Author Archive
Hard Times
by Admin on Jul.01, 2015, under Character, Principles, Truisms
In more negative moods, I can see quite clearly that the U.S. is bound for hard times. I can convince myself that we’re headed for third world status.
If that’s true, here’s an interesting article, “10 Forgotten Truths to Help You Get Through Hard Times“. It’s more geared to personal hard times (loss of loved one, job loss, etc.), but I think it will help in a bigger “bad times” sense as well.
Don’t forget your Faith. There have been plenty of times in human history when Faith was all people had.
Look throughout history. How can anyone not see that “government” is nearly always the problem, the oppressor? The U.S. governmental experiment, as documented in our founding papers, was truly a one-of-a-kind attempt at forming a government for and by the people. And it worked for a while.
Full-on Persecution is Near
by Admin on Jun.29, 2015, under Consequences, Do the Math, Truisms
Full-on persecution of Christians in the U.S. is coming. Already “we” applaud Bruce Jenner for being himself, but can’t let Tim Tebow express himself. Gay marriage is in, and Christian opinion on the matter is marginalized. The First Amendment has been chipped; don’t expect it to take too long to bust it up entirely. Tax-exempt status for churches and other religious-based nonprofits is among the next targets. I don’t know about “the end of times”, but I can see the end of the American experiment from here. And it’s just sad.
You see, the government cannot abide the notion that there may be a “higher authority” for right and wrong. Who are you, or Who is Your God, to say what is right or wrong. Make no mistake, the government will tell you what’s right or wrong, and you will be made to care.
Specious
by Admin on Jun.25, 2015, under Words Have Meanings
Do you know what specious means? It’s an accurate adjective used regarding the Left’s attempts to get what it wants via situations that are 90-some percent totally unrelated. Like using recent gun incidents to get guns banned (or controlled to death). We get “financial reform” that has nothing to do with the problem, student loans, that leads inexorably to yet another basket of problems (“unintended consequences”). “We must fix [some relatively small issue with] healthcare by nationalizing the entire system.”
Specious: superficially plausible, but actually wrong; misleading in appearance, especially misleadingly attractive.
If you can’t do the math…
by Admin on Jun.10, 2015, under Do the Math
… get out of the equation. [Hillary Duff, The Math Lyrics, on the album Metamorphosis (2003)]
Good rule of thumb even beyond relationships. Put another way, if the math escapes you, no wonder your answers make no sense. Here’s another line that will put fear in the heart of most self-righteous utopians: “show me your work”.
Corollaries: If you don’t have skin in the game, shut up. If you can’t think it through all the way, shut up.
Look at Detroit
by Admin on Jun.04, 2015, under Do the Math, Principles, Truisms
If you want to see where 50 years of leftist utopia crap takes you, look at Detroit:
http://louderwithcrowder.com/detroit-ruins-crowder-goes-ghetto/
There are those pushing policies that would take the entire country this way.
This Comes Close
by Admin on Jun.01, 2015, under Uncategorized
I’ve been trying for years to “sum up” what I think about politics, where we’re headed, etc. This comes close to what I’d say. I’ll ponder this some more and post some additional thoughts…
Rabbi Steven Pruzansky
Congregation Bnai Yeshurun in Teaneck, New Jersey
“The most charitable way of explaining the election results of 2012 is that Americans voted for the status quo – for the incumbent President and for a divided Congress. They must enjoy gridlock, partisanship, incompetence, economic stagnation and avoidance of responsibility. And fewer people voted.
But as we awake from the nightmare, it is important to eschew the facile explanations for the Romney defeat that will prevail among the chattering classes. Romney did not lose because of the effects of Hurricane Sandy that devastated this area, nor did he lose because he ran a poor campaign, nor did he lose because the Republicans could have chosen better candidates, nor did he lose because Obama benefited from a slight uptick in the economy due to the business cycle.
Romney lost because he didn’t get enough votes to win.
That might seem obvious, but not for the obvious reasons. Romney lost because the conservative virtues – the traditional American virtues – of liberty, hard work, free enterprise, private initiative and aspirations to moral greatness – no longer inspire or animate a majority of the electorate.
The simplest reason why Romney lost was because it is impossible to compete against free stuff.
Every businessman knows this; that is why the “loss leader” or the giveaway is such a powerful marketing tool. Obama’s America is one in which free stuff is given away: the adults among the 47,000,000 on food stamps clearly recognized for whom they should vote, and so they did, by the tens of millions; those who – courtesy of Obama – receive two full years of unemployment benefits (which, of course, both disincentives looking for work and also motivates people to work off the books while collecting their windfall) surely know for whom to vote. The lure of free stuff is irresistible.
The defining moment of the whole campaign was the revelation of the secretly-recorded video in which Romney acknowledged the difficulty of winning an election in which “47% of the people” start off against him because they pay no taxes and just receive money – “free stuff” – from the government.
Almost half of the population has no skin in the game – they don’t care about high taxes, promoting business, or creating jobs, nor do they care that the money for their free stuff is being borrowed from their children and from the Chinese.
They just want the free stuff that comes their way at someone else’s expense. In the end, that 47% leaves very little margin for error for any Republican, and does not bode well for the future.
It is impossible to imagine a conservative candidate winning against such overwhelming odds. People do vote their pocketbooks. In essence, the people vote for a Congress who will not raise their taxes, and for a President who will give them free stuff, never mind who has to pay for it.
That engenders the second reason why Romney lost: the inescapable conclusion that the electorate is ignorant and uninformed. Indeed, it does not pay to be an informed voter, because most other voters – the clear majority – are unintelligent and easily swayed by emotion and raw populism. That is the indelicate way of saying that too many people vote with their hearts and not their heads. That is why Obama did not have to produce a second term agenda, or even defend his first-term record. He needed only to portray Mitt Romney as a rapacious capitalist who throws elderly women over a cliff, when he is not just snatching away their cancer medication, while starving the poor and cutting taxes for the rich.
During his 1956 presidential campaign, a woman called out to Adlai Stevenson: “Senator, you have the vote of every thinking person!” Stevenson called back: “That’s not enough, madam, we need a majority!” Truer words were never spoken.
Obama could get away with saying that “Romney wants the rich to play by a different set of rules” – without ever defining what those different rules were; with saying that the “rich should pay their fair share” – without ever defining what a “fair share” is; with saying that Romney wants the poor, elderly and sick to “fend for themselves” – without even acknowledging that all these government programs are going bankrupt, their current insolvency only papered over by deficit spending.
Similarly, Obama (or his surrogates) could hint to blacks that a Romney victory would lead them back into chains and proclaim to women that their abortions and birth control would be taken away. He could appeal to Hispanics that Romney would have them all arrested and shipped to Mexico and unabashedly state that he will not enforce the current immigration laws. He could espouse the furtherance of the incestuous relationship between governments and unions – in which politicians ply the unions with public money, in exchange for which the unions provide the politicians with votes, in exchange for which the politicians provide more money and the unions provide more votes, etc., even though the money is gone.
Obama also knows that the electorate has changed – that whites will soon be a minority in America (they’re already a minority in California) and that the new immigrants to the US are primarily from the Third World and do not share the traditional American values that attracted immigrants in the 19th and 20th centuries. It is a different world, and a different America . Obama is part of that different America , knows it, and knows how to tap into it. That is why he won.
Obama also proved again that negative advertising works, invective sells, and harsh personal attacks succeed. That Romney never engaged in such diatribes points to his essential goodness as a person; his “negative ads” were simple facts, never personal abuse – facts about high unemployment, lower take-home pay, a loss of American power and prestige abroad, a lack of leadership, etc. As a politician, though, Romney failed because he did not embrace the devil’s bargain of making unsustainable promises.
It turned out that it was not possible for Romney and Ryan – people of substance, depth and ideas – to compete with the shallow populism and platitudes of their opponents. Obama mastered the politics of envy – of class warfare – never reaching out to Americans as such but to individual groups, and cobbling together a winning majority from these minority groups. If an Obama could not be defeated – with his record and his vision of America , in which free stuff seduces voters – it is hard to envision any change in the future.
The road to Hillary Clinton in 2016 and to a European-socialist economy – those very economies that are collapsing today in Europe – is paved.
For Jews, mostly assimilated anyway and staunch Democrats, the results demonstrate again that liberalism is their Torah. Almost 70% voted for a president widely perceived by Israelis and most committed Jews as hostile to Israel . They voted to secure Obama’s future at America ‘s expense and at Israel ‘s expense – in effect, preferring Obama to Netanyahu by a wide margin.
A dangerous time is ahead. Under present circumstances, it is inconceivable that the US will take any aggressive action against Iran and will more likely thwart any Israeli initiative. The US will preach the importance of negotiations up until the production of the first Iranian nuclear weapon – and then state that the world must learn to live with this new reality.
But this election should be a wake-up call to Jews. There is no permanent empire, nor is there an enduring haven for Jews anywhere in the exile. The American empire began to decline in 2007, and the deterioration has been exacerbated in the last five years. This election only hastens that decline.
Society is permeated with sloth, greed, envy and materialistic excess. It has lost its moorings and its moral foundations.. The takers outnumber the givers, and that will only increase in years to come.
The “Occupy” riots across this country in the last two years were mere dress rehearsals for what lies ahead – years of unrest sparked by the increasing discontent of the unsuccessful who want to seize the fruits and the bounty of the successful, and do not appreciate the slow pace of redistribution.
If this election proves one thing, it is that the Old America is gone. And, sad for the world, it is not coming back.”
The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.
Science vs Pseudoscience
by Admin on May.08, 2015, under Logic / Fallacies, Principles, Truisms
The Skeptics Guide to the Universe publishes this helpful chart:
I would add a “for instance”:
Science: Earth Science/Climate
Pseudoscience: Man-driven Climate Change (ala Al Gore)
Minimum Wage
by Admin on Apr.17, 2015, under Truisms
If you want more than minimum wage, have more than minimum skills.
Givers need to set limits
by Admin on Apr.13, 2015, under Truisms
“Givers need to set limits because takers rarely do.” Rachel Wolchin
Give and Take
by Admin on Apr.03, 2015, under Do the Math, Truisms
The government can only give to someone what it has taken from someone else.