By necessity, our choices limit our freedom. Every choice binds us to something - we can't go back and unmake a decision.
What is most important, then, is not what we choose, but to who or what we choose to surrender our will.
Friday, March 6, 2009
Well, now we know what "hope" and "change" mean
So yesterday I was listening to Sean Hannity, and he did a segment called "Man on the Street", where he interviews random folks at Union Station in NY. Being NY, most of the people he talks to are liberal, so you can guess how the segment went.
He spoke to one gentleman in particular that frightened me considerably. The line of questioning consisted of whether or not the gov't should provide certain benefits, ie. healthcare, daycare, college aid, everything under the sun, etc. The gentleman, and african-american transit worker who admittedly voted for B.O. because he is "black", was of the opinion that the government should provide everything anyone could want. Frightening enough in and of itself, certainly, but the next question and answer scared me even more:
Q: "Do you know who Karl Marx is?"
A: "No."
Q: "Have you ever heard of Marxism?"
A: "No."
Sadly, I think this man's ignorance is largely representative of the folks who gave us B.O. in the White House, and indeed most liberals: they are either woefully uneducated and voted for the cool black guy who shoots hoops, or they are woefully idealistic and choose to willfully ignore past precedent (socialism has never meant prosperity, nor will it ever mean prosperity - not for the average person, anyway).
Which brings me to the second NY resident (read: Liberal idealist) who Hannity interviewed: a Canadian college student living in the US. He had a similar sense of entitlement as the first man, but when asked whether he trusted the gov't to do a good job with administering all these entitlement programs, answered with a resounding "no". But he's got hope that this time they'll get it right.
I only pray that in 4 years, after the Federal Gov't has been expanded beyond recognition, the DOW is somewhere around 3,000, and we're all living on gov't cheese, we'll get someone in charge of the country that believes in American Exceptionalism and not European Socialism.
I fear, however, that as long as the ignorant and the idealists keep getting fired up by empty promises packaged in empty speeches, we may be in this for eight years instead of four. B.O is a smooth talker, after all. If only the American people would stop voting as if they were electing the homecoming king, and if only the American intellectuals would stop voting as if the world were a Utopian dream, we might get back on our feet.
I can't say I'm optimistic, though.
He spoke to one gentleman in particular that frightened me considerably. The line of questioning consisted of whether or not the gov't should provide certain benefits, ie. healthcare, daycare, college aid, everything under the sun, etc. The gentleman, and african-american transit worker who admittedly voted for B.O. because he is "black", was of the opinion that the government should provide everything anyone could want. Frightening enough in and of itself, certainly, but the next question and answer scared me even more:
Q: "Do you know who Karl Marx is?"
A: "No."
Q: "Have you ever heard of Marxism?"
A: "No."
Sadly, I think this man's ignorance is largely representative of the folks who gave us B.O. in the White House, and indeed most liberals: they are either woefully uneducated and voted for the cool black guy who shoots hoops, or they are woefully idealistic and choose to willfully ignore past precedent (socialism has never meant prosperity, nor will it ever mean prosperity - not for the average person, anyway).
Which brings me to the second NY resident (read: Liberal idealist) who Hannity interviewed: a Canadian college student living in the US. He had a similar sense of entitlement as the first man, but when asked whether he trusted the gov't to do a good job with administering all these entitlement programs, answered with a resounding "no". But he's got hope that this time they'll get it right.
I only pray that in 4 years, after the Federal Gov't has been expanded beyond recognition, the DOW is somewhere around 3,000, and we're all living on gov't cheese, we'll get someone in charge of the country that believes in American Exceptionalism and not European Socialism.
I fear, however, that as long as the ignorant and the idealists keep getting fired up by empty promises packaged in empty speeches, we may be in this for eight years instead of four. B.O is a smooth talker, after all. If only the American people would stop voting as if they were electing the homecoming king, and if only the American intellectuals would stop voting as if the world were a Utopian dream, we might get back on our feet.
I can't say I'm optimistic, though.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
What's on my mind?
Politics, for better or for worse. I'm at the library on hold with the client care center at work and watching all the early voters. It makes me sort of fearful. There are still weeks to go, and people have already decided?
What I fear more is that many of these passionate, good people are supporting a man who, on the whole, we know little about, and the little we do know isn't good. Unfortunately, for the most part the bad things have been glossed over and rationalized away. For example:
"Obama makes me feel good when I hear him speak."
The man is a highly trained lawyer. His job, which he does very well, is wordsmithing. For example, he says he'll look into offshore drilling, but heck, I can look into offshore drilling. That doesn't mean that I'll do anything about it. Now, does he say that knowing he's got a way out? Absolutely. I wager he'll say whatever is politically expedient to get himself elected. What he will do may very well be, no, will likely be, something different. After all, past behavior is usually a good indicator of future behavior, and the man has actively and closely associated with an unrepentant domestic terrorist; a radical, anti-American preacher (who he apparently didn't listen to for 20 years . . .); and a corrupt Chicago businessman (Tony Rezko) who helped him buy a home in a rather shady transaction. What's to say this facade of honesty and patriotism won't crumble as soon as he has the power he needs to enact the type of agenda that the men he has chosen to asociate with would approve of? The man is a chameleon. He'll be/say whatever it takes to win.
"It all happened a long time ago." "He was 8 years old at the time." "It was a mistake." "He's distanced himself from them."
So what? The decision to continue associating with these men was his, and it was a bad one, indicative of one of three things: extreme and willful ignorance, bad judgement, or blind ambition. Neither one of those is a trait I look for in a commander-in-chief. I wouldn't want a dog-catcher like that, let alone a president. If a man can sit in an anti-American congregation for 20 years or associate with an anti-American terrorist and not stop to wonder if it's a good idea to be there and give his tacit approval to the messages presented there or the views of his associates, can I trust that man's character? No.
I fear we've forgotten history. The last time we had a situation like this was in Jimmy Carter's day. That resulted in double-digit inflation, record unemployment, and an economy in the doldrums. That's where we're headed with Obama for sure, with McCain perhaps. The type of democratic socialism that Obama touts as the answer to our woes is the catalyst for the same overall dreadful economic doldrums we have seen for decades in most of Europe. The type of government/country we would have with Obama would mirror the state of Michigan on a nationwide scale: businesses failing or leaving for friendlier shores, economic stagnation and unemployment, and rising poverty (or, to some "equality"). Michigan, of course, is a state run by democrats.
Can you argue with Hope? Sure. Can you argue with Change? Sure. What I fear is that we have lost the will to learn, to examine the facts, and to find the answers to these questions:
Hope for what?
Change to what?
Obama's hope and change are words, his specialty, and to those who vote with their emotions and feelings they are the only words they need to hear. I need more. I need words backed up with actions. You can say you're going to do anything, but Obama has in no way proven he will do as he says. He is simply a sliver-tongued man of words, building shining visions of the future that, once scratched, reveal a tarnished shack built on a sandy foundation of old, harmful ideas.
But maybe the American people need to touch the stove to know that it's hot.
What I fear more is that many of these passionate, good people are supporting a man who, on the whole, we know little about, and the little we do know isn't good. Unfortunately, for the most part the bad things have been glossed over and rationalized away. For example:
"Obama makes me feel good when I hear him speak."
The man is a highly trained lawyer. His job, which he does very well, is wordsmithing. For example, he says he'll look into offshore drilling, but heck, I can look into offshore drilling. That doesn't mean that I'll do anything about it. Now, does he say that knowing he's got a way out? Absolutely. I wager he'll say whatever is politically expedient to get himself elected. What he will do may very well be, no, will likely be, something different. After all, past behavior is usually a good indicator of future behavior, and the man has actively and closely associated with an unrepentant domestic terrorist; a radical, anti-American preacher (who he apparently didn't listen to for 20 years . . .); and a corrupt Chicago businessman (Tony Rezko) who helped him buy a home in a rather shady transaction. What's to say this facade of honesty and patriotism won't crumble as soon as he has the power he needs to enact the type of agenda that the men he has chosen to asociate with would approve of? The man is a chameleon. He'll be/say whatever it takes to win.
"It all happened a long time ago." "He was 8 years old at the time." "It was a mistake." "He's distanced himself from them."
So what? The decision to continue associating with these men was his, and it was a bad one, indicative of one of three things: extreme and willful ignorance, bad judgement, or blind ambition. Neither one of those is a trait I look for in a commander-in-chief. I wouldn't want a dog-catcher like that, let alone a president. If a man can sit in an anti-American congregation for 20 years or associate with an anti-American terrorist and not stop to wonder if it's a good idea to be there and give his tacit approval to the messages presented there or the views of his associates, can I trust that man's character? No.
I fear we've forgotten history. The last time we had a situation like this was in Jimmy Carter's day. That resulted in double-digit inflation, record unemployment, and an economy in the doldrums. That's where we're headed with Obama for sure, with McCain perhaps. The type of democratic socialism that Obama touts as the answer to our woes is the catalyst for the same overall dreadful economic doldrums we have seen for decades in most of Europe. The type of government/country we would have with Obama would mirror the state of Michigan on a nationwide scale: businesses failing or leaving for friendlier shores, economic stagnation and unemployment, and rising poverty (or, to some "equality"). Michigan, of course, is a state run by democrats.
Can you argue with Hope? Sure. Can you argue with Change? Sure. What I fear is that we have lost the will to learn, to examine the facts, and to find the answers to these questions:
Hope for what?
Change to what?
Obama's hope and change are words, his specialty, and to those who vote with their emotions and feelings they are the only words they need to hear. I need more. I need words backed up with actions. You can say you're going to do anything, but Obama has in no way proven he will do as he says. He is simply a sliver-tongued man of words, building shining visions of the future that, once scratched, reveal a tarnished shack built on a sandy foundation of old, harmful ideas.
But maybe the American people need to touch the stove to know that it's hot.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
