This tale almost had escaped me. It occurred over the recent Christmas holidays.
While at a holiday party, I met a young man whom I had not seen in about 10 years. His family is solidly upper middle class and politically conservative.
Yet, to my horror, when I asked what 'line of work' he was in, he responded with "community organizer."
Apparently he has spent the last few years doing this, although he didn't actually explain what it had accomplished. He is now hoping for a position in NYC with a global community organizing entity.
Later on, he and I sat only one person apart at dinner. Let me assure you, he nearly choked when I told his grandmother that I thought George W. Bush will be judged by history as one of our greater presidents for his decisive post-9/11 military actions.
Dear God help us! It was as if I had just met Patty Hearst on the way out of her latest SLA bank heist. Or some formerly straightarrow white American show up on camera for al Queda.
I hadn't seen this family for quite a few years, and was unwilling to behave inconsiderately at the party. But I was positively seething to ask,
"What the HELL happened! How could you have let your grand/son come to this? What ARE you planning to do about it?"
I'm dying to get more information on this at a later date. Perhaps over lunch with the father some time this spring. How did a young man raised in a conservative household, and went to a prep school, end up like this?
Frankly, I'm still in shock from the incident.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Donating To Conservative Candidates In Other States
With Scott Brown in a dead heat with his liberal opponent in the election to fill the (finally) dead Ted Kennedy's Senate seat, and Susan Lowden leading Harry Reid in polls in Arizona, I'm seriously considering donating money to both candidates.
I don't live in either state, of course. But given how the Democrats have turned their party into what has been described as effectively a parliamentary party, it may be necessary to do so.
By parliamentary party, the source of the comment meant that the Congressional party members now essentially vote a party line, with no exceptions. Thus, if you are a conservative, defeating any Democrat is as important as electing a conservative in your own district or state.
Thus, I'm checking out the Brown and Lowden websites and getting a credit card handy.
I don't live in either state, of course. But given how the Democrats have turned their party into what has been described as effectively a parliamentary party, it may be necessary to do so.
By parliamentary party, the source of the comment meant that the Congressional party members now essentially vote a party line, with no exceptions. Thus, if you are a conservative, defeating any Democrat is as important as electing a conservative in your own district or state.
Thus, I'm checking out the Brown and Lowden websites and getting a credit card handy.
Joe Biden's Eulogy
Recently I was in a place where a large screen television was tuned to the funeral for Joe Biden's mother.
To make matters worse, the hapless idiot was giving a eulogy to his mother, and the establishment had that text option enabled which displayed his remarks for those not tuned to the proper audio channel.
Was this really necessary?
Since when has the VP been seen as truly important in an administration? And why, for God's sake, must the guy's mother's funeral be telecast?
As if it sickening enough just knowing Biden is actually the VP. Beyond that, any further public display of him, to me, constitutes a gross offense against my sensibilities.
To make matters worse, the hapless idiot was giving a eulogy to his mother, and the establishment had that text option enabled which displayed his remarks for those not tuned to the proper audio channel.
Was this really necessary?
Since when has the VP been seen as truly important in an administration? And why, for God's sake, must the guy's mother's funeral be telecast?
As if it sickening enough just knowing Biden is actually the VP. Beyond that, any further public display of him, to me, constitutes a gross offense against my sensibilities.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Harry Reid's Latest Gaffe
It's almost too hilarious hearing that Harry Reid described Wonderboy as a light skinned Negro who spoke well and could actually get elected president.
I find myself agreeing with people who don't see his comments as racist, so much as just stupid.
More importantly, as others have contended, the real reason Reid should be run out of the Democratic party for his comments is how insulting they are to voters.
In effect, Reid, viewing the First Rookie through his own biased, old-timey lense, thought that Americans could not possibly elect a black as president unless he possessed the particular qualities that he saw in Wonderboy.
Truly disgusting. It says so much more about how despicable Harry Reid is, than anything else. And how disgusting the many black and other liberal so-called leaders are who have rushed to his defense.
I find myself agreeing with people who don't see his comments as racist, so much as just stupid.
More importantly, as others have contended, the real reason Reid should be run out of the Democratic party for his comments is how insulting they are to voters.
In effect, Reid, viewing the First Rookie through his own biased, old-timey lense, thought that Americans could not possibly elect a black as president unless he possessed the particular qualities that he saw in Wonderboy.
Truly disgusting. It says so much more about how despicable Harry Reid is, than anything else. And how disgusting the many black and other liberal so-called leaders are who have rushed to his defense.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
US Intelligence Failures
The Wall Street Journal published a troubling editorial last Friday entitled, "The Meaning of al Qaeda's Double Agent."
I don't focus very much on this topic. I suppose, like many Americans, I've viewed the ongoing conflict of the past decade, and then some, between Muslim extremists and America, as a religious war of terror.
What this article brought home is how much more sophisticated our enemy has become at using skillful, deeply covert counterintelligence capabilities to parry US thrusts.
For example, the editorial opines on how effective al Qaeda was at managing to infiltrate a lone suicide bomber into the heart of a forward CIA operating base in Afghanistan, killing a substantial number of seasoned CIA personnel.
That those CIA operatives didn't seriously consider this threat even remotely possible is unsettling. Apparently, they didn't even ascribe such skill and motivations to our enemy.
Thus, in addition to focusing on the more conventional battelfield developments in Afghanistan and Iraq, we need to be more aware of how our intelligence services are doing in the shadowy battle behind those fronts.
Right now, it doesn't look good.
I don't focus very much on this topic. I suppose, like many Americans, I've viewed the ongoing conflict of the past decade, and then some, between Muslim extremists and America, as a religious war of terror.
What this article brought home is how much more sophisticated our enemy has become at using skillful, deeply covert counterintelligence capabilities to parry US thrusts.
For example, the editorial opines on how effective al Qaeda was at managing to infiltrate a lone suicide bomber into the heart of a forward CIA operating base in Afghanistan, killing a substantial number of seasoned CIA personnel.
That those CIA operatives didn't seriously consider this threat even remotely possible is unsettling. Apparently, they didn't even ascribe such skill and motivations to our enemy.
Thus, in addition to focusing on the more conventional battelfield developments in Afghanistan and Iraq, we need to be more aware of how our intelligence services are doing in the shadowy battle behind those fronts.
Right now, it doesn't look good.
Monday, January 11, 2010
An Unsustainable Trend
Glenn Beck presented a fascinating, if troubling, chart on this evening's program.
Starting in, I believe, 1935 or 1939, the chart compared private sector vs. government job creation through the present day.
While the private sector line began far above the government one, its slope was shallower, and it exhibited some variability.
By contrast, the government employment line had a higher slope and appeared to have a much more constant, unwavering pattern.
Chillingly, the lines crossed in 2007, then showed private sector jobs plunging significantly below the government employment curve.
That's right. Currently, and for the past 3 years, the US employs more people in government jobs than in private sector jobs.
Scared yet?
As Beck noted, the government employees are paid with tax dollars. Taxes come from working residents of the US.
How long can we have fewer workers supporting the larger number of government workers?
Starting in, I believe, 1935 or 1939, the chart compared private sector vs. government job creation through the present day.
While the private sector line began far above the government one, its slope was shallower, and it exhibited some variability.
By contrast, the government employment line had a higher slope and appeared to have a much more constant, unwavering pattern.
Chillingly, the lines crossed in 2007, then showed private sector jobs plunging significantly below the government employment curve.
That's right. Currently, and for the past 3 years, the US employs more people in government jobs than in private sector jobs.
Scared yet?
As Beck noted, the government employees are paid with tax dollars. Taxes come from working residents of the US.
How long can we have fewer workers supporting the larger number of government workers?
Sunday, January 10, 2010
California's Big Grab For Your Money
Sickening, isn't it?
The Govenator of California, Arnold Schwarzennegger, has appealed to the federal government to give his state $8B to help cover the shortfall in its proposed 2010-11 $103B budget.
Staggering out of last year's near-bankruptcy, which included California issuing script, instead of paying its bills, the nation's one-time economic powerhouse has become a wayward, spendthrift liberal bastion.
One state legislator is on record as laughing off the idea of cutting the state's expenses to fit within its available, tax-funded revenues.
Thus, California wants Congress to tax every other state in order to pay for about 8% of its bloated spending plans. Here are two gems from an LA Times article,
Apparently these people don't understand a few realities. First, Congress passed a $787B 'stimulus' bill last year. How can that not be sufficient for California's needs? Second, the answer to unpleasant choices is not always to run to Washington and beggar the rest of the country to bail you out. Finally, 'federal aid to the states' is another way of saying, 'let's weaken the states and become even more dependent upon the already overpowering federal government.'
I would like to believe that Representatives and Senators from 49 other states know enough to say "no" to any aid to California.
Why should every other state work to balance its spending with its revenues, while California gets a free ride to spend everyone else's money?
The Govenator of California, Arnold Schwarzennegger, has appealed to the federal government to give his state $8B to help cover the shortfall in its proposed 2010-11 $103B budget.
Staggering out of last year's near-bankruptcy, which included California issuing script, instead of paying its bills, the nation's one-time economic powerhouse has become a wayward, spendthrift liberal bastion.
One state legislator is on record as laughing off the idea of cutting the state's expenses to fit within its available, tax-funded revenues.
Thus, California wants Congress to tax every other state in order to pay for about 8% of its bloated spending plans. Here are two gems from an LA Times article,
"Families are struggling, we have an incredibly high unemployment rate, and we can't afford to cut these programs any more," said Nancy Berlin, director of California Partnership, a statewide coalition of advocates for the poor based in Los Angeles. "Sacramento has got to pull it together and find another way out of this. They can't take more from low-income families. If they do, we will find more people on the streets."
"There is a strong case not only here in California but across the country for continued federal aid to the states," she said. "Absent additional assistance we could see state governments prolonging the national economic downturn by continuing to cut their budgets."
Apparently these people don't understand a few realities. First, Congress passed a $787B 'stimulus' bill last year. How can that not be sufficient for California's needs? Second, the answer to unpleasant choices is not always to run to Washington and beggar the rest of the country to bail you out. Finally, 'federal aid to the states' is another way of saying, 'let's weaken the states and become even more dependent upon the already overpowering federal government.'
I would like to believe that Representatives and Senators from 49 other states know enough to say "no" to any aid to California.
Why should every other state work to balance its spending with its revenues, while California gets a free ride to spend everyone else's money?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
