Rather interesting little writeup on Ayn Rand by Mark Sanford, yes, THAT Mark Sanford. Interesting how Slick Willie was a far worse womanizer, and Teddy K even managed to kill his young lover, yet they are still just fine. My gut reaction to Mark Sanford is the same as it is to Slick and Teddy -- however I suspect that neither of them either are or would have been writing anything in praise of the ideals of Ayn.
If one listens to the MSM, music, and watches movies, it seems that conservatism is some fringe viewpoint shared by only a very few folks of lower intelligence, lack of education and most likely "clinging to their guns and religion". How strange that Gallup has kept track, and since '92, self-identified conservatives are always around 40% of the population, and self-identified liberals are always around 20%.
I like to read both sides. The defense is essentially:
Fox news really IS biased -- with a list of folks that work there that have connections to Republicans. What isn't mentioned is that in poll after poll 90+ % of the mass media are Democrats and many people in the current MSM once worked for Democrats. Whose kettle is the most black? It is very hard to tell, but since Fox stands pretty much alone on the conservative side other than talk radio, it isn't hard to see how they may have some degree of a "bunker mentality".
Nixon was a lot worse than BO. Probably true -- I really think Hitler was a lot worse than W as well, but that didn't stop a lot of people from trying to make the association. I'd like to think that given the CONTEXT, where Nixon had essentially zero media friends and BO has a bunch, Nixon had very little party power in congress and BO has a bunch, Nixon inherited a war in which 10's of thousands had died and we had 500K in the field, while BO inherited 2 wars which we were winning, and are still winning on one of them --- etc, etc. The point is, Nixon had it just a teeny weeny bit tougher than BO. I don't recall multiple assassinations and riots last year as I do from '68. Watergate and the enemies list also didn't occurr in Nixon's first year of his first term -- BO is in a different time when I think we all thought that anything like the Fox attacks was past us, he has near absolute media power, wanting to get to absolute power ought given any thinking person pause and last I recall, Nixon didn't run as "the messiah of openness and light". Given CONTEXT, I find the BO-Nixon comparison to have far more merit as something to consider relative to a "dangerous direction" than W-Hitler. Hey, Bush didn't even had a symbol -- BO does. The swastika wasn't bad prior to Hitler -- what might the future of the "rainbow O" be?
It is interesting to watch a far left outlet rise up in defense of attacks on a free press. When your guy is in power and your ethics are all situational by design, the world looks MUCH different.
Since the '80s, the left has howled in anger and laughter at "trickle down economics" -- the idea that "a rising tide lifts all boats". They have worked hard statistically and rhetorically to claim the the rich have gotten richer, but the poor are no better off. Much like thinking of global warming while the snow piles up in MN on the 23rd of October, they have managed to do this while the "poor" have cell phones, flat panel tvs, high speed internet and their most prevalent health problem is obesity.
Shrinking the "wealth gap" by making everyone worse off is a cynical way to "champion the middle class".
To some, Paul Krugman is a champion of the middle and lower classes given his desire to shrink the gap between those with and without money. But for his views on the dollar alone, it's apparent that his reputation lacks merit.
Krugman's support of weak currency policies erode the earnings of those who can afford it least, reduce the investment necessary to create jobs and wages, and drive down the very investment returns necessary to lift the fortunes of those seeking to increase their wealth. Far from a champion of the middle and lower classes, Krugman's views correlate with wealth destruction, and if implemented, his ideas will only shrink the wealth gap insofar as all of us will become worse off.
At first, there was little reaction from other media. Then on Thursday, the administration tried to make them complicit in an actual boycott of Fox. The Treasury Department made available Ken Feinberg, the executive pay czar, for interviews with the White House "pool" news organizations -- except Fox. The other networks admirably refused, saying they would not interview Feinberg unless Fox was permitted to as well. The administration backed down.
As Charles does a great job of pointing out, this administration is going where none has gone before with heavy handed authoritarianism. Sure, Nixon had his "enemies list", but since it was published and laughed at, it is clear that it had no real meaning. This is different. BO and company is singling out and making direct attempts to destroy Fox news. It is time for Americans to start to get the message that there are plenty of issues that go beyond politics, because if we don't, we will all be towing the line to one view "or else". Where "or else" means people that dissent being investigated, taxed, regulated and boycotted -- BY THE GOVERNMENT! Wake up and smell the BO!
The signal to corporations is equally clear: You might have dealings with a federal behemoth that not only disburses more than $3 trillion every year but is extending its reach ever deeper into private industry -- finance, autos, soon health care and energy. Think twice before you run an ad on Fox.
So 250K doctors and med students split up $250 Billion in money?
Would you support BOcare for a MILLION DOLLARS??? So BO and the Democrats are bribing Doctors a million bucks EACH to support BOcare!! How does that grab you for corruption?
Now the bill's supporters are making a play to lock in the American Medical Association, the organization that says it represents 250,000 doctors and medical students in every state and congressional district. The principal enticement, a $247 billion measure making its way to the Senate floor, aims to wipe out a scheduled 21 percent rate cut for doctors treating Medicare patients and replace it with a permanent, predictable system for future fee increases.
This is worth a read for folks that have trouble supporting Republicans because "they are far from perfect". I maintain that anyone that STILL doesn't understand that the primary choice here is ALWAYS "lesser of two evils" and there is NO DOUBT that Democrats are for MUCH larger Government than Republicans!
Nice little article. Remember when the "House Un-American Activities Committee" was a bad big deal? How about any time any Republican claims that anything from burning the flag to having the government pay for GM or a crucifix in a jar of urine is "un-American". It is usually "chilling and divisive".
See, all the US media besides Fox is without bias. Don't believe it? Just read the article -- certainly you can trust Newspeak to be unbiased. Oddly he even admits that Fox leans right primarily because "that is where the ratings are". Gee, why would that be? I mean if the rest of the MSM is playing it right down the middle, why would more people want to watch right-biased news? He doesn't explain that one.
George Lakoff, author of the subject book is a noted linguist, professor at Berkley and a very far left atheist world view. One often hears from the left how "simplistic" the "right" is. Try this on for size:
In this book, I analyze the unconscious values behind what I call "progressive" thought: empathy, responsibility (for oneself and others) and an ethic of excellence (making ones self and the world better). I point out how these political values are tied, metaphorically, to a nuturant conception of the family.
Sounds like some good folks doesn't it? And what evil is it that they are up against?:
You need a strict father because kids are born bad, in the sense that they do what they want to do, and don't know right from wrong.
Imagine that? Kids that need training in order to become productive adults! Pretty evil and strange concept isn't it?
In a strict father family, it is assumed that the father merits his authority, and indeed, throughout conservatism, heirarchies of power and wealth are justified on "merit". Why should CEOs make so much more money than other employees? They deserve it.
Competition is crucial. It builds discipline. Without competition, without the desire to win, no one would have the incentive to be disciplined, and morality would suffer, as well as prosperity. Not everyone can win in a competition, only the most disciplined people, who are also the most morally worthy. Winning is thus a sign of being deserving, of being a good person. It is important to be number one! Strict father families often promote competitive sports and take them very seriously.
Naturally, a lot of these bad Strict Father folks are bad because they believe in an all powerful and all moral God that they can somehow reach through religion -- that is of course another wrong concept. Progressives understand that people are born good, discipline isn't necessary for "excellence" (see, excellence is one of their fundamental values, but there is no need for discipline). Competition is bad, and there isn't any such thing as "merit".
Luckily, George has read a few brain books just as I have, and he has come to a marvelous conclusion.
Yet those Democrats who believe in Enlightenment reason don't thing of themselves as whimpy at all. They see themselves as upholding the Enlightenment democratic ideal as committed to facts, truth, and logic, and to informing those ignorant of the facts. They see facts as nonpartisan and the basis for bipartisan agreement."
Republicans operate under no such constraints and have a better sense of how brains and minds work.
See, the intelligent and excellent Democrats are somehow lacking in an "natural understanding" of how the human brain works -- Democrats are all facts and logic, while Republicans are always appealing to the "emotional side"! Simple! Those darned touch feely Republicans with their "framing the issues", while those intellectual giant Democrats just stick completely to the facts!!
Why do Democratic candidates come out with a list of detailed programs, while Republicans don't?
I'd say that is pretty clear, right? I mean in '94 the Republicans had that long but I guess not "detailed" Contract With America, where in both '06 and '08 the Democrats had a very detailed program of "Change", and in '08 they even included "Hope" and the highly specific "Yes we can!". One doesn't get much more detailed and factual than that, the difference is clear!
Nobody makes a dime in this country without being empowered by our government. There are no self made men or women. It's a myth!
The role of a progressive government is to maximize our freedom--and protection and empowerment do just that. Protection is there to gaurentee freedom from harm, from want and from fear. Empowerment is there to maximize freedom to achieve your goals.
"Freedom from harm, want and fear"! Sort of heaven on earth. Folks have been known to want an awful lot! Since for George, there is no God above, the Government takes that place -- the Government is all powerful, it gives and takes as it sees fit -- Corporations and "the rich" pay whatever it takes for "progressives" and those that they see as deserving to get that "freedom from harm, want and fear." Those that are not fit, pay the freight!
We can see that George clearly has his head locked on straight, consider how he proves his point on the brain science. People are "risk averse" -- they don't want to lock in a loss, they tend to "throw good money after bad". Republicans, being evil, naturally take advantage of this:
This tendency shows up in Iraq policy, where Bush and the Republicans refuse to cut their losses and get out now, instead clinging to the unlikely hope that if we stay longer things will get better, though staying longer would involve greater losses. The framing is, "We can't lose and we shouldn't cut and run -- attributing to liberal's cowardice rather than a rational choice to cut our losses."
See, this book was written in 2008 when the Surge was already clearly a success. By the general election, the Iraq war wasn't even a major issue and all the candidates were on the same strategy including BO. This makes no difference to Lakoff. A liberal is "intelligent enough" to "courageously run away" at any point -- even when victory is firmly in grasp. "Commitment" is one of those "strict father ideas" that is simply not present in the liberal "nurturant view" -- to spouses, children, soldiers, friends and allies, one can always count on a progressive to "do what they want to do today". Things like "discipline" or "commitment" are for those stodgy "strict Father types". In a world in which you are free from "harm, want and fear", the only thing that makes sense is to do whatever you want on a day by day basis!
Lakoff has it all figured out in a way that I'm not even sure the most fundamentalist Christian thinks they do -- they at least have to count on some room for the actions of a soverign and all mighty God that is not in their control. Lakoff has no such "higher power". As he says as he talks about how it would all be if we could just get everything turned the liberal way.
A New Enlightenment would not be a utopia. It would be understood that conservatives are not going to go away, nor are biconceptual "partial conservatives".
There you have it, even the liberals have their version of Satan -- it is us nasty old conservatives. It is nice of George to say that "we wouldn't go away", but the left has ALWAYS been very good at figuring ways to get rid of the opposition -- gas chambers in Germany, concentration camps and mass starvation under Stalin in the USSR, mass killings and other "cleansing operations" in China under Mao and in Cambodia under Pol Pot.
When the door to paradise is blocked only by the unwillingness of conservatives to "go away", the temptation of even the most "nurturant" to take that step into utopia becomes very strong.
Interesting to look at actual data. Seems like things were working pretty darned well until 2008. I wonder, did anyone run on "Change" in 2006? How did they come out?
Remember when the Republicans took over Congress in '94? One would have thought that the world had come to an end to listen to the media -- why it was almost as bad as Reagan winning '80.
For those that aren't complete slaves to the MSM, it is interesting to go out and look at what actually happens to the economy after the "horror" of Republican takeovers and the "welcome change" of the Democrat version.
The president has worked tirelessly since even before his inauguration to wrest control of the U.S. economy from failed free markets, and the evil CEOs who profit from them, and to turn it over to wise, fair and benevolent bureaucrats.
From his $787 billion stimulus package, to the cap-and-trade bill, to the seizures of General Motors and Chrysler, to the undead health-care "reform" act, Obama has dominated the U.S., and therefore the global, economy as few figures have in recent years.
2008? 2009? Nope ... according to that bastion of conservative global warming deniers, the BBC -- 1998. Good article -- it actually sounds like SCIENCE -- not "settled science" which is an oxymoron. Does it say that Global Warming is over? No, it just says we may have 20-30 years of global cooling or maybe more. Even if we do, it MIGHT be that those years won't cool as much as they otherwise would have and that even greater warming may start at the end of that.
The point is that the global warming models did not predict cooling -- not since '98, and certainly not 20-30 more years. In science, prediction and repetition of the predictions are what takes one at least in the direction of "settled science" -- while NEVER getting there!
However, when your models predict WARMING, and you get "a pause", any sort of "science" says it is time for a new model!
BO finds the US to be a very flawed nation, so we are in retreat militarily, economically, in space, and in world stature. BO thinks that is great -- no nation "can" be dominant according to him. He must have missed the Reagan years!!
So what does it mean to be an international loser? Poorer, sadder, and most likely eventually beaten in ways that are hard for us to even imagine now. Who will defend this flawed and defeated husk of a ones great nation destroyed by the stench of BO?
Certainly not the God which we have chosen to disdain.
Of symbolic but also more concrete importance is the status of the dollar. The social democratic vision necessarily involves huge increases in domestic expenditures, most immediately for expanded health care. The plans currently under consideration will cost in the range of $1 trillion. And once the budget gimmicks are discounted (such as promises of $500 billion cuts in Medicare which will never eventuate), that means hundreds of billions of dollars added to the monstrous budgetary deficits that the Congressional Budget Office projects conservatively at $7 trillion over the next decade.
The effect on the dollar is already being felt and could ultimately lead to a catastrophic collapse and/or hyperinflation. Having control of the world's reserve currency is an irreplaceable national asset. Yet with every new and growing estimate of the explosion of the national debt, there are more voices calling for replacement of the dollar as the world currency--not just adversaries like Russia and China, Iran and Venezuela, which one would expect, but just last month the head of the World Bank.
There is no free lunch. Social democracy and its attendant goods may be highly desirable, but they have their price--a price that will be exacted on the dollar, on our primacy in space, on missile defense, on energy security, and on our military capacities and future power projection.
But, of course, if one's foreign policy is to reject the very notion of international primacy in the first place, a domestic agenda that takes away the resources to maintain such primacy is perfectly complementary. Indeed, the two are synergistic. Renunciation of primacy abroad provides the added resources for more social goods at home. To put it in the language of the 1990s, the expanded domestic agenda is fed by a peace dividend--except that in the absence of peace, it is a retreat dividend.
And there's the rub. For the Europeans there really is a peace dividend, because we provide the peace. They can afford social democracy without the capacity to defend themselves because they can always depend on the United States.
So why not us as well? Because what for Europe is decadence--decline, in both comfort and relative safety--is for us mere denial. Europe can eat, drink, and be merry for America protects her. But for America it's different. If we choose the life of ease, who stands guard for us?
