know. Afghanistan went to pot shortly after BO came in because I think everyone really knows the answer. Sure, he is tenacious in the destruction of America -- he will not rest until he has licked the boots of every tin-pot dictator on the planet and tearfully apologized to nations like the Russians, French, Germans and Japanese that only exist because of our largess following WWII. We won't have any industries or capacity to create new ones once BO is through with his reign of error.
The experts I spoke with describe a vacuum at the heart of the war effort — a determination vacuum. And if these experts do not know the state of President Obama’s resolve, neither do the Afghan villagers. They are now hedging their bets, refusing to inform on Taliban force movements because they are aware that these Taliban fighters would be their masters if the U.S. withdraws. Nor does President Hamid Karzai know. He’s cutting deals with the Afghan warlords he would need if NATO leaves his country.
Nor do the Pakistanis or the Iranians or the Russians know. They are maintaining ties with the Taliban elements that would represent their interests in the event of a U.S. withdrawal.
The determination vacuum affects the debate in this country, too. Every argument about troop levels is really a proxy argument for whether the U.S. should stay or go. The administration is so divided because the fundamental issue of commitment has not been settled.
"A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals", by Saul Alinsky.
This book is considered the "bible" for the Community Organizer, which is of course the only non-governmental position of any stature ever held by BO, and has been regularly in the news with the ACORN scandals.
The book is quite well written and very (surprisingly) honest. Alinsky is not only highly intelligent, but I'd assert he portrays the outlook of the modern "liberal" as directly and well as anyone that I have read. The key points here are PRAGMATIC and REALISTIC -- while many liberals (Lakoff being a great example) are highly intelligent, they often never get down to what it is that they are really trying to get done and how they are going to accomplish it. Alinsky does, and everyone that doesn't share the liberal class warfare view ought to be warned through actually reading this.
On the cover notes, you will find:
"Lest we forget at lest an over the shoulder acknowledgement to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins - or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom - Lucifer."
Everyone that believes they share the "progressive" view would be well served to get down to brass tacks and understand what it is that they are signing up for!
Page 31, last paragraph:
Those that would be critical of the ethics of Lincoln's reversal of positions have a strangely unreal picture of static unchanging world, where one remains firm and committed to certain so-called principles or positions. In the politics of human life, consistency is not a virtue.
There, stated with clarity is what I have long observed as the only core and unchanging liberal position. "Consistency is not a virtue". In fact, I'd argue that it isn't even "an issue" -- their view of reality is such that it is a concept that simply doesn't register. Before you sign up, realize that true "liberals" and "progressives" eschew any idea of fixed thought on anything but what they want --**power**!!! EVERYTHING else is completely fungible if it leads to a centralized totalitarian state where they have total and absolute control. "Women's rights", "Income Equality", "Climate Change' ... all just means to the end of totalitarian control.
The second element of liberalism that I believe this book shows with clarity is that of "ends and means" -- we often know the CLAIMED ends of liberals. "Peace, harmony, removal of want, dignity for all, equality of everything, etc", but what they are often lacking in just what MEANS must be employed to achieve their goals. Not Alinsky. Page 142 and 143 cover a good example of a tactic he was extremely proud of, although just the threat got what he wanted. The "shit in".
I'm not going to quote a lot, essentially it is the realization that when people get off a plane, they often have to use the restroom. So Alinsky and company had a plan to have blacks fill all the stalls at all the bathrooms at O'Hare and then have a set of roving black men to fill the urinals in the area of the airport where flights were coming in. Here he is enjoying what this would entail:
One can see children yelling at their parents, "Mommy I've got to go", and desperate mothers surrendering, "All right then, Do it right here". O'Hare would soon become a shambles.
It turned out that this tactic was "leaked" (and Alinsky takes great joy in that "Freudian slip"), so the Alisky demands were met without them having to actually do this, but the willingness was not in question.
The need for use of bathroom facilities for ourselves and our children is something that humanity all shares. I remind you that this book is THE BIBLE for Community organizers!! They, and our current president see Saul Alinsky as a GREAT MAN! I'd say there is a good deal of difference between the founder of Christianity, Jesus, healing and holding the children and feeding the masses, and the founder of ACORN and BOism taking glee in the denial of the most basic of human needs to children. Not really surprising if you see no problem with killing them in their mother's womb I guess.
That is because I foolishly believe in a level of morality that transcends simply getting what I want through taking it from others by any means -- and often find it hard to believe that there are those like Alinsky and his acolytes, Hildebeast and BO, that do not share that form of morality.
Page 43, near the bottom.
Moral rationalization is indispensable at all times of action whether to justify the selection of the use of ends or means. Machiavelli's blindness to the necessity for moral clothing to all actions and motives -- he said "politics has no relation to morals"--was his major weakness.
All great leaders, including Churchill, Gandhi, Lincoln and Jefferson, always invoked "moral principles" to cover naked self-interest in the clothing of "freedom" "equality" of mankind, "a law higher than man-made law", and so on. This even held under circumstances of national crisis when it was universally assumed that the end justified any means. All effective actions require the passport of morality.
More accurately than "the passport of morality" would be the "cloak of morality". As you read Alinsky, you realize that the ends always justify the means!
Why does "progressivism" (certainly the theft of this term from those who believe in actual human liberty and dignity ought to be abhorrent to any reader of this blog by now!) still live on? Because when you couple "consistency is not a virtue" with joy at the prospect of the most basic denial of human dignity to even children, with the underlying essence that there IS NO MORALITY, yet one must "fake it for the masses", you have something "powerful". (as one often says of BO, "powerful, but power isn't everything"!)
In reading this book, I'm reminded of Luke's question to Yoda in Star Wars, "Is the Dark Side stronger?". Yoda says "no", but one wonders. In this universe, those that believe are assured that Christ is already victorious, but day to day I find that question is always a challenge to my faith. As the Psalmist often says -- how much must we endure Lord?
Page 194:
The middle classes are numbed, bewildered, scared into silence. They don't know what, if anything, they can do. This is the job for today's radical-- to fan the embers of hopelessness into a flame to fight. To say, "You cannot cop out as have many of my generation!" "You cannot turn away--look at it--let us change it together!". ...
It is a job first of bringing hope and doing what every organizer must do with all people, all classes, places and times --communicate the means or tactics whereby the people can feel that they have the power to do this and that and on.
Hope and change, for "this and that and on". What is the "it" that is being changed? To the organizer , it doesn't really matter -- the system, the corporation, capitalism, America, the Constitution, society, white folks thinking, ending Christianity --- "hope, change and action", that is what is important. Revolution, movement, CHANGE!! This was written in 1971, but until the US has becomes a totalitarian leftist state, the battle cry will be the same. BO is just more direct about it than recent liberals.
I could go on and on. He does actually cover "the rules", there are like 12 of them. I love the 5th rule -- "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule."
I strongly suspect that many of our media friends are well aware of this one. Immediately during the Bush administration from the media to the late night talk shows, the ridicule of Bush and Cheney became universal. Sometimes it had some basis in truth, most times it was simply a caricature that was used to denigrate them. It worked extremely well with 80%+ of the population, the dark side IS very strong at a minimum.
Note the difference with BO. It is HARD to find him being ridiculed -- in fact, based on the most recent "hate speech" bill signed into law, is it even LEGAL to ridicule him? He is a black man after all. We know that BO read and used the tactics in this book with regularity. He venerated Alinsky. Is it out of character for him to limit speech such that one of the tactics that he knows like a Christian knows Prayer would be illegal to be used against him?
READ THIS BOOK!!! If you are a "liberal" read it and decide if the tenets laid out here are really what you have in mind. Don't believe me on how important this book is to your own movement. LOOK IT UP YOURSELF!!! This is the BIBLE of our current "messiah" BO! This book is dedicated to Lucifer -- are you?
If you consider yourself conservative, moderate or Christian (and note, in reading this book, there is NO WAY that any Christian can be a Community Organizer and venerate Saul Alinsky), then READ IT to know your enemy!
Read the subject book by Mark A. Knoll for a Church book club. Very well done and somewhat surprising book. I grew up in a fairly far-out fundamentalist Baptist church that occasionally brought in people from Wheaton College in Chicago. Since that church was so fire-breathing anti-Catholic (the Catholic church was "the Harlot" of Revelation, "the woman that sits on seven hills") I expected something of that view here. Noll is a professor at Wheaton, but either Wheaton has changed, or Noll is quite the liberal for that school.
The biggest impression that hits me is the same one that happens every time I read about church history -- one has to be fairly "liberal minded" in one way relative to Christianity to NOT be a Catholic. The story of the Christian church for most of it's history is very much the story of the Catholic Church.
The biggest thing I learned about was "The Great Schism" in 1000 to 1100, where the Orthodox and Roman church split. The disaster of the 4th crusade of 1202 sacking Constantinople was also a revelation to me.
The "turning points" picked were the following:
The Fall of Jerusalem (70) -- the church pushed out of it's cradle.
The Council of Nicea (325) -- The origin of the creed most Christians agree with.
The Council of Chalcedon (451) -- Politics and the Church
Foundation of the Benedictines (530) -- The importanc e of monks to the church
The Coronation of Charlemagne (800) -- Church and State rule Europe
The Great Schism (1054) -- East and West divide.
The Diet of Worms (1521) -- Martin Luther and the Reformation
The English Church Splits (1534) -- The state splits from Rome
The Founding of the Jesuits (1540) -- The great Catholic missionary movement
The Conversion of the Wesleys (1738) -- Religion as personal piety
The French Revolution (1789) -- Secularism turns on religion
Edinburgh Missionary Conference (1910) -- Roots of ecumenicalism
Further turning points in the 20th century
I rather enjoyed the book, but it is one that most folks would find quite dense and overly detailed -- for "the masses" I would suggest something lighter, but then without all the detail, it is very hard to see the reality of the importance of the church to western civilization.
Love the CNN headline, even the BO administration only lies with "saved or created", but CNN has to trump it up to "CREATED"! NPR takes the highest figure stated "saved or created" a MILLION jobs and reports it as gospel.
Ah yes, I can remember after 9-11 when the economy had turned around but the MSM was trying to mute it -- it was ALWAYS called a "jobless recovery" and a typical headline would go "Job's Fall 20,000 Short" ... when you read the article you found out that 250K jobs had been "expected" by somebody (the guy writing the article?), but ONLY 230K were actually created, so "The Bush policies had failed again". Those were the days!
The biggest threat to America right now is not government spending, huge deficits, foreign ownership of our debt, world terrorism, two wars, potential epidemics or nuts with nukes. The biggest long-term threat is that people are becoming and have become disheartened, that this condition is reaching critical mass, and that it afflicts most broadly and deeply those members of the American leadership class who are not in Washington, most especially those in business.
It is a story in two parts. The first: "They do not think they can make it better.
I agree. I was around in '78-'82 and I think Peggy calls it perfectly:
I talked this week with a guy from Big Pharma, which we used to call "the drug companies" until we decided that didn't sound menacing enough. He is middle-aged, works in a significant position, and our conversation turned to the last great recession, in the late mid- to late 1970s and early '80s. We talked about how, in terms of numbers, that recession was in some ways worse than the one we're experiencing now. Interest rates were over 20%, and inflation and unemployment hit double digits. America was in what might be called a functional depression, yet there was still a prevalent feeling of hope. Here's why. Everyone thought they could figure a way through. We knew we could find a path through the mess. In 1982 there were people saying, "If only we get rid of this guy Reagan, we can make it better!" Others said, "If we follow Reagan, he'll squeeze out inflation and lower taxes and we'll be America again, we'll be acting like Americans again." Everyone had a path through.
I think I had a special seat, because I voted for Carter, listened to the "malaise", started reading about this thing called "conservatism" that my schooling had never exposed me to and then hoped that Reagan was right. I also got to watch while in '80-'82 the country was in worse shape than now and the majority of my college friends and even many of the people at were were "sure we had made a mistake with Reagan". BUT, BOTH the Republicans and the Democrats were "sure they had an answer that could return the country to prosperity". Now we don't. I really don't know anyone other than maybe BO himself that truly believes in BOnomics. We are going to borrow prosperity from the Chinese? Seems pretty doubtful to even the most optimistic.
I talked with an executive this week with what we still call "the insurance companies" and will no doubt soon be calling Big Insura. (Take it away, Democratic National Committee.) He was thoughtful, reflective about the big picture. He talked about all the new proposed regulations on the industry. Rep. Barney Frank had just said on some cable show that the Democrats of the White House and Congress "are trying on every front to increase the role of government in the regulatory area." The executive said of Washington: "They don't understand that people can just stop, get out. I have friends and colleagues who've said to me 'I'm done.'" He spoke of his own increasing tax burden and said, "They don't understand that if they start to tax me so that I'm paying 60%, 55%, I'll stop."
He felt government doesn't understand that business in America is run by people, by human beings. Mr. Frank must believe America is populated by high-achieving robots who will obey whatever command he and his friends issue. But of course they're human, and they can become disheartened. They can pack it in, go elsewhere, quit what used to be called the rat race and might as well be called that again since the government seems to think they're all rats. (That would be you, Chamber of Commerce.)
Peggy doesn't know the half of it. The left could care less about any thoughts of "motivation", I believe that many more of them than anyone realizes would just as soon put the "tax cows" in big concentration work camps right now. Why can't the "disenfranchised" just be awarded what they want? Isn't it "selfish" of someone that studied hard, built skills and is marketable to not make as much money as possible so it can be handed to those that didn't develop any skills and have no intention of doing so?
