Turner Classic Movie channel is running weeks of Oscar-winning movies this month. Channel-surfing today, I came across "Yankee Doodle Dandy," with Jimmy Cagney as George M. Cohan. Don't recall the first time I saw this movie. I was probably about nine or ten years old, maybe? It's one of those movies that I can recite by heart. And I think Jimmy Cagney got an Oscar for his performance. After all those gangster films, who knew he could dance?
Actually, if I heard right, he and his sister, Jeanne -- who plays his sister in "Yankee Doodle Dandy" -- had had years of ballet training as kids. Try that coming from Hell's Kitchen. He probably really did know how to fight. Anyway, he was a gypsy on Broadway for a while, a chorus boy, before he got into films playing bootleggers and similar -- with Humphrey Bogart and Edward G. Robinson. All mere children at the time.
Anyway, the first time I went to New York City -- about 1965, when I was still in high school (too young to quit) -- something that really caught my attention was the statue of George M. Cohan in Times Square.... "Give My Regards to Broadway." And pigeons sitting on his head.
For the uninitiated, George M. was a Broadway star and producer in the first quarter of the 20th century. He was born actually not ON the 4th of July, but on July 3, if I recall correctly. And he was hugely patriotic. Many people were in those days. The Civil War was still a living memory for many people, as was the Spanish-American War, and the USA was taking off as a world power.
George M. wrote the songs "Mary," "Give My Regards to Broadway," "It's a Grand Ol' Flag," "Over There," and probably a thousand more -- he wrote musicals, produced them, and also starred in them. He was from a family of vaudevillians and lived his whole life on stage, more or less. Famous for his audacity and rather gaudy showmanship. Believe he had an unfortunate first marriage or romance of some kind -- not mentioned in the movie -- but was said to be a very decent man and kind to the talent. No doubt because he'd been kicked around plenty himself.
Also not mentioned in the movie "Yankee Doodle Dandy," what truly did in George M. and the Cohan-Harris production company was the unionization of the legitimate theatre. George M. refused to unionize and was blackballed. And by all reports, the way he fought the unions and unionization was by offering higher pay and amenities than the union contracts provided. He was beaten down (figuratively) and driven out anyway. If you worked for him, you'd never work anywhere else.
But the movie "Yankee Doodle Dandy," is one my favorites. One of my all-time favorite scenes is Cagney dancing on the dock as Little Johnny Jones. I love that dance. Lots of ballet in Cagney's style; he even does some purely balletic moves. Mixed with tap, of course. The dance of joy. Click here to see it on YouTube.
The movie is told like a long flashback, while George M. is in the White House, telling FDR his life story. FDR then awards George M. a Congressional Medal of Honor for devoting his life in service to his country. At the time, George M. had come out of retirement to play FDR in Hart & Kaufman's "I'd Rather Be Right Than President."
Don't know if it's actually in the play, but in the movie, Cagney does a scene as FDR dancing, telling the press one thing and another -- funny quips -- "but that's off the record." Then the final line is like, we'll tell the Germans where to go "and put ants in their Ja-pants... And that's for the record!"
The movie was being made at about the time Pearl Harbor was attacked. I believe it was in production, and the stuff about the Germans and Japan was added in -- but not really sure. It was Oscar-nominated for movies made in 1942, and the attack on Pearl Harbor was December, 1941.
I love peoples' attitudes at the time, though. Even with FDR in office (whom I despise), people still held an uncomplicated loyalty to the USA. If someone attacked you, you didn't sit around and wonder whether or not you should fight back. You didn't read Tojo his rights and threaten to try him in a civilian court in Hawaii. (Ooooh, scary.) You went after the bastard. And all his friends.
The thing is, either you believe in the USA or you don't. The USA is exceptional. It is different from any other nation on earth. The American Revolution, and particularly American principles (imported from the European Enlightenment and further developed here) changed the whole world. These principles weren't the result of a half-dozen guys sitting around listing noble-sounding platitudes. They believed in what they wrote in the Declaration of Independence and the view of humanity it represents. In the US Constitution, they framed a government based on those principles -- universal principles, relevant and meaningful not just to those people at that time, but for the whole human race, always. And it works.
Of course now, Barney Fudd knows better. If we can't bust the economy and the population and destroy the nation under the US Constitution, then it's time to change the Constitution, he says. What a horse's ass. Like he has the capacity to absorb the information in the Constitution, let alone improve upon it. Pelosi just blows a raspberry when challenged on constitutionality. Give-'em'pork Harry Reid ignores it, prefers bribery, so long as funds are drawn from the US Treasury.
And on the news today, there was a report that North Carolina is considering teaching US history only from 1877 to the present in the public schools. Forget the Declaration of Independence, the Constituion, the Civil War, etc etc. Just tell everyone about the Progressives and the Populists and how we're all marching arm-in-arm toward's Marx's utopia. Only the specious, mind-numbing, soul-crushing trivia of socialist propaganda.
What assholes, really. They must be Ivy Leaguers.
For me, I'd rather be right than president.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Monday, February 1, 2010
Economic doublespeak?
Can someone please explain to me how the government spending $3.5 TRILLION dollars over the next three years is going to "restart the economy" and provide jobs?
It's kinda like, if you ever read the novel 1984, the terminology called Doublespeak. Less is more, slavery is freedom, etc etc.
The trouble with all government spending is that any so-called "government investment" comes out of the pockets of private citizens. So the Comrade wants to suck $3.5 TRILLION dollars from consumers -- whose spending is, in a real way, a type of investment -- and from private banks and venture capital investors... The government wants to take all of this private money and funnel it into things like light rail development: railroads that run from Tampa to DisneyWorld in Florida, for example, or from Madison, Wisc., to Milwaukee. This is going to restart the economy?
A US Rep from South Carolina was on Fox news this morning, talking about the huge "investment" in education that this massive spending will provide.
Need I point out that right now there are probably just as many well-educated people as there are high school drop-outs collecting unemployment insurance. Getting an education is quite a different thing from getting a job. If there are no jobs, there are no jobs -- for anyone. I've found that my education is something of a hindrance when applying for clerical positions and things like that, and I have only a bachelor's degree, nothing really advanced. One prospective employer told me that he was quite sure I could find something else and, at any rate, with my education, I could do much better than the position he offered, and I'd never be satisfied in that job, etc.
But the greater issue is what this kind of spending does to the nation.
First is the drain on private funds this kind of spending requires. We're right now still laboring under the burden of last year's stimulus bill, which by all accounts has done next to nothing to restart the economy. Most of it hasn't even been spent. So what the hell good was that? All it does is hold an onerous debt over the heads of taxpayers for generations to come.
More to the point, is the government really the best conduit for economic recovery? That is to say, does the government spend money more wisely than private citizens? The government wants to invest in light rail -- as noted. Is anyone going to use this light rail? Or are these projects just boondoogles that will be launched with lots of hoopla, employ a couple hundred people for a couple years, and then, when the rail lines are complete, they'll just languish, sorry reminders of wasted time and money.
Second, the government isn't business. They don't do things "for profit." Therefore, government isn't a self-sustaining concern. It can't pay for itself. It doesn't make any money. The government's only source of money is us. So if those light rail lines aren't used by the public -- and they won't be, it's just as quick to drive , and then you'll still have a car when you reach your destination -- they will end up as only another useless ongoing drain on tax funds.
By contrast, private enterprise is totally "for profit." A guy starts a business. If it doesn't make any money, he shuts it down and it goes away -- at the guy's own expense. If the business is successful, it makes money, creates jobs, and generates perhaps enough cash for even further growth and expansion.
In terms of investment, government is a gigantic toilet. You feed (or whatever) into it, and everything washes away, never to be seen again. It's not an "investment." Growth in government means growth in taxation.
Government also has never in history been a useful predictor of economic growth. Like light rail. Who wants light rail? Not the public. The public wants cars -- but not necessarily "GM" or "government-made" cars.
I've said it before: if there was a big market for "green" products, investors and entrepreneurs would be flocking to that industry. It would be booming. It isn't. For the last couple of years in my "paying" work, I've been compelled to ask business people and others about their attitudes toward "green" products -- if they plan to invest, if their corporate employers are urging them to invest, if they plan on entering the green space with their own products. The answer is "NO! Not if it costs more money." It hasn't been a priority. And this was even before all the scandals broke about what a total crock Climate Change is. The green industry isn't a re-starter; it's a non-starter.
In short, the Comrade's proposed $3.5 TRILLION only represents another humongous rat-hole of waste and fraud. And it will bankrupt us all personally and as a nation.
Sound like a good idea? Maybe to the likes of the Comrade, Pelosi, and Reid, who don't know their butts from their elbows anyway, but not to anyone else. All the rest of us very clearly see what a gigantic disaster this kind of government spending represents.
But will that stop the dems from trying to jam this crap through? Probably not.
It's kinda like, if you ever read the novel 1984, the terminology called Doublespeak. Less is more, slavery is freedom, etc etc.
The trouble with all government spending is that any so-called "government investment" comes out of the pockets of private citizens. So the Comrade wants to suck $3.5 TRILLION dollars from consumers -- whose spending is, in a real way, a type of investment -- and from private banks and venture capital investors... The government wants to take all of this private money and funnel it into things like light rail development: railroads that run from Tampa to DisneyWorld in Florida, for example, or from Madison, Wisc., to Milwaukee. This is going to restart the economy?
A US Rep from South Carolina was on Fox news this morning, talking about the huge "investment" in education that this massive spending will provide.
Need I point out that right now there are probably just as many well-educated people as there are high school drop-outs collecting unemployment insurance. Getting an education is quite a different thing from getting a job. If there are no jobs, there are no jobs -- for anyone. I've found that my education is something of a hindrance when applying for clerical positions and things like that, and I have only a bachelor's degree, nothing really advanced. One prospective employer told me that he was quite sure I could find something else and, at any rate, with my education, I could do much better than the position he offered, and I'd never be satisfied in that job, etc.
But the greater issue is what this kind of spending does to the nation.
First is the drain on private funds this kind of spending requires. We're right now still laboring under the burden of last year's stimulus bill, which by all accounts has done next to nothing to restart the economy. Most of it hasn't even been spent. So what the hell good was that? All it does is hold an onerous debt over the heads of taxpayers for generations to come.
More to the point, is the government really the best conduit for economic recovery? That is to say, does the government spend money more wisely than private citizens? The government wants to invest in light rail -- as noted. Is anyone going to use this light rail? Or are these projects just boondoogles that will be launched with lots of hoopla, employ a couple hundred people for a couple years, and then, when the rail lines are complete, they'll just languish, sorry reminders of wasted time and money.
Second, the government isn't business. They don't do things "for profit." Therefore, government isn't a self-sustaining concern. It can't pay for itself. It doesn't make any money. The government's only source of money is us. So if those light rail lines aren't used by the public -- and they won't be, it's just as quick to drive , and then you'll still have a car when you reach your destination -- they will end up as only another useless ongoing drain on tax funds.
By contrast, private enterprise is totally "for profit." A guy starts a business. If it doesn't make any money, he shuts it down and it goes away -- at the guy's own expense. If the business is successful, it makes money, creates jobs, and generates perhaps enough cash for even further growth and expansion.
In terms of investment, government is a gigantic toilet. You feed (or whatever) into it, and everything washes away, never to be seen again. It's not an "investment." Growth in government means growth in taxation.
Government also has never in history been a useful predictor of economic growth. Like light rail. Who wants light rail? Not the public. The public wants cars -- but not necessarily "GM" or "government-made" cars.
I've said it before: if there was a big market for "green" products, investors and entrepreneurs would be flocking to that industry. It would be booming. It isn't. For the last couple of years in my "paying" work, I've been compelled to ask business people and others about their attitudes toward "green" products -- if they plan to invest, if their corporate employers are urging them to invest, if they plan on entering the green space with their own products. The answer is "NO! Not if it costs more money." It hasn't been a priority. And this was even before all the scandals broke about what a total crock Climate Change is. The green industry isn't a re-starter; it's a non-starter.
In short, the Comrade's proposed $3.5 TRILLION only represents another humongous rat-hole of waste and fraud. And it will bankrupt us all personally and as a nation.
Sound like a good idea? Maybe to the likes of the Comrade, Pelosi, and Reid, who don't know their butts from their elbows anyway, but not to anyone else. All the rest of us very clearly see what a gigantic disaster this kind of government spending represents.
But will that stop the dems from trying to jam this crap through? Probably not.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Do the right thing
The Comrade met with Republicans at some kind of Republican Retreat yesterday. I think it was yesterday. My days begin and end on a non-traditional schedule, so I'm really never sure what day it is.
At any rate, I find it funny that suddenly even the Comrade is pursuing Republicans. Or at least blaming them for the democrats' failure to pass socialized medicine and cap'n'tax. He'd always more or less blown them off as totally negligible. And they have been. Glenn Beck pointed out that the dems have majorities in both houses, and he pointed it out rather graphically. (Really, Glenn, I think most Americans do thoroughly understand the concept of a "majority.") And it is definitely worth noting -- again and again -- that there's really no way the Republicans can obstruct legislation or stand in the way of any proposals in this congress. The Republicans are almost irrelevant in this congress.
Somehow, however, the White House -- perhaps following up on Max Baucus's drunken harangue of a couple weeks ago -- are laying their failures at the Republicans' doorstep. What? If the Blue Dogs don't like the proposed legislation and refuse to be bought off, Republicans are are supposed to take up the slack and vote for something they don't believe in?
What kind of reasoning is that? The usual kind from this White House.
The dems claim that the Republicans are only playing games, withholding their support to make the Comrade look bad.
So a Republican is supposed to vote for socialized medicine? For massive and crushing taxes on all forms of energy? It doesn't occur to the Comrade that maybe the Republicans really don't like the policies?
On the other hand, why don't the dems drop all this junk about a "public option" and just vote to limit frivolous medical law suits? Why don't they vote to allow sales of private health insurance across state lines? Why don't they refuse to let the EPA run the country? I suppose they're just playing games to make the Republicans -- and apparently 60% or more of the population -- look bad.
Fundamental differences exist between the wild-eyed marxist radicals in the White House and the Republicans along wtih most of the rest of the country. The dems may recognize that somehow, but then they apparently assume that there's something wrong with the rest of the country.
Meanwhile, Pazzo Pelosi is strapping on a parachute for the sake of socialized medicine. I think she needs some kind of medicine. Or better yet, forget the parachute but by all means, do the dive.
And all this because Massachusetts elected a conservative Republican to replace Teddy Kennedy in the Senate. The dems don't like the idea that the public still has a choice. Either that or they're simply incredibly blind and stupid. It's the Comade and his merry marxists who refuse to accept any options. They apparenty believe that their way is the only way. How very Maoist.
I've never really been a Republican. I'm pretty indifferent on most social issues -- like, I don't think it's any of my business if someone has an abortion. And I don't think it's any of the government's business, either. The Civil Rights Movement was rolling along full-tilt when I was growing up, and between the ages of 15 and 22 or so, you'd probably call me a hippy. But that's all because my first, most closely-held political commitment is to individual liberty. Government can play a role in that; it can help keep people free and protect their rights. Anarchy has never worked anywhere. It always degenerates into some version of "might makes right."
I can't square socialism with individual liberty. With socialism, at the minimum you need an overweening and massive government just to gather up and redistribute the goodies. History hath shown that in most cases, you need an overweening and massive government to enforce the injustice of socialism as well.
None of this makes me free or protects my rights.
My dad was a very staunch and active Roosevelt democrat. We lived in an extremely Republican suburb of Chicago, and my dad ran for local office several times, just so the Republican wouldn't be "unopposed." My mom was mostly non-political, and my dad used to make her serve as a democrat judge at the polling place every election day, just to keep the count honest.
The main thing I learned about politics as a kid is that freedom is worth everything. Never give it up. Cherish it. Fight for it if you must. Without freedom, there's nothing. The very first thing I did on my 21st birthday was register to vote.
My dad died when I was 11 years old; my mom died just a few years ago. Among my mother's things was a tiny, hand-carved ivory donkey. No doubt a memento of my dad. But I think if my dad were still alive, he'd be a Republican, as repugnant as that label would be to him. And he'd also be feeling very betrayed by the democrats.
None of what's going on today in the USA can be solved by hype or spin. The divisions are deep and based on fundamental principles. I'll stand behind the Republicans right now because they have the organization to defeat the democrats.
And if there's any one thing I've learned through this last year, it's that the Founding Fathers were absolutely correct -- that you can trust the American people to do the right thing.
At any rate, I find it funny that suddenly even the Comrade is pursuing Republicans. Or at least blaming them for the democrats' failure to pass socialized medicine and cap'n'tax. He'd always more or less blown them off as totally negligible. And they have been. Glenn Beck pointed out that the dems have majorities in both houses, and he pointed it out rather graphically. (Really, Glenn, I think most Americans do thoroughly understand the concept of a "majority.") And it is definitely worth noting -- again and again -- that there's really no way the Republicans can obstruct legislation or stand in the way of any proposals in this congress. The Republicans are almost irrelevant in this congress.
Somehow, however, the White House -- perhaps following up on Max Baucus's drunken harangue of a couple weeks ago -- are laying their failures at the Republicans' doorstep. What? If the Blue Dogs don't like the proposed legislation and refuse to be bought off, Republicans are are supposed to take up the slack and vote for something they don't believe in?
What kind of reasoning is that? The usual kind from this White House.
The dems claim that the Republicans are only playing games, withholding their support to make the Comrade look bad.
So a Republican is supposed to vote for socialized medicine? For massive and crushing taxes on all forms of energy? It doesn't occur to the Comrade that maybe the Republicans really don't like the policies?
On the other hand, why don't the dems drop all this junk about a "public option" and just vote to limit frivolous medical law suits? Why don't they vote to allow sales of private health insurance across state lines? Why don't they refuse to let the EPA run the country? I suppose they're just playing games to make the Republicans -- and apparently 60% or more of the population -- look bad.
Fundamental differences exist between the wild-eyed marxist radicals in the White House and the Republicans along wtih most of the rest of the country. The dems may recognize that somehow, but then they apparently assume that there's something wrong with the rest of the country.
Meanwhile, Pazzo Pelosi is strapping on a parachute for the sake of socialized medicine. I think she needs some kind of medicine. Or better yet, forget the parachute but by all means, do the dive.
And all this because Massachusetts elected a conservative Republican to replace Teddy Kennedy in the Senate. The dems don't like the idea that the public still has a choice. Either that or they're simply incredibly blind and stupid. It's the Comade and his merry marxists who refuse to accept any options. They apparenty believe that their way is the only way. How very Maoist.
I've never really been a Republican. I'm pretty indifferent on most social issues -- like, I don't think it's any of my business if someone has an abortion. And I don't think it's any of the government's business, either. The Civil Rights Movement was rolling along full-tilt when I was growing up, and between the ages of 15 and 22 or so, you'd probably call me a hippy. But that's all because my first, most closely-held political commitment is to individual liberty. Government can play a role in that; it can help keep people free and protect their rights. Anarchy has never worked anywhere. It always degenerates into some version of "might makes right."
I can't square socialism with individual liberty. With socialism, at the minimum you need an overweening and massive government just to gather up and redistribute the goodies. History hath shown that in most cases, you need an overweening and massive government to enforce the injustice of socialism as well.
None of this makes me free or protects my rights.
My dad was a very staunch and active Roosevelt democrat. We lived in an extremely Republican suburb of Chicago, and my dad ran for local office several times, just so the Republican wouldn't be "unopposed." My mom was mostly non-political, and my dad used to make her serve as a democrat judge at the polling place every election day, just to keep the count honest.
The main thing I learned about politics as a kid is that freedom is worth everything. Never give it up. Cherish it. Fight for it if you must. Without freedom, there's nothing. The very first thing I did on my 21st birthday was register to vote.
My dad died when I was 11 years old; my mom died just a few years ago. Among my mother's things was a tiny, hand-carved ivory donkey. No doubt a memento of my dad. But I think if my dad were still alive, he'd be a Republican, as repugnant as that label would be to him. And he'd also be feeling very betrayed by the democrats.
None of what's going on today in the USA can be solved by hype or spin. The divisions are deep and based on fundamental principles. I'll stand behind the Republicans right now because they have the organization to defeat the democrats.
And if there's any one thing I've learned through this last year, it's that the Founding Fathers were absolutely correct -- that you can trust the American people to do the right thing.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Change you can't believe in... and don't want to
Heard the Comrade's State of the Union speech tonight. Let's see, demonizing bankers, once again pointing out that the economy was messed up before he was elected (it's all George Bush's fault), offering to "forgive" student loans if the student gets a government job after graduation (including a commission in the armed forces, Comrade?) He's brought transparency to DC (that was good for a laugh, though even he didn't dare use the actual word "transparency"), and the Republicans are messing up the whole concept of bipartisanship in congress... hmmmm... what else?
Nothing new or very important.
Oh. He's telling us he cut taxes. He's freezing spending -- in one small budget area, and after raising federal spending 20% across the board last year. Apparently the net effect of the "freeze" will be that funding can't be cut for three years. 'Course, us'n taxpayers are too stupid to figure that out on our own. Just another ruse to protect that pork. I mean, the Stimulus package and other wild spending sprees from congress.
You know, the Comrade launched his whole administration by buying off congress with the stimulus thing. Maybe that's why the dems are so leming-like.
He's still got his fingers crossed for seizing control of the nation via crap'n'tax -- undeterred by recent revelations and indications that climate change is an over-hyped doomsday myth. He sees the USA exporting windmills and solar panels to China. Rather like the conventional "coals to Newcastle" thing, isn't it?
And he's still trying to shove socialized medicine down our throats. He says he "didn't explain it well enough." Oh, I don't know. I think he explained it pretty well. It's just that we all understand now that everything the Comrade says is pretty much a crock.
If you want to see what socialized medicine is all about, look at the nations that have it. Nobody here wants it, Comrade. We understand it. We believe you don't understand it. 'Cause it sucks.
You'd think that with all those people at the Comrade's beck and call, he could at least get someone to write him a new speech. This sounded an awful lot like stuff from the campaign trail.
Chris Matthews says he "forgot he [the Comrade] was black for an hour tonight." By contrast, I almost never think about the Comrade being black. To me, the important thing about the Comrade is that he's a marxist-communist. Matthews' obsession with skin color must be a liberal thing.
Matthews was just amazed that "a black guy" could "stand up in front of a bunch of white people" and deliver a speech. I suspect Matthews has a peaked white hood with eye-holes cut out somewhere. Imagine that, Chris, a black guy giving a speech to white folks. Yeah, and he doesn't even have a "Negro accent." Ever hear of Marting Luther King? Frederick Douglass? Even Reverend Ike, for Pete's sake?
Chris Matthews is a bigger idiot than even I imagined him to be. Like Give-'em-pork-Harry Reid. Or Barbara Boxer, explaining to the head of the US Black Chamber of Commerce that the NAACP likes crap'n'tax, so possibly he should, too. I mean, all blacks pretty much look and think alike, right Barb?
Yeah, I guess the USA still does have a ways to go about racism. Funny how it comes from the left, though, isn't it? "The leftists doth protest too much" and all that jazz.
So, anyway, back to the actual speech. Just look at my last blog. One-trick pony. Nothing new here. No new ideas. Either the Comrade is a truly committed and uncompromising marxist, or he's incapable of innovative thought and can't come up with any ideas apart from those old worn-out, pie-in-the-sky, tried-and-failed policies that Bill Ayers was promoting 50 years ago. Actually, the speech sounded to me like he was talking about some other country.
And FYI, Comrade, I as one member of an apparent majority, am thrilled to pieces that the Republicans have been the "Party of Know." We'd all be even further down the crapper without their objections to unchecked socialism and their refusal to be steamrollered over socialized medicine and crap'n'tax.
I'm going to write a book about all this just as soon as I get some time. Not about the Comrade, but about why America is such a great place. Such an EXCEPTIONAL place.
Nothing new or very important.
Oh. He's telling us he cut taxes. He's freezing spending -- in one small budget area, and after raising federal spending 20% across the board last year. Apparently the net effect of the "freeze" will be that funding can't be cut for three years. 'Course, us'n taxpayers are too stupid to figure that out on our own. Just another ruse to protect that pork. I mean, the Stimulus package and other wild spending sprees from congress.
You know, the Comrade launched his whole administration by buying off congress with the stimulus thing. Maybe that's why the dems are so leming-like.
He's still got his fingers crossed for seizing control of the nation via crap'n'tax -- undeterred by recent revelations and indications that climate change is an over-hyped doomsday myth. He sees the USA exporting windmills and solar panels to China. Rather like the conventional "coals to Newcastle" thing, isn't it?
And he's still trying to shove socialized medicine down our throats. He says he "didn't explain it well enough." Oh, I don't know. I think he explained it pretty well. It's just that we all understand now that everything the Comrade says is pretty much a crock.
If you want to see what socialized medicine is all about, look at the nations that have it. Nobody here wants it, Comrade. We understand it. We believe you don't understand it. 'Cause it sucks.
You'd think that with all those people at the Comrade's beck and call, he could at least get someone to write him a new speech. This sounded an awful lot like stuff from the campaign trail.
Chris Matthews says he "forgot he [the Comrade] was black for an hour tonight." By contrast, I almost never think about the Comrade being black. To me, the important thing about the Comrade is that he's a marxist-communist. Matthews' obsession with skin color must be a liberal thing.
Matthews was just amazed that "a black guy" could "stand up in front of a bunch of white people" and deliver a speech. I suspect Matthews has a peaked white hood with eye-holes cut out somewhere. Imagine that, Chris, a black guy giving a speech to white folks. Yeah, and he doesn't even have a "Negro accent." Ever hear of Marting Luther King? Frederick Douglass? Even Reverend Ike, for Pete's sake?
Chris Matthews is a bigger idiot than even I imagined him to be. Like Give-'em-pork-Harry Reid. Or Barbara Boxer, explaining to the head of the US Black Chamber of Commerce that the NAACP likes crap'n'tax, so possibly he should, too. I mean, all blacks pretty much look and think alike, right Barb?
Yeah, I guess the USA still does have a ways to go about racism. Funny how it comes from the left, though, isn't it? "The leftists doth protest too much" and all that jazz.
So, anyway, back to the actual speech. Just look at my last blog. One-trick pony. Nothing new here. No new ideas. Either the Comrade is a truly committed and uncompromising marxist, or he's incapable of innovative thought and can't come up with any ideas apart from those old worn-out, pie-in-the-sky, tried-and-failed policies that Bill Ayers was promoting 50 years ago. Actually, the speech sounded to me like he was talking about some other country.
And FYI, Comrade, I as one member of an apparent majority, am thrilled to pieces that the Republicans have been the "Party of Know." We'd all be even further down the crapper without their objections to unchecked socialism and their refusal to be steamrollered over socialized medicine and crap'n'tax.
I'm going to write a book about all this just as soon as I get some time. Not about the Comrade, but about why America is such a great place. Such an EXCEPTIONAL place.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Comrade Spin, one-trick pony
It's becoming unbearable to hear the Comrade speak. I just can't stand the sight or sound of him anymore. I went through something similar with a few other dem prezes, most notably Jimmy Carter. The nation was going to hell in a handbasket, and Carter just wanted to hold everyone's hand and thought if he smiled big enough, we'd all get over our "malaise."
Oh well, that's over now.
Now we've got Comrade Spin. He's actually insulting. Snippets of his interview with Stephanopolous appear on TV. The Comrade says he didn't run for office to fix the economy. So exactly why did he run for office?
Think he's tipping his hand? Clearly, he has a marxist agenda. Many people claim he ran as a centrist in the campaign. Funny, though, I always believed he was at least a socialist. That's what the rhetoric sounded like to me. But then a lot of people talk socialism and don't realize it's socialism. It's just something they picked up in an Ivy League poli-sci class and they think it sounds appropriately socially concerned and informed. It isn't, but they don't know that; they haven't been exposed to any other, more enlightened views.
But I digress. What I mean to say is... If the Comrade didn't run for office to be a president and to govern, then why the hell did he run for office?
Apparently to promote his communist ideas.
I believe he's a totally committed ideological marxist. Not even the pragmatic variety, but a real purist marxist.
He doesn't seem to care anything about the USA. He just wants to push his marxist agenda. He doesn't care if the debt is $14 TRILLION. In fact, all the better for him -- it will hasten the demise of capitalism in the USA.
He doesn't care if people are working or not, whether or not they can pay their mortgages, and on and on and on.
His sole purpose is to establish communist policies.
Of course, marxists -- real, true marxists (that is to say, "blind-to-reality" marxists) -- don't understand that marxism is inherently and necessarily totalitarian. They believe that it can be "democratic." But their definition of "democratic" may vary from the popular interpretation.
In the Athenian democracy of ancient times, when the citizens elected a leader, that leader had absolute power. One of the Athenian leaders was Tyro. That's where the word "tyrant" comes from. This seems to be the Comrade's view of democracy. However, because of the US Constitution, no elected official in the USA can be granted that much power. Citizens and congress and even the Supreme Court can try to give him that much power -- likely to be challenged successfully because such a concentration of power violates the Constitution. The Constitution simply does not allow it.
The USA is "democratic" in the sense that majority rules for some things, but it's not a democracy. Never has been. It's built on the concept of individual rights, not mob rule.
With Scott Brown elected in Taxachusetts, the dems in congress now seem to be waking up a bit and getting reluctant to continue to hand over their own power by marching in lock-step to support the Comrade's agenda. Seems they're just discovering, "Hey, we don't have to go along with this...."
They never had to go along with the Comrade. I can't imagine why they do. Is Pazzo going to refuse to donate to their campaign funds or what? The Legislative Branch has just as much power at the Executive Branch. Congress can tell the Comrade to blow it out his ear. And they appear to be mvoing in that direction, however slowly.
So now Comrade Spin is going around telling people, like in Ohio the other day, that all their problems are somehow related to Wall Street financiers getting bonsuses.
Trying to stir up class warfare. It's pure marxist. It's also pure bullshit in the USA. That's not going anywhere. In their heart of hearts, most Americans would love to make millions of dollars every year. They may be envious of others who do, but not so envious that they would give up their own opportunity to make millions. They understand that if the execs at AIG have to give up their bonuses, the government can make the guy working the loading dock at WalMart give up his bonuses, too -- or any chance of any bonus.
And guess what? This crap isn't playing well. The audience tends to push the class warfare jazz to one side and ask, "But what are you doing to do to restart the economy?"
Comrade Spin doesn't want to do anything about the economy. He wants to see it collapse so that he can replace it with a totalitarian structure.... no doubt as an "emergency measure." Like the goddamn stimulus bill. That piece of crap may have already wrecked any hope of economic recovery. But it can still be repealed.
Comrade Spin tells citizens they're angry because the "special interests" are defeating socialized medicine. No, Comrade, we all know that the "special interests" -- including the unions -- are all lined up on your side. You've bought them all off. And that is something we did get to watch on TV, such as senate whore Landrieu crowing about getting $300 million, not a measly $100 million. We all know this. He isn't fooling anyone.
Does he really think that we don't know why we're angry? Does he really think that we're going to accept his interpretation of our own feelings and attitudes above our own judgment?
Comrade Spin has got to be one of the most arrogant individuals on the planet. He's telling us that he knows better than we do what's in our own hearts and minds? He really does believe he's omnipotent, doesn't he? That's dangerously sociopathic.
Comrade Spin is an idiot, and worse than that -- he's a one-trick pony. He can't fix the economy, he can't govern this nation. He doesn't have the experience, he doesn't have the information, and he refuses to do anything to improve himself. Improve himself? My God, he's already close to perfect, isn't he? He won't even look at reality. He doesn't care about reality. He didn't run for office to govern the USA. He ran for office to establish socialism here. He's not even going to try to do anything else.
We'll see how that works for you, Comrade.
Oh well, that's over now.
Now we've got Comrade Spin. He's actually insulting. Snippets of his interview with Stephanopolous appear on TV. The Comrade says he didn't run for office to fix the economy. So exactly why did he run for office?
Think he's tipping his hand? Clearly, he has a marxist agenda. Many people claim he ran as a centrist in the campaign. Funny, though, I always believed he was at least a socialist. That's what the rhetoric sounded like to me. But then a lot of people talk socialism and don't realize it's socialism. It's just something they picked up in an Ivy League poli-sci class and they think it sounds appropriately socially concerned and informed. It isn't, but they don't know that; they haven't been exposed to any other, more enlightened views.
But I digress. What I mean to say is... If the Comrade didn't run for office to be a president and to govern, then why the hell did he run for office?
Apparently to promote his communist ideas.
I believe he's a totally committed ideological marxist. Not even the pragmatic variety, but a real purist marxist.
He doesn't seem to care anything about the USA. He just wants to push his marxist agenda. He doesn't care if the debt is $14 TRILLION. In fact, all the better for him -- it will hasten the demise of capitalism in the USA.
He doesn't care if people are working or not, whether or not they can pay their mortgages, and on and on and on.
His sole purpose is to establish communist policies.
Of course, marxists -- real, true marxists (that is to say, "blind-to-reality" marxists) -- don't understand that marxism is inherently and necessarily totalitarian. They believe that it can be "democratic." But their definition of "democratic" may vary from the popular interpretation.
In the Athenian democracy of ancient times, when the citizens elected a leader, that leader had absolute power. One of the Athenian leaders was Tyro. That's where the word "tyrant" comes from. This seems to be the Comrade's view of democracy. However, because of the US Constitution, no elected official in the USA can be granted that much power. Citizens and congress and even the Supreme Court can try to give him that much power -- likely to be challenged successfully because such a concentration of power violates the Constitution. The Constitution simply does not allow it.
The USA is "democratic" in the sense that majority rules for some things, but it's not a democracy. Never has been. It's built on the concept of individual rights, not mob rule.
With Scott Brown elected in Taxachusetts, the dems in congress now seem to be waking up a bit and getting reluctant to continue to hand over their own power by marching in lock-step to support the Comrade's agenda. Seems they're just discovering, "Hey, we don't have to go along with this...."
They never had to go along with the Comrade. I can't imagine why they do. Is Pazzo going to refuse to donate to their campaign funds or what? The Legislative Branch has just as much power at the Executive Branch. Congress can tell the Comrade to blow it out his ear. And they appear to be mvoing in that direction, however slowly.
So now Comrade Spin is going around telling people, like in Ohio the other day, that all their problems are somehow related to Wall Street financiers getting bonsuses.
Trying to stir up class warfare. It's pure marxist. It's also pure bullshit in the USA. That's not going anywhere. In their heart of hearts, most Americans would love to make millions of dollars every year. They may be envious of others who do, but not so envious that they would give up their own opportunity to make millions. They understand that if the execs at AIG have to give up their bonuses, the government can make the guy working the loading dock at WalMart give up his bonuses, too -- or any chance of any bonus.
And guess what? This crap isn't playing well. The audience tends to push the class warfare jazz to one side and ask, "But what are you doing to do to restart the economy?"
Comrade Spin doesn't want to do anything about the economy. He wants to see it collapse so that he can replace it with a totalitarian structure.... no doubt as an "emergency measure." Like the goddamn stimulus bill. That piece of crap may have already wrecked any hope of economic recovery. But it can still be repealed.
Comrade Spin tells citizens they're angry because the "special interests" are defeating socialized medicine. No, Comrade, we all know that the "special interests" -- including the unions -- are all lined up on your side. You've bought them all off. And that is something we did get to watch on TV, such as senate whore Landrieu crowing about getting $300 million, not a measly $100 million. We all know this. He isn't fooling anyone.
Does he really think that we don't know why we're angry? Does he really think that we're going to accept his interpretation of our own feelings and attitudes above our own judgment?
Comrade Spin has got to be one of the most arrogant individuals on the planet. He's telling us that he knows better than we do what's in our own hearts and minds? He really does believe he's omnipotent, doesn't he? That's dangerously sociopathic.
Comrade Spin is an idiot, and worse than that -- he's a one-trick pony. He can't fix the economy, he can't govern this nation. He doesn't have the experience, he doesn't have the information, and he refuses to do anything to improve himself. Improve himself? My God, he's already close to perfect, isn't he? He won't even look at reality. He doesn't care about reality. He didn't run for office to govern the USA. He ran for office to establish socialism here. He's not even going to try to do anything else.
We'll see how that works for you, Comrade.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Dolts in DC, but you knew that
Picture this....
Scott Brown does his too-long victory speech in Massachusetts late Tuesday night. At the White House, the Comrade, Robert Gibbs, Ram Emanual, David Axelrod, and maybe a couple bodyguards are sitting around, watching it all on TV.
"Good God, how do we make this go away?" one of them says.
They order some imported beer and huddle for an hour or so. Too late to buy a truck. It would be too obvious a desperate copy-cat-looking thing. So they come up with this idiotic spin:
"Scott Brown was elected on the same anger that got me elected," the Comrade says, rehearsing. "It's not anger over events of the last year; it's anger over events of the last eight years."
So it's still all George Bush's fault. I mean, that's actually funny. And predictable. And rather disappointing that these guys are making so much money and have so little imagination. It doesn't even make for real entertainment anymore.
Robert Gibbs, secretly appalled at having to stand up in front of a bunch of hard-eyed news reporters and repeat this drivel, goes, "Yeah. We can make it work." After all, he's made other, equally ridiculous statements, he tells himself, to assuage his internal assinine-alarm. After all, it's his job to look like a damnfool. He represents the White House.
Well, Gibbs can repeat it. But he can't make it work. I mean, the line is pretty pathetic. Is that really the best they can come up with? And how much are these guys making?
Massachusetts, easily the most liberal state in the union -- its left-wing lunacy surpassed only by small wine & cheese tasting clubs in Pacific Heights or possibly parts of Marin County -- Massachusetts votes for a guy who wants to cut taxes, treat terrorists like POWs, and scrap the socialized medicine bills and start over.
It's not like Scott Brown could be mistaken for a liberal. Perhaps the Comrade with his total kind of blindness could make that mistake, but no reasonable American voter would. And the Comrade's interview with George Stephanolopolous, who has definitely drunk the Kool-Aid, didn't provide a better explanation. The Comrade seems to think we all just need a lesson in "core values."
I think the Comrade is the one who needs the lesson in core values. Or at least needs to recognize that the USA is not essentially marxist -- ON PURPOSE AND AFTER JUDICIOUS DELIBERATION. Quite possibly the Comrade has never been exposed to anything but elitist political bull-hockey. Maybe he should get a real job in a commercial enterprise sometime to experience a "teachable moment."
Pazzo Pelosi managed to keep her teeth mostly inside her mouth today. Nice change. Now how about reducing the Botox dosage so your face actually moves? Of course, she'd risk losing that blow-up rubber doll look. Her hair was all messed up yesterday, too. I suspect uncontrollable tears play havoc with mousse.
By the way, did she and Harry Reid buy twin cashmere coats, or what? I mean, when you're speaker of whatever, do they give you a cashmere coat? Does Newt have one, then? Just wondering.... Maybe they come free with Gulf Stream jets, like the way you get to keep the bathrobes at luxury hotels.
Anyway, Pazzo and Reid seem to think socialized medicine still has a chance. At least that's how they're talking. They might find it a bit more difficult to convince their co-congresscritters of that, or the ones who actually want to be re-elected in November. Do I sense is hike in the bribe rate in the offing?
What amazes me is: What does it take? Do you actually have to smack these people between the eyes with a hammer or what? The citizens don't want this bull-crap. Those living in the shadow of Haevaed don't even want this crap and they apparently believe anything. The Comrade and the merry marxists absolutely refuse to listen to anyone who disagrees with them. They are either really, really intellectually deficient, idealogues dipped in bronze -- frozen in position, that is -- or suicidal. Judging by their principles in general, I'd have to go with suicidal.
So they want to die, they just don't want to go alone. They insist on taking the whole nation with them.
Remember Robert Ringer? He wrote a book called Looking Out for #1 about 30 years ago. Worth a read, by the way. Anyway, Robert Ringer said everyone's afraid to die alone; yet the one thing you can be completely certain of is that when you die, you will die alone.
But I don't expect the lunatic fringe in DC to really absorb that message, either.
Scott Brown does his too-long victory speech in Massachusetts late Tuesday night. At the White House, the Comrade, Robert Gibbs, Ram Emanual, David Axelrod, and maybe a couple bodyguards are sitting around, watching it all on TV.
"Good God, how do we make this go away?" one of them says.
They order some imported beer and huddle for an hour or so. Too late to buy a truck. It would be too obvious a desperate copy-cat-looking thing. So they come up with this idiotic spin:
"Scott Brown was elected on the same anger that got me elected," the Comrade says, rehearsing. "It's not anger over events of the last year; it's anger over events of the last eight years."
So it's still all George Bush's fault. I mean, that's actually funny. And predictable. And rather disappointing that these guys are making so much money and have so little imagination. It doesn't even make for real entertainment anymore.
Robert Gibbs, secretly appalled at having to stand up in front of a bunch of hard-eyed news reporters and repeat this drivel, goes, "Yeah. We can make it work." After all, he's made other, equally ridiculous statements, he tells himself, to assuage his internal assinine-alarm. After all, it's his job to look like a damnfool. He represents the White House.
Well, Gibbs can repeat it. But he can't make it work. I mean, the line is pretty pathetic. Is that really the best they can come up with? And how much are these guys making?
Massachusetts, easily the most liberal state in the union -- its left-wing lunacy surpassed only by small wine & cheese tasting clubs in Pacific Heights or possibly parts of Marin County -- Massachusetts votes for a guy who wants to cut taxes, treat terrorists like POWs, and scrap the socialized medicine bills and start over.
It's not like Scott Brown could be mistaken for a liberal. Perhaps the Comrade with his total kind of blindness could make that mistake, but no reasonable American voter would. And the Comrade's interview with George Stephanolopolous, who has definitely drunk the Kool-Aid, didn't provide a better explanation. The Comrade seems to think we all just need a lesson in "core values."
I think the Comrade is the one who needs the lesson in core values. Or at least needs to recognize that the USA is not essentially marxist -- ON PURPOSE AND AFTER JUDICIOUS DELIBERATION. Quite possibly the Comrade has never been exposed to anything but elitist political bull-hockey. Maybe he should get a real job in a commercial enterprise sometime to experience a "teachable moment."
Pazzo Pelosi managed to keep her teeth mostly inside her mouth today. Nice change. Now how about reducing the Botox dosage so your face actually moves? Of course, she'd risk losing that blow-up rubber doll look. Her hair was all messed up yesterday, too. I suspect uncontrollable tears play havoc with mousse.
By the way, did she and Harry Reid buy twin cashmere coats, or what? I mean, when you're speaker of whatever, do they give you a cashmere coat? Does Newt have one, then? Just wondering.... Maybe they come free with Gulf Stream jets, like the way you get to keep the bathrobes at luxury hotels.
Anyway, Pazzo and Reid seem to think socialized medicine still has a chance. At least that's how they're talking. They might find it a bit more difficult to convince their co-congresscritters of that, or the ones who actually want to be re-elected in November. Do I sense is hike in the bribe rate in the offing?
What amazes me is: What does it take? Do you actually have to smack these people between the eyes with a hammer or what? The citizens don't want this bull-crap. Those living in the shadow of Haevaed don't even want this crap and they apparently believe anything. The Comrade and the merry marxists absolutely refuse to listen to anyone who disagrees with them. They are either really, really intellectually deficient, idealogues dipped in bronze -- frozen in position, that is -- or suicidal. Judging by their principles in general, I'd have to go with suicidal.
So they want to die, they just don't want to go alone. They insist on taking the whole nation with them.
Remember Robert Ringer? He wrote a book called Looking Out for #1 about 30 years ago. Worth a read, by the way. Anyway, Robert Ringer said everyone's afraid to die alone; yet the one thing you can be completely certain of is that when you die, you will die alone.
But I don't expect the lunatic fringe in DC to really absorb that message, either.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Dancin' in the streets... of Boston
Anyone who's studied the American Revolution must know that it was Boston that gave the British such a damn hard time. Boston, and Massachusetts Colony, had the Tea Party, they had the Sons of Liberty, Sam and John Adams, the Boston Massacre, and eventually the "shot heard 'round the world" was fired on Lexington Green.
When Patrick Henry delivered the "Give me liberty or give me death!" speech to the Virginia House of Burgesses -- at St. John's Presbyterian, because the British governor had dismissed that legislature -- Henry was doing his damnedest to get Virginia to stand behind Massachusetts. "Already we hear the clash of arms from the north.... " The North was Boston.
I've been rather embarrassed about Boston and Massachusetts as an American. Such sell-outs to the slimy socialist promises from people like the Kennedys and so on. A democrat machine that was surpassed only by the nasty and devious machinations of Chicago.
And Scott Brown won tonight in Masschusetts, against the machine candidate and someone who would have helped enslave us all under socialist medicine. And Brown won "the Kennedy seat."
I really do love America. And apparently so does a lot of other people.
Let's keep it going until we really and truly take this country back and stand it up on its true ideals.
When Patrick Henry delivered the "Give me liberty or give me death!" speech to the Virginia House of Burgesses -- at St. John's Presbyterian, because the British governor had dismissed that legislature -- Henry was doing his damnedest to get Virginia to stand behind Massachusetts. "Already we hear the clash of arms from the north.... " The North was Boston.
I've been rather embarrassed about Boston and Massachusetts as an American. Such sell-outs to the slimy socialist promises from people like the Kennedys and so on. A democrat machine that was surpassed only by the nasty and devious machinations of Chicago.
And Scott Brown won tonight in Masschusetts, against the machine candidate and someone who would have helped enslave us all under socialist medicine. And Brown won "the Kennedy seat."
I really do love America. And apparently so does a lot of other people.
Let's keep it going until we really and truly take this country back and stand it up on its true ideals.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)