pages

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

severity of statements, even involving murderer-worship, doesn't make it newsworthy

So I wrote earlier that I, in third person past tense

wishes he had time to explain to you that Chairman Mao was a truly evil person (70 million people dead) and that a Presidential official admiring him and using him as a moral compass is not a little problem when that official has too much power already....

We can contrast this attitude of what the government, us, nurtures to what ESPN, Disney, punishes... National Review will do the work.

Tuesday, October 20, 2009


Dunn Deal [Geoffrey Norman]

Interesting times when it is acceptable to describe Chairman Mao as a great philosopher but out of bounds to say that Donovan McNabb is just a so-so quarterback.

— Geoffrey Norman is a longtime sportswriter who edits the Vermont Tiger blog.

10/20 08:47 AM

Tuesday, October 20, 2009


Re: Dunn Deal [Andy McCarthy]

Geoffrey, that's an awful thing to say after the way Donovan single-handedly crushed the lowly Raiders this weekend — oh, er, never mind . . .

10/20 08:58 AM
I will not address who Anita Dunn is right now, nor do I care to do the link dumping to properly explore the charge of Rush Limbaugh as a racist.

On that matter Thomas Sowell opens, explores the question of whether Rush Limbaugh should sue for the tremendous libel/slander on his name, the attack on his reputation and the misappropriation of... his fame. If I had Mr. Limbaugh's resources I would attempt to bring these media bastards to their knees.

So how else could the Obama movement be 'Maoist'?

Tuesday, October 20, 2009


Re: The Maoist and the Battered Wives [Drew Cline]

During the New Hampshire primary, Obama's campaign was the most hated by the press corps. There was virtually no access to the candidate save for the same access the public had during an event. But at those events, the staff often kept reporters focused on the message by segregating the press from the public. For example, at the now famous Unity, N.H., event with Hillary after Obama won the nomination, the media were corralled into a separate section of the field, separated by metal barriers. I tried to get into the "public" area and was told I couldn't because it was a Secret Service order to segregate the press. I called BS on the staffer, went to the nearest Secret Service agent, and asked who set the order to segregate the press. The campaign staff, he said. The Secret Service would never make such an order, he confirmed. Still couldn't get into the "public" section, though. We were told in no uncertain terms that if we tried to access the "public" area we would be ejected. Don't believe me? The Guardian caught an Obama staffer on video lying to a reporter with the Secret Service excuse. You can see it here. It's a great video documenting the Obama campaign's message control. Watch the Guardian reporter tell an Obama staffer, "You're paranoid!" The campaign systematically kept the press at bay, even going to the extent of developing the tactic of telling the press that the Secret Service wanted us separate from the general public. (Remember, only Obama had Secret Service protection early in the campaign.) Refusing access to FOX News, enlisting the NEA, these are all extensions of this campaign strategy of controlling the message by controlling access to the information the press, and the public, had. It didn't work just because a big chunk of the media liked Obama. Some of the reporters couldn't stand him. But the staffers were religiously loyal. More than with other campaigns, they kept the secrets and lied with a straight face about why we couldn't access the candidate or the public. Even the reporters who were skeptical of Obama were left reporting what he wanted them to because there was nothing else to report.

— Drew Cline is editorial-page editor of the New Hampshire Union Leader.
10/20 07:22 AM
A lot of the press went with what a Presidential campaign told them not merely out of some sort of worshipful love but because they were limited to a choice of doctrine. If they did not eat this pill they would get nothing. I am not certain exactly what "Battered Wife" syndrome is, but I reckon it really a sort of feeling of helplessness, worthlessness, as if without the sort of attention even with negative attention and brutal punishment of the power institutionalized, there would be no alternative and no love or security would come from another. If there is no alternative then the message is what the message is.

People will follow or repeat a doctrine if they are convinced that there is no other way. This sort of conditioning can take time or it may be a simple yet drastic choice in the face of a deadline. Our conditioning has led a bulk of Americans to believe that the inevitable destiny for a good citizen is four years of "higher education" at a college or university merely in order to receive the capital and resources, additional credentials and the scant bit of knowledge necessary to stand or sit, mostly sit, in a place in the world where we can live comfortably, and embrace the fruits of a standard of living. This university education takes, at standard, four years, although such a degree can be obtained in less time for more effort. This is so expected that we have the doctrine pounded into our brains that without this miscellaneous ritual we will be punished with a lesser life with lesser rewards. Of course if everyone goes through this ritual then the fruits of it are less special... the meats of the life are fast food hamburgers. A University education used to be described as steak in a life where we can get buy on common meatstuffs and it used to be true. Now we are told that the high-premium meatstuffs are the most important of prizes yet for all it is spread about the value of it goes down; these are not steaks they are fast food hamburgers. The value of the high school education is also de-valued and hard work itself as an alternative to the high school education is frowned upon. Although I cannot argue against hard work as a true alternative to a high school education and I thank God our economy is, for the most part, that healthy. For now.

So the doctrine we get is that we all need four-year degrees and that this high amount of education widely spread is a guarantee of prosperity and employment. Few on the Left will confess that employment is not necessarily prosperity (especially with a progressive tax rate) and that what can be gained in such a way can be lost, as the greater value something has the more expensive it may be to maintain.

Even without a clear definition in her head of what her future will be my niece told me that she was going to college and she knew what she was doing although she admitted she knew not what her career would be beyond that; I cannot blame a nine-year-old for that. I can blame a culture for placing the idea into young minds that there is an "only way." Now I believe there is an only way, a singular exclusive one way to Heaven and Eternal Life past the corporeal death. I can never believe there is a single institutional gateway into how we become real and responsible adults. All of this is a long way to open into the argument that we, as a culture, have too quickly defaulted into giving trades and trade schools a bum rap. We should not, out of reflex, attach the label to trades as something for lesser men and certainly should not automatically seek the white collar world. That I sought the white collar continuum does not change the brutal fact that my roots and character are blue collar. An honest exploration of the future before taking steps toward a place in that future should involve taking a look at what honestly may not have occurred to oneself. It is true that our modern cultural doctrine places economists and computer programmers at a place above the plumber and the electrician, but for my house they are a lot less useful and the works of a quality roofer last longer and remain relevant much longer than your standard computer program. Forget value to society. According to the New York Post the life of a tradesman can be a much better life. There is an alternative to the generally predicted sort of life and in one sense those four years can be a massive waste of time. If I had to advise a youngster I'd say that if one does not know if he will be a tradesman and/or simply canot clearly envision a future in one particular career or another particular career, two years of community college or the first year or three of University/college is the best place to be while exploring. Training to be the contrary of one's own visions, desires, can lead to a brutal realization. Then again, one's own vision of the future need not come true. Mine did not and yet my life is still good. I will be happy and I am content, even joyful.

To what degree should we be bound by the wishes of our younger selves?

I hope we never stop the exploration of doctrines and consequences.

No comments: