Monday, October 14, 2013
Monday, October 7, 2013
Never a Clear Head
I could really care less which bureaucrats are or are not being paid. I do think we could pay China by sending the entire Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, the NSA the IRS and OSHA to them. We could include all of the union leadership, everyone who has ever worked for the Obama administration, all of the Democrats and most of the Republicans in office.
Or maybe we could just shut down all of those offices and send them the money we save.
I'm not writing much these days because I'm working an extra job. I'm working an extra job because since 2008 the economy has been tinkered to death by the same bureaucrats who are refusing to talk to each other, but are more than willing to spout nasty ad hominem attacks. These are people who are paid ridiculous salaries to surround themselves with people who are paid ridiculous salaries who do nothing but bitch, whine and bitch some more.
When a good man, like Ted Cruz, takes a stand, the bottom-feeders of the fifth estate decide to only show us clips of him reading a Dr. Seuss book to his daughers. No mention of the serious thought he put into his arguments. No analysis of his valid points.
And then I try to find some sanity in the Catholic press, only to see that the Pope is talking. What he actually said has been distorted and parsed to the point that one wonders if he ever really spoke to anyone in the first place.
Where oh where are the problem solvers? Where are the truth speakers? Where is the level head?
Or maybe we could just shut down all of those offices and send them the money we save.
I'm not writing much these days because I'm working an extra job. I'm working an extra job because since 2008 the economy has been tinkered to death by the same bureaucrats who are refusing to talk to each other, but are more than willing to spout nasty ad hominem attacks. These are people who are paid ridiculous salaries to surround themselves with people who are paid ridiculous salaries who do nothing but bitch, whine and bitch some more.
When a good man, like Ted Cruz, takes a stand, the bottom-feeders of the fifth estate decide to only show us clips of him reading a Dr. Seuss book to his daughers. No mention of the serious thought he put into his arguments. No analysis of his valid points.
And then I try to find some sanity in the Catholic press, only to see that the Pope is talking. What he actually said has been distorted and parsed to the point that one wonders if he ever really spoke to anyone in the first place.
Where oh where are the problem solvers? Where are the truth speakers? Where is the level head?
Thursday, October 3, 2013
Sunday, September 15, 2013
Letting the Government Define Us
I'm fascinated by the prospect of the Federal government defining who a 'journalist' is and enshrining that definition in federal law. It is particularly interesting since the same moral relativists who didn't want the definition of marriage that was the Defense of Marriage Act, now want to tell people that without the proper credentials they cannot publish as journalists.
In full disclosure, I am not now, nor have I ever been a journalist. I blog. I have owned several journals over my lifetime. I tended to use them to chronicle angst that would put Alanis Morisette to shame. Faith and a happy marriage put an end to all of that.
I'm no reporter either. The intended definition of 'journalist' does seem to be more appropriate for a reporter. Enough teasers...
The Judiciary Committee is "defining a "covered journalist" as an employee, independent contractor or agent of an entity that disseminates news or information. The individual would have been employed for one year within the last 20 or three months within the last five years." (Donna Cassata. Brietbart.com)
This is supposed to be a response to the Justice Department secretly subpoenaing two months of telephone records from the Associated Press, and emails and more from James Rosen (and his parents!) at Fox News. The craziness of this response is that it is trying to 'protect' the press from government over-reach and intrusion. This narrow definition will provide no protection for you, however, if you talk about politics on the phone, or share comments via email and the NSA is listening to you that day.
Also note that Senators, Schumer, Feinstein, and Durbin, who have all argued that corporations are evil, now are granting freedom of speech only to those who can show some evidence of a relationship to corporate news.
So if you weren't interested in Catholics and other Christians who have been pushed into violating their religious beliefs via the HHS mandate, perhaps you want to protect freedom of speech for little bloggers like me.
Or maybe you'll go along with this restriction of freedoms because you will be one of the 'journalists' protected by it. I would caution you that dancing that close to a fire generally does not end well. Ask the Jews who thought that because they didn't practice their faith, and they worked closely with the Nazis, they would be protected. Oh wait, you can't.
In full disclosure, I am not now, nor have I ever been a journalist. I blog. I have owned several journals over my lifetime. I tended to use them to chronicle angst that would put Alanis Morisette to shame. Faith and a happy marriage put an end to all of that.
I'm no reporter either. The intended definition of 'journalist' does seem to be more appropriate for a reporter. Enough teasers...
The Judiciary Committee is "defining a "covered journalist" as an employee, independent contractor or agent of an entity that disseminates news or information. The individual would have been employed for one year within the last 20 or three months within the last five years." (Donna Cassata. Brietbart.com)
This is supposed to be a response to the Justice Department secretly subpoenaing two months of telephone records from the Associated Press, and emails and more from James Rosen (and his parents!) at Fox News. The craziness of this response is that it is trying to 'protect' the press from government over-reach and intrusion. This narrow definition will provide no protection for you, however, if you talk about politics on the phone, or share comments via email and the NSA is listening to you that day.
Also note that Senators, Schumer, Feinstein, and Durbin, who have all argued that corporations are evil, now are granting freedom of speech only to those who can show some evidence of a relationship to corporate news.
So if you weren't interested in Catholics and other Christians who have been pushed into violating their religious beliefs via the HHS mandate, perhaps you want to protect freedom of speech for little bloggers like me.
Or maybe you'll go along with this restriction of freedoms because you will be one of the 'journalists' protected by it. I would caution you that dancing that close to a fire generally does not end well. Ask the Jews who thought that because they didn't practice their faith, and they worked closely with the Nazis, they would be protected. Oh wait, you can't.
Saturday, September 7, 2013
Integrity, or the Lack Thereof
As President Obama continues to stick out his lower lip, cross his arms, and stamp his feet because no one at the G20 summit wants to go to war with him....
I think about the times I've reluctantly agreed with going to war. Not that the consent of a Midwestern mom has much effect on geopolitics, but war does need the support of the people. I agreed with Afghanistan because we were going after Al Queda. I agreed with Iraq because of the weapons of mass destruction, and I TRUSTED THE PEOPLE MAKING THE DECISIONS.
In Syria, there are certainly weapons of mass destruction. Both sides in this conflict have them. It is unclear who has used them. It is clear that Christians are suffering as they are attacked by all of the other players in the conflicts in Syria and Egypt. But the suffering of Christians is of no concern to this president.
Every time this president is faced with a moral question, he sides against the Christian beliefs he claims to hold. Abortion, check. Gay marriage, check. Freedom of worship, check. HHS mandate, check. Jihad 'work-place' violence in the military, check. Muslim Brotherhood tyranny in Egypt, check. Spying on American journalists, check. Letting our Libyan Ambassador die without assistance, check. Just to be clear, when a person in power lies repeatedly, obfuscates, and attacks those who question his authority, he has no integrity. It is not racist to say so. It would be racist to suggest that Obama is held to a different standard because he's black.
So when a president most needs to rely on his integrity, President Obama has none. In my list above, I specifically avoid mentioning all of the obfuscation and lies about his childhood, his college years, any part of his background before he accidentally told Joe the Plumber about his infiltration plans as our new communist leader. I really don't know who thought giving him the Noble Peace Prize was necessary, but the why is obvious. The handlers of the Manchurian Candidate recognized that his resume was a little thin.
So how do the handlers make Manchurian Obama appear to have integrity? I don't think even they can schedule enough indoctrination meetings on the golf course to make that happen. The jig is up.
I think about the times I've reluctantly agreed with going to war. Not that the consent of a Midwestern mom has much effect on geopolitics, but war does need the support of the people. I agreed with Afghanistan because we were going after Al Queda. I agreed with Iraq because of the weapons of mass destruction, and I TRUSTED THE PEOPLE MAKING THE DECISIONS.
In Syria, there are certainly weapons of mass destruction. Both sides in this conflict have them. It is unclear who has used them. It is clear that Christians are suffering as they are attacked by all of the other players in the conflicts in Syria and Egypt. But the suffering of Christians is of no concern to this president.
Every time this president is faced with a moral question, he sides against the Christian beliefs he claims to hold. Abortion, check. Gay marriage, check. Freedom of worship, check. HHS mandate, check. Jihad 'work-place' violence in the military, check. Muslim Brotherhood tyranny in Egypt, check. Spying on American journalists, check. Letting our Libyan Ambassador die without assistance, check. Just to be clear, when a person in power lies repeatedly, obfuscates, and attacks those who question his authority, he has no integrity. It is not racist to say so. It would be racist to suggest that Obama is held to a different standard because he's black.
So when a president most needs to rely on his integrity, President Obama has none. In my list above, I specifically avoid mentioning all of the obfuscation and lies about his childhood, his college years, any part of his background before he accidentally told Joe the Plumber about his infiltration plans as our new communist leader. I really don't know who thought giving him the Noble Peace Prize was necessary, but the why is obvious. The handlers of the Manchurian Candidate recognized that his resume was a little thin.
So how do the handlers make Manchurian Obama appear to have integrity? I don't think even they can schedule enough indoctrination meetings on the golf course to make that happen. The jig is up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)