The Presumptuous Nominee

Premature Self-adulation

Sports Induced Coma

It is so nice in this coach bus. The air conditioning is on, and I need it. We all just got done sweating a few pounds off at the Yankee vs. Orioles baseball game.

I do a lot of thinking at these sporting events. I think about people, places, and ideas, but always come back to the same question:
“Why are people so knowledgable about sports, but have no idea who the vice president is?”

It seems as if our nation is in a perpetual sports induced coma. People can rattle off statistics, great moments, and histories of any sporting athlete. However, when asked to place Iraq on a map, they shoot blanks. Obviously sports is something to be admired and enjoyed. It should be for everyone, so people can stay in shape as well, but it is the total imbalance between sports knowledge and current events knowledge that is worrisome.

In a world filled with Muslim jihadists hell bent on destroying western civilization, with liberals and their Republican cooperatives aching at the thought of opening Americans’ wallets, and with increased moral depravity and decadence, it is important to stay on the up and up on daily events and happenings, so people can make better daily decisions.

Is this all a coincidence, that we are constantly bombarded with music, ads, sports, and movies? Is it any coincidence that we have been bred to be walking encyclopedias of sporting knowledge, and nothing but cavernous abysses when it comes to political, social, and economic issues? I think not.

There is no excuse. In a world of blazing terabytes and easily acessible infomation, it is simply astonishing that so many in our country are so ignorant that they are fooled by the populist doublespeak that the Democrats spawn from their forked tongues.

The brave new world has been upon us. It should have never been a question of when, but of how bad it currently is. We are taking our soma with willing mouths. Instead of gnashing our teeth and refusing to accept the administered dose, we let ourselves be drugged by sports, music, clothing, and movies. Things that are to be enjoyed are used with extreme excess. These things are all the product of a free market, but we need a free mental market as well.

While the government picks our pockets, and expands, we are glued to the game.

While the Muslim terrorists detonate bombs in cities around the world, we are glued to the game.

While the world burns, we are glued to the game, in a sports induced coma.

-Posted by Conor Harrigan

Fixing bad credit with bad credit

I was debating a friend of mine a while back about the current financial problems. He was arguing against my ‘hands off’ policy, saying that in times of economic downturn the government borrowing and spending money is a good thing. Operating in debt will help jump start the economy, and the money can be paid back after we’re experiencing growth again.

At the time I didn’t have an answer, but I finally thought of a response.

Lets say we’re talking about a person who’s just lost their job and has some money put in the bank. Now, if this person opens up a line of credit he can continue his usual lifestyle until he can find a new source of income. This seems like a sound financial plan, except it ignores a property of human behavior, in that we don’t plan well for the future. If you have a credit card, chances are this person could get caught up in purchasing unnecessary luxuries which he’s not going to be able to pay back if he doesn’t find another well-paying job soon.

Similarly, operating the federal budget at a $10 trillion deficit is a sure way to screw ourselves in the future. Who knows if and when the economy will pick back up? Especially since the current problems are caused in part by bad credit practices in the first place.

What Washington politicians are offering is basically more of the same. They want to fix problems caused by bad credit with more bad credit. These giant investment banks which are going under because they thought they could take advantage of people who wouldn’t be able to pay their credit card bills are now being saved by congress and the Federal reserve. And how does the Fed bail them out? By borrowing and printing money, which causes inflation and devalues the dollar.

The Fed is opening a line of credit through the American dollar and isn’t providing a deadline in which it’ll pay us back. Instead, congress is giving the IRS permission to survey every credit card transaction Americans make, and expects the IRS to be able to solve our problems. As far as I’m aware, the IRS has created more problems than it has solved. While I do like new laws that protect consumers from being frauded by creditors, the problem isn’t going to be solved by giving the IRS more power and fingerprinting federal employees (yep, that’s in the new “Housing” Bill too).

At some point, we’re going to have to realize that more protectionism and spending isn’t going to fix problems caused by bad credit. Consumers need to realize that there’s no such thing as free credit. Investing in yourself (or in your future self, as it were) is risky just like investing in the stock market. If a market fails, or if you can’t pay their credit card bills, the government taking care of your investments is only going to create weaker markets, untrustworthy consumers and a weak economy.

A poor economy will only be fixed in the long term by tightening your belt, cutting out luxuries, saving money, and making safe investment decisions. The beauty of the free market is that while companies may go under from time to time, that will ultimately strengthen the economy because it is the weak ones that are going under.

You wouldn’t buy stock in a company that’s about to declare bankrupcy, so why should the government weaken the dollar in order to do the same?

Race baiters and Climate Change

Here it comes...

The 'P word'

Modern liberals squirm at the sound of the 'P word'. That is, Patriotism. One often hears them say, "Oh, I despise Patriotism." And then, like clockwork, they commit the dreaded error by adding, 'and Nationalism.' They say this with such conviction, so certain that these two words are one and the same. But are they?

To settle the matter, I go to no greater authority than George Orwell. In his essay, "Notes on Nationalism" he takes on the very issue I've brought up here. Even in 1945, people mistakenly took patriotism and nationalism to be synonymous, but Orwell is very clear - this is dead wrong.

Here is his definition of nationalism:

By "nationalism" I mean first of all the habit of assuming that human beings can be classified like insects and that whole blocks of millions or tens of millions of people can be confidently labelled "good" or "bad." But secondly -- and this is much more important -- I mean the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognizing no other duty than that of advancing its interests.

But to be clear:

Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. Both words are normally used in so vague a way that any definition is liable to be challenged, but one must draw a distinction between them, since two different and even opposing ideas are involved.

What then is Patriotism?

By "patriotism" I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseperable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality.

The distinction between the two is quite clear. It is a commitment to a way of life, to a place, and a corresponding pride and admiration for the traditions, the people, and the customs of that place. It is not, however, a feeling that these things to which a patriot is devoted ought to be imposed onto those who do not want it. It is a misunderstanding of this part of Orwell's definition, that patriotism entails no desire to force itself on other people, that leads our liberal friends to cringe at the sound of the 'P word', when in reality, what they really detest are the sentiments, and the corresponding excesses of nationalism.

By their logic, a devotion to any one particular place or way of life is an admission that not all ways of life are equally good or desirable. That one is better than another It offends their relativistic worldview that they pride themselves on.

They also mistakenly believe that patriotism engenders the kinds of actions that lead to war. But they are wrong here again. As Orwell makes clear, it is nationalism that leads people to act in nefarious ways, but not patriotism. On the contrary, it is only patriotism, pure and simple, that can provide the citizens of a country with the necessary motivation and force to protect themselves against aggressors, against those who have imbibed the dangerous currents of the so-called 'blind nationalism.' It is only from the profound pride of place that arises in the patriot that could ever compel him to give his life in defense of his homeland. I cannot imagine anything more unreal and contradictory to human nature than to imagine the ambivalent soldier, filled not with any kind of feeling of unbreakable commitment to his way of life but with the neutral, effete, lukewarm feelings of internationalism.

The consequences of a lack of pride of place, of a commitment not to a way of life that one sees as the best and worth defending, but to a nebulous international community, are described quite accurately by Thomas Sowell in his recent article, Does Patriotism Matter?

Here Sowell argues convincingly that the uprooting of patriotism in favor of pacifism and internationalism in France after WWI was a deciding factor in the embarrassing defeat it suffered under siege from the Nazis. Here Sowell explains it best:
Did it matter? Does patriotism matter?

France, where pacifism and internationalism were strongest, became a classic example of how much it can matter.

During the First World War, France fought on against the German invaders for four long years, despite having more of its soldiers killed than all the American soldiers killed in all the wars in the history of the United States, put together.

But during the Second World War, France collapsed after just six weeks of fighting and surrendered to Nazi Germany. At the bitter moment of defeat the head of the French teachers' union was told, "You are partially responsible for the defeat."

This is but one of example of the terrible consequences that befall those places in which patriotism is besieged and eradicated by good-intentioned but ill-advised proponents of the bankrupt ideas of internationalism. To my liberal friends, I say, you are indeed right to abhor the cries of nationalism, but if you really care so much to oppose it, it is eminently foolish to attack the very antidote to the scourge of blind nationalism that you so ardently disavow - patriotism.

Prevarication

What angers so many on the right about the Democrats' stance and attitude to the War in Iraq is not so much that they disagree with it - dissent is a defining feature of a free society and of the kind of government that arises in such a society. But dissent and willful undermining are different things.

Indeed, the Democrats have taken the position that the War in Iraq was a grave mistake and that we should never have engaged in such folly in the first place. Fine. There were many Republicans who might have felt similarly at the get-go, and if not then, then probably more so now after five years fighting. But what is so disgusting to many Americans, of all political persuasions, is that the Democrats, in large measure, have put their political aspirations and egos above the most important goals of all - supporting our troops and leaving Iraq in a stable, if not better state than when we invaded.

What I have been wanting to hear from the Democrat leadership for a long time is something like this: "We still think it was wrong to invade Iraq, but what's done is done. The fact is, we ARE there now, and wishing we weren't will not change anything. At this moment, we will put our differences behind us and work with our colleagues and all Americans to bring about a positive outcome in Iraq. First and foremost, we care about the safety and welfare of our troops, and to the extent that we can secure that for them with support- financial and moral - we will do it. Yes, we want to get them out of there as soon as possible, but we will do it no sooner than is necessary to prevent Iraq from devolving into a state of total lawlessness and chaos, no matter how much we would benefit politically from an immediate withdrawal. We recognize that defeat in Iraq would vindicate us and our stance on the war, but no amount of political triumph is worth our wishing for the deaths of our countrymen. This is not a matter in which we want to be able to wave our fingers in the faces of our Republican colleagues and say 'See, we told you so.' War and the security of this country is a matter that transcends ego, that goes beyond who's right and who's wrong. God Bless America.'


With the exception of a few maverick Democrats, Senator Lieberman among them, the Democrats have aligned their political success squarely on the failure and defeat of our troops in Iraq. What's worse is that, even when we do make headway in Iraq, as verified by independent groups that are the liberal brethren of the Dems (Brookings Institute), they still cannot bring themselves to admit that certain measures by their opponents are actually working. It's like a sickness. To these people, for example, Barack Obama, the War in Iraq is a tool to be used to show us whose wisdom and judgment is superior. So beholden to this kind of attitude are they, that they can't even answer a straight question, yes or no, from one of their own liberal cronies, Katie Couric. Here is a recent interview she had with Barack Obama in Jordan in which she had to ask three times if the surge had worked. Obama's prevarication and intransigence in admitting that the other side had been right with regard to the surge is appalling. So much for the politics of change. A real change-agent would have said, "Yes Katie, it did work, and although I was against the surge in the beginning, I can no longer deny it's efficacy." Such an admission wouldn't cause Senator Obama to renounce his overall position that the War in Iraq was and is folly, but admitting when he was wrong would really show Americans that his aims and objectives transcend his own personal gain, that they are are one and the same with the aims of our nation.

Bring Light Unto the World Oh Blessed Barack

The Messiah is Upon Us!