About Me

Name: Pscyclone
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Clinton and Obama: Personal Integrity No Requirement for Presidency

This one will probably be short because I don’t need a lot of space to make this point. 
If you haven’t heard of the ‘debate about the debate’ I guess you’re pretty uninterested in national politics at the moment; I can’t say that I blame you – Options C or O look about the same and it looks like neither care for you, your family, or your country. All either want is power.  
 
On Wednesday’s televised Democrat Debate between Clinton and Obama, there were questions raised about the personal integrity of each candidate. To lesser and greater extents, we got to hear the lie each candidate would have us believe about the weaknesses of his or her own character. And, unashamedly, and I would add indignantly, the candidates are now trying to pass off these character flaws as trivial, nonsense, and worthless to the American politic.
 
These are the best and brightest we could find?

A person’s character is at the very core of what we want to hear about because it speaks to who and what they are, how they will approach us as the governed, and whether or not they will make the right decisions at the right time for the right reasons. It’s the driving factor behind every single thought, word, and deed.

My mother used to chide me when I was caught in a lie, “Don’t you want people to believe what you tell them?” It’s a way of saying, “If your word is worthless then you are worthless.”

I’d say both Clinton and Obama are pretty worthless.

And don’t hand me that nonsense that every one lies; an appeal to broad practice is as fallacious as it is insulting. Really – folks jumping off a bridge make it ok to jump from a bridge? Is that how you want to justify the craven’s bald-faced grab for dominion over you, your family, and your country? You want someone like this to represent you to our allies? How seriously do you think our enemies would take us if they knew our leader was simply grandstanding?

How is it that the very folks who claim “Bush lied; soldiers died” can rally around either of these two – liars?

Look; if the candidates are willing to lie to you, to exaggerate their records or positions or well-documented situations, to speak and act hypocritically on the campaign trail, what makes you think they will change and do the right or honorable thing once they are handed the levers of power to the greatest nation in the history of the earth? They are putting their best foot forward now in asking for our votes – if this is their best foot, what do you think lay with their worst?

Someone who lies to you in order to earn your favor does not have your best interests at heart. Someone who exaggerates his or her contribution to something or position speaks of an insecurity that does not have your best interests at heart.

Sure, I want to hear about the issues like capitalism v. socialism, gun-freedom, free speech, free religion, and so on; but before I can trust you to talk about the larger, more important issues that affect billions (because if the U.S. sneezes the entire world catches a cold), I want to know if you’re capable of telling the truth, of meaning what you say when said, and if you’re really – millions of dollars per year aside – just like me. So far, they’ve shown me they can’t and aren’t.

And that tells me neither Clinton nor Obama are qualified to be President. Ever.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

I Have a Plan to Destroy America

As with any person who has an email address, I am on the receiving end of a lot of chain letters, scams, and jokes, all forwarded from well meaning people.  Every once in awhile I stumble across something that I just have to do more than pass by; the below is just such a thing.  I received a version of this in my email, and verified it on snopes.com.  The version below is the updated notes from Richard D. Lamm.

It is probably old to most who read my blog but it was new to me.

I HAVE A PLAN TO DESTROY AMERICA
RICHARD D. LAMM

I HAVE A SECRET PLAN TO DESTROY AMERICA.  IF YOU BELIEVE, AS MANY DO, THAT AMERICA IS TOO SMUG, TOO WHITE BREAD, TOO SELF-SATISFIED, TOO RICH, LETS DESTROY AMERICA.  IT IS NOT THAT HARD TO DO.  HISTORY SHOWS THAT NATIONS ARE MORE FRAGILE THAN THEIR CITIZENS THINK. NO NATION IN HISTORY HAS SURVIVED THE RAVAGES OF TIME. ARNOLD TOYNBEE OBSERVED THAT ALL GREAT CIVILIZATIONS RISE AND THEY ALL FALL, AND THAT "AN AUTOPSY OF HISTORY WOULD SHOW THAT ALL GREAT NATIONS COMMIT SUICIDE."  HERE IS MY PLAN:

I.  WE MUST FIRST MAKE AMERICA A BILINGUAL-BICULTURAL COUNTRY.  HISTORY SHOWS, IN MY OPINION, THAT NO NATION CAN SURVIVE THE TENSION, CONFLICT, AND ANTAGONISM OF TWO COMPETING LANGUAGES AND CULTURES.  IT IS A BLESSING FOR AN INDIVIDUAL TO BE BILINGUAL; IT IS A CURSE FOR A SOCIETY TO BE BILINGUAL.  ONE SCHOLAR, SEYMOUR MARTIN LIPSET, PUT IT THIS WAY:

THE HISTORIES OF BILINGUAL AND BICULTURAL SOCIETIES THAT DO NOT ASSIMILATE ARE HISTORIES OF TURMOIL, TENSION, AND TRAGEDY.  CANADA, BELGIUM, MALAYSIA, LEBANON-ALL FACE CRISES OF NATIONAL EXISTENCE IN WHICH MINORITIES PRESS FOR AUTONOMY, IF NOT INDEPENDENCE.  PAKISTAN AND CYPRUS HAVE DIVIDED.  NIGERIA SUPPRESSED AN ETHNIC REBELLION.  FRANCE FACES DIFFICULTIES WITH ITS BASQUES, BRETONS, AND CORSICANS.

II.  I WOULD THEN INVENT "MULTICULTURALISM" AND ENCOURAGE IMMIGRANTS TO MAINTAIN THEIR OWN CULTURE. I WOULD MAKE IT AN ARTICLE OF BELIEF THAT ALL CULTURES ARE EQUAL:  THAT THERE ARE NO CULTURAL DIFFERENCES THAT ARE IMPORTANT.  I WOULD DECLARE IT AN ARTICLE OF FAITH THAT THE BLACK AND HISPANIC DROPOUT RATE IS ONLY DUE TO PREJUDICE AND DISCRIMINATION BY THE MAJORITY.  EVERY OTHER EXPLANATION IS OUT-OF-BOUNDS.

III.  WE CAN MAKE THE UNITED STATES A "HISPANIC QUEBEC" WITHOUT MUCH EFFORT.  THE KEY IS TO CELEBRATE DIVERSITY RATHER THAN UNITY.  AS BENJAMIN SCHWARZ SAID IN THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY RECENTLY:

...THE APPARENT SUCCESS OF OUR OWN MULTIETHNIC AND MULTICULTURAL EXPERIMENT MIGHT HAVE BEEN ACHIEVED NOT BY TOLERANCE BUT BY HEGEMONY.  WITHOUT THE DOMINANCE THAT ONCE DICTATED ETHNOCENTRICALLY, AND WHAT IT MEANT TO BE AN AMERICAN, WE ARE LEFT WITH ONLY TOLERANCE AND PLURALISM TO HOLD US TOGETHER. 

I WOULD ENCOURAGE ALL IMMIGRANTS TO KEEP THEIR OWN LANGUAGE AND CULTURE.  I WOULD REPLACE THE MELTING POT METAPHOR WITH A SALAD BOWL METAPHOR.  IT IS IMPORTANT TO INSURE THAT WE HAVE VARIOUS CULTURAL SUB-GROUPS LIVING IN AMERICA REINFORCING THEIR DIFFERENCES RATHER THAN AMERICANS, EMPHASIZING THEIR SIMILARITIES.

IV.  HAVING DONE ALL THIS, I WOULD MAKE OUR FASTEST GROWING DEMOGRAPHIC GROUP THE LEAST EDUCATED - I WOULD ADD A SECOND UNDERCLASS, UNASSIMILATED, UNDEREDUCATED, AND ANTAGONISTIC TO OUR POPULATION.  I WOULD HAVE THIS SECOND UNDERCLASS HAVE A 50% DROP OUT RATE FROM SCHOOL.

V.  I WOULD THEN GET THE BIG FOUNDATIONS AND BIG BUSINESS TO GIVE THESE EFFORTS LOTS OF MONEY.  I WOULD INVEST IN ETHNIC IDENTITY, AND I WOULD ESTABLISH THE CULT OF VICTIMOLOGY.  I WOULD GET ALL MINORITIES TO THINK THEIR LACK OF SUCCESS WAS ALL THE FAULT OF THE MAJORITY - I WOULD START A GRIEVANCE INDUSTRY BLAMING ALL MINORITY FAILURE ON THE MAJORITY POPULATION.

VI.  I WOULD ESTABLISH DUAL CITIZENSHIP AND PROMOTE DIVIDED LOYALTIES.  I WOULD "CELEBRATE DIVERSITY." "DIVERSITY" IS A WONDERFULLY SEDUCTIVE WORD.  IT STRESSES DIFFERENCES RATHER THAN COMMONALITIES.   DIVERSE PEOPLE WORLDWIDE ARE MOSTLY ENGAGED IN HATING EACH OTHER-THAT IS, WHEN THEY ARE NOT KILLING EACH OTHER.   A DIVERSE," PEACEFUL, OR STABLE SOCIETY IS AGAINST MOST HISTORICAL PRECEDENT.  PEOPLE UNDERVALUE THE UNITY IT TAKES TO KEEP A NATION TOGETHER, AND WE CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS MYOPIA.  LOOK AT THE ANCIENT GREEKS.  DORF'S WORLD HISTORY TELLS US:

THE GREEKS BELIEVED THAT THEY BELONGED TO THE SAME RACE; THEY POSSESSED A COMMON LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE; AND THEY WORSHIPED THE SAME GODS.  ALL GREECE TOOK PART IN THE OLYMPIC GAMES IN HONOR OF ZEUS AND ALL GREEKS VENERATED THE SHRINE OF APOLLO AT DELPHI.  A COMMON ENEMY PERSIA THREATENED THEIR LIBERTY.  YET, ALL OF THESE BONDS TOGETHER WERE NOT STRONG ENOUGH TO OVERCOME TWO FACTORS . . . (LOCAL PATRIOTISM AND GEOGRAPHICAL CONDITIONS THAT NURTURED POLITICAL DIVISIONS . . .)

IF WE CAN PUT THE EMPHASIS ON THE "PLURIBUS," INSTEAD OF THE "UNUM," WE CAN BALKANIZE AMERICA AS SURELY AS KOSOVO.  

VII.  THEN I WOULD PLACE ALL THESE SUBJECTS OFF LIMITS - MAKE IT TABOO TO TALK ABOUT. I WOULD FIND A WORD SIMILAR TO "HERETIC" IN THE 16TH CENTURY - THAT STOPPED DISCUSSION AND PARALYZED THINKING.  WORDS LIKE "RACIST", "XENOPHOBE" THAT HALTS ARGUMENT AND CONVERSATION.

HAVING MADE AMERICA A BILINGUAL-BICULTURAL COUNTRY, HAVING ESTABLISHED MULTICULTURALISM, HAVING THE LARGE FOUNDATIONS FUND THE DOCTRINE OF "VICTIMOLOGY", I WOULD NEXT MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO ENFORCE OUR IMMIGRATION LAWS.  I WOULD DEVELOP A MANTRA - "THAT BECAUSE IMMIGRATION <U>HAS BEEN</U> GOOD FOR AMERICA, IT MUST ALWAYS BE GOOD." I WOULD MAKE EVERY INDIVIDUAL IMMIGRANT SYMPATRIC AND IGNORE THE CUMULATIVE IMPACT.

VIII.  LASTLY, I WOULD CENSOR VICTOR HANSON DAVIS'S BOOK MEXIFORNIA -- THIS BOOK IS DANGEROUS -- IT EXPOSES MY PLAN TO DESTROY AMERICA.  SO PLEASE, PLEASE -- IF YOU FEEL THAT AMERICA DESERVES TO BE DESTROYED -- PLEASE, PLEASE -- DON'T BUY THIS BOOK! THIS GUY IS ON TO MY PLAN.

"THE SMART WAY TO KEEP PEOPLE PASSIVE AND OBEDIENT IS TO STRICTLY LIMIT THE SPECTRUM OF ACCEPTABLE OPINION, BUT ALLOW VERY LIVELY DEBATE WITHIN THAT SPECTRUM." -- NOAM CHOMSKY, AMERICAN LINGUIST AND US MEDIA AND FOREIGN POLICY CRITIC.

Both Governor Lamm and the writer of the e-mail misidentify the author of the book Mexifornia, whose correct name is Victor Davis Hanson.

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

Hunting for Sex

This’ll be a short one today – I’m away from my keyboard more nowadays than before and need to get back to it.

I was catching up on the news when I came across this article about a hunters program in West Virginia.  Seems in West Virginia, public schools are required to offer hunter education programs to students in eighth through twelfth grades.  These courses are not mandatory, no one is required to take one of these courses; they are electives.

As I was reading the article and was pleasantly surprised there’s an entire state getting on the right side of this issue, one of the arguments against such a program jumped off my screen and stank up my office.

The odiferous argument against a mandatory hunter training program is that hunting, hunting safety, and so on are all better taught by the student’s parents at home.

This argument may have some familiarity to it because parents have been saying for a couple decades that sex education is best left to them, not the school system.  Hearing none of such an argument, school districts across the country have placed sex education (including the "alternative lifestyle" of the gays and lesbians) as a mandatory course; that is, they are not electives, they are required.

So why’s it ok for parents to teach their children about hunting and firearms at home, but not okay for them to teach their children about sex?

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »