A rodeo clown wears some of the most garish outfits imaginable. But who would expect ordinary from someone who'll willingly tease a 2000-pound bull that's wearing a bucking strap around his groin? While unquestionably odd, the rodeo clown's wardrobe is functional, which is more than can be said of Rep. Frederica Wilson's (D-FL) attire. One glimpse of her costume will send a bull scrambling for his sunglasses.
Western wear isn't unacceptable congressional dress, nor should it be. The cowboy look is an integral part of Americana. But the Technicolor edition of a dude ranch reject is a step too far. Even if Rep. Wilson offered substantive solutions to the obstacles facing this country, in particularly the black community, it would be difficult to take her serious when she looks like a Dodge City pimp. Not to worry, Wilson offers nothing in terms of discourse.
Rep. Wilson blames racism for high unemployment among blacks, especially young males. The least she could do is spout rhetoric as flashy as her wardrobe. Instead she plays the race-card, excuses irresponsible behavior, and promotes big government solutions to undesirable circumstances. In fact, big government is a chief contributor to the condition she laments.
Government decided it was a good idea to establish a minimum wage without regard to market realities. However, employers can't retain employees who produce less benefit than the cost of their employment. Therefore businesses are forced to dismiss underproductive employees, who are typically young and inexperienced. This reality is especially evident among young black men. Cost verse benefit is a simple economic concept, yet it's lost on Rep. Wilson.
Governments at all levels have complicated the business climate, making entry difficult. For instance, operating a taxi cab in an urban area is a viable service young black men could offer. Yet cab license fees can reach six digits. How many young men, of any race, can afford such an initial outlay? Similar obstacles face other young, black entrepreneurs. It's not racism that erects these obstacles, it's big government.
Rep. Wilson ignores other factors limiting black economic success as well. No one forced young black men to adopt a rap culture that degrades women, devalues academic success, mocks the rule of law, and dismisses family responsibilities. Racism isn't the source of a 70-percent illegitimacy rate among Black Americans. It was big government that replaced the black father, leaving young black men rudderless. Liberal policy has released generations of black men from their parental duties.
Finding common sense in modern government is yeoman's work. Representatives like Frederica Wilson only complicate the task. There's no reason to take someone serious when they make less sense than a pantomime presentation and dress like the Phantom of the Grand Ole Opry.
South Florida voters sent in this clown. Here's hoping they'll send her out again.
Showing posts with label Leftists. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Leftists. Show all posts
Sunday, August 28, 2011
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Manufactured racism is the greater evil
Racism has evolved. Historically a social barrier, it has become a contemporary political tool. That’s not to say racism is nonexistent. Racism exists aplenty, in and toward all races. Our world is filled with people who harbor illogical hatred based solely on race or ethnicity. Race relations would take a giant step forward if only we would acknowledge this basic fact. But as long as demagogues can parlay even the most innocuous example of “racism” into political points, race relations will suffer.
Such demagoguery was recently displayed in Wildwood, New Jersey, sparked by a “Whites Only” sign in a hotel parking lot. The sign was immediately declared a racist act, perhaps even a hate crime. No other explanation would suffice. But common sense and economic reality suggest that public racism played little to no roll in posting the sign.
What business owner would risk a policy of public segregation, even if it reflected their private views? The economic consequences are too great. As it happens, the offending sign wasn’t erected with the hotel’s cooperation or knowledge. It was apparently a tasteless prank, perpetrated with gutless anonymity. Sans demagoguery, the sign would’ve been a non-story. But a demagogue surfaced in the form of Wildwood mayor Ernie Troiano, who seized the opportunity to prove his racial tolerance.
Mayor Troiano apologized on behalf of Wildwood, calling the sign “the worst thing anybody can do to anybody.” Troiano added, “For someone to do that, that’s a sick person.”
The Mayor’s contentions are demonstrably absurd. There are innumerable acts one person can commit against another that trump an anonymously posted “Whites Only” sign in an obscure hotel parking lot. In fact, screaming racial epithets at the top of one’s lungs pales compared to mankind’s capacity for genuine inhumanity.
It’s far worse for a man to rape three women in front of a five-year-old girl while the child begs the assailant not to hurt her mother and sister. Caging and starving someone until they begin to eat their own skin is an affront far greater than racism. So is beating an old man to death with his own cane, or drugging a man, tying him to a bed and severing his penis. For an 11-year-old girl to be kidnapped and subjected to 18 years as the “wife” of a maniacal degenerate also exceeds racism in terms of incivility.
A “Whites Only” sign in a hotel parking lot is a minor inconvenience compared to the horrific torture humans can inflict on each other. I’d rather be called a cracker any day than to endure the previously described abuses. And when it comes to a “sick person,” whoever posted the “Whites Only” sign pales in comparison to the Ted Bundys, Jeffrey Dahmers, and Charles Mansons of this world.
Only a fool would declare racism extinct. Every race and ethnicity under the sun practices racism to some degree. But modern racism is less about promoting petty bigotries than about gaining political advantage. Without racism, liberals can’t depend on 90-percent of the black vote in any given election. Without racism, politicians and bureaucrats would be forced to seek genuine solutions to problems they now tackle with insipid phrases like social justice, equal educational opportunity, and undocumented immigrant. Without racism, hustlers like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would have nothing to hustle.
Society cringes at the mere mention of racism. Our culture has been conditioned to avoid challenging even the most banal racial allegations. Small wonder we fail to recognize how thoroughly racism has been politicized. Authentic bigotry is an undeniable character flaw. But manipulating racism for political advantage is a far greater character flaw than racism itself.
As long as people like Ernie Troiano are ready to apologize on behalf of an entire city for the action of an anonymous idiot, there will be racial division. As long as politicians and social activists gain advantage from manufactured bigotry, there will be racial strife. Racial manipulation is a grave evil and a greater danger to American culture than authentic discrimination.
A society’s greatest weapon for countering the race hustler is to confront their agitation outright. Shouting discrimination should never serve as conclusive evidence that racism has occurred. Making this approach a reality won’t be easy; it will demand courage and discipline. Anyone who follows this path can expect to take some arrows. But it’s the only path that can possibly lead to racial harmony. Continuing to treat every racial allegation like a Klan lynching will only produce further racial division.
Such demagoguery was recently displayed in Wildwood, New Jersey, sparked by a “Whites Only” sign in a hotel parking lot. The sign was immediately declared a racist act, perhaps even a hate crime. No other explanation would suffice. But common sense and economic reality suggest that public racism played little to no roll in posting the sign.
What business owner would risk a policy of public segregation, even if it reflected their private views? The economic consequences are too great. As it happens, the offending sign wasn’t erected with the hotel’s cooperation or knowledge. It was apparently a tasteless prank, perpetrated with gutless anonymity. Sans demagoguery, the sign would’ve been a non-story. But a demagogue surfaced in the form of Wildwood mayor Ernie Troiano, who seized the opportunity to prove his racial tolerance.
Mayor Troiano apologized on behalf of Wildwood, calling the sign “the worst thing anybody can do to anybody.” Troiano added, “For someone to do that, that’s a sick person.”
The Mayor’s contentions are demonstrably absurd. There are innumerable acts one person can commit against another that trump an anonymously posted “Whites Only” sign in an obscure hotel parking lot. In fact, screaming racial epithets at the top of one’s lungs pales compared to mankind’s capacity for genuine inhumanity.
It’s far worse for a man to rape three women in front of a five-year-old girl while the child begs the assailant not to hurt her mother and sister. Caging and starving someone until they begin to eat their own skin is an affront far greater than racism. So is beating an old man to death with his own cane, or drugging a man, tying him to a bed and severing his penis. For an 11-year-old girl to be kidnapped and subjected to 18 years as the “wife” of a maniacal degenerate also exceeds racism in terms of incivility.
A “Whites Only” sign in a hotel parking lot is a minor inconvenience compared to the horrific torture humans can inflict on each other. I’d rather be called a cracker any day than to endure the previously described abuses. And when it comes to a “sick person,” whoever posted the “Whites Only” sign pales in comparison to the Ted Bundys, Jeffrey Dahmers, and Charles Mansons of this world.
Only a fool would declare racism extinct. Every race and ethnicity under the sun practices racism to some degree. But modern racism is less about promoting petty bigotries than about gaining political advantage. Without racism, liberals can’t depend on 90-percent of the black vote in any given election. Without racism, politicians and bureaucrats would be forced to seek genuine solutions to problems they now tackle with insipid phrases like social justice, equal educational opportunity, and undocumented immigrant. Without racism, hustlers like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would have nothing to hustle.
Society cringes at the mere mention of racism. Our culture has been conditioned to avoid challenging even the most banal racial allegations. Small wonder we fail to recognize how thoroughly racism has been politicized. Authentic bigotry is an undeniable character flaw. But manipulating racism for political advantage is a far greater character flaw than racism itself.
As long as people like Ernie Troiano are ready to apologize on behalf of an entire city for the action of an anonymous idiot, there will be racial division. As long as politicians and social activists gain advantage from manufactured bigotry, there will be racial strife. Racial manipulation is a grave evil and a greater danger to American culture than authentic discrimination.
A society’s greatest weapon for countering the race hustler is to confront their agitation outright. Shouting discrimination should never serve as conclusive evidence that racism has occurred. Making this approach a reality won’t be easy; it will demand courage and discipline. Anyone who follows this path can expect to take some arrows. But it’s the only path that can possibly lead to racial harmony. Continuing to treat every racial allegation like a Klan lynching will only produce further racial division.
Sunday, July 3, 2011
The Poser-in-Chief visits Iowa
Less than 18 months before a general election a sitting president arrives in Iowa and we’re supposed to believe he’s on an economic mission? Pardon me, but I’ve seen more believable posturing. President Obama’s trip to the Hawkeye State had nothing do with economics and everything to do with receiving mail at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue until January 2017. However, Obama’s Iowa appearance should have an opposite effect. He provided America several reasons to grant him a change of address.
Obama chided Washington for its partisanship, calling on Congress to seek common solutions. But was he sincere? Only the most naïve would accept Obama’s olive branch without first considering his motive. There’s no genuine compromise in a liberal’s conciliatory tone. By Obama’s definition, bipartisan cooperation occurs when conservatives concede their positions, abandon their ideals, and relent to his agenda. Any hint of liberal compromise is a ruse, a means toward an end.
Obama was quick to rub Republican noses in his 2008 victory. Why should conservatives, who won in 2010, compromise with a president who exemplifies hostility toward their basic beliefs? Obama’s idea of stimulating the economy is to enlarge the federal government, a concept Republicans claim to oppose. Conservative Republicans, especially, have no reason to cooperate with his administration.
Obama waxed eloquent on the “Made in America” theme during his speech at an Iowa manufacturing facility. “I want the cars and planes and wind turbines of the future to bear the proud stamp that says ‘Made in America,’” the President chirped. But Obama’s actions betray his rhetoric.
Obama may want industry to thrive in supportive, organized labor states like Washington. But in conservative, right-to-work states like South Carolina, not so much. Obama’s National Labor Relations Board is suing Boeing for building a new aircraft manufacturing plant in Charleston, SC. The President can utter grandiose words about protecting American jobs until the cows come home. But as long as the NLRB suit against Boeing proceeds, Obama’s words are cheap.
The President appeared to recognize the components of economic dynamism that exist in America: workers, companies, industries. But coming from Obama, the praise is banal, populist rhetoric. He finds no value in America’s producers unless their achievement results from government nurturing. Toward that goal Obama supports a half-billion dollar partnership between industry, academia and the federal government, allegedly to spur domestic manufacturing. But what opportunity exists for manufacturing to advance when allied with entities -- academia and government -- that hold free markets in utter contempt?
Obama’s motives are apparent. The President visited Iowa to counter a field of Republicans who seek his job. Obama presides over an administration that must rely on credit to conceal its profligate legacy. His hostility toward private enterprise is rivaled only by his cultivation of the public sector.
Maybe we can understand Obama’s posturing to some degree. Posing is a President’s only option when honesty means defeat.
Obama chided Washington for its partisanship, calling on Congress to seek common solutions. But was he sincere? Only the most naïve would accept Obama’s olive branch without first considering his motive. There’s no genuine compromise in a liberal’s conciliatory tone. By Obama’s definition, bipartisan cooperation occurs when conservatives concede their positions, abandon their ideals, and relent to his agenda. Any hint of liberal compromise is a ruse, a means toward an end.
Obama was quick to rub Republican noses in his 2008 victory. Why should conservatives, who won in 2010, compromise with a president who exemplifies hostility toward their basic beliefs? Obama’s idea of stimulating the economy is to enlarge the federal government, a concept Republicans claim to oppose. Conservative Republicans, especially, have no reason to cooperate with his administration.
Obama waxed eloquent on the “Made in America” theme during his speech at an Iowa manufacturing facility. “I want the cars and planes and wind turbines of the future to bear the proud stamp that says ‘Made in America,’” the President chirped. But Obama’s actions betray his rhetoric.
Obama may want industry to thrive in supportive, organized labor states like Washington. But in conservative, right-to-work states like South Carolina, not so much. Obama’s National Labor Relations Board is suing Boeing for building a new aircraft manufacturing plant in Charleston, SC. The President can utter grandiose words about protecting American jobs until the cows come home. But as long as the NLRB suit against Boeing proceeds, Obama’s words are cheap.
The President appeared to recognize the components of economic dynamism that exist in America: workers, companies, industries. But coming from Obama, the praise is banal, populist rhetoric. He finds no value in America’s producers unless their achievement results from government nurturing. Toward that goal Obama supports a half-billion dollar partnership between industry, academia and the federal government, allegedly to spur domestic manufacturing. But what opportunity exists for manufacturing to advance when allied with entities -- academia and government -- that hold free markets in utter contempt?
Obama’s motives are apparent. The President visited Iowa to counter a field of Republicans who seek his job. Obama presides over an administration that must rely on credit to conceal its profligate legacy. His hostility toward private enterprise is rivaled only by his cultivation of the public sector.
Maybe we can understand Obama’s posturing to some degree. Posing is a President’s only option when honesty means defeat.
Monday, May 23, 2011
The Left wages war on the poor
Professor Walter E. Williams’ writings are required reading for anyone interested in preserving individual liberty and a free economy. Prof. Williams has long promoted both doctrines with a no-holds-barred approach, rendering big government proponents defenseless. In his pursuit, he recently targeted the nefariousness of the minimum wage.
Williams derides the minimum wage for its inherent discrimination. Minimum wage laws establish pay scales above the productivity levels of youthful and inexperienced workers. Therefore unskilled workers are denied the experiences necessary to climb the employment ladder. Williams believes a minimum wage discriminates against the poor, especially young black men.
Prof. Williams summarized his position thusly:
The best way to sabotage chances for upward mobility of a youngster from a single-parent household, who resides in a violent slum and has attended poor-quality schools, is to make it unprofitable for any employer to hire him. The way to accomplish that is to mandate an employer to pay such a person a wage that exceeds his skill level.
Minimum wage laws have massive political support, including that of black politicians. That means that many young black males will remain a part of America's permanent underclass with crime, drugs and prison as their future.
The minimum wage’s deleterious consequences for those it purportedly serves are disastrous even if unintentional. If purposeful, wage manipulation is downright sinister. And the results are intentional, for the minimum wage isn’t the only area in which progressive policies have suppressed the poor.
Who stands to profit when the poor -- whom the Left constantly references but never bothers to define -- are priced out of the labor market? If you answered, "Politicians, big government activists, and social engineers," take a gold star. Advocates for an expansive welfare state find their perfect pawn in the poor. The perpetually impoverished have an equally perpetual need to blame someone for their status. Leftist leaders manipulate the needy to enhance their own political and social positions.
The Left utilizes poverty and leverages "the deserving poor" against "the greedy rich" to create an electoral advantage. Leftist politicians preach grand solutions to the impoverished voter. Such voters can attain quality schools, crime-free neighborhoods, affordable and adequate housing, and an equal piece of the wealth. All the poor need do is elect Leftist politicians and each desirable outcome is theirs for the taking. But where are the results?
Once the votes are tabulated and the poverty-fighting politicians take office the poor are no better off than they were beforehand. Programs will be initiated and money will be spent. Yet, the poor will realize no distinguishable improvement in their condition. Scholastic achievement doesn’t increase, housing remains substandard, the destitute often resort to crime, and wealth continues to flow to more productive individuals.
Left-wing policies, sold under the misnomer of compassion, have created a disastrous scenario and declared a de facto war on the poor. Conservatism, free markets, and right-wing ideologues, aren't responsible, despite the Left’s demagoguery. The poor suffer as a direct result of Leftist populism, which brings destruction on the very people wealth redistribution policies pretend to benefit. The poor receive nothing in terms of upward mobility. Instead, indigence warrants only enough benefit to ensure continued dependence on government.
The impoverished aren’t merely victims of inadequate central planning; they are prisoners of war. The Left has convinced the poor that government programs and policies are the antidote to poverty. In reality the opposite is true and the poor are relieved of nothing but their liberty and self-esteem.
If the intent behind government anti-poverty initiatives is to alleviate poverty the programs are miserable failures. However, entitlements are an unrivaled success in weakening the individual and empowering the Left. Leftists have generated a growing and perpetual voting bloc inextricably bound to big government. To genuinely solve the poverty issues on which progressives campaign would equal political suicide.
While robbing a population of their initiative, confidence, and motivation is a cowardly and dastardly strategy, the effectiveness is inarguable. For instance, the poverty rate declined steadily following World War II until Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society declared war on the poor. Poverty’s decline came to an abrupt halt and the rate has since remained constant, as has the impoverished voter’s allegiance to the Democrat Party.
No matter the topic -- education, housing, healthcare, or wages -- you can bank on government’s lofty assurances never producing the promised results. Anti-poverty programs are designed to malfunction. Accepting the Left’s anti-poverty rhetoric is as sensible as accepting a train ticket from Heinrich Himmler. In supporting the Left's initiatives, the impoverished are purchasing the shackles for their own restraint.
Williams derides the minimum wage for its inherent discrimination. Minimum wage laws establish pay scales above the productivity levels of youthful and inexperienced workers. Therefore unskilled workers are denied the experiences necessary to climb the employment ladder. Williams believes a minimum wage discriminates against the poor, especially young black men.
Prof. Williams summarized his position thusly:
The best way to sabotage chances for upward mobility of a youngster from a single-parent household, who resides in a violent slum and has attended poor-quality schools, is to make it unprofitable for any employer to hire him. The way to accomplish that is to mandate an employer to pay such a person a wage that exceeds his skill level.
Minimum wage laws have massive political support, including that of black politicians. That means that many young black males will remain a part of America's permanent underclass with crime, drugs and prison as their future.
The minimum wage’s deleterious consequences for those it purportedly serves are disastrous even if unintentional. If purposeful, wage manipulation is downright sinister. And the results are intentional, for the minimum wage isn’t the only area in which progressive policies have suppressed the poor.
Who stands to profit when the poor -- whom the Left constantly references but never bothers to define -- are priced out of the labor market? If you answered, "Politicians, big government activists, and social engineers," take a gold star. Advocates for an expansive welfare state find their perfect pawn in the poor. The perpetually impoverished have an equally perpetual need to blame someone for their status. Leftist leaders manipulate the needy to enhance their own political and social positions.
The Left utilizes poverty and leverages "the deserving poor" against "the greedy rich" to create an electoral advantage. Leftist politicians preach grand solutions to the impoverished voter. Such voters can attain quality schools, crime-free neighborhoods, affordable and adequate housing, and an equal piece of the wealth. All the poor need do is elect Leftist politicians and each desirable outcome is theirs for the taking. But where are the results?
Once the votes are tabulated and the poverty-fighting politicians take office the poor are no better off than they were beforehand. Programs will be initiated and money will be spent. Yet, the poor will realize no distinguishable improvement in their condition. Scholastic achievement doesn’t increase, housing remains substandard, the destitute often resort to crime, and wealth continues to flow to more productive individuals.
Left-wing policies, sold under the misnomer of compassion, have created a disastrous scenario and declared a de facto war on the poor. Conservatism, free markets, and right-wing ideologues, aren't responsible, despite the Left’s demagoguery. The poor suffer as a direct result of Leftist populism, which brings destruction on the very people wealth redistribution policies pretend to benefit. The poor receive nothing in terms of upward mobility. Instead, indigence warrants only enough benefit to ensure continued dependence on government.
The impoverished aren’t merely victims of inadequate central planning; they are prisoners of war. The Left has convinced the poor that government programs and policies are the antidote to poverty. In reality the opposite is true and the poor are relieved of nothing but their liberty and self-esteem.
If the intent behind government anti-poverty initiatives is to alleviate poverty the programs are miserable failures. However, entitlements are an unrivaled success in weakening the individual and empowering the Left. Leftists have generated a growing and perpetual voting bloc inextricably bound to big government. To genuinely solve the poverty issues on which progressives campaign would equal political suicide.
While robbing a population of their initiative, confidence, and motivation is a cowardly and dastardly strategy, the effectiveness is inarguable. For instance, the poverty rate declined steadily following World War II until Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society declared war on the poor. Poverty’s decline came to an abrupt halt and the rate has since remained constant, as has the impoverished voter’s allegiance to the Democrat Party.
No matter the topic -- education, housing, healthcare, or wages -- you can bank on government’s lofty assurances never producing the promised results. Anti-poverty programs are designed to malfunction. Accepting the Left’s anti-poverty rhetoric is as sensible as accepting a train ticket from Heinrich Himmler. In supporting the Left's initiatives, the impoverished are purchasing the shackles for their own restraint.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Truth is the first casualty in Steve Israel’s politics
An old proverb regards truth as the first casualty of war. Logically, for truth to become war’s casualty it must be present to begin with. War is then a level above politics, at least in the way Rep. Steve Israel (D-NY) practices the craft.
It’s no surprise to find Democrats spinning the standoff between Wisconsin’s Senate Republicans and public employee unionists. But Rep. Israel’s spin is so unbelievable that he has abused even the politician’s privilege of dancing around the truth. He sounds like a cheating child who’s tossing a tantrum because his playmates won’t play fair.
Rep. Israel’s rearrangement of reality was unveiled in a fundraising email from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Israel blasted Wisconsin Republicans’ “blatant assault on worker’s rights,” especially since the reorganization of public employee collective bargaining rules passed without Democrat participation. He called the GOP’s tactics “outrageous” and “unconscionable.”
But what right have employees lost, save the “right” to pay tribute to labor unions in order to earn a living? As for the Democrats’ absence, no one overthrew their caucus and exiled them to Illinois. Democrats ran for the tall grass of their own accord. Oh, and while we’re on the subject of unconscionable, it was Rep. Israel’s congressional colleagues who employed bribery, clandestine Christmas Eve votes, and threats to bypass the voting process altogether in order to enact ObamaCare.
Outrageous and unconscionable? Look in the mirror Steve.
Was anyone inspired at the site of marching Wisconsin teachers? Steve Israel was and thinks you should’ve been, too. But why? These teachers walked out on their pupils, proving their allegiance to unions exceeded their concern for students. These teachers called in sick when they were perfectly fit and trashed the capitol grounds in Madison. Inspirational? Please!
Rep. Israel hailed the “Wisconsin 14” as a reminder to everyone of what it means to be a Democrat. Democrats abdicated their duty to Wisconsin’s taxpayers when they went into hiding. They ran away rather than deal with the consequences of their lost majority. This is what it means to be a Democrat. And Israel calls the “Fleeing 14” heroes? Cowards I say, the whole lot of them. And remember, it was one of their own, Steve Israel, who said Wisconsin Democrats exemplified the party’s highest standards.
The “Fleeing 14” weren’t concerned with public employees. They were concerned with securing continued support from unions in the form of campaign donations. The real issue in Wisconsin wasn’t “worker’s rights.” It was union monopolies. Wisconsin can now become a right to work state where employees can’t be forced to pay tribute to labor unions in order to attain jobs.
In short, Wisconsinites may soon be liberated, free to make their own decisions regarding employment and unionization. Wisconsin’s Republicans upheld the concept of individual liberty and free association, which Democrats routinely oppose. And Steve Israel proved that truth was never part of the Democrat's rhetorical war.
It’s no surprise to find Democrats spinning the standoff between Wisconsin’s Senate Republicans and public employee unionists. But Rep. Israel’s spin is so unbelievable that he has abused even the politician’s privilege of dancing around the truth. He sounds like a cheating child who’s tossing a tantrum because his playmates won’t play fair.
Rep. Israel’s rearrangement of reality was unveiled in a fundraising email from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Israel blasted Wisconsin Republicans’ “blatant assault on worker’s rights,” especially since the reorganization of public employee collective bargaining rules passed without Democrat participation. He called the GOP’s tactics “outrageous” and “unconscionable.”
But what right have employees lost, save the “right” to pay tribute to labor unions in order to earn a living? As for the Democrats’ absence, no one overthrew their caucus and exiled them to Illinois. Democrats ran for the tall grass of their own accord. Oh, and while we’re on the subject of unconscionable, it was Rep. Israel’s congressional colleagues who employed bribery, clandestine Christmas Eve votes, and threats to bypass the voting process altogether in order to enact ObamaCare.
Outrageous and unconscionable? Look in the mirror Steve.
Was anyone inspired at the site of marching Wisconsin teachers? Steve Israel was and thinks you should’ve been, too. But why? These teachers walked out on their pupils, proving their allegiance to unions exceeded their concern for students. These teachers called in sick when they were perfectly fit and trashed the capitol grounds in Madison. Inspirational? Please!
Rep. Israel hailed the “Wisconsin 14” as a reminder to everyone of what it means to be a Democrat. Democrats abdicated their duty to Wisconsin’s taxpayers when they went into hiding. They ran away rather than deal with the consequences of their lost majority. This is what it means to be a Democrat. And Israel calls the “Fleeing 14” heroes? Cowards I say, the whole lot of them. And remember, it was one of their own, Steve Israel, who said Wisconsin Democrats exemplified the party’s highest standards.
The “Fleeing 14” weren’t concerned with public employees. They were concerned with securing continued support from unions in the form of campaign donations. The real issue in Wisconsin wasn’t “worker’s rights.” It was union monopolies. Wisconsin can now become a right to work state where employees can’t be forced to pay tribute to labor unions in order to attain jobs.
In short, Wisconsinites may soon be liberated, free to make their own decisions regarding employment and unionization. Wisconsin’s Republicans upheld the concept of individual liberty and free association, which Democrats routinely oppose. And Steve Israel proved that truth was never part of the Democrat's rhetorical war.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
The five myths of Regressive politics #2: Conservatives benefit from poverty.
Sometimes you have to hand it to your enemies. Regressives are masterful at portraying themselves as the administrators of “economic fairness.” No Regressive oration would be complete without a splash of class envy. Be it “tax cuts for the greedy rich” or “the rich getting wealthy on the backs of the poor,” the message is the same. Conservatives benefit from keeping poor Americans impoverished. But the Left’s advantage is nullified when conservatives meet their charge head-on.
Conservatism finds no joy in anyone’s economic suffering. Rather, conservatism promotes attitudes that loose people from poverty’s chain. Optimism, resilience, self-reliance and ethics are the qualities that build successful and enduring futures. While setbacks are common they aren’t cause for surrender. The individual remains superior to politicians, bureaucrats and busybody activists who display their so-called generosity in the redistribution of their neighbor’s earnings. These qualities are fundamental to conservative thought.
The notion that honor resides in effort and ingenuity is neither foolish nor outdated. And poverty isn’t a cause for shame but for resolve. Conservatives embrace this concept because the benefits are demonstrable, having lifted some of America’s highest achievers to unimagined accomplishments. That’s why conservatives resist expanding the so-called social safety net. There’s no enmity toward the poor, just toward the entitlements that encourage their economic stagnation.
The old fishing adage fit’s the conservative outlook perfectly. Give a man a fish and you’ve fed him for a day. Teach him to fish and you’ve fed him for a lifetime. Conservatives enjoy teaching people to fish.
Regressive policies ensure that the poor remain poor. According to the Cato Institute, 32-percent of America’s population was impoverished in 1947. The poverty level fell to 13.9-percent by 1965. That’s when Regressives launched Lyndon Johnson’s infamous War on Poverty. Since 1965 the poverty rate has remained relatively constant, hovering between 10 and 15-percent.
If discussing poverty with a few quick statistics sounds cold and impersonal, it shouldn’t. Each number represents millions of Americans whose faith has been diminished and whose futures have been damaged by Regressive policies.
The grandiose promises of the left’s anti-poverty crusade remain predictably unfulfilled, a vapid collection of shell games, pipe dreams and collectivist utopianism. Instead of eradicating poverty, as advertised, Regressives have stifled initiative, fostered dependency and encouraged stagnation. The role of father has been swallowed in statist bureaucracy, the family unit is fractured and inner cities--ostensibly the target of the War on Poverty--are economic disasters.
Regressives toss fish to the poor, much like a marine biologist feeds a seal, thereby ensuring that destitute people, like seals, look to Regressives each time they have a need. There’s nothing compassionate about it. In fact, it’s a heinous immorality.
Conservatism finds no joy in anyone’s economic suffering. Rather, conservatism promotes attitudes that loose people from poverty’s chain. Optimism, resilience, self-reliance and ethics are the qualities that build successful and enduring futures. While setbacks are common they aren’t cause for surrender. The individual remains superior to politicians, bureaucrats and busybody activists who display their so-called generosity in the redistribution of their neighbor’s earnings. These qualities are fundamental to conservative thought.
The notion that honor resides in effort and ingenuity is neither foolish nor outdated. And poverty isn’t a cause for shame but for resolve. Conservatives embrace this concept because the benefits are demonstrable, having lifted some of America’s highest achievers to unimagined accomplishments. That’s why conservatives resist expanding the so-called social safety net. There’s no enmity toward the poor, just toward the entitlements that encourage their economic stagnation.
The old fishing adage fit’s the conservative outlook perfectly. Give a man a fish and you’ve fed him for a day. Teach him to fish and you’ve fed him for a lifetime. Conservatives enjoy teaching people to fish.
Regressive policies ensure that the poor remain poor. According to the Cato Institute, 32-percent of America’s population was impoverished in 1947. The poverty level fell to 13.9-percent by 1965. That’s when Regressives launched Lyndon Johnson’s infamous War on Poverty. Since 1965 the poverty rate has remained relatively constant, hovering between 10 and 15-percent.
If discussing poverty with a few quick statistics sounds cold and impersonal, it shouldn’t. Each number represents millions of Americans whose faith has been diminished and whose futures have been damaged by Regressive policies.
The grandiose promises of the left’s anti-poverty crusade remain predictably unfulfilled, a vapid collection of shell games, pipe dreams and collectivist utopianism. Instead of eradicating poverty, as advertised, Regressives have stifled initiative, fostered dependency and encouraged stagnation. The role of father has been swallowed in statist bureaucracy, the family unit is fractured and inner cities--ostensibly the target of the War on Poverty--are economic disasters.
Regressives toss fish to the poor, much like a marine biologist feeds a seal, thereby ensuring that destitute people, like seals, look to Regressives each time they have a need. There’s nothing compassionate about it. In fact, it’s a heinous immorality.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Death to FOX News and the GOP
The headline reads like an al-Qaeda recruiting poster. You know, “Death to the infidels,” and all. But this headline wasn’t ripped from a suicide bomber’s blog. It’s simply another celebrity’s attempt to confirm that Hollywood’s orbit is somewhere beyond the arc of Pluto.
This time it’s John Cusack--hero of stage, screen and stupidity--proving that Tinsel Town’s brightest lights are the dimmest of bulbs. Using his Twitter account Cusack wrote, “I am for a satanic death cult center at FOX News HQ and outside the offices of Dick Armey and Newt Gingrich, and all the GOP welfare freaks.”
The easy reaction is to tell Cusack to button his lip. Yet the Constitution’s First Amendment protects his right to trumpet his witlessness. What’s more, the most effective method for proving someone a fool is to grant the fool a stage. Fools can no more resist the urge to display their lunacy than Barack Obama can pass a teleprompter without reading the words on the screen. So John, I’d like to encourage you to keep talking, by all means.
Hollywood tradition holds that image is everything. Well, Cusack’s vitriolic rhetoric is cultivating an image; make no mistake about that. But what kind of image? Cusack would do well to recall the damage that outlandish behavior has wreaked on his contemporaries in the entertainment field.
Does anyone pay attention to Susan Sarandon these days? Or to Tim Robbins? Or Sean Penn? The tone of their anti-war protests offended large numbers of their fans. The Dixie Chicks, once the hottest thing in Nashville, are less popular than the Confederate flag at Rev. Wright’s church picnic. And let’s not forget the outspoken but otherwise irrelevant Jane Fonda. Is she recognized for anything other than being Henry’s daughter, marrying Ted Turner and manning North Vietnamese artillery? John Cusack, you’ve made great strides toward joining them in the land of who-cares-about-you.
Cusack’s ranting “tweet” could be a gimmick designed to keep him in the public eye. But toward what end? Outrageousness has undoubtedly kept Lindsay Lohan, Paris Hilton and Brittney Spears visible beyond their significance. However, their greatest exposure is in supermarket tabloids and police line-ups.
So keep talking, John, or tweeting, or blogging, or Facebooking, or My Spacing; whatever you choose. You’re on the path toward the intellectual credibility of Hilton, Lohan and Spears, the irrelevancy of Sarandon, Robbins and Fonda and the insignificance of the Dixie Chicks. It’s your choice. Whatever course you take I remain confident that you’ll reveal the fool within.
This time it’s John Cusack--hero of stage, screen and stupidity--proving that Tinsel Town’s brightest lights are the dimmest of bulbs. Using his Twitter account Cusack wrote, “I am for a satanic death cult center at FOX News HQ and outside the offices of Dick Armey and Newt Gingrich, and all the GOP welfare freaks.”
The easy reaction is to tell Cusack to button his lip. Yet the Constitution’s First Amendment protects his right to trumpet his witlessness. What’s more, the most effective method for proving someone a fool is to grant the fool a stage. Fools can no more resist the urge to display their lunacy than Barack Obama can pass a teleprompter without reading the words on the screen. So John, I’d like to encourage you to keep talking, by all means.
Hollywood tradition holds that image is everything. Well, Cusack’s vitriolic rhetoric is cultivating an image; make no mistake about that. But what kind of image? Cusack would do well to recall the damage that outlandish behavior has wreaked on his contemporaries in the entertainment field.
Does anyone pay attention to Susan Sarandon these days? Or to Tim Robbins? Or Sean Penn? The tone of their anti-war protests offended large numbers of their fans. The Dixie Chicks, once the hottest thing in Nashville, are less popular than the Confederate flag at Rev. Wright’s church picnic. And let’s not forget the outspoken but otherwise irrelevant Jane Fonda. Is she recognized for anything other than being Henry’s daughter, marrying Ted Turner and manning North Vietnamese artillery? John Cusack, you’ve made great strides toward joining them in the land of who-cares-about-you.
Cusack’s ranting “tweet” could be a gimmick designed to keep him in the public eye. But toward what end? Outrageousness has undoubtedly kept Lindsay Lohan, Paris Hilton and Brittney Spears visible beyond their significance. However, their greatest exposure is in supermarket tabloids and police line-ups.
So keep talking, John, or tweeting, or blogging, or Facebooking, or My Spacing; whatever you choose. You’re on the path toward the intellectual credibility of Hilton, Lohan and Spears, the irrelevancy of Sarandon, Robbins and Fonda and the insignificance of the Dixie Chicks. It’s your choice. Whatever course you take I remain confident that you’ll reveal the fool within.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Leftists are neither progressive nor liberal
The left changes monikers whenever their chosen title becomes too easily identified with their collectivist political intentions. They seized the title “Progressives” in the early 20th Century and adopted “Liberal” when the progressive image became tarnished. Today, with liberalism inextricably linked to collectivism, the left has returned to the progressive label. But one problem remains. Words have meanings that defy distortion, and neither progressive nor liberal accurately reflects the left’s governing philosophy.
The case has been made, on the pages of American Thinker itself, that identifying the leftist as a Progressive or Liberal is erroneous. It has been stated that policies declared to be progressive or liberal are actually backward and authoritarian. Thus the leftist has been aptly identified, based on policy and result, as regressive.
To state the case further, not even the definition of “progressive” or “liberal” identifies with the leftist ideology. It’s just that the left has manipulated those words until the distortion has become accepted. It is a common practice, for they routinely ignore reality and wear their title du jour like camouflage.
Progressive is defined as advocating, attaining, or being characterized by improvement and forward thinking. It dates to the early 17th Century, becoming politicized in the late 1800s. The modern left isn’t progressive in the practical or classical sense of the word. In fact, much of what constituted progressivism during the early 20th Century is the antithesis of contemporary leftist beliefs.
Early Progressives certainly desired social change, but they regularly utilized private organizations--such as churches and charities--for effecting their transformations. Not even the Progressive Era’s trust-busting government regulators were kin to today’s leftists. Those reformers sought to protect the future of market competition from monopolistic mergers and thwart the fledgling communist movements. Creating a labyrinth of bureaucratic red tape wasn’t their primary objective.
Nothing in the word “progressive” and little in early progressivism describes today’s leftist. The left has no desire to defend capitalism, foster competition, or accomplish their vision of social justice via private channels. They have only an insatiable lust for control.
Leftists promote nothing new; their goals are those of an archaic doctrine. Forward thinking isn’t featured in their agenda, the purpose of which is to repackage policies that are proven failures. Bolshevik is more descriptive than progressive, for the left shares the Bolshevik’s socialistic dreams. They are mired in the past, rendering progressive an inappropriate description.
Socialist ideals quickly co-opted the early Progressive movement, giving the title a black eye. Leftists then adopted Liberal, a more inviting identifier but one that also defies their agenda.
Liberal spawns from the Latin “liberalis” and “liber” meaning noble, generous and free. A genuine liberal bristles at authoritarian attitudes and fulfills the nature of the word liberal. America’s leftists, conversely, are adamant in their support for a domineering central government and generous only when distributing their neighbor’s property.
Leftist liberalism defines not freedom but the welfare state. Their concept of liberalism frees one segment of society to live at another segment’s expense. Leftists then pat each other on the back for their thoughtfulness and generosity. It is indeed a warped vision.
Leftists have moved from Progressives to Liberals and back to Progressives, but in name only, never in definition. Their quasi-metamorphosis results from their ever-present collectivist mentality. Once the public realizes the agenda behind the name, the name is changed to obfuscate the agenda.
The left is an immutable lie; let’s call it that. Their social desires reflect a statism worthy of Marx, Lenin, or Mao. They’re trapped in the past, antiquated testaments to a flawed and failed philosophy where liberty is defined as the ability to avoid responsibility. Ignored is the unassailable truth that liberty without responsibility is nonexistent. Leftists demand allegiance to a backward dependency. To call them progressives or liberals is patently false.
The left cannot be allowed the privilege of defining their nature. Today’s “Progressive Liberal” desires to rob us of our autonomy and render us wards of a collectivist state. Their label should reflect their innate desire to move society backward. Leftists are regressive in every sense of the word. The Regressive label has been proposed for them before. Let it become their perpetual identifier.
This column first appeared on American Thinker.
The case has been made, on the pages of American Thinker itself, that identifying the leftist as a Progressive or Liberal is erroneous. It has been stated that policies declared to be progressive or liberal are actually backward and authoritarian. Thus the leftist has been aptly identified, based on policy and result, as regressive.
To state the case further, not even the definition of “progressive” or “liberal” identifies with the leftist ideology. It’s just that the left has manipulated those words until the distortion has become accepted. It is a common practice, for they routinely ignore reality and wear their title du jour like camouflage.
Progressive is defined as advocating, attaining, or being characterized by improvement and forward thinking. It dates to the early 17th Century, becoming politicized in the late 1800s. The modern left isn’t progressive in the practical or classical sense of the word. In fact, much of what constituted progressivism during the early 20th Century is the antithesis of contemporary leftist beliefs.
Early Progressives certainly desired social change, but they regularly utilized private organizations--such as churches and charities--for effecting their transformations. Not even the Progressive Era’s trust-busting government regulators were kin to today’s leftists. Those reformers sought to protect the future of market competition from monopolistic mergers and thwart the fledgling communist movements. Creating a labyrinth of bureaucratic red tape wasn’t their primary objective.
Nothing in the word “progressive” and little in early progressivism describes today’s leftist. The left has no desire to defend capitalism, foster competition, or accomplish their vision of social justice via private channels. They have only an insatiable lust for control.
Leftists promote nothing new; their goals are those of an archaic doctrine. Forward thinking isn’t featured in their agenda, the purpose of which is to repackage policies that are proven failures. Bolshevik is more descriptive than progressive, for the left shares the Bolshevik’s socialistic dreams. They are mired in the past, rendering progressive an inappropriate description.
Socialist ideals quickly co-opted the early Progressive movement, giving the title a black eye. Leftists then adopted Liberal, a more inviting identifier but one that also defies their agenda.
Liberal spawns from the Latin “liberalis” and “liber” meaning noble, generous and free. A genuine liberal bristles at authoritarian attitudes and fulfills the nature of the word liberal. America’s leftists, conversely, are adamant in their support for a domineering central government and generous only when distributing their neighbor’s property.
Leftist liberalism defines not freedom but the welfare state. Their concept of liberalism frees one segment of society to live at another segment’s expense. Leftists then pat each other on the back for their thoughtfulness and generosity. It is indeed a warped vision.
Leftists have moved from Progressives to Liberals and back to Progressives, but in name only, never in definition. Their quasi-metamorphosis results from their ever-present collectivist mentality. Once the public realizes the agenda behind the name, the name is changed to obfuscate the agenda.
The left is an immutable lie; let’s call it that. Their social desires reflect a statism worthy of Marx, Lenin, or Mao. They’re trapped in the past, antiquated testaments to a flawed and failed philosophy where liberty is defined as the ability to avoid responsibility. Ignored is the unassailable truth that liberty without responsibility is nonexistent. Leftists demand allegiance to a backward dependency. To call them progressives or liberals is patently false.
The left cannot be allowed the privilege of defining their nature. Today’s “Progressive Liberal” desires to rob us of our autonomy and render us wards of a collectivist state. Their label should reflect their innate desire to move society backward. Leftists are regressive in every sense of the word. The Regressive label has been proposed for them before. Let it become their perpetual identifier.
This column first appeared on American Thinker.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Taking the high road with Thomas Jefferson
Anyone who makes their opinions public, in print or online, can expect to receive periodic hate mail. That’s how the game is played. Just as the columnist attempts to provoke the reader, so does the hate mailer desire a reaction from the columnist. It’s tempting to oblige.
I received such an email recently. It was self-congratulatory and totally anonymous. I should’ve just let it ride, like I do the other occasional hate mails. But, for some inexplicable reason, I replied to the message. As stated, it’s difficult to remain silent when a reader invites abuse.
For example, this hate mailer informed me that my “southern bubba ass” will soon be a minority and my sole source of income will be cleaning toilets with my tongue. According to my new fan, such work would be perfect for an “inbred miscreant” like me.
I replied to the sender, which was taken as a sign that he had “gotten under my thin bubba skin.”
Witty, no?
It would’ve been easy to use this space to settle the score. I could’ve pointed out that it was he who initiated the contact. Had I not gotten under his thin skin I wouldn’t have heard from him to begin with. I could’ve pointed out that the use of “bubba” carries the same connotations when directed toward a white male as the word “nigger” has when used toward blacks.
Furthermore, I could easily prove that my mother isn’t a prostitute. I could point to the simplicity of a mind that considers it an intellectual insult to “dedicate a big, brown turd” to me. And I could close with the obvious conclusion that “identifying” oneself as a long-dead Civil War general (William T. Sherman) is the same as remaining anonymous.
But as I prepared to write the column I had a change of heart. In an instant I realized my folly. I had forgotten one of my favorite lessons from Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson once said that a wise man shouldn’t argue with a fool, a passing stranger might not know which one is which.
Remembering Jefferson’s sage advice was like a sign from God, and perhaps it was. The easy solution, the easy reaction, would be to attack my attacker. But what purpose would it serve, other than to provide momentary satisfaction?
“General Sherman” had already done more to make himself look foolish than I could do in ten thousand words. In fact, rather than anger, I felt sympathy for the general. What a small man.
His response was typically shallow. Such is the leftist way. They rely on no fact; they rely on no principle. Their main weapons are sophomoric invectives and petty jealousies. It’s sad, really. How can a meaningful debate occur when one side is armed with logic, reason and a rational outlook while the other resorts to talking points, sound bites and gutter insults?
There are two lessons to be learned from this episode. First, when confronted with ignorance the best recourse is remaining silent. Or, if silence is impossible, respond with sound arguments. It will surely confuse the hate mailer, likely sending him or her into a tail-chasing frenzy. Exchanging witticisms is futile. The hate mailer has no wit, no fact, no logic and little--if any--useful purpose.
Second, the left is actually quite pitiful. The rank and file leftist has drunk deeply from the kool-aid. They don’t think; they feel and react as indoctrinated. Collectivism is their religion, which they will defend beyond all rational thought. And just as sure as if Jim Jones himself were leading them, they will devise their own destruction. But perhaps the saddest part is that such a large number of our neighbors have abandoned their intellect for the pabulum common to the leftist ideology.
Mr. Jefferson was correct. Never argue with a fool.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
