Moving into my seventh decade, I assiduously try not to comment from the perspective of “having been there and done that,” preferring to let the younger generation find their own way through this veil of tears known as life. It also helps to know that most young people could care less what older people have to say anyway. But, on occasion, I can’t seem to help myself when I read something so stupid it pisses me off. Falling prey to reviewing Facebook, I recently read a missive from an obviously uber liberal blogger condemning a presidential candidate’s (the candidate’s last name suggests a small plant growing alongside the roadway) advocating working hard to achieve success. The blogger spent an inordinate amount of space setting forth how hard we Americans already work, his apparent conclusion being that more work won’t improve our economy or our lives. There is a simple solution to his dilemma. First, don’t get an education or prepare for a specific skill set that will enable you to earn a living. Second, spend your time complaining about the success of others. This will inevitably lead you to resenting those who are successful and wanting what they have. Since you have no education or skills, you can advocate taking what they have. Some would suggest this is unfair but what do they know. Call it “income redistribution,” it sounds so much better than “highway robbery.” Third, in another nod to Robin Hood, taking from the so-‐ called rich and giving to the so-‐called poor, wait for the government to meet all your needs. Now, you’re set. You can spend all your time on the net while you wait for your welfare check or other form of governmental largess. Of course, as more and more of you do so, there will be less and less of those who still work for a living. Since government produces no widgets, it can only raise money by borrowing, taxing the private sector or printing money. When the latest form of “ism” finally runs its inevitable course, don’t be surprised when your fellow citizens start burning themselves in the streets, like the Greeks, when the flow of governmental largess finally runs out. When I worked, I paid no attention to how many hours I worked. I often worked seven days a week. All I was concerned about was getting the job done and supporting and educating my family which I am proud to have accomplished. My oldest is a PHD and a lead professor of biology at a college, my middle is a Hollywood publicist and my youngest is an international tax lawyer. And they achieved their success with long hours and hard work. You can achieve the alleged “American dream,” whatever that means but you won’t do it unless you apply yourself and stop worrying about what others may or may not do.
A former retired male athlete has decided to and has become a female retired athlete. Since the athlete in question has become, since her retirement, a celeb, the press has done the story to death, as would be expected whenever there is the possibility of controversy. My initial reaction is a big “ho hum.” With all the important issues facing us, a sex change operation by anyone would seem to have a very low priority for concern. While I respect my religious brethren’s right to believe what they will, I don’t see issues of gender identity having any adverse effect on the war on terror, the Chinese hacking our computers to death, Iran getting and possibility using an atomic bomb, the NSA stealing our personal information, the IRS going after our citizenry for political purposes, lying by our President and so on. As to the argument that such behavior somehow underscores the perception that our society is moving away from the traditional values which allegedly made this country great, that is a moral position that cannot be supported objectively. Gay people are productive members of society: they have no corner on crimes committed or harm done to others. In essence, their sexual identity is just one aspect of who they are as people. And, if we are really going to hold ourselves out as being traditionally moral Americans, their differences should be respected. As for the coverage, Kathleen Parker, a columnist for the Washington Post put it best when she wrote: “the media’s group embrace of Jenner’s transition should be seen for what it is–not a revolutionary step toward minority rights, but a money grab for ads, ratings, sales and buzz in a culture of provocation and greed without ethics or conscience. Let’s talk about that instead.”
I remember when the so-called “War On Poverty” was initiated by prexy LBJ. Although it wasn’t labeled then as “a liberal progressive agenda,” it fit the definition as it promised we would tackle the roots of dissension, disenfranchisement, fatherless families and other ills resulting in reservations in our inner cities known as “ghettos.” We would use the federal government’s vast resources to restructure our cities. Today, however, this experiment has clearly failed as statistics show. Most studies conclude that we have just as much if not more of these problems even though we have poured millions into addressing these ills. Baltimore is a prime example. The Obomba admin poured millions into trying to improve the city. The city has a Black mayor, police commissioner, prosecutor. The result? Riots and chaos in the street, the destruction of property in the very neighborhoods where businesses need to flourish, not be destroyed. For their part, the police have been made the scapegoats for the failures of the politicians who refuse to crack down on lawlessness and promote private ownership of businesses and the creation of meaningful jobs through the private sector. And where we treat the police as the enemy instead of part of the solution, the predictable result is more crime, more innocent people being killed and maimed. The murder rate in Baltimore is skyrocketing. With liberal icon DeBludgeon in NYC, wiping out stop and frisk, along with giving press conferences in which he says he is afraid his own son will be targeted by police, it is no wonder that violent crime is also increasing in the Big Apple. As someone with some familiarity with law enforcement, it is small wonder that cops are backing off when they know that the slightest miscue or perceived miscue will result in their own censorship, up to and including arrest and prosecution over any incident that will further inflame anti-cop rhetoric. We are in the midst of a breakdown in civil authority that will only get worse. While cops are people and therefore subject to error, the answer is not condemning police who are the first line of defense in maintaining order but condemning politicians who have ignored and worse, profited by upholding special interests that wrecked our inner cities. And throwing tax payers’ dollars into the mix, without responsible leadership, hasn’t nor will it ever solve the problem.
In a story that is too ironic not to be true, apparently, because our current Prexy believes that ISIS is not an A team, we’ve decided that the only worthwhile enemy that we can legitimately fight in Iraq is…well…us! This came about because we gave millions, probably billions, of dollars in weapons to the Iraq army who proceeded to lose all these military goodies to ISIS when the Iraq army runs away every time they are confronted by the terrorists, leaving all their weaponry, tanks, armored vehicles and guns behind. Now, we have air strikes primarily concentrating on obliterating all the hardware, our own weaponry, being used by the junior varsity. So, unlike past wars when we fought foreign nationals like the Germans and the Japanese or the North Koreans and the Chinese, we have a new form of warfare in which we supply the enemy with our weapons and then try to destroy those weapons. But, of course, this is part of the Obomba strategy that is “working” in Iraq. At this rate, we will soon be claiming, at least in official circles, that there is really no war in Iraq at all and that we are just engaging in military maneuvers where our pilots are practicing destroying obsolete equipment so they can maintain their frosty edge in case we ever become involved in a real war. If they made a movie that included this insanity, no one would believe the plot line. Yes, truth is stranger than fiction.
There are important issues facing our nation including at best, a lack luster economy and the worse foreign policy since Jimmy Carter and yet the Elephants, who desperately want to address those problems by electing a prexy in 2016, continue to shoot themselves in the feet by adhering to ridiculous social policies that guarantee they will alienate not only Donkeys and independents but moderates within their own party, as well. In the latest gaffe, Indiana repubs passed a law supposedly guaranteeing religious freedom by allowing business owners to refuse to serve potential patrons on religious grounds. While I have written extensively about the current secular administration’s attack on religious freedom, you can’t have it both ways meaning you can’t object to discrimination against religion while at the same time defending discrimination on religious grounds. Putting aside strictly legal issues, if you decide to open a coffee shop, you should expect that if you are successful, you won’t always being serving people who agree with your politics, how you raise your children or which church, if any, you attend. Of course, the resultant public furor over this law is obviously seeing the law as a reason to discriminate against the LBGT community. And rightly so, although outside of West Hollywood, I have no idea how some red neck on the right will even be able to determine whether a person who walks in and orders a cup of coffee is gay. Just as no governmental entity should stop you from believing whatever you want religiously, likewise no governmental agency should deny you the liberty to be who you choose to be sexually. If the Elephants wish to be relevant in this day and age, they had better wake up and start concentrating on core issues that really matter to most Americans.
If radical Islam represents a threat to not only countries like Israel, Jordan and others, how do we deal with that threat? That is the question for the moment and for the future. Our future. If the middle east explodes in war, it is obvious that we will be drawn into any conflict that arises there.
The current administration has adopted a strategy of negotiating with Iran to prevent that nation from acquiring nuclear weapons. That strategy is based on several arguments.
First, Iran can be persuaded to join the league of “reasonable nations.” This argument is wishful thinking with no basis in reality. In fact, Iran has been correctly labeled as the foremost sponsor of terrorism in the world. Second, we need Iran to stop ISIS. No, we need bombing with limited “boots on the ground” to defeat ISIS. Iran is going after ISIS simply to prevent ISIS from becoming the dominant terrorist organization, a designation Iran wishes to keep for itself. Third, if we don’t negotiate with Iran, the only alternative is an all out war. If we give Iran the bomb, that will do more to hasten the threat of war then doing a bad deal. It doesn’t take a professional expert on middle eastern affairs to realize that giving Iran the bomb will set off an arms race not seen since we took on the Soviet Union after WWII. Sanctions should be increased to destroy Iran’s economy. We defeated the commies by destroying their economy. It can certainly work again with a piss ant state like Iran. Finally, Israel, so the argument goes is “overreacting” to the threat posed by Iran having the bomb. As Netty said, we are concerned with our security, Israel is concerned with its survival.
The administration, according to public info, wants a deal with Iran that would maintain Iran’s nuclear apparatus and give them a green light to have the bomb in a decade. Thus, critics, including Israel, are correct when they label this as a bad deal. Iran, then, as we have seen with North Korea, will have the ability to use war heads to strike our own country with nuclear weapons.
Perhaps the final straw is the specious argument by liberals and libertarians that if Iran has the bomb, they won’t use it. This reminds me of the “head in the sand” approach taken with Hitler and the Japanese war lords.
In both cases, we sat falsely relying on two oceans to protect us with the thought that if Hitler could be appeased by giving him a few minor European countries (like giving Iran the bomb), he would stop his terrorism or that Japan would never have the gall to attack us. Let us not fall prey to letting history repeat itself. Hopefully, Congress will have more sense than the current administration when it comes to dealing with Iran and the threat of militant Islam.
Having been the managing editor of my high school newspaper, I have always had a keen interest in journalism. Fortunately, for my sanity, I chose another profession although now that I think about it, maybe avoiding insanity can never be the product of what one does for a living since lawyers have one of the highest rates of substance abuse among professionals and don’t stack up very well in the suicide department either. In any event, our current excuse for a President in a recent interview dismissed the criticism of an aspect of his foreign policy by claiming the whole matter was overblown and the product of the above referenced cliche. Since stats show about 87% of journalists identify themselves as Donkeys as opposed to Elephants, it is not surprising that Mr. Obomba got a free ride from the press during much of his presidency. It is only now that his failings, particularly in the foreign policy arena, have become so obvious that he is finally getting his due, legitimate questions and criticism. With congress firmly in control of the Elephants whose motto might be, “I’ve never met a social issue I can’t shoot myself in the foot about” it now appears that we will have a more balanced series of pot shots from the press as we head into the next presidential election. One of our local newspapers, a bastion of liberal bias, has completely ignored the latest Clinton scandal, carrying no mention of Hillie’s thinly disguised campaign arm, her “foundation” accepting money from foreign governments, including surrogates of the Red Chinese and the destruction of emails while she boosted her resume as Secretary of State. So, Mr. O, it appears that if it bleeds, it doesn’t always lead after all.