UK's Brown is now talking about a "Global New Deal." I used to think that the "Deal," in FDR's "New Deal" meant "a bargain or arrangement for mutual advantage," or, "situation" -- as in "What's the deal?"
I realize now that it is meant literally as "a new deal of the cards". A new distribution: of wealth and favor, with the government being the dealer -- the source. This is the poison that the Left peddles -- the idea that the State is the source of wealth and our best interests lie in competing for those handouts. This is as opposed to the conservative view which knows that wealth is created by the self-interested efforts of individuals (AKA the Private Sector). What is the motivation for productivity when the more you produce the more you are punished (taxed), and the less you produce the more you are given?
"From each according to his ability -- to each according to his need." A recipe for failure -- tried, and tried again with always the same result. But surely, not THIS time...
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Safe Haven Unsafe for Society
Can one ask for a better example of liberalism gone amok? Metaphorically, our coal mine canary has fainted and fallen off the perch. The recent news about Nebraska's so-called Safe Haven law, through which parents have legally abandoned children as old as 15, reveals the true nature of liberal "change" and "progressive" tinkering with societal norms. Change, change, change! Americans voted in the candidate for Change. Well, we've got it now. Nebraska has abandoned the enforcement of a parent's responsibility to their own child. No risk to society there...
I am old enough to remember the "bad ol'" pre-feminist '60s. It seems that every sitcom had an episode -- Dick Van Dyke for example -- in which the couple discovered or thought that their marriage was somehow invalid and hence their child was illegitimate. As a child I knew from the look of horror on Laura Petrie's face that this a BAD THING. Funny how things change.
I am not a professional journalist with access to Lexus-Nexus, so I'm going to have to reach back here into the past with only the aid of my memory. I recall it was about 20 years ago that there was much talk about the plight of poor unwed mothers. Society's shunning of these poor victims was said to be cruel. They needed financial help from the tax payer pocket book, and the reigning in of an unenlightened public's judgementalism regarding these girl's life choices and predicament. A little legislative magic... Presto Change-O! Done! Problem cured. Hmmm... Or not.
Once it became economically and socially feasible to be an unwed mother, why, of course there was an explosion in their ranks. Was that really so hard to predict? Well apparently it is for liberals. Today it seems de rigueur for poor teenage black girls to be unwed mothers. Today we have "Baby Mommas." Are there anymore black female contestants on American Idol that aren't baby mommas?
Given a large population of immature, irresponsible people weighed down with the millstone of an infant, and without a strong cultural ethic to live up to one's responsibilities, it is not surprising that there would then be a lot of abandoned infants. It has been a couple of years since the "D.A.R.E. to Keep Kids Off Drugs" bumper stickers on police cruisers were replaced with "Don't Abandon Your Baby" bumper stickers. I ask, what does the need for such a sticker tell you about the state of a society? And if you don't have the same answer I do, I don't want to be in the same society as you.
On the news, whenever they interview Dems about this Safe Haven debacle, I hear the phrase "unintended consequences," as if no one could have predicted this. Any half-wit without a sociological axe to grind could predict such things. If it wasn't predicted it was only because no one could believe that liberals could be THAT naive.
And so I gotta ask: What might be the "unexpected consequences" of gay marriage? Or unconditional talks with our nation's enemies? Or the elimination of the right to defend oneself with firearms? Or the refusal to enforce our own borders? Or the refusal to drill for new oil in our country's own territory? Or to allow teachers to indoctrinate our children with their political views? Or to elect a president based on wanting to feel good about yourself rather than on his experience and qualifications? Or...
I am old enough to remember the "bad ol'" pre-feminist '60s. It seems that every sitcom had an episode -- Dick Van Dyke for example -- in which the couple discovered or thought that their marriage was somehow invalid and hence their child was illegitimate. As a child I knew from the look of horror on Laura Petrie's face that this a BAD THING. Funny how things change.
I am not a professional journalist with access to Lexus-Nexus, so I'm going to have to reach back here into the past with only the aid of my memory. I recall it was about 20 years ago that there was much talk about the plight of poor unwed mothers. Society's shunning of these poor victims was said to be cruel. They needed financial help from the tax payer pocket book, and the reigning in of an unenlightened public's judgementalism regarding these girl's life choices and predicament. A little legislative magic... Presto Change-O! Done! Problem cured. Hmmm... Or not.
Once it became economically and socially feasible to be an unwed mother, why, of course there was an explosion in their ranks. Was that really so hard to predict? Well apparently it is for liberals. Today it seems de rigueur for poor teenage black girls to be unwed mothers. Today we have "Baby Mommas." Are there anymore black female contestants on American Idol that aren't baby mommas?
Given a large population of immature, irresponsible people weighed down with the millstone of an infant, and without a strong cultural ethic to live up to one's responsibilities, it is not surprising that there would then be a lot of abandoned infants. It has been a couple of years since the "D.A.R.E. to Keep Kids Off Drugs" bumper stickers on police cruisers were replaced with "Don't Abandon Your Baby" bumper stickers. I ask, what does the need for such a sticker tell you about the state of a society? And if you don't have the same answer I do, I don't want to be in the same society as you.
On the news, whenever they interview Dems about this Safe Haven debacle, I hear the phrase "unintended consequences," as if no one could have predicted this. Any half-wit without a sociological axe to grind could predict such things. If it wasn't predicted it was only because no one could believe that liberals could be THAT naive.
And so I gotta ask: What might be the "unexpected consequences" of gay marriage? Or unconditional talks with our nation's enemies? Or the elimination of the right to defend oneself with firearms? Or the refusal to enforce our own borders? Or the refusal to drill for new oil in our country's own territory? Or to allow teachers to indoctrinate our children with their political views? Or to elect a president based on wanting to feel good about yourself rather than on his experience and qualifications? Or...
Saturday, September 1, 2007
Profiles in Hypocrisy
As I write this, I don't know if Senator Larry Craig is actually guilty of lewd conduct or if his arrest is the result of an overly zealous policeman. He's probably guilty. I have no reason in particular to doubt it. But for the last few days, all I hear is how he's a hypocrite because he's gay yet he's a conservative lawmaker legislating against gay marriage, etc. So therefore, he's a BAD man. Why, it'd be different if he was openly gay. No problem with openly homosexual Senators having illegal anonymous sex in airport bathrooms. But he's a Republican and therefore he's red meat for the liberal media.
I heard one talking head lawyer on Fox News who asked something on the order of "Is it too much to ask that our Senators legislate their consciences?" Huh? Did she pass the bar exam in Naiveistan? Our legislators are supposed to legislate their consciences? That's a good one. Funny, I though they were supposed to represent the people who elected them and legislate accordingly — never minding personal bias. But perhaps I'm as naive as she...
The evil that Senator Craig is being accused of is not so much lewdness as hypocrisy. Acts gay — but votes anti-gay. Shocking! Well, I wish the Left would admit that Republicans too are human, and subject (as are Democrats) to personal failings and Personal Demons. There is such a thing as telling others what to do, yet thinking the rules do not apply to you (hypocrisy). And then there's promoting values that one believes in but are personally having trouble living up to. By the Left's definition of hypocrisy, a person who is bad at math yet promotes more rigorous math education would be a hypocrite. I might say he's just "wiser for wear..."
The Left, not big on promoting traditional social values, has a different standard of "good." For instance, the Most Holy "Zero Carbon Footprint." What if the Reverend Prophet Al Gore, who exhorts us all to lower our carbon footprints, himself lived in a huge energy-hog of a mansion? He what...? He does...? Well, I'm sure he's not a hypocrite. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume his actions are the result of a Personal Demon. Some sort of energy addiction... Perhaps he wasn't allowed to play with electricity as a child.
Look, probably no one knows better about the evils of gambling than a gambling addict. A gambling addict who is a law maker might be very much inclined to pass laws against gambling, knowing full well how it can destroy people and families. He might even do so in an attempt to stop his own addiction. I don't think that makes him a hypocrite, I don't think that it invalidates his anti-gambling efforts, and I don't think it argues against anti-gambling laws. I do think it makes him a sick person — and probably not fit to be a legislator.
The same may be true with Craig. Assuming he is compelled to seek the illicit thrill of obscene, dangerous, nasty, anonymous, and illegal sexual encounters (gay or otherwise), that does not mean — as the Left heavily implies — that his socially conservative legislative efforts to the contrary are hypocritical or somehow suspect. And, to please our Fox News talking head (sorry, didn't catch her name), it might well mean that perhaps Craig is legislating his conscience. He may indeed feel that gay marriage is destructive of the fabric of society — but that conviction doesn't stop the cravings of his shameful Personal Demon.
Contrast this with Governor McGreevy who publicly humiliated his wife by having a homosexual affair and then went onto say he was proud to be a "Gay American." (Prefixing the word "American" with another group is a way of glomming onto protected status, like African American, or Native American.) He violates her trust and then goes out on the talk show circuit declaring his "pride"! What an everlasting scumbag.
If the accusations against Craig are true, then I do think it appropriate that Craig has stepped down, and not because he is a homosexual or a hypocrite, but because he engages in compromising activities. Any person who is privy to national security secrets should not have skeletons in his closet. And that leads me to a story told by a good friend of mine who used to work for a government contractor. She tells of a person who was being interviewed for a Secret Clearance. One of the things they look for is a situation that the candidate wants to keep hidden as it could be used as leverage for blackmail. The interviewer asked the applicant, "Is there anyone in your family that you're ashamed of?" The applicant, not grasping the implication of the question, replied, "Well, my little brother's a bit of a wuss, but we're hoping he's gonna grow out of it." Ah, if only the Left would just "grow out of it".
I heard one talking head lawyer on Fox News who asked something on the order of "Is it too much to ask that our Senators legislate their consciences?" Huh? Did she pass the bar exam in Naiveistan? Our legislators are supposed to legislate their consciences? That's a good one. Funny, I though they were supposed to represent the people who elected them and legislate accordingly — never minding personal bias. But perhaps I'm as naive as she...
The evil that Senator Craig is being accused of is not so much lewdness as hypocrisy. Acts gay — but votes anti-gay. Shocking! Well, I wish the Left would admit that Republicans too are human, and subject (as are Democrats) to personal failings and Personal Demons. There is such a thing as telling others what to do, yet thinking the rules do not apply to you (hypocrisy). And then there's promoting values that one believes in but are personally having trouble living up to. By the Left's definition of hypocrisy, a person who is bad at math yet promotes more rigorous math education would be a hypocrite. I might say he's just "wiser for wear..."
The Left, not big on promoting traditional social values, has a different standard of "good." For instance, the Most Holy "Zero Carbon Footprint." What if the Reverend Prophet Al Gore, who exhorts us all to lower our carbon footprints, himself lived in a huge energy-hog of a mansion? He what...? He does...? Well, I'm sure he's not a hypocrite. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume his actions are the result of a Personal Demon. Some sort of energy addiction... Perhaps he wasn't allowed to play with electricity as a child.
Look, probably no one knows better about the evils of gambling than a gambling addict. A gambling addict who is a law maker might be very much inclined to pass laws against gambling, knowing full well how it can destroy people and families. He might even do so in an attempt to stop his own addiction. I don't think that makes him a hypocrite, I don't think that it invalidates his anti-gambling efforts, and I don't think it argues against anti-gambling laws. I do think it makes him a sick person — and probably not fit to be a legislator.
The same may be true with Craig. Assuming he is compelled to seek the illicit thrill of obscene, dangerous, nasty, anonymous, and illegal sexual encounters (gay or otherwise), that does not mean — as the Left heavily implies — that his socially conservative legislative efforts to the contrary are hypocritical or somehow suspect. And, to please our Fox News talking head (sorry, didn't catch her name), it might well mean that perhaps Craig is legislating his conscience. He may indeed feel that gay marriage is destructive of the fabric of society — but that conviction doesn't stop the cravings of his shameful Personal Demon.
Contrast this with Governor McGreevy who publicly humiliated his wife by having a homosexual affair and then went onto say he was proud to be a "Gay American." (Prefixing the word "American" with another group is a way of glomming onto protected status, like African American, or Native American.) He violates her trust and then goes out on the talk show circuit declaring his "pride"! What an everlasting scumbag.
If the accusations against Craig are true, then I do think it appropriate that Craig has stepped down, and not because he is a homosexual or a hypocrite, but because he engages in compromising activities. Any person who is privy to national security secrets should not have skeletons in his closet. And that leads me to a story told by a good friend of mine who used to work for a government contractor. She tells of a person who was being interviewed for a Secret Clearance. One of the things they look for is a situation that the candidate wants to keep hidden as it could be used as leverage for blackmail. The interviewer asked the applicant, "Is there anyone in your family that you're ashamed of?" The applicant, not grasping the implication of the question, replied, "Well, my little brother's a bit of a wuss, but we're hoping he's gonna grow out of it." Ah, if only the Left would just "grow out of it".
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Zero Tolerance? CYA!
Joe Woe’s latest rant (see “Dangerous Doodles” below) concerning “Zero Intelligence (Tolerance)” policies in the public schools has its heart in the right place, but the arrow of blame is slightly off the mark.
I was familiar with this most recent episode at Payne Junior High in Arizona via James Taranto’s “Zero Tolerance Watch” in the Wall Street Journal Online blog. Unfortunately, these incidents of vanishing common sense occur with such regularity as to warrant an ongoing feature in his column. The Payne Junior High sketch of a “laser pistol of some sort” is only the latest, but certainly not the most egregious.
As Taranto quipped “Somebody must have told the School Board that ‘drawing a gun’ was dangerous. School Boards have correctly identified a “danger”, but their remaining common sense assures them it’s not a danger to the students in their charge, but rather a danger to their budgets, their legal bills and the thing that they value highest: their careers.
This is the appalling legacy of Columbine – an educational system so frightened of litigation that it negatively affects every aspect of its core mission of teaching students.
With every new (and it must be pointed out – rare) horrendous incident of violence at a school, I have no doubt of the sincere heartbreak and agony felt by administrators and teachers for the victims, as they wring their hands and beseech “what could we have done to prevent this?” – followed immediately by a paralyzing fear of crucifixion in the courts of law and public opinion.
I have some first–hand experience in the administration and governance of schools – albeit, private schools. I can assure you that the burden of legal protection from real or perceived faults of the teachers and administrators weighs heavily on most decisions that must be taken. At our modest private elementary school, located in the sleepy burg of Topeka Kansas, we had parents who wanted eight–foot tall chain link fences and armed guards at the door and other parents who wanted no security whatsoever (That wasn’t the kind of school they wanted THEIR children to attend). The governing board had to attempt to square this intractable circle. Our little school had only a couple of administrators and less than twenty teachers – but we had a dedicated legal counsel.
No, the fault here is not lily–livered dolts running our schools, but rather the litigious “gotta blame and sue somebody” mentality that has taken hold of our modern culture. I accuse the ambulance–chasing trial lawyers (like John Edwards) with their TV ads encouraging every jamoke with a pain or a grievance to sue their perceived enemies into oblivion. I accuse popular movies like “Erin Brockovich” which glamorize these tort–bar–bastards as selfless heroes. And I particularly accuse the otherwise upstanding Americans who decide to assuage their pain and loss by suing the pants off somebody.
In the mean time every school board is advised by their legal counsel to institute “zero tolerance” and other nonsensical schemes, not to protect the children, but to protect their own wary behinds.
I was familiar with this most recent episode at Payne Junior High in Arizona via James Taranto’s “Zero Tolerance Watch” in the Wall Street Journal Online blog. Unfortunately, these incidents of vanishing common sense occur with such regularity as to warrant an ongoing feature in his column. The Payne Junior High sketch of a “laser pistol of some sort” is only the latest, but certainly not the most egregious.
As Taranto quipped “Somebody must have told the School Board that ‘drawing a gun’ was dangerous. School Boards have correctly identified a “danger”, but their remaining common sense assures them it’s not a danger to the students in their charge, but rather a danger to their budgets, their legal bills and the thing that they value highest: their careers.
This is the appalling legacy of Columbine – an educational system so frightened of litigation that it negatively affects every aspect of its core mission of teaching students.
With every new (and it must be pointed out – rare) horrendous incident of violence at a school, I have no doubt of the sincere heartbreak and agony felt by administrators and teachers for the victims, as they wring their hands and beseech “what could we have done to prevent this?” – followed immediately by a paralyzing fear of crucifixion in the courts of law and public opinion.
I have some first–hand experience in the administration and governance of schools – albeit, private schools. I can assure you that the burden of legal protection from real or perceived faults of the teachers and administrators weighs heavily on most decisions that must be taken. At our modest private elementary school, located in the sleepy burg of Topeka Kansas, we had parents who wanted eight–foot tall chain link fences and armed guards at the door and other parents who wanted no security whatsoever (That wasn’t the kind of school they wanted THEIR children to attend). The governing board had to attempt to square this intractable circle. Our little school had only a couple of administrators and less than twenty teachers – but we had a dedicated legal counsel.
No, the fault here is not lily–livered dolts running our schools, but rather the litigious “gotta blame and sue somebody” mentality that has taken hold of our modern culture. I accuse the ambulance–chasing trial lawyers (like John Edwards) with their TV ads encouraging every jamoke with a pain or a grievance to sue their perceived enemies into oblivion. I accuse popular movies like “Erin Brockovich” which glamorize these tort–bar–bastards as selfless heroes. And I particularly accuse the otherwise upstanding Americans who decide to assuage their pain and loss by suing the pants off somebody.
In the mean time every school board is advised by their legal counsel to institute “zero tolerance” and other nonsensical schemes, not to protect the children, but to protect their own wary behinds.
Saturday, August 25, 2007
Dangerous Doodles
A 13 year old boy attending Payne Junior High School in Arizona doodled some sort of gun on a homework paper he turned in. The school district, with a "zero tolerance" policy suspended him for three days. Are these people insane? The joke is too obvious so I'll get it out of the way up front — Zero Tolerance? More like Zero Intelligence! Children learn lots of things in school. Some of it is scholastic — some of it is behavioral. Adult authority-figure behavior is on display here and what we see is a total lack of common sense. Gone. Gone. Gone. No common sense in adults, but now in children, a fear of breaking bizarre, arbitrary, unknown, and unknowable rules. Shouldn't the rules make sense? I assert that no kid could predict that such doodles would be considered "threatening," (because A) they aren't, and B) they haven't yet had common sense beat out of them by the "educational" system.)
How is a this doodle a threat? This is stupid beyond belief. Almost certainly I handed in some paper as a child with a gun drawn on it (as well as cars and airplanes). The teacher probably utterly ignored it as what it was — meaningless scribbling.
I saw some talking head lawyer on Fox News sticking up for the "zero tolerance" policy, stating, "If someone handed me a legal brief with a gun drawn on it, I'd feel threatened." Where to begin... Where to begin... Well, I suspect she's just a blithering idiot, but I will try to address this rationally. If a GROWN UP drew a gun on a LEGAL document it MIGHT mean something significant, whereas if a CHILD scribbled a gun on HIS OWN HOMEWORK it might mean HE'S A CHILD!
I'm going insane because this is all so blatantly, flagrantly, painfully OBVIOUS and it is maddening to explain the blatantly, flagrantly, painfully OBVIOUS to what are supposed to be rational, mature, intelligent, responsible adults! (False assumption in there somewhere. Can you spot it?) But they've got their "zero tolerance" policies — which I suspect are just a way to avoid the chore of actually thinking and responsibility. More importantly, it's a means of avoiding the "J-word" — judgmental.
There's more to this madness than zero tolerance of weapons. My daughter is still in high school. They do not have a medical care for students because they are evidently afraid of lawsuits. They have some guy in the "clinic" — a room with a cot. I don't think he's a nurse even. There is, of course, a "zero tolerance" policy on all drugs (all medications). The "clinic" guy cannot give out any medicines such as Advil, Tylenol, etc. He does not even have ice on hand for first aid for sprains, etc. Apparently he's only there to call parents and watch kids lying down on the cot until they are picked up. Why aren't my children being medically cared for in school? I am baffled by the school district's irresponsibility. I have placed my child in their care but they are not caring for her.
Crap! it just hit me! School just started again. I need to register her medications so she can take her asthma inhaler to school without being expelled. Yes, if we have not registered it, she can be expelled from school for possessing her potentially life-saving medication. It's a topsy-turvy world.
I try to make reasoned arguments on this blog, but it feels like all I can do here is scream at the incredible lack of common sense displayed by school administrators and their moral cowardice in the face of imagined potential lawsuits. Won't someone "Think of the children!"?
How is a this doodle a threat? This is stupid beyond belief. Almost certainly I handed in some paper as a child with a gun drawn on it (as well as cars and airplanes). The teacher probably utterly ignored it as what it was — meaningless scribbling.
I saw some talking head lawyer on Fox News sticking up for the "zero tolerance" policy, stating, "If someone handed me a legal brief with a gun drawn on it, I'd feel threatened." Where to begin... Where to begin... Well, I suspect she's just a blithering idiot, but I will try to address this rationally. If a GROWN UP drew a gun on a LEGAL document it MIGHT mean something significant, whereas if a CHILD scribbled a gun on HIS OWN HOMEWORK it might mean HE'S A CHILD!
I'm going insane because this is all so blatantly, flagrantly, painfully OBVIOUS and it is maddening to explain the blatantly, flagrantly, painfully OBVIOUS to what are supposed to be rational, mature, intelligent, responsible adults! (False assumption in there somewhere. Can you spot it?) But they've got their "zero tolerance" policies — which I suspect are just a way to avoid the chore of actually thinking and responsibility. More importantly, it's a means of avoiding the "J-word" — judgmental.
There's more to this madness than zero tolerance of weapons. My daughter is still in high school. They do not have a medical care for students because they are evidently afraid of lawsuits. They have some guy in the "clinic" — a room with a cot. I don't think he's a nurse even. There is, of course, a "zero tolerance" policy on all drugs (all medications). The "clinic" guy cannot give out any medicines such as Advil, Tylenol, etc. He does not even have ice on hand for first aid for sprains, etc. Apparently he's only there to call parents and watch kids lying down on the cot until they are picked up. Why aren't my children being medically cared for in school? I am baffled by the school district's irresponsibility. I have placed my child in their care but they are not caring for her.
Crap! it just hit me! School just started again. I need to register her medications so she can take her asthma inhaler to school without being expelled. Yes, if we have not registered it, she can be expelled from school for possessing her potentially life-saving medication. It's a topsy-turvy world.
I try to make reasoned arguments on this blog, but it feels like all I can do here is scream at the incredible lack of common sense displayed by school administrators and their moral cowardice in the face of imagined potential lawsuits. Won't someone "Think of the children!"?
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Even One Life
How do solve a problem like Geraldo? How do you hold a moonbat in your hand?
I have long believed that Fox News has a real problem concerning their association with Mr. Geraldo Rivera. I understand ratings and buzz and diversity and all that crap – but giving a clearly intellectually and morally biased person like Jerry Rivers an international prime–time platform is selling out to the least common denominator. I expect better of FNS.
Recently Geraldo has carved out quite a niche for himself as the designated “indignant voice for the downtrodden brown–skinned people” as it relates to any and all matters concerning immigration. He drops the “R–word” with the ease of a disciple on a morally superior crusade.
I was therefore very interested to hear Mr. Rivers explain himself under the typically persistent and withering questioning of the reigning Queen of Talk Radio, Ms. Laura Ingraham.
http://hotair.cachefly.net/audio/2007-08/li-gr.mp3
I heard it live yesterday, and it was one of the most pathetic interviews/performances that I have ever heard in my life. Laura asks one “tough” question (and it wasn’t even that tough!) and Jerry immediately pulls out the whiny “why don’t you like me?” complaint. The guy has nothing – no moral, ethical or intellectual defense of his indefensible position other than feeling sorry for brown–skinned people.
Here is an interesting take on the “criminal illegal immigrants” story. Disingenuous mush–heads immediately argue that illegals are generally more law–abiding than regular Americans (where do they get this bogus statistic if it is generally impermissible to ask a criminal defendant his citizenship status? A wild bullshit guess?). They then assert that even stating the immigration status of the criminal is “racist”, because, after all, we are talking about Mexicans here. The conservative/immigrationist (to use Geraldo’s pejorative epithet) replies “But this man committed a heinous crime and he shouldn’t have ever been here”. The mush–head counters with “crimes are committed everyday by ordinary Americans” as if that means anything.
So, let’s turn it around. How many times have we heard that specific laws that abridge personal freedoms are justified “even if they save ONE life”?
Seatbelts, Speed Limits, Bike Helmets, Drunk Driving Laws, Anti–Smoking laws, Trans-Fat Bans, Restrictive Gun Laws, etc, etc.
Aren’t the libs being very hypocritical about a core philosophical issue? If keeping illegal immigrants out of the country saves EVEN ONE LIFE, isn’t it worth it?
I have long believed that Fox News has a real problem concerning their association with Mr. Geraldo Rivera. I understand ratings and buzz and diversity and all that crap – but giving a clearly intellectually and morally biased person like Jerry Rivers an international prime–time platform is selling out to the least common denominator. I expect better of FNS.
Recently Geraldo has carved out quite a niche for himself as the designated “indignant voice for the downtrodden brown–skinned people” as it relates to any and all matters concerning immigration. He drops the “R–word” with the ease of a disciple on a morally superior crusade.
I was therefore very interested to hear Mr. Rivers explain himself under the typically persistent and withering questioning of the reigning Queen of Talk Radio, Ms. Laura Ingraham.
http://hotair.cachefly.net/audio/2007-08/li-gr.mp3
I heard it live yesterday, and it was one of the most pathetic interviews/performances that I have ever heard in my life. Laura asks one “tough” question (and it wasn’t even that tough!) and Jerry immediately pulls out the whiny “why don’t you like me?” complaint. The guy has nothing – no moral, ethical or intellectual defense of his indefensible position other than feeling sorry for brown–skinned people.
Here is an interesting take on the “criminal illegal immigrants” story. Disingenuous mush–heads immediately argue that illegals are generally more law–abiding than regular Americans (where do they get this bogus statistic if it is generally impermissible to ask a criminal defendant his citizenship status? A wild bullshit guess?). They then assert that even stating the immigration status of the criminal is “racist”, because, after all, we are talking about Mexicans here. The conservative/immigrationist (to use Geraldo’s pejorative epithet) replies “But this man committed a heinous crime and he shouldn’t have ever been here”. The mush–head counters with “crimes are committed everyday by ordinary Americans” as if that means anything.
So, let’s turn it around. How many times have we heard that specific laws that abridge personal freedoms are justified “even if they save ONE life”?
Seatbelts, Speed Limits, Bike Helmets, Drunk Driving Laws, Anti–Smoking laws, Trans-Fat Bans, Restrictive Gun Laws, etc, etc.
Aren’t the libs being very hypocritical about a core philosophical issue? If keeping illegal immigrants out of the country saves EVEN ONE LIFE, isn’t it worth it?
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Primal Instinct
I have observed that dramatizing our primal survival mechanisms is a source of great pleasure. Not just in humans — animals too. You'll never see our dog happier than when given the opportunity to chase, catch, chomp on the throat, and shake till the neck is broken of a stuffed squirrel, duck, fish, etc. This is good times for our dog. She knows it isn't a real duck but she sure gets a bang out of pretending she's just tracked down and killed her dinner. That's a predator's instinct. What about prey, or "flight animals"? Well, of course they like to run! Like horses. Run horsey, run! See if you can beat the other horses to the finish line! Or our bunny rabbit. He loves to be chased around and around and then make it back into the safety of his hole (or cage, in this case). You can see that he's having a grand time at evading the make-believe coyote.
And so it is with the human animal. Males in particular are programmed for hunting and killing — hence the popularity of violent video games where kids and grown ups alike are offered the safe, legal, and clean opportunity to dramatize acts of violence. Long before the advent of agriculture the urge was developed for use against animals so that man could eat. But genetic programming dies hard. To be happy we need ways to activate this primal instinct. Sports are of course one way. Boys wrasslin' and fightin' like we did when I was a kid is another. Playing Soldier, Cops and Robbers, Cowboys and Indians. Of course we love this stuff because it activates within us the mechanism that has kept us alive.
But the do-gooder lefties can't stand this horrible retrograde behavior. Once I was at a toy store and witnessed a preschool boy asking his mommy for a toy gun. His well meaning (oh, aren't they all...), but utterly misguided, mother chastised him, "Billy, you know you aren't allowed to play with guns." I wanted to kick her ass (but somehow I restrained myself — perhaps because I could take advantage of other violent outlets). I really feel sorry for this kid. He's growing up being denied a central part of his being. I wouldn't be surprised if this isn't the kind of kid that winds up actually committing horrific crimes later in life. Was Seung-Hui Cho denied toy guns when he was a kid? I wonder.
Compared to conservatives, liberals produce less offspring and therefore have far less aggregate experience in raising children (the pre-parenthood of liberal youth, the exercise of "a woman's choice", the childless freedom of blue state sophisticate urbanites, the biological childlessness of homosexuals and trannies, etc.). Yet somehow liberals are qualified to tell me how to raise my kids (let's face it — they think that only they are qualified and the actual parents are not!). These fonts of behavioral wisdom are always making a fuss over the violence of video games ("the average 12 year old has witnessed over 500,000 violent deaths in movies and video games..." or some such horse hockey statistic.) Meanwhile they coddle truly dangerous violent inner-city criminals. For a gang banger, killing someone is a ticket to respect and gangland promotion, unlike what it used to be — a ticket to the electric chair. But, of course, "It's society's fault. These youths are disadvantaged and disenfranchised and they are exposed to too much violence in video games." Funny, my son hasn't killed anyone, despite having been a Grand Theft Auto San Andreas fiend in his formative years. The solution to true (not pretend) violent behavior are prison cells and electric chairs — and not virtual ones.
Certainly, the urge for violence is primarily a male drive in humans. When men were out hunting woolly mammoths with spears, the women were gathering fruits, berries, and other edibles. Skills required: seeking and finding objects of value, discriminating amongst them (ripe? unripe? rotten? poisonous?), and bringing them back to camp. Sounds like shopping to me, and I don't know anything that makes my wife and daughter happier. Personally, I detest shopping — as is common for men. Disappointingly, my son, enjoys it. He's not alone. It seems this is now common among young adult males these days. Admittedly he's a bit of a metro... It's the feminization of America. I keep meaning to take him out to the gun range and teach him a man's activity... Maybe that'd get his attention off of shopping for jeans and shoes.
The left will probably want to genetically engineer a new, superior, peaceful, non-violent man — free from his genetic baggage of violent behavior. I imagine it could be done. I also reckon this new race would be exterminated pretty quickly by the old, violent humans. So much for "progress" (and progressives).
And so it is with the human animal. Males in particular are programmed for hunting and killing — hence the popularity of violent video games where kids and grown ups alike are offered the safe, legal, and clean opportunity to dramatize acts of violence. Long before the advent of agriculture the urge was developed for use against animals so that man could eat. But genetic programming dies hard. To be happy we need ways to activate this primal instinct. Sports are of course one way. Boys wrasslin' and fightin' like we did when I was a kid is another. Playing Soldier, Cops and Robbers, Cowboys and Indians. Of course we love this stuff because it activates within us the mechanism that has kept us alive.
But the do-gooder lefties can't stand this horrible retrograde behavior. Once I was at a toy store and witnessed a preschool boy asking his mommy for a toy gun. His well meaning (oh, aren't they all...), but utterly misguided, mother chastised him, "Billy, you know you aren't allowed to play with guns." I wanted to kick her ass (but somehow I restrained myself — perhaps because I could take advantage of other violent outlets). I really feel sorry for this kid. He's growing up being denied a central part of his being. I wouldn't be surprised if this isn't the kind of kid that winds up actually committing horrific crimes later in life. Was Seung-Hui Cho denied toy guns when he was a kid? I wonder.
Compared to conservatives, liberals produce less offspring and therefore have far less aggregate experience in raising children (the pre-parenthood of liberal youth, the exercise of "a woman's choice", the childless freedom of blue state sophisticate urbanites, the biological childlessness of homosexuals and trannies, etc.). Yet somehow liberals are qualified to tell me how to raise my kids (let's face it — they think that only they are qualified and the actual parents are not!). These fonts of behavioral wisdom are always making a fuss over the violence of video games ("the average 12 year old has witnessed over 500,000 violent deaths in movies and video games..." or some such horse hockey statistic.) Meanwhile they coddle truly dangerous violent inner-city criminals. For a gang banger, killing someone is a ticket to respect and gangland promotion, unlike what it used to be — a ticket to the electric chair. But, of course, "It's society's fault. These youths are disadvantaged and disenfranchised and they are exposed to too much violence in video games." Funny, my son hasn't killed anyone, despite having been a Grand Theft Auto San Andreas fiend in his formative years. The solution to true (not pretend) violent behavior are prison cells and electric chairs — and not virtual ones.
Certainly, the urge for violence is primarily a male drive in humans. When men were out hunting woolly mammoths with spears, the women were gathering fruits, berries, and other edibles. Skills required: seeking and finding objects of value, discriminating amongst them (ripe? unripe? rotten? poisonous?), and bringing them back to camp. Sounds like shopping to me, and I don't know anything that makes my wife and daughter happier. Personally, I detest shopping — as is common for men. Disappointingly, my son, enjoys it. He's not alone. It seems this is now common among young adult males these days. Admittedly he's a bit of a metro... It's the feminization of America. I keep meaning to take him out to the gun range and teach him a man's activity... Maybe that'd get his attention off of shopping for jeans and shoes.
The left will probably want to genetically engineer a new, superior, peaceful, non-violent man — free from his genetic baggage of violent behavior. I imagine it could be done. I also reckon this new race would be exterminated pretty quickly by the old, violent humans. So much for "progress" (and progressives).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
