Why I love the WSJ

Op-ed pieces like this one...

Put away childish things


"Mr. Obama came to office without a conspicuous vision other than "bipartisanship" and a belief in the beneficent influence on America and the world of seeing a black man exercising the powers of the presidency. He wields his party's shibboleths like one who sees them mainly as levers for delivering the goods. His ideas about the exercise of politics, in fact, may be accurately reflected in the recent stimulus bill -- in office you supply the wish lists of those who put you there."

Piercing indictment...




-T

Word of the day: Schadenfreude

Schadenfreude - noun -satisfaction or pleasure felt at someone else's misfortune.


This is an excellently reasoned and written article


Obama's Schadenfreude


Anyone else excited about Bobby Jindals first real exposure to the American public with his response to President Obama's address to Congress?

I can't wait.


Been working on a long post of, about, and/or relating to the decline of American responsibility... stay tuned...



-T

Obey?

President Obama is certainly more eloquent that Fmr. President Bush. He is certainly more polished and smooth when it comes to his public appearance. He seems to be more calm and controlled and his intelligence is apparently top-notch.

None of this, as is becoming increasingly clearer, automatically translates to successful Presidential policies.

Stocks hate Obeynomics


Pres. Obama campaigned on "Change we can believe in". It doesn't seem as though his appointees got that memo...


7,000 - here we come...



-T

For the record...

President Obama, you already won the presidency. Stop campaigning.

Here's a dose of some numbers. Stop with the doom & gloom rhetoric and start with the leading of our country.


Stop with the rhetoric



-T

Incompetency Defined

The House of Representatives passed the 'Stimulus' Plan today. I will not say 1 word about what is actually in the Plan because that is not even necessary to illustrate the pure, unadulterated incompetency displayed by those who voted "Yes" on the bill today.

This bill was just over 1,000 pages long. It was submitted late Thursday night by the House Appropriations committee.

How many people do you know can read 1,000 pages in 12 hours?

We voted for these representatives to represent us (imagine that). I'd honestly like to know who feels properly represented by their representative who voted "yes" on a bill before they had time to read it.

How is this even legal? Shouldn't there be some mandated period of time based on the length of the bill that must pass before it can be voted on? (Like, say, more than 12 hours for a 1,000 page bill)

Didn't we get into this financial crisis because of haste, irresponsibility and lack of understanding of the things at work in our economy?

Dosen't hastily voting on a bill of this magnitude have an inordinately high probability of exacerbating the problem?

Don't extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures? Why couldn't Congress postpone their precious recess to sit down and READ AND DISCUSS this bill instead of rushing to vote just because there's an arbitrary deadline. Is that too much to ask of our elected government?

Am I crazy?

Please tell me someone else out there has a problem with this.



-T

Down with Fairness

"Speaking of talk radio (which I listen to constantly), I remain incredulous that any Democrat who professes liberal values would give a moment's thought to supporting a return of the Fairness Doctrine to muzzle conservative shows. (My latest manifesto on this subject appeared in my last column.) The failure of liberals to master the vibrant medium of talk radio remains puzzling. To reach the radio audience (whether the topic is sports, politics or car repair), a host must have populist instincts and use the robust common voice. Too many Democrats have become arrogant elitists, speaking down in snide, condescending tones toward tradition-minded middle Americans whom they stereotype as rubes and buffoons. But the bottom line is that government surveillance of the ideological content of talk radio is a shocking first step toward totalitarianism."

- Camille Paglia


Decent article on a hodgepodge of issues. Excellent paragraph on the Fairness Doctrine, which as she rightly says, is a "shocking" proposal.




Paglia article


-T

The Intolerance of Truth

Over the past few years I have been stunned at the increasing unwillingness of our leaders and media to make black-and-white statements regarding their stances on certain issues.

Whatever the subject may be - whether it's Terry Schiavo and the decision to "pull-the-plug", capital punishment, abortion, gay-marriage or any other hot-button social issue - it is now extremely rare to hear anyone give an honest statement regarding their beliefs.

Political correctness has now completely replaced the search for truth and honesty. Yes, that is a general and broad reaching statement, but take it as that and see if it fits. I trust you will find it to be true.

President Obama gave the perfect example of what I am talking about last year at the debate at Saddleback Church. When asked about his thoughts on abortion he answered, "...That's above my pay grade."

That's all-time cop-out. This is an issue that nearly EVERY American has strong feelings about - and nearly EVERY American will answer that question truthfully and honestly when asked - but our new President (a Senator at the time) can't discuss his belief and stance on the issue?

This is not meant to pick on President Obama, but rather to show that even the "leader of the free world" has regressed to the point of absurd political correctness.

Honestly, what would have happened if President Obama had responded with a very articulate, well-thought out and sensitive answer to that question? There are absolutely logical and rational reasons to support abortion. Would he have been branded intolerant? Certainly not. Obviously a very large number of people would disagree with him, but to dodge that question in that manner was disingenuous at the very least. President Obama has demonstrated he has uncanny speaking skills, so one must conclude that he chose to dodge the question in the name of political correctness rather than for a lack of a legitimate answer.

This is troubling.

Really the only reason I can come up with is that people are now afraid to be branded as "Intolerant."

When there's a news story about racism, no one has any problem condemning racism. Why? Because the vast majority of people condemn racism so it is 'safe' to do the same.

If you were to voice the opinion that racism is OK, you would most certainly be branded intolerant. Rightly so.

However, the question becomes, is the person intolerant because they don't agree with the vast majority or because all races of people OUGHT to be 'tolerated' (by tolerated I mean afforded the same rights and respect as all human beings)

That seems like an obvious answer... it's the latter.

It is the "OUGHT" that really changes the discussion.

This answer becomes less clear when the question is about capital punishment, assisted suicide, or abortion and the majority is not as clear cut.

What ought we to do?

Is it good to be tolerant of a bad thing? Clearly not.

The reluctance to say something like "I support abortion" can be construed to be the realization that you might be wrong about the worthiness of the tolerance of abortion.

We need truth to guide us and teach us the things which we should tolerate.

Dodging these questions in the name of tolerance and political correctness is tantamount to saying that you aren't firm in your beliefs.


I'll finish by quoting my favorite pianist, Sergey Rachmaninov

"The new kind of music seems to create not from the heart but from the head. Its composers think rather than feel. They have not the capacity to make their works exalt—they meditate, protest, analyze, reason, calculate and brood, but they do not exalt."

We meditate, protest, analyze, reason, calculatea and brood... but we have stopped exalting...


-T


Here are some links...

In praise of Darwin and the spirit of inquiry

Superman don't need no airplane...

All economists agree?


Obama a Novice?

The Normalization of Evil

"Civilized society, so it seems, is so numbed by violence that it has lost its gift to be disgusted by evil."

Mr. Pearl - you could not have said it any better.

When will our luminaries stop making excuses for terror?


Fantastic article in the WSJ by Daniel Pearl's father. Daniel Pearl was the WSJ journalist who was kidnapped and beheaded. The video of the gruesome murder was aired. His parents watched the video of Islamic terrorists cutting the head off of their son. He was then cut into 10 pieces and the pieces were placed in a shallow grave.

Hate George W. Bush all you want, but he was right - evil does exist in this world. What happened to Daniel Pearl was pure evil.


The most disturbing part of this article is Jimmy Carter's quote. Read closely.

"It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Road-map for Peace are accepted by Israel."


See anything wrong? No?

I'll give you a hint - it has something to do with the conditional clause "when international laws and ultimate goals..."

Namely, the clause shouldn't be there. The sentence should end on the word 'terrorism'.


Decide for yourself


-T

Theism, Atheism, and Rationality...

I've begun reading Alvin Plantinga's book "The Nature of Necessity"... it's a doozy and it makes me want to be in Philosophy classes again...

Anyhow, got side-tracked with some bibliography tangents and came across this paper by Plantinga


Theism, Atheism, and Rationality


I'll warn you now that it's not the easiest read, but it's a fantastic short paper on a topic that has become highly relevant in the past year or so with the troubling desire to disregard Christians as fools or lunatics.

And please, for your own sake, don't comment unless you read the paper.

Plantinga is an incredible mind (PhD from Yale among other achievements), so don't think you are going to refute or offer up a counter argument with a 3 paragraph comment before you read and understand the article in its entirety.


-T