What indeed. For those of you who don't recognize that phrase (What Happened), it is of course the title of the new book by former White House Press Secretary Scott McClelland. This book is causing a lot of fury right now, and I for one am getting a real kick out of it. Considering that my "real job" is running a book store, I'm all for anything that will drive book sales.
What I really get a kick out of is seeing my liberal friends fall for every Bush-bashing comment that is made in this book. Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not one of these people who is going to say "It's all a bunch of lies", because first of all, I haven't read it, and secondly, once I do (and I will) I will probably believe most of the claims that Mr. McClelland makes. Not all of them, but most.
And the funniest thing of all is watching the Libs trip over themselves without even stepping back to see the wholes in some of McClellands stories. For example, my good friend Chris over at http://www.redhogdiary.wordpress.com/ wrote: "McClellan asserts that the aides - Karl Rove, the president’s senior adviser, and I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, the vice president’s chief of staff - “had at best misled” him (or in other words they lied) about their role in the disclosure of former CIA operative Valerie Plame’s identity." This is based on the fact that Libby and Rove had met with each other. Was McClelland in the meeting? No. Did Rove and/or Libby discuss what they talked about in the meeting with McClelland? No. So McClellands assertions are assumptions at best.
One of the big questions that has been making the rounds on the cable news channels, talk radio and the blogosphere lately has been this: If McClelland was so put off by the inner workings of the Bush Administration, why not quit or express your concern at the time? I mean if Scott McClelland is the honorable man he paints himself to be in this book, why do "Satan's work" for all of those years?
Before we attempt to answer that question (and really, the answer is pretty simple), lets look at what McClelland himself had to say when another former Bush appointee wrote a "tell-all" book after leaving the White, former U.S. National Security Council advisor Richard Clarke. McClelland was asked why he thought Clarke wrote his book.
McClelland replied: “Well, why, all of a sudden, if he had all these grave concerns, did he not raise these sooner? This is one-and-a-half years after he left the administration. And now, all of a sudden, he’s raising these grave concerns that he claims he had. And I think you have to look at some of the facts. One, he is bringing this up in the heat of a presidential campaign. He has written a book and he certainly wants to go out there and promote that book”
Speaks volumes, doesn't it? Oh, and the answer to why McClelland didn't step down and why he is writing that book now - follow the money!
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
My Lunch With Bob, Part II
Wow, I can't believe I left this out. First of all, if you haven't read my previous post, please read that first, it helps set this one up.
So anyhow, I'm having lunch with Bob Woodward (see, if you didn't read the last post, you're probably scratching your head right now), and he starts talking about a lunch he had the previous week with Al Gore (which, by the way, he described as "mind-numbing").
Now, with all the current talk about former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan's new "tell-all" book, I don't know how this bit slipped my mind. I guess I should have put this story on the blog a month ago and forget about the pictures (which I still haven't developed).
Anyhow, Woodward is having lunch with Al Gore, and he asks Gore what percentage of what went on in the Clinton White House is the public aware of, and Gore answers (probably 1%). So Woodward suggest that Gore write his own tell-all book, to which Gore replies that there is no way he would ever do such a thing (no surprise, and I would be disappointed in him if he even considered it).
So Woodward pushes him a little further, and says "Okay, obviously that was a joke, and I know you'd never write such a book, but indulge me. If, If you did write a tell-all book, telling all you know about what went on in the Clinton White House, how much then would the public know about what went on in the Clinton White House."
Gore's response: "probably 2%".
Now that's scary!
So anyhow, I'm having lunch with Bob Woodward (see, if you didn't read the last post, you're probably scratching your head right now), and he starts talking about a lunch he had the previous week with Al Gore (which, by the way, he described as "mind-numbing").
Now, with all the current talk about former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan's new "tell-all" book, I don't know how this bit slipped my mind. I guess I should have put this story on the blog a month ago and forget about the pictures (which I still haven't developed).
Anyhow, Woodward is having lunch with Al Gore, and he asks Gore what percentage of what went on in the Clinton White House is the public aware of, and Gore answers (probably 1%). So Woodward suggest that Gore write his own tell-all book, to which Gore replies that there is no way he would ever do such a thing (no surprise, and I would be disappointed in him if he even considered it).
So Woodward pushes him a little further, and says "Okay, obviously that was a joke, and I know you'd never write such a book, but indulge me. If, If you did write a tell-all book, telling all you know about what went on in the Clinton White House, how much then would the public know about what went on in the Clinton White House."
Gore's response: "probably 2%".
Now that's scary!
My Lunch With Bob (and Breakfast With Jenna)
I was holding off writing this post until I had my pictures from my Florida trip last month developed, but they are on one of those disposable cameras, and I still have like fifteen shots to go (and I rarely take photos), so you're just going to have to trust me on this one. But once I have the photos, I'll trow them up on the website.
As many of you know, I manage a bookstore that's part of a big national chain. I won't say which one, but I will say that in the immigration debate, I am very interested in protecting our Borders. Anyhow, last moth we had our annual managers meeting in Florida, and we had an opportunity to see and hear several top authors speak, as a matter of fact we had an author speak at each meal. Some of us had the honor of being able to sit at the table with the authors, and I was fortunate enough to share a table with Bob Woodward, and also have breakfast with Jenna Bush.
Now I'm going to spend the rest of this post talking about Bob Woodward, but let me take a brief moment to say what a delightful, intelligent, and thoughtful girl Jenna Bush was, and what an honor it was to speak with her. Say what you will about George W. Bush (and many of you have), he and Laura did something right to turn out such an impressive child.
Now in all fairness, I have not meant Jenna's sister Barbara, so I'm not saying George and Laura were flawless in the raising of their children. Actually, from what I've learned from numerous T.V. shows and movies, the likelihood is that Barbara is probably pure evil, such most twins consist of a good twin and an evil one, but I digress....
Okay, Bob Woodward. Bob Woodward is of course half of the team of Woodward and Bernstein, the two reporters who broke the Watergate story and effectively ended the Nixon presidency. And while Bob is nowhere near as attractive as Jenna Bush, he was equally captivating. What an interesting man, and not at all what you would expect of someone of his stature.
Now given Woodwards past association with bringing down Nixon, and his association with the Washington Post, you would expect the man to be pretty liberal. And who knows, maybe he is, but if so he does a great job of hiding it. Well during the lunch (there were seven of us at the table, as well as Mr. Woodward), we took every opportunity we could to pick the mans brain. After all, it's not every day you get to speak to someone as knowledgeable as Bob Freaking Woodward.
And Bob was equally interested in what we had to say. Bob went around the table and polled us as to whether or not we supported the invasion on Iraq at the time it occured. Not now, at the time it occured. And we were split about 50-50 (okay, with seven people you can't split 50-50, but it was 3 to 4, I just don't remember which way it went). We asked Bob where he stood, fully expecting him to say "I knew it was wrong from the start" but he startled us by saying he was 100% for it from the beginning, and that even though he and the majority of the press corp knew the information wasn't 100% solid, they felt there was plenty of reliable information to support the invasion.
We asked Bob who he supported for president. Like I said earlier, Bob is a very intelligent man, intelligent enough not to let that little gem out.
The question that I got to ask Bob (Jesus Christ, I got to ask Bob Woodward a question) was "A lot of people think George W. Bush is the worst president we have ever had, do you agree". His answer: "A lot of people don't know history" he later went on to say that while he wouldn't likely claim George W. Bush was a good president, in reality he "probably wouldn't make it into the bottom five, and isn't even in the bottom three of the last 100 years". This lead to a discussion as to who was worse than Bush in the last 100 years, and Woodward kept his cards close to his chest on this one. Most of the people at the table listed Jimmy Carter, which Woodward would neither confirm or deny. I feel that he was conflicted on this one, given that his take down of Nixon (whom despite Watergate, Woodward says wasn't one of the bottom three) lead to us getting Jimmy Carter. Afterall, how would you like to be the one who - directly or indirectly - gace us Jimmy Carter.
I did get him to agree that number on on the list of the last 100 years was Woodrow Wilson, but anyone who knows Wilson's history knows that. But again, as Woodward pointed out, not too many people have a real grasp on history, especially history prior to their birth.
The final thing that I thought interesting was his take on Bush. Don't get me wrong, he's in no way a Bush fan, but he does have a unique perspective having interviewed the man several times. As a matter of fact, he had recenly completed a round of interviews for his upcoming book "Bush at War IV", in which he sat with the president for two days asking him over 500 questions about the war (he joked that had he had the opportunity to sit with Clinton for two days, he would have been lucky to get in two questions). This was in fact the most amount of time in the history of the United States that a member of the press has been given access to a sitting president to discuss a single subject.
And keep in mind, Bush At War I, II, and III were NOT love letters to the president, Woodward had been very critical of George Bush and a number of his decisions. So why, we asked, did Bush agree to sit with him for so long? Because, according to Bob Woodward, George W. Bush knows that he is right. Oh, I'm not saying George Bush is right, and neither is Bob Woodward, but he says that on Iraq, George W. Bush has been guided by principle, and feels 100% that he is acting appropriately. I asked if he (Bush) felt that he had ever misled or lied about anything related to the war. Woodward doubted that he did.
Asked if he felt George W. Bush was a principled man, Woodward said that while he didn't always agree with the mans principals, he's never covered a president that was more led by principle than George W. Bush.
Just thought you might find that one interesting.
As many of you know, I manage a bookstore that's part of a big national chain. I won't say which one, but I will say that in the immigration debate, I am very interested in protecting our Borders. Anyhow, last moth we had our annual managers meeting in Florida, and we had an opportunity to see and hear several top authors speak, as a matter of fact we had an author speak at each meal. Some of us had the honor of being able to sit at the table with the authors, and I was fortunate enough to share a table with Bob Woodward, and also have breakfast with Jenna Bush.
Now I'm going to spend the rest of this post talking about Bob Woodward, but let me take a brief moment to say what a delightful, intelligent, and thoughtful girl Jenna Bush was, and what an honor it was to speak with her. Say what you will about George W. Bush (and many of you have), he and Laura did something right to turn out such an impressive child.
Now in all fairness, I have not meant Jenna's sister Barbara, so I'm not saying George and Laura were flawless in the raising of their children. Actually, from what I've learned from numerous T.V. shows and movies, the likelihood is that Barbara is probably pure evil, such most twins consist of a good twin and an evil one, but I digress....
Okay, Bob Woodward. Bob Woodward is of course half of the team of Woodward and Bernstein, the two reporters who broke the Watergate story and effectively ended the Nixon presidency. And while Bob is nowhere near as attractive as Jenna Bush, he was equally captivating. What an interesting man, and not at all what you would expect of someone of his stature.
Now given Woodwards past association with bringing down Nixon, and his association with the Washington Post, you would expect the man to be pretty liberal. And who knows, maybe he is, but if so he does a great job of hiding it. Well during the lunch (there were seven of us at the table, as well as Mr. Woodward), we took every opportunity we could to pick the mans brain. After all, it's not every day you get to speak to someone as knowledgeable as Bob Freaking Woodward.
And Bob was equally interested in what we had to say. Bob went around the table and polled us as to whether or not we supported the invasion on Iraq at the time it occured. Not now, at the time it occured. And we were split about 50-50 (okay, with seven people you can't split 50-50, but it was 3 to 4, I just don't remember which way it went). We asked Bob where he stood, fully expecting him to say "I knew it was wrong from the start" but he startled us by saying he was 100% for it from the beginning, and that even though he and the majority of the press corp knew the information wasn't 100% solid, they felt there was plenty of reliable information to support the invasion.
We asked Bob who he supported for president. Like I said earlier, Bob is a very intelligent man, intelligent enough not to let that little gem out.
The question that I got to ask Bob (Jesus Christ, I got to ask Bob Woodward a question) was "A lot of people think George W. Bush is the worst president we have ever had, do you agree". His answer: "A lot of people don't know history" he later went on to say that while he wouldn't likely claim George W. Bush was a good president, in reality he "probably wouldn't make it into the bottom five, and isn't even in the bottom three of the last 100 years". This lead to a discussion as to who was worse than Bush in the last 100 years, and Woodward kept his cards close to his chest on this one. Most of the people at the table listed Jimmy Carter, which Woodward would neither confirm or deny. I feel that he was conflicted on this one, given that his take down of Nixon (whom despite Watergate, Woodward says wasn't one of the bottom three) lead to us getting Jimmy Carter. Afterall, how would you like to be the one who - directly or indirectly - gace us Jimmy Carter.
I did get him to agree that number on on the list of the last 100 years was Woodrow Wilson, but anyone who knows Wilson's history knows that. But again, as Woodward pointed out, not too many people have a real grasp on history, especially history prior to their birth.
The final thing that I thought interesting was his take on Bush. Don't get me wrong, he's in no way a Bush fan, but he does have a unique perspective having interviewed the man several times. As a matter of fact, he had recenly completed a round of interviews for his upcoming book "Bush at War IV", in which he sat with the president for two days asking him over 500 questions about the war (he joked that had he had the opportunity to sit with Clinton for two days, he would have been lucky to get in two questions). This was in fact the most amount of time in the history of the United States that a member of the press has been given access to a sitting president to discuss a single subject.
And keep in mind, Bush At War I, II, and III were NOT love letters to the president, Woodward had been very critical of George Bush and a number of his decisions. So why, we asked, did Bush agree to sit with him for so long? Because, according to Bob Woodward, George W. Bush knows that he is right. Oh, I'm not saying George Bush is right, and neither is Bob Woodward, but he says that on Iraq, George W. Bush has been guided by principle, and feels 100% that he is acting appropriately. I asked if he (Bush) felt that he had ever misled or lied about anything related to the war. Woodward doubted that he did.
Asked if he felt George W. Bush was a principled man, Woodward said that while he didn't always agree with the mans principals, he's never covered a president that was more led by principle than George W. Bush.
Just thought you might find that one interesting.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Oops, he did it again......
Yesterday, campaigning in New Mexico (I think it was New Mexico - after all the man has visited 57 states), Barack Obama spoke about his uncle, who was part of the American brigade that helped to liberate Auschwitz. He said the family legend is that, upon returning from war, his uncle spent six months in an attic. “Now obviously, something had really affected him deeply, but at that time there just weren't the kinds of facilities to help somebody work through that kind of pain,” Obama said. “That’s why this idea of making sure that every single veteran, when they are discharged, are screened for post-traumatic stress disorder and given the mental health services that they need – that’s why it’s so important.”
First of all, let me say that I agree with Senator Obama the health services for the troops - mental and otherwise - are extremely important, and the Bush administrations handling of Veterans Administration responsibilities, such as health care, have been deplorable.
Now, lets get on to the good stuff. Gaffe A: Obama's mother is an only child, so he didn't have an uncle serving in WWII. Could have been on his fathers side, but I'm pretty sure we didn't have anyone from Kenya serving in an American uniform.
Gaffe B: The Americans didn't liberate Auschwitz, Russia did.
Now those are the two things the news channels seem to be commenting on the most, but really, after more than 16 years of Bill and Hillary campaigning, Aren't we all used to politicians making up stories to make themselves look righteous? As far as I'm concerned, this gives Obama some Washington cred - it proves that he is just another politician after all.
No, the thing that really caught my eye (or, I guess I should say ear) was this line: "The story in our family was that when he came home, he just went up into the attic and didn't leave the house for six months." Look at that sentence again. When was the last time you recounted some of your family history, and started with "The story in our family was....". Ever heard of Plausible Deniability? This is exactly the way you present something you know to be false, because then when you're caught in your lie, you can say "Hey, that was the story I was told."
You know what Barack? When I repeat a family story, a story I believe to be true (because, even though I wasn't there, I have no reason to doubt it), I state it as fact, not as a "story in our family", but fact.
Now before you think I'm being too hard on Obama, let me say that I don't think he should be held responsible, because he was under a great deal of express. After all, I understand that his helicopter landed in New Mexico under sniper fire......
First of all, let me say that I agree with Senator Obama the health services for the troops - mental and otherwise - are extremely important, and the Bush administrations handling of Veterans Administration responsibilities, such as health care, have been deplorable.
Now, lets get on to the good stuff. Gaffe A: Obama's mother is an only child, so he didn't have an uncle serving in WWII. Could have been on his fathers side, but I'm pretty sure we didn't have anyone from Kenya serving in an American uniform.
Gaffe B: The Americans didn't liberate Auschwitz, Russia did.
Now those are the two things the news channels seem to be commenting on the most, but really, after more than 16 years of Bill and Hillary campaigning, Aren't we all used to politicians making up stories to make themselves look righteous? As far as I'm concerned, this gives Obama some Washington cred - it proves that he is just another politician after all.
No, the thing that really caught my eye (or, I guess I should say ear) was this line: "The story in our family was that when he came home, he just went up into the attic and didn't leave the house for six months." Look at that sentence again. When was the last time you recounted some of your family history, and started with "The story in our family was....". Ever heard of Plausible Deniability? This is exactly the way you present something you know to be false, because then when you're caught in your lie, you can say "Hey, that was the story I was told."
You know what Barack? When I repeat a family story, a story I believe to be true (because, even though I wasn't there, I have no reason to doubt it), I state it as fact, not as a "story in our family", but fact.
Now before you think I'm being too hard on Obama, let me say that I don't think he should be held responsible, because he was under a great deal of express. After all, I understand that his helicopter landed in New Mexico under sniper fire......
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Air America Proves Once Again They Know Nothing Of How Politics Works
One of the e-mail newsletters I subscribe to is the one from Air America. Why? Well, The Office is off the air for the season, but I still love a good laugh. I got a big one out of the following article by Air America's Thom Hartmann titled "Obama - Ask Hillary First!" Now Thom Hartmann is one of the few people on Air America that I can listen to for more than a few minutes. Sure, I rarely agree with the man, but he does occasionally try to at lease try to understand how the other side (aka "The Real World") works. At least I used to think that about him.
But then Thom wrote this:
The issue at hand for the Democratic Party for winning in ‘08 is not losing to McCain but losing to a divided Democratic party. The first thing Obama should do if nominated is put Hillary on the ticket. Will the Republicans have a field day with her on the ticket? Yes! Is their some bad blood in the water due to some negative campaign strategies on the part of the Clintons? Probably. Can Hillary be a tough fighter able to play tough allowing Obama to stay higher above the fray? Yes!
Howard Dean said a few months ago that the loser will be the most important person in the Democratic presidential run this year. Hillary's legacy in this 08 election could place her as the healer and bring together a united Democratic party. As a winning ticket they also move this country closer to healing the racial and misogynist undertones that still have roots.
Can you picture Denver with Hillary's delegates close to half of all delegates demanding that she be included on the ticket? To some it's a crusade. If Hillary was the one out ahead - by just a little over half - wouldn't Obama supporters want the same?
Obama's offer and Hillary's acceptance of an Obama/Clinton ticket hold the healing and the power to move this country in the direction of the real change in Washington that Obama talks about. First he must bring the Democrats back together again.
Obama - Ask Hillary first! And if she should say no, the offer would still have a unifying affect.
- Thom Hartmann
When did it become a requirement that the nominee offer the VP slot to whomever came in second? Joe Libermann didn't come in second to Gore, Bill Bradley did. Al Gore did not come in second to Bill Clinton, Jerry Brown did (Really? Jerry Brown?). As a matter of fact, Jerry Brown garnered 596 Delegates to Al Gore's 1. That's right, in 1992 Al Gore picked up 1 delegate.
Now it's not that there has never been an instance where the nominee picked the person who finished in the number two spot to be his running mate. As a matter of fact, John Kerry picked John Edwards.
But why should Obama be FORCED to ask Hillary? After all, He and Hillary really don't like each other. Some of the most hateful things said about Obama during this campaign have been said not by the Republicans, but by Bill and Hillary. And do you really think Hillary, as V.P., would sit back and let Obama run the show?
Then why? I'll tell you why, because the democrats are afraid that if Obama and Hillary don't unite, they will split the party apart and hand the presidency to McCain. And that could, in effect, mark the beginning of the end for the Democratic party. I mean lets face it, after eight years of George W. Bush, AND going up against what I would consider to be a pretty weak opponent in McCain, if they were to lose what does that say about their party. I love it when I run across a liberal that says "Oh, George W. Bush is the worst president ever" or "Oh, George W. Bush is a total moron". My reply? "Okay, George W. Bush is a moron, and yet your guy couldn't beat him. Twice."
The simple answer is that this is all about the "win at any cost" mentality of politics today. Notice I didn't say the "Democratic win at any cost" mentality, because this is an issue on both sides of the aisle. But if Obama does ask Hillary to be his running mate, he will be doing it out of fear: fear of not winning, and fear of losing power. The Democrats have already shown in 2006 that they are willing to throw away principle for power, so why should 2008 be any different?
But then Thom wrote this:
The issue at hand for the Democratic Party for winning in ‘08 is not losing to McCain but losing to a divided Democratic party. The first thing Obama should do if nominated is put Hillary on the ticket. Will the Republicans have a field day with her on the ticket? Yes! Is their some bad blood in the water due to some negative campaign strategies on the part of the Clintons? Probably. Can Hillary be a tough fighter able to play tough allowing Obama to stay higher above the fray? Yes!
Howard Dean said a few months ago that the loser will be the most important person in the Democratic presidential run this year. Hillary's legacy in this 08 election could place her as the healer and bring together a united Democratic party. As a winning ticket they also move this country closer to healing the racial and misogynist undertones that still have roots.
Can you picture Denver with Hillary's delegates close to half of all delegates demanding that she be included on the ticket? To some it's a crusade. If Hillary was the one out ahead - by just a little over half - wouldn't Obama supporters want the same?
Obama's offer and Hillary's acceptance of an Obama/Clinton ticket hold the healing and the power to move this country in the direction of the real change in Washington that Obama talks about. First he must bring the Democrats back together again.
Obama - Ask Hillary first! And if she should say no, the offer would still have a unifying affect.
- Thom Hartmann
When did it become a requirement that the nominee offer the VP slot to whomever came in second? Joe Libermann didn't come in second to Gore, Bill Bradley did. Al Gore did not come in second to Bill Clinton, Jerry Brown did (Really? Jerry Brown?). As a matter of fact, Jerry Brown garnered 596 Delegates to Al Gore's 1. That's right, in 1992 Al Gore picked up 1 delegate.
Now it's not that there has never been an instance where the nominee picked the person who finished in the number two spot to be his running mate. As a matter of fact, John Kerry picked John Edwards.
But why should Obama be FORCED to ask Hillary? After all, He and Hillary really don't like each other. Some of the most hateful things said about Obama during this campaign have been said not by the Republicans, but by Bill and Hillary. And do you really think Hillary, as V.P., would sit back and let Obama run the show?
Then why? I'll tell you why, because the democrats are afraid that if Obama and Hillary don't unite, they will split the party apart and hand the presidency to McCain. And that could, in effect, mark the beginning of the end for the Democratic party. I mean lets face it, after eight years of George W. Bush, AND going up against what I would consider to be a pretty weak opponent in McCain, if they were to lose what does that say about their party. I love it when I run across a liberal that says "Oh, George W. Bush is the worst president ever" or "Oh, George W. Bush is a total moron". My reply? "Okay, George W. Bush is a moron, and yet your guy couldn't beat him. Twice."
The simple answer is that this is all about the "win at any cost" mentality of politics today. Notice I didn't say the "Democratic win at any cost" mentality, because this is an issue on both sides of the aisle. But if Obama does ask Hillary to be his running mate, he will be doing it out of fear: fear of not winning, and fear of losing power. The Democrats have already shown in 2006 that they are willing to throw away principle for power, so why should 2008 be any different?
Friday, May 23, 2008
Chris, Buddy, You're Starting To Worry Me...
The other day my good friend Chris over at www.redhogdiary.wordpress.com wrote a story about a grandfather teaching his grandson the value of the Quran. I responded to Chris that I had heard the same story 30 years earlier, but that the story had been about the Bible, not the Quran. I finished my comments with “I guess it’s more politically correct these days to spin it towards Islam than Christianity”.
Chris’s reply was “I was always a fan of political correctness anyway. I think another way to say political correctness is civility. Those who rile against political correctness often times want an excuse for rude behavior.”
Now I have known Chris for 35 years, and I love him dearly. And while Chris is a liberal and I am a conservative, we realize that we have more in common than we are different, and we (generally) respect each others opinions, even though we don’t always (or often) agree with each other.
Never before has Chris said anything that angered me or made me question whether he was losing his mind, until his “I was always a fan of political correctness anyway…” comments. Now in Chris’ statement he argues that political correctness equals civility, and if you are going to take that narrow of a view, than yeah, I agree with him. I’m actually a big fan of civility. But saying you are a fan of P.C. because you like civility is like saying you are a big fan of fascism because you really like having the trains run on time. Again, this is a narrow point of view. Political Correctness isn’t about civility, it’s about exerting power and control over others. It’s also about pure stupidity.
Lets look at a couple of examples. In his book Bias, Author Bernard Goldberg talks about a report he filed as a reporter for CBS about a hurricane in the Caribbean, where he had referred to the natives as “Black”. The brass told him to change “Black” to “African Americans.” When Goldberg reminded them that they were not African Americans, in fact they were not Anything-American, he was told it didn’t matter – change it, or the story doesn’t get on the air. So I guess it’s “civil” to take a person’s nationality away from them.
I remember another story regarding a group of nuns who worked with Mother Theresa. They had purchased an abandoned warehouse in New York City with plans to turn it into a soup kitchen and housing for the homeless. NYC Officials told the nuns that they wouldn’t be able to house the homeless, because the planned beds were on the upper floors, and they were “discriminating” against wheelchair-bound homeless. The nuns said they would handle the situation the same way they did in Calcutta: They would carry the handicapped (sorry, I mean “handicapable” – or is it “differently-abled”?....) up to the rooms. The city said no, that carrying them up the flight of stairs would be an assault on their dignity. Apparently it’s more “civil” to let them freeze in the snow.
And no, it’s not just the left that are to blame (although they have truly made it an art-form). In 2006 Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele accused a leading democratic congressman of racial insensitivity for saying that the Republican candidate “slavishly” followed the GOP. Steele, and African American running for the U.S. Senate, was reacting to remarks made by Steny Hoyer, who characterized Steele as having had “a career of slavishly supporting the Republican Party.”
You want another example? Actually, I could give you dozen’s more, but hopefully you, dear reader, “get it”.
Chris’s reply was “I was always a fan of political correctness anyway. I think another way to say political correctness is civility. Those who rile against political correctness often times want an excuse for rude behavior.”
Now I have known Chris for 35 years, and I love him dearly. And while Chris is a liberal and I am a conservative, we realize that we have more in common than we are different, and we (generally) respect each others opinions, even though we don’t always (or often) agree with each other.
Never before has Chris said anything that angered me or made me question whether he was losing his mind, until his “I was always a fan of political correctness anyway…” comments. Now in Chris’ statement he argues that political correctness equals civility, and if you are going to take that narrow of a view, than yeah, I agree with him. I’m actually a big fan of civility. But saying you are a fan of P.C. because you like civility is like saying you are a big fan of fascism because you really like having the trains run on time. Again, this is a narrow point of view. Political Correctness isn’t about civility, it’s about exerting power and control over others. It’s also about pure stupidity.
Lets look at a couple of examples. In his book Bias, Author Bernard Goldberg talks about a report he filed as a reporter for CBS about a hurricane in the Caribbean, where he had referred to the natives as “Black”. The brass told him to change “Black” to “African Americans.” When Goldberg reminded them that they were not African Americans, in fact they were not Anything-American, he was told it didn’t matter – change it, or the story doesn’t get on the air. So I guess it’s “civil” to take a person’s nationality away from them.
I remember another story regarding a group of nuns who worked with Mother Theresa. They had purchased an abandoned warehouse in New York City with plans to turn it into a soup kitchen and housing for the homeless. NYC Officials told the nuns that they wouldn’t be able to house the homeless, because the planned beds were on the upper floors, and they were “discriminating” against wheelchair-bound homeless. The nuns said they would handle the situation the same way they did in Calcutta: They would carry the handicapped (sorry, I mean “handicapable” – or is it “differently-abled”?....) up to the rooms. The city said no, that carrying them up the flight of stairs would be an assault on their dignity. Apparently it’s more “civil” to let them freeze in the snow.
And no, it’s not just the left that are to blame (although they have truly made it an art-form). In 2006 Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele accused a leading democratic congressman of racial insensitivity for saying that the Republican candidate “slavishly” followed the GOP. Steele, and African American running for the U.S. Senate, was reacting to remarks made by Steny Hoyer, who characterized Steele as having had “a career of slavishly supporting the Republican Party.”
You want another example? Actually, I could give you dozen’s more, but hopefully you, dear reader, “get it”.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Get Well Uncle Ted
Today I heard the news that Ted Kennedy has been diagnosed with brain cancer, a for of cancer that can be treated, but not cured. They said that half the patients with this form of cancer die within a year. Sad.
Now let me get this straight, I don't really care for Ted Kennedy. I've always considered him one of the worst Senators on the Hill, and I won't even go into his personal life. However, that doesn't mean that I would take any kind of pleasure in this kind of news. It's tragic, and I wish him and his family the best in these trying times.
As I was driving in to work today I heard Rush talking about the situation. At Dinner I heard Hannity discussing it, and on the drive home I heard a replay of John Gibson, and all three of these men discussing Kennedy's health, and all three were very respectful to the man. They didn't try to hide the fact that they rarely agree with the man on political issues, but all felt this was a horrible situation, and wished the man well.
I thought back to how the media on the left handled the recent death of Jerry Falwell, and the not so recent death of Ronald Reagan, and all of the cruel, vile and downright despicable comments that I heard. Just one more reason why I choose to be a conservative.
Ted, I know you will use the time you have left to its best use. Like I said, we rarely saw eye-to-eye, but bless you for your service to our country.
Now let me get this straight, I don't really care for Ted Kennedy. I've always considered him one of the worst Senators on the Hill, and I won't even go into his personal life. However, that doesn't mean that I would take any kind of pleasure in this kind of news. It's tragic, and I wish him and his family the best in these trying times.
As I was driving in to work today I heard Rush talking about the situation. At Dinner I heard Hannity discussing it, and on the drive home I heard a replay of John Gibson, and all three of these men discussing Kennedy's health, and all three were very respectful to the man. They didn't try to hide the fact that they rarely agree with the man on political issues, but all felt this was a horrible situation, and wished the man well.
I thought back to how the media on the left handled the recent death of Jerry Falwell, and the not so recent death of Ronald Reagan, and all of the cruel, vile and downright despicable comments that I heard. Just one more reason why I choose to be a conservative.
Ted, I know you will use the time you have left to its best use. Like I said, we rarely saw eye-to-eye, but bless you for your service to our country.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Another Take On The High Cost Of Gas....
I heard on the radio that the cost of a regular gallon of gas just hit a new record high of $3.79 a gallon. Of course, living in California $3.79 would be a bargain, as we have been paying over $4.00 for the better part of a month now.
A lot of people like to remind us that when George W. Bush took office, gas was $1.30 a gallon. That means in seven years and four months, the cosy of a gallon of gas has almost tripled. Wow. And of course, the link we are suppose to make is that GWB is responsible for that increase, and I don't necessarily disagree with this thinking. I mean think about it, we went to war against a country in a region where we get the majority of our oil, and gas prices go up. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see the connection.
But here's the part of that equation they always seem to leave out: When George Bush took office as President in January of 2001, the price of gas was $1.30 a gallon. Six years later, in January of 2007, the price of gas was $2.19 per gallon, and increase of 89 cents over 72 months, or put another way, during the first six years of George Bush's presidency gas rose at an average of 1.236 cents every month.
In the last 16 months, the average price of gas has gone from $2.19 to $3.79 a gallon. That is an increase of $1.60 in 16 months, or put another way, since the Democrats took control of the House and the Senate, gas has increased an average of 10 cents per month, OR put another way, since the Democrats took control of the House and the Senate, the price of gas has increased an average more than EIGHT TIMES as fast as it did before we had Democrat control.
Coincidence? Not likely. Wait until they get control of the House, Senate and the White House. If I were you, I'd start buying oil company stocks right now.
A lot of people like to remind us that when George W. Bush took office, gas was $1.30 a gallon. That means in seven years and four months, the cosy of a gallon of gas has almost tripled. Wow. And of course, the link we are suppose to make is that GWB is responsible for that increase, and I don't necessarily disagree with this thinking. I mean think about it, we went to war against a country in a region where we get the majority of our oil, and gas prices go up. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see the connection.
But here's the part of that equation they always seem to leave out: When George Bush took office as President in January of 2001, the price of gas was $1.30 a gallon. Six years later, in January of 2007, the price of gas was $2.19 per gallon, and increase of 89 cents over 72 months, or put another way, during the first six years of George Bush's presidency gas rose at an average of 1.236 cents every month.
In the last 16 months, the average price of gas has gone from $2.19 to $3.79 a gallon. That is an increase of $1.60 in 16 months, or put another way, since the Democrats took control of the House and the Senate, gas has increased an average of 10 cents per month, OR put another way, since the Democrats took control of the House and the Senate, the price of gas has increased an average more than EIGHT TIMES as fast as it did before we had Democrat control.
Coincidence? Not likely. Wait until they get control of the House, Senate and the White House. If I were you, I'd start buying oil company stocks right now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
