Posts Tagged ‘obama · barack’

Exploiting Youthful Idealism – Shamelessly

In the New York Times article, “Students Lose Zeal for Aiding Obama Again” (11/14/2011), are the following paragraphs:

Mr. Obama’s advisers, while acknowledging the shift, said they were confident that the loss of these workers would be negated by an influx of new students who have turned of voting age since 2008. Mr. Obama’s campaign manager, Jim Messina, said there had been eight million voters ages 18 to 21 registered since the last election, most of whom were Democrats.

“Their brothers and sisters started it, and they are going to finish it,” Mr. Messina said Monday. “They are storming into our office. Our volunteer numbers are up from where we thought they would be.”

This would be a stunningly shameless admission if such blatant exploitation weren’t so commonplace as to numb the senses to being stunned any further. Note that Mr. Messina acknowledged the sentiment shift, but flatly ignored Obama’s responsibility and the people he harmed. There is no perfunctory (and disingenuous) “We feel your pain,” no pro forma (and dishonest) “We’re doing everything we can,” no confession that the students’ disaffection is well founded, no compulsion to address them or their issues at all. Rove Messina may as well have said: F - - - them. We moved on, they should too.

These exploited voters are simply being discarded for the next group of unwitting dupes. It’s not even a speed bump for the regime. They see a path to maintain their power and the disappointment and powerlessness of those who invested their hopes and dreams are of zero consequence. Sadly, using history as a guide, the message will be lost on those who can ill afford to miss it, whose futures are jeopardized most, the very ones exploited — in this case the young.

The natural idealism of youth is a valuable input, counterbalancing the equally natural circumspection of the not-so-young. The two forces should create productive tension. Another way to state this difference is: the young lack — dare I say ipso facto — tempering experience.

This does not assert that experience negates idealism. If that’s what you hear, re-read the introductory clause of the previous paragraph. The two innate characteristics counter-balance one another. My history includes the idealism of my youth. The young do not, cannot, share my subsequent hard earned experience. A thought experiment for the young, and useful for young and old alike: I understand and embrace your idealism to offset my certainly diminished capacity for same. Do you similarly value my input to offset your lack of experience?

There is an irony here. (Isn’t life full of them?) Of the two demands requisite to productive engagement between generations, the one placed on the young is necessarily the more challenging. The old must put aside whatever barriers they have to pulling existing items from the memory bank in order to recall the idealism of their youth. But we ask the young to accept as true what they have not yet experienced, so cannot know. We ask them to take it as an article of faith.

We do a disservice to them and to ourselves when we fail to acknowledge that the young have the more difficult end of the bargain. It is a lack of empathy that our experience should warn to guard against, but too often doesn’t. And this is the gap exploited by partisans, ideologues, tyrants, and other power-hungry lovers of self.

Post to Twitter

Obama 2012 Theme Song

Listening to a news report a couple weeks ago, about Tom Petty sending a cease and desist letter to the Bachmann campaign demanding they stop using “American Girl” as a theme song, I simply shook my head. What is it with celebrity twits? Do they project their own dimwittedness to all their fans? Does Petty really think people are so stupid as to assume using the song implies his endorsement of her campaign? Or is he just an insufferable pettifogger?

Anyway, I don’t want to get bogged down in that discussion. It’s pointless.

Later that day, or the next, I popped Neil Young’s “Sleeps With Angels” CD in the car and was soon listening to one of my favorites of his: Piece of Crap. As I shouted the tag line with each verse, loudly, it occurred to me that this could be Obama’s 2012 theme song. And we all know he wouldn’t get the same grief Bachmann did.

So I went home, found the words, then began writing my own. Here’s the original, with the new lyrics below.

Piece of Crap

Original Lyrics

Tried to save the trees
Bought a plastic bag
The bottom fell out
It was a piece of crap

Saw it on the tube
Bought it on the phone
Now you’re home alone
It’s a piece of crap

I tried to plug it in
I tried to turn it on
When I got it home
It was a piece of crap

Got it from a friend
On him you can depend
I found out in the end
It was a piece of crap

I’m trying to save the trees
I saw it on TV
They cut the forest down
To build a piece of crap

I went back to the store
They gave me four more
The guy told me at the door
It’s a piece of crap

Obama 2012 Lyrics

Tried to save the planet
Bought a plastic duce
The bottom fell out
It was a piece of crap

Saw it on the tube
Messianic overtone
Now you’re home alone
It’s a piece of crap

I thought this would begin
An epoch, utopian
But this hope and change
It was a piece of crap

Lemmings, me and friends
Believing he transcends
I found out in the end
It was a piece of crap

I’m trying to save the planet
Catechized by the TV
They razed the greatest country
To build a piece of crap

Fake leader, tinsel orator
Meretricious class warrior
Thinks he should get four more
It’s a piece of crap

Imagine this song blaring at every Obama campaign stop, with those majestic columns falling over in the background. It’s perfect.

Post to Twitter

Green Pipe Dreams I

An article yesterday morning in Mercury News’ tells the story of a “rough patch” that “high-flying Solyndra” has hit. The company manufactures solar panels. Despite $1 billion venture capital funding and a $535 million loan guarantee from DOE, the company is struggling and analysts don’t see a way forward.

President Obama held the firm up as a “green” poster child during a visit less than a year ago.

Jumping to conclusions from one anecdotal data point, in one article, does not generally indicate reasoned understanding. Nonetheless, Mercury News is no right wing puppet and the story includes some damning facts.

The article also raises the obligatory China card (who can compete with their labor costs?), but contains its own refutation of that scaremongering.

Solyndra’s manufacturing costs are $3/watt, but the distractingly vague “many low-cost Chinese manufacturers” have costs in the $1.10-$1.20/watt range. There, that’s it. Those damn Chinese and their “massive government support.” Except Solyndra has received similar support (what is $535 million, if not massive?). Still more relevant is that another competitor, First Solar of Tempe, AZ, has manufacturing costs of $.75/watt, expected to be at $.53 by 2014.

Even if Solyndra could compete with the Chinese, they’d be beat by a company right here in the good ol’ US of A. So why raise China? Maybe to fill the story without having to ask the question: What in God’s green earth makes people believe the gubbermint can pick winners and losers?

I’m not even asking whether government should make such choices (the consequences of which — abuse of power for personal gain — should give liberals the heebie-jeebies, rather than the orgasms it seems to do).  No, the objection is to whether they can make such choices effectively. Government “investment” (a misnomer if there ever was one) will inevitably lead to misallocation of limited resources, making us all worse off.

Before I get the obligatory “ok government hater, don’t call 911 the next time you have an emergency” straw man objections, I’m not advocating no government, but a properly limited one. $535 million (even if “only” loan guarantees) to a company with a possibly fundamentally flawed business model, no matter how great a product, is $535 million down the toilet. It is unavailable (whether privately or publicly, capital is fungible and this capital is gone) for investment  in a viable enterprise that might create 1000 jobs rather than scuttle such plans as Solyndra has done.

A company spokeswoman is quoted, “The company didn’t tell its story as well as it should have.” That sounds like some politicians, who can’t admit their schemes don’t work and aren’t wanted by the citizens. They delude themselves into believing they simply failed to effectively sell them to the ignorant masses.

If those in public positions want to be hedge fund managers, or venture capitalists, then they should choose that route. Decisions like this, and mountains more just like them, prove why they don’t. They couldn’t succeed. But as a politician, or bureaucrat, they’re able to play assume a can opener all day long, with other people’s hard-earned money and without personal accountability. Don’t talk to me about the accountability of the ballot box. There are enough voters with short memories that we’re still electing politicians based on the same failed promises of the last 40 years. (Probably longer, but that’s all I remember.)

Stop already with “green jobs of the future” promoted by those who don’t even know the past. Enough with government “investment.” With apologies to the many teachers who don’t deserve it, consider this epigram: Those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach. Without apology I add the corollary: Those who can’t teach become politicians and bureaucrats.

Post to Twitter

You Go, Michael Vick

President Obama re-ignited the flames of a “controversy” that seemingly is bound to smolder forever. I like animals, especially dogs. I’m neither a fan of the President, nor the NFL. But I’m with Obama on this one.

Every time Michael Vick takes another step that does not evidence failure on his road to redemption, the self-sanctimonious crowd spins into action, wasting no time, sparing no vitriol, to kick him and kick him again. This is expected from single-issue liberals, especially the limousine type, but the battle has been joined from the right, which proves just how utterly confused this story has become.

Let’s start with Tucker Carlson.

“I’m a Christian, I’ve made mistakes myself, I believe fervently in second chances, but Michael Vick killed dogs, and he did [it] in a heartless and cruel way,” Carlson said. “And I think personally he should have been executed for that.


Did he really claim belief in second chances, a “fervent” belief based on his Christian faith, and in the same sentence suggest Vick should have been executed? It’s safe to dismiss this as provocative simply for publicity’s sake. I mostly enjoy Carlson, but he willingly sacrificed credibility for media whoredom. Lost in the blitz (pun intended?) is another human, God’s creature, objectified in the cause of self-aggrandizement.  Shame on Tucker Carlson.

Let’s not forget the lefties who can’t resist similar temptations. They are also in it for the fund raising. But are the donations gathered for the “cause” or to maintain their livelihood? What would they do if they weren’t living on the dole? These self-interested “advocates” also view Michael Vick only as an object to be used for their own advancement, not a living, flawed, human being just as they are. Shame on them too.

Allow me to answer the complaints.

1. Animal Cruelty is an unforgivable sin

Hogwash. Cop killers become causes célèbres (e.g. Mumia Abu-Jamal, FALN). Terrorists’ public images are rehabilitated (e.g William Ayers, Gerry Adams, Yasser Arafat). Baby killers are virtually worshipped. Sex offenders, obligated to register and continue paying for their crimes after serving their time, have defenders of their civil rights. But abuse an animal and there is no redemption. This is insane. I reject the elevation of animal life above human life.

2. We should all be sick of pampered celebrities

I’ve written before about not being enamored of celebrities. They are often self-important buffoons who receive inexplicable special treatment. That, however, is not a capital offense. They also are sometimes targeted for high profile prosecutions to “send a message” to the masses. This is a favored tactic of the IRS, some argue their most effective enforcement mechanism. So celebrity can cut both ways.

It’s safe to say no one would be engaged in this “issue” were Michael Vick not a public person. My bottom line is this: he did his time. What he did was despicable and should always be condemned. But we have more to gain corporately from a rehabilitated sinner. Those screeching the loudest expose pure self interest, masquerading as concern. Like Tucker Carlson, my faith informs my belief in redemption. Unlike him, and all the others, my beliefs must be more honest. I’m not willing to sacrifice them, or a second chance recipient, for an exercise in self-absorbed self-sanctimony.

In the article referenced above, I wrote:

I’m always wary of presuming to “know” public people, and of consequently ascribing unwarranted character, or lack thereof. The parts of their lives which aren’t necessarily guarded are too often carefully choreographed.

I am skeptical of reading too much into celebrity mea culpas. They are usually quite transparent but, even when seemingly genuine, reading another’s heart is impossible. Reading a practiced performer’s heart is even more so. While acknowledging the difficulties, Michael Vick struck me as possessing real remorse. Nothing he has done since causes me to question that guess. Quite the contrary, everything has confirmed it. I’m not willing to judge him by a standard I too would fail. I’m pulling for him and celebrate his success without reservation.

Post to Twitter

Obama ‘BFD’ T-Shirt

Barack Obama, following the Clinton (D-Arkansas) tradition, is soiling the office of the President and embarrassing the nation.  Joe Biden’s F-Bomb is being marketed for profit.

I can’t say it any better than already written at Freedom Eden.  Please read it there.

My only addition is: just when I think this administration and their bottom-feeding cabal can find no new depths to plumb, they find a new way to disgust me.

Post to Twitter

Talk so cheap it’s worthless

On Saturday, President Obama fired back at former Vice President Cheney, referring back to his inauguration day speech as proof his administration is on a war footing.   A post from Paul Mirengoff at Power Line under the title “The limits of self-reference” points out the President’s unusual insistence that his spoken words should be dispositive.  Not that it is unusual Obama would attach great importance to himself and his rhetoric, but that the actual execution of policy is so completely contradictory.

These quotes bracket an article worth reading with the contrasts it draws between the inaugural speech and subsequent policy actions.

So there you have it: if Obama’s rhetoric has, at one time or another, employed the word “war” in connection with words having some relationship to terrorism, then he must be waging war on terrorism.

If Obama wants to convince an increasingly skeptical public that he takes the fight against terrorism seriously, he needs to change both his posture and his policies. Referring to past speeches won’t do the trick.

I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Mirengoff, but would take it a step further. This President is so busy trying to pretend he is all things to all people, and has given so many speeches in furtherance of the sleight of hand, that his talk isn’t just cheap. It is worthless.

Post to Twitter

Post-racial my patoot

I am a conservative who genuinely considered voting for Barack Obama.

I remember the malaise that enveloped the country during the tenure of the man with the unenviable distinction of being the worst president and the worst ex-president in (at least) my lifetime — the anti-Semite, Jimmy Carter. I also had the good fortune to attend a Reagan campaign rally in Milwaukee, WI, and remember being stirred by his message. He was, and always will be, the Great Communicator.

Reagan’s contributions extended beyond his speech making, but the importance of his inspiration to the healing of the nation should not be underestimated.  It is that belief — in the role of the president to inspire — that had me honestly considering Barack Obama.  In the end, I didn’t trust his centrist rhetoric, and was deeply suspicious of his radical history.  Sadly, it hasn’t taken long for me to be proven correct.

But now it’s even worse than that. Consider this paragraph from George Will, “The prize Hillary isn’t owed,” May 18, 2008.

When, in 1975, Frank Robinson became major league baseball’s first African American manager, with the Cleveland Indians, that was an important milestone. But an even more important one came two years later, when the Indians fired him. That was real equality: Losing one’s job is part of the job description of major league managers, because sacking the manager is one of the few changes a floundering team can make immediately. So, in a sense, Robinson had not really arrived until he was told to leave. Then he was just like hundreds of managers before him.

Until a black president can be criticized on legitimate policy differences, just like all presidents before and without the race card being played, he hasn’t really arrived.

I didn’t consider Obama because he was black.  Unlike, apparently, many of his supporters, I wasn’t motivated by white guilt. I have none. It wouldn’t have been an affirmative action choice.  I simply thought he might be the best man for the job, for the country at the time. Skin color wasn’t a factor.

This man is anything but post-racial. (Post-partisan seems like a bad joke, too.)  He and his supporters are incapable of carrying on a public policy debate without hiding behind his skin color. This isn’t progress. The country is more racially polarized, and worse off, than before he took office.  Maureen Dowdy and the rest of the lefty race hucksters producing and regurgitating the talking points can blame it on the opposition, but no one outside their incestuous cabal believes the risible lies.

I don’t have a problem with skin color. Never have. Liberals do.

Post to Twitter