About Me

Name: Virginia Daddy
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Herman Cain = Game Changer

Posted by Virginia Daddy on Friday, October 14, 2011 12:50:12 PM
I am not sure if Herman Cain will get the nod in the end, but I know that he is changing the game in politics today.  He's doing two things: aggressively offering a radical change to our horrific tax code, and he's challenging narrative on race today.  Both of these are a good thing.
 
First, the current tax code is in dire need of change.  This is not news, and plans to change it have been fostered before.  Cain continues this, and does so with his 9-9-9 plan.  Truth be told, I am not sure the 9-9-9 plan is ultimately a good thing, because I don't like the idea of a national sales tax.  I share Bachman's concern on that, but I do like the ideas of flat tax rates in other areas, like income and corporate tax rates.  I also don't think the 9-9-9 plan will ever become law, because too many people are entrenched in the old way of doing things. 
 
However, Cain's new plan, which essentially packages old ideas in a new way, and a catchy way at that, and it is appealing.  It forces the issue that we really do need tax change in this nation.  The very basic way we tax is being questioned in new ways by new people.  Hopefully, this will be an idea that will stick with the electorate like never before.  The end result will hopefully be a full frontal challenge on the current tax code.  Even if it results in smaller but meaningful changes to the tax code, this is a success.  Far too long we have gone on without ever really changing it in a meaningful way, merely adding a credit here or there, or various waivers.  It has been a long time since we have seen a truly meaningful change, I think Cain puts this on the table like few others have in the past. 
 
Why has Cain, and not say, Mike Huckabee, done so?  This question leads me to my second response: this call comes from a black conservative.  Because a black conservative is even in this, let alone offering radical ideas to change the tax code, we pa more attention.  Now, some people dismiss the idea that a conservative black man has a good idea (mostly certain black's themselves do the dismissing, ironically) automatically.  Others, though, will awaken to a new reality: there is an alternative idea for blacks to follow. 
 
Cain's rise in conservative politics is hardly novel.  Black conservatives and Republicans have been exploding in the last few years.  Keys, West, Steele, Elder, Williams, Sowell, and  Watts to name a few, have made in roads in conservative circles.  But Cain is different.  He is different precisely because he is now running for President of the United States, and is not an intellectual or political machine.  He is simply a black man, from modest beginnings, who has risen to great heights and now seeks the highest elected office in the nation.  It is becoming ever-more difficult for the establishment black political forces to paint him as an outsider to the black community.  He's blacker than Obama and he came from the segregated south.  He experienced first hand what happened in those unfortunate times, and he stands for something very different than what they think he should-- independance.
 
This is something new for many blacks, who I am sure know the theme, and probably agree with it.  However, most black politicians seem to think blacks need help, and there have been very few viable alternatives.  Here's a black man who is offering that alternative.  It remains to be seen how much he will alter the landscape, but he indeed offers something very different.  This is a good thing.
 
I'll finish by saying that I truly think it is a shame that this late in racial politics that this alternative has come forth.  I do not know a single person who thinks poorly of another person solely because of the color of their skin.  I also don't know of a single person who thinks poorly of another simply because their 'culture' is different.  What I do know is many people actually care about attitude, responsibility, and strength of character.  They think that if another is enjoyable to be around and holds his or her end of the bargain, they respect that person.  It has nothing to do with color.  I think Cain moves the political discourse, on a national scale, in this direction.  The focus will have to be less about color moving forward.  This is a necessity.
 
I like Cain, but whether he wins the nomination he's already brought fruitful and positive change to this nation. 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (23) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Stop and Think, Folks

Posted by Virginia Daddy on Thursday, October 06, 2011 12:02:15 PM
Its been a long time since I have regularly posted here, though I have been hoping for some time to do so.  The last three years, for those who have followed me for a long time, know that I just finished a long three years of school.  Certainly, the pressures of law school played heavily on that, and then I took the bar in July.  No fun, to be sure, and a distraction from most areas of everyday life.  My wife, a few years ago, had to tell me about Bernie Madoff, and there are several other issues I have had to catch up on after the even took place.  But as I return to 'normalcy' I am stunned at the dearth of just wacky ideas that are out there, and how many people actually buy into them.  Some of this surprise may be my new education, but I think most of it is simply common sense.  Regardless, I think it is clear that far too many people simply don't think.
I have been doing some looking around in recent weeks, months, and years, going to places like DailyKos, Media Matters, Real Clear Politics, and several other political sources, not all on my side, and even coming back to Townhall I see it a bit, too (mostly on the main discussion boards).  What I see is pure lunacy-- unthoughtful arguments, debates simply to destroy the other side, shouting matches, and pure unbridled bigotry.  Yes, I said bigotry, and I do not say it lightly.  Rather, it is a very serious word that needs to be used sparingly and carefully.  I hope I am doing so here, but use it to suggest that folks have very little interest in seeing the truth through the trees and understanding another's argument.  They do this when it matters most-- when serious items are put on the table, like charges of racism or other forms of discrimination.  These are not the only issues where folks lose their wits, but they provide a good study of the topic.
 
Now, specifically, I came across an article by Melissa Perry-Harris last week about how white liberals are racist for abandoning President Obama.  It can be found here: http://www.thenation.com/article/163544/black-president-double-standard-why-white-liberals-are-abandoning-obama.  She then, foolishly, wrote a follow up to that called the "Epistomology of Race Talk," found here: http://www.thenation.com/blog/163629/epistemology-race-talk.  Why do I focus on these?  Because the comments have shown a large number of people who do one of two things: either unquestionningly approve of her stance or flat out call conservatives racist simply for being conservative.  Now, to go into some more depth on her position, in her first article, she essentially does what I say she does-- concludes white liberals are racist for not fully backing Obama now after backing him during the election.  For the second, she attempts to defend her position in her first by addressing what she calls three common responses to the non-racist claims made by white liberals-- prove that they are racist, they have white friends, and who made her an expert.  These are all poorly supported, and to be fair, many liberals, even a few blacks, call her out on them.  But nonetheless, they exist and she has quite a large group of supporters-- enough for me to conclude a lot of people are simply not thinking.
 
Now, taking this idea that all people are racist who disapprove of Obama as an example, many ideas are simply dangerous.  Such a position helps no one, does it?  Her credibility was hurt, and she deepened the divide between whites and blacks, even though her intent was to apparently wake up whites to their supposed racism, which, she thinks will lessen racism in this country.  However, she has only made race all the more palpable in public discourse.  In other words, she has not made us forget about race but focus on it all the more.  While I think that is partly her aim, that is not my purpose in writing about her posittion.  My purpose is simply to say that she is only deepening the divide in race politics today.  If a post racial society is what people truly want, these kinds of positions do not get us there.
 
And this brings me back to my main point: people, even the supposed intellectuals and experts, simply don't think.  They react, and they react without full consideration of the consequences of what they say.  When someone comes out and calls another a racist for not liking Obama, what's the other person going to say?  Or, if someone says that because one is a member of the Tea Party that person is by default a racist, what's the Tea Party member going to say?  Conservatives are not completely innocent of this themselves, but I do think it is far more prevelant on the left.  And the result is a nasty situation where it becomes impossible to communicate effectively. 
 
What's worse, the name calling is lazy.  Its evidence that someone has no other argument to back up their position.  By golly, somone does not like homosexuality so that person must be a bigot.  The very position suggestst that there are no other options out there: you don't like my position, you absolutely have to be narrow minded and a bigot.  This is a scary trend, because its shows an absolute failure of our populace to actually think.  Its also the very definition of bigotry in itself, which is why I used the word above.  Its also scary because of the hypocritical nature of these people, which is far and widespread.  Its indicative of a very self centered society that cannot see or understand that it is not only OK for people to disagree but natural for people to disagree.
 
Yet, here we are.  We live in a society that not only does not attack the nature of these people, but accepts and promotes it.  We live in a society that will self destruct unless cooler heads prevail, unless people actually stop and think.  What should we think about then?  Well, we should stop and think that we all have a position and a belief and reason why.  We should stop and think that calling someone a name simply because they do not agree with us is counter-productive.  We should stop and think about how what we say and what we do actually has consequences beyond what we may think.  We also stop and think about what our ultimate goal is.  Almost universally, the ultimate goal is a society where people live together as peacefully as possible.  This is as true in conservatism as it is in liberalism.  The differences in what this looks like to either side should not be minimized, but that the broad statement is virtually identical should not be ignored, either.
 
There are serious issues that need to be discussed, like the balooning size of the federal government, the money it takes to fund this government, high numbers of people out of work, inner cities that get worse not better, rural towns falling down, moral issues that get to the heart of who we are as a society, and a host of other issues that are not named here.  We need to act like grown ups and actually talk about them with cool heads.  I am not suggesting that we compromise.  The point is not to suggest everyone coming together to sing around a campfire holding hands.  No, we should stick to our principals and what we believe.  But shouting and ignoring the other side is not going to help, just as compromise for compromise sake is not going to help. 
 
Somewhere along the line we, as a society, have stopped thinking, and listening.  Listening is a part of thinking, because it requires understanding.  There are probably a million reasons why this is-- our education now focusing on feelings rather than basics; a general shift in the idea of what is right and what is wrong; a new never-before seen access to all kinds of information and ideas; no one to hold anyone accountable; technology to do virtually everything for us; and more.  We've been taught that we don't need to think-- only that what we think is right.  This is not thinking, though, this is laziness and selfishness.  We need to relearn the art of thinking, or our inability to do so will destroy not just our nation but our society and way of life.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (17) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama? Really? That's It?

Posted by Virginia Daddy on Thursday, September 08, 2011 8:42:03 PM
OK, I just watched Obama's jobs speech.  Personally, I found it generally worthless, but I am glad I watched it.  OK, on second thought I guess, it did have value...  And here's why: Barack Obama has nothing left to stand on.  He has essentially put it all on the line with his speech and the America's Jobs Act, or whatever its called.  He's layed it all out there, and can only hope the GOP goes along with it...  They won't, and he'll blame them for the failure of his bill because they won't play along and be bi-partisan.  \
Whoopdee doo!  Way to go Barack!  You've created a scheme that people simply don't care about.  Most American's, from what I can tell, simply don't care about politics anymore.  They care about policy.  They care about principle.  Sure, there is a constituency that will appreciate the class warfare, but most people simply want to be able to work and make money and move forward.  They have a problem with the rich being taxed, because its wrong to single out this group.  I know, I know, as a less wealthy person (not making millions yet), it seems very appealling to take from someone else.  Many agree with that sentiment.  But many more have a real problem deep within themselves concerning this idea.
 
America is not a socialistic state.  The basic premise of taking from the wealthy is a socialistic idea.  Robin Hood is a feel good story, but it is not a story for the government.  And Americans know this.  They know that what has made America great is its ability to move, on one's own (without government handouts), from poverty to wealth.  They know that it is this dream of hard work and perseverance to become wealthy should result in an ability to enjoy the fruits of the labor.  Robin Hood government results in a situation wherein they cannot enjoy the fruits of their labor.  These fruits will be forcibly taken from them and given to others.  This is against the very basic idea of the American Dream.
 
Obama's speech tonight was basically a recipe for a Robin Hood government, and he barely had the courage to lay that out there.  Yeah, he said he'll tax the most wealthy Americans, but did not state how much they will be taxed.  He also ignored that there will be other costs that must be considered.  He left it assumed that it will be the wealthy that will pay for it all.  Its ignorance on his part, and most people realize that this is true.  Again, there will be some who buy into the line, but most people will see it as a very empty move. 
 
The speech and plan offered by Obama was indeed nothing new, short of him attempting to put the onus on the GOP.  But his plan is flawed, not only in its policy, but also in the attempt to pressure his opponents.  The downside for them is less than what it is for him.  He expects the GOP to crumble and fall in line, but I am not sure he'll know what to do if they don't.  He left open too wide the counter argument that this is indeed class warfare and nothing new in his arsenal.  The GOP can and should use this argument, because it is true. 
 
Obama has failed, and while he may see a jump as people are excited and pumped, the fierce reality that nothing will change will destroy his momentum.  He's grand speech was nothing new, but it was worth quite a bit.  The value is seen in how much of a failure he truly is.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (7) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

In About 40 Minutes

Posted by Virginia Daddy on Friday, April 29, 2011 12:31:45 PM
I begin my last class of law school.  Thank God.  Its been a whirlwind, but fantastic.  I don't think I've ever been through such a tough time in my life.  Unfortunately, though, its not quite over.  After finals, I have one last hurdle-- the Bar Exam.  Not looking forward to that, at all.  I have to relearn everything I was supposed to learn during these three years, and everything I didn't.  I've about three months to do it, as well, as the exam is the end of July. 
 
But, you know, I wouldn't change this experience for anything.  My views have changed, but in a positive way I think.  I have a better grasp, I think, of the reality of the situation behind the scenes.  This will help me formulate arguments going forward as to why the conservative way is the better way.  My views may not line up with every single person, but they shouldn't anyway.  I hope any discussions will be fruitful and thoughtful, and anyone partaking will have a broader view of an issue than when they began.  In this forum, that's a reasonable goal, though certainly, I do aim to convince everyone I am right (of course, right).
 
Anyway, I guess I am writing this to briefly describe my experience, and my goals going forward.  I hope to post here more often again, as I look fondly back on when I was posting with regularity.  I hope to contribute to people's views on politics and life.  I hope to bring a unique point of view on what really matters, because what really matters is not politics, but what really matters greatly affects politics.  It is my view, and always has been, that politics has become a win-at-all-cost endeavor, and it has destroyed much of what makes this country great: our individuality and our individual strength.  When people join together to crush the opposition in ways that they have done here, the individual is lost. 
 
My experience is law school has not driven that idea from me.  Rather, I think it has given me the tools to enable the individual to find greater strength on its own.  That is what I hope to accomplish on the political side of things.  Professionally, I hope that follows, too.  Certainly, this is what I hope to convey here at this blog.  Best of luck to all!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (27) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Some Quick Thoughts on Earmarks

Posted by Virginia Daddy on Saturday, January 29, 2011 12:21:18 AM
I know a lot of people do not want to see any more earmarks.  But to a degree, I agree with Harry Reid.  Gasp.  I agree with him to the extent that legislators are elected to represent their constituents and work in their interests.  As such, helping them is a part of their job.  Earmarks, like it or not, help the districts.  I do not think then, that legislators should be barred from helping their constituents. 
 
However, people are right to be angry with earmarks.  They are often snuck in and for outrageous amounts and outrageous projects.  This is a different issue, though.  The problem is not that earmarks exist, its that they are insanely out of control.  Our focus should then be on the reasonableness of any earmarks, and not to get rid of them.
 
Calls to get rid of them are misguided, I think.  They are not new, and they will continue, because earmarks are not going to go away.  They shouldn't go away.  But the Senators and Congressmen who use them really need to be careful in how they are used.  They should limit them.  Anything that is unreasonable needs to be called out and made public. 
 
And that would be my solution, which I am sure is not an original idea.  I would publish every single earmark put into any bill.  People need to know what they are, who they are from, and how much money they cost.  This will cause reps to second guess any earmark as they will know there will be consequences for going 'crazy' with other people's money to help your own backyard. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (96) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Victory? Or Something Else?

Posted by Virginia Daddy on Wednesday, November 03, 2010 11:38:47 AM
I am initially pleased with the results from last nights election.  However, I am concerned that the results won't mean much because the GOP likely won't get the message.  The message is not the GOP is better than the Dems-- its simply that the GOP was not in power.  In other words, the peple are angry at the government, and whoever is in charge is going to get slammed.  Its hard to ignore this truth after the third straight election that has seen an utter and complete rejection of the party in power. 
What the people are saying is that they want change-- real and tangible change to make their lives better and more free.  They don't necessarily want the government to do this, rather, they prefer the government to get out of their lives to effectuate this change. There are two parts to the change-- better lives, and more freedom.  The two are similar but not the same.  One would assume that a better life would mean it was more free.  But a good life does not mean free.  And in freedom, one can really make a mess of things.  While I tend to think of the two, even in freedom we are better off.  But I am me, and not the rest of the country.
 
So, I think many people are still figuring out what they want.  Many agree with me, and many adamantly disagree.  But many are simply confused.  Many simply don't understand what is at stake.  They believe what they are told and what their peers tell them.  They don't fully understand the issues or their consequences.  I also believe that these folks are more concerned with identity than with being concerned with the real issues.  This can put them in a conflicted position where they they don't fully believe one thing over another, and as a result know better what they don't like rather than what they do.  There are other groups who fully know what they want and know they have not been given it.
 
So, the GOP needs to remember that and cater not to the confused people.  They need to be strong and send a message of confidence and strength.  Not only will this resonate with those that know what they want (of course, doing this will also alienate some) it will do much more to convince the confused.  Reason is a powerful tool, and by demonstrating the strength of the conservative message, which at least theoretically the GOP follows, many will grow to doubt the messages they have been fed from other groups for a long time.  The identity for identities sake will no longer be as attractive.
 
Of course, these people are likely to receive great measures of propoganda to keep them in their old mold.  Many will strongly oppose what the GOP offers no matter the results because they have a very different view of what is good.  To them, having a good life is better than freedom, even if that means freedom is severely limited.  To them, the government is the mode to make life better.  There's nothing the GOP can do about this group.  But they can still 'cowboy up' to enact what the GOP has traditionally stood for-- freedom through smaller government, low taxes, and upholding personal freedom. 
 
Morals aside, the GOP should stick to these tenants and not drift left to appease those who aren't quite sure what they want.  The GOP needs to establish (or re-establish) its own identity.  Life is better when we are free, and we are free when we can choose.  This is not just my opinion, but it is established through the patterns of history.  It may not feel better to rely on this freedom and it is certainly easier to look to someone else, and the GOP needs to resist the temptation.
 
I am not convinced the GOP can do this.  If they do, they can be sure of victory for years to come.  But their own recent history suggests they will fail to resist the temptation.  If this is the case and they continue to push left to appease the confused group, they will be pushed out again in two or four years.  The confused group will then continue to be confused and not figure out what they want and the cycle will continue. 
 
This is an opportunity for the GOP.  I hope they take it.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (25) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

I Admit It

Posted by Virginia Daddy on Thursday, August 12, 2010 5:24:13 PM
I returned to St. Louis recently and came up with an epiphany (or something like that) when encountering a number of African Americans:  I am a racist. 
 
OK, so its really not that clear, but to be honest, when I see a black person, I wonder what they think about me, a white male.
 
Personally, I could care less about the color of one's skin.   Honestly, I couldn't.  I've worked a lot with all sorts of people, and the color of skin has nothing to do with how I approach them-- except for one thing:
 
      I approach blacks with a somewhat guarded position.
 
Does this make me racist?  I don't know.  But it is an interesting observation, and a very honest one.  I am very willing to accept a black person just as any other, and do so.  However, when first coming into contact with them or see them anywhere, I really and honestly wonder what they think me and my whiteness. 
 
      Do they hate me?  Do they resent me?  Do they automatically put certain assumptions on me?  Do they have a grudge against
      me, and the color of MY skin?  Do I have to walk on broken glass when I interact because of their opinions of me?
 
My experience to the above questions is that they are more than willing to talk to me as a person, just like I am to them.  And all too often I have had great exchanges of whatever type.
 
But what does this whole thought process mean?  Seriously, I wonder what importance does it have, if any at all?  Does it mean that I still retain racist tendancies?  Does it mean that black propoganda has scared me into thinking that I am a racist? 
 
I tend to think that the import of it is that the dream of bringing the sides together has failed, or has yet to succeed.  It tells me that the civil rights movement that sought equality for all, and that we can all look past our color has back-fired.  It has back-fired because it is clear that many of us cannot look past the color of our skin, precisely because so much emphasis has been put on it.
 
The last rationale comes from the simple observation of black identities today, or at least those covered by the media.  Blacks are singled out as black, as separate, and as their own not willing to allow other blacks outside of their world-view.  All too often we see complaints of racism or some form of black identity.  They are still talked about as being different than the rest of the world.
 
Its a shame that this happens, really.  Not only does it cheapen their identities as individuals, not because they are black, but because it limits them as being only "black."  Black individuals are much more than just black-- they are mothers, fathers, daughters, sons, grandparents, aunts, uncles, workers, leaders, followers, people thriving, people failing, etc.  They have the same struggles on a day to day level that we all do.  Many will say that they have the additional burden of being black, though. 
 
But why must this be a burden?  Most people I know could care less about a persons color.  Show them what you can do and who you are and you'll get all the respect you deserve-- positive and negative.  As a white male, though, I have begun to wonder what burden this brings, being more and more conscious of my whiteness.  I spend too much time worrying about that that would be better served not worrying about offending them.
 
A little more honesty-- I am afraid to even post this, because it can seem that I am indeed truly racist and condescending to blacks.  I really do not mean it to be.  This is an honest reaction to my experiences with them, and I'd be willing to bet that I am not the only one to think this or something like it.  And that is the real shame-- that we have come to a point, not where color means nothing, but where color is so engrained and so much a part of life that it puts people on edge.  We have gone a different direction than what should be the goal in society-- that we are all one group, not several.  But we are several groups now, several distinct groups, and be damned if you don't acknowledge certain groups. 
 
As long we stay on this path, we will never reach the ultimate goal.  As long as race identities are front and center, there will be no unity, and friction will always exist. 
 
I do not necessarily think my reaction was the intention of racial politics, but on the same token, it is a consequence. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (210) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Tale of Two Stars

Posted by Virginia Daddy on Sunday, April 11, 2010 7:08:07 PM
A quick little thought about the Masters today.  Ok, its not about the Masters, but about the two largest figures in Augusta and about the divergent paths they have taken.  Tiger Woods v. Phil Mickelson, wow what a contrast.
 
I am not surprised Tiger was able to play with a level of support, but his legacy is forever marred by his affairs.  His words afterwards were all about business and about not winning.  That's fine-- a champion should want to win.  But his focus on winning coupled with his affairs rings loudly of self absorbment.  He'll only be a golfer now-- a darn good one and one who broke some racial barriers-- but a mere golfer nonetheless.  When he does not win, he's not happy.
 
But Phil is a completely different story.  He has not seen the massive success like Tiger, but certainly has seen a lot of it.  Only 3 Masters (like that's a bad thing) to his name in terms of majors, but many other championships.  He won today, and you could see the tears in his eyes as he held his wife.  He was playing for something else.  It was not about him, and maybe not about his wife, but it was not about him.  That was obvious.  It was obvious that he plays for the love of the game, and keeps his priorities straight.
 
Who should people admire?  Who should be remembered longer?  Despite Tiger's winning all the tournaments, I think he'll just be a golfer.  Phil, though, has to be looked at as a strong human being, not just a golfer.
 
Here's to you Phil!
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (13) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Some Thoughts on The Health Care "Summit" and Bi-Partisanship

Posted by Virginia Daddy on Sunday, February 28, 2010 8:03:10 PM
My, what a fun event that was.  I haven't read much on it nor heard much on TV.  I did see some pieces of it live, and it was a sham.  This, to any conservative with a pulse, should be obvious.  Frankly, I think they all should have had beers with them because it had as much substance as the Beer Summit some months ago.  The falsity of it is found in indications that Nancy is going to seek to push it through without the Republicans.  So much for bi-partisanship, the supposed-main-reason for the summit to begin with.
 
Personally, I could care less about bi-partisanship and think that in and of itself is a sham.  People don't want bi-partisanship-- they want to be listened to.  It is true that they do not want obstruction for the sake of obstruction through political warfare.  They do not want people to fight just because.  However, they do want people to fight for their interests, and if their interests are opposed to something, the representative should obstruct.  Just the same, if the people do not like a position a representative takes, the representative should alter his position.  He is, after all, a representative, hired to represent the will of the people who hired him.
 
Now, it is also true that the people hire these guys and gals with some understanding that the hired will have a level of autonomy.  The people put their trust in these people to do the job.  That's why we hire them.  However, there are limits to the autonomy, because we hire them.  Because we hired them, they ultimately need to listen to us, or we will fire them.  We'll simply put someone else in who will listen. 
 
Back to bi-partisanship.  If representatives can get along with other parties and do what they are told then that's fantastic.  However, we don't hire these guys to get along with the other side.  We hire them because we have a specific agenda that we want pushed and favored.  When they start trying to get along with the other side and not doing what we tell them, they are subject to be replaced.
 
In today's political climate, we hear quite a bit about bi-partisanship, especially from the left.  The left is pushing this idea, because they apparently think that's what people want.  Although, to be honest, I think they know what people want but are willfully turning their heads because they have an agenda beyond serving the people who hired them.  Regardless, they are pushing this idea of bi-partisanship, and chide the right who won't play along.  They accuse the right of obstructing just to obstruct. 
 
They miss the point and well, everything about Republican Democracy.  Republican Democracy is essentially what I outlined above, where people are hired by the mass of other people to represent them in government.  The people are hired for a specific purpose and reason, and a part of that is to act independently on issues that do not require the voice of the rest.  But when an issue of grave importance comes to pass, the hired should reflect the will of the rest.
 
The left, while there may be some districts of employers who want them to fight for healthcare, by and large is ignoring what the people say.  Poll after poll says healthcare reform as presented is unpopular.  This indicates that the people are telling the employees to do something specific, but they aren't listening.  The continue to push this agenda that the people don't want.
 
The summit put together by the very left leaning leader of the nation, who was also hired by the people, was for a couple of primary purposes, as far as I know.  The first was to be open about discussions on the topic.  This was an issue after the backdoor deals seen in Nebraska and Louisana.  The second reason was to encourage honest discussion between the two sides so that they can come together and cooperate on a solution, aka bi-partisanship.  So far, it seems that both purposes were not met.  As to the first, sure, we had a day of openness, but we are back to the grind, so to speak, now.  For the second, we now have the Speaker of the House indicating she wishes to move forward without the other side.
 
So much for good intentions.  Now, it is important to discuss some context.  The bi-partisanship pushed by the President was given under this pretext: his party has a huge majority and should be able to pass anything, and the other party should be good and follow along.  Bi-partisanship by anyother name is not bi-partisanship-- its the other side obstructing.  This idea was expressed in his State of the Union, and we see the evidence of it now. 
 
The evidence goes beyond what Nancy is now hinting at.  It is everywhere and was on full display at the summit.  The left has no intention of working with the right unless the right does what the left wants.  For instance, the left keeps accusing the right of not having an alternative plan, yet they continually offer alternatives.  The alternatives, though, are not what the left wants so they aren't even good enough to be called ideas.  Thus, the left says the right is obstructing and not working with them.  
 
Because this evidence is everywhere and is so obvious to anyone with a brain, it is very likely these people will be fired in about 8 months.  They are showing their ignorance as to what the people are saying.  Worse, they play games with the issues trying to hide the very facts in front of them-- people do not want this reform, they do not want bi-partisanship, and the other side is more than willing to work with them.  And the people who hire are watching, and increasingly they do not like what they see.  It was all put out for everyone at this summit.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (23) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Campaigns...

Posted by Virginia Daddy on Thursday, January 28, 2010 4:50:52 PM
Barack Obama needs to stop campaigning.
 
The day after his State of the Union, he gave a campaign like speech in Florida.  He did this before the State of the Union, too, in Ohio.
 
He's elected now, and would be better served by working, not giving speeches.  So would the country.
 
Last night he hit home the idea that Republicans need to go along to be proactive and lead.  What he ignores is that he really wants Republicans to play nice and do what he wants them to do.  He doesn't want them to lead, he wants the to follow.  Of course, the message is couched in positive rhetoric, but the truth is that he wants his way.  Anyone who stands in it is a problem, is wrong and should be scolded for it.
 
The message of following is not limited to Republicans, either.  Anyone who gets in the way of his message is a problem.  Thos who don't understand his health care plan are another example.  He'll just keep on trying to convince them its true.  Maybe his ideas are in the maxim that if you tell people something is true eventually they'll buy that it is.
 
But he's missing the point.  Its not about him, and there are enough people to remind people every time they hear his message that he is wrong.  People aren't dumb (well most aren't).  His words will become increasingly hollow, especially as he continues to stump and not lead. 
 
"The Buck Stops Here." A  placard on the desk he now sits at when he's actually in Washington used to say, and it was placed there by a prior party-mate.  Someone needs to send him one of those, because he needs that reminder.  He's off trying to convine people of something that they just don't buy while real problem keep affecting everyone.  He needs to act, and not talk.  He needs to accept the reality and move on.  The buck does stop there, and he does not get it.
 
Not only does he keep pushing a message people just don't like, he keeps blaming others.  Last night he stated he's made mistakes.  Great, glad to hear that.  But what kind of mistakes?  When and where and how?  What is he going to do to fix it?  He never addressed those issues.  So frankly, I doubt he believes he's made any real mistakes. Failure to state exactly what they are is an indication something is being hidden.  And while he hides what the mistakes are, he keeps saying what a mess he inherited, followed of course by all he's done to make it better.
 
He says this while unemployment is still way up, and real people suffer.  He says that people are hopeful and are battling.  I believe they are hopeful and are battling.  That is a huge part of America.  But many are beginning to see that he does not care about them, only his image.  And every time he stumps now that message is being reinforced. 
 
For his sake and ours, he needs to stop.  Unless, of course, you hope for some realy political change in November of '10 and '12.  If you're in that group, you'll love to see him speak every chance you get.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (14) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Post of the Century!

Posted by Virginia Daddy on Wednesday, January 27, 2010 10:12:50 PM
Obama is an arrse!
 
I know this is a whopping statement, but its true.  It essentially says it all. 
 
But before I am accused of being pedantic and throwing mud, let me add some substance.  Listening to the State of the Union tonight he has pushed blame on so many things.  He has twisted so many things that it is really easy to see how my comment rings true.  I know these are conclusory and lack the analysis to get to the conclusion.  Too much time to fill in the gaps, but you can look it all up.  But here's an example: Obama said tonight that the policy of the last 8 years failed because they were the status quo.  No, they failed because of policies on housing that were initiated prior to 8 years ago.
 
It is also necessary to say that it is all about Obama.  How often, not just tonight, said it is about him.  He's done this or that, or he came here to do this or that.  That's a common theme with him.  His wife is now starting two programs highlighed tonight.  And he has contradicted himself on what he said about changing the country...
 
A third point is his thoughts on the separation of powers.  Tonight I have seen two examples of this.  One when he prefaced a comment criticizing the Supreme Court strking down part of McCain-Feingold.  The second when he stated he will issue an executive order to create a commission that was just struck down by the Senate.
 
Obama is dangerous.  Sorry to those who disagree, but if you really care about America and its form of government, you will agree.  He is a fraud and he does not care about this nation as much as he cares about himself.  Bold words?  Perhaps, but prove that I am wrong.
 
A final point: he just does not get the disdain against government.  Its not about lobbyists, its about him and all of Congress not listening.  He's saying that its about lobbyists and Congressmen getting along.  Nope.  Its about them listening to us.  And because he is addressing the wrong problem it means nothing will change, and that he and others will continue to rule from their own points of view not from the peoples.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (16) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Conservative Focus

Posted by Virginia Daddy on Monday, November 23, 2009 2:21:45 PM
   Why should conservatives really care about what goes on in the world?  We believe in personal responsibility and strong personal freedoms.  Often, this belief is born out of the idea that there is something greater than us, and if we put our noses down, work hard, and don't get too distracted by the world around us we will thrive.  This has proven true for millenia, as those who work hard and produce the most are typically successful.  When those who focus on the task at hand succeed, they must necessarilly not concern themselves with other issues.  This narrow thrust of energy is put to good use and will usually work out well.
 
   But why should we care about the world around us, if keeping focused on the task ahead is what brings us success?  Isn't the world around us a distraction?  Yes, it is, but it is made up of people who wish to see this narrow focus erased because the narrow focus in energy also creates a narrow focus of wealth.  To these people, this concentration of wealth is atrocious.  Most of these people are not bad or evil, and are arguably quite compassionate.  But they are lost in their compassion, trying to change people who cannot be changed or to change truths of the world that just "are."
 
   Their compassion is misplaced, and they focus their energy in their compassion.  Their focus is on derailing the focus of those who produce, and they explicitly seek to redistribute the wealth produced.  This redistribution is seen in many ways, and is usually justified with some descriptor like "justice" or "fairness."  Another word often used to justification is "equal".  The redistribution of wealth must-- to them-- ensure, justice, fairness, and equality.  Wealth, as used here, does not necessarily mean monetary wealth.  Other forms of wealth include various rights, so various protections are built to ensure certain people are not deprived of anything they are due.  All of this is done so that certain people feel good about standing up for those who have not focused their energies as those who have and who have produced great amounts of wealth and privelege.
 
   These compassionate feel they are expanding people's rights and making their lives better.  This is true whether the compassionate is a member of the group they are trying to protect, or an outsider to that group.  They also sincerely feel they make things better for all when they expand these rights.  When one troubled group gets some priveleges, it benefits all of society, they say. 
   
   However, in their focused compassion, they ignore some other truths.  These other truths include the inevitability that when you expand one right, you limit another.  So, when one group gets a protection, another is limited to act as they see fit.  Another truth is related to this, but when one group gets a protection, another group feels it needs a protection, too.  So, more groups are created and the groups not protected have their rights further limited.  When more groups are created for protection, there is less ability to maximize communication between them because a wall is immediately and necessarily erected between them.  Neither group is willing to forego their protections.  A third truth stems from the second-- the assumption in creating these protected groups is that the protections will make the group better able to achieve their goals.  However, the assumption ignores the unfortunate human trait that has shown over and over again that people generally will not act on their own when someone else does.  So, these protected groups grow to be comfortable in their protection and come to expect it.  They will then not do anything to focus their energies to get to a point where they don't need it.
 
   These compassionate folks who strive for justice and equality actually do more to damage freedom than those who focus on production.  Certainly, the productive must be aware of kindness and compassion in their own dealings, however, it is arguable that even a cut-throat system may be more equal than the one designed by the compassionate.  Under a cut-throat system, the determined can rise the ranks and unlimitedly succeed.  Under the system being designed by the compassionate, you can only succeed to a point where they allow.  At some point, they will say "You've succeeded too much, now give everything above that point so we may give it to these protected groups."  Unlimited success is no longer attainable and no longer desirable.  If people are taken care of and told not to strive to get everything they can in life, they won't.
 
   But there is another consequence that comes from this compassion, and this is the worst part of it-- the compassionate know best, and someone must call the shots.  These people become the leaders of the society, and are often exempt from the cut-throat world.  After all, the protected groups need a leader, and the producers need someone to keep them from producing too much.  What they've created is a class above the rest, and they can then enforce their will on everyone else.  This is not just or fair, and it is not equal.  It become manipulation, and goes outside of those terms.  It becomes manipulation because this new ruling class is not bound by anything or anyone.  There are no threats because they keep feeding the needs of those protected classes, and they intimidate the producers.
 
   But what is justice or fairness, or even equality?  These terms used to mean what is right, and not what is compassionate.  Compassion does not equal right, no matter how good it feels.  While they are difficult to pin down, they all have one thing in common-- treating everyone with the same dignity and respect due everyone else.  Everyone must get the same opportunities and have the same chance to succeed as everyone else.  This, in fact, is one aspect of the definition the compassionate use as to why they put their focus where they do.  They argue some inevitably do not have the same opportunities.  However, the argument falls short because too many people through time have risen out of pvoerty and overcome great obstacles.  On the other side, too many people have fallen from grace for any number of reasons. 
 
   Playing fields do not need to be tampered with by the compassionate.  But this is the job of conservatives, who press on regardless.  We must continue to press on, but we must also be sure to explain why we do what we do.  We must explain that it works, and has for centuries, and it will continue to work.  We must not get dragged into the mud created by the compassionate, rather, we are to fix the mess they have created.
 
   It will work.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (53) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

If I Were King...

Posted by Virginia Daddy on Friday, November 13, 2009 12:45:39 AM
I don't know why, but in the midst of my studies this week I thought of Mel Brooks line in History of the World when playing Louis XVI, "Its good to be King..."  I guess it is good to have privilege and ultimate authority.  But what would I do with that sort of power?  Its hard to say with certainty what one may do, but here are some initial thoughts.  Of course, I would be the benevolent dictator (evil laugh)...

1)  Get rid of all government assistance or subsidies.

2)  Get rid of most public education.

3)  Honor religious freedom without being scared to practice it.

4)  Actively encourage competition in the media.

5)  Limit governmental functions, keeping functions to protect the nation and provide for strong infrastructure.

6)  Be pro-choice (in taxation, allowing people to choose where to put their money)

7)  Narrow the judicial system so that suits must meet certain standards in terms of damages/harm inflicted, remedies possible, and availability of alternative dispute resolutions.

8)  Apply strict and harsh penalties for crime, so that the motivation for punishment is not to cure the offender but to instill fear of the consequences.

9)  Since there is no government assistance, strongly encourage charitable acts and actively encourage selflessness (this is where I am most idealistic).

10)  Encourage entertainers to avoid shock value, because all too often the funniest, best, most moving stories are those that are more pure.

11)  Encourage face to face contact instead of a reliance on technology.

12)  Focus on local politics instead of an obsession with national politics, and therefore encourage more power to and from the local governments.

13)  Stop the need to get all the information the current government has on all of us-- get people off the grid so they can be more autonomous.

14)  Encourage the value of good faith and loyalty to everyone.

15)  Acknowledge the reality that some people will not act according to good faith or loyalty.

16)  Define good faith and loyalty to include acting for one's own benefit but excludes blatantly cheating another out of a benefit.

17)  Require certain historical and civic truths to be known and understood before one can vote.

I am sure there are others out there that I would consider, but this is a good start. My biggest goal would be to eliminate the intrusion of our government into our lives and restore personal responsibility and autonomy.

Feel free to add your thoughts on what you think I should do. It would be good to be king, and right now, a new king would be a great thing.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (37) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Some Thoughts on the Passing Scene

Posted by Virginia Daddy on Wednesday, November 04, 2009 1:09:29 AM
This is an election night, and certainly we can see somethings that may be afoot for the next year or two.  Republicans have won two big races, one of which is in Virginia.  I am pleased to see VA take back the state from the Democrats.  The state is a Conservative state, with only two or three predominantly Democratic areas, and these areas are small geographically.  It was depressing to have the entire state under the control of these small areas.  That seems to have changed tonight-- that is great.
 
But I wonder how much we can put into the GOP wins tonight, because Virginia is a conservative state and Corzine in New Jersey was in trouble for some time.  But regardless, I think there are some instructive lessons to be learned from each win.  I think it is clear that Obama does not dominate politics everywhere.  In other words, he is not invincible.  His existence is not the windfall for liberalism that he wants.
 
President Barrack Obama will minimize the results tonight.  But he will also be furious in private.  He has to be, because he is the rock star president whom everyone loves, at least he thinks he should be that president.  Basically, the actual significance of a GOP win is not much, but it is a big night symbollically, and Obama will get that.  He's seeing that his presence on stage is not the deciding factor he wants it to be.  It will be interesting to see how he reacts publically.  I expect he'll be gracious and say he'll work with these new governors.  He'll seem genuine, and maybe even invite Ken Cuccinelli, the new VA AG, for a beer.
 
And that I think is a big part of Obama's problem now-- he's a show, and he's void of much substance.  People here have known this for some time, but the rest of the world is starting to get it.  That's one thing that this night will show.  Exit polls don't show that people voted against Obama, but that's not the point.  The point is that voters are seeing an independance from him, and aren't concerned with him as much as he'd like.  The point is that he is more irrelevant than he'd like, and that trend is growing.  His aura is fading...
 
Of course, this is politics, and so much can change.  Will this trend continue?  I think it will.  There is no reason why it can't, and wrestling back Virignia, and ousting a corrupt leader will embolden the GOP. 
 
Now, do I care if the GOP wins?  Well, yes, I do.  I prefer the GOP, but the GOP is in flux.  Again, people know this here, but if the GOP can win these two races against a more unified Democrat front, conservatives can have hope.  Further, the result of the 23rd NY District in which the Conservative party put up a last minute but strong fight is a wonderful result for conservatives.  It makes you wonder what would have happened if he'd had more than a weekend alone to campaign...
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (42) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

I'm Offended!

Posted by Virginia Daddy on Friday, October 09, 2009 9:59:39 AM
I am offended this morning.  My wife told me as I strolled out of bed that Barrack Obama won the Nobel Peace prize.  My first response was that it was offensive.  I see from a quick glance around the net that others feel the same.  
 
It really makes you wonder if the Obama bought the committee.  Seriously, why would he be in the running if the award should be for people that have meaningfully enacted peaceful initiatives in the world.  He has done nothing, except give some speeches.  We all know this, and I won't rehash.  But his winning it is a sham, no less. 
 
He is an icon, though.  People still seem to worship him as if he were the chosen one.  This goes beyond this country, more than I thought.  Its really hard to believe why people think of him so highly.  To be fair, he has been very skillful in his rhetoric.  However, as people are beginning to see here, that skillful rhetoric is ultimately empty.  I would think his bubble will be burst on the international scene, too.
 
In truth, I think this award will be a hindrance to him here.  It has put him in a bind, where he can't escape a connection to his push for peace.  Its not that peace is a bad thing, but this will bind him from being aggressive in certain places.  It will also embolden his opposition here, which is already growing.  To say he's been overexposed before was an understatement.  Now, it goes astep beyond, and people will just get more tired of his cult-like following.
 
It is sickening, and it is offensive.  I won't even talk about the Nobel Committee, because if I remember right, didn't Gore win it for producing a movie about the environment?  Its a crock, and this only gives further evidence of that.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (22) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous123456789Next »