Search This Blog

Wednesday, November 05, 2008

Now what?

"...I recognized that I held those two views of America (politics, government, corporations, the military). One was of a state where everything was magically wrong and must be immediately corrected at any cost; and the other—the world in which I actually functioned day to day—was made up of people, most of whom were reasonably trying to maximize their comfort by getting along with each other (in the workplace, the marketplace, the jury room, on the freeway, even at the school-board meeting).

And I realized that the time had come for me to avow my participation in that America in which I chose to live, and that that country was not a schoolroom teaching values, but a marketplace.

"Aha," you will say, and you are right. I began reading not only the economics of Thomas Sowell (our greatest contemporary philosopher) but Milton Friedman, Paul Johnson, and Shelby Steele, and a host of conservative writers, and found that I agreed with them: a free-market understanding of the world meshes more perfectly with my experience than that idealistic vision I called liberalism." - David Mamet, writing in the 11/03/08 Village Voice.

~

"History looms large in the conservative mind. Conservatives learn from history, which is a repository of both good and evil. Liberals, seeing only the evil, view the past with scorn -- as a record of mistakes, failures, and injustices. Liberals wish to replace the ugly, shameful past with a new regime of justice and love. (Think of the well-meaning but clueless hippies.) This is of course hubris, and it is dangerous. Please don't misunderstand: I'm glad that there are liberals. Young people should be liberal. Youth is a time of idealism, exploration, hope, and searching. These traits need to be cultivated if the emerging adult is to be an integrated whole rather than a personal fragment.

Fortunately, most young people survive the turbulence and naiveté of adolescence and gain the experience and judgment necessary to become proper conservatives. They begin to use their brains after relying for so long on their hearts. Because the natural movement is from liberalism to conservatism, I hold out hope for the salvation of my middle-aged but childish liberal friends. Long live conservatism!" - Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D.

The most radical revolutionary will become a conservative the day after the revolution.—Hannah Arendt

“Everybody knows - but no one wants to say - that the Democratic Party has become the party of special interest bigots and racial dividers. It runs the one-party state that controls public services in every major inner city, including the corrupt and failing school systems in which half the students - mainly African American and Hispanic - are denied a shot at the American dream.” - David Horowitz

So is it Romney or Jindal in 2012?



I really think Jindal is the guy, if he wants to go for it. He has been spectacularly successful. Even those of you with all-blue blood must concede that the Democratic governor that preceded him screwed up the Katrina situation and made all sorts of slow and non-decisions. Jindal came in and has been getting things accomplished. The completely different response to a threat to New Orleans this year was largely Jindal's doing. He is a man of color, he is young, and he is building a nice resume. At the very least he would make a nice VP candidate alongside Romney.

A liberal is a conservative who's been arrested. A conservative is a liberal who's been mugged.- unknown



I am afraid Obama will actually do a lot of the things with the economy and energy that he suggested he would do, which would badly hurt average Americans, which would wind up with him getting tossed out in 2012. Good for Republicans but bad for America. But if he changes his plans dramatically and begins doing what needs to be done, it will be good for America and also lead to his re-election. He has always been radically left in his voting record but was he simply being pragmatic to get the support of the richest side of his base? We really don't know. But I can point to some things to watch for:



The Fairness Doctrine is a threat to free speech, requiring radio stations to play as many liberal talk shows as they do conservative talk shows. Who decides what is liberal and what is conservative? How does the government have the right to stifle free speech? Air America went bankrupt because people don't want to listen to the vast majority of liberal talk radio. If Obama pushes for this, he is after our Constitutional right to free speech and I hope you all fight it with me. If not, it shows that he actually learned something in law school and isn't a puppet for the radical left.

"Not to be a socialist at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head." - Georges Clemenceau

The Freedom of Choice act. Makes abortions more easily obtained and more likely. Really helps pedophiles abuse young girls and then force them to abort their babies with no consequences. It is a radical bill. Obama, if he is for this, I am not sure I have the words. But he really did vote against a bill that would allow doctors and nurses to legally treat living babies who had survived abortions rather than throw them out like trash.



Cap and Trade bills. All legislation that fines plants for greenhouse gas emissions are ludicrous and kill the economy. You know who emits the most greenhouse gases? 1) the ocean. 2) trees 3) animals like cows. It makes as much sense to bankrupt the coal industry for their CO2 emissions as it does to outlaw trees and cows and the ocean. Right now we need more nuclear plants and more drilling for natural gas and oil in our own country. Most of our resources off-shore can be accessed by side-sipping technologies, so if we don't get going the Chinese are going to start taking them from us anyway.



The military. Will Obama listen to the most successful military commander since George Patton and finish the job in Iraq and use surge tactics in Afghanistan? Or will he kowtow to the loonies who want us to withdraw our military from foreign soil? Isolationism either militarily or commercially is a proven loser. What will Obama do?

“Terrorists and totalitarian radicals are lionized as fighters for social justice. Israelis and Americans are condemned as Nazis."” - David Horowitz



President Obama can do great good or great harm. Once he is in office, he is my President, too. I hope that he feels the same way and acts upon it. We can only wait and see for now.



PS - Most of the negative ads against Obama and countless other candidates on both sides of the aisle were based in truth. Sometimes the truth hurts. But two very nasty ones stand out, both in Senatorial races.



1) Republican Elizabeth Dole, of all people, ran an ad accusing her opponent of being Godless! Her opponent is or at least was a Sunday School teacher. Doleful! She deserved to get hammered and she did! I think this was the worst dirty trick ad I have seen in this entire campaign and it made me ashamed of Liddy Dole, who I once thought was one of the good guys. No excuse for this. Sickening!



2) Democrat Al Franken attacked Norm Coleman's wife and harmed her job status with no proof of his allegations. Too bad Al, looks like you lost. Of course, you are demanding a recount at taxpayer expense because it was a close race. But it appears, Al, that the joke is on you! Alas, the people of Minnesota will get another big bill to pay just because you won't accept the defeat. I think that is what is known as adding insult to injury?

“It is important for conservatives to make distinctions between those on the Left who were (and are) traitors or self-conceived enemies of the United States, and those who were (and are) the fellow-travelers of enemies of the United States, and those who are neither traitors, nor enemies, nor friends and protectors of enemies, but are American patriots who disagree with conservatives over tactical and policy issues.” - David Horowitz

May all those who disagree with me fall into the second category. May all those who fall into the first category be exposed. God Bless America!

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

"Too bad Al, looks like you lost. Of course, you are demanding a recount at taxpayer expense because it was a close race. But it appears, Al, that the joke is on you! Alas, the people of Minnesota will get another big bill to pay just because you won't accept the defeat. I think that is what is known as adding insult to injury?"

Nope, it's what's known as an automatic recount.

The Minnesotan taxpayers will get a big bill for their government following the law, that's all.

"I am afraid Obama will actually do a lot of the things with the economy and energy that he suggested he would do, which would badly hurt average Americans, which would wind up with him getting tossed out in 2012."

We shall see. His plan does include tax relief for the middle class and small businesses, which could help the economy. And taxes being raised on higher incomes in most cases simply amounts to letting them go back to the levels where they were during the Clinton years, which, though it may seem like just a distant memory now, was the longest sustained period of economic growth in US history.

But anyway.

Now, about those ice cores...

-- creeper

chaos_engineer said...

A couple of random comments:

You know who emits the most greenhouse gases? 1) the ocean. 2) trees 3) animals like cows.

Yes, but that's part of the carbon cycle. There are other natural processes that absorb greenhouse gasses, and everything tends to stay in equilibrium. All these processes happen near the surface of the Earth, so they're "reusing" the same carbon over and over again. If there are excess greenhouse gasses in the air, then the processes that release them will tend to slow down, and the processes that absorb them will start speeding up.

But when we burn fossil fuels, we're adding new carbon to the system. Remember that coal is found in the so-called "Carboniferous-era" rocks. These rocks were created by Satan after the Fall. (We know Satan was involved because they appear to be 300 million years old and to contain the remnants of 60 million years of plant life, so they were obviously designed to deceive us.)

It's probably safe to dig up some of those rocks and release the carbon (and brimstone) they contain, but we should consider the possibility that Satan created those rocks as part of a plot to use our greed against us.

But he really did vote against a bill that would allow doctors and nurses to legally treat living babies who had survived abortions rather than throw them out like trash.

That sounds horrible, but I've got to confess that I don't know the details of the bill. Did he vote against it because of that particular clause, or because of other parts of the bill that he didn't like?

I guess it doesn't matter. The good news is that it doesn't require doctors and nurses to throw babies in the trash. So we can still solve the problem, even without the government's help.

The first step is to find out why doctors and nurses are throwing babies in the trash. Have any surveys been done?

Doctors and nurses tend to value human life, so my guess is that the profit-hungry shareholders are demanding this as a cost-cutting measure. If we went to a system of universal health care, then these babies would have coverage and the hospitals wouldn't have any reason to kill them.

radar said...

chaos, studies show that CO2 levels rise AFTER average temperatures rise, not before. They are not the cause, they are an effect. Manmade emissions are irrelevant to the warming and cooling cycles of the earth, it is a complex system that adjusts for changes in energy from the sun, average temperatures on the earth, etc.

One of these days real science is going to start seeping into people's heads. We are wise to try to reduce emissions that cause cancer, etc. We are idiotic to constrain our industry to avoid just making greenhouse gases. It will make no difference at all!

The hockey stick graph was a hoax, the initial warming trend report from NASA was completely mistaken and we are, in fact, now going into a cooling cycle whether you like it or not.

I linked to Jill Stanek. She was one of the nurses that observed the process concerning notquiteaborted babies and began to fight the process at great personal cost. If you start the research there you will find out what you probably don't want to know.

radar said...

creeper, bringing about major cap and trade policies will cause energy costs to explode in the US. Keeping it nearly impossible for nuclear and coal plants to be built will do the same. Even if his tax increases primarily target big rather than small businesses, the loss of jobs will result in big trouble for families.

What good is a five hundred dollar tip from Uncle Sam when the tax and energy policies cause my company to relocate overseas? That money won't go very far while I go pound the pavement looking for another job.

The Clinton Administration saw boom take place after the Republicans swept into Congress and the two sides had to play nice. Between them, they did some good things.

Despite 9/11, the Bush economy was doing well and growing until suddenly oil jumped up to record prices and the Democratic Fannie/Freddie fiasco smacked down the mortgage banking industry. That whole mess was the fault of Barney and Chris and their Dem buddies trying to give love to ACORN by pushing bad loans through FM and FM and other institutions.

Like I said, our HOPE is that when Obama enters the White House and is briefed on what is really going on, he will CHANGE his policies. Otherwise, get ready for a depression.

radar said...

I want to highlight this phrase:

"Doctors and nurses tend to value human life, so my guess is that the profit-hungry shareholders are demanding this as a cost-cutting measure. If we went to a system of universal health care, then these babies would have coverage and the hospitals wouldn't have any reason to kill them."

Kill them.
Reason to kill them.
Innocent babies.
Think on that for awhile.

That society thinks it is okay to kill babies is the problem and Universal Healthcare, a complete failure everywhere it is tried (as has been socialism) won't have anything to do with changing that attitude. As long as we, as a society, believe killing babies is okay and even a "right" we are a barbarous culture.

Anonymous said...

Radar,

your doom and gloom talk seems poignantly blind to the journey this country has taken over the past 8 years. Suddenly it's Obama who's going to cause a recession / depression? Maybe you should take your own advice and wake up. The recession/depression is well under way, and Obama isn't even in office yet. Any policy that Obama instigates is not going to have an effect for some time.

"Or will he kowtow to the loonies who want us to withdraw our military from foreign soil?"

Such loonies as, say,... the Iraqis themselves?

If the Iraqis want the US military out, what is the argument to keep them in Iraq against the Iraqis' wishes?

-- creeper

radar said...

Creeper, I read milblogs and stuff being generated from Iraq. Yes, they want us to withdraw but not abruptly. You probably do not know the situation over there. Read a couple of hundred thousand words of Michael Yon and some of the other milblogs and check out the Iraqi blogs to see what is happening.

World War Two caused around 70 million deaths. The vast majority were Allied or neutral civilians killed by the Japanese, Germans and Italians. Almost 20 million Chinese were killed and three-fourths were civilians. Around 20 million Russians died and half were civilians.

The United States tried to stay out of the fight until Japan hit us at Pearl Harbor. After we got involved it took maybe a year to turn the tables and the Allies began winning the war. I wonder how many millions would have been saved if we had stepped up and sided with the Allies right at the start, when Hitler invaded Poland and Japan was still concentrating primarily on killing Chinamen?

If we can secure and stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan we will stave off probably hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths in the next few years at a minimum. We will also greatly help our own security position and fortify Israel's as well.

loboinok said...

Any policy that Obama instigates is not going to have an effect for some time.

I wish Congress believed that prior to throwing 700 billion at the banking industry, hoping to have an immediate effect.

highboy said...

Obama's tax break isn't a tax break. For example, the state of PA where I live there are nearly 60% that don't pay federal tax, because they are exempt. So the money they are getting from this policy is a subsidy, not a break. Just a giant welfare check, money taken from one class and given to another.

Anonymous said...

loboinok,

"I wish Congress believed that prior to throwing 700 billion at the banking industry, hoping to have an immediate effect."

Apples and oranges much? Congress and Bush made that money available immediately to provide the banks with liquidity.

Not quite the same thing as a president who hasn't even been inaugurated yet putting a tax policy into place at some point in the future.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

highboy (long time no see),

"Obama's tax break isn't a tax break. For example, the state of PA where I live there are nearly 60% that don't pay federal tax, because they are exempt. So the money they are getting from this policy is a subsidy, not a break."

Correct, not all of it is a tax break. Some of it is simply letting temporary tax relief expire to previous levels (which are levels that did not prove disastrous to the economy... on the contrary), some of it is a tax break, and some of it amounts to a subsidy.

And yes, it's to stimulate the economy.

Why is a stimulus okay when it comes from a Republican, but is some kind of welfare check or "socialist" or whatever when it's from a Democrat?

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

Radar,

"I read milblogs and stuff being generated from Iraq. Yes, they want us to withdraw but not abruptly.

[...]

If we can secure and stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan we will stave off probably hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths in the next few years at a minimum. We will also greatly help our own security position and fortify Israel's as well."


1. The Iraqi government, among other things, is pushing for a specific withdrawal date for US troops from Iraq. Yes, it needs to be reasonable, not too abrupt etc. I don't see Obama disagreeing with that.

2. It's Obama's stated goal to hand over Iraq's security to the Iraqis, as was planned all along, and to divert more forces to Afghanistan to confront Al Qaeda more directly. What's the problem?

3. What is the position of the President of the United States on these issues? Stay in Iraq against the Iraqis' wishes?

-- creeper

highboy said...

Creeper: This is the first time I've responded to one of radar's posts in over 2 years, so you never heard my state my opinion one way or another about Bush's ridiculous stimulus check. So to answer your question, its NOT okay to get a stimulus check from a Republican and its not okay for the Dems to take money from one class and give it to another. It doesn't stimulate the economy to keep writing checks that can't be cashed to boost an economy already trillions in debt. If the government wants to stimulate the economy, they can leave it alone.

loboinok said...

Any policy that Obama instigates (necessarily assumes Obama is President) is not going to have an effect for some time. (necessarily assumes that is the design of the policy)

As you well know, policies don't always work as designed.

Wall Street will respond to his stated policy whether he has been inaugurated or not. Wall Street believes his tax policy will further damage businesses and our economy. Regardless of it being a future action, it has an immediate negative effect and will have a further negative effect when actually instituted.

radar said...

I noticed that Obama has removed his tax policy plans and plans for Iraq and Afghanistan from his website. Looks like maybe his initial briefings have him rethinking some positions? One can only hope.