It is not hard in some cases to make accurate predictions about a given situation, and I have made such a prediction about the situation with the Somali pirates. As I am typing this, four Somali pirates are holding an American captive in a lifeboat. The captain has tried to escape once, but was recaptured by the Somalis. And right about now, our President continues to do nothing.
On the surface, it might seem like Obama is being neutral with the situation, trying to be non-confrontational and calm in the face of a threat. However, such a pose is imaginary, since there is no neutral position in conflict. So here is my prediction: Soon there is a good chance that the Somalis will surrender, and Obama will be hailed for "solving" the situation without military action. He will appear to have been planning this outcome all along, calculating the scenarios and carefully weighing the risk involved in his options. I think he is hoping for something to happen in our favor, because he has no idea what to do.
If the Somalis do surrender, all of the smiles that Obama will give in front of the camera, and all of the suddenly tough statements he will make will be meaningless. Obama might even tell the captain about how ready he was to take action, and that he is headed over to have some "tough talks" with the brigands. My point is that this current inaction on the part of our President is the greatest communication of all, and I promise you that all parties interested in striking America are receiving that communication. What Obama has now shown the world, in no uncertain terms, is that violent actions toward America's citizens will not be met with action. I hope that soon after I publish this, Obama will prove me wrong.
Another interesting aspect to this, is that Obama hasn't said anything either. Now, being that speeches are his specialty, I would have thought that a carefully crafted, teleprompter-fed speech would be filling the news stations with a bunch of words about how this action against America will be met with decisive action, but that at the same time we aren't at war with them, and we hope to share some cultural aspects of each country in the near future. But we have not even seen a response from our "leader." Brilliant. While I can understand the desire for international relations, this is not the time to be worried about if the Somalis or anyone else is going to like us when this is over. There are innocent Americans, non-combatants, being held by enemy forces. This is the time to do something about it.
So the days of "Give me liberty or give me death" are far behind us. If our captive American captain were to be saying that right now, his President would give no reply. Make no mistake, that the illusions of peaceable inaction will have no positive result.
26 March 2009
24 March 2009
AIG Used as Cover for Frontal Assault
It is my sincere belief that Obama and Congress ginned up public fervor over AIG simply because they knew it would be convenient cover for what they are doing. Liberalism must have a bad guy, it must have a villain. The purpose of liberal politicians is to go get that villain on your behalf. AIG was a handy villain.
The problem is that Congress, swept along in the storm, actually tried to pass a "Sniper Tax" with AIG execs as the target. That is an abuse of power that ought to be so distasteful, such an afront to the idea of America, that Washington should be the mob's destination. Obama went on Jay Leno and said that America's brightest kids shouldn't even consider being investment bankers, they need to do something truly useful. He took this opportunity before a national audience, which was nothing but grandstanding anyway but I was hoping against hope he'd say something useful, to once again rip people who do something he can't understand. Obama said smart kids should do something else, like be scientists. There is nothing wrong with being a scientist or engineer, in fact we need more of those. But there is no place for a politician gutting certain portions of society for his own pleasure.
Above all, it is none of Barack Obama's damn business what ANY kid chooses to do with their future. That is not his prerogative, at least not in the America I know...maybe in Hugo Chavez's world it is. Second, this is part of a coordinated attack on certain parts of our country, an attack on capitalism. The Federal gov't is now trying to tell us who should fail and who should succeed, what industries are good and which aren't, and so forth.
Why do you think they want to curtail tax deductions for charitable giving? One reason is that money I give from my own pocket does not have a politician's name on it. The more they can control, the better. And if a group of people, this time it's AIG execs, need to have their lives destroyed in order to achieve it, then tough beans. They found themselves in the way of "progress."
I seem to remember a sort of rabble rousing accompanied by a select group of the population being blamed for society's ills before...in Nazi Germany.
The problem is that Congress, swept along in the storm, actually tried to pass a "Sniper Tax" with AIG execs as the target. That is an abuse of power that ought to be so distasteful, such an afront to the idea of America, that Washington should be the mob's destination. Obama went on Jay Leno and said that America's brightest kids shouldn't even consider being investment bankers, they need to do something truly useful. He took this opportunity before a national audience, which was nothing but grandstanding anyway but I was hoping against hope he'd say something useful, to once again rip people who do something he can't understand. Obama said smart kids should do something else, like be scientists. There is nothing wrong with being a scientist or engineer, in fact we need more of those. But there is no place for a politician gutting certain portions of society for his own pleasure.
Above all, it is none of Barack Obama's damn business what ANY kid chooses to do with their future. That is not his prerogative, at least not in the America I know...maybe in Hugo Chavez's world it is. Second, this is part of a coordinated attack on certain parts of our country, an attack on capitalism. The Federal gov't is now trying to tell us who should fail and who should succeed, what industries are good and which aren't, and so forth.
Why do you think they want to curtail tax deductions for charitable giving? One reason is that money I give from my own pocket does not have a politician's name on it. The more they can control, the better. And if a group of people, this time it's AIG execs, need to have their lives destroyed in order to achieve it, then tough beans. They found themselves in the way of "progress."
I seem to remember a sort of rabble rousing accompanied by a select group of the population being blamed for society's ills before...in Nazi Germany.
19 March 2009
Red Herring
The bonuses given to AIG employees are nothing more than a distraction, and the Obama administration and friends love every minute of it. $165 million is less than 1/1000th of the bailout money so far - it makes no sense to get this outraged.
I know what alot of people are saying, "It's not the amount that matters, it's the principle. They took taxpayer money and then got huge bonuses." A couple of points: Those bonuses were contractual. Maybe they were really poor contracts, but it doesn't change the fact. Also, shouldn't this call into question the efficacy of the gov't doing something as foolish as propping up businesses, rather than anger over people receiving something that was legally obligated to them?
The root of the problem is the gov't getting its hands all over everything. Chris Dodd and Barney Frank knew this was going to happen. Can anyone, especially those of you who are angry over this, seriously support the gov't trying to run the economy? They are making a mess of it. The strategy goes like this: Hamstring private enterprise to the point where is cannot function well and suffers a breakdown. Stand back and say, "Look, capitalism failed! We must take over!" Then, run it poorly and claim that the only solution is more power.
What really saddens, angers, and frustrates me is that this game works. If the AIG execs should not have received bonuses because their company did poorly, then why on earth should any firm get gov't money? The only ones that need a bailout are the ones doing poorly. The very anger over the bonuses is based on logic that the gov't has no business bailing out anybody. We are rewarding failure. So, in that light, what's wrong with the AIG guys getting some cash? We can't let them go broke, can we? That would be catastophic!
Please, don't take the bait. The architects of all this want you focused on AIG, they want you angry at capitalism, they want you so whipped into a frenzy over the red meat they're throwing out that you fail to notice what's really going on. Obama wants to implement an agenda that would be horrible for this country, and he is using cover for himself in the form of "corporate greed", trusting that the populace will be engrossed- then, he can get away with all kinds of things which would never fly in a sane environment.
Chaos, anger, tumult - they are the weapons and friends of demogogues.
I know what alot of people are saying, "It's not the amount that matters, it's the principle. They took taxpayer money and then got huge bonuses." A couple of points: Those bonuses were contractual. Maybe they were really poor contracts, but it doesn't change the fact. Also, shouldn't this call into question the efficacy of the gov't doing something as foolish as propping up businesses, rather than anger over people receiving something that was legally obligated to them?
The root of the problem is the gov't getting its hands all over everything. Chris Dodd and Barney Frank knew this was going to happen. Can anyone, especially those of you who are angry over this, seriously support the gov't trying to run the economy? They are making a mess of it. The strategy goes like this: Hamstring private enterprise to the point where is cannot function well and suffers a breakdown. Stand back and say, "Look, capitalism failed! We must take over!" Then, run it poorly and claim that the only solution is more power.
What really saddens, angers, and frustrates me is that this game works. If the AIG execs should not have received bonuses because their company did poorly, then why on earth should any firm get gov't money? The only ones that need a bailout are the ones doing poorly. The very anger over the bonuses is based on logic that the gov't has no business bailing out anybody. We are rewarding failure. So, in that light, what's wrong with the AIG guys getting some cash? We can't let them go broke, can we? That would be catastophic!
Please, don't take the bait. The architects of all this want you focused on AIG, they want you angry at capitalism, they want you so whipped into a frenzy over the red meat they're throwing out that you fail to notice what's really going on. Obama wants to implement an agenda that would be horrible for this country, and he is using cover for himself in the form of "corporate greed", trusting that the populace will be engrossed- then, he can get away with all kinds of things which would never fly in a sane environment.
Chaos, anger, tumult - they are the weapons and friends of demogogues.
10 March 2009
Compassion or Trickery?
The Feds have decided to bailout homeowners, to subsidize mortgages so some folks don't go into foreclosure. There are all kinds of hard questions not being asked. Aren't we simply protecting people from bad decisions? Why should those of us who chose to live within our means being forced to bankroll other citizens?
The claim is that foreclosure is bad for everybody. Excuse me, but it's not nearly as bad as creating a culture in which the general population feels free to cast aside restraint, because the kind, loving, all-knowing Federal angels will swoop in to save them. There is an old example in economics that says if you want people to drive safely, put a spike on the steering wheel instead of an airbag.
Central to this push for subsidizing mortgages is the idea that it could happen to anyone. Every last one of us is on the brink, just a few paychecks away from disaster. So, we should buckle up and have compassion. Uh....simply not true. Foreclosure does not show up by surprise one day. Thomas Sowell said it well recently, that put another way, what we're seeing is many Americans living so stretched out, so financially risky, that a few common misfortunes in life push them over the edge.
That kind of decision making should not be subsidized, I don't care how bad it hurts for those involved. The cliche "saving for a rainy day" is cliche precisely because of its merit. Everyone experiences a transmission going out, a medical bill, getting laid off. It's part of life, learn to deal with it and be responsible. I know some people were not taught that by their parents, but we can't go back in time. They will never learn if we insulate them from their decisions.
(Let me emphasize that this is something wholly different that caring for those close to you. If some family or friends of mine were going through hard times, which can happen, then I would gladly open my home to them.)
But here's the impetus. People gaining wisdom through experience, and thus making wiser decisions, and the market restoring itself to balance....these are things for which politicians cannot take credit. Individual learning and success is poison to people like Obama, because it takes him completely out of the picture. They want you insulted from your decisions by their "compassion," and soon enough you won't be able to make very many decisions.
The essence of liberalism is this: We care, we understand. You can't make it on your own, and if you do something foolish and fiscally irresponsible, then don't worry about it, you were too stupid to know any better. We will fix it all, make everything alright, just become our indentured servants. You don't have it within yourself to overcome the challenges of life, and we will get even (on your behalf) with the people that do.
This leads to people relying on gov't for their security, safety, provision, happiness, and anything pleasurable in their life. Precisely what Obama & Co. want, I might add. The independent course of events that might lead us out of this has to be stopped. Otherwise, the voting blocs might wake up and realize they don't need a 3.5 Trillion dollar nanny.
The claim is that foreclosure is bad for everybody. Excuse me, but it's not nearly as bad as creating a culture in which the general population feels free to cast aside restraint, because the kind, loving, all-knowing Federal angels will swoop in to save them. There is an old example in economics that says if you want people to drive safely, put a spike on the steering wheel instead of an airbag.
Central to this push for subsidizing mortgages is the idea that it could happen to anyone. Every last one of us is on the brink, just a few paychecks away from disaster. So, we should buckle up and have compassion. Uh....simply not true. Foreclosure does not show up by surprise one day. Thomas Sowell said it well recently, that put another way, what we're seeing is many Americans living so stretched out, so financially risky, that a few common misfortunes in life push them over the edge.
That kind of decision making should not be subsidized, I don't care how bad it hurts for those involved. The cliche "saving for a rainy day" is cliche precisely because of its merit. Everyone experiences a transmission going out, a medical bill, getting laid off. It's part of life, learn to deal with it and be responsible. I know some people were not taught that by their parents, but we can't go back in time. They will never learn if we insulate them from their decisions.
(Let me emphasize that this is something wholly different that caring for those close to you. If some family or friends of mine were going through hard times, which can happen, then I would gladly open my home to them.)
But here's the impetus. People gaining wisdom through experience, and thus making wiser decisions, and the market restoring itself to balance....these are things for which politicians cannot take credit. Individual learning and success is poison to people like Obama, because it takes him completely out of the picture. They want you insulted from your decisions by their "compassion," and soon enough you won't be able to make very many decisions.
The essence of liberalism is this: We care, we understand. You can't make it on your own, and if you do something foolish and fiscally irresponsible, then don't worry about it, you were too stupid to know any better. We will fix it all, make everything alright, just become our indentured servants. You don't have it within yourself to overcome the challenges of life, and we will get even (on your behalf) with the people that do.
This leads to people relying on gov't for their security, safety, provision, happiness, and anything pleasurable in their life. Precisely what Obama & Co. want, I might add. The independent course of events that might lead us out of this has to be stopped. Otherwise, the voting blocs might wake up and realize they don't need a 3.5 Trillion dollar nanny.
03 March 2009
Envy as a Political Strategy
We are witnessing, before our very eyes, the emergence of a political force headed by Barack Obama that is based upon envy, turmoil, anger, and a sense of entitlement. Well, I say "headed" by Obama, but its unclear exactly how much power he has to steer the beast. Looking at his cabinet nominations, there is no denying that he had to pay off the power brokers that rocketed him to his current status.
Let's start with a simple example. Have you ever seen a fit, attractive male or female get this comment - "You're not going to have any cheesecake? You can eat whatever you want!" The superficiality of an obsession with outward appearance aside, this comment and the emotion that gave birth to it are based purely on envy.
And no, they can't eat whatever they want. If they ate whatever they wanted, they wouldn't look the way they do. Here's the point - the envious onlooker has a sense of unfairness. They have been outdone in this scenario. Someone has achieved something beyond them. And this person, who has committed the crime of disciplining themselves to the point where their body takes on attributes that the onlooker judges more attractive than their own, must be gotten even with. They must be brought low, back down to the level of those who have been outdone.
Is this not what goes on in our minds when we make comments like that? If you will be honest with yourself, it is. I am not concerned with the deeper question of how these feeling arise in the first place, but rather the blind obedience I see displayed for a political ideology that functions on the same emotions. And it is emotion. Obama's rise to power has worked because he capitalizes on the emotions of people, but I will deal with that in a later post.
So, you Obama voters out there, if your man limits the pay of executives, and raises taxes on people who make more money than you, and confiscates the earnings of money they have invested, and takes a large portion of what they leave to their children....has your life changed? Has your situation improved? More importantly, have you been motivated to do anything differently for yourself, with your own energy and creativity?
Precisely the opposite has happened. You have been had, you have tricked into being a spectator, given a free pass to watch other people "pay" for excelling. The word 'motivation' means to draw forth, to bring out. We should ask what is being motivated in the population of this country when a man gets elected President because he is very skilled at telling large numbers of people that their situation in life is not only less than they should accept, their life is so ordered because anyone that excels beyond their situation has nefarious intentions, and their success is keeping you down.
Envy and anger are being motivated. The populace is being incentivized to hand over power to the central goverment because they, somehow, have a right to the earnings of other citizens, and the gov't is going to collect it for them. There is an anecdote of a Greek king who received an envoy from a neighboring kingdom. The king was asked how he was successful in keeping his population under control, thus securing his own power. The king walked out into the garden, and wherever one flower was taller than the ones around it, he took his scepter and cut down the tall flower.
Wealth cannot be mulitplied by dividing it. This is how demogogues rise to power. Obama is an excellent salesman, and he has sold enough people in America on the idea that whatever ills they suffer, it is caused by the people who have done better than them, and these "victims" need not change anything about their life, their values, their work ethic and principles. Obama the Savior will go get even with all those evil achievers on your behalf.
This is pure envy. You elected a man whose basis for governing is one of the deadly sins. Nice going.
Let's start with a simple example. Have you ever seen a fit, attractive male or female get this comment - "You're not going to have any cheesecake? You can eat whatever you want!" The superficiality of an obsession with outward appearance aside, this comment and the emotion that gave birth to it are based purely on envy.
And no, they can't eat whatever they want. If they ate whatever they wanted, they wouldn't look the way they do. Here's the point - the envious onlooker has a sense of unfairness. They have been outdone in this scenario. Someone has achieved something beyond them. And this person, who has committed the crime of disciplining themselves to the point where their body takes on attributes that the onlooker judges more attractive than their own, must be gotten even with. They must be brought low, back down to the level of those who have been outdone.
Is this not what goes on in our minds when we make comments like that? If you will be honest with yourself, it is. I am not concerned with the deeper question of how these feeling arise in the first place, but rather the blind obedience I see displayed for a political ideology that functions on the same emotions. And it is emotion. Obama's rise to power has worked because he capitalizes on the emotions of people, but I will deal with that in a later post.
So, you Obama voters out there, if your man limits the pay of executives, and raises taxes on people who make more money than you, and confiscates the earnings of money they have invested, and takes a large portion of what they leave to their children....has your life changed? Has your situation improved? More importantly, have you been motivated to do anything differently for yourself, with your own energy and creativity?
Precisely the opposite has happened. You have been had, you have tricked into being a spectator, given a free pass to watch other people "pay" for excelling. The word 'motivation' means to draw forth, to bring out. We should ask what is being motivated in the population of this country when a man gets elected President because he is very skilled at telling large numbers of people that their situation in life is not only less than they should accept, their life is so ordered because anyone that excels beyond their situation has nefarious intentions, and their success is keeping you down.
Envy and anger are being motivated. The populace is being incentivized to hand over power to the central goverment because they, somehow, have a right to the earnings of other citizens, and the gov't is going to collect it for them. There is an anecdote of a Greek king who received an envoy from a neighboring kingdom. The king was asked how he was successful in keeping his population under control, thus securing his own power. The king walked out into the garden, and wherever one flower was taller than the ones around it, he took his scepter and cut down the tall flower.
Wealth cannot be mulitplied by dividing it. This is how demogogues rise to power. Obama is an excellent salesman, and he has sold enough people in America on the idea that whatever ills they suffer, it is caused by the people who have done better than them, and these "victims" need not change anything about their life, their values, their work ethic and principles. Obama the Savior will go get even with all those evil achievers on your behalf.
This is pure envy. You elected a man whose basis for governing is one of the deadly sins. Nice going.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)