It seems there is still a disconnect between liberals' and conservatives' definitions of deficits and tax cuts. Ed Schultz was grilling Michael Medved about "hypocrisy" within the Tea Party movement. According to Schultz, the Tea Party is hypocritical for not crying foul over the current tax deal. The tax deal "adds" to the deficit. This is the liberal mindset.
According to liberals' world view, all money belongs to the government, and the government "lets" us keep a portion of the money. Therefore, any money not collected in taxes "costs" the government money and "adds" to the deficit.
This world view stands in stark contrast to the conservatives' world view: all money belongs to those that earn the money, and we give some of our money to the government by way of taxes. Deficits are created by out of control spending in Washington, not by low taxes. When taxes are raised, it costs American tax paying citizens money.
The Tea Party's platform is smaller government. They contend that tax money in the hands of Washington leads to a wasteful government and corruption, and I personally would like to see someone argue against that. Forcing Washington to run off low taxes will keep government smaller and give more power to the individual citizen, which seems to be what our Founding Fathers had in mind.
So from the Tea Party angle, it's been no secret what the tax rates were under GW. Washington should have made spending decisions based on that income, but instead, they made decisions based on their own needs for power as well as on an idea that they would begin to charge the American taxpayer for Washington's out of control spending. Absolutely not cool to the Tea Party.
So back to Ed Schultz. Let's see if he can wrap his mind around a simple concept: keeping tax rates the same does not cost the government money and does not increase the deficit. Spending more than you take in increases the deficit. Sending college students on trips to China and billing it as stimulus increases the deficit. Much like a consumer that has charged up credit card debt that they can't pay off, so too has the federal government. And much like the individual consumer, the federal government got themselves into this mess, and they are going to have to get themselves out of this mess.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Monday, December 13, 2010
Empathy According to Joy Behar
Liberals often have a hard time understanding that their definitions and world views are not the only ones that exist. Case in point: the ladies of The View were laughing at John Boehner this morning because of his crying on 60 Minutes last night. Joy Behar then went on to blast Boehner for sobbing about his own difficult upbringing but then not having any empathy for the people that are in that exact same situation. Elizabeth Hasselbeck challenged Behar on this, but Behar stuck to her ground, claiming that he lacks empathy because he extended tax cuts to the rich. In Behar's world, liberal policies equal empathy for the poor.
What Behar is completely missing is that someone like Boehner can have just as much empathy and show that through policies that are not liberal. Many conservatives believe that it is harmful to create a class that is dependent on the government. Those of us that have worked in the trenches in our inner cities have seen how welfare and government handouts can be abused. I've seen bright kids not come to school because their welfare dependent mother doesn't require them to go to school, and they all but become a drop-out, and therefore another government dependent. I in no way think this is empathetic to those that are struggling.
Conservatives would like to see private solutions to the issues surrounding those that are struggling. Conservatives have seen the abuse of taxpayer dollars by our government and by those receiving assistance. Taxing the rich is not necessarily going to equate to an ease of financial burden on those that are struggling. Just look at how our stimulus dollars were spent: a college trip to China to study dinosaur eggs, for example. Exactly how did that stimulate the economy and ease the financial burden of those that are struggling? Conservatives believe that everyone has the right to the American dream, and that American dream is not government dependency but instead, self-sufficiency. That self-sufficiency has to come from the private sector. This belief is in stark contrast to the liberal idea that we need to take money from those that have achieved the American dream and funnel it through the government in such a way that it lowers the standard of living for all of us. Boehner would likely argue that it is Behar and her policy beliefs that are not empathetic.
What Behar is completely missing is that someone like Boehner can have just as much empathy and show that through policies that are not liberal. Many conservatives believe that it is harmful to create a class that is dependent on the government. Those of us that have worked in the trenches in our inner cities have seen how welfare and government handouts can be abused. I've seen bright kids not come to school because their welfare dependent mother doesn't require them to go to school, and they all but become a drop-out, and therefore another government dependent. I in no way think this is empathetic to those that are struggling.
Conservatives would like to see private solutions to the issues surrounding those that are struggling. Conservatives have seen the abuse of taxpayer dollars by our government and by those receiving assistance. Taxing the rich is not necessarily going to equate to an ease of financial burden on those that are struggling. Just look at how our stimulus dollars were spent: a college trip to China to study dinosaur eggs, for example. Exactly how did that stimulate the economy and ease the financial burden of those that are struggling? Conservatives believe that everyone has the right to the American dream, and that American dream is not government dependency but instead, self-sufficiency. That self-sufficiency has to come from the private sector. This belief is in stark contrast to the liberal idea that we need to take money from those that have achieved the American dream and funnel it through the government in such a way that it lowers the standard of living for all of us. Boehner would likely argue that it is Behar and her policy beliefs that are not empathetic.
Friday, December 10, 2010
I read an article about a baby in Indiana who needs a life-saving thymus transplant because he suffers from a fatal disease. Medicaid in Indiana denied the surgery, citing it as an experimental surgery. Reading through the thousands of readers' comments after the article made me want to make a couple points.
The first is that this is the problem with government health care. When you are counting on other people to foot the bill for a potentially half a million dollar surgery that is deemed experimental, you are at risk. There is a finite amount of taxpayer money, and politicians have to make tough decisions about how to allocate those resources. This is why a private solution to rising health care costs is so vital.
The second point is that a large percentage of the readers' comments were blasting selfish politicians, largely against Republicans (although I thought Indiana was currently under democratic control, but I could be wrong). They were blaming the politicians for elevating money above a baby's life. Many strongly urged wealthy celebrities such as Oprah to cough up the half a million dollars. This highlights a huge problem with the government dependency mentality: it's always someone else's problem. Someone ELSE needs to fix it (but not me!). Not one of those critics that I read talked about donating some of their OWN money to help this little baby. It was just outrage at the government and greedy politicians. There's a lack of understanding of the finite resources from OTHER people's money. There's a general misconception that there is an unlimited pool of money that everyone is just sitting on. Everyone, including the government and the wealthy, must figure out how and where to allocate their resources. It's this class envy and lack of personal responsibility that is so destructive to our country. The attitude of looking to someone else to solve problems creates dependency and learned helplessness.
For those of you that understand what I'm talking about and want to donate to this baby, you can do so at:
sethbenjamin.org/
I believe in the old fashioned American spirit, and I believe that the money can be raised by generous Americans that are willing to donate whatever they can.
The first is that this is the problem with government health care. When you are counting on other people to foot the bill for a potentially half a million dollar surgery that is deemed experimental, you are at risk. There is a finite amount of taxpayer money, and politicians have to make tough decisions about how to allocate those resources. This is why a private solution to rising health care costs is so vital.
The second point is that a large percentage of the readers' comments were blasting selfish politicians, largely against Republicans (although I thought Indiana was currently under democratic control, but I could be wrong). They were blaming the politicians for elevating money above a baby's life. Many strongly urged wealthy celebrities such as Oprah to cough up the half a million dollars. This highlights a huge problem with the government dependency mentality: it's always someone else's problem. Someone ELSE needs to fix it (but not me!). Not one of those critics that I read talked about donating some of their OWN money to help this little baby. It was just outrage at the government and greedy politicians. There's a lack of understanding of the finite resources from OTHER people's money. There's a general misconception that there is an unlimited pool of money that everyone is just sitting on. Everyone, including the government and the wealthy, must figure out how and where to allocate their resources. It's this class envy and lack of personal responsibility that is so destructive to our country. The attitude of looking to someone else to solve problems creates dependency and learned helplessness.
For those of you that understand what I'm talking about and want to donate to this baby, you can do so at:
sethbenjamin.org/
I believe in the old fashioned American spirit, and I believe that the money can be raised by generous Americans that are willing to donate whatever they can.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Clint Was Robbed
The Apprentice just unwittingly proved one of my theories in their selection of Brandy over Clint as this season's apprentice. Remember those studies that randomly appear and prove that the country is racist? You know, the ones where they have someone apply for a job and speak with an 'inner city dialect'. Often these studies come out of New England. I've always wondered, have they tried this same little study with a dialect from the south? Often times people have an idea of what they want their employees or coworkers to sound like, and it's often a midwestern accent (as evidence by our broadcast journalists). I've always thought that if they did the same study with someone with a deep south drawl, they would find that person would be just as rejected.
And The Apprentice just proved my theory correct. Clint has been superior the whole season, whereas Brandy has proven meek and indecisive. When I saw that Clint was going up against Brandy for the finale, I thought he had it locked. Brandy has been so weak the whole season that I didn't think there was any way she could win.
Until the southern accent became an issue. In the end, the Trump brand sold out. They couldn't envision a southern drawl in their inner circle and went for the cookie cutter instead. It's sad any time someone's dialect of origin is discriminated against, and in this case, it's quite clear. But for his Texas accent, Clint would be the apprentice.
And The Apprentice just proved my theory correct. Clint has been superior the whole season, whereas Brandy has proven meek and indecisive. When I saw that Clint was going up against Brandy for the finale, I thought he had it locked. Brandy has been so weak the whole season that I didn't think there was any way she could win.
Until the southern accent became an issue. In the end, the Trump brand sold out. They couldn't envision a southern drawl in their inner circle and went for the cookie cutter instead. It's sad any time someone's dialect of origin is discriminated against, and in this case, it's quite clear. But for his Texas accent, Clint would be the apprentice.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Polarizing
I've often noticed that the mainstream media refers to conservative politicians as 'polarizing'. I cannot think of one instance where a liberal politician has been labeled as such. I'm sure part of this is due to the fact that liberals control the mainstream media, and therefore they're going to agree with everything a liberal politician says. They view liberal ideals as objective truth, and cannot understand why anyone would disagree with it.
I was reading an article about the most popular presidents in recent history. Ronald Reagan came in second but was described as 'polarizing'. Um, do they forget the "vast right wing conspiracy" that turned out to be an immature president that couldn't keep his hands to himself? I failed to see any Republican forcing the former president to engage in his antics with "that woman, Ms. Lewinsky". But the media are largely on the side of democrats, so these things get swept aside and overlooked, and often viewed as 'unfair' to their "popular" president.
I'd like to throw another theory into the mix of conservative politicians being viewed as polarizing. Perhaps conservative Americans know how to make a life for themselves no matter what is going on in Washington. We may not be happy about what is going on in Washington, but we're not pitching a fit day in and day out about it. We learn to live with it, and express our voices at the polls the next chance we get. We're about internal locus of control; taking responsibility for our lives.
Liberals, on the other hand, get so much of their identity through their views that it becomes intolerable to them to have a conservative in office. Like a child throwing a tantrum, they can't quit shouting and crying until they get their way. Their lives revolve around their unhappiness with government. They lack basic coping skills and therefore, the politician is described as polarizing.
When a politician is described as 'polarizing', I tend to think that it is more a reflection of the voters and their coping skills than it is a reflection of the politician. After all, politicians on both sides of the aisles say some pretty outrageous things that are against SOMEBODY and offensive to some group of people. But it's how we handle those outrageous things that give the politician a label. Conservatives are just better at maintaining a happy life no matter what circumstances they're faced with and therefore are less likely to pitch a fit over every perceived slight coming from a liberal politician and therefore, the mainstream media falsely believes that everyone is as happy with that liberal politician as they are.
I was reading an article about the most popular presidents in recent history. Ronald Reagan came in second but was described as 'polarizing'. Um, do they forget the "vast right wing conspiracy" that turned out to be an immature president that couldn't keep his hands to himself? I failed to see any Republican forcing the former president to engage in his antics with "that woman, Ms. Lewinsky". But the media are largely on the side of democrats, so these things get swept aside and overlooked, and often viewed as 'unfair' to their "popular" president.
I'd like to throw another theory into the mix of conservative politicians being viewed as polarizing. Perhaps conservative Americans know how to make a life for themselves no matter what is going on in Washington. We may not be happy about what is going on in Washington, but we're not pitching a fit day in and day out about it. We learn to live with it, and express our voices at the polls the next chance we get. We're about internal locus of control; taking responsibility for our lives.
Liberals, on the other hand, get so much of their identity through their views that it becomes intolerable to them to have a conservative in office. Like a child throwing a tantrum, they can't quit shouting and crying until they get their way. Their lives revolve around their unhappiness with government. They lack basic coping skills and therefore, the politician is described as polarizing.
When a politician is described as 'polarizing', I tend to think that it is more a reflection of the voters and their coping skills than it is a reflection of the politician. After all, politicians on both sides of the aisles say some pretty outrageous things that are against SOMEBODY and offensive to some group of people. But it's how we handle those outrageous things that give the politician a label. Conservatives are just better at maintaining a happy life no matter what circumstances they're faced with and therefore are less likely to pitch a fit over every perceived slight coming from a liberal politician and therefore, the mainstream media falsely believes that everyone is as happy with that liberal politician as they are.
Sunday, December 5, 2010
I wanted to post a link to the Washington Post's editorial regarding the new Valerie Plame movie. The media has been interested in polling the American public to see how many people wrongly think that Iraq had something to do with 9/11. Dems and the media had been frustrated with Cheney and what they believe was his attempt to misinform the public about Iraq. But there has been no such interest in the Valerie Plame affair, even though I would venture to say a majority of the American public is misinformed on this issue. Plame and her husband, Joe Wilson, cling to what they thought was true, not what the actual truth is. And the movie, Fair Game, clings to those same lies. The Washington Post's editorial board talks about this beautifully:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/03/AR2010120306298.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/03/AR2010120306298.html
Friday, December 3, 2010
Wealthy Liberal-Oxymoron
I'm always perplexed by wealthy liberals. You know the kind: the ones who sit in their mansions lamenting the poor in our country. I often wonder if they're not bright enough to spend their own money on the issues they care about, given that they seem completely stuck if the government doesn't take their money in the form of taxes. Perhaps conservatives could give them a lesson in how to give their money to charity without relying on the government to take their money, float it through administration, and then drop out pennies on the dollar for their favorite cause.
President Obama is one of the least generous presidents in history. The amount that he and Michelle have given to charity out of their millions is a very small percentage. It makes it hard to listen to him speak to 'the poor' and feel that there is any ounce of sincerity in his message. Same with most Hollywood liberals. It gets a little tiresome every time there is a disaster to see them rally the troops and hold some kind of televised benefit. They're wealthy beyond belief, ridiculously wealthy. Imagine if they pared down their elaborate lifestyles and committed to give more to charity. But no one ever questions them. It seems to make perfect sense in their world to sit on their millions and ask their fans and the general public to give to their cause.
Many of them could learn from Angelina Jolie. I saw an interview with her years ago and learned that she gives a third of her income away. She mentioned that in Hollywood they make a ridiculous amount of money, and she's committed to giving a third of it away. THAT I can respect. And it's interesting that she's one of the few celebrities that isn't asking the general public for money any time there is a cause.
Many liberals bemoan capitalism, all the while enjoying the fruits of capitalism. It's not enough for actors and singers to make a living in their craft; they now have to encroach on other people's trades. Take the celebrity clothing labels, for example. These celebrities are not designing the clothing, yet they're taking the credit for someone else's work, depriving that person of the credit for their designs. And raking in more money. And perfume. Perfume and cologne seem to be the new status symbol for many celebs. Having their own perfume line is about nothing more than greed. They make their millions from movies, music sales or concert sales, yet it isn't enough; they have to branch out and get even more money from these other avenues.
I also do not see them practicing what they preach. When an actor makes $20 million for a movie, how much is left over in the budget to pay all of the 'little guys' that work on a set? If we're going to demonize corporate CEO's for their greed and being stingy with the 'little guy', shouldn't we also look to Hollywood and the exorbitant salaries the actors are making? How many of them are asking for a smaller paycheck so the 'little guy' can earn more? CBS was laying people off left and right but I didn't see a mention of Katie Couric offering to reduce her salary to save a job. For once I just want to see an honest, wealthy liberal. I want them to celebrate capitalism, admit they love their wealth, and quit asking the rest of us for money until they cough up some themselves.
President Obama is one of the least generous presidents in history. The amount that he and Michelle have given to charity out of their millions is a very small percentage. It makes it hard to listen to him speak to 'the poor' and feel that there is any ounce of sincerity in his message. Same with most Hollywood liberals. It gets a little tiresome every time there is a disaster to see them rally the troops and hold some kind of televised benefit. They're wealthy beyond belief, ridiculously wealthy. Imagine if they pared down their elaborate lifestyles and committed to give more to charity. But no one ever questions them. It seems to make perfect sense in their world to sit on their millions and ask their fans and the general public to give to their cause.
Many of them could learn from Angelina Jolie. I saw an interview with her years ago and learned that she gives a third of her income away. She mentioned that in Hollywood they make a ridiculous amount of money, and she's committed to giving a third of it away. THAT I can respect. And it's interesting that she's one of the few celebrities that isn't asking the general public for money any time there is a cause.
Many liberals bemoan capitalism, all the while enjoying the fruits of capitalism. It's not enough for actors and singers to make a living in their craft; they now have to encroach on other people's trades. Take the celebrity clothing labels, for example. These celebrities are not designing the clothing, yet they're taking the credit for someone else's work, depriving that person of the credit for their designs. And raking in more money. And perfume. Perfume and cologne seem to be the new status symbol for many celebs. Having their own perfume line is about nothing more than greed. They make their millions from movies, music sales or concert sales, yet it isn't enough; they have to branch out and get even more money from these other avenues.
I also do not see them practicing what they preach. When an actor makes $20 million for a movie, how much is left over in the budget to pay all of the 'little guys' that work on a set? If we're going to demonize corporate CEO's for their greed and being stingy with the 'little guy', shouldn't we also look to Hollywood and the exorbitant salaries the actors are making? How many of them are asking for a smaller paycheck so the 'little guy' can earn more? CBS was laying people off left and right but I didn't see a mention of Katie Couric offering to reduce her salary to save a job. For once I just want to see an honest, wealthy liberal. I want them to celebrate capitalism, admit they love their wealth, and quit asking the rest of us for money until they cough up some themselves.
Framing the News
Sometimes when I step back and look at everything liberals control, I see the genius of their long term plan. They control our public education system; it's almost impossible to go through a public university and not come out a liberal. They control Hollywood and therefore control what kind of entertainment we are exposed to. Even though heartwarming, feel-good movies like The Blind Side rake in millions at the box office, Hollywood refuses to make those types of movies a staple. And the liberals control the media. In all aspects liberals control what information is given to us, and how it is portrayed.
Take ABC and CBS. Both of them framed a news story on the Bush tax cuts from a liberal point of view. Their slant was that the money belongs to the government and not to the people that actually earn it, and so therefore it is a windfall for the rich if the Bush tax cuts extend.
Conservatives believe that the money we earn belongs to us, and that Washington serves at the pleasure of the people. Therefore we would like to see news stories framed in such a way as to expose our bloated government and the quid pro quo that goes on in Washington. Deficits are a spending problem, not an earnings problem. Washington will never be able to balance their budget. If tax cuts expire for the wealthy, Washington still will not be able to balance their budget. Then tax cuts will extend down to the middle class, and still Washington will not be able to balance their budget. It's time Washington was forced to balance the budget and make some unpopular decisions. Chris Christie is doing it; it can be done. If not, look only to the state of California to see our future. They have some of the highest taxes in the nation, and they are deeply in debt. They cannot fund their generous and unreasonable public pensions. The government is not a magic fairy with an unlimited supply of money, yet for those that control information dissemination, they fail to articulate this message.
Take ABC and CBS. Both of them framed a news story on the Bush tax cuts from a liberal point of view. Their slant was that the money belongs to the government and not to the people that actually earn it, and so therefore it is a windfall for the rich if the Bush tax cuts extend.
Conservatives believe that the money we earn belongs to us, and that Washington serves at the pleasure of the people. Therefore we would like to see news stories framed in such a way as to expose our bloated government and the quid pro quo that goes on in Washington. Deficits are a spending problem, not an earnings problem. Washington will never be able to balance their budget. If tax cuts expire for the wealthy, Washington still will not be able to balance their budget. Then tax cuts will extend down to the middle class, and still Washington will not be able to balance their budget. It's time Washington was forced to balance the budget and make some unpopular decisions. Chris Christie is doing it; it can be done. If not, look only to the state of California to see our future. They have some of the highest taxes in the nation, and they are deeply in debt. They cannot fund their generous and unreasonable public pensions. The government is not a magic fairy with an unlimited supply of money, yet for those that control information dissemination, they fail to articulate this message.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Gone Too Far
It seems that there is a slippery slope in defining the separation of church and state. Take the high school football player who was penalized for praying after he made a touchdown. Students have a right to the free expression of their own religion, but it seems that many schools these days are defining 'separation of church and state' as limiting one's right to the free expression of their religion. The school cannot sanction a religion or force their students to practice a religion (although ask the kids in a California middle school who had to recite prayers to Allah and play jihad games about school sanctioned religion), but students are allowed to have the free expression of religion.
There's a school in Florida, I believe, that has banned the colors red and green during the Christmas season. Will they treat all religions equally, then? Will they ban dress from other faiths? My guess is no. And red and green are not religious colors, although, even if they were the school does not have the right to oppress an individual's expression of their faith. The school cannot come out and have a 'wear red and green day' as that crosses the line, but they are overreaching in squelching students' rights to their expression of their faith. And I fear this is just the beginning.
There's a school in Florida, I believe, that has banned the colors red and green during the Christmas season. Will they treat all religions equally, then? Will they ban dress from other faiths? My guess is no. And red and green are not religious colors, although, even if they were the school does not have the right to oppress an individual's expression of their faith. The school cannot come out and have a 'wear red and green day' as that crosses the line, but they are overreaching in squelching students' rights to their expression of their faith. And I fear this is just the beginning.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Silent Majority
One issue that the media has continued to fall in line with the democrats is illegal immigration. The democrats know they can bully people into silence by crying 'racism' every time they can't win an argument based on logic and merit. The democrats have painted the illegal immigration issue as one of racism and those against illegal immigration as 'anti-immigration'. There is a big difference between wanting the rule of law upheld and being 'anti-immigration'.
Many argue that illegal immigrants simply want a better life and therefore we shouldn't blame them for that. Where does it stop? The poor kid who breaks into a rich kid's home and steals some electronics may just want a better life, too, but there are laws in our society. Millions of people around the world live in refugee camps and most likely want a better life for themselves, too, but they have an ocean to cross in order to reach our borders. Is it fair that they don't have the same benefit as those who can just run across our border? And what about those that are actually following our laws and trying to come into the country legally? How do we explain to them that law-breakers are going to be rewarded? If you've ever watched a cheater or a rule-breaker advance unfairly while you're behind following the rules, you know the frustration. Those trying to enter the country legally must feel that same frustration.
It's very frustrating that Republicans are afraid to speak out logically about this issue, that they have been bullied into silence. Nobody should be afraid to stand up for the rule of law, but unfortunately, with our press wholly owned by the democratic party, there is now a silent majority that has been bullied into submission.
Many argue that illegal immigrants simply want a better life and therefore we shouldn't blame them for that. Where does it stop? The poor kid who breaks into a rich kid's home and steals some electronics may just want a better life, too, but there are laws in our society. Millions of people around the world live in refugee camps and most likely want a better life for themselves, too, but they have an ocean to cross in order to reach our borders. Is it fair that they don't have the same benefit as those who can just run across our border? And what about those that are actually following our laws and trying to come into the country legally? How do we explain to them that law-breakers are going to be rewarded? If you've ever watched a cheater or a rule-breaker advance unfairly while you're behind following the rules, you know the frustration. Those trying to enter the country legally must feel that same frustration.
It's very frustrating that Republicans are afraid to speak out logically about this issue, that they have been bullied into silence. Nobody should be afraid to stand up for the rule of law, but unfortunately, with our press wholly owned by the democratic party, there is now a silent majority that has been bullied into submission.
Friday, November 19, 2010
Danged if He Does, Danged if He Doesn't
I haven't had a chance yet to read George W. Bush's new memoir, but I have seen interviews with him. I think he was a little too understanding and gracious of the criticism he received during his time in office, and I think this is part of the frustration conservatives have with him. At his core he is a statesman and a gentleman, and in turn he neglected to forcefully defend his actions, which he had every right to do.
It was unreasonable to allow a picture of him in Air Force One looking down at the Katrina damage to be depicted as detached and out of touch. He made a reasonable decision to put the citizens first and allow the first responders to do their jobs, uninterrupted. Had Air Force One landed so that President Bush could tour the damage, it would have been a severe strain to the infrastructure. His decision was a wise one and reasonable people understand that. And truly, had he decided to land and wreak havoc on the response, he would have been criticized for that, as well. Danged if he does and danged if he doesn't.
It was also disingenuous of the media to allow the myth that the federal government is responsible for first responding to perpetuate. The media is obsessed with polling the American public to see how many people think Iraq had something to do with 9/11, but I haven't seen any polls seeing how many Americans believe the federal government is to blame for the slow response to Katrina. Bush begged then governor Blanco to evacuate New Orleans; she ignored him until 20 hours prior. Bush asked permission to send the military in to help with the response, she initially declined. The failures in the Katrina response lie solely at the feet of Nagin and Blanco, but the media was only too happy to to allow the democratic myths to perpetuate, and I would venture that a majority of Americans blame Bush for the response.
When criticism is non-stop and unreasonable, it begins to sound hollow and fall on deaf ears. Intellectually honest citizens can put aside their politics and review the facts and policy and lay criticism where it belongs. Intellectual dishonesty leads to a 'danged if he does, danged if he doesn't' mentality.
It was unreasonable to allow a picture of him in Air Force One looking down at the Katrina damage to be depicted as detached and out of touch. He made a reasonable decision to put the citizens first and allow the first responders to do their jobs, uninterrupted. Had Air Force One landed so that President Bush could tour the damage, it would have been a severe strain to the infrastructure. His decision was a wise one and reasonable people understand that. And truly, had he decided to land and wreak havoc on the response, he would have been criticized for that, as well. Danged if he does and danged if he doesn't.
It was also disingenuous of the media to allow the myth that the federal government is responsible for first responding to perpetuate. The media is obsessed with polling the American public to see how many people think Iraq had something to do with 9/11, but I haven't seen any polls seeing how many Americans believe the federal government is to blame for the slow response to Katrina. Bush begged then governor Blanco to evacuate New Orleans; she ignored him until 20 hours prior. Bush asked permission to send the military in to help with the response, she initially declined. The failures in the Katrina response lie solely at the feet of Nagin and Blanco, but the media was only too happy to to allow the democratic myths to perpetuate, and I would venture that a majority of Americans blame Bush for the response.
When criticism is non-stop and unreasonable, it begins to sound hollow and fall on deaf ears. Intellectually honest citizens can put aside their politics and review the facts and policy and lay criticism where it belongs. Intellectual dishonesty leads to a 'danged if he does, danged if he doesn't' mentality.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Bristol the Pistol
Big scandal! Huge! Allegations of voter fraud and fixing the vote. This is serious stuff. After all, what's at stake is...a mirror ball trophy.
Really, it's been unbelievable to read and hear so much hoopla about Bristol Palin's advancement to the final round on Dancing with the Stars. You would think it was a bigger scandal, say, on par with a First Lady having her law license revoked. Oh, wait, that wasn't a big scandal.
There have been allegations of conspiracy theories of the Tea Party having a voting campaign to keep Bristol in. THIS is a "conspiracy theory"? Let's see, fans of a celebrity on Dancing with the Stars are organizing themselves to phone in their vote and keep their favorite performer in? What makes this a scandal compared to fans of the other celebrities having their own campaigns to keep their favorite in? Could it be that many had hoped Bristol would embarrass herself and be one of the very first celebrities to be booted off the show? Are they disappointed that Bristol is doing well, is improving, and has lasted this long? Are they frustrated that she has not allowed all of the criticism to affect her?
When her detractors quit foaming at the mouth, maybe a little reason will set in. Perhaps Kurt Warner's fans rolled their votes over to Bristol. After all, both Bristol and Kurt are traditional, conservative, God-loving people, so a transfer of votes from Kurt to Bristol would make sense. Bristol is the underdog, and underdogs tend to evoke emotion. Mark Ballas is charming and a great dancer to watch. Maks, on the other hand, most likely cost Brandy some votes with his snarky attitude; he is tough to like. And Bristol is improving week after week. The judges complaints are about the emotion in her face, not her footwork or lines or posture. She actually has been dancing pretty well, much to the dismay of her detractors. Her waltz was so beautiful it brought tears to Sarah Palin's eyes. And the bottom line is, Dancing with the Stars is a voter-based show, and Bristol has every right to be there in the finals. She represents exactly what the show is about, more so than Jennifer Grey.
Bristol was right, no matter what she does she will be criticized. Maybe the Palin-haters should surprise once, just once, and not be so predictable.
Really, it's been unbelievable to read and hear so much hoopla about Bristol Palin's advancement to the final round on Dancing with the Stars. You would think it was a bigger scandal, say, on par with a First Lady having her law license revoked. Oh, wait, that wasn't a big scandal.
There have been allegations of conspiracy theories of the Tea Party having a voting campaign to keep Bristol in. THIS is a "conspiracy theory"? Let's see, fans of a celebrity on Dancing with the Stars are organizing themselves to phone in their vote and keep their favorite performer in? What makes this a scandal compared to fans of the other celebrities having their own campaigns to keep their favorite in? Could it be that many had hoped Bristol would embarrass herself and be one of the very first celebrities to be booted off the show? Are they disappointed that Bristol is doing well, is improving, and has lasted this long? Are they frustrated that she has not allowed all of the criticism to affect her?
When her detractors quit foaming at the mouth, maybe a little reason will set in. Perhaps Kurt Warner's fans rolled their votes over to Bristol. After all, both Bristol and Kurt are traditional, conservative, God-loving people, so a transfer of votes from Kurt to Bristol would make sense. Bristol is the underdog, and underdogs tend to evoke emotion. Mark Ballas is charming and a great dancer to watch. Maks, on the other hand, most likely cost Brandy some votes with his snarky attitude; he is tough to like. And Bristol is improving week after week. The judges complaints are about the emotion in her face, not her footwork or lines or posture. She actually has been dancing pretty well, much to the dismay of her detractors. Her waltz was so beautiful it brought tears to Sarah Palin's eyes. And the bottom line is, Dancing with the Stars is a voter-based show, and Bristol has every right to be there in the finals. She represents exactly what the show is about, more so than Jennifer Grey.
Bristol was right, no matter what she does she will be criticized. Maybe the Palin-haters should surprise once, just once, and not be so predictable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)