Drudge Report currently has quotes from both Presidents Bush and Obama posted from March 19th 2003, and March 19th 2011. The two are almost identical.
Bush: "American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger..."
Obama: "Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world..."
There are too many things wrong with this whole picture. First of all, why are the liberals all of a sudden such warhawks? I always find it interesting when Presidents launch military action when they themselves are under fire. Remember when Slick Willy launched Operation Desert Fox the friday evening right before he got impeached? After a month of wishy-washy non-committal soundbites about Libya and before that Egypt, Obama decides to embark on half-hearted military action. Obama has already said that at no point will any infantry or land troops be deployed there. I am not arguing that they should, but how will opposing forces take us seriously if we already are setting limits on our actions?
Another thing wrong with this whole ordeal is our role in general. Why are we letting the UK and France lead the way? Senator Lindsey Graham, a general softball player usually, just pointed out on Fox News: Sunday, that America has always enjoyed being the leader of the free world and should continue enjoying that role. The RINO is right.
But at the end of the day, we simply shouldn't be doing anything about this. As striking as the similarity of quotes from the Presidents is, one can't compare different situations across the board. Iraq was a threat to The United States. Libya is not. When Iraq kicked off we had a president committed to victory. Now we do not. When Iraq kicked off we were involved in only one other war in the middle-east. Now we are already involved in two.
It looks as if we're in this now though. Now that we're in it, we need to be in it to win. Either we get rid of Ghadafi, or pack up and come home.
At least the sailors got to have some fun and see something cool instead of sitting around playing poker and reading Penthouse all day.
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Party time at the White House
There is turmoil all over the middle east. We have troops in Afghanistan engaging in regular combat. We have liberal zealots in Wisconsin sending death threats to 18 of the Republican legislators in that state, (wausaudailyherald.com.) There is devastation in Japan. Israelis are getting killed by Palestinian terrorists, (Reuters.)
Don't worry. The parties in DC won't stop. It's party time! (Yahoo News.)
Don't worry. The parties in DC won't stop. It's party time! (Yahoo News.)
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Government, not the oil industry, is the problem
The constant regulation and persecution by the government is the problem. Instead of simply demanding the oil companies to drop prices, (which would result in shortages) we should demand regulation to be dropped. Perhaps my economics professor puts it best in his book "Economic Principles and Issues." He writes:
"Sometimes the government acts like parents in order to change behavior that is deemed unacceptable.
"According to Obama-and others that supported this idea-the oil companies made too much profit in 2007 and 2008 from the historic increase in crude oil prices. These critics charged that rather than earning increasing profits by providing better and more reliable petroleum-based products, the oil companies were simply raking in billions of dollars in extra cash as a result of nothing more than rising prices.
"Exxon-Mobile, for example, reported net after-tax earnings of $40.6 billion in 2007, which amounted to $1,400 in profits every second.
"What is not often mentioned, however, is the fact that over the past five years the oil industry's net income was 5.7 cents per dollar of revenue (translation - out of every dollar earned, 94.3 cents went to operating costs), while the average for all other industries was 5.5 cents.
"The reason oil companies have been cited for 'excessive greed' is simple. First, since we have all been impacted by rapidly rising gasoline prices, we are more likely to get angry with the companies who sell us gasoline. Politicians therefore can gain votes by turning our anger into political persecution of those companies without mentioning the fact that Exxon-Mobile paid $30 billion in corporate taxes in 2007.
"Nevertheless, as he campaigned in 2008, Barack Obama promised to tax the profits of oil companies at a higher level and send part of the money to the American people."*
Perhaps if we quit voluntarily leaving our fate up to corrupt organizations such as OPEC, and started drilling in shallow water, Alaska, or North Dakota, prices would magically go down. The real "gas strike" wasn't executed today by a half million disgruntled facebook users. It's been led for years by our very own government, and we can see how effective that has been.
* Robinson, Steve. (2010). Economic Principles and Issues. Dubuque, IA. Kendall Hunt Publishing Company. pg 147.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Does anybody else feel like lately it's been amateur hour?
The idea that Obama's administration has no clue, or rather, has no care about what's been going on in the Middle East has been circulating for some time now. In particular the accusation has been all over the blogosphere today. The "Pantano for Congress" facebook page posted an article from the NY Daily News claiming this, (click here for the story)and I can't say as I disagree. Pictures of the President golfing while places all over that region of the world are in turmoil hardly seem professional.
For the record, I don't consider myself educated enough to have a strong stance on everything that has been going on of late over there. I'm no Gaddafi fan, but I'm also no expert in foreign relations. The same could be said for Egypt. Yet the rest of the world, and Americans as well for that matter, need to sign, some reassurance, that the current administration has the confidence and the resolve to take some sort of stand as all this happens.
Sometimes no decision is worse than bad decision. I am not in favor in any type of US intervention in Libya. However, as the newest reports from Reuters and the Wall Street Journal come out, it looks that our president is dodging the issues. In Libya no revolution looks to be taking place. It looks to be Civil War. For something that is that long and drawn out, the world needs to know where we as a country stand. To do otherwise looks like we simply don't know what to do or say. Frankly, it looks like amateur hour.
For the record, I don't consider myself educated enough to have a strong stance on everything that has been going on of late over there. I'm no Gaddafi fan, but I'm also no expert in foreign relations. The same could be said for Egypt. Yet the rest of the world, and Americans as well for that matter, need to sign, some reassurance, that the current administration has the confidence and the resolve to take some sort of stand as all this happens.
Sometimes no decision is worse than bad decision. I am not in favor in any type of US intervention in Libya. However, as the newest reports from Reuters and the Wall Street Journal come out, it looks that our president is dodging the issues. In Libya no revolution looks to be taking place. It looks to be Civil War. For something that is that long and drawn out, the world needs to know where we as a country stand. To do otherwise looks like we simply don't know what to do or say. Frankly, it looks like amateur hour.
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Romney's not the man, so who is? We are running out of time
To me there's little doubt that Romney is jockeying for the 2012 Republican Presidential nomination. There is also little doubt that the man won't win. If the man can't win, then let's not waste time getting excited about anti-Obama policy speeches he is giving, (which the Politico reported on today) and focus on finding an actual conservative who can beat the current President.
First of all, it will be impossible for him to take a strong stance against Obamacare considering his Romneycare is almost as much of a joke. He also has not been a consistent conservative over the years, which November showed us is what most Americans want.
But for the most part, he isn't cool enough. That's right, he isn't cool enough. That being said, neither is Huckabee who comes off as the perfect guy to fill the role of a dorky parent showing up at a high school embarrassing their child. He should stick to playing guitar on his Fox News show. Palin is no real candidate either as she consistently seems to lack a true message. She is good at shallow speeches about freedom and such but hasn't provided any real answers for anything. One of the coolest moments I've personally had was rendering a salute to John McCain. However, he's transparently wishy-washy about his true values, old, and not nearly the politician that he was Naval Officer. Besides, the man already lost once! Gingrich may have a chance, but he's hurt his chances by his personal life choices in the past. Brett Favre said he may run but he hasn't given a decision yet. Hopefully he won't run because it would be embarrassing to America for text-pics of...The President...to get out.
Mike Pence and Chris Christie, perhaps the best two out there have announced that they don't want it. That alone may make them the best for the job.
And there you have it. Republicans sense of complacency about 2012 is getting dangerous. The Dems certainly are much better politicians than the Republicans, which is no coincidence after all, considering their lust for power. However, in this day and age Republicans must learn to think politically.
We need to learn to do what the Donkeys in 2008 did. We need to find a good looking cool guy. Except, when we find that person, they need to have a plan and some sense of patriotism. I'm not getting my hopes up though.
First of all, it will be impossible for him to take a strong stance against Obamacare considering his Romneycare is almost as much of a joke. He also has not been a consistent conservative over the years, which November showed us is what most Americans want.
But for the most part, he isn't cool enough. That's right, he isn't cool enough. That being said, neither is Huckabee who comes off as the perfect guy to fill the role of a dorky parent showing up at a high school embarrassing their child. He should stick to playing guitar on his Fox News show. Palin is no real candidate either as she consistently seems to lack a true message. She is good at shallow speeches about freedom and such but hasn't provided any real answers for anything. One of the coolest moments I've personally had was rendering a salute to John McCain. However, he's transparently wishy-washy about his true values, old, and not nearly the politician that he was Naval Officer. Besides, the man already lost once! Gingrich may have a chance, but he's hurt his chances by his personal life choices in the past. Brett Favre said he may run but he hasn't given a decision yet. Hopefully he won't run because it would be embarrassing to America for text-pics of...The President...to get out.
Mike Pence and Chris Christie, perhaps the best two out there have announced that they don't want it. That alone may make them the best for the job.
And there you have it. Republicans sense of complacency about 2012 is getting dangerous. The Dems certainly are much better politicians than the Republicans, which is no coincidence after all, considering their lust for power. However, in this day and age Republicans must learn to think politically.
We need to learn to do what the Donkeys in 2008 did. We need to find a good looking cool guy. Except, when we find that person, they need to have a plan and some sense of patriotism. I'm not getting my hopes up though.
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Why allowing a mosque to be built at Ground Zero has nothing to do with freedom of religion
"This is a nation of tolerance!"
"Separation of church and state!"
"1st Amendment rights!"
Common arguments of liberals, muslims and psuedo-intellectuals who so adamantly believe in this abomination being built on the site of NYC's hallowed ground, Ground Zero. This consistent lightweight thinking which we see from the left is no surprise, but it is frustrating. As someone who attempts to always have at least some idea of what I'm talking about before I speak or write, I wonder how many of these people have actually read the Constitution. For that matter, I wonder how many of them have actually read the 1st Amendment.
AMENDMENT 1
RELIGION, SPEECH, ASSEMBLY, AND PETITION
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievance.
The first thing that the liberal drone usually blurts out is that we have separation of church and state in this country. While this is semi-correct, most of them are shocked to find that this terminology is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. What the first amendment does is guarantee the American two things (in the case of religion.) It gives one freedom of religion, and freedom from religion. In other words, we have the freedom to choose our religion, and there will not be specific religion you are legally required to follow.
The irrefutable fact is that this amendment, including the freedom-of and freedom- from clauses, has no language guaranteeing anything about location or building rights. There is no language in that amendment that would be violated if this religious group was told that they must build their mosque somewhere else nearby. The fact of the matter is that for some reason, America has entered an age where it does not desire to be seen as strong. Progressives and liberals have meekly suggested that to allow the mosque to be built would be "ballsy" as one liberal friend put it, and would show the world that we don't let things get to us. Excuse me, but 9/11 did get to me.
To believe that the muslim world, or any part of the world would for that matter, would interpret a mosque being built at Ground Zero as anything but submission is a fundamental misunderstanding of the world in which we live. Well, maybe Europe will think it looks strong but I prefer not to put things on the Europe-scale. People understand strength. People don't interpret weakness as strength, or understand the language of psuedo intellectuals as anything but mumbo-jumbo.
Yesterday, our President finally decided to weigh in on the "local" issue. It was a bit late for him considering he has always thrown in his, well, for the sake of easy language we'll say two cents, about local issues involving police officers, or issues such as whether or not College Football will develop a playoff system. The President knows the language of the Constitution. He knows everything I've written right here. This just demonstrates the evils of looking at a written document as a "living breathing document," as progressives disrespectfully view our Constitution.
Not only does this issue have huge importance as far as the weak message we will be sending to the world, our current Presidential administration is slapping the American people in the face, (a current CNN pole shows that a staggering 68% of Americans disapprove of this project) but it's bring out the worst in slimy politicians like Congressman Anthony Weiner (NY.) According to Politico, other than a letter written to Mayor Bloomberg which has been kept fairly quiet, Wiener has said little about the issue, even though most know he is all for it. Why? There are many whispers that he is running for Mayor in the near future.
It's sad that with such transparent corruption that our leaders are still able to get away with this. The manipulation of the Constitution, political seediness, and pandering to a force which has vowed to whipe out the United States makes me wonder why more Americans don't speak out....
Wait, according to CNN, (this isn't me citing Fox News mind you) 68% are saying something. It looks like our government just doesn't care.
"Separation of church and state!"
"1st Amendment rights!"
Common arguments of liberals, muslims and psuedo-intellectuals who so adamantly believe in this abomination being built on the site of NYC's hallowed ground, Ground Zero. This consistent lightweight thinking which we see from the left is no surprise, but it is frustrating. As someone who attempts to always have at least some idea of what I'm talking about before I speak or write, I wonder how many of these people have actually read the Constitution. For that matter, I wonder how many of them have actually read the 1st Amendment.
AMENDMENT 1
RELIGION, SPEECH, ASSEMBLY, AND PETITION
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievance.
The first thing that the liberal drone usually blurts out is that we have separation of church and state in this country. While this is semi-correct, most of them are shocked to find that this terminology is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. What the first amendment does is guarantee the American two things (in the case of religion.) It gives one freedom of religion, and freedom from religion. In other words, we have the freedom to choose our religion, and there will not be specific religion you are legally required to follow.
The irrefutable fact is that this amendment, including the freedom-of and freedom- from clauses, has no language guaranteeing anything about location or building rights. There is no language in that amendment that would be violated if this religious group was told that they must build their mosque somewhere else nearby. The fact of the matter is that for some reason, America has entered an age where it does not desire to be seen as strong. Progressives and liberals have meekly suggested that to allow the mosque to be built would be "ballsy" as one liberal friend put it, and would show the world that we don't let things get to us. Excuse me, but 9/11 did get to me.
To believe that the muslim world, or any part of the world would for that matter, would interpret a mosque being built at Ground Zero as anything but submission is a fundamental misunderstanding of the world in which we live. Well, maybe Europe will think it looks strong but I prefer not to put things on the Europe-scale. People understand strength. People don't interpret weakness as strength, or understand the language of psuedo intellectuals as anything but mumbo-jumbo.
Yesterday, our President finally decided to weigh in on the "local" issue. It was a bit late for him considering he has always thrown in his, well, for the sake of easy language we'll say two cents, about local issues involving police officers, or issues such as whether or not College Football will develop a playoff system. The President knows the language of the Constitution. He knows everything I've written right here. This just demonstrates the evils of looking at a written document as a "living breathing document," as progressives disrespectfully view our Constitution.
Not only does this issue have huge importance as far as the weak message we will be sending to the world, our current Presidential administration is slapping the American people in the face, (a current CNN pole shows that a staggering 68% of Americans disapprove of this project) but it's bring out the worst in slimy politicians like Congressman Anthony Weiner (NY.) According to Politico, other than a letter written to Mayor Bloomberg which has been kept fairly quiet, Wiener has said little about the issue, even though most know he is all for it. Why? There are many whispers that he is running for Mayor in the near future.
It's sad that with such transparent corruption that our leaders are still able to get away with this. The manipulation of the Constitution, political seediness, and pandering to a force which has vowed to whipe out the United States makes me wonder why more Americans don't speak out....
Wait, according to CNN, (this isn't me citing Fox News mind you) 68% are saying something. It looks like our government just doesn't care.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Trips to Spain, rants about Bush, and unpaid taxes. Where does the average American fit in with all this?
As I follow the intersecting stories of Michelle's vacation, Obama's speech given yesterday in an attempt to drum up the seemingly lackluster current support for the Democrat party, and the hot water which Maxine Waters and Charles Rangel find themselves in, I see that there is clearly something which they all have in common.
This morning, Fox News dug from out of the archives, footage of Maxine Waters back in 1995 railing against double standards, saying "What's fair for the goose, is fair for the gander!" She of course, was speaking about Newt Gingrich. Now she is playing the race card and saying that she has done nothing wrong. Charles Rangel who is yet another tax cheat continues to maintain his innocence as well.
Yesterday the President made yet another speech about how our current national troubles are due to the incompetence of President Bush. He defended this strategy saying that he's simply bringing it up still so that we don't forget and continues to point out that the GOP has yet to bring up any ideas of their own. (This reminds me of my post yesterday in which I wrote about liberals believing that saying something makes it true. If you don't agree with the actions Republicans have proposed that's fine, but to say they haven't suggested anything is ludicrous.)
Michelle took an extravagant vacation to Spain which has certainly raised eyebrows, despite a habit of attempting to look like the average American woman. I'd say she just burst that image.
But so far I haven't banged out anything here on the keyboard that everyone hasn't already heard. After all, the argument of whether it is or isn't relevant to constantly bring up Bush has lasted for months. The anger over US Congressmen and women not paying their taxes is just. Everybody has heard the whole "if I didn't pay my taxes I'd be sitting in the slammer right now!" bit. Finally, the Marie Antoinette comparisons to Michelle Obama have been all over the blogosphere, and quite frankly, may have been slightly blown out of proportion.
What really concerns me here isn't necessarily just the actions themselves. It's not as if I'm terribly surprised that there are Congressmen who aren't paying their taxes. People generally trust politicians about as far as they can spit, both Democrat and Republican. Michelle's vacation itself doesn't really bother me all that much either. Money-wise it's a drop in the hat. And let's face it, first ladies aren't your average American women,they are more of a unique type of American royalty. Barack Obama shoving the Bush talk down our throats no longer gets me riled up either; the man consistently proves to be a stubborn ideologue.
What we can really learn from all this however is the prevailing attitude of the left. Mrs. Obama's vacation didn't do much by itself to harm the country, yet it sent a bad message. The White House isn't stupid enough to not understand that the trip was going to rub people the wrong way. It's clear that they simply no longer care what the average American feels, or how much they insult them. The White House isn't stupid enough to not realize that to bring up Bush everyday is irresponsible, foolish and immature. It's clear they just feel themselves above having to take responsibility. The members of Congress aren't stupid enough not to know that they would eventually be caught in their crimes and that these crimes would enrage the American people. It's clear they just feel themselves above being accountable to the law.
The term "out of touch" has been thrown around a lot lately, by myself included. Yet these things seem beyond "out of touch." These actions expose a prevailing attitude of elitism and disdain for the common man.
Which brings up another thing to ponder; why would a party which fights for "social justice" show disdain for the common man?
Friday, July 16, 2010
Interesting article by Charles Krauthammer this morning
I know, I know. How original right? Some other guy writes a great article, and for my newest blog post I talk about it. (You can click on the title to read his article by the way.) However, at the risk of sounding like that guy, who jumps up and down when an intelligent person says something yelling, "Yeah, that's what I have been saying!" - well, what he wrote this morning is something I have been somewhat worried about.
Mr. Krauthammer issued a warning in his piece this morning. He told Republicans, in so many words, not to count their chickens before they hatched. "Don't underestimate Barack Obama" Charles tells us. He went on to cite all the things that Obama has managed to do while in the White House - which is plenty of things. Destructive as these things are, I don't think anyone can really doubt that he has managed to get a lot of things done. Charles issued the warning, and to back it up, mostly concentrated on the administration's end on things. It got me really thinking though, about how overconfident many conservatives may be getting.
When I was 9 years old, I was on a little league team that didn't win a single game all year. Going 0-14 isn't just no fun, it's also embarrassing. To lose game after game, all season long, without a single spark or moment of victory is in short, miserable. A crazy thing happened the next season though. We won our first game, and we won it by a fairly large amount. It felt really good to go out their and experience the feeling of victory. It's amazing how this victory somehow blotted out the memory of our previous 14 consecutive losses. Just a few games later however, we faced the same team again. We lost. I was confused. We had beat them before right? Doesn't that mean we should have beat them again? I didn't think about the fact that they outpitched, out hit, and out-ran us on the base-paths. I simply focused on the fact that we had beat them once before, that they didn't seem like a particularly good team at the time, and now, somehow, we had lost to them.
"We beat them last time" I remember saying indignantly.
"So?" Pops said. He continued on, "C, they aren't a bad team."
That's about as much as my memory serves me right now. Other than the fact that we lost, and that conversation with Dear ole' Dad, I don't remember the ins and outs of the game. But for the purpose of this post, I suspect we were a little arrogant over our previous win. Maybe, instead of focusing on our own game, we focused on our desire to see the opposing team lose.
Republicans need to focus on their own game, not just seeing Democrats in November, and hopefully our current president in 2012, lose. The current polls show conservatives and Republicans leading in many races across the United States. Scott Brown won recently up in Massachusetts. Republicans have won some governor races in some unlikely states such as NJ. The President's approval rating is down. All these things are great, but I fear Republicans and conservatives are getting a bit too caught up in it. Every time I turn on "Hannity," (which isn't too often, I'm not a huge fan) I hear him telling us, as if it's already happened; "November is going to be huge! We're taking back the House and the Senate!" Every time I turn on the news, the Republican pundit is focusing on how the left is going to face humbling results in November.
Let's not get too caught up in that frenzy. Obviously the liberals aren't too stupid, or they wouldn't have won as big as they did in the first place. Obviously Republicans aren't political geniuses or they wouldn't have lost as bad as they did in the first place.
Many Republicans and conservatives are angry, and very rightfully so. Yet let's not let our emotions cloud our judgment. Let's not let our hatred for progressive and liberal ideology, our continuing loss of freedom and individuality, and increasing power of the government get in the way of what WE stand for. Our representatives NEED to understand; they can't just focus on making the other guys lose, they need to focus on our game as well. Freedom, individuality, American exceptionalism, and limited government are much wiser things to get excited over, than poll numbers.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Just some quick thoughts on the topic of words
When sifting through the day's top headlines, I am reminded of a quote from the book "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand, which I am currently reading. One of the major characters, Francisco D'Anconia asks another key character, James Taggart, "When are you going to understand James, that words have meaning?" This conversation takes place while both of these characters are children, after Francisco has shown up James in something, (I want to say it was swimming if memory serves me correctly.) James is complaining that Francisco shouldn't act as if he is better than he is, simply because he is more successful. Without going any more into the novel, I will simply say that James goes on to become quite the progressive, and has a major part in bringing the country to it's knees.
Words have meaning. I can't help but think that this oversimplified statement is being forgotten on a regular basis. At what point did we as a people forget that words have meaning, start to be dismayed over consequences of actions, and abandon the concept of thinking things through logically before speaking? It certainly isn't that our culture lacks words; but we seem to be caught up in a never ending black hole of pseudo intellectualism and shallow, silly phrases. Just turn on the radio and you will hear Eminem singing about how he is "not afraid to take a stand." Go to your nearest college campus and you will see plenty of students with false senses of righteousness and superiority wearing "live strong" bracelets. What has eminem ever taken a stand on? As far as I can tell, nothing. Yet it is constantly being talked about as an inspirational song. Why do these students wear "live strong" bracelets? Do they mean it literally concerning their health? From their constant diet of institutionalized food and beer we know that's not true. Have they faced major adversity? Well, with the government paying for so many people's school now, and the vast majority of these kids not being Vets, we know that isn't true either.
I remember shortly before Obama won the nomination for the Democrat Party, Dennis Kucinich telling the media that the word "change" wasn't just a word, that it had meaning, and that too many people were getting caught up in it. He pointed out that the word itself had neither positive or negative implications. Needless to say, the media didn't take very kindly to him clearly referring to their favorite, Obama, but it would have done them some good to consider what the man was saying. Not being a Kucinich fan, I must at least tip my hat to the man for acknowledging that what we do and say has consequences. Now today, the first rig in the gulf has taken off for Egypt, starting the inevitable decline in jobs there. One can see first hand that words have meaning. Denouncing oil companies and prohibiting them from doing their work has had an effect. It is no longer something which environmentalists, progressives, and liberals can rally around and get the warm fuzzies over; it is something which has caused consequences which they must actually deal with.
And yet, more and more people forget that words have meaning, and that it would help their own cause to think things through rationally and logically before opening their mouths. Minutes ago I got off the phone with my good friend and fellow Marine, Gary Grant. As we are both students our conversation turned to our experiences at our respective colleges. We found that both places have a prevailing attitude of thinking that it's the cool thing to come from a poor family, a family with only one parent, a bad neighborhood, and most of all, a family that has no white collar workers in it. When did America stop thinking rationally so much, and begin to think that one is actually expected to be more proud of an unsuccessful background than one that is full of success and triumph? When did it become OK to disrespect a family with a doctor or a businessman as the head of the household, which includes a happy marriage and financial security, and yet expected to revere and to champion the household of financial irresponsibility, crime, dependence on welfare and lack of marriage? Even in the military, an organization which I love, I witnessed the tones and glances of a few people saying, "heh, you're from the suburbs" or "yeah, you had money didn't you?" My answer was always a proud, "YES!" Of course this surprised people who were raised to think that I would be ashamed of my parent's or anyone's success.
I would be willing to bet, that if I were to ask these students and these military men who had come from a more humble background than I, if they wished to be successful or unsuccessful they would choose successful every time. I very much doubt that their goal is to end up living in the projects or the ghetto, that they wish to enter a life of crime, or to end up on welfare. I am sure they would rather have money than being constantly strapped for cash. I am sure the college students hope to have decent jobs and to provide for their future children with the degrees they will attain from the university. I am sure the few guys I came across in the Marines who had the attitudes I just wrote about, will strive for promotion, and work hard in their field to provide for their families, or use the skills they've attained in the military for future jobs in the civilian sector to do so.
So why then, is it becoming common for so many people in America to say these absurd things, and to embrace this bumper sticker ideology and shallow liberal drivel? I think the answer is clear. They have forgotten that words have meaning.
Words have meaning. I can't help but think that this oversimplified statement is being forgotten on a regular basis. At what point did we as a people forget that words have meaning, start to be dismayed over consequences of actions, and abandon the concept of thinking things through logically before speaking? It certainly isn't that our culture lacks words; but we seem to be caught up in a never ending black hole of pseudo intellectualism and shallow, silly phrases. Just turn on the radio and you will hear Eminem singing about how he is "not afraid to take a stand." Go to your nearest college campus and you will see plenty of students with false senses of righteousness and superiority wearing "live strong" bracelets. What has eminem ever taken a stand on? As far as I can tell, nothing. Yet it is constantly being talked about as an inspirational song. Why do these students wear "live strong" bracelets? Do they mean it literally concerning their health? From their constant diet of institutionalized food and beer we know that's not true. Have they faced major adversity? Well, with the government paying for so many people's school now, and the vast majority of these kids not being Vets, we know that isn't true either.
I remember shortly before Obama won the nomination for the Democrat Party, Dennis Kucinich telling the media that the word "change" wasn't just a word, that it had meaning, and that too many people were getting caught up in it. He pointed out that the word itself had neither positive or negative implications. Needless to say, the media didn't take very kindly to him clearly referring to their favorite, Obama, but it would have done them some good to consider what the man was saying. Not being a Kucinich fan, I must at least tip my hat to the man for acknowledging that what we do and say has consequences. Now today, the first rig in the gulf has taken off for Egypt, starting the inevitable decline in jobs there. One can see first hand that words have meaning. Denouncing oil companies and prohibiting them from doing their work has had an effect. It is no longer something which environmentalists, progressives, and liberals can rally around and get the warm fuzzies over; it is something which has caused consequences which they must actually deal with.
And yet, more and more people forget that words have meaning, and that it would help their own cause to think things through rationally and logically before opening their mouths. Minutes ago I got off the phone with my good friend and fellow Marine, Gary Grant. As we are both students our conversation turned to our experiences at our respective colleges. We found that both places have a prevailing attitude of thinking that it's the cool thing to come from a poor family, a family with only one parent, a bad neighborhood, and most of all, a family that has no white collar workers in it. When did America stop thinking rationally so much, and begin to think that one is actually expected to be more proud of an unsuccessful background than one that is full of success and triumph? When did it become OK to disrespect a family with a doctor or a businessman as the head of the household, which includes a happy marriage and financial security, and yet expected to revere and to champion the household of financial irresponsibility, crime, dependence on welfare and lack of marriage? Even in the military, an organization which I love, I witnessed the tones and glances of a few people saying, "heh, you're from the suburbs" or "yeah, you had money didn't you?" My answer was always a proud, "YES!" Of course this surprised people who were raised to think that I would be ashamed of my parent's or anyone's success.
I would be willing to bet, that if I were to ask these students and these military men who had come from a more humble background than I, if they wished to be successful or unsuccessful they would choose successful every time. I very much doubt that their goal is to end up living in the projects or the ghetto, that they wish to enter a life of crime, or to end up on welfare. I am sure they would rather have money than being constantly strapped for cash. I am sure the college students hope to have decent jobs and to provide for their future children with the degrees they will attain from the university. I am sure the few guys I came across in the Marines who had the attitudes I just wrote about, will strive for promotion, and work hard in their field to provide for their families, or use the skills they've attained in the military for future jobs in the civilian sector to do so.
So why then, is it becoming common for so many people in America to say these absurd things, and to embrace this bumper sticker ideology and shallow liberal drivel? I think the answer is clear. They have forgotten that words have meaning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)