Smarter Than Thou!

WHAT'S IN A NAME?

    There is this guy who wrote a book on politics and who has been on the TV shows a lot.  His name is Sam Tenenhaus (or something like that) and he writes for the NY Times, which explains why he is on TV for having written a book, and it explains a few other things.  The book is entitled The Death of Conservatism. 

    His major premise is that the Conservatives are no longer doing what they are supposed to do, by their nature.  Rather than “conserve” what is already here, they are opposing Bam-bam and his policies.  For example, instead of preserving and honoring the institution of marriage, they are actually opposing it.  How?  They are refusing it to homosexuals.  Instead of supporting families, they are attacking the foundation of it, by opposing the adoption of children by homosexual couples.  Conservatives must, in his opinion, support EVERYTHING simply because it is currently being presented. 

    I am not kidding.  This opinion is being accepted as the stuff for serious discussion and analysis.  But what Sam is really saying is this.  As “conserve” means, well, to conserve, conservatives must support whatever currently exists, no matter how temporary or against what they believe in.  And the fact that they actually have principles which they, well, conserve, actually means that they are contradicting themselves.  I repeat: this is not a joke.

     I can see what would have happened if Sam had been the Times sports writer.  He would object to the Pittsburg Pirates, because they do not actually put to sea and attack merchant ships.  He would allow only northerners on the Yankees.  He would attack the Mets, unless they had introduced themselves to everyone. 

    And he should not be known as a writer, unless he can write something other than nonsense.   

(I shall be away for approximately two weeks.  I shall, God willing, see you back here then.)  

A NEW(S) DILEMMA

   BACK in the days of the Busch administration the Media had one simple purpose with regard to the war(s).  It was to show that the US was going to lose in both Iraq and Afghanistan.  And the Media tried.  Now that they have a new president, they face difficulties.

   Bam-bam has actually embraced the Afghanistan effort.  And he can take some credit for the win in Iraq.  Now the Media has to decide whether they hate America more than they worship its president.  This is a tough choice.

   Let me present perfect proof with regard to how they tried to show Iraq as a perpetual failure.  It was often presented that with every death a new terrorist was created.  That is every man killed by US (backed) forces created a desire for revenge in his son, brother, father, etc.  And this might even have been so, in some cases.  However, the opposite was NEVER mentioned.  That is, why did it not apply to terrorist killings?  Somehow, no matter how many men the terrorists murdered, no one then became and enemy of them and an ally of the US forces?  Apparently the desire for revenge works only if it discredits George Bush. 

   Considering how the Media still hysterically hates Bush, maybe there is something asymmetrical about him. 

   And if you want only one side on issues, but that side being the true one, then subscribe to the A&E, available by contacting this author.  

THE PEOPLE'S CHOICE

     I must be missing something on this.  I have paid attention to all the reports, and they all say the same thing, and it never makes any sense.  I refer to the “political” implications of passing the health insurance plan. 

      Every report argues that the Democrats have two choices.  The first is that they will pass the administration’s plan if and only if they can do it relatively soon.  The second is that they will pass if only if they can get Republican support, even though they could pass it by themselves.  In both cases the reasoning is the same.  It goes like this. 

      2010AD is an election year.  The Democrats do not want to face the electorate with the responsibility for the new policy still in the memories of the voters.  And/or they want the Republicans to share the blame(!) so that they can not attack the Democrats on this issue.  I understand this, that is I understand the words.  However, it is pure lunacy.

     In other words, the Democrats are saying this.  “We know that passing this is poison.  We can only hope that, after we do pass it, the electorate will forget that we did, and/or Republicans will not be able to use it against us.” 

      This brings up the very interesting question.  If this is such a negative thing to do why then are the Democrats so committed to doing it?  They frequently repeat that their party was elected to institute new policies, including this one.  Yet this is precisely what they  fear doing.  As I wrote before, I must be missing something. 

And you are missing something if you are not subscribing to the A&E.  So remedy your own deficiency by paying only $30 per year.