The Dreams of Their Fathers
The Glory Days for the Democrats are the 1960’s. During that time they were protesting the War in Vietnam. Jane Fonda and friends made a trip to the country we were at war with and denounced America, and praised our enemies. Others were spitting on returning soldiers, throwing blood on them, burning flags, backing people that robbed from the rich, blew up things, and on and on. Then there was Watergate and President Nixon resigning from office for the good of the country. Well they succeeded and we remember the scene from the top of the Embassy as the helicopter left with people (our allies that we promised to protect) hanging and falling off of it, then later into enemy hands. John McCain has some idea of how they were treated and probably still are.
Well, I’ll give them credit they did get a president elected, the youngest president ever, good looking and smooth talking. The Europeans loved that president, and his wife. Good thing they controlled Chicago politics run by Mayor Daly, now he was a real “community organizer“. That was the closest election ever up to that point. Well he won. He went on to get us up to our necks in Vietnam. His successor pushed us in lock stock and barrel.
That young president was dashing, in his looks and foreign policy. Looks wise, he tried dashing to bed with the Blond Bombshell of the day of the silver screen. Hope he succeeded as the embarrassment would have been too much. Foreign Policy wise, he tried dashing into Cuba because he didn’t like their leader, expected the people to rise up and help, they didn’t and as the troops were being slaughtered on the beach, that “Dashing” president withdrew the promised air cover, as he didn’t want to be embarrassed. The media promptly called him courageous then put Jackie on the cover of Life. After all, I mean the poor guy had to learn foreign policy somehow. A few troops dead on the beech of some 3rd world country was a small price to pay.
Later due to that failure and lack of courage, the leader of the USSR thought he could put nuclear tipped nuclear missiles on that same 3rd world country 90 miles from our shores. That along with some more “dashing” brought us to the brink of nuclear war. The nearest to nuclear Armageddon we have ever been before or since. Good thing that Russian leader had the good sense to back down or we may have “Dashed” into nuclear war. Can you imagine the embarrassment of our president having to back down? The media then put his picture on the cover of Life to let the world know how brave he was.
Well we’ve come a long way. Since that President’s sad, sickening, heart stopping, and grievous death at the hands of a whacko. A future president through tough negotiations from an increasingly strong position without any “Dashing” defeated The USSR which is now only Russia a shell of the country it used to be. Not a shot was fired. The media tried not to notice, at least Life Magazine was going out of business and It‘s cover didn‘t matter much anymore, anyway he didn’t make any covers, but the new Russian president did because he had the courage to back down, (go figure) and well I forget the exact words of the praise heaped upon the Russian. I remember better the media and their bitterness at our president claiming we would be better served if that president would care more about Americans and was too “embroiled” in foreign affairs.
Well if you think that not much has changed, you are close to being right. However there are a few differences. Our new young “Dasher” is loved by Europe, except his policy of “Change” I guess requires that his wife to be put in the background. Better to be seen with our own Barbie Doll anchor.
Another change is that our current conflict is being won and our “Dasher” after saying we should get out immediately then the “Surge” won’t work then we should get out in 16 months and keep some troops there too -- I guess he finally confused himself and decided that he should actually go there and see the generals and troops and see what is really going on. Maybe he could salvage some bits an pieces of his other waffles and make a new one. Now he has decided that the whole Iraq thing isn’t important and that we should be “dashing” into Afghanistan, because that is where he thinks the real enemy is. After all he as a Democrat should know because that is where another Democratic President let the enemy escape to. But maybe our new “Dashing” Democrat didn’t notice as he was too busy “Dashing” around being a “community organizer” in Chicago. Important that work is because one never knows when the next tight election might roll around. Too bad he was still in high school probably “Dashing” after cheerleaders, when Algore lost that last close one. I think looking back, Algore the “Plodder” could have used a lesson on “Dashing” from the presumptive “ONE”.
I shouldn’t be too surprised that the facts and issues don’t seem to get much play in the Media. After all this is a new time, they are busy rewriting New dreams as fathers do to pass on their own. If we look at the past none of the dreams need do with facts. To paraphrase Tina, “What’s Facts Got To Do With IT?”
One thing to ponder. As McCain rolls through the heathen country side meeting the “clingy” people in town halls, he is gathering votes and offering common sense solutions to problems, not so “Dashing” perhaps and won’t sell newspapers (at least the ones still hanging on) ; but convincing to the one’s who can’t afford gas for their car to get to work. I Do remember an old headline from back in the day, about an old honest hard working common sense guy from the “show me” state in the middle of America. Hopefully John is taking a lesson from that Democrat. That was a Chicago headline. I guess the “community organizers” of the day goofed .
DEWEY BEATS TRUMAN.
That headline has been used to underscore that come election time more people than the media and the power elites vote. The other voters still use common sense in their thought processes and their votes have equal weight as any highbrow. The fact of votes and their number is still important. The unreality of that headline and the fact that Truman quietly beat Dewey, are what makes up the “Dreams of My Fathers”.
Regards, Live Dangerously Be A Conservative
Showing posts with label Generalized. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Generalized. Show all posts
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Arthur C Brooks
I recently bought two books by Arthur C. Brooks. “Gross National Happiness” and “Who Really Cares”. Both books are novel in their approach to the conservative agenda. These books are optimistic !! Imagine a book about conservatives being optimistic. If you read any of my blogs you will know that I favor a type of conservatism that gives a positive, dare I say uplifting message.
By “uplifting” I don’t mean a pie in the sky liberal kind of “Miss America” answer to our problems. I’m talking about specific solutions that will work based upon “human nature”. A type of solution that we can take a hand in, vs. the government telling us, doing it for us. The whole idea of our “American” democracy that our citizens gain their strength through the actual individual hands on problem solving. The idea that this qualitative type of idea is where we as citizens draw our strength, is I think what Arthur C. Brooks is all about.
He puts the spin back where it belongs on human nature, on it’s positive side. Conservatives seem to more easily accept human nature as what it is and go about their lives; allowing them to focus on the good aspects of human nature, trying to rebalance life back towards the positive. In the basic form we try to punish the bad and reward the good. What is so “conservative” to me about Mr. Brooks is that he accepts that there is a good and bad, and that we know it. He goes on to claim that fact alone helps conservatives to be happier. Mr. Brooks claims further that by concentrating on furthering the good aspects of human nature, such as family, charity, and a sense of a job well done; government can actually help it’s citizens in the pursuit of those goals. Only in this way can government help increase the “Gross National Happiness”.
By facilitating this process instead of hindering it, government can be a vehicle to help Americans empower themselves in finding that sense of fulfillment we find in the pursuit of happiness. The contentment we feel when we are actively with our own hands, minds and hearts creating our own dreams.
This type of process has always been harder to be precise about because it is based on qualitative vs. quantitative “facts”. Arthur C. Brooks in his thought and writings tries to quantify the qualitative. It all boils down to the idea of whether people feel happy in the sense of being more fulfilled or content with themselves. He makes a case that people are happier with the end result, when they have had an actual hand in the choosing of the result and the methods of obtaining it.
Brooks proves the fallacy that just by the government giving people things will make them happy. The beauty of Mr. Brooks innovative thought is that he does not in a “knee jerk” way respond by wanting to do away with government. I feel he espouses that the government can actually do something to help people’s pursuit of freedom.
Again if you’ve read my blogs or seen my side bar about “Updates from across the Pond”, you’ll know that I find the New British Conservative Movement is closely following along these lines of the government being a facilitator vs. a dictator of action.
For all of these reasons and more I was happy to see Arthur C. Brooks becoming the head of The American Enterprise Institute. I hope his leadership will bring an awakening within the leadership of the Republican leadership along the lines of his thoughts as I’ve outlined above. I think it is a positive thing.
-----link-----
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/arts/15aei.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin
---------------
Regards, Live Dangerously Be A Conservative
By “uplifting” I don’t mean a pie in the sky liberal kind of “Miss America” answer to our problems. I’m talking about specific solutions that will work based upon “human nature”. A type of solution that we can take a hand in, vs. the government telling us, doing it for us. The whole idea of our “American” democracy that our citizens gain their strength through the actual individual hands on problem solving. The idea that this qualitative type of idea is where we as citizens draw our strength, is I think what Arthur C. Brooks is all about.
He puts the spin back where it belongs on human nature, on it’s positive side. Conservatives seem to more easily accept human nature as what it is and go about their lives; allowing them to focus on the good aspects of human nature, trying to rebalance life back towards the positive. In the basic form we try to punish the bad and reward the good. What is so “conservative” to me about Mr. Brooks is that he accepts that there is a good and bad, and that we know it. He goes on to claim that fact alone helps conservatives to be happier. Mr. Brooks claims further that by concentrating on furthering the good aspects of human nature, such as family, charity, and a sense of a job well done; government can actually help it’s citizens in the pursuit of those goals. Only in this way can government help increase the “Gross National Happiness”.
By facilitating this process instead of hindering it, government can be a vehicle to help Americans empower themselves in finding that sense of fulfillment we find in the pursuit of happiness. The contentment we feel when we are actively with our own hands, minds and hearts creating our own dreams.
This type of process has always been harder to be precise about because it is based on qualitative vs. quantitative “facts”. Arthur C. Brooks in his thought and writings tries to quantify the qualitative. It all boils down to the idea of whether people feel happy in the sense of being more fulfilled or content with themselves. He makes a case that people are happier with the end result, when they have had an actual hand in the choosing of the result and the methods of obtaining it.
Brooks proves the fallacy that just by the government giving people things will make them happy. The beauty of Mr. Brooks innovative thought is that he does not in a “knee jerk” way respond by wanting to do away with government. I feel he espouses that the government can actually do something to help people’s pursuit of freedom.
Again if you’ve read my blogs or seen my side bar about “Updates from across the Pond”, you’ll know that I find the New British Conservative Movement is closely following along these lines of the government being a facilitator vs. a dictator of action.
For all of these reasons and more I was happy to see Arthur C. Brooks becoming the head of The American Enterprise Institute. I hope his leadership will bring an awakening within the leadership of the Republican leadership along the lines of his thoughts as I’ve outlined above. I think it is a positive thing.
-----link-----
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/arts/15aei.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin
---------------
Regards, Live Dangerously Be A Conservative
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
WAY TO MUCH NEWS
UPDATES OF INTERESTS
I’m posting the following to help me catch up on what has been happening in the House and Senate and the world outside of the Energy efforts I’ve been concentrating on lately.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Link to politico June 23 article
------link-----
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11263.html
----------------
Man you ought to get the hatred already spewing forth from the left bloggs. The book is hardly more than a rumor won’t come out untill Aug. The big guns of the left are hoping to chop it off at the knees, they are afraid of another Swift Boat. The same publisher is publishing the title that published “Unfit for Command”. Plus a journalist from the prestigious National Review is writing it. The book’s title is “The Case Against Barack Obama” the sub title is perspective: “The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media’s Favorite Candidate.”
Can’t wait. How good it is will be easily seen by the amount of hate that spews from the Left. The “Hate-o-Meters” will be pegging the red.
------------------------------------------------------------------
This next one has me asking where does Political Correctness stop. The Next step in the Fairness Doctrine?
-----link-----
http://www.newscloud.com/read/Boil_Them_In_Big_Oil_Lets_Start_With_You_Conservative_Politics_Today
---------------
If you can be sued for thinking wrong, why not set up a program to reeducate everyone. Oh yeah the NEA is already working on that, not to worry.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Next, Germany’s new ruling Conservatives have just come out united in favor of Nuclear power.
-----link-----
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,3399861,00.html
---------------
They rely heavily on Russian Oil. They share a history and border with Russia. I too would want to be independent of them. Also notice in the article that the driving force for the change is political. Bottom up from the consumers paying too much up through the ranks untill the leaders change policy to fit the people. Sounds familiar to me. Lol Newt wins the Volkswagen.lol
--------------------------------------------------------------------
John Boehner gets the unemployment bill compromised and worked out.
-----link-----
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11288.html
---------------
My opinion is that The Republican leaders in House and Senate are finding themselves with some leverage from their backing of the Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay less movement. By taking the lead in what they are calling the “all of the above” energy idea. They are again hitting their stride. We did get funding for the war, got a lot of what we wanted in the unemployment area, and got a bill for the Veterans both sides could be proud of. We had to give in on most of the Medicaid changes the Democrats wanted. I consider that a pretty good deal, made by Boehner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
This next article from Politico compliments Democrat leader Hoyer in the House on his negotiating skills in getting the FISA bill passed.
-----link-----
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11292.html
--------------
Compromises were made as to what conservatives wanted, but the war against terror can continue. Judging from the hate coming from the left, and some of his coleagues in the quote below, I would say we came out pretty good.
-----quote from the politico article-----
— but now finds himself subjected to a barrage of criticism from his party’s left.
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) called the House bill a “capitulation.” Salon.com’s Glenn Greenwald called Hoyer an “evil, craven enabler of the Bush administration.” Firedoglake.com blogger Jane Hamsher — delivering the lowest possible blow from the liberal blogosphere — declared Hoyer “the new Joe Lieberman.”
-------------------------------------------
Pay close attention to the reference to the Blue Dogs and others who were making a “Discharge Petition” that was in the works, look doable. The threat of that seems to be what got Hoyer to make the necessary concessions and take a possibly harmful and controversial battle off the table before the election.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Link to Cameron’s latest volley for the Conservatives in England. See the video about survey of workers in their National Health Service. Notice in the article the old liberal lines that any change would hurt the colossus and interrupt the changes that are already under way that will fix it. The truth is that those fixes have been under way starting with setting the thing up in the first place.
-----link-----
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,91211-1319912,00.html?f=rss
--------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
Below is a link to a Pew study of why conservatives are happier than liberals. While it seem their point of view is liberal (60 second psyche’s is liberal) The obvious conclusion stands out from the liberalese double talk which in itself is a downer.
-----link-----
http://www.sciam.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=BABCDEA5-D180-499B-094168CBE5442468&sc=rss
---------------
The “obvious conclusion” I refer to is that we conservatives accept the way things are now with all the limitations that liberals bemoan and cry about and then we do something constructive about the problem. We can admit more freely that what we are doing in and of itself may not change the world but will change our little corner of it and that is enough. Another thing to keep in mind is brought out through a book I have listed on my side bar. “Who Really Cares” by Arthur C. Brooks. It shows conservatives give more to charity than liberals who seem stuck in the “bemoaning” stage which prevents actions. It helps show that action is the key to happiness. Doing something brings us into the world. Doing things makes one happy.
------------------------------------------------------------
Way too much news today !!!!!!!!
Regards, Live Dangerously Be A Conservative
I’m posting the following to help me catch up on what has been happening in the House and Senate and the world outside of the Energy efforts I’ve been concentrating on lately.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Link to politico June 23 article
------link-----
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11263.html
----------------
Man you ought to get the hatred already spewing forth from the left bloggs. The book is hardly more than a rumor won’t come out untill Aug. The big guns of the left are hoping to chop it off at the knees, they are afraid of another Swift Boat. The same publisher is publishing the title that published “Unfit for Command”. Plus a journalist from the prestigious National Review is writing it. The book’s title is “The Case Against Barack Obama” the sub title is perspective: “The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media’s Favorite Candidate.”
Can’t wait. How good it is will be easily seen by the amount of hate that spews from the Left. The “Hate-o-Meters” will be pegging the red.
------------------------------------------------------------------
This next one has me asking where does Political Correctness stop. The Next step in the Fairness Doctrine?
-----link-----
http://www.newscloud.com/read/Boil_Them_In_Big_Oil_Lets_Start_With_You_Conservative_Politics_Today
---------------
If you can be sued for thinking wrong, why not set up a program to reeducate everyone. Oh yeah the NEA is already working on that, not to worry.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Next, Germany’s new ruling Conservatives have just come out united in favor of Nuclear power.
-----link-----
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,3399861,00.html
---------------
They rely heavily on Russian Oil. They share a history and border with Russia. I too would want to be independent of them. Also notice in the article that the driving force for the change is political. Bottom up from the consumers paying too much up through the ranks untill the leaders change policy to fit the people. Sounds familiar to me. Lol Newt wins the Volkswagen.lol
--------------------------------------------------------------------
John Boehner gets the unemployment bill compromised and worked out.
-----link-----
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11288.html
---------------
My opinion is that The Republican leaders in House and Senate are finding themselves with some leverage from their backing of the Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay less movement. By taking the lead in what they are calling the “all of the above” energy idea. They are again hitting their stride. We did get funding for the war, got a lot of what we wanted in the unemployment area, and got a bill for the Veterans both sides could be proud of. We had to give in on most of the Medicaid changes the Democrats wanted. I consider that a pretty good deal, made by Boehner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
This next article from Politico compliments Democrat leader Hoyer in the House on his negotiating skills in getting the FISA bill passed.
-----link-----
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11292.html
--------------
Compromises were made as to what conservatives wanted, but the war against terror can continue. Judging from the hate coming from the left, and some of his coleagues in the quote below, I would say we came out pretty good.
-----quote from the politico article-----
— but now finds himself subjected to a barrage of criticism from his party’s left.
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) called the House bill a “capitulation.” Salon.com’s Glenn Greenwald called Hoyer an “evil, craven enabler of the Bush administration.” Firedoglake.com blogger Jane Hamsher — delivering the lowest possible blow from the liberal blogosphere — declared Hoyer “the new Joe Lieberman.”
-------------------------------------------
Pay close attention to the reference to the Blue Dogs and others who were making a “Discharge Petition” that was in the works, look doable. The threat of that seems to be what got Hoyer to make the necessary concessions and take a possibly harmful and controversial battle off the table before the election.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Link to Cameron’s latest volley for the Conservatives in England. See the video about survey of workers in their National Health Service. Notice in the article the old liberal lines that any change would hurt the colossus and interrupt the changes that are already under way that will fix it. The truth is that those fixes have been under way starting with setting the thing up in the first place.
-----link-----
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,91211-1319912,00.html?f=rss
--------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
Below is a link to a Pew study of why conservatives are happier than liberals. While it seem their point of view is liberal (60 second psyche’s is liberal) The obvious conclusion stands out from the liberalese double talk which in itself is a downer.
-----link-----
http://www.sciam.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=BABCDEA5-D180-499B-094168CBE5442468&sc=rss
---------------
The “obvious conclusion” I refer to is that we conservatives accept the way things are now with all the limitations that liberals bemoan and cry about and then we do something constructive about the problem. We can admit more freely that what we are doing in and of itself may not change the world but will change our little corner of it and that is enough. Another thing to keep in mind is brought out through a book I have listed on my side bar. “Who Really Cares” by Arthur C. Brooks. It shows conservatives give more to charity than liberals who seem stuck in the “bemoaning” stage which prevents actions. It helps show that action is the key to happiness. Doing something brings us into the world. Doing things makes one happy.
------------------------------------------------------------
Way too much news today !!!!!!!!
Regards, Live Dangerously Be A Conservative
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Smooth and passive??
Mona Charen had an excellent piece in the National Review showing in her own elegant way how Obama is in reality all that he is promising not to be.
-----link-----
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=M2U1MWM4ZGE1YzIxN2U0NGRiMTkxN2YzMjY2OGU5ZDg=
--------------
I liked the line describing his voice, she nailed it
-----quote from article-------
And yes, he did say, “Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified.” But, oh, the way he employs the passive voice! It’s not that he pandered to or misled the voters. No, the rhetoric got overheated. Who else, I ask you, can so smoothly deploy the passive voice?
-----------------------------------
I guess what Obama said proves my point. I don’t remember him or his rhetoric getting what I would call overheated or amplified. In my neighborhood I know what amplified means. Also notice what he says about what he is saying in a campaign. He calls it rhetoric. I don’t think how much you stretch it what John McCain says would be called rhetoric. And anyway, how can you get angry at the voice how could you call that voice heated. For that matter I fail to see any real emotion. What can you call him? He does remind me of Bill Clinton in the way he weasels out of past statements so smoothly. But the shrewdness of Bill is missing the energy of Bill. What’s left is a blandness, a Carter like image, a something that is hard to dislike. Even his attempts at being one of the downtrodden doesn’t quite revitalize the image the Media is trying to paint. Seems a little cartoonish. More like a caricature that doesn’t quite catch the real person. A little too well done for the real thing.
Hey am I mistaken or has he been adding grey to his hair? Hey I shouldn’t complain look at those old peoples sun glasses McCain wears after all.
We all have noticed contradictions in his stated purpose of making politics into something other than usual. Well Hillary definitely brought out the Usualness in Barrack. Lol. In away, I was hoping the Hillary challenge would of brought out more of the less blandness or less passivity in him and his campaign.
I think that I like John McCain not so much in spite of but because of his faults. He is cranky and stubborn and let’s you know it if he believes in something. He is changing his mind on things way to often for politics, more like the way I live. He is even willing to speak the truth that he didn’t know as much about the economy as foreign policy. Imagine that he even said he’d have to study it. Can you imagine Barrack saying that? I mean with all of Barrack’s experience in Chicago politics he must know everything. Wonder why he shunned so many Senate votes. Well who am I to judge I have to study things to understand them. John McCain perhaps should never be on a stage but his policies should. Barrack belongs on the stage but not his programs. Maybe if he keeps up his blandness people will not find a reason to vote against him. Well except for his programs and promises.
I’m voting in this bland passive election not the least bland and passive, I'm looking for substance.
Regards, Live Dangerously Be A Conservative
Edit breaking news.
A start to a bipartisan drilling program??
-----link-----
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/webb-splits-with-obama-over-drilling-2008-06-19.html
---------------
-----link-----
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=M2U1MWM4ZGE1YzIxN2U0NGRiMTkxN2YzMjY2OGU5ZDg=
--------------
I liked the line describing his voice, she nailed it
-----quote from article-------
And yes, he did say, “Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified.” But, oh, the way he employs the passive voice! It’s not that he pandered to or misled the voters. No, the rhetoric got overheated. Who else, I ask you, can so smoothly deploy the passive voice?
-----------------------------------
I guess what Obama said proves my point. I don’t remember him or his rhetoric getting what I would call overheated or amplified. In my neighborhood I know what amplified means. Also notice what he says about what he is saying in a campaign. He calls it rhetoric. I don’t think how much you stretch it what John McCain says would be called rhetoric. And anyway, how can you get angry at the voice how could you call that voice heated. For that matter I fail to see any real emotion. What can you call him? He does remind me of Bill Clinton in the way he weasels out of past statements so smoothly. But the shrewdness of Bill is missing the energy of Bill. What’s left is a blandness, a Carter like image, a something that is hard to dislike. Even his attempts at being one of the downtrodden doesn’t quite revitalize the image the Media is trying to paint. Seems a little cartoonish. More like a caricature that doesn’t quite catch the real person. A little too well done for the real thing.
Hey am I mistaken or has he been adding grey to his hair? Hey I shouldn’t complain look at those old peoples sun glasses McCain wears after all.
We all have noticed contradictions in his stated purpose of making politics into something other than usual. Well Hillary definitely brought out the Usualness in Barrack. Lol. In away, I was hoping the Hillary challenge would of brought out more of the less blandness or less passivity in him and his campaign.
I think that I like John McCain not so much in spite of but because of his faults. He is cranky and stubborn and let’s you know it if he believes in something. He is changing his mind on things way to often for politics, more like the way I live. He is even willing to speak the truth that he didn’t know as much about the economy as foreign policy. Imagine that he even said he’d have to study it. Can you imagine Barrack saying that? I mean with all of Barrack’s experience in Chicago politics he must know everything. Wonder why he shunned so many Senate votes. Well who am I to judge I have to study things to understand them. John McCain perhaps should never be on a stage but his policies should. Barrack belongs on the stage but not his programs. Maybe if he keeps up his blandness people will not find a reason to vote against him. Well except for his programs and promises.
I’m voting in this bland passive election not the least bland and passive, I'm looking for substance.
Regards, Live Dangerously Be A Conservative
Edit breaking news.
A start to a bipartisan drilling program??
-----link-----
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/webb-splits-with-obama-over-drilling-2008-06-19.html
---------------
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Obama's VP Chris Dodd ?? NOT
Quick Edit for Breaking News
Chris Dodd as Obama’s VP, not now with his VIP loan from Country Wide !!!
-----link-----
http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/top-5/2008/06/12/Countrywide-Loan-Scandal
---------------
Below one of many links showing Dodd in the running as Obama’a VP
-----link-----
http://www.thinkyouth.org/2008/06/09/obama-dodd/
---------------
Regards, Live Dangerously Be A Conservative
Chris Dodd as Obama’s VP, not now with his VIP loan from Country Wide !!!
-----link-----
http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/top-5/2008/06/12/Countrywide-Loan-Scandal
---------------
Below one of many links showing Dodd in the running as Obama’a VP
-----link-----
http://www.thinkyouth.org/2008/06/09/obama-dodd/
---------------
Regards, Live Dangerously Be A Conservative
Thursday, June 12, 2008
DISCHARGE THIS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DISCHARGE THIS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I’m starting to be reminded of an old song, that’ll let you guess my age.
“Something’s happening here, what it is ain;’t exactly Clear”
The House Republicans are starting to use an eminently conservative tactic, playing within the rules, a tactic that actually will call upon legislators to vote on an issue. Kind of using the law and Democracy for an in your face approach that I’m loving. Gee imagine forcing legislators to vote on something. Kind of a Put up or Shut up approach. As Newt would say either help us fix the problem or get out of the way. But I digress. Here is the strategy.
From Tim Walberg’s site
-----link-----
http://walberg.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=93524
---------------
Walberg on the radio
-----link-----
http://walberg.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=93524
---------------
US House Republican Whip Roy Blunt is leading a charge on gas prices and energy. A charge to do something not just talk about it.
-----link-----
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20080610/pl_usnw/blunt__no_longer_willing_to_wait_for_democrat_leaders__republicans_take_the_lead_on__commonsense_plan__to_bring_down_price_of_g
-------------
In the article
------quote-----
NOTE: Blunt and House leaders announced last week that Republicans will seek to lower energy costs by filing discharge petitions on a series of supply-oriented bills - circumventing the roadblocks erected by Democratic leadership, and bringing bipartisan legislation to the House floor. Each of the seven bills are specifically crafted to lower the price of gas and other energy sources by increasing American-made energy, decreasing our dependence on foreign oil and creating jobs here at home in the process.
------------------
Other bills and other discharge petition. A Discharge petition definition from Wikipedia
-----link-----
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:LA4__vGZYYYJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discharge_petition+Discharge+petition&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
---------------
As Congressman Tim Walberg mentioned in his interview above that a discharge petition is a way to take a bill out of committee regardless of what the leadership thinks, the kicker is that it takes a majority of House members (218). Mr. Walberg explains how because of the need to vote some extra votes will happen to switch because some of the Congressmen don’t want to be seen as voting against the bill. Because this bill is about lowering gas prices and doing something immediately Walberg feels there is a chance. Whether or not it happens, I feel it is important to let the people know that the Republicans are fighting a good fight for them. And that they are getting back to their roots and the future will tell if they stick to their guns.
I had posted earlier about the Congress coming out with an action plan. At the time though I hoped for some action, I really didn’t expect anything much. I’m hoping this is the start of a concerted effort to hold the Democrat’s feet to the fire. Force some bipartisan efforts.
From John Boehner, more pressure for the Dems to live up to their words.
-----link-----
http://www.republicanleader.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=93513
--------------
More from Boehner, also see the bottom of the article for more links. Notice the idea of a continuing fight over this.
-----link-----
http://www.republicanleader.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=93528
---------------
Really a groundswell going on here. Look back, how and who really got the ball rolling? Newt Gingrich whether you like him or not has done all the ground work on this one. He did the polling he found this issue because he listened. He has set things up nicely. He warned the Republicans about the coming disaster if they didn’t do anything. They didn’t so he did. His “Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less” petition is at 500, 000 signatures. And piling up as we speak. His site is Newt.org. Go there you will find a wealth of information about a lot of other issues that are equally resonant with the American people. Go to the link below to find out about the “Drill Here” effort. Watch the you tube stuff. This man if people will let him will drag the Republican into the online age single-handedly.
-----link-----
http://www.americansolutions.com/actioncenter/petitions/?Guid=54ec6e43-75a8-445b-aa7b-346a1e096659
---------------
I’m a big fan of Newt and have been for a long time. I hope that Newt and Boehner are working together on this. There seems to be some energy coming out of the Republicans for a change. Young turks like Walberg from Michigan are being given their head and they are chomping at the bit.
Don’t know if it’s related but after Newt gave a warning to the leaders that some form of unity had to be achieved and quickly, then others came out with their warnings, Then May 20th the RSC came out with this plan of attack
-----link-----
http://www.house.gov/hensarling/rsc/doc/rsc_action_plan.pdf
---------------
Perhaps the new Turks of the Republican party can help move the party into it’s more traditional role of fighting big government and help make government more user friendly by following and holding leadership to the provisions in the plan above.
I’m looking forward to the election now with some more hope. It takes leadership to drive the car but in a democracy its the followers that sometimes tells the captain where they want him to drive the car too.
Regards, Live Dangerously Be A Conservative
PS. A link from Newt showing that to be green and energy independent can look beautiful indeed.
-----link-----
http://newt.org/tabid/102/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/3487/Default.aspx
---------------
PPS. Just found this early this morning. Anti Fairness doctrine being pressed for a vote through, yup you guessed it a “discharge petition” The Republicans wrote a bill to get the “Fairness Doctrine” off the books and it was stuck in committee and forgotten about by the Democrat leaders. We are trying to get it out of committee through a discharge petition. 194 of the 218 signatures already obtained. If attained then there has to be a vote to pass the bill.
I’m starting to be reminded of an old song, that’ll let you guess my age.
“Something’s happening here, what it is ain;’t exactly Clear”
The House Republicans are starting to use an eminently conservative tactic, playing within the rules, a tactic that actually will call upon legislators to vote on an issue. Kind of using the law and Democracy for an in your face approach that I’m loving. Gee imagine forcing legislators to vote on something. Kind of a Put up or Shut up approach. As Newt would say either help us fix the problem or get out of the way. But I digress. Here is the strategy.
From Tim Walberg’s site
-----link-----
http://walberg.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=93524
---------------
Walberg on the radio
-----link-----
http://walberg.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=93524
---------------
US House Republican Whip Roy Blunt is leading a charge on gas prices and energy. A charge to do something not just talk about it.
-----link-----
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20080610/pl_usnw/blunt__no_longer_willing_to_wait_for_democrat_leaders__republicans_take_the_lead_on__commonsense_plan__to_bring_down_price_of_g
-------------
In the article
------quote-----
NOTE: Blunt and House leaders announced last week that Republicans will seek to lower energy costs by filing discharge petitions on a series of supply-oriented bills - circumventing the roadblocks erected by Democratic leadership, and bringing bipartisan legislation to the House floor. Each of the seven bills are specifically crafted to lower the price of gas and other energy sources by increasing American-made energy, decreasing our dependence on foreign oil and creating jobs here at home in the process.
------------------
Other bills and other discharge petition. A Discharge petition definition from Wikipedia
-----link-----
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:LA4__vGZYYYJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discharge_petition+Discharge+petition&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
---------------
As Congressman Tim Walberg mentioned in his interview above that a discharge petition is a way to take a bill out of committee regardless of what the leadership thinks, the kicker is that it takes a majority of House members (218). Mr. Walberg explains how because of the need to vote some extra votes will happen to switch because some of the Congressmen don’t want to be seen as voting against the bill. Because this bill is about lowering gas prices and doing something immediately Walberg feels there is a chance. Whether or not it happens, I feel it is important to let the people know that the Republicans are fighting a good fight for them. And that they are getting back to their roots and the future will tell if they stick to their guns.
I had posted earlier about the Congress coming out with an action plan. At the time though I hoped for some action, I really didn’t expect anything much. I’m hoping this is the start of a concerted effort to hold the Democrat’s feet to the fire. Force some bipartisan efforts.
From John Boehner, more pressure for the Dems to live up to their words.
-----link-----
http://www.republicanleader.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=93513
--------------
More from Boehner, also see the bottom of the article for more links. Notice the idea of a continuing fight over this.
-----link-----
http://www.republicanleader.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=93528
---------------
Really a groundswell going on here. Look back, how and who really got the ball rolling? Newt Gingrich whether you like him or not has done all the ground work on this one. He did the polling he found this issue because he listened. He has set things up nicely. He warned the Republicans about the coming disaster if they didn’t do anything. They didn’t so he did. His “Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less” petition is at 500, 000 signatures. And piling up as we speak. His site is Newt.org. Go there you will find a wealth of information about a lot of other issues that are equally resonant with the American people. Go to the link below to find out about the “Drill Here” effort. Watch the you tube stuff. This man if people will let him will drag the Republican into the online age single-handedly.
-----link-----
http://www.americansolutions.com/actioncenter/petitions/?Guid=54ec6e43-75a8-445b-aa7b-346a1e096659
---------------
I’m a big fan of Newt and have been for a long time. I hope that Newt and Boehner are working together on this. There seems to be some energy coming out of the Republicans for a change. Young turks like Walberg from Michigan are being given their head and they are chomping at the bit.
Don’t know if it’s related but after Newt gave a warning to the leaders that some form of unity had to be achieved and quickly, then others came out with their warnings, Then May 20th the RSC came out with this plan of attack
-----link-----
http://www.house.gov/hensarling/rsc/doc/rsc_action_plan.pdf
---------------
Perhaps the new Turks of the Republican party can help move the party into it’s more traditional role of fighting big government and help make government more user friendly by following and holding leadership to the provisions in the plan above.
I’m looking forward to the election now with some more hope. It takes leadership to drive the car but in a democracy its the followers that sometimes tells the captain where they want him to drive the car too.
Regards, Live Dangerously Be A Conservative
PS. A link from Newt showing that to be green and energy independent can look beautiful indeed.
-----link-----
http://newt.org/tabid/102/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/3487/Default.aspx
---------------
PPS. Just found this early this morning. Anti Fairness doctrine being pressed for a vote through, yup you guessed it a “discharge petition” The Republicans wrote a bill to get the “Fairness Doctrine” off the books and it was stuck in committee and forgotten about by the Democrat leaders. We are trying to get it out of committee through a discharge petition. 194 of the 218 signatures already obtained. If attained then there has to be a vote to pass the bill.
Saturday, June 7, 2008
Lawyers.
Too Much Crime & Too Many Laws ??
What’s the solution. Increased enforcement. But we can’t, we don’t have enough police and jails and the courts are over crowed now. The simple solution is cut the number of laws. Make the ones remaining easy to understand because they are basic. Then enforce the you know what out of them. Is that possible ? If there are half the number of laws then there should be twice the number of police available to enforce the remaining ones.
The idea also is to jump on the “little” laws. Littering, jay walking, petty larceny. Enforce these hard, make the penalty small, but also follow thru on the payment of the policy. Set up real community service. Keep the first offenders off the record sheets, except to the judges. We don’t want to brand a person a career criminal for jay walking. We just don’t want him or her jay walking. $10 or 1 hour on the service “chain gang”. Make it at least inconvenient to break the little crimes again. We of course have to still concentrate on the violent crimes. But look at all the police we have and they are still working on the small type crimes. Give them the ability to put penalties on the things they deal with. I don’t know how it would work in the specific. But in the overall picture, we need to not make a federal case out of the small stuff. Not get the kids set up for a life of crime. We need to make it a bit humiliating and inconvenient to do things that are disrespectful of others. Not just the kids either, but concentrate on them. They are the ones we have a chance to help the most.
In our lawyer crazy society, run by government populated mainly with lawyers, we have been smoozed into believing that if we pass a law against something then that something will go away. When it doesn’t then we pass another law. Well we have simply accumulated too many laws. We have forgotten that we also have to enforce those laws for them to be effective. By passing more laws simply means we have less ability to enforce current laws. And more leeway to wiggle out of being punished.
Lawyers will say we need the extra laws to make them less complicated, more specific to the specific wrong. Make the sentencing fairer. I call that “dumbing down” the judicial role in law. Are judges and juries too slow to understand the difference between premeditated murder and unpremeditated. Cannot a judge pick a sentence that fit’s the crime? Cannot he pick a sentence better than a bureaucrat somewhere else safe from the repercussions of a bad sentence. A person dies through some fault of another, why is it necessary to have such a complicated set of laws about it. Why not let the jury say guilty or not, then the judge decide on the punishment. Kill the cold blooded serial child killer for example. For the man who negligently causes death through non premeditative actions would receive a lighter sentence based upon the local situations, decided by a local judge.
As a conservative, I believe the laws should be broad and vague enough for people through their judges to make sure the punishment fit’s the crime. If they don’t fit the crime, vote out the local judge, don’t pass more laws thinking that will solve the problem. For those of you who think that the law would not be served in such a system because you’re thinking about all the possible wrong decisions: just look at what our current way has evolved into. Also look what happens when leaders are chosen by a bunch of local individuals. Why in the last election alone nearly 50% of the choices were wrong. Yet we rarely hear for a repeal of democracy. I’ll leave it up to you to decide what 50% was wrong. Some may think that we could just pass a law and say that it is illegal to vote for the wrong candidate. All radicals secretly wish for that. Luckily at least so far we have the same amount of nuts on each side. Lol.
Regards, Live Dangerously Be A Conservative
What’s the solution. Increased enforcement. But we can’t, we don’t have enough police and jails and the courts are over crowed now. The simple solution is cut the number of laws. Make the ones remaining easy to understand because they are basic. Then enforce the you know what out of them. Is that possible ? If there are half the number of laws then there should be twice the number of police available to enforce the remaining ones.
The idea also is to jump on the “little” laws. Littering, jay walking, petty larceny. Enforce these hard, make the penalty small, but also follow thru on the payment of the policy. Set up real community service. Keep the first offenders off the record sheets, except to the judges. We don’t want to brand a person a career criminal for jay walking. We just don’t want him or her jay walking. $10 or 1 hour on the service “chain gang”. Make it at least inconvenient to break the little crimes again. We of course have to still concentrate on the violent crimes. But look at all the police we have and they are still working on the small type crimes. Give them the ability to put penalties on the things they deal with. I don’t know how it would work in the specific. But in the overall picture, we need to not make a federal case out of the small stuff. Not get the kids set up for a life of crime. We need to make it a bit humiliating and inconvenient to do things that are disrespectful of others. Not just the kids either, but concentrate on them. They are the ones we have a chance to help the most.
In our lawyer crazy society, run by government populated mainly with lawyers, we have been smoozed into believing that if we pass a law against something then that something will go away. When it doesn’t then we pass another law. Well we have simply accumulated too many laws. We have forgotten that we also have to enforce those laws for them to be effective. By passing more laws simply means we have less ability to enforce current laws. And more leeway to wiggle out of being punished.
Lawyers will say we need the extra laws to make them less complicated, more specific to the specific wrong. Make the sentencing fairer. I call that “dumbing down” the judicial role in law. Are judges and juries too slow to understand the difference between premeditated murder and unpremeditated. Cannot a judge pick a sentence that fit’s the crime? Cannot he pick a sentence better than a bureaucrat somewhere else safe from the repercussions of a bad sentence. A person dies through some fault of another, why is it necessary to have such a complicated set of laws about it. Why not let the jury say guilty or not, then the judge decide on the punishment. Kill the cold blooded serial child killer for example. For the man who negligently causes death through non premeditative actions would receive a lighter sentence based upon the local situations, decided by a local judge.
As a conservative, I believe the laws should be broad and vague enough for people through their judges to make sure the punishment fit’s the crime. If they don’t fit the crime, vote out the local judge, don’t pass more laws thinking that will solve the problem. For those of you who think that the law would not be served in such a system because you’re thinking about all the possible wrong decisions: just look at what our current way has evolved into. Also look what happens when leaders are chosen by a bunch of local individuals. Why in the last election alone nearly 50% of the choices were wrong. Yet we rarely hear for a repeal of democracy. I’ll leave it up to you to decide what 50% was wrong. Some may think that we could just pass a law and say that it is illegal to vote for the wrong candidate. All radicals secretly wish for that. Luckily at least so far we have the same amount of nuts on each side. Lol.
Regards, Live Dangerously Be A Conservative
Friday, June 6, 2008
Where Do Water Boys/Girls Come From
Where do our Great Leaders come from.?
How Important is it to have Great Leaders?
How important is the Water Boy on the team?
In America, in our democracy, due to the freedom we enjoy, both the water boy and the great leader are dependent upon each other. I’m going to try in this post to relate my ideas of the importance of freedom to the selection of leaders that are great from the millions of people trying to be. I’ll be trying to justify why my efforts at this blog are important. OK , here it goes.
I sit down and listen to Newt talk about leadership and how to achieve it, in order to help bring about the change I feel necessary. I listen to others talk of the importance of Freedom of the individual over the government and I wonder why is it so important. Why, when it is easier to change my ideas to fit the prevailing ones shouldn’t I change them? In politics why should I vote for McCain even if he doesn’t represent all of the beliefs I have? Isn’t it a contradiction for me to stand firmly for my convictions, yet vote for someone opposed to some of them?
I’m not trying to say something is better than nothing, even if that is so. What I’m trying to get to is where do great leaders come from. Great leaders bubble up from that great cauldron we call Freedom. They come from people, everyday people, millions of them having that sense of Freedom saying what they believe. As in all things, some have to work at it. To some it comes easy. But try we all do, in our own ways. We feel we are on the same team, as does the water boy on up to the quarterback. We are all trying to make a difference.
Through fate or natural selection a person bubbles up with all the right ingredients. In baseball we call him a phenom. A natural. Others as I say have to work at it more. Some presidents had to grow into the office before they became great. I have a feeling though that it is a combination of natural greatness with the ability to focus on a message plus never ending work. As much as Reagan seemed a natural, his struggles early on as an FDR Democrat thru the union problems he faced as President of the Actors Guild, which finally turned him into a Republican, showed that the work had to be done. He too had to go thru the fires of life to succeed. Even for the naturals, the work still had to be done.
The fact of the matter is that a president needs to be popular as well as have good ideas. Some become great because of their good ideas, while others simply are popular. Good ideas are the copper, the popularity is the glow. While it is easy to say popularity will fade ect. It is equally true that without popularity the good ideas will not see the light of day. It seems obvious that both are equally necessary in order to lead greatly. It is important to have great leaders because to be a great leader means that they have the same dreams and goals and ideas that the majority of the population want, and tirelessly trys to carry them out.
The point I’m making is that the more people exercising and demanding their right to exercise their freedom, the bigger the cauldron from which leaders will emerge. The internet is a great tool by which many can get their feet wet. It has created another starting point for people to express their ideas, creating another load of ingredients for our cauldron. We have had a lot of firsts running for political office for President. I see a youthfull blogger now blogging and aspiring to that position actually attaining it in the future. The point is that there will be thousands if not millions other who don’t, that is as it should be. There is no dumbing down of Freedom, it either is or it isn’t. It is the freedom of the process that matters. The freer the process the better the selection. The more open and transparent the process the better choice we will make, and the better chance for that special person to bubble up and be judged by all us water boys/girls adequet to lead our team.
Regards, Live Dangerously Be A Conservative
PS Like a butterfly from a catepillar, a great leader comes out of a Water Boy/Girl. In one specific species they are the same. That species is a Free People.
How Important is it to have Great Leaders?
How important is the Water Boy on the team?
In America, in our democracy, due to the freedom we enjoy, both the water boy and the great leader are dependent upon each other. I’m going to try in this post to relate my ideas of the importance of freedom to the selection of leaders that are great from the millions of people trying to be. I’ll be trying to justify why my efforts at this blog are important. OK , here it goes.
I sit down and listen to Newt talk about leadership and how to achieve it, in order to help bring about the change I feel necessary. I listen to others talk of the importance of Freedom of the individual over the government and I wonder why is it so important. Why, when it is easier to change my ideas to fit the prevailing ones shouldn’t I change them? In politics why should I vote for McCain even if he doesn’t represent all of the beliefs I have? Isn’t it a contradiction for me to stand firmly for my convictions, yet vote for someone opposed to some of them?
I’m not trying to say something is better than nothing, even if that is so. What I’m trying to get to is where do great leaders come from. Great leaders bubble up from that great cauldron we call Freedom. They come from people, everyday people, millions of them having that sense of Freedom saying what they believe. As in all things, some have to work at it. To some it comes easy. But try we all do, in our own ways. We feel we are on the same team, as does the water boy on up to the quarterback. We are all trying to make a difference.
Through fate or natural selection a person bubbles up with all the right ingredients. In baseball we call him a phenom. A natural. Others as I say have to work at it more. Some presidents had to grow into the office before they became great. I have a feeling though that it is a combination of natural greatness with the ability to focus on a message plus never ending work. As much as Reagan seemed a natural, his struggles early on as an FDR Democrat thru the union problems he faced as President of the Actors Guild, which finally turned him into a Republican, showed that the work had to be done. He too had to go thru the fires of life to succeed. Even for the naturals, the work still had to be done.
The fact of the matter is that a president needs to be popular as well as have good ideas. Some become great because of their good ideas, while others simply are popular. Good ideas are the copper, the popularity is the glow. While it is easy to say popularity will fade ect. It is equally true that without popularity the good ideas will not see the light of day. It seems obvious that both are equally necessary in order to lead greatly. It is important to have great leaders because to be a great leader means that they have the same dreams and goals and ideas that the majority of the population want, and tirelessly trys to carry them out.
The point I’m making is that the more people exercising and demanding their right to exercise their freedom, the bigger the cauldron from which leaders will emerge. The internet is a great tool by which many can get their feet wet. It has created another starting point for people to express their ideas, creating another load of ingredients for our cauldron. We have had a lot of firsts running for political office for President. I see a youthfull blogger now blogging and aspiring to that position actually attaining it in the future. The point is that there will be thousands if not millions other who don’t, that is as it should be. There is no dumbing down of Freedom, it either is or it isn’t. It is the freedom of the process that matters. The freer the process the better the selection. The more open and transparent the process the better choice we will make, and the better chance for that special person to bubble up and be judged by all us water boys/girls adequet to lead our team.
Regards, Live Dangerously Be A Conservative
PS Like a butterfly from a catepillar, a great leader comes out of a Water Boy/Girl. In one specific species they are the same. That species is a Free People.
From Newt
Pass it on.
-----link-----
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUy1ejRq9RE
-------------
Regards, Live Dangerously Be A Conservative
-----link-----
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUy1ejRq9RE
-------------
Regards, Live Dangerously Be A Conservative
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
The Truth ----- Novel Concept----Never Work
“John McCain’s admitted shortcomings regarding economics”
If I hear that one more time I’ll gag.
How many times have I heard that? More than my abacus of fingers and toes, will handle.
What did John McCain say that was so shocking that every utterance since about economic matters needs that qualifier by the Media. I guess that if I was running for dog catcher I better not let anyone know that I am not completely up to date on the construction methods, models available and safety aspects of dog cages. I think I would just go ahead and on my campaign literature, under the paid for by Live Dangerously For Dog Catcher Committee thing I would put “Not Completely Versant In Animal Enclosures” I mean I don’t want people getting the wrong idea about me. They might not vote for me if the truth is out. My competitor surely is knowledgeable in cages or he would not be continually reminding the voter about how I admitted I wasn’t. Boy glad I’m not running for the post. Lol
I’ve an excellent idea for the next Presidential Candidate. Admit to not being a “know everything” about every thing. Freely and regularly admit to not being a supernatural genius and admit that is why you need the gaggle of expert advisors that you have around yourself. Admit that you even ask questions of those advisors that you don‘t know the answer to. Pretty shocking for the politicos and election junkies to grasp that concept. The concept of candidates being human. Let them know that you are not a genius (voters if they don’t know now will soon enough find it out). Admit that you have to study an issue then make up your own mind. That would indeed be a shocker.
Admitting the truth, what a shocker, what an ingenious strategy, the media would spend weeks dissecting that one. Way too obvious. For weeks after the candidate won the election. The pundits would still be puzzling out whether that damaging confession helped the candidate win the election or not, or how he could have been so clever as to slip that by us.
Regards, Live Dangerously Be A Conservative
If I hear that one more time I’ll gag.
How many times have I heard that? More than my abacus of fingers and toes, will handle.
What did John McCain say that was so shocking that every utterance since about economic matters needs that qualifier by the Media. I guess that if I was running for dog catcher I better not let anyone know that I am not completely up to date on the construction methods, models available and safety aspects of dog cages. I think I would just go ahead and on my campaign literature, under the paid for by Live Dangerously For Dog Catcher Committee thing I would put “Not Completely Versant In Animal Enclosures” I mean I don’t want people getting the wrong idea about me. They might not vote for me if the truth is out. My competitor surely is knowledgeable in cages or he would not be continually reminding the voter about how I admitted I wasn’t. Boy glad I’m not running for the post. Lol
I’ve an excellent idea for the next Presidential Candidate. Admit to not being a “know everything” about every thing. Freely and regularly admit to not being a supernatural genius and admit that is why you need the gaggle of expert advisors that you have around yourself. Admit that you even ask questions of those advisors that you don‘t know the answer to. Pretty shocking for the politicos and election junkies to grasp that concept. The concept of candidates being human. Let them know that you are not a genius (voters if they don’t know now will soon enough find it out). Admit that you have to study an issue then make up your own mind. That would indeed be a shocker.
Admitting the truth, what a shocker, what an ingenious strategy, the media would spend weeks dissecting that one. Way too obvious. For weeks after the candidate won the election. The pundits would still be puzzling out whether that damaging confession helped the candidate win the election or not, or how he could have been so clever as to slip that by us.
Regards, Live Dangerously Be A Conservative
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
What I Have In Common With The Left
What I have in common with the Left.
Much as the left, I look for inspiration to people and concepts from foreign and exotic places.
The 1930’s saw the rise of communism as a theoretically pure expression of the hope of mankind. Equality for all, (in American words) the freedom to pursue happiness. In their words to work at what you were best suited to. As is always the case it was sad to see human nature creep in and destroy the theory. Stalin comes to mind, as do relocation and reeducation camps. Purges and mass killings and mass graves. The left at first fell in love with the theory, they tended to dismiss the atrocities committed under the Red Banner. They would not fall into that trap they were different. They could make it work.
As a conservative I too have a theory. It is as lofty in it’s aims and claims as the left‘s theory. In fact we both claim to want the same ultimate goals. The happiness and well being of the individual. My theory when given full power to achieve it’s goals falls far short also. It falls to the iron fist of corruption also. It has resulted in mass killings and all sorts of atrocities also. I too as my left leaning friends do, tend to sweep that thought away as somehow not relevant to the current situation. That’s one thing we have in common, we are sure our paths are right and that we will not make the mistakes of the past.
I would here like to make the case that the one crucial thing our failures have had in common is that when we in our zeal let the power be concentrated in a few hands (to more efficeintly use that power) at the upper level of government that power corrupts whatever system we set up to fulfill our theories. The very concept of concentrated power unchecked looking out for the individual is an oxymoron. I have always struggled back and forth with that issue. In business I always thought that the model of complete control as the most efficient. One decision maker deciding and every body else concentrating on fulfilling that decision. That old philosopher king idea. Business makes that model work, but only with the club of free enterprise. All companies use that model, however only those that produce what the people want to buy succeed. The bottom line is the “bottom up” iron fist of the consumer. Who is after all freely working in the pursuit of their happiness. The business’ that don’t produce what the consumer wants no matter how efficiently they are run, are soon out of business.
In government and it’s people side, politics; the iron fist of the voters in democracies and the “people” in totalitarian regimes through elections or revolution, eventually bubbles from the bottom up to make their wishes known replacing that which is not helping them in their pursuit of happiness.
The point is top down government doesn’t work simply due to human nature. In a democracy when one party concentrates power they start to lose touch with the people that elected them, and become more concerned about keeping that power and the easiest way to do that is to keep enlarging that power.
This is the contradiction inherent in government. Neither side has the ultimate answer because the ultimate answer doesn’t lie in government. It lies in ourselves. Our government is there only to help free us to decide for ourselves what we think we wish to do. They are there to do the mundane things like fix pot holes. Repel invaders. Not to give us happiness. How do they know what will make me happy. I expect them to make it possible for me to do what I think is best for me. Not for them to decide that for me. I forget that for that to happen, I have a responsibility to be a part of that. What that part is, is my struggle. Doing that whatever it is when mixed with all the other peoples decisions simmers and cooks in the cauldren of democracy making the majority better off. Because they are the ones deciding by majority. I may be bitterly dissappointed at times but if I was able to give it my best shot then I can live with it, as I go on to the next battle.
At this point in time when the people are bubbling up their anger at the Republicans for failing prey to the corruption of power, I look to foreign and exotic lands for inspiration. Much as other struggling democracies have looked to us, overlooking our shortcomings to guide their thoughts. The British and their concepts of the Modern Conservative movement is giving me inspiration. The idea of Bottom Up Governing is as old as democracy yet as new young energetic faces behind it in Britain. In the never ending cycle of “power corrupting” that makes “bums” out of our best leaders and ideas, only through democracy do the people have the best chance to throw those “Bums” out.
I thought of changing the title of this blog to “What the Theories of the Left and Right have in common”, I decided not to as I realized that for politics to work it has to be personal. We not only have to realize how our leaders can become corrupted by power, but that we also share their weakness.
Regards, Live Dangerously Be A Conservative.
PS. Please see my side bar titled "Update Across the Pond" for links to the Bristish Modern Conservative Movement.
Much as the left, I look for inspiration to people and concepts from foreign and exotic places.
The 1930’s saw the rise of communism as a theoretically pure expression of the hope of mankind. Equality for all, (in American words) the freedom to pursue happiness. In their words to work at what you were best suited to. As is always the case it was sad to see human nature creep in and destroy the theory. Stalin comes to mind, as do relocation and reeducation camps. Purges and mass killings and mass graves. The left at first fell in love with the theory, they tended to dismiss the atrocities committed under the Red Banner. They would not fall into that trap they were different. They could make it work.
As a conservative I too have a theory. It is as lofty in it’s aims and claims as the left‘s theory. In fact we both claim to want the same ultimate goals. The happiness and well being of the individual. My theory when given full power to achieve it’s goals falls far short also. It falls to the iron fist of corruption also. It has resulted in mass killings and all sorts of atrocities also. I too as my left leaning friends do, tend to sweep that thought away as somehow not relevant to the current situation. That’s one thing we have in common, we are sure our paths are right and that we will not make the mistakes of the past.
I would here like to make the case that the one crucial thing our failures have had in common is that when we in our zeal let the power be concentrated in a few hands (to more efficeintly use that power) at the upper level of government that power corrupts whatever system we set up to fulfill our theories. The very concept of concentrated power unchecked looking out for the individual is an oxymoron. I have always struggled back and forth with that issue. In business I always thought that the model of complete control as the most efficient. One decision maker deciding and every body else concentrating on fulfilling that decision. That old philosopher king idea. Business makes that model work, but only with the club of free enterprise. All companies use that model, however only those that produce what the people want to buy succeed. The bottom line is the “bottom up” iron fist of the consumer. Who is after all freely working in the pursuit of their happiness. The business’ that don’t produce what the consumer wants no matter how efficiently they are run, are soon out of business.
In government and it’s people side, politics; the iron fist of the voters in democracies and the “people” in totalitarian regimes through elections or revolution, eventually bubbles from the bottom up to make their wishes known replacing that which is not helping them in their pursuit of happiness.
The point is top down government doesn’t work simply due to human nature. In a democracy when one party concentrates power they start to lose touch with the people that elected them, and become more concerned about keeping that power and the easiest way to do that is to keep enlarging that power.
This is the contradiction inherent in government. Neither side has the ultimate answer because the ultimate answer doesn’t lie in government. It lies in ourselves. Our government is there only to help free us to decide for ourselves what we think we wish to do. They are there to do the mundane things like fix pot holes. Repel invaders. Not to give us happiness. How do they know what will make me happy. I expect them to make it possible for me to do what I think is best for me. Not for them to decide that for me. I forget that for that to happen, I have a responsibility to be a part of that. What that part is, is my struggle. Doing that whatever it is when mixed with all the other peoples decisions simmers and cooks in the cauldren of democracy making the majority better off. Because they are the ones deciding by majority. I may be bitterly dissappointed at times but if I was able to give it my best shot then I can live with it, as I go on to the next battle.
At this point in time when the people are bubbling up their anger at the Republicans for failing prey to the corruption of power, I look to foreign and exotic lands for inspiration. Much as other struggling democracies have looked to us, overlooking our shortcomings to guide their thoughts. The British and their concepts of the Modern Conservative movement is giving me inspiration. The idea of Bottom Up Governing is as old as democracy yet as new young energetic faces behind it in Britain. In the never ending cycle of “power corrupting” that makes “bums” out of our best leaders and ideas, only through democracy do the people have the best chance to throw those “Bums” out.
I thought of changing the title of this blog to “What the Theories of the Left and Right have in common”, I decided not to as I realized that for politics to work it has to be personal. We not only have to realize how our leaders can become corrupted by power, but that we also share their weakness.
Regards, Live Dangerously Be A Conservative.
PS. Please see my side bar titled "Update Across the Pond" for links to the Bristish Modern Conservative Movement.
Monday, June 2, 2008
Governmental Diversity
Just a little pause here to help myself keep on the purpose of this site. Try to nail down my reason for doing this blogging and political thing. I want to talk of one aspect of smaller or more efficient government. I’ve come up with the term “Diversify” to express the idea of decentralized bureaucracy and bringing it back down to the local level.
While the label is mine the thoughts come from different sources, and weren’t mine originally by any means. I just think they make sense, so I put my spin on them. Newt Gingrich and David Cameron are the obvious examples I have drawn from. Diversifying bureaucracy from a top down to a bottom up organization is my goal. Newt Gingrich in his book “Real Change” consistently calls for use of models based on entrepreneurial systems that have proven track records of success. His words, programs that work vs. programs that don’t. There are examples that deal with changing the bureaucracy from within such as Giuliani’s success in New York changing the police system to lower the crime rate, which made New York into the safest large city to live in. Giuliani did that by measuring at the precinct level the effects of policy and changing the policy to fit the local conditions. Other examples diversified the bureaucracy into private hands. The idea that 2 weeks after Katrina Fed Ex was on the ground shipping packages and The US Post Office put an embargo on shipping newspapers magazines ect for 6 months.
All of these examples of successfully turning systems into ones that work and succeed, were made possible through getting them back in touch with the customer’s (Citizen’s) wants and needs and continually tailoring that policy to the satisfaction of those needs. A policy’s success needs to be measured by the effects is has on the people it is supposed to help, not the affect it has on the bureaucracy. Using those measurements also will point the way for any alterations needed to the policy. Not as we do now by making a policy then trying to adjust the people to it. As companies get bigger and more bureaucratic they tend to focus more on the company, and less on the customer. Government Bureaucracy does the same thing only quicker as they are further removed at the start from the customer (Citizen) and their needs. A corollary to that is the need to be flexible to accommodate the needs of the customer (citizen). That in government means local control. In a top down system there is no local control. Newt also talks a lot about how to measure success (Metrics) and the need to measure that with a factual consistent Metric if your goal is to succeed, also the need to be able to change the policy (again easier at the local diversified level) to be able to learn and build upon your mistakes and success‘. He thinks that government bureaucracy measures things in relation to the success of maintaining and enlarging itself and not the actual success of achieving it’s stated goals. Has the welfare program for example, been more and more successful in helping people get off of welfare in the last 50 years, or successful in increasing the size of the welfare bureaucracy itself?
In education for example, a need to breakdown the centralization of every aspect seems necessary. The basic concept that one failure in a centralized bureaucracy effects all the students must be understood. Also once that mistake is enacted it becomes very hard to alter it. Why not have thousands of individual efforts to build a better mouse trap. Charter schools fit that bill. Sure there will be some mistakes,. If we allow the free movement between schools, the individuals who are directly affected will be able to affect the change by simply moving to a better school. The point is that now, when there are mistakes under the current system those mistake become very near impossible to change. Similar to compound interest, the damage from the mistake compounds as if it had a life of it’s own. The Detroit Public Schools is a prime example of mistakes made which seem uncorrectable. Akindele Akinyemi is someone trying to set up an alternative to the system in Detroit. Look through his site and you will get a sense of the struggle it is. And the huge effort he is making.
-----link-----
http://whoisakindele.info/2008/05/covenant-for-detroit-new-educational.html
--------------
The absurdity of the near impossibility to change what is obviously a failed system is glaringly apparent to at least 75% of the people, maybe more, people are crying for a change. As one of the people I too feel frustrated. Newt’s book comes up with some solutions. Maybe some are good. People see the need for change. They keep voting to throw the bums out no matter which party. The majority of voters will appreciate change if it is coherent and honest. I hope the Republicans are the ones who can learn to give that option to the voters.
Regards, Live Dangerously Be A Conservative
While the label is mine the thoughts come from different sources, and weren’t mine originally by any means. I just think they make sense, so I put my spin on them. Newt Gingrich and David Cameron are the obvious examples I have drawn from. Diversifying bureaucracy from a top down to a bottom up organization is my goal. Newt Gingrich in his book “Real Change” consistently calls for use of models based on entrepreneurial systems that have proven track records of success. His words, programs that work vs. programs that don’t. There are examples that deal with changing the bureaucracy from within such as Giuliani’s success in New York changing the police system to lower the crime rate, which made New York into the safest large city to live in. Giuliani did that by measuring at the precinct level the effects of policy and changing the policy to fit the local conditions. Other examples diversified the bureaucracy into private hands. The idea that 2 weeks after Katrina Fed Ex was on the ground shipping packages and The US Post Office put an embargo on shipping newspapers magazines ect for 6 months.
All of these examples of successfully turning systems into ones that work and succeed, were made possible through getting them back in touch with the customer’s (Citizen’s) wants and needs and continually tailoring that policy to the satisfaction of those needs. A policy’s success needs to be measured by the effects is has on the people it is supposed to help, not the affect it has on the bureaucracy. Using those measurements also will point the way for any alterations needed to the policy. Not as we do now by making a policy then trying to adjust the people to it. As companies get bigger and more bureaucratic they tend to focus more on the company, and less on the customer. Government Bureaucracy does the same thing only quicker as they are further removed at the start from the customer (Citizen) and their needs. A corollary to that is the need to be flexible to accommodate the needs of the customer (citizen). That in government means local control. In a top down system there is no local control. Newt also talks a lot about how to measure success (Metrics) and the need to measure that with a factual consistent Metric if your goal is to succeed, also the need to be able to change the policy (again easier at the local diversified level) to be able to learn and build upon your mistakes and success‘. He thinks that government bureaucracy measures things in relation to the success of maintaining and enlarging itself and not the actual success of achieving it’s stated goals. Has the welfare program for example, been more and more successful in helping people get off of welfare in the last 50 years, or successful in increasing the size of the welfare bureaucracy itself?
In education for example, a need to breakdown the centralization of every aspect seems necessary. The basic concept that one failure in a centralized bureaucracy effects all the students must be understood. Also once that mistake is enacted it becomes very hard to alter it. Why not have thousands of individual efforts to build a better mouse trap. Charter schools fit that bill. Sure there will be some mistakes,. If we allow the free movement between schools, the individuals who are directly affected will be able to affect the change by simply moving to a better school. The point is that now, when there are mistakes under the current system those mistake become very near impossible to change. Similar to compound interest, the damage from the mistake compounds as if it had a life of it’s own. The Detroit Public Schools is a prime example of mistakes made which seem uncorrectable. Akindele Akinyemi is someone trying to set up an alternative to the system in Detroit. Look through his site and you will get a sense of the struggle it is. And the huge effort he is making.
-----link-----
http://whoisakindele.info/2008/05/covenant-for-detroit-new-educational.html
--------------
The absurdity of the near impossibility to change what is obviously a failed system is glaringly apparent to at least 75% of the people, maybe more, people are crying for a change. As one of the people I too feel frustrated. Newt’s book comes up with some solutions. Maybe some are good. People see the need for change. They keep voting to throw the bums out no matter which party. The majority of voters will appreciate change if it is coherent and honest. I hope the Republicans are the ones who can learn to give that option to the voters.
Regards, Live Dangerously Be A Conservative
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Tail Wagging The Dog???
Tail Wagging the Dog??
Well I’m sure Democrats don’t want to be called hypocrites or deceivers or worse yet politicians. I’ll let you come up with a name for the language of the politics of Chicago. In an article, Mike Flannery writing for CBS2chicago.com said of Illinois Senator Dick Durbin.
-----quote-----
“Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin complained to oil company bosses at a hearing on Capitol Hill about Chicago having the highest gasoline prices in the United States”
-----------------
Flannery then quoted Durbin berating the big oil companies with the following question.
-----quote-----
"Does it trouble any of you when you see what you're doing to us”
-----------------
Sounds pretty good to me. The Senator standing toe to toe with those Terrible Big Oil Bums that dare to raise prices on gas and cause such pain to the people of this land. Here I must admit to being deceitful myself by setting you up somewhat. Mike Flannery was more honest about it. I saved the punch line till last thus keeping you in the dark. The premise of Mike Flannery’s article was the high tax on gas in Chicago. Higher than LA or NY. The tax is nearly 20%. On a single gallon at $4.00 the tax is 79 cents. The thing I learned or that finally sunk in from reading this was that the tax is a sales tax which goes up, as the price of the gas goes up, therefore generating more state income. Oh yeah isn’t there a federal tax in there too?
Well getting back to the point of the story, perhaps the voters should be asking the Senator the same questions. It reminds me of the old advertising mantra that if you have something wrong with your product, that is where your advertising money should be going. Most advertising is done to try and overcome the negative impression people who have used a product have picked up. Don’t waste your money they say on people that already like it, brainwash the people into not believing their own experiences. Oops shouldn’t of used brainwash, re-educate oops I forgot the politically correct way to say this. How about this. Help the people overcome their socially misguided beliefs in their selfish considerations, in order that they may see the overall good of the product for the collective good of the public. I give, it gives me a headache to think like that. I hope you get my drift. Perhaps Durbin and his ilk should do what they tell others to do, not what they themselves do. Lol. And as they dole out sanctimonious tongue lashings and financial penalties on captive audiences, perhaps they should practice a little of the scripture paraphrased. “Do onto yourselves first what you would do onto others”.
-----link-----
http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/gas.prices.taxes.2.729939.html
---------------
Just a thought, now another, Live Dangerously Be A Conservative
Ps. Mike Flannery’s article, after reading it you decide what you want to call Mr. Durbin.
Well I’m sure Democrats don’t want to be called hypocrites or deceivers or worse yet politicians. I’ll let you come up with a name for the language of the politics of Chicago. In an article, Mike Flannery writing for CBS2chicago.com said of Illinois Senator Dick Durbin.
-----quote-----
“Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin complained to oil company bosses at a hearing on Capitol Hill about Chicago having the highest gasoline prices in the United States”
-----------------
Flannery then quoted Durbin berating the big oil companies with the following question.
-----quote-----
"Does it trouble any of you when you see what you're doing to us”
-----------------
Sounds pretty good to me. The Senator standing toe to toe with those Terrible Big Oil Bums that dare to raise prices on gas and cause such pain to the people of this land. Here I must admit to being deceitful myself by setting you up somewhat. Mike Flannery was more honest about it. I saved the punch line till last thus keeping you in the dark. The premise of Mike Flannery’s article was the high tax on gas in Chicago. Higher than LA or NY. The tax is nearly 20%. On a single gallon at $4.00 the tax is 79 cents. The thing I learned or that finally sunk in from reading this was that the tax is a sales tax which goes up, as the price of the gas goes up, therefore generating more state income. Oh yeah isn’t there a federal tax in there too?
Well getting back to the point of the story, perhaps the voters should be asking the Senator the same questions. It reminds me of the old advertising mantra that if you have something wrong with your product, that is where your advertising money should be going. Most advertising is done to try and overcome the negative impression people who have used a product have picked up. Don’t waste your money they say on people that already like it, brainwash the people into not believing their own experiences. Oops shouldn’t of used brainwash, re-educate oops I forgot the politically correct way to say this. How about this. Help the people overcome their socially misguided beliefs in their selfish considerations, in order that they may see the overall good of the product for the collective good of the public. I give, it gives me a headache to think like that. I hope you get my drift. Perhaps Durbin and his ilk should do what they tell others to do, not what they themselves do. Lol. And as they dole out sanctimonious tongue lashings and financial penalties on captive audiences, perhaps they should practice a little of the scripture paraphrased. “Do onto yourselves first what you would do onto others”.
-----link-----
http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/gas.prices.taxes.2.729939.html
---------------
Just a thought, now another, Live Dangerously Be A Conservative
Ps. Mike Flannery’s article, after reading it you decide what you want to call Mr. Durbin.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
The Precise Solution?
It is painful to read the obvious sometimes. More painful the shorter and more precise it is.
I have been writing a lot of pages to cover the images evoked by the following.
-----quote-----
Conservative Funk
Conservatives are pining for a candidate they can vote for. What they really need is an electorate that will vote for their candidates.
Cross Posted at Power and Control
---------------
Below is where I lifted that gem from.
-----link-----
http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2008/05/conservative_fu.html--------------
All that it said was in what it didn’t say. Kind of Churchill like. Those two sentences imply contradictions if the end result will be a culture change through election. The first sentence I’ll use Ronald Reagan as a candidate conservatives are pining for. The second sentence “ what they (conservatives) really need is an electorate that will vote for their candidates.” happened with the election of Reagan. Yet the statement above seems to claim that what happened couldn’t.
Like I said the beauty lies in what it didn’t say. It didn’t say how we will find that “ electorate that will vote for their (our)candidates.” The author in a reply to a comment states that candidates are “spurious“. What about a Reagan or any great leader? Isn’t the function of a leader during elections in a democracy to pull together a majority of people with his leadership and his ideas?
In effect the sentences above simply say that we need candidates that the people will vote for. My mind is working overtime connecting this to that and over and over to make sense of what I think these two sentences and their author implies.
Finally I realize that no matter what is implied. The beauty of it came from what I implied to it through my own preconceived notions. I had to spend this much time reworking my thoughts to try to make those two sentences fit my reality.
I take that Churchill remark back and change that to an Andy Warhol type of statement..
Still had me going, forced me to study myself some more. Did what writers should, what painters should. Evoke more than the sum of the parts. Stimulate inspire people to be more than they are. Perhaps that is what a Ronald Reagan candidate does to an electorate.
Regards, Live Dangerously Be A Conservative
It is painful to read the obvious sometimes. More painful the shorter and more precise it is.
I have been writing a lot of pages to cover the images evoked by the following.
-----quote-----
Conservative Funk
Conservatives are pining for a candidate they can vote for. What they really need is an electorate that will vote for their candidates.
Cross Posted at Power and Control
---------------
Below is where I lifted that gem from.
-----link-----
http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2008/05/conservative_fu.html--------------
All that it said was in what it didn’t say. Kind of Churchill like. Those two sentences imply contradictions if the end result will be a culture change through election. The first sentence I’ll use Ronald Reagan as a candidate conservatives are pining for. The second sentence “ what they (conservatives) really need is an electorate that will vote for their candidates.” happened with the election of Reagan. Yet the statement above seems to claim that what happened couldn’t.
Like I said the beauty lies in what it didn’t say. It didn’t say how we will find that “ electorate that will vote for their (our)candidates.” The author in a reply to a comment states that candidates are “spurious“. What about a Reagan or any great leader? Isn’t the function of a leader during elections in a democracy to pull together a majority of people with his leadership and his ideas?
In effect the sentences above simply say that we need candidates that the people will vote for. My mind is working overtime connecting this to that and over and over to make sense of what I think these two sentences and their author implies.
Finally I realize that no matter what is implied. The beauty of it came from what I implied to it through my own preconceived notions. I had to spend this much time reworking my thoughts to try to make those two sentences fit my reality.
I take that Churchill remark back and change that to an Andy Warhol type of statement..
Still had me going, forced me to study myself some more. Did what writers should, what painters should. Evoke more than the sum of the parts. Stimulate inspire people to be more than they are. Perhaps that is what a Ronald Reagan candidate does to an electorate.
Regards, Live Dangerously Be A Conservative
Monday, May 26, 2008
MY NON INTERVIEW
My alternative interview about John McCain’s computer generated health model based on documents not seen.
I got upset seeing CyberAlert’s take on the interview linked below. I apologize for not picking up on this at the time, it slipped by without me noticing. I’m getting old.
-----link-----
http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2008/cyb20080523.asp#1
--------------
MY NON-INTERVIEW
Welcome viewers, our interview today will be with Joe Old Guy, formerly a doctor and at 72 years of age he considers himself active enough to come on my show. So welcome Joe, to let the viewers know a little about you I’d like to ask who you voted for last Presidential election.
------Well ah, JFK or Kerry it was it gets confusing at my age you know, LD (Live Dangerously). (that’s me the interviewer in case you too get confused)
LD-----So as a person voting democratic in the last election who do you think you will vote for in the upcoming election?
Joe------Well in my research from the actuarial tables I see that there is an 80% chance I will again vote democrat. An interesting anecdote I found LD was that If someone drove me to the polls and assisted me to the booth, the percentage jumps to 95% as there is a 15% rate that people in my category won’t make it to the polling station once they leave the house, LD these statistics don’t lie. I also found that 5% of my group once there for whatever reason couldn’t consummate the complicated process. That percentage in my defense is quite low. You know LD that in the sexual area of consummating that the percentage goes up quiet a ----(here there was a brief interruption)
LD------Well that is really very interesting, but we are here to talk about John McCain and the role age will play in his ability to function as President. What are your opinions on that Joe?
Joe------Well first off he’s a Republican so in my opinion from my own research at the Daily Kos he has nearly a 75% failure rate regardless of age but since you brought it up, due to his age he doesn’t really have much of a chance. I know.
LD------What about his wounds suffered as a POW Joe. How will those wounds affect his abilities both mentally as well as physically?
Joe------Good question LD. Very insightful. Mentally I think we can deduce from his history that he can be very stubborn to the point of unreasonableness to the point of harming those around him. I’m sure those that rescued him after his crash and cared for him, asked him politely at first some simple questions that evidence shows he new full well, and it was only through his undue stubbornness that they were forced to do what they had to in order to unite their wonderful country. You know LD that since the war they have made great inroads against progress and the harm it has caused especially in the South.
LD------So you think that his stubbornness could be a problem?
Joe------Why yes I do LD. I think it borders on delusional. His lack of compassion for his rescuers in not answering their simple questions should also be considered.
LD------Why is that Joe?
Joe------Because those people interviewing him had rescued him and were keeping him alive for one thing. For another, they were doing their jobs and I would not have wanted to embarrass them in front of their betters.
LD------So anyway this report that we haven’t seen yet says that there probably is something that will show Sen. McCain is unfit for the highest office in the land because he was in the military and on top of that he is almost as old as you. Joe ( a gentle nudge) Do you want me to repeat the question?
Joe-----No LD I was just resting my eyes. You bring up an interesting point. I can’t help but remember FDR (I voted for him you know). I think it would be unfair to compare the two.
LD------I didn’t
Joe------Even though FDR physical disabilities were far worse than John McCain’s, they were not caused as a result of being in the military. Well you know what that means, I mean they even teach innocent young people to use guns, and the crime being what it is now in the streets and they are all a bunch of war mongers starving killing raping children and Cheney and the CIA blew up the towers because they wanted the oil our friend Chavez has and they---(station break). ( well something like that) End of interview.
------------------------------------
Well I’ve vented enough, people who see this kind of thing still think for themselves and the age thing alone will come back to bite them. The insinuations a persons mental ability based on nothing but actuarial tables is beyond repulsive. I guess in the age of the collective consensus versus individual ability, what should I expect. Well I do expect more, that’s my problem.
Regards, Live Dangerously Be A Conservative
My Thanks go out to Senator John McCain on this Memorial Day
I got upset seeing CyberAlert’s take on the interview linked below. I apologize for not picking up on this at the time, it slipped by without me noticing. I’m getting old.
-----link-----
http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2008/cyb20080523.asp#1
--------------
MY NON-INTERVIEW
Welcome viewers, our interview today will be with Joe Old Guy, formerly a doctor and at 72 years of age he considers himself active enough to come on my show. So welcome Joe, to let the viewers know a little about you I’d like to ask who you voted for last Presidential election.
------Well ah, JFK or Kerry it was it gets confusing at my age you know, LD (Live Dangerously). (that’s me the interviewer in case you too get confused)
LD-----So as a person voting democratic in the last election who do you think you will vote for in the upcoming election?
Joe------Well in my research from the actuarial tables I see that there is an 80% chance I will again vote democrat. An interesting anecdote I found LD was that If someone drove me to the polls and assisted me to the booth, the percentage jumps to 95% as there is a 15% rate that people in my category won’t make it to the polling station once they leave the house, LD these statistics don’t lie. I also found that 5% of my group once there for whatever reason couldn’t consummate the complicated process. That percentage in my defense is quite low. You know LD that in the sexual area of consummating that the percentage goes up quiet a ----(here there was a brief interruption)
LD------Well that is really very interesting, but we are here to talk about John McCain and the role age will play in his ability to function as President. What are your opinions on that Joe?
Joe------Well first off he’s a Republican so in my opinion from my own research at the Daily Kos he has nearly a 75% failure rate regardless of age but since you brought it up, due to his age he doesn’t really have much of a chance. I know.
LD------What about his wounds suffered as a POW Joe. How will those wounds affect his abilities both mentally as well as physically?
Joe------Good question LD. Very insightful. Mentally I think we can deduce from his history that he can be very stubborn to the point of unreasonableness to the point of harming those around him. I’m sure those that rescued him after his crash and cared for him, asked him politely at first some simple questions that evidence shows he new full well, and it was only through his undue stubbornness that they were forced to do what they had to in order to unite their wonderful country. You know LD that since the war they have made great inroads against progress and the harm it has caused especially in the South.
LD------So you think that his stubbornness could be a problem?
Joe------Why yes I do LD. I think it borders on delusional. His lack of compassion for his rescuers in not answering their simple questions should also be considered.
LD------Why is that Joe?
Joe------Because those people interviewing him had rescued him and were keeping him alive for one thing. For another, they were doing their jobs and I would not have wanted to embarrass them in front of their betters.
LD------So anyway this report that we haven’t seen yet says that there probably is something that will show Sen. McCain is unfit for the highest office in the land because he was in the military and on top of that he is almost as old as you. Joe ( a gentle nudge) Do you want me to repeat the question?
Joe-----No LD I was just resting my eyes. You bring up an interesting point. I can’t help but remember FDR (I voted for him you know). I think it would be unfair to compare the two.
LD------I didn’t
Joe------Even though FDR physical disabilities were far worse than John McCain’s, they were not caused as a result of being in the military. Well you know what that means, I mean they even teach innocent young people to use guns, and the crime being what it is now in the streets and they are all a bunch of war mongers starving killing raping children and Cheney and the CIA blew up the towers because they wanted the oil our friend Chavez has and they---(station break). ( well something like that) End of interview.
------------------------------------
Well I’ve vented enough, people who see this kind of thing still think for themselves and the age thing alone will come back to bite them. The insinuations a persons mental ability based on nothing but actuarial tables is beyond repulsive. I guess in the age of the collective consensus versus individual ability, what should I expect. Well I do expect more, that’s my problem.
Regards, Live Dangerously Be A Conservative
My Thanks go out to Senator John McCain on this Memorial Day
Sunday, May 25, 2008
A FUNNY THING HAPPENED ON MY WAY TO A POLITICAL ARGUMENT
A Funny thing happened on my way to a political argument.
I was talking with a guy yesterday and politics crept into our discussion. He was playing me some but that’s ok it’s politics. He suddenly sprung on me the question he thought would bring the real me out. Get me trapped, you know the setup get a read on how I really felt. He asked “What about Hillary Obama, what’s up with that thing”? Without pause for thinking I said “They got married? Wow. When did that happen? I didn’t know”. He looked at me then I saw the light come on and he burst out laughing I couldn’t resist either. Pretty soon we were joking about both sides, we had found by accident some common ground. We had found something personal that transcended the rhetoric. We knew we had different basic views but we were looking at the problem from a different place. Our views had subtly changed. We were a little different.
I don’t think we’ll all of a sudden change parties, and become bosom buddies, but if we ever face a real problem that needs a solution in the future, especially if we don’t have time to argue about it: we may remember our little laugh and be more inclined to work together to fix it.
Yup, A Funny thing happened on my way to a political argument, we laughed and left the rhetoric at home.
Regards, Live Dangerously Be A Conservative
PS. Here is a guy that should of laughed too. I forgot where I found this link. Listen to the whole thing to appreciate it.
-----link-----
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YK0d8ENS__c
--------------
I’m not a fan of Chris Wallace and the whole idea he harped on about appeasement wasn’t sound in my opinion. But the other guy was obvious lacking in the history of the discussion. This is the type of whacko I despise. I hate to see them creeping into our party. When Rhetoric means everything. Facts become irrelevant. See side bar under "Xtra Links For Current Posts" for Anne Coulter's take on it.
I was talking with a guy yesterday and politics crept into our discussion. He was playing me some but that’s ok it’s politics. He suddenly sprung on me the question he thought would bring the real me out. Get me trapped, you know the setup get a read on how I really felt. He asked “What about Hillary Obama, what’s up with that thing”? Without pause for thinking I said “They got married? Wow. When did that happen? I didn’t know”. He looked at me then I saw the light come on and he burst out laughing I couldn’t resist either. Pretty soon we were joking about both sides, we had found by accident some common ground. We had found something personal that transcended the rhetoric. We knew we had different basic views but we were looking at the problem from a different place. Our views had subtly changed. We were a little different.
I don’t think we’ll all of a sudden change parties, and become bosom buddies, but if we ever face a real problem that needs a solution in the future, especially if we don’t have time to argue about it: we may remember our little laugh and be more inclined to work together to fix it.
Yup, A Funny thing happened on my way to a political argument, we laughed and left the rhetoric at home.
Regards, Live Dangerously Be A Conservative
PS. Here is a guy that should of laughed too. I forgot where I found this link. Listen to the whole thing to appreciate it.
-----link-----
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YK0d8ENS__c
--------------
I’m not a fan of Chris Wallace and the whole idea he harped on about appeasement wasn’t sound in my opinion. But the other guy was obvious lacking in the history of the discussion. This is the type of whacko I despise. I hate to see them creeping into our party. When Rhetoric means everything. Facts become irrelevant. See side bar under "Xtra Links For Current Posts" for Anne Coulter's take on it.
Friday, May 23, 2008
Jonn McWhorter's book
Link below is to a part of John McWhorter’s book
-----link-----
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5628075
---------------
I found his insights into human nature pretty well insightful. All I ever have to judge the truth of things is to compare something I have in common with that thing something from my experience I know to be true to me. What could I have in common with the black experience? Mr. McWhorter’s book brought up one fringe aspect. Being a nearly professional hippie back in the day, I could relate to how he talked of idle protest and theatrical rage. I was part of that theatre though not based on race but rather on age. With my new found age I can look back and agree with Mr. McWhorter that I found it easier and more fun to as we say now, being part of the problem than part of the solution. Well John McWhorter says it better. I quote him.
-----quote-----
“ Here is where legendary Civil Rights activist Bayard Rustin became dismayed as a new generation of black activists began embracing the "heroics" of idle protest and theatrical rage, uninterested in rolling their sleeves up and working out concrete plans for change”
----------------
Were the abuses of society on me as bad as those abuses upon black people, I’m sure they were not. But how can I know that anyway. No offence but to me on a personal level it doesn’t matter. If I get slapped in the face, it doesn’t matter at the time whether someone else had been slapped harder. Things are relative. I was better off by almost any standard of measurement during my youth than my parents were during theirs, yet I was complaining about all the abuse they laid upon me. I remember sitting around with other hippies as we came up with new and better abuses for us to rant about. Even then, I would get upset at “my people” for not being willing to do more than talk. But then under the “haze” of communal type of atmosphere I would quickly mellow out. “Be cool man go with the flow”.
The excerpt I read of Mr. McWhorter’s book I liked. I gained some insight from his into my own makeup. What makes me what I am. What makes it easier for me not to roll up my sleeves. It’s nice to think perhaps I share these things with others.
One part of the article that I can relate full well to and will draw conclusions from is the following.
-----quote-----
Two new conditions were necessary for alienation among blacks to so often drift from its moorings in the concrete and become the abstract, hazy "race thing" that whites just "don't get."
One condition was that blacks had to be prepared to embrace therapeutic alienation, and ironically, this could only have been when conditions improved for blacks. When racism was omnipresent and overt, it would have been psychological suicide for blacks to go around exaggerating what was an all-too-real problem.
Second, whites had to be prepared to listen to the complaints and assume (or pretend) that they were valid. This only began during the countercultural revolution, within which a new openness to blacks and an awareness of racism were key elements. Certainly this frame of mind was not true of all or even most whites. But it became a common wisdom especially among educated and influential ones, such that it quickly infused university curricula and grounded governmental policies intended as progressive.
----------------
I conclude from this that as the concrete legal barriers were brought down through the passage of the civil rights laws ect., The battle became more abstract. Not that there was no longer bigotry or other wrongs, but they were not as concrete. They were more of a mental kind of thing. It was harder to change a persons attitudes than to change a law. That logic I relate to. It was the path of least resistance that I would fall back into. For all the talk of how people need to change the way they think. The real roll up the sleeve work is usually shunned. I think this is human nature to do this. I know I’m good at shunning work. Lol.
While I understand the need to stoke the home fires to get people fired up enough to actually do the real roll up the sleeves work. I think we will be better off if somehow we can get more into the actual work part and less into the stoking the home fires part.
Thanks for listening.
Regards, Live Dangerously Be A Conservative
-----link-----
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5628075
---------------
I found his insights into human nature pretty well insightful. All I ever have to judge the truth of things is to compare something I have in common with that thing something from my experience I know to be true to me. What could I have in common with the black experience? Mr. McWhorter’s book brought up one fringe aspect. Being a nearly professional hippie back in the day, I could relate to how he talked of idle protest and theatrical rage. I was part of that theatre though not based on race but rather on age. With my new found age I can look back and agree with Mr. McWhorter that I found it easier and more fun to as we say now, being part of the problem than part of the solution. Well John McWhorter says it better. I quote him.
-----quote-----
“ Here is where legendary Civil Rights activist Bayard Rustin became dismayed as a new generation of black activists began embracing the "heroics" of idle protest and theatrical rage, uninterested in rolling their sleeves up and working out concrete plans for change”
----------------
Were the abuses of society on me as bad as those abuses upon black people, I’m sure they were not. But how can I know that anyway. No offence but to me on a personal level it doesn’t matter. If I get slapped in the face, it doesn’t matter at the time whether someone else had been slapped harder. Things are relative. I was better off by almost any standard of measurement during my youth than my parents were during theirs, yet I was complaining about all the abuse they laid upon me. I remember sitting around with other hippies as we came up with new and better abuses for us to rant about. Even then, I would get upset at “my people” for not being willing to do more than talk. But then under the “haze” of communal type of atmosphere I would quickly mellow out. “Be cool man go with the flow”.
The excerpt I read of Mr. McWhorter’s book I liked. I gained some insight from his into my own makeup. What makes me what I am. What makes it easier for me not to roll up my sleeves. It’s nice to think perhaps I share these things with others.
One part of the article that I can relate full well to and will draw conclusions from is the following.
-----quote-----
Two new conditions were necessary for alienation among blacks to so often drift from its moorings in the concrete and become the abstract, hazy "race thing" that whites just "don't get."
One condition was that blacks had to be prepared to embrace therapeutic alienation, and ironically, this could only have been when conditions improved for blacks. When racism was omnipresent and overt, it would have been psychological suicide for blacks to go around exaggerating what was an all-too-real problem.
Second, whites had to be prepared to listen to the complaints and assume (or pretend) that they were valid. This only began during the countercultural revolution, within which a new openness to blacks and an awareness of racism were key elements. Certainly this frame of mind was not true of all or even most whites. But it became a common wisdom especially among educated and influential ones, such that it quickly infused university curricula and grounded governmental policies intended as progressive.
----------------
I conclude from this that as the concrete legal barriers were brought down through the passage of the civil rights laws ect., The battle became more abstract. Not that there was no longer bigotry or other wrongs, but they were not as concrete. They were more of a mental kind of thing. It was harder to change a persons attitudes than to change a law. That logic I relate to. It was the path of least resistance that I would fall back into. For all the talk of how people need to change the way they think. The real roll up the sleeve work is usually shunned. I think this is human nature to do this. I know I’m good at shunning work. Lol.
While I understand the need to stoke the home fires to get people fired up enough to actually do the real roll up the sleeves work. I think we will be better off if somehow we can get more into the actual work part and less into the stoking the home fires part.
Thanks for listening.
Regards, Live Dangerously Be A Conservative
Thursday, May 22, 2008
BOBBY JINDAL, WHO IS THAT ??
Bobby Jindal. WHO is that?
I started following Bobby since I first heard of him from his failed bid then his election to the US House, and then fell in love with him during the whole mess of Katrina. He seemed one of the silver linings in that dark cloud. Not much was made mention of his efforts during that traumatic time. He was always on the edges of the news. Others were in the spotlight. Like Sean Penn rowing a boat, the national guard helping a pollitician scurry back to save his slush money, and the media making sure people were able to see the misery up close and personal. Well Bobby was doing what he has always done. He brought his positive can do attitude or better yet the selfless what can I do attitude to the mess. Then with what little power as a member of the US House he had he was able to use it to make a dent in the bureaucratic mess unfolding in his state. In his heart he knew what I’m just learning, Actually helping people directly has become almost illegal, in most cases it is. The next election, the people of Louisiana recognized what he did if the Mass Media wouldn’t and elected him governor. The article I linked is a long read but it fleshes out quite well the man I call Bobby Jindal. I lifted it from The Red State blog they from The Criticle. The author is Ben Domenech.
-----link-----
http://www.redstate.com/stories/elections/2007/bobby_jindal_saves_louisiana
---------------
I’m glad to see McCain has him on the list as a possible running mate. I got the link off of Drudge, see my side bar, “Old Standby Links“.
-----link-----
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080521/D90Q9VF00.html
---------------
He fits all the Politically Correct requirements the pundits condescendingly say McCain needs. You know the ones that have to do with counteracting the perceived age problem and let’s just say “diversity appeal”. Even because of all that I would urge McCain to select him lol. The one thing in Bobby’s favor I think is that he is not the flamboyant type, he won’t be trying to steal the spotlight. He’s my favorite kind of person, he’s a doer. The article below shows what he does and some of what I’ve said. I hope John McCain can see the common ground they both share in their get things done no earmark attitude, which is labeled in the Media as their Maverickness. It would be a great political risk for Sen. McCain to take, besides all the chance for negative punditry, there would be the risk of Bobby out shining John in the Media’s eyes. But then great leaders are sure enough of themselves and their ideas that they are willing to take gambles. If, the Next President of the United States wants someone by his side that will help him do what is possible to fight the bureaucracy to make government work, then I would urge John McCain to pick Bobby Jindal for his right hand man. His major drawbacks seem to be that Bobby is quiet, borders on genius, dislikes obstacles to getting things done. The list is long. Lol. I think though that I could over look them. The question is can the people who run those obstacles allow him to run? He was bad enough in Louisiana , dare they allow him loose in Washington. The article below once you get past the agenda stuff sprinkled here and there is really good about the abilities of Bobby Jindal and an excellent depiction of the problems of unlimited Bureaucracy run wild showcased by the catastrophe that was Katrina.
Regards, Live Dangerously Be A Conservative
I started following Bobby since I first heard of him from his failed bid then his election to the US House, and then fell in love with him during the whole mess of Katrina. He seemed one of the silver linings in that dark cloud. Not much was made mention of his efforts during that traumatic time. He was always on the edges of the news. Others were in the spotlight. Like Sean Penn rowing a boat, the national guard helping a pollitician scurry back to save his slush money, and the media making sure people were able to see the misery up close and personal. Well Bobby was doing what he has always done. He brought his positive can do attitude or better yet the selfless what can I do attitude to the mess. Then with what little power as a member of the US House he had he was able to use it to make a dent in the bureaucratic mess unfolding in his state. In his heart he knew what I’m just learning, Actually helping people directly has become almost illegal, in most cases it is. The next election, the people of Louisiana recognized what he did if the Mass Media wouldn’t and elected him governor. The article I linked is a long read but it fleshes out quite well the man I call Bobby Jindal. I lifted it from The Red State blog they from The Criticle. The author is Ben Domenech.
-----link-----
http://www.redstate.com/stories/elections/2007/bobby_jindal_saves_louisiana
---------------
I’m glad to see McCain has him on the list as a possible running mate. I got the link off of Drudge, see my side bar, “Old Standby Links“.
-----link-----
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080521/D90Q9VF00.html
---------------
He fits all the Politically Correct requirements the pundits condescendingly say McCain needs. You know the ones that have to do with counteracting the perceived age problem and let’s just say “diversity appeal”. Even because of all that I would urge McCain to select him lol. The one thing in Bobby’s favor I think is that he is not the flamboyant type, he won’t be trying to steal the spotlight. He’s my favorite kind of person, he’s a doer. The article below shows what he does and some of what I’ve said. I hope John McCain can see the common ground they both share in their get things done no earmark attitude, which is labeled in the Media as their Maverickness. It would be a great political risk for Sen. McCain to take, besides all the chance for negative punditry, there would be the risk of Bobby out shining John in the Media’s eyes. But then great leaders are sure enough of themselves and their ideas that they are willing to take gambles. If, the Next President of the United States wants someone by his side that will help him do what is possible to fight the bureaucracy to make government work, then I would urge John McCain to pick Bobby Jindal for his right hand man. His major drawbacks seem to be that Bobby is quiet, borders on genius, dislikes obstacles to getting things done. The list is long. Lol. I think though that I could over look them. The question is can the people who run those obstacles allow him to run? He was bad enough in Louisiana , dare they allow him loose in Washington. The article below once you get past the agenda stuff sprinkled here and there is really good about the abilities of Bobby Jindal and an excellent depiction of the problems of unlimited Bureaucracy run wild showcased by the catastrophe that was Katrina.
Regards, Live Dangerously Be A Conservative
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
BIGGER STAGE - SMALLER BUT NOT LESSER PARTS
BIGGER STAGE - SMALLER BUT NOT LESSER PARTS
I’ve been recently getting so into the local scene, political and just plain local stuff, new business, neighborhood issues and the like, that I’ve seemed to be losing interest in the bigger picture stuff. The stuff that got me into this in the first place. Trying to campaign for local people like Karen Buie and losing my zeal for the bigger candidates, the bigger issues, that kind of thing. My other blog site deals with those “smaller” things.
-----plug-----
http://bottomuppolitics.blogspot.com---------------
Those things seemed more interesting. Then I realized it’s the personal touch that I find appealing. Being able to talk with the owner of Benson Drug. Having him say hi to me in the store, or talking with Karen Buie in the evening to see what I could help her with if anything. I’m realizing people like to just be acknowledged as human, me included. As Martha would say “It’s a Beautiful Thing”.
I was looking over some of my old posts on this site to find material to blog about when it dawned on me. “Big” politics can be personal too. For example. I had blogged about the bill in the State Senate, about making a constitutional amendment, about the ability for the state to raise taxes. It would have made it harder to do that. I had talked personally with our Senator once about it back when I blogged about it. Yesterday I had called his Lansing office and talked with his assistant Jeff Cobb (SP), trying to see what had happened to the bill. Jeff said he would talk with the sponsor of the bill a state senator Roger Kahn from Saginaw and he would get back to me. Well Jeff Cobb called me back today to tell me that the bill was in committee and would die there for this year. I said that there might be hope for it next year I put in my 2 cents. I let him know I was interested in it and how the bill failed to get the necessary 2/3 vote for passage by only 1 vote. The Republicans are in the minority so that told me we were getting some bipartisan support to get the vote that close. I made sure to tell him that I a private citizen support their position. A small Thing.
Well I then googled state, senator, Michigan, Kahn as that was all I knew, which got me to his website then his telephone number it was toll free and I called. Talked with a charming lady who seemed truly pleased to hear from an actual voter not a lobbyist. After showing my command of the subject (yeah I do have an ego) I told her thanks and to please make sure to tell Senator Roger Kahn thanks for the effort and to think about trying it next year. Then I also slipped in my support of the Transparency bill of Jack Hoogendyk and the efforts along the same lines by Mike Cox our Attorney General. It finally came home to me that I was again interested and that I had gained that interest because It had become personal, I had done that small thing. I reitterate, it became interesting to me again, in a small but no less important way I made it matter by doing something. If you think there’s not a difference think about it the next time your talking to and button pushing through a computer generated voice phone menue thing just to get to talk to an operator. Maybe it won’t get anything big done. But I felt better for doing it. To wax philosophical just for a sentence, that personal thing is the defining characteristic of how well a democracy works, the personal involvement of the citizens. Like giving out candy at the Fruitport parade this Memorial Day, I mean those kids can’t even vote. But it’s making politics personal, they feel good and I do too.
Regards, Live Dangerously Be A Conservative
I’ve been recently getting so into the local scene, political and just plain local stuff, new business, neighborhood issues and the like, that I’ve seemed to be losing interest in the bigger picture stuff. The stuff that got me into this in the first place. Trying to campaign for local people like Karen Buie and losing my zeal for the bigger candidates, the bigger issues, that kind of thing. My other blog site deals with those “smaller” things.
-----plug-----
http://bottomuppolitics.blogspot.com---------------
Those things seemed more interesting. Then I realized it’s the personal touch that I find appealing. Being able to talk with the owner of Benson Drug. Having him say hi to me in the store, or talking with Karen Buie in the evening to see what I could help her with if anything. I’m realizing people like to just be acknowledged as human, me included. As Martha would say “It’s a Beautiful Thing”.
I was looking over some of my old posts on this site to find material to blog about when it dawned on me. “Big” politics can be personal too. For example. I had blogged about the bill in the State Senate, about making a constitutional amendment, about the ability for the state to raise taxes. It would have made it harder to do that. I had talked personally with our Senator once about it back when I blogged about it. Yesterday I had called his Lansing office and talked with his assistant Jeff Cobb (SP), trying to see what had happened to the bill. Jeff said he would talk with the sponsor of the bill a state senator Roger Kahn from Saginaw and he would get back to me. Well Jeff Cobb called me back today to tell me that the bill was in committee and would die there for this year. I said that there might be hope for it next year I put in my 2 cents. I let him know I was interested in it and how the bill failed to get the necessary 2/3 vote for passage by only 1 vote. The Republicans are in the minority so that told me we were getting some bipartisan support to get the vote that close. I made sure to tell him that I a private citizen support their position. A small Thing.
Well I then googled state, senator, Michigan, Kahn as that was all I knew, which got me to his website then his telephone number it was toll free and I called. Talked with a charming lady who seemed truly pleased to hear from an actual voter not a lobbyist. After showing my command of the subject (yeah I do have an ego) I told her thanks and to please make sure to tell Senator Roger Kahn thanks for the effort and to think about trying it next year. Then I also slipped in my support of the Transparency bill of Jack Hoogendyk and the efforts along the same lines by Mike Cox our Attorney General. It finally came home to me that I was again interested and that I had gained that interest because It had become personal, I had done that small thing. I reitterate, it became interesting to me again, in a small but no less important way I made it matter by doing something. If you think there’s not a difference think about it the next time your talking to and button pushing through a computer generated voice phone menue thing just to get to talk to an operator. Maybe it won’t get anything big done. But I felt better for doing it. To wax philosophical just for a sentence, that personal thing is the defining characteristic of how well a democracy works, the personal involvement of the citizens. Like giving out candy at the Fruitport parade this Memorial Day, I mean those kids can’t even vote. But it’s making politics personal, they feel good and I do too.
Regards, Live Dangerously Be A Conservative
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
SIMPLE IDEAS
Article below echoes a pretty common thread I hear and agree with about the
Republican party needs change. Most of the heavy hitters have singed on to the need for change, some more grudgingly than others lol. I’ve highlighted Peggy Noonan as she is my favorite. It does seem like the message is getting through to the leadership if for no other reason than they feel their jobs are threatened. Keep in mind, not all conservatives are wrong headed. Let's not throw the good out with the bad, Pete Hoekstra comes to mind. The link below is for an article by Victor Davis Hansen , I lifted it off of Pajama Media.
-----link-----
http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/the-problem-is-not-conservatism-but-conservatives-who-arent-conservative/---------------
The point simply put was again stated that we Republicans need a clear basic common sense message, and more importantly we need to believe in it and not compromise on it. Also at the end Mr. Hansen said.
-----quote-----
In short, the Republicans’ problem? They forgot who they were and can’t explain what they might be. They need to go back to basics, adopt conservative principles to confront new challenges, and then find the most effective spokesmen they can to explain their positions—hourly.
---------------
That sums up what is and what needs to be done and I reemphasize the word HOURLY. As I read the ideas of integrity and honesty kept bubbling up. From demanding a higher bar for ethics and gladly accepting that the bar will be higher for the messenger; to the concept of ignoring the slings and arrows and working the plan. Doing what you promise is the lens through which people out side of Washington will see and judge those they put their trust in. Trust to the voter is not some clever marketing slogan. Recruit new members, which will help create new leadership. Hey Mr. Smith did go to Washington after all. The stigma of the movie comes from what he found there not Mr. Smith or his ideas.
As far as a critique of the list Mr. Hansen came up with, well I don’t care about the specifics. They will come later, naturally. They will be formed by the new leaders. Point and click didn’t just pop up, it forced it’s way around and through and in spite of the arrogance of the colossus that IBM had become. It happened because the concept was clear, easy and unmistakable, dare I say user friendly. It reeked of common sense, luckily the people pushing it didn’t have to be overly heroic because the leaders of IBM ect were too inflexible to take what was offered. Those new guys became heroic later because they had the honesty of their concept and they stuck to it.
Regards, Live Dangerously Be A Conservative
Republican party needs change. Most of the heavy hitters have singed on to the need for change, some more grudgingly than others lol. I’ve highlighted Peggy Noonan as she is my favorite. It does seem like the message is getting through to the leadership if for no other reason than they feel their jobs are threatened. Keep in mind, not all conservatives are wrong headed. Let's not throw the good out with the bad, Pete Hoekstra comes to mind. The link below is for an article by Victor Davis Hansen , I lifted it off of Pajama Media.
-----link-----
http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/the-problem-is-not-conservatism-but-conservatives-who-arent-conservative/---------------
The point simply put was again stated that we Republicans need a clear basic common sense message, and more importantly we need to believe in it and not compromise on it. Also at the end Mr. Hansen said.
-----quote-----
In short, the Republicans’ problem? They forgot who they were and can’t explain what they might be. They need to go back to basics, adopt conservative principles to confront new challenges, and then find the most effective spokesmen they can to explain their positions—hourly.
---------------
That sums up what is and what needs to be done and I reemphasize the word HOURLY. As I read the ideas of integrity and honesty kept bubbling up. From demanding a higher bar for ethics and gladly accepting that the bar will be higher for the messenger; to the concept of ignoring the slings and arrows and working the plan. Doing what you promise is the lens through which people out side of Washington will see and judge those they put their trust in. Trust to the voter is not some clever marketing slogan. Recruit new members, which will help create new leadership. Hey Mr. Smith did go to Washington after all. The stigma of the movie comes from what he found there not Mr. Smith or his ideas.
As far as a critique of the list Mr. Hansen came up with, well I don’t care about the specifics. They will come later, naturally. They will be formed by the new leaders. Point and click didn’t just pop up, it forced it’s way around and through and in spite of the arrogance of the colossus that IBM had become. It happened because the concept was clear, easy and unmistakable, dare I say user friendly. It reeked of common sense, luckily the people pushing it didn’t have to be overly heroic because the leaders of IBM ect were too inflexible to take what was offered. Those new guys became heroic later because they had the honesty of their concept and they stuck to it.
Regards, Live Dangerously Be A Conservative
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)