I often wonder what Christmas dinner is like with brothers Peter and Christopher Hitchens. Christopher, if you remember, wrote "God Is Not Great" last year.
Drom London's, "The Mail On Sunday"
November 09, 2008 1:32 AM
"The night we waved goodbye to America ... our last best hope on Earth"
Anyone would think that we had just elected a hip, skinny and youthful replacement for God, with a plan to modernise Heaven and Hell or that, at the very least, John Lennon had come back from the dead.
The swooning frenzy over the choice of Barack Obama as President of the United States must be one of the most absurd waves of self-deception and swirling fantasy ever to sweep through an advanced civilisation. At least Mandela-worship, its nearest equivalent, is focused on a man who actually did something.
I really don't see how the Obama devotees can ever in the future mock the Moonies, the Scientologists or people who claim to have been abducted in flying saucers. This is a cult like the one which grew up around Princess Diana, bereft of reason and hostile to facts.
It already has all the signs of such a thing. The newspapers which recorded Obama's victory have become valuable relics. You may buy Obama picture books and Obama calendars and if there isn't yet a children's picture version of his story, there soon will be.
Proper books, recording his sordid associates, his cowardly voting record, his astonishingly militant commitment to unrestricted abortion and his blundering trip to Africa , are little-read and hard to find.
If you can believe that this undistinguished and conventionally Left-wing machine politician is a sort of secular saviour, then you can believe anything. He plainly doesn't believe it himself. His cliche-stuffed, PC clunker of an acceptance speech suffered badly from nerves. It was what you would expect from someone who knew he'd promised too much and that from now on the easy bit was over.
He needn't worry too much. From now on, the rough boys and girls of America 's Democratic Party apparatus, many recycled from Bill Clinton's stained and crumpled entourage, will crowd round him, to collect the rich spoils of his victory and also tell him what to do, which is what he is used to.
Just look at his sermon by the shores of Lake Michigan . He really did talk about a 'new dawn', and a 'timeless creed' (which was 'yes, we can'). He proclaimed that 'change has come'. He revealed that, despite having edited the Harvard Law Review, he doesn't know what 'enormity' means. He reached depths of oratorical drivel never even plumbed by our own Mr Blair, burbling about putting our hands on the arc of history (or was it the ark of history?) and bending it once more toward the hope of a better day (Don't try this at home).
I am not making this up. No wonder that awful old hack Jesse Jackson sobbed as he watched. How he must wish he, too, could get away with this sort of stuff.
And it was interesting how the President-elect failed to lift his admiring audience by repeated, but rather hesitant, invocations of the brainless slogan he was forced by his minders to adopt against his will 'Yes, we can'. They were supposed to thunder 'Yes, we can!' back at him, but they just wouldn't join in. No wonder. Yes we can, what, exactly? Go home and keep a close eye on the tax rate, is my advice. He'd have been better off bursting into 'I'd like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony' which contains roughly the same message and might have attracted some valuable commercial sponsorship.
Perhaps, being a Chicago crowd, they knew some of the things that 52.5 per cent of America prefers not to know. They know Obama is the obedient servant of one of the most squalid and unshakeable political machines in America . They know that one of his alarmingly close associates, a state-subsidised slum landlord called Tony Rezko, has been convicted on fraud and corruption charges.
They also know the US is just as segregated as it was before Martin Luther King in schools, streets, neighbourhoods, holidays, even in its TV-watching habits and its choice of fast-food joint. The difference is that it is now done by unspoken agreement rather than by law.
If Mr Obama's election had threatened any of that, his feel-good white supporters would have scuttled off and voted for John McCain, or practically anyone. But it doesn't. Mr Obama, thanks mainly to the now-departed grandmother he alternately praised as a saint and denounced as a racial bigot, has the huge advantages of an expensive private education. He did not have to grow up in the badlands of useless schools, shattered families and gangs which are the lot of so many young black men of his generation.
If the nonsensical claims made for this election were true, then every positive discrimination programme aimed at helping black people into jobs they otherwise wouldn't get should be abandoned forthwith. Nothing of the kind will happen. On the contrary, there will probably be more of them.
And if those who voted for Obama were all proving their anti-racist nobility, that presumably means that those many millions who didn't vote for him were proving themselves to be hopeless bigots. This is obviously untrue.
I was in Washington DC the night of the election. America 's beautiful capital has a sad secret. It is perhaps the most racially divided city in the world, with 15th Street which runs due north from the White House the unofficial frontier between black and white. But, like so much of America , it also now has a new division, and one which is in many ways much more important. I had attended an election-night party in a smart and liberal white area, but was staying the night less than a mile away on the edge of a suburb where Spanish is spoken as much as English, plus a smattering of tongues from such places as Ethiopia, Somalia and Afghanistan.
As I walked, I crossed another of Washington 's secret frontiers. There had been a few white people blowing car horns and shouting, as the result became clear. But among the Mexicans, Salvadorans and the other Third World nationalities, there was something like ecstasy.
They grasped the real significance of this moment. They knew it meant that America had finally switched sides in a global cultural war. Forget the Cold War, or even the Iraq War. The United States, having for the most part a deeply conservative people, had until now just about stood out against many of the mistakes which have ruined so much of the rest of the world.
Suspicious of welfare addiction, feeble justice and high taxes, totally committed to preserving its own national sovereignty, unabashedly Christian in a world part secular and part Muslim, suspicious of the Great Global Warming panic, it was unique.
These strengths had been fading for some time, mainly due to poorly controlled mass immigration and to the march of political correctness. They had also been weakened by the failure of America 's conservative party the Republicans to fight on the cultural and moral fronts.
They preferred to posture on the world stage. Scared of confronting Left-wing teachers and sexual revolutionaries at home, they could order soldiers to be brave on their behalf in far-off deserts. And now the US , like Britain before it, has begun the long, slow descent into the Third World . How sad.
Where now is our last best hope on Earth?
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Monday, November 24, 2008
P.J. O'Rourke on Charity
Charity is one of the great responsibilities of freedom. But, in order for us to be responsible - and therefore free - that responsibility must be personal.
There is no virtue in compulsory government charity, and there is no virtue in advocating it. A politician who portrays himself as "caring" and "sensitive" because he wants to expand the government's charitable programs is merely saying that he's willing to try to do good with other people's money. Well, who isn't? And a voter who takes pride in supporting such programs is telling us that he'll do good with his own money - if a gun is held to his head.
When government quits being something we use only in an emergency and becomes the principal source of aid and assistance in our society, then the size, expense and power of government are greatly increased. The decision that politicians are wiser, kinder and more honest than we are and that they, not we, should control the dispensation of eleemosynary goods and services is, in itself, a diminishment of the individual and proof that we're jerks.
Government charity causes other problems. If responsibility is removed from friends, family and self, social ties are weakened. We don't have to look after our parents; they've got their Social Security check and are down in Atlantic City with it right no w. Parents don't have to look after their kids; Head Start, a high school guidance counselor and AmeriCorps take care of that. Our kids don't have to look after themselves; if they become addicted to drugs, there's methadone, and if they get knocked up, t here's always AFDC. The neighbors, meanwhile, aren't going to get involved; if they step outside, they'll be cut down by the 9mm crossfire from the drug wars between the gangs all the other neighbors belong to.
Making charity part of the political system confuses the mission of government. Charity is, by its nature, approximate and imprecise. Are you guiding the old lady across the street or are you just jerking her around? It's hard to know when enough charity has been given. Parents want to give children every material advantage but don't want a pack of spoiled brats. There are no exact rules of charity. But a government in a free society must obey exact rules or that government's power is arbitrary and freedom is lost. This is why government works best when it is given limited and well-defined tasks to perform
There is no virtue in compulsory government charity, and there is no virtue in advocating it. A politician who portrays himself as "caring" and "sensitive" because he wants to expand the government's charitable programs is merely saying that he's willing to try to do good with other people's money. Well, who isn't? And a voter who takes pride in supporting such programs is telling us that he'll do good with his own money - if a gun is held to his head.
When government quits being something we use only in an emergency and becomes the principal source of aid and assistance in our society, then the size, expense and power of government are greatly increased. The decision that politicians are wiser, kinder and more honest than we are and that they, not we, should control the dispensation of eleemosynary goods and services is, in itself, a diminishment of the individual and proof that we're jerks.
Government charity causes other problems. If responsibility is removed from friends, family and self, social ties are weakened. We don't have to look after our parents; they've got their Social Security check and are down in Atlantic City with it right no w. Parents don't have to look after their kids; Head Start, a high school guidance counselor and AmeriCorps take care of that. Our kids don't have to look after themselves; if they become addicted to drugs, there's methadone, and if they get knocked up, t here's always AFDC. The neighbors, meanwhile, aren't going to get involved; if they step outside, they'll be cut down by the 9mm crossfire from the drug wars between the gangs all the other neighbors belong to.
Making charity part of the political system confuses the mission of government. Charity is, by its nature, approximate and imprecise. Are you guiding the old lady across the street or are you just jerking her around? It's hard to know when enough charity has been given. Parents want to give children every material advantage but don't want a pack of spoiled brats. There are no exact rules of charity. But a government in a free society must obey exact rules or that government's power is arbitrary and freedom is lost. This is why government works best when it is given limited and well-defined tasks to perform
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Naked Emperor News
Okay. Every night when we sit down at the dinner table (that's every night we sit down; please don't misunderstand we sit down every night, although we do pretty good) the kids have to tell me 2 good things about their day before they can complain about anything, including what's on the plate in front of them.
In keeping with the rule, I have limited myself to one BO complaint per sitting, although Lady MacBeth looking at private schools for the two princesses is now on a 3-day reign. Hypocrisy personified. And don't think confession isn't now needed every time I write a tuition check.
So I DIDN'T need to find this website, because it has given me too much material:
http://www.nakedemperornews.com/
Listen to the podcast about mandatory community service if you want your head to explode.
You'll find this GREAT quote at the top of the website, which is just the encouragement I need to keep ranting:
Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.
—Dietrich Bonhoeffer
In keeping with the rule, I have limited myself to one BO complaint per sitting, although Lady MacBeth looking at private schools for the two princesses is now on a 3-day reign. Hypocrisy personified. And don't think confession isn't now needed every time I write a tuition check.
So I DIDN'T need to find this website, because it has given me too much material:
http://www.nakedemperornews.com/
Listen to the podcast about mandatory community service if you want your head to explode.
You'll find this GREAT quote at the top of the website, which is just the encouragement I need to keep ranting:
Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.
—Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Mystery solved on last week's election results
John Ziegler is at it again. This is a movie whose progress will be worth watching:
http://www.howobamagotelected.com/
Watch it and weep.
And then watch this interview of John Ziegler. It's long. It's in-depth. It's interesting. It's worth your time.
http://www.howobamagotelected.com/
Watch it and weep.
And then watch this interview of John Ziegler. It's long. It's in-depth. It's interesting. It's worth your time.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
A Redefining Moment? For whom?
Regarding: "For black men, a redefining moment?" printed in the LA Times, November 12, 2008.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-aftermath12-2008nov12,0,7121616.story?track=rss
The election of Barack Obama changed nothing in this country. We woke up on November 5 the same people we were on November 3. For that matter, we are the same country we were in 1996 when a majority would have voted for Colin Powell: namely, a country who will elect a black man for its highest office. It is therefore the perception of white America as racist that should be transformed by the election of Obama.
That having been said, to young African American males like Hakeem Holloway dressed in hoodies and jeans who complain of being eyed by white women, please know that my white, bald-headed son is rightly eyed by women of all colors when dressed in a similar fashion. And I have witnessed women hold their purses more tightly when being approached by my 6'2" white husband.
Women are not reacting primarily to your race; they are reacting to your thug attire.
And to UCLA's dean of public affairs who is queried about being a record producer when he flies first class, wouldn't it be great if we could look forward to better education, and therefore more opportunities and success, being made available to children of all races during Barack Obama's presidency? But with Barack Obama's steadfast rejection of vouchers, I'm afraid we have little improvement to look forward to in that arena.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-aftermath12-2008nov12,0,7121616.story?track=rss
The election of Barack Obama changed nothing in this country. We woke up on November 5 the same people we were on November 3. For that matter, we are the same country we were in 1996 when a majority would have voted for Colin Powell: namely, a country who will elect a black man for its highest office. It is therefore the perception of white America as racist that should be transformed by the election of Obama.
That having been said, to young African American males like Hakeem Holloway dressed in hoodies and jeans who complain of being eyed by white women, please know that my white, bald-headed son is rightly eyed by women of all colors when dressed in a similar fashion. And I have witnessed women hold their purses more tightly when being approached by my 6'2" white husband.
Women are not reacting primarily to your race; they are reacting to your thug attire.
And to UCLA's dean of public affairs who is queried about being a record producer when he flies first class, wouldn't it be great if we could look forward to better education, and therefore more opportunities and success, being made available to children of all races during Barack Obama's presidency? But with Barack Obama's steadfast rejection of vouchers, I'm afraid we have little improvement to look forward to in that arena.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Christopher Buckley Comes Out of the Closet
I am so disappointed in Christopher Buckley's recent endorsement of BO that I nearly removed my link to the right, "My old man and the Sea". But I re-read it and enjoyed it all over again and am trying not to be petty.
I have read most of what CB has had to say since his endorsement and his - for whatever reason (fired? quit?) - no longer writing for National Review (the magazine his father founded).
From what I can gather, CB is voting for BO not because he believes in any of BO's plans or philosophies on the role of government; instead because he thinks BO has a "first class temperament and a first class intellect." CB is voting for BO hoping that he is smart enough to realize that none of his ideas or plans will be good for America and ... what? Change his mind, I guess. So for the first time I can remember, people are voting for a candidate hoping he DOESN'T keep his promises.
BO doesn't care whether or not his own plans will be good for America. His ideas and plans are held with a religious conviction that reality and evidence will have no hope of changing. While those of us on the right revere "freedom", BO reveres "fairness". You can't have both. BO considers it the role of government to impose fairness through the point of a gun. (If you think "point of a gun" is hyperbole, you haven't been audited lately.) BO believes in using the tax code to make rich people more poor, thereby imposing fairness.
Raising taxes on people and business owners who earn more than $250,000 will make rich people poorer, but will actually REDUCE tax revenue, so by no stretch of the imagination will it make poor people richer. I trust BO's first class intellect has already figured this out. Yet his mind remains unchanged.
But it's watching previously committed conservatives such as CB throw their vote to BO, I now understand why I still have a hard time pulling that lever for Republican and why my immigrant parents NEVER will.
It's that intellectual snobbery and elitism that people like my parents and me have a knee-jerk negative reaction to. With the rejection of Mac and SP by Christopher Buckley and voting instead for the candidate with the "first class intellect" I realize that he and his ilk value intellect over principles. There are only principled arguments, and certainly no intellectual reasons, to reject abortion, take care of old people beyond their usefullness and .... dare I say it, carry a Down Syndrome baby to term, so it's obvious to me that one's principles are more important than one's intellect.
In other words, I'd rather have a leader with principles against all the above than a leader described thusly by David Brooks of the New York Times, when fantasizing about a BO presidency: Though he is young, it is easy to imagine him at the Cabinet table, leading a subtle discussion of some long-term problem.
Frankly, I can't imagine Mac or SP leading any sort of discussion that is "subtle". But I have no problem imagining both of them doing their best to keep me and my family safe. And intuitively, Mac and SP both understand the following, written by one of America's favorite intellectuals:
To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, ‘the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it.’ (Thomas Jefferson)
From Thomas Jefferson to Joe the Plumber, Americans understand that the citizens of this great country are not only best equiped, but the only ones morally capable to "spread the wealth".
I have read most of what CB has had to say since his endorsement and his - for whatever reason (fired? quit?) - no longer writing for National Review (the magazine his father founded).
From what I can gather, CB is voting for BO not because he believes in any of BO's plans or philosophies on the role of government; instead because he thinks BO has a "first class temperament and a first class intellect." CB is voting for BO hoping that he is smart enough to realize that none of his ideas or plans will be good for America and ... what? Change his mind, I guess. So for the first time I can remember, people are voting for a candidate hoping he DOESN'T keep his promises.
BO doesn't care whether or not his own plans will be good for America. His ideas and plans are held with a religious conviction that reality and evidence will have no hope of changing. While those of us on the right revere "freedom", BO reveres "fairness". You can't have both. BO considers it the role of government to impose fairness through the point of a gun. (If you think "point of a gun" is hyperbole, you haven't been audited lately.) BO believes in using the tax code to make rich people more poor, thereby imposing fairness.
Raising taxes on people and business owners who earn more than $250,000 will make rich people poorer, but will actually REDUCE tax revenue, so by no stretch of the imagination will it make poor people richer. I trust BO's first class intellect has already figured this out. Yet his mind remains unchanged.
But it's watching previously committed conservatives such as CB throw their vote to BO, I now understand why I still have a hard time pulling that lever for Republican and why my immigrant parents NEVER will.
It's that intellectual snobbery and elitism that people like my parents and me have a knee-jerk negative reaction to. With the rejection of Mac and SP by Christopher Buckley and voting instead for the candidate with the "first class intellect" I realize that he and his ilk value intellect over principles. There are only principled arguments, and certainly no intellectual reasons, to reject abortion, take care of old people beyond their usefullness and .... dare I say it, carry a Down Syndrome baby to term, so it's obvious to me that one's principles are more important than one's intellect.
In other words, I'd rather have a leader with principles against all the above than a leader described thusly by David Brooks of the New York Times, when fantasizing about a BO presidency: Though he is young, it is easy to imagine him at the Cabinet table, leading a subtle discussion of some long-term problem.
Frankly, I can't imagine Mac or SP leading any sort of discussion that is "subtle". But I have no problem imagining both of them doing their best to keep me and my family safe. And intuitively, Mac and SP both understand the following, written by one of America's favorite intellectuals:
To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, ‘the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it.’ (Thomas Jefferson)
From Thomas Jefferson to Joe the Plumber, Americans understand that the citizens of this great country are not only best equiped, but the only ones morally capable to "spread the wealth".
Thursday, October 23, 2008
FREEEEEEEEEEEEEDOM!
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.
President Ronald Reagan
President Ronald Reagan
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Donate to Planned Parenthood in Sarah Palin's Name
While trolling around Facebook recently I found an organization called "Donate to Planned Parenthood in Sarah Palin's Name". (at the end of this post I have a cut and paste describing the organization)
This group is encouraging college students to make a monetary donation to Planned Parenthood in the name of Sarah Palin; Sarah Palin will then get a thank you card from an organization she does not support for a donation she did not make.
I DO NOT support abortion and I think Planned Parenthood is a travesty and quite-often criminal organization. But that is not the point of my post here. My point is to discuss the degradation of the manner in which we handle our disagreements.
My Sarah Palin "sticker" was purposefully manufactured as a magnet as it was assumed I would need to remove it when parking the car to avoid theft. While I have not had that experience, Elle has. (Note, she is parking near a lot more college students than I am.)
I have seen the T-Shirts proclaiming "Sarah Palin is a C***" and various claims that she should have been aborted.
I have NOT seen any misbehavior which sinks anywhere near this level with the "anti-Obama" crowd. If anyone has, I would like to hear about it.
So why is it college students, liberals and Pro-Obama folks are so confident that they are "right" that bad manners sinking to this level is considered acceptable? I am supposed to be "tolerant" ... where is the tolerance of me and my beliefs by those on the left? Where is the tolerance of Sarah Palin and her choices?
Sarah Palin is attacked because she had the audacity to carry to term a Downs Syndrome baby. Had she aborted that baby, all the way to her 8th + month, she would be defended and celebrated by you on the left and you on college campuses.
You on the left have finally shown your true cards: You are NOT pro-choice (as you have claimed since the 70's). You are PRO-ABORTION. And intolerant to the point you feel justified in near-criminal behavior against those who feel differently.
Those of you who are donating to Planned Parenthood on behalf of Sarah Palin ... how would you feel if I donated to my church on your behalf? To a support-the-troops organization? To a bible camp for needy children? To missionaries trying to bring the word of God to the world? To an organization dedicated to California's Prop 8 passing so that marriage remains one man/one woman? To an amendment to the Constitution demanding that you actually have a job and pay taxes before you get to vote?
Let me know which organization offends you the most so I know where to send my money.
p.s. You college students who are so adament in your support of Planned Parenthood, aren't you glad your parents weren't as enthusiastic as you about abortion?
This group is encouraging college students to make a monetary donation to Planned Parenthood in the name of Sarah Palin; Sarah Palin will then get a thank you card from an organization she does not support for a donation she did not make.
I DO NOT support abortion and I think Planned Parenthood is a travesty and quite-often criminal organization. But that is not the point of my post here. My point is to discuss the degradation of the manner in which we handle our disagreements.
My Sarah Palin "sticker" was purposefully manufactured as a magnet as it was assumed I would need to remove it when parking the car to avoid theft. While I have not had that experience, Elle has. (Note, she is parking near a lot more college students than I am.)
I have seen the T-Shirts proclaiming "Sarah Palin is a C***" and various claims that she should have been aborted.
I have NOT seen any misbehavior which sinks anywhere near this level with the "anti-Obama" crowd. If anyone has, I would like to hear about it.
So why is it college students, liberals and Pro-Obama folks are so confident that they are "right" that bad manners sinking to this level is considered acceptable? I am supposed to be "tolerant" ... where is the tolerance of me and my beliefs by those on the left? Where is the tolerance of Sarah Palin and her choices?
Sarah Palin is attacked because she had the audacity to carry to term a Downs Syndrome baby. Had she aborted that baby, all the way to her 8th + month, she would be defended and celebrated by you on the left and you on college campuses.
You on the left have finally shown your true cards: You are NOT pro-choice (as you have claimed since the 70's). You are PRO-ABORTION. And intolerant to the point you feel justified in near-criminal behavior against those who feel differently.
Those of you who are donating to Planned Parenthood on behalf of Sarah Palin ... how would you feel if I donated to my church on your behalf? To a support-the-troops organization? To a bible camp for needy children? To missionaries trying to bring the word of God to the world? To an organization dedicated to California's Prop 8 passing so that marriage remains one man/one woman? To an amendment to the Constitution demanding that you actually have a job and pay taxes before you get to vote?
Let me know which organization offends you the most so I know where to send my money.
p.s. You college students who are so adament in your support of Planned Parenthood, aren't you glad your parents weren't as enthusiastic as you about abortion?
| I know we're all doing our part to spread the word to like-minded friends about how horrible a choice Sarah Palin is for the office of Vice President. We're joining groups. We're forwarding emails. We're even writing letters. Instead of, or perhaps in addition to, all these avenues of nearly-passive protest, I'm suggesting that we participate in the subversively ironic act of making a donation to Planned Parenthood in Sarah Palin's name. It can be as little as $10, but the best part is, when you make a donation to Planned Parenthood in her name, they'll send her a card telling her a donation was made in her honor. You're also giving to a good cause and getting a tax deduction. You can donate in the "Honorary Donations" section of the Planned Parenthood website: https://secure.ga0.org/02/pp10000_i nhonor You'll need to fill in the address to let PP know where to send the "in Sarah Palin's honor" card, and the best address to use would be the national McCain/Palin campaign headquarters: McCain for President 1235 S. Clark Street, 1st Floor Arlington , VA 22202 P.S. Be sure to use the link above or choose "Honorary or Memorial Donations," not the regular "Donate Online," or you won't be able to let her know that you care. I'm not the one that came up with this genius idea, but I thought it was well worth passing on. Invite your friends, please. | |
Sarah Palin buying diapers at Walmart
Who wants to bet she had a coupon??? I don't know why my mom doesn't love this chick!
Reconciliation???? I don't THINK so!
From the October 14, 2008 Los Angeles Times:
And here is my email response, sent to the only person I know at the LA Times, who shall remain nameless:
Hey ***. I hope all is well.
I just finished reading today's editorial; I think you wrote it but I'm not sure. Since you are the only person I know at The LAT, you are getting the email.
Since even the Secret Service did not hear the "cry from the crowd ... for a death of a political opponent" I am not quite sure who is "reeling". While it was heard by a few, those who heard it are pretty sure the call was in regard to Bill Ayers; not Barrack Obama. And how is Sarah Palin inaccurate by claiming BO "pals around with terrorists"? Even Bill Ayers does not deny his role in domestic terrorism; why does The Times?
I was at the Sarah Palin rally several weeks ago and watched the crowd and SP handle several hecklers with grace and dignity. The BO protestors outside were obscene, rude and vile. I do not hold BO responsible for the actions of his supports; why does The Times hold John McCain responsible for some of the misbehavior of his supporters?
I have read nowhere in your paper about the protestors I have seen, nor the lovely picture circulating on the Internet with four people wearing T-shirts proudly proclaiming "Sarah Palin is a C***." Let alone the audio today of BO explaining to the plumber why some of his wealth needs to get spread around. I am personally more offended by calls of wealth distribution than swear words.
The point of the editorial is asking who can bring us together, so I will end here without discussing Joe Biden or whether "drill baby drill" is polarizing and vulgar (since when did The Times get the vapors so easily?)
But trust me, The Times is certainly not helping us find common ground by printing inaccuracies. And, frankly, I have lost hope for a reconciliation. But I will tell you this: the only people I see screaming at their political opponents are Democrats screaming at McCain supporters. Anecdotal? Yes. I think you're right that if BO wins there will be less acrimony, but that's because the people doing all the screaming right now will have nothing to scream about.
Anne Yenny
p.s.I have a perfect way to test this, by the way. Have some BO supporters walk through a largely McCain crowd like the McCain supporters in Manhattan (surely you've seen the video) and count the birds they get flipped. Or I will park my car with McCain and Palin stickers on it in BO territory while you park yours with BO stickers in McCain territory. Me thinks I am taking the bigger chance.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
From Victor Davis Hanson
I don't pretend to understand what's going on. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, however, strike me as the worst of all worlds: private market in the way that they're run, government in the way that they fail. Who knew they were making contributions to campaigns????
The following is from Victor Davis Hanson:
I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here! " [Victor Davis Hanson]
Very odd to see a Sen. Chris Dodd, of all people, today defiant and outspoken in his regard for the people:
if only he had returned (never too late) lavish contributions from Freddie Mac and Frannie Mae (as Senate banking chairman, he was their #1 targeted recipient and raked in over $160,000);
if only in the midst of a loan crisis, he had not received below-market-rate VIP loans from the now late great, melted-down Countrywide for whose parochial interests he championed;
if only he had not been instrumental in blocking past proposed firewalls that might have prevented the collapse of the two agencies that were the catalyst for this mess;
if only he had a bit of contrition for his own role in this national mess.
Surely in the interest of transparency and conflict of interest, any Senator, Republican or Democrat, who accepted money from Freddie and Frannie, or any of the imperiled investment houses, should recuse themselves from the present hearings—but then there might not be a quorum.
The following is from Victor Davis Hanson:
I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here! " [Victor Davis Hanson]
Very odd to see a Sen. Chris Dodd, of all people, today defiant and outspoken in his regard for the people:
if only he had returned (never too late) lavish contributions from Freddie Mac and Frannie Mae (as Senate banking chairman, he was their #1 targeted recipient and raked in over $160,000);
if only in the midst of a loan crisis, he had not received below-market-rate VIP loans from the now late great, melted-down Countrywide for whose parochial interests he championed;
if only he had not been instrumental in blocking past proposed firewalls that might have prevented the collapse of the two agencies that were the catalyst for this mess;
if only he had a bit of contrition for his own role in this national mess.
Surely in the interest of transparency and conflict of interest, any Senator, Republican or Democrat, who accepted money from Freddie and Frannie, or any of the imperiled investment houses, should recuse themselves from the present hearings—but then there might not be a quorum.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Whatever your politics, this is funny.
An email from Ireland to all of their brethren in the States...a point to ponder despite your political affiliation:
'We, in Ireland, can't figure out why you people are even bothering to hold an election in the United States.
On one side, you had a pants wearing female lawyer, married to another lawyer who can't seem to keep his pants on, who just lost a long and heated primary against a lawyer, who goes to the wrong church, who is married to yet another lawyer, who doesn't even like the country her husband wants to run !
Now...On the other side, you have a nice old war hero whose name starts with the appropriate 'Mc' terminology, married to a good looking younger woman who owns a beer distributorship !!
What in God's name are ya lads thinkin over in the colonies !
An email from Ireland to all of their brethren in the States...a point to ponder despite your political affiliation:
'We, in Ireland, can't figure out why you people are even bothering to hold an election in the United States.
On one side, you had a pants wearing female lawyer, married to another lawyer who can't seem to keep his pants on, who just lost a long and heated primary against a lawyer, who goes to the wrong church, who is married to yet another lawyer, who doesn't even like the country her husband wants to run !
Now...On the other side, you have a nice old war hero whose name starts with the appropriate 'Mc' terminology, married to a good looking younger woman who owns a beer distributorship !!
What in God's name are ya lads thinkin over in the colonies !
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
A "confused" email
Following is a cut and paste of my response to a Pro-Obama email I received. The italics are from the original email, regular font is my response. I have been trying to figure out what is bothering me about this email. That fact that someone wrote it is no big deal, but this email had been sent and forwarded at least 10 times before I got it. 10 people looked at this list of poorly written non sequiturs and thought it was making a case for what?
Frankly, the only case it makes is the desperate need for educational vouchers in this country.
Let's see if I can clear up some of the confusion for you:
* If your name is Barack you're a radical, unpatriotic Muslim. Name your kids Willow, Trig, and Track: you're a maverick.
Since I've never heard Barack referred to as "unpatriotic", no response there. I have referred to him as a radical, but that has everything to do with the company he keeps.
The Palins chose very weird names for their children; so what? Had she chosen to abort them, the left would defend her.
Graduate from Harvard law School and you are unstable. Attend 5 different small colleges before graduating:you're well grounded.
Where or whether you went to college has nothing to do with whether you are unstable or well grounded.
If you spend 3 years as a brilliant community organizer, become the first black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration drive that registers 150,000 new voters, spend 12 years as a Constitutional Law professor, spend 8 years as a State Senator representing a district with over 750,000 people, become chairman of the state Senate's Health and Human Services committee, spend 4 years in the United States Senate representing a state of 13 million people while sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran's Affairs committees, you don't have any real leadership experience.
Well, I guess we need to define "brilliant" then define "leadership". Typically, leadership requires responsibility and achievement. Frankly, as a mother of four navigating the waters of 4 different high schools, 3 colleges (so far), a grade school, boy scouts, girl scouts, football, rugby, soccer, the Navy, traffic school, various insurance companies and the DMV, responsibility and achievement have been requirements.
We all know enough professors and enough politicians to realize that we, as parents, exhibit more leadership on a daily basis than most of them do in a lifetime.
If you have been married to the same woman for 19 years while raising 2 beautiful daughters, all within Protestant churches, you're not a real Christian. If you cheated on your first wife with a rich heiress, and left your disfigured wife and married the heiress the next month, you're a Christian.
Once again, I've never heard BO referred to as not a "real Christian"; so no response needed. The only time I have heard BO's religion questioned is when we were all treated to audios of some of the anti-American and hate-spewed sermons he sat through in those 20 years.
What the beauty of his children have to do with anything is beyond me.
John McCain is certainly no saint but I think we would all be better served by leaving the judgment of whether or not he's a "Christian" up to God. I can only assume that God will take into account John McCain's sacrifice for Country, sacrifice for fellow inmates in the Hanoi Hilton, and his adopted daughter.
If you teach responsible, age appropriate sex education, including the proper use of birth control, you are eroding the fiber of society. If , while governor, you staunchly advocate abstinence only, with no other option in sex education in your state's school system while your unwed teen daughter ends up pregnant , you're very responsible.
Cheap shot. I have a daughter, so I'm not saying a word. But once again, I think we have a definition problem. Who defines "responsible, age appropriate sex education"? News flash: It ain't you. So when someone decides your kindergartner needs education in sex and AIDS prevention, don't be shocked.
And no one has claimed the Palins are responsible because their unwed teenage daughter is pregnant, they are responsible because ... well, because they are taking responsibility. The mother and father of the baby are getting married, they are managing with the support of their families and not the government.
If your wife is a Harvard graduate lawyer who gave up a position in a prestigious law firm to work for the betterment of her inner city community, then gave that up to raise a family, your family's values don't represent America's. If you're husband is nicknamed "First Dude", with at least one DUI conviction and no college education, who didn't register to vote until age 25 and once was a member of a group that advocated the secession of Alaska from the USA, your family is extremely admirable.
Well, since neither my husband nor I went to Harvard nor worked for a prestigious law firm I guess I'm not qualified to opine here. My only work for the betterment of the inner city is trying to pay Catholic tuitions for 4 children in the hope that none of my children will ever be residents there.
My husband went to more than one college, I didn't go to any. We have four children of various abilities. I pray A LOT. There aren't enough hours in the day for me to worry as much as I need to about how they will turn out. I worry more about them getting into heaven than whether they will get into Harvard.
So, in conclusion: this is a very important election. We will all be making the choice that we think is best for our families and our country. Let's each give each other the benefit of the doubt and assume we all want the same thing; we just disagree on the best way to get there.
Making ad hominum attacks on the candidates and making rediculous straw man arguments does no one any good and certainly does nothing to make your case. And if that's what you need to do to justify the guy you're voting for? I'd suggest rethinking that vote.
Sincerely,
Anne
Frankly, the only case it makes is the desperate need for educational vouchers in this country.
Let's see if I can clear up some of the confusion for you:
* If your name is Barack you're a radical, unpatriotic Muslim. Name your kids Willow, Trig, and Track: you're a maverick.
Since I've never heard Barack referred to as "unpatriotic", no response there. I have referred to him as a radical, but that has everything to do with the company he keeps.
The Palins chose very weird names for their children; so what? Had she chosen to abort them, the left would defend her.
Graduate from Harvard law School and you are unstable. Attend 5 different small colleges before graduating:you're well grounded.
Where or whether you went to college has nothing to do with whether you are unstable or well grounded.
If you spend 3 years as a brilliant community organizer, become the first black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration drive that registers 150,000 new voters, spend 12 years as a Constitutional Law professor, spend 8 years as a State Senator representing a district with over 750,000 people, become chairman of the state Senate's Health and Human Services committee, spend 4 years in the United States Senate representing a state of 13 million people while sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran's Affairs committees, you don't have any real leadership experience.
Well, I guess we need to define "brilliant" then define "leadership". Typically, leadership requires responsibility and achievement. Frankly, as a mother of four navigating the waters of 4 different high schools, 3 colleges (so far), a grade school, boy scouts, girl scouts, football, rugby, soccer, the Navy, traffic school, various insurance companies and the DMV, responsibility and achievement have been requirements.
We all know enough professors and enough politicians to realize that we, as parents, exhibit more leadership on a daily basis than most of them do in a lifetime.
If you have been married to the same woman for 19 years while raising 2 beautiful daughters, all within Protestant churches, you're not a real Christian. If you cheated on your first wife with a rich heiress, and left your disfigured wife and married the heiress the next month, you're a Christian.
Once again, I've never heard BO referred to as not a "real Christian"; so no response needed. The only time I have heard BO's religion questioned is when we were all treated to audios of some of the anti-American and hate-spewed sermons he sat through in those 20 years.
What the beauty of his children have to do with anything is beyond me.
John McCain is certainly no saint but I think we would all be better served by leaving the judgment of whether or not he's a "Christian" up to God. I can only assume that God will take into account John McCain's sacrifice for Country, sacrifice for fellow inmates in the Hanoi Hilton, and his adopted daughter.
If you teach responsible, age appropriate sex education, including the proper use of birth control, you are eroding the fiber of society. If , while governor, you staunchly advocate abstinence only, with no other option in sex education in your state's school system while your unwed teen daughter ends up pregnant , you're very responsible.
Cheap shot. I have a daughter, so I'm not saying a word. But once again, I think we have a definition problem. Who defines "responsible, age appropriate sex education"? News flash: It ain't you. So when someone decides your kindergartner needs education in sex and AIDS prevention, don't be shocked.
And no one has claimed the Palins are responsible because their unwed teenage daughter is pregnant, they are responsible because ... well, because they are taking responsibility. The mother and father of the baby are getting married, they are managing with the support of their families and not the government.
If your wife is a Harvard graduate lawyer who gave up a position in a prestigious law firm to work for the betterment of her inner city community, then gave that up to raise a family, your family's values don't represent America's. If you're husband is nicknamed "First Dude", with at least one DUI conviction and no college education, who didn't register to vote until age 25 and once was a member of a group that advocated the secession of Alaska from the USA, your family is extremely admirable.
Well, since neither my husband nor I went to Harvard nor worked for a prestigious law firm I guess I'm not qualified to opine here. My only work for the betterment of the inner city is trying to pay Catholic tuitions for 4 children in the hope that none of my children will ever be residents there.
My husband went to more than one college, I didn't go to any. We have four children of various abilities. I pray A LOT. There aren't enough hours in the day for me to worry as much as I need to about how they will turn out. I worry more about them getting into heaven than whether they will get into Harvard.
So, in conclusion: this is a very important election. We will all be making the choice that we think is best for our families and our country. Let's each give each other the benefit of the doubt and assume we all want the same thing; we just disagree on the best way to get there.
Making ad hominum attacks on the candidates and making rediculous straw man arguments does no one any good and certainly does nothing to make your case. And if that's what you need to do to justify the guy you're voting for? I'd suggest rethinking that vote.
Sincerely,
Anne
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Edits from Gibson / Palin interview
I watched the first part of the interview which was televised Thursday night. I thought Sarah Palin did fine and Gibson was an insufferable prick.
I was digging around on the internet to read a transcript of the interview and found this from Mark Levine.
I am impressed by Sarah Palin, thought the interview went well, but now reading the transcript I am even more enthusiastic at the thought she might be one of our leaders. Pissing off the media, and specifically Gibson, will be icing on the cake.
If you get a chance, check out the transcript:
http://marklevinshow.com/gibson-interview/
I was digging around on the internet to read a transcript of the interview and found this from Mark Levine.
I am impressed by Sarah Palin, thought the interview went well, but now reading the transcript I am even more enthusiastic at the thought she might be one of our leaders. Pissing off the media, and specifically Gibson, will be icing on the cake.
If you get a chance, check out the transcript:
http://marklevinshow.com/gibson-interview/
Friday, September 5, 2008
Friday, August 29, 2008
Summer's Over : Time to focus on the election
We had a rare opportunity to hear John McCain speak on Monday night. His speech was great and he gave Elle such a hearty handshake that JY says had it been Bill Clinton he would have punched him.
The only pics I got were from my phone, so I'm not sure if any of them will be good enough to post.
I FINALLY met John Ziegler, who used to be an evening talk show host on KFI. He has made a documentary called Blocking The Path to 9-11.
You can read about John here. I don't know whether the movie will play locally so I've ordered the DVD.
Blocking the Path to 9-11 will be shown in Orange County on 9-11-08; you can order tickets here.
I had been counting on watching The Path to 9-11 by Cyrus Nowrasteh via DVD since we don't have cable. The DVD release has been delayed by Disney, many think because of pressure from the Clintons. There is a horrifying clip of Harry Reid threatening to pull Disney's broadcast licence for broadcasting the mini series.
Blocking the Path to 9-11 is about the delay in DVD release.
Anyone as excited as me about John McCain's pic for VP? This quote alone from Sarah Palin seals the deal for me:
And your stand on abortion?
I'm pro-life. I'll do all I can to see every baby is created with a future and potential. The legislature should do all it can to protect human life.
Of course, the fact that she is the mother of 5 convinces me she has all the experience necessary in diplomacy.
The only pics I got were from my phone, so I'm not sure if any of them will be good enough to post.
I FINALLY met John Ziegler, who used to be an evening talk show host on KFI. He has made a documentary called Blocking The Path to 9-11.
You can read about John here. I don't know whether the movie will play locally so I've ordered the DVD.
Blocking the Path to 9-11 will be shown in Orange County on 9-11-08; you can order tickets here.
I had been counting on watching The Path to 9-11 by Cyrus Nowrasteh via DVD since we don't have cable. The DVD release has been delayed by Disney, many think because of pressure from the Clintons. There is a horrifying clip of Harry Reid threatening to pull Disney's broadcast licence for broadcasting the mini series.
Blocking the Path to 9-11 is about the delay in DVD release.
Anyone as excited as me about John McCain's pic for VP? This quote alone from Sarah Palin seals the deal for me:
And your stand on abortion?
I'm pro-life. I'll do all I can to see every baby is created with a future and potential. The legislature should do all it can to protect human life.
Of course, the fact that she is the mother of 5 convinces me she has all the experience necessary in diplomacy.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Summer 2008
I know that technically we have several weeks of summer left, but Jonathon left yesterday, Nate begins school on Wednesday and Alix leaves for Berkely on Saturday, so I officially declare Summer 2008, with all the requisite hand wringing and depression, OVER.
Check out the slideshow to the right of pictures taken and the End Of Summer 2008 BBQ at the Yennys
Check out the slideshow to the right of pictures taken and the End Of Summer 2008 BBQ at the Yennys
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
