The Socialists had to replace God in order that their new subjects be freed to worship them instead. The Commandments of God had to be replaced by the Commandments of Socialism so that proper socialist disposition could be established. Probably the first Socialist commandment is: always remember that you are stupid, state bureaucrats are smart and loving creatures who know best, and freedom is the worst thing of all.
Not withstanding 150 million dead people and billions more impoverished over the last 100 years by socialism, Hillary Clinton stepped forward once again the other day to assume her place among the socialists. She said that school vouchers were a very bad thing because they were a Republican attempt to free parents to choose the schools that they thought were best for their kids. Under a voucher system parents would in fact be free to take their children out of schools (most of which are among the worst schools in the industrial world) and place them in better schools. This kind of freedom was bad, she argued, because some parents are stupid parents who would make the wrong choice in schools. Of course she didn't feel that making a mistake was an integral part in learning what was not a mistake. She did, though, place herself among the socialist elite whose choices are not suspect. She retained her own right to pick the school her daughter attended, while denying that right to those parents less caring or less intelligent than she is.
She apparently feels that if she was in charge the mistakes in the evolutionary education process could be avoided altogether. That 12th graders in public schools recently performed below the international average for 21 countries on tests of general knowledge of math and science was, to her, probably, just an anomaly for which no explanation was needed. If she did attempt to explain it, the solution would undoubtedly require more rather than less socialism. Or, perhaps her brand of socialism rather than the older brand. When she is fully in charge, she may feel, her five year plan will work better than the five year plan of the current bureaucrats. In any case, we would no longer have to worry about audacious parents mistakenly fretting over their children's education because Hillary and the State would be there as the latest and greatest quintessential bureaucrats.
There are several obvious reasons why the stagnant liberal public schools have failed all of America's children, and why Republican voucher schools would evolve in a competitive environment to be better schools:
1) They are socialist and non competitive; so educational standards are guessed at by bureaucrats rather than established competitively. Interestingly, American Colleges and Universities are competitive, and the best in the world, while secondary schools are socialist and among the worst in the industrial world.
2) No corporeal punishment - no touching is allowed in liberal schools. The liberals let pedophiles out of jail, which makes as much sense as letting enemy combatants out of jail during time of war, but the liberals need to be nice, to criminals anyway, and so they do it. As a result we have criminals in the schools and touching, then, cannot be allowed. When kids misbehave the teacher then must argue, plead, beg, and cajole students to behave. Many teachers report that they feel more like policemen than teachers. The yardstick is gone and so is the proper educational environment.
2) They are controlled by liberal unions that waste money. In NYC, for example, a class is worth $270K in revenue. The teacher gets $75k and the rest is wasted by the bureaucrats when it might be used hire more teachers and cut class size by 70%. And, unions, of course, exist not only to extort non competitive wages for teachers but also to extort noncompetitive working conditions, hours, and performance standards.
3) They teach liberal politics rather than English and Math. In fact, teachers are often chosen for their liberalism, not their teaching ability. Here is an account from the Chronicle of Higher Education: "Although she earned a 3.75 grade-point average in the one-year program, Ms. Siegfried says her professors told her last spring that she lacked the "professional disposition" necessary to be a good teacher. She was inflexible, they said, and wasn't open to new ideas or responsive to other cultures. Ms. Siegfried left the teacher-training program, she says, before her professors could show her the door.
"She is one of several students backed by national conservative organizations who have complained in the last year about education professors (95% of whom admit to being liberal) who are more interested in students' political views than in their classroom performance. In addition to evaluating whether students are responsible and have good communication skills, for example, some education schools have begun questioning whether students value social justice, acknowledge white privilege, and agree to be change agents in battling sexism, racism, and homophobia." Reading and math are often replaced by liberal culture lessons featuring Johnny has two Moms.
4) Liberal parents- Of course, many of the worst students come from many of the worst liberal neighborhoods where liberal social welfare programs and bad attitudes discourage hard work and self discipline while encouraging contempt for even the work ethic and relative success of the more Republican white culture.
There are now few Kipp Schools spread across the country that work well, but there always have been educators who have stepped forward to say, "this is insane; I can educate these children," and often they do, for a time. But in the end they are drowned out by socialists like Hillary who prefer the failing status quo, the promise of a swift ,universal, socialist cure, and the huge liberal electorate that accompanies such insanity.
Education is not rocket science. Kipp students, for example, "are in school at least nine hours a day, compared with fewer than seven hours in regular public schools. This is 60% longer than most kids. Three weeks of summer school is mandatory. Students are urged to call teachers at home if they have questions about homework. Those who do not complete homework are disciplined. Good work and behavior are rewarded with points toward items from the student store and school trips, from which students with few points are excluded. Teachers are trained to be very active in their classrooms, involving all children in lessons and taking points off from those who do not pay attention."
But in the end Hillary will kill the Kipp schools too, and probably she will become President where she can finally bring her Godlike soviet qualities to bear on more aspects of our lives. Hillary is consistent at least. She may not care about results in the schools but she does care about socialism, at least. We have seen this remarkable consistency before. When she was asked about what she would do when the her socialist health care plan bankrupted 60% of the small businesses in the country she replied, "I can't be responsible for every undercapitalized small business in the country." Republicans just don't get how the consistent obsession with socialism can matter more than the obvious long term results? But that's a little like asking how cigarettes can matter when cancer is the result.
Ted Baiamonte
comments: bje1000@aol.com
th529
2.20.2006
Six Democrats; Six Forms of Insanity
In the last week I happened to catch six Democratic sound bites each one of which speaks to the obvious need for a Constitutional Amendment to make Democrats illegal. Our Framers would certainly have done this if they could have foreseen that their seemingly foolproof Constitution, which was supposed to keep us free of gov't for the first time in human history, would be plagued by a creeping Democratic cancer. Here are the six sound bites, each one of which speaks to the illegitimacy of Democrats.
1) Sharing the Benefits of Globalization - Barney Frank, (liberal Congressman from MA.) wrote in the latest issue of Business Week that the benefits of globalization are being held and enjoyed by corporations and not shared. His threat was that business had to "come to the table" and share the benefits in order to maintain the legitimacy of globalization in the eyes of the common man? Frank of course is an incredible Democrat with no understanding whatsoever of freedom or free trade. In point of fact, every time a person walks into a Walmart to buy something made by a guy in China who makes $5 a day he is benefiting from globalization. In fact, globalization exists precisely to benefit the Walmart shopper, and other shoppers. If globalization did not benefit consumers, it could not exist for one second longer. To believe that world trade does not benefit consumers one would have to insanely believe that one would be better off if he could trade only within his own town, state, or country. Even a monkey can see that, but often not the Democrats? Oh, and that unemployment is at 4.7% indicates that trade doe not cost jobs. And, that we suddenly have plasma TV's, LCD TV's, DLP-TV's, i-Pods, DVDs and DVD players, PCs, DVRs, satellite radio, Advantium ovens, HD-TV, Playstations, X-Boxes, broadband, satellite TV, cell/camera/video phones, OnStar, digital cameras, palmcorders, Blackberries, home theaters, SUVs, big houses, more houses per capita, TiVo, wine coolers, $200 sneakers, front loader washing machines, 6 burner commercial ranges, $6 Trillion ($20,000 for every person in the United States) in Federal, State, and Local taxes, more fat people than thin people, more cars than registered drivers, and still produce the same percentage of the world's manufactured goods (24%) that we did 20 years ago should make us thank God for global trade, live in fear that people like Barney Frank walk among us, and be petrified that they serve in Congress. Yes, some people riot in the streets at G-8 meetings to emote about the illegitimacy of global trade, and some babble on in Business Week but they are just Democrats.
2) Laughing at the Military--Hillary said that the military had taken its eye off the terrorist ball and so "couldn't even find a 6' 5" tall guy (Osama Bin Laden) in Afghanistan". Liberals love to poke fun at the military this way. Her implication was that if she held the executive branch she could somehow direct the goofy military on how to find OBL. This is hard to believe given how overtly contemptuous she and her husband were of the military when they ran the executive branch, and that, so far as anyone knows, she has exactly "no" expertise whatsoever. Moreover, if OBL is in Pakistan, as suspected, it is doubtful that even if every soldier that was in Iraq was in Afghanistan it would do one little thing to improve the possibility of getting OBL in Pakistan, where our troops are mostly not allowed. It is quite obvious that everyone directly working on getting him would dearly love to be the hero to finally get one of the greatest villains since Hitler. We can assume the effort is maximum, and that if OBL were 7' 5" it would make no difference whatsoever, except to Hillary, as a laugh line. As a Republican, I hope the Democrats continue to come out of the closet, like Joel Stein recently did in the LA Times, to admit that it is hypocritical for the Democrats to pretend to support the troops but not support what the troops do.
3) Handled Iran All Wrong-- Iran has just announced its plan to proceed toward a nuclear bomb and Howard Dean (chairman of the Democratic Party) has just announced that Bush handled it all wrong. In his rabid haste to be critical, Dean insanely forgot that Bush handled it exactly the way the Democrats wanted. He turned the matter over to the saintly UN and to the even more saintly Europeans. He trusted them, he cooperated with them, he listened to them, and he respected them. He wanted to build a better relationship with them just as the Democrats wanted. After all, the UN and Europe are more sophisticated, more complex, sweeter, more nuanced; they understand the subtleties in negotiating that cowboy Bush does not. But in the end, surprise, Iran (see Hassan Rowhani) was thumbing its nose at the cowardly and impotent UN/European alliance all along. And so in the end only the Republican American military can prevent terrorists and terrorist countries from getting WMD. We are at war with an enemy who would kill and/or impoverish us in a second were it not for our military. It is the Republican military that gives us the luxury to negotiate with an enemy, but only if that enemy believes we might use it. Howard Dean, the Democrats, the UN, and the European negotiators won't use military force; so they should stay the hell out of the way now that we've handled it their way and have once again seen their results. Moreover, if the Democrats and their liberal friends around the world had supported the war in Iraq, Iran might now be sitting next to a real Iraqi Democracy. That might have been the best way to handle Iran.
4) The Gov't Is Incompetent - the other day the Secretary of Health and Human Services was testifying before a House committee on which Charles Rangel serves. Rangel accused the Secretary of implying that the gov't was incompetent because so many of the proposed programs, i.e., health saving accounts, prescription drugs, pension reform, social security privatization, etc., seemed to shift responsibility to citizens and away from gov't. The cowardly Secretary was afraid to say, "of course the gov't is incompetent you idiot. A monopoly will always be incompetent because it has no reason not to be. Why do you think communism failed? Why do you think the Europeans have a 39% lower standard of living? Why do you think FDR gave us 10 years of depression and 5 years of world war?" A newly brave Secretary might also have said, "Congressman Rangel, if you think gov't is so competent and can manage things so well, rather than let Ford and GM go bankrupt, why not have the gov't take them over and establish a bureaucracy to run them through your committee? In fact, you can be the senior vice president of quality control. The Japanese car industry will never know what hit them."
5) You've Got To Forget About Ideology- At another hearing on healthcare another Congressman, whose name I've forgotten, was in fine liberal, self-righteous form as he explained the socialist nuances of healthcare to his audience. He explained that because the gov't allows the Veterans Administration to negotiate prices with the drug companies the VA can provide drugs to Vets at 80% less than the cost of drugs under the new prescription drug plan. Then, oddly, even he seemed to realize what he was saying was a little too simplistic; so in panic, he mentioned the Republican objections. He said, "when you talk to Republicans they scream "socialism" or "price fixing". We should forget about about ideology, we should just get our citizens affordable drugs."
For those who missed Econ. 101 or studied it under a socialist professor who never looked out his window "single payer" socialist price fixing does not work because: 1) if the price is too low there may be no profit with which to stay in business or to invent new drugs, 2) shortages may develop if the price is too low, 3) as production costs rise over time profits may be squeezed until companies are bankrupt or unproductive. 4) competitors may not invent new drugs fearing that the fixed price will not cover their costs 5) as costs rise gov't bureaucracy grows to manage and monitor costs, prosecute hoarders, subsidize poor people, and regulate distributors and retailers. The USSR tried to make socialist price fixing work for 70 years; with the encouragement of most American economists, most notably Paul Samuelson, who taught three generations of American college kids that the Soviet Union could sustain rates of growth greater than ours. In the end, the truth was that they had about 10-15% the growth we had, and never produced one single consumer product innovation. What they did produce was shortages of bad products and day long waiting lines to buy those products at exorbitant prices. That is why the Congressman wants us to forget about his Socialist ideology. Maybe he even wants to negotiate with the automobile industry to get us the best prices on cars too?
6) Market Values Versus Loving And Caring Values- Rabbi Michael Lerner, who coined the phrase "the politics of meaning" was once described by the Washington Post as "Hillary's brain", has a new book out called: "The Left Hand of God." The insane assumption of the book is that God is a leftist, socialist, progressive; obviously opposed to the "tyranny of market values." Among his proposals is that every ten years a corporation can have its charter renewed only if it demonstrates to a jury that it is a socially valuable enterprise. Again, the simple truth is that the USSR, Communist China, Cuba, and to a lesser extent, Europe, failed because they interfered with the freedom of businesses and consumers to make voluntary market decisions. A social jury would function exactly like the politburo: stupid bureaucratic guessing would take the place of millions of efficient, expert decisions made by consumers determining for themselves how best to advance their own particular standard of living in a free market place. The idea that consumers are stupid, business doesn't live and die by serving customers, and that socialist bureaucrats are loving souls who know best, is an idea that only Lerner, Hillary, and Castro could love. If you think Hillary is moving to the center, ask Rabbi Lerner why he thinks his dear friend Hillary shares his caring, loving, socialist values.
So, are many of the Democrats socialists? Yes. Are they smart enough to be aware of it? Some are. Does this lead them to be contemptuous of the military and other American institutions? Yes. Will they stop at socialist health care if they get it? Never in a million years. Does simple common sense require a Constitutional amendment against the anti-American Democrats? Yes!
Comments: bje1000@aol.com
Ted Baiamonte t731pm
1) Sharing the Benefits of Globalization - Barney Frank, (liberal Congressman from MA.) wrote in the latest issue of Business Week that the benefits of globalization are being held and enjoyed by corporations and not shared. His threat was that business had to "come to the table" and share the benefits in order to maintain the legitimacy of globalization in the eyes of the common man? Frank of course is an incredible Democrat with no understanding whatsoever of freedom or free trade. In point of fact, every time a person walks into a Walmart to buy something made by a guy in China who makes $5 a day he is benefiting from globalization. In fact, globalization exists precisely to benefit the Walmart shopper, and other shoppers. If globalization did not benefit consumers, it could not exist for one second longer. To believe that world trade does not benefit consumers one would have to insanely believe that one would be better off if he could trade only within his own town, state, or country. Even a monkey can see that, but often not the Democrats? Oh, and that unemployment is at 4.7% indicates that trade doe not cost jobs. And, that we suddenly have plasma TV's, LCD TV's, DLP-TV's, i-Pods, DVDs and DVD players, PCs, DVRs, satellite radio, Advantium ovens, HD-TV, Playstations, X-Boxes, broadband, satellite TV, cell/camera/video phones, OnStar, digital cameras, palmcorders, Blackberries, home theaters, SUVs, big houses, more houses per capita, TiVo, wine coolers, $200 sneakers, front loader washing machines, 6 burner commercial ranges, $6 Trillion ($20,000 for every person in the United States) in Federal, State, and Local taxes, more fat people than thin people, more cars than registered drivers, and still produce the same percentage of the world's manufactured goods (24%) that we did 20 years ago should make us thank God for global trade, live in fear that people like Barney Frank walk among us, and be petrified that they serve in Congress. Yes, some people riot in the streets at G-8 meetings to emote about the illegitimacy of global trade, and some babble on in Business Week but they are just Democrats.
2) Laughing at the Military--Hillary said that the military had taken its eye off the terrorist ball and so "couldn't even find a 6' 5" tall guy (Osama Bin Laden) in Afghanistan". Liberals love to poke fun at the military this way. Her implication was that if she held the executive branch she could somehow direct the goofy military on how to find OBL. This is hard to believe given how overtly contemptuous she and her husband were of the military when they ran the executive branch, and that, so far as anyone knows, she has exactly "no" expertise whatsoever. Moreover, if OBL is in Pakistan, as suspected, it is doubtful that even if every soldier that was in Iraq was in Afghanistan it would do one little thing to improve the possibility of getting OBL in Pakistan, where our troops are mostly not allowed. It is quite obvious that everyone directly working on getting him would dearly love to be the hero to finally get one of the greatest villains since Hitler. We can assume the effort is maximum, and that if OBL were 7' 5" it would make no difference whatsoever, except to Hillary, as a laugh line. As a Republican, I hope the Democrats continue to come out of the closet, like Joel Stein recently did in the LA Times, to admit that it is hypocritical for the Democrats to pretend to support the troops but not support what the troops do.
3) Handled Iran All Wrong-- Iran has just announced its plan to proceed toward a nuclear bomb and Howard Dean (chairman of the Democratic Party) has just announced that Bush handled it all wrong. In his rabid haste to be critical, Dean insanely forgot that Bush handled it exactly the way the Democrats wanted. He turned the matter over to the saintly UN and to the even more saintly Europeans. He trusted them, he cooperated with them, he listened to them, and he respected them. He wanted to build a better relationship with them just as the Democrats wanted. After all, the UN and Europe are more sophisticated, more complex, sweeter, more nuanced; they understand the subtleties in negotiating that cowboy Bush does not. But in the end, surprise, Iran (see Hassan Rowhani) was thumbing its nose at the cowardly and impotent UN/European alliance all along. And so in the end only the Republican American military can prevent terrorists and terrorist countries from getting WMD. We are at war with an enemy who would kill and/or impoverish us in a second were it not for our military. It is the Republican military that gives us the luxury to negotiate with an enemy, but only if that enemy believes we might use it. Howard Dean, the Democrats, the UN, and the European negotiators won't use military force; so they should stay the hell out of the way now that we've handled it their way and have once again seen their results. Moreover, if the Democrats and their liberal friends around the world had supported the war in Iraq, Iran might now be sitting next to a real Iraqi Democracy. That might have been the best way to handle Iran.
4) The Gov't Is Incompetent - the other day the Secretary of Health and Human Services was testifying before a House committee on which Charles Rangel serves. Rangel accused the Secretary of implying that the gov't was incompetent because so many of the proposed programs, i.e., health saving accounts, prescription drugs, pension reform, social security privatization, etc., seemed to shift responsibility to citizens and away from gov't. The cowardly Secretary was afraid to say, "of course the gov't is incompetent you idiot. A monopoly will always be incompetent because it has no reason not to be. Why do you think communism failed? Why do you think the Europeans have a 39% lower standard of living? Why do you think FDR gave us 10 years of depression and 5 years of world war?" A newly brave Secretary might also have said, "Congressman Rangel, if you think gov't is so competent and can manage things so well, rather than let Ford and GM go bankrupt, why not have the gov't take them over and establish a bureaucracy to run them through your committee? In fact, you can be the senior vice president of quality control. The Japanese car industry will never know what hit them."
5) You've Got To Forget About Ideology- At another hearing on healthcare another Congressman, whose name I've forgotten, was in fine liberal, self-righteous form as he explained the socialist nuances of healthcare to his audience. He explained that because the gov't allows the Veterans Administration to negotiate prices with the drug companies the VA can provide drugs to Vets at 80% less than the cost of drugs under the new prescription drug plan. Then, oddly, even he seemed to realize what he was saying was a little too simplistic; so in panic, he mentioned the Republican objections. He said, "when you talk to Republicans they scream "socialism" or "price fixing". We should forget about about ideology, we should just get our citizens affordable drugs."
For those who missed Econ. 101 or studied it under a socialist professor who never looked out his window "single payer" socialist price fixing does not work because: 1) if the price is too low there may be no profit with which to stay in business or to invent new drugs, 2) shortages may develop if the price is too low, 3) as production costs rise over time profits may be squeezed until companies are bankrupt or unproductive. 4) competitors may not invent new drugs fearing that the fixed price will not cover their costs 5) as costs rise gov't bureaucracy grows to manage and monitor costs, prosecute hoarders, subsidize poor people, and regulate distributors and retailers. The USSR tried to make socialist price fixing work for 70 years; with the encouragement of most American economists, most notably Paul Samuelson, who taught three generations of American college kids that the Soviet Union could sustain rates of growth greater than ours. In the end, the truth was that they had about 10-15% the growth we had, and never produced one single consumer product innovation. What they did produce was shortages of bad products and day long waiting lines to buy those products at exorbitant prices. That is why the Congressman wants us to forget about his Socialist ideology. Maybe he even wants to negotiate with the automobile industry to get us the best prices on cars too?
6) Market Values Versus Loving And Caring Values- Rabbi Michael Lerner, who coined the phrase "the politics of meaning" was once described by the Washington Post as "Hillary's brain", has a new book out called: "The Left Hand of God." The insane assumption of the book is that God is a leftist, socialist, progressive; obviously opposed to the "tyranny of market values." Among his proposals is that every ten years a corporation can have its charter renewed only if it demonstrates to a jury that it is a socially valuable enterprise. Again, the simple truth is that the USSR, Communist China, Cuba, and to a lesser extent, Europe, failed because they interfered with the freedom of businesses and consumers to make voluntary market decisions. A social jury would function exactly like the politburo: stupid bureaucratic guessing would take the place of millions of efficient, expert decisions made by consumers determining for themselves how best to advance their own particular standard of living in a free market place. The idea that consumers are stupid, business doesn't live and die by serving customers, and that socialist bureaucrats are loving souls who know best, is an idea that only Lerner, Hillary, and Castro could love. If you think Hillary is moving to the center, ask Rabbi Lerner why he thinks his dear friend Hillary shares his caring, loving, socialist values.
So, are many of the Democrats socialists? Yes. Are they smart enough to be aware of it? Some are. Does this lead them to be contemptuous of the military and other American institutions? Yes. Will they stop at socialist health care if they get it? Never in a million years. Does simple common sense require a Constitutional amendment against the anti-American Democrats? Yes!
Comments: bje1000@aol.com
Ted Baiamonte t731pm
2.09.2006
Dinner With A Genocidal Liberal
The other night I sat down for dinner in the heart of liberal darkness (NYC) with an extremely well educated guest and found genocide to be the subject of conversation. In the course of a long conversation I asked my guest how he felt about imposing 19th Century American religious, marital values on Africa. He got very sullen as if I were crazy. He said, "I wouldn't think of imposing a probably outdated American institution on Africa." I responded, "then your position is, by default, the status quo which will result in about 30 million dead people over the next 30 years." He had no further response except what appeared to be extreme frustration.
He was such a committed American liberal feminist that when confronted with the theoretical choice between liberalism and genocide he elected genocide. It was a scary example of how hard it is to fight the brain dead bigotry of liberalism. Their position is not based on logic and so it is not possible to dislodge it with logic.
Years ago William Buckley Jr. was asked about why Ted Kennedy never appeared on his show. Buckley replied, "why does meat avoid a grinder". You hear the same sentiment from Republicans of all stripes. Liberals don't come out to think because they don't believe in thinking. They are genuine bigots who believe in nothing more than the superiority of their own feelings. Rush Limbaugh, for example, to pick a vastly different kind of conservative, notices the same phenomenon. He says he doesn't talk to liberals much because liberals don't call his show to defeat his positions with logic. It doesn't occur to them. Instead, a half million of them go to The Daily Kos where they spout off to each other like bigots at a Klu Klux Klan rally. Debate, deliberation, and democracy don't occur to them. A famous liberal philosopher(actually the actor George Cloony) once said liberals don't need the word "compassionate" in front of the their name to let people know that they care about people. Sadly, Mr. Cloony and the liberals are unable to understand that caring (didn't Marx and Mao care?) only matters if you learn to think about what you care about.
Nevertheless, I persisted with my dinner quest but this time from another tack. I asked him if he could wave a magic wand that would make every male in Africa want, as his primary goal in life, to love one woman, marry her, and raise their kids until death did they part, would he, or would he do nothing? He again said, "I would not even think of it." Again, he did not say of what he would think.
Indeed, he very neatly represented why America hasn't been able to help Africa: because of thoughtless, caring liberals. They have successfully divided America from its traditional conservative values and rendered us impotent on the world stage, even in the face of genocide. We can't promote family values that would save millions of lives because Democrats don't have family values. We can't intervene intellectually or militarily because Democratic pride compels Democrats to watch people die by the millions rather than impose the America values they hate so much. We can't have allies around the world to promote civilized values because liberal imperialism has rendered our would be allies impotent too. The American Republican religious right, then, remains as the primary and lone outpost of civilization on earth.
Out of guilt we at least do what the liberals will allow, but even then only by stealth. We give Africans medicine and mosquito nets (even liberals can't object to that) but certainly not values. For centuries, though, the world has done just that and it has never worked except to exacerbate the problems. Medicine and mosquito nets are merely the product of values, which means that Africans will always need a perpetually greater supply from us in the absence of their own maturing values. Interestingly, at the moment, the liberals are led by the rock star Bono of U2 fame who passionately believes that if only we will give 1% of our income to Africa it will finally solve their problem. But how do you explain to a perfectly uneducated liberal rock star and the politically correct liberal millions who follow him that money does not create American family values?
It must be the single greatest irony in all of human history that we have achieved true greatness relative to Africa in the most obvious way imaginable, and yet the liberals hate America so much they have made it politically incorrect and rude to say so, let alone to act so, even in the face of their ethnocentric genocide. The central role of Bono is perhaps testimony to the liberal need not to think about anything at all under any circumstances.
Betty Friedan, who died last week, is perhaps the one most responsible for the liberal feminist destruction of American values which has led to so many of our problems at home, and to our amoral liberal imperialism. In all the guilty praise heaped upon her last week, in the end there is one line most associated with justifying what she has done, i.e., "no one wants to go back". It was a way to acknowledge that going back was now a legitimate issue to consider despite how obvious going forward once seemed. Her main contribution to human evolution was to help women understand that to be be whole, authentic human beings, they had to establish an identity outside of their husbands, marriages and children. She claimed that women who existed merely within their families were compelled to soulfully ask, "is that all there is?"
Somehow the idea clicked for a lot of women who were somehow convinced that a superior identity could be had from modern widgets rather than from modern children. It was a new and better liberal value. So women, never married, divorced men and /or went to work. The kids were left behind to raise themselves or given loveless baby-sitters. Being abandoned was obviously not a great deal for kids. Oddly though, men got unintended messages from Betty too. Not only were they not important enough to be loved the old fashioned way, but kids weren't either. It was a double whammy for kids from the sensitive caring liberals, but at least Mom had some nice new clothes, a new job, and some widgets with which to round out her new, superior liberal identity, albeit at the expense of her meaningless children. Betty's public relations at the end included a defensive statement about what a loving mother and grandmother she really was. All the broken homes, child neglect, and virtual genocide in Africa that Betty left in her wake did not mean Betty wasn't a loving women it just meant that she loved widgets and kids equally, no matter what the liberal consequences. My dinner quest was proof positive of how deeply and unconsciously liberalism is now a tragic and integral part of our lives.
Ted Baiamonte
comments: bje1000@aol.com
He was such a committed American liberal feminist that when confronted with the theoretical choice between liberalism and genocide he elected genocide. It was a scary example of how hard it is to fight the brain dead bigotry of liberalism. Their position is not based on logic and so it is not possible to dislodge it with logic.
Years ago William Buckley Jr. was asked about why Ted Kennedy never appeared on his show. Buckley replied, "why does meat avoid a grinder". You hear the same sentiment from Republicans of all stripes. Liberals don't come out to think because they don't believe in thinking. They are genuine bigots who believe in nothing more than the superiority of their own feelings. Rush Limbaugh, for example, to pick a vastly different kind of conservative, notices the same phenomenon. He says he doesn't talk to liberals much because liberals don't call his show to defeat his positions with logic. It doesn't occur to them. Instead, a half million of them go to The Daily Kos where they spout off to each other like bigots at a Klu Klux Klan rally. Debate, deliberation, and democracy don't occur to them. A famous liberal philosopher(actually the actor George Cloony) once said liberals don't need the word "compassionate" in front of the their name to let people know that they care about people. Sadly, Mr. Cloony and the liberals are unable to understand that caring (didn't Marx and Mao care?) only matters if you learn to think about what you care about.
Nevertheless, I persisted with my dinner quest but this time from another tack. I asked him if he could wave a magic wand that would make every male in Africa want, as his primary goal in life, to love one woman, marry her, and raise their kids until death did they part, would he, or would he do nothing? He again said, "I would not even think of it." Again, he did not say of what he would think.
Indeed, he very neatly represented why America hasn't been able to help Africa: because of thoughtless, caring liberals. They have successfully divided America from its traditional conservative values and rendered us impotent on the world stage, even in the face of genocide. We can't promote family values that would save millions of lives because Democrats don't have family values. We can't intervene intellectually or militarily because Democratic pride compels Democrats to watch people die by the millions rather than impose the America values they hate so much. We can't have allies around the world to promote civilized values because liberal imperialism has rendered our would be allies impotent too. The American Republican religious right, then, remains as the primary and lone outpost of civilization on earth.
Out of guilt we at least do what the liberals will allow, but even then only by stealth. We give Africans medicine and mosquito nets (even liberals can't object to that) but certainly not values. For centuries, though, the world has done just that and it has never worked except to exacerbate the problems. Medicine and mosquito nets are merely the product of values, which means that Africans will always need a perpetually greater supply from us in the absence of their own maturing values. Interestingly, at the moment, the liberals are led by the rock star Bono of U2 fame who passionately believes that if only we will give 1% of our income to Africa it will finally solve their problem. But how do you explain to a perfectly uneducated liberal rock star and the politically correct liberal millions who follow him that money does not create American family values?
It must be the single greatest irony in all of human history that we have achieved true greatness relative to Africa in the most obvious way imaginable, and yet the liberals hate America so much they have made it politically incorrect and rude to say so, let alone to act so, even in the face of their ethnocentric genocide. The central role of Bono is perhaps testimony to the liberal need not to think about anything at all under any circumstances.
Betty Friedan, who died last week, is perhaps the one most responsible for the liberal feminist destruction of American values which has led to so many of our problems at home, and to our amoral liberal imperialism. In all the guilty praise heaped upon her last week, in the end there is one line most associated with justifying what she has done, i.e., "no one wants to go back". It was a way to acknowledge that going back was now a legitimate issue to consider despite how obvious going forward once seemed. Her main contribution to human evolution was to help women understand that to be be whole, authentic human beings, they had to establish an identity outside of their husbands, marriages and children. She claimed that women who existed merely within their families were compelled to soulfully ask, "is that all there is?"
Somehow the idea clicked for a lot of women who were somehow convinced that a superior identity could be had from modern widgets rather than from modern children. It was a new and better liberal value. So women, never married, divorced men and /or went to work. The kids were left behind to raise themselves or given loveless baby-sitters. Being abandoned was obviously not a great deal for kids. Oddly though, men got unintended messages from Betty too. Not only were they not important enough to be loved the old fashioned way, but kids weren't either. It was a double whammy for kids from the sensitive caring liberals, but at least Mom had some nice new clothes, a new job, and some widgets with which to round out her new, superior liberal identity, albeit at the expense of her meaningless children. Betty's public relations at the end included a defensive statement about what a loving mother and grandmother she really was. All the broken homes, child neglect, and virtual genocide in Africa that Betty left in her wake did not mean Betty wasn't a loving women it just meant that she loved widgets and kids equally, no matter what the liberal consequences. My dinner quest was proof positive of how deeply and unconsciously liberalism is now a tragic and integral part of our lives.
Ted Baiamonte
comments: bje1000@aol.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)