Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Worth 1,000 Words
If you ever need the perfect visual representation of the idea that technology doesn't always equal human progress, look no further than the latest cover of the New Yorker.
Just a Thought
I find it amusing that many of the same people decrying the drone-like thinking of our elected officials are themselves guilty of a litmus test of sorts for candidates. I guess I'm with Newt on this. To say that the Republican Party is broken, and that independents and third-parties are the way to go... but then expect that independent candidates are going to toe the non-party line on everything from gay marriage to abortion to gun control to taxes strikes me as absurd.
The problem for Newt (and other non-populist conservatives) is that the GOP candidate in NY's 23rd district appears to be a horrible candidate, and not just because of her policies. Nobody in the establishment seems willing to make the case that Scozzafazza has turned out to be a flawed candidate because of her personality as opposed to policies, but in my opinion it's the best thing they could do. Otherwise, we might as well just admit that the conservative movement is dead (or at least moribund), and that populism has taken its place.
The problem for Newt (and other non-populist conservatives) is that the GOP candidate in NY's 23rd district appears to be a horrible candidate, and not just because of her policies. Nobody in the establishment seems willing to make the case that Scozzafazza has turned out to be a flawed candidate because of her personality as opposed to policies, but in my opinion it's the best thing they could do. Otherwise, we might as well just admit that the conservative movement is dead (or at least moribund), and that populism has taken its place.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Oh Those Glorious Days of Yesterday
In my inbox today, I received an email from a fan of my day job (even Z-level celebrities have their followers). In it, he said:
I've been seeing more and more statements like this, and while they're certainly well-intentioned and passionately believed, I'm not sure they reflect any real historical reality.
Pornography is certainly more popular today than ever before, but it's not like it was unknown in the day of our "Patriot Ancestors". Drug addiction? Back in the day of our "Patriot Ancestors", beer was more common (and safer) than water in many cities. Child abuse? Yes, we have child abuse today, but we also have laws against it. Back in the day of our "Patriot Ancestors", children were put to work, accidents were common, and beatings were sanctioned under the law.
More importantly, while there are things that our Founders considered sinful that we now allow as legal, there were also things that our Founders accepted that we would now consider sinful behavior. It's a two way street. Yes, abortion was illegal in the days of our "Patriot Ancestors". Women also couldn't vote or hold public office. Yes, pornography is rampant in our society. In pre-Revolutionary Boston, prostitution was rampant. Government corruption? It's always been with us, because governments are made up of men, and men are imperfect vessels.
There is a lot to admire and a great deal to learn from our ancestors, but that doesn't mean that they lived in a utopian age of patriotic freedom. When we approach the past from that perspective, we miss the lessons we can learn from their reality.
Maybe the American People are no longer worthy of the Liberty which God bestowed upon our Patriot Ancestors over 230 years ago. Given the current popularity of pornography, drug addiction, child abuse, prenatal infanticide ("abortion") sodomy, government corruption and other behaviors which back in our Founder's time were known as "Sin", an excellent case could be made for that theory.
I've been seeing more and more statements like this, and while they're certainly well-intentioned and passionately believed, I'm not sure they reflect any real historical reality.
Pornography is certainly more popular today than ever before, but it's not like it was unknown in the day of our "Patriot Ancestors". Drug addiction? Back in the day of our "Patriot Ancestors", beer was more common (and safer) than water in many cities. Child abuse? Yes, we have child abuse today, but we also have laws against it. Back in the day of our "Patriot Ancestors", children were put to work, accidents were common, and beatings were sanctioned under the law.
More importantly, while there are things that our Founders considered sinful that we now allow as legal, there were also things that our Founders accepted that we would now consider sinful behavior. It's a two way street. Yes, abortion was illegal in the days of our "Patriot Ancestors". Women also couldn't vote or hold public office. Yes, pornography is rampant in our society. In pre-Revolutionary Boston, prostitution was rampant. Government corruption? It's always been with us, because governments are made up of men, and men are imperfect vessels.
There is a lot to admire and a great deal to learn from our ancestors, but that doesn't mean that they lived in a utopian age of patriotic freedom. When we approach the past from that perspective, we miss the lessons we can learn from their reality.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Don't Tread on Fox
I've been thinking about the Obama administration going after Fox News. When David Axelrod took to the airwaves this weekend and said, "A lot of their news programming, it's really not news. It's pushing a point of view," why didn't George Stephanopolous ask Axelrod about Ed Schultz getting a front row seat to an Obama prime time press conference? Cleary the White House doesn't mind people who push a point of view, so why hasn't Sean Hannity been invited to a press conference? Why hasn't Bill O'Reilly? Or Glenn Beck?
And when Rahm Emanuel said, ""It's not a news organization so much as it has a perspective," then why didn't John King ask about Obama's appearance on "The Daily Show" or Michelle Obama's appearance on "The Colbert Report"? Certainly hosts like David Letterman and Jay Leno have their own unique perspective. That's one of the reasons we watch them, and Obama's made multiple appearances on both programs.
The White House is now declaring that America's most watched news network isn't news at all. Administrations dating back to Adams have declared certain members of the press to be enemies, but you may have to go back to the second presidency to find a case of an administration declaring war on (arguably) the most popular press. John Adams wasn't sold on the idea of the Alien and Sedition Acts, but he still signed them, and it very well may have cost him re-election. Declaring war on a portion of the press is a statement that you no longer want to hear from them or the people they represent. People don't like their government telling them that they're not worth listening to, and that's exactly what's happening these days. Representatives don't want to meet with constituents because they don't like what they're going to hear. A presidential administration says Fox News is faux news, and asks the other networks to light their torches and storm the castle. Those aren't the moves we expect our elected officials to make. We expect them to listen to us, and we are not being heard. Now the administration wants shut out what is arguably our loudest voice.
I have a feeling by the time this all plays out, the Obama administration will have created a million more fans of the network, and Obama will have lost further standing among the American people, at a time when he needs public support more than ever. Obama's personal approval ratings have been relatively stable, and much higher than the ratings on his handlings of issues. Now he's getting personal against the popular press, and I suspect that his popularity will take a hit as a result. Is there no one in the White House pragmatic enough to tell the president: Don't Tread on Fox?
And when Rahm Emanuel said, ""It's not a news organization so much as it has a perspective," then why didn't John King ask about Obama's appearance on "The Daily Show" or Michelle Obama's appearance on "The Colbert Report"? Certainly hosts like David Letterman and Jay Leno have their own unique perspective. That's one of the reasons we watch them, and Obama's made multiple appearances on both programs.
The White House is now declaring that America's most watched news network isn't news at all. Administrations dating back to Adams have declared certain members of the press to be enemies, but you may have to go back to the second presidency to find a case of an administration declaring war on (arguably) the most popular press. John Adams wasn't sold on the idea of the Alien and Sedition Acts, but he still signed them, and it very well may have cost him re-election. Declaring war on a portion of the press is a statement that you no longer want to hear from them or the people they represent. People don't like their government telling them that they're not worth listening to, and that's exactly what's happening these days. Representatives don't want to meet with constituents because they don't like what they're going to hear. A presidential administration says Fox News is faux news, and asks the other networks to light their torches and storm the castle. Those aren't the moves we expect our elected officials to make. We expect them to listen to us, and we are not being heard. Now the administration wants shut out what is arguably our loudest voice.
I have a feeling by the time this all plays out, the Obama administration will have created a million more fans of the network, and Obama will have lost further standing among the American people, at a time when he needs public support more than ever. Obama's personal approval ratings have been relatively stable, and much higher than the ratings on his handlings of issues. Now he's getting personal against the popular press, and I suspect that his popularity will take a hit as a result. Is there no one in the White House pragmatic enough to tell the president: Don't Tread on Fox?
Friday, October 16, 2009
Is Conservative the Anti-Funny?
Maybe my sense of humor climbed into a helium balloon and is now floating over the D.C. skyline (or is hiding in an attic somewhere), but I'm failing to see the funny in Steven Crowder's new video.
I mean, I suppose it's no less funny than SNL's"Dick in a Box" "Jizz in My Pants" (I just can't keep my SNL skits straight anymore), or any of the other "white guy rapping" videos. I don't think it's racist... I just think it's lazy instead of funny.
Seriously, the President of the United States of America wins the Nobel Prize after nine months in office, and the best you can do is a rap about winning a prize for doing your laundry and brushing your dog?
Crowder's a funny guy, and I've liked his stuff in the past. I just hope he's not falling into the same trap that seems to befall so many comedians who come out as conservative: they become less funny. Anybody remember how funny Dennis Miller used to be?
I mean, I suppose it's no less funny than SNL's
Seriously, the President of the United States of America wins the Nobel Prize after nine months in office, and the best you can do is a rap about winning a prize for doing your laundry and brushing your dog?
Crowder's a funny guy, and I've liked his stuff in the past. I just hope he's not falling into the same trap that seems to befall so many comedians who come out as conservative: they become less funny. Anybody remember how funny Dennis Miller used to be?
Glenn Beck's Common Sense- A Post Script
I'm hoping to have my review of Glenn Beck's Arguing With Idiots up this weekend, but before I leave GBCS behind, I wanted to make one more point.
I've already pointed out some of the conservative problems with Thomas Paine (and the fact that Beck holds Paine in such high esteem while railing against Progressives still amuses me), but what if Beck had turned to another Englishman instead of Paine. What if Beck had been inspired by Churchill?
While I was reading GBCS, my mind kept turning to some of the speeches Churchill made in the mid and late 1930's. The other day I had the opportunity to peruse some of those speeches, and I found this quote that I think makes Beck's point far better than anything Paine ever wrote.
Unemployment near 10%. Acquiesence to foreign enemies. Progressive social programs that will bankrupt our future. A break with the old social contract between the dead, the living, and the yet unborn. But do not suppose that this is as bad as it gets. This is only the beginning of the reckoning. It is entirely possible that two decades from now we will look back on this time as the "good old days".
The message in Glenn Beck's Common Sense was ultimately one of optimism, a feeling I fear is misplaced. We may be entering a long winter of discontent, and we are certainly not guaranteed of victory, even if that supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigor takes place in the near future.
I've already pointed out some of the conservative problems with Thomas Paine (and the fact that Beck holds Paine in such high esteem while railing against Progressives still amuses me), but what if Beck had turned to another Englishman instead of Paine. What if Beck had been inspired by Churchill?
While I was reading GBCS, my mind kept turning to some of the speeches Churchill made in the mid and late 1930's. The other day I had the opportunity to peruse some of those speeches, and I found this quote that I think makes Beck's point far better than anything Paine ever wrote.
And do not suppose that this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning.This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.
Unemployment near 10%. Acquiesence to foreign enemies. Progressive social programs that will bankrupt our future. A break with the old social contract between the dead, the living, and the yet unborn. But do not suppose that this is as bad as it gets. This is only the beginning of the reckoning. It is entirely possible that two decades from now we will look back on this time as the "good old days".
The message in Glenn Beck's Common Sense was ultimately one of optimism, a feeling I fear is misplaced. We may be entering a long winter of discontent, and we are certainly not guaranteed of victory, even if that supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigor takes place in the near future.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
How Far We've Fallen: Gandhi Edition
Back in the 1940's Mohandas Gandhi practiced non-violence as a way to gain Indian independence. Now his grandson wants to use non-violence as a means of control.
We need to control people through love and respect. Could Nancy Pelosi have put it any better?
This view of a culture of violence is a central aspect to the philosophy that Dr Gandhi shared with the university: "In modern times, we have come to believe that peace can be achieved through the power of the gun and therefore the more weapons a nation has, the stronger a nation is, that they can attain peace through that.
"Now that may be peace of some sort, but that is peace that comes through fear, and that doesn't last very long. Controlling anybody through fear is a very negative thing.
"We need to control people through love and respect, and I believe that can be done between nations as well as between individuals."
We need to control people through love and respect. Could Nancy Pelosi have put it any better?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)