Who's Being Politically Correct
When I was young we were told over and over how horrible the Soviets were. They were reaching their tentacles around the world and eventually wanted to take it over. For the last 25 years I have seen a serious increase in the number of times that the United States has been doing precisely the same thing. From Central and South America to the Middle East most of these, as the ones that came before that time, were using our military to increase the influence and power of large, now multinational, corporations. It's the business of business that drives our foreign policy.
We claim altruism, is it unamerican to insist that we actually live and act as we profess. Certainly there is a some altruistic nature to our society. Especially if you put it in the hands of the people and not the everything should be done with monetary reward involved crowd. When we use the common wealth to promote the general welfare of our nation we see the mutual benefit. Bridges and roads, Police and fire, libraries and to an extent schools. These are things that improve the life of all the people. Instead we see not more of what can we do to make all of our lives better but how do I make a profit. I understand econ 101 and I know to continue any enterprise one must operate in the black. To insist that we have little to no government and the entire country is “privatized” seems far scarier to me than socialism. Certainly the production of goods and most services are a private enterprise. What we all have as common is where we as citizens are to have control. This is how we as citizens make our society better.
If we are to be the country we claim to be then we must live up to those standards. Blind patriotism is not what we need. True patriotism is what we need. A country that lives up to our ideals. There should be no doubt that on nearly every front we are losing ground with the rest of the modern nations. Rankings of nations on a full range of standards show “old europe”, you know those damned socialist nations, near the top and the United States slipping further and further.
It's politically incorrect to say one isn't proud of their country but is sure doesn't seem out of the bounds of rational behavior if one wasn't proud of something that opposed their values. Radical righties like to talk about how terrible it is that liberals are so dependent on “emotionalism”. If you are a political neophyte that means logic and common sense in real language. They want facts and figures and nothing else. Now we have an issue where Michelle Obama said that it was the first time in her adult life that she was really proud of her country. An issue that drowns it's self in emotionalism and they are so.....emotional.
By the way it's interesting that most of the reports I have seen have sort of forgotten the word “adult” that comes ahead of “life” especially when writing the headline. The fair and balanced Fox News networks internet feed had the word “really”that came just ahead of “proud” edited out of the audio. Why did they take out that word? Why, don't we all know, its the liberal media! I'm getting really tired of people trying to tell me up is down and down is up.
posted by Ron at 1:35 AM
4 Comments:
Ron, an example of true patriotism will be seen in a report this evening at 6pm on 60 Minutes. The show presents evidence of Karl Rove's involvement in the arrest and imprisonment of Democratic Gov Siegleman of Alabama for a non-crime. It will show the connections in the amorally corrupt Justice Dept and its purely political actions. If anyone is watching the Oscars they need to record or Tivo 60 Minutes.
And, yes, what they want is a "privatized" one world government which they pretend to be against while putting others on the defensive about it.
Larry in New Mexico
The siegleman story is a small piece of the story. As tinfoil hat as it seems, the evidence, as in the Siegleman story, shows they had a plan to politicize our entire justice department. When I say politicize I mean partisan litmus tests and all. Let's hope we can nip it in the bud. I want no president, Obama, Edwards, or McCain with the powers the current executive branch punishes us with.
Whoa! First of all, there were two clips of Obama saying she wasn't proud of America with only one of them having the word "really" used, as if that changes anything regarding her hypocritical position. By that I meant that this chick, as well as Barry, had great opportunities for which she should be proud and thankful considering which country it is that allowed them to thrive as they have. There's no emotion aside from indignation from the right when two well heeled ivy leaguers pretend there is nothing for which to proud regarding the greatest nation on earth. Are we flawed? Isn't everybody? But there is no better place for the low to rise up than this country. Instead of castigating the country, the dumb broad should perhaps think on what made her different than others who haven't made it and then decide if it was "white oppressors" or really a lack of perserverance, something that all successful people require in becoming successful.
Next, I would comment on Larry's suggestion and remind him that Siegleman's got nothing on Scooter Libby. Talk about a non-crime. Chances are, Siegleman's story is tainted by the usual 60 minute slant. As to the Justice Dept, they indeed need to be on the same page as the administration and there have been political crapola between them as well as with the CIA. But I'm not clear enough on the details to comment further. The point is that a 60 Minutes piece does not mean anything in and of itself. File it if you want, but it's not likely to add up to anything on it's own.
Finally, as to the thread itself, I must say Ron that it appears you've gone to the Barry Obama School of Rhetorical Obfuscation. You say a lot of nice sounding things without any real meaning to it. A few "for examples" would've helped to legitimize your words. As they stand, they are empty. How has America used it's military to impose anything but justice anywhere? Are you suggesting that helping business thrive overseas is less beneficial than simply donating money without any expectations of progress? How can progress happen flooding cash into a society that doesn't change its ways? Businesses hire. The hired have a regular income on which to plan their lives. They spend and save. The economy strengthens. Donations do nothing beyond short term aid. If the only result, and it is usually the case, is a continued hand out for more, we solve nothing.
To put it another way, our military deals with the scumbags giving business a chance to thrive and provide real benefits to the area. When successful, we have another trading partner, another country that would prefer doing business rather than doing war. The goal is to help countries become another Germany or Japan. Not a bad plan, IMHO.
Wow, marshal, how do I count the ways! I'll have to deal with this as we go along. It's a term paper to count how many misconceptions you displayed there..in my view anyway.:-)
Post a Comment
<< Home