Does anyone else feel like we're watching the stage production of Aesop's lost fables?
This one takes place in a large and beautiful village. It has more than its fair share of village idiots, most of whom work in the news media.
In the distant past the biggest tribe had treated the one of the smaller tribes very badly. That was a long time ago, and the laws of the land now not only prevented such abuse, as a means of repentance the laws granted favorable status to the smaller tribes.
In fact the villagers even selected a member of the small tribe to be their leader.
This village had a long history of speaking out when they objected to their leaders' decisions. Then the people that didn't like the policy and those that did would have vigorous debates.
It was during one of those debates that the supporters of the leader became very desperate because they were losing the debate, because they were stupid poo-poo heads.
They decided to start saying that any of the good townsfolk that happened to be from the big tribe only disliked the leader's idea because he was from the little tribe. They knew this wasn't true but hoped to make the good townsfolk be quiet so they wouldn't be called tribists. And it always got the attention of the village idiots in the press. This strategy had worked in the past.
It had worked too often in the past, and this time it was obvious to everyone that it was just a strategy. The good townsfolk kept debating and eventually won. All the village was so tired of the strategy that nobody would pay attention to real tribism. So their strategy backfired on them. People of the village decided it would be easier to stop selecting people from the little tribe to be leaders so that the debates could stay on the issues. All the village thought this was a shame. The stupid poo-poo heads and village idiots had ruined it for everyone.
(Some villagers were reminded by this of a shepard boy in their village that liked to yell "wolf".)
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Where is the intellectual honesty?
I bet you know some rabid sports fans that are blindly, irrevocably loyal to their favorite team even when that team stinks. You might even be one yourself. And why not? Loyalty is an admirable trait, right? And it's just a game.
Sadly that same attitude seems to prevail in the arena of public policy. People support and defend "their team" jealously. Anxiously exploiting and exaggerating any misstep or miscalculation made by the 'enemy', while willingly overlooking or rationalizing their own teams misdeeds.
But this isn't a game. The stakes are enormous.
This is the flaw, potentially fatal, of the two party system. It too easily becomes a game. Victory trumps values. Partisanship replaces principle.
This is a bad long term plan because the very nature of 'principles' is that when we violate them, regardless of intentions, bad things happen.
Both of the major parties have supporters that fall into this trap.
I can understand why many people were attracted to Pres. Obama during the campaign. His rhetoric was soaring and inspirational. With so many citizens suffering from Bush fatigue, whether real or created, Obama offered a refreshing reprieve.
In the past 7 months it's become clear that his vision for America differs from the one he presented during the campaign. I suspect many that voted for him do not believe that the federal government should take ownership roles in banks and auto manufacturers. Or get further into the insurance providing business. Or guarantee future confiscatory taxes and inflation by devaluing the currency with enourmous debt. After all, economic principles are just that, principles. When we violiate them, regardless of intentions, bad things happen.
This presents those supporters with a dilemma. Do they support their team or their principles? Either way they feel disloyal.
To me it seems obvious. Presidents come and go. Principles persist.
With so wide a variety of issues facing us we can't expect to agree with anyone about everything. It is not contradictory to claim to support a party or individual while opposing this policy or that when intellectual honesty requires we do so.
Our country, our families, and our individual integrity will be better served.
Sadly that same attitude seems to prevail in the arena of public policy. People support and defend "their team" jealously. Anxiously exploiting and exaggerating any misstep or miscalculation made by the 'enemy', while willingly overlooking or rationalizing their own teams misdeeds.
But this isn't a game. The stakes are enormous.
This is the flaw, potentially fatal, of the two party system. It too easily becomes a game. Victory trumps values. Partisanship replaces principle.
This is a bad long term plan because the very nature of 'principles' is that when we violate them, regardless of intentions, bad things happen.
Both of the major parties have supporters that fall into this trap.
I can understand why many people were attracted to Pres. Obama during the campaign. His rhetoric was soaring and inspirational. With so many citizens suffering from Bush fatigue, whether real or created, Obama offered a refreshing reprieve.
In the past 7 months it's become clear that his vision for America differs from the one he presented during the campaign. I suspect many that voted for him do not believe that the federal government should take ownership roles in banks and auto manufacturers. Or get further into the insurance providing business. Or guarantee future confiscatory taxes and inflation by devaluing the currency with enourmous debt. After all, economic principles are just that, principles. When we violiate them, regardless of intentions, bad things happen.
This presents those supporters with a dilemma. Do they support their team or their principles? Either way they feel disloyal.
To me it seems obvious. Presidents come and go. Principles persist.
With so wide a variety of issues facing us we can't expect to agree with anyone about everything. It is not contradictory to claim to support a party or individual while opposing this policy or that when intellectual honesty requires we do so.
Our country, our families, and our individual integrity will be better served.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
The best defense is a strong offense.
PROJECTION: Projection is a form of defense in which unwanted feelings are displaced onto another person, where they then appear as a threat from the external world. A common form of projection occurs when an individual, threatened by his own angry feelings, accuses another of harbouring hostile thoughts. - Encyclopedia Britannica
All across America citizens, alarmed by the federal government's attempts to nationalize our health care system, have been making their anger known. Despite soft-petal reports by a fawning press they are demanding real answers and accountability from elected officials. And they are in no mood for platitudes and arrogance.
Rather than acknowledge that they have stepped in it, the Democratic leadership is firing back. They pronounce the protests to be illegitimate and the protesters to be pawns of Republicans and the insurance industry. (Although if challenged they can offer no evidence of either.)
Clearly this is their strategy. As the movement grows, in their desperation they need to dissuade others from joining the fight. Ridicule, scorn and intimidation (report your 'fishy' neighbors) are their weapons of choice.
But I think it's more than that. I think many of them really believe what they're saying. From their paradigm angry and boisterous protests are manufactured products. Their community organizers rouse the rabble, bus in rental protesters (union hacks), and call it 'grass roots'. They've never been part of a legitimate, home grown, real-people protest.
Combine that with the arrogant belief that only "special interests" could possibly disagree with them, and only for nefarious motives, and you have a textbook example of projection.
All across America citizens, alarmed by the federal government's attempts to nationalize our health care system, have been making their anger known. Despite soft-petal reports by a fawning press they are demanding real answers and accountability from elected officials. And they are in no mood for platitudes and arrogance.
Rather than acknowledge that they have stepped in it, the Democratic leadership is firing back. They pronounce the protests to be illegitimate and the protesters to be pawns of Republicans and the insurance industry. (Although if challenged they can offer no evidence of either.)
Clearly this is their strategy. As the movement grows, in their desperation they need to dissuade others from joining the fight. Ridicule, scorn and intimidation (report your 'fishy' neighbors) are their weapons of choice.
But I think it's more than that. I think many of them really believe what they're saying. From their paradigm angry and boisterous protests are manufactured products. Their community organizers rouse the rabble, bus in rental protesters (union hacks), and call it 'grass roots'. They've never been part of a legitimate, home grown, real-people protest.
Combine that with the arrogant belief that only "special interests" could possibly disagree with them, and only for nefarious motives, and you have a textbook example of projection.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
He who frames the debate wins.
Conservatives and Constitutionalists have already lost the health care debate.
As much as I hope that congressional conservatives will be able to slow the march to Socialism, that's all they can do now is slow it. They've missed their chance to stop it.
They have allowed the debate to be framed by the Socialists. The debate is now about the details, costs, and revenues. It's about the speed of the march, not the direction.
Where are the arguments about the proper role of government? About the constitutionality of becoming an insurance broker?
The first question any legislator should ask themselves about proposed legislation is "Is this the proper role of government?". If the answer to that is NO, there's no reason to move onto the next question.
As much as I hope that congressional conservatives will be able to slow the march to Socialism, that's all they can do now is slow it. They've missed their chance to stop it.
They have allowed the debate to be framed by the Socialists. The debate is now about the details, costs, and revenues. It's about the speed of the march, not the direction.
Where are the arguments about the proper role of government? About the constitutionality of becoming an insurance broker?
The first question any legislator should ask themselves about proposed legislation is "Is this the proper role of government?". If the answer to that is NO, there's no reason to move onto the next question.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
From my blog to his teleprompter?
Wow, did I ever call that one? I listened today, against my better judgement, to Pres. Obama's news conference. At one point he actually used the phrase "what's in it for me?", referring to what he was sure people were asking about his healthcare plans.
But I was waiting to hear the phrase "pay no attention to that man behind the curtain".
He really is gifted on the podium. All his 'goals' and 'intentions' sounded really logical and good. What they weren't is honest.
It is not true that they have identified savings that will pay 2/3 of the cost. It is absolutely not true that they can raise the other 1/3 with the surcharge on evil rich people. It is not true that 49 million people are uninsured. (turns out that number is devised by counting everyone that was ever uninsured in a given year. If you changed jobs, and were uninsured for 24 hours between jobs, you're one of them)It is not true that the Republicans are being given a chance to have input. It is not true that......etc, etc, etc.
I sincerely hope that people are not bamboozled by this extraordinarily gifted orator, smooth politician, and devoted Socialist.
Can you even wrap your mind around the magnitude of the malfeasance of pressuring congress to pass the most sweeping and expensive government takeover in American history without even taking time to read the legislation? Or to even allow the minority party's ideas to be heard in committee?
Pass the Advil please!
But I was waiting to hear the phrase "pay no attention to that man behind the curtain".
He really is gifted on the podium. All his 'goals' and 'intentions' sounded really logical and good. What they weren't is honest.
It is not true that they have identified savings that will pay 2/3 of the cost. It is absolutely not true that they can raise the other 1/3 with the surcharge on evil rich people. It is not true that 49 million people are uninsured. (turns out that number is devised by counting everyone that was ever uninsured in a given year. If you changed jobs, and were uninsured for 24 hours between jobs, you're one of them)It is not true that the Republicans are being given a chance to have input. It is not true that......etc, etc, etc.
I sincerely hope that people are not bamboozled by this extraordinarily gifted orator, smooth politician, and devoted Socialist.
Can you even wrap your mind around the magnitude of the malfeasance of pressuring congress to pass the most sweeping and expensive government takeover in American history without even taking time to read the legislation? Or to even allow the minority party's ideas to be heard in committee?
Pass the Advil please!
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Yeah, but what's in it for me?
I had a lot of time to listen to news/talk radio today.
I came to 2 important conclusions.
1) Listening to the news lately could very well be the reason my blood pressure has been high.
2) President Obama is using language designed to appeal to the very worst in people. If you listen to his rhetoric concerning health care, it is clear that he wants Americans to support his program based on what is in it for them, without regard for the burden it will unarguably place on our children, and their children, etc, etc, etc. Burdens in the forms of higher taxes, rampant inflation, and constricted freedom.
The sad thing is that, based on our history from the last 50 years, the strategy of appealing to greed is very often successful.
I came to 2 important conclusions.
1) Listening to the news lately could very well be the reason my blood pressure has been high.
2) President Obama is using language designed to appeal to the very worst in people. If you listen to his rhetoric concerning health care, it is clear that he wants Americans to support his program based on what is in it for them, without regard for the burden it will unarguably place on our children, and their children, etc, etc, etc. Burdens in the forms of higher taxes, rampant inflation, and constricted freedom.
The sad thing is that, based on our history from the last 50 years, the strategy of appealing to greed is very often successful.
Friday, July 17, 2009
Resistance is futile.
It came to me yesterday as I pondered the president's apparent disregard for the destructive impact of his agenda on an already fragile economy. It hit me as an instantaneous rush of pure understanding, and now everything is so clear.I know the real reason we can't see the president's birth certificate.
OBAMA IS BORG!
I'll explain for the readers that are not fans of Star Trek:The Next Generation. (As if there are any)
The Borg is an interstellar 'race' of humanoids that are fitted with bio-electrical components, all linked together in one great 'collective'. Some of their defining characteristics are: *There is no individuality. Borg serve, and are, the collective. *They are laser-focused on their primary purpose which is to 'assimilate' others into the collective. *The wishes of those to be assimilated are irrelevant. *They are ruthless and remorseless in this purpose, with no regard for any collateral damage they cause. There is no room for compromise. All are either assimilated or destroyed. ("You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile,") *They accomplish this purpose through overwhelming power. *When confronted by an adversary not considered to be a substantive threat, they simply ignore them. *They produce nothing of themselves. They simply strip those they assimilate of their resources.
President Obama has a vision for this nation that stands in stark contrast to that of our founding fathers. It seems that we are to be assimilated, like it or not, into the president's vision of central control, universal healthcare, nationalized industry, and 'wealth equalization'. In other words, The Collective.
Sometimes truth really is stranger, and more frightening, than fiction.
(Disclaimer: I am unaware of any Borg use of a teleprompter.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)