Saturday, October 30, 2010

The TV Spot That Has the Ultra Left & Right Running Scared

Truth in advertising is a rare commodity. However, this latest TV pitch is about as truthful as anything one will ever see in television or any other media these days. Why is this ad upsetting both those on the right and left? Could it be the truth hurts?



This doesn't have to be the future of the capitalist free world. You decide!

Wednesday, October 13, 2010

The Supreme Importance of the 2nd Admendment

Since posting the thoughts of Senator McConnell on the last entry went over so well, I've gotten permission from a good web friend of mine and someone I have worked with for several years on a different website to share his thoughts concerning Gun Control and protection of the 2nd Admendment. While Emilio and I don't necessarily politically agree on everything out there in the verse, we certainly are on the same page when it comes to this paramount issue.

Guns – my thougths: by Emilio D'alise

My impetus for gun ownership and gun carry is pretty simple. I both lived in a situation where gang violence was common-place, and later in life, far away from “bad” neighborhoods, I received threats on my life. It is thus within the capability of my imagination to ponder being the potential victim of a targeted or random attack. I carry for protection from two legged predators, and – when hiking – from four legged ones.

I take all the precautions I can to avoid ever having to use my gun(s). I don’t go to bars, I don’t frequent events that are likely to get rowdy, I don’t walk/drive around at night unless absolutely necessary. I back down from arguments, and to the best that I can, I try to diffuse any situation that has the potential to escalate into violence.

Same for observing safety precautions when in bear and cougar country (as I now am). For the record, I am a lot less concerned about a potential attack by a four legged predator than I am by the two legged kind, and as much as I might be concerned about being shot, I also consider being stabbed, or being beaten to the point of death or paralysis, a very undesirable thing.

Yes, I’m not speaking of just defending against an armed assailant. Proponents of removing my right to own and carry a gun neglect the long history of the strong victimizing the weak, and the many victimizing the few. Being attacked by one or more individuals capable of beating the crap out of me is as much a matter of concern as being threatened or shot by one or more individuals who may have obtained a gun through illegal means. Even more so as an atheist, because you never know when a crazed “believer” will get a bee in their bonnet, and decide this or that god has told them to act in their behalf (because, you know, gods can’t do crap on their own).

You see, no matter what precautions one might take, we are not always in control of events, and people forget the role of the police is not necessarily to be there to protect you, but rather to scrape your remains off the sidewalk, and attempt to apprehend the guilty after the fact.

Having said all that, my hope is to go the rest of my life without ever having to use a weapon in self-defense.

But this little rant is only peripherally about guns and guns rights.

This is about people who pick and choose what laws, rights, and freedoms they are willing to support, and who make their choice based on faulty data and reasoning. It especially irks me when I hear snide remarks about guns and gun ownership on podcasts (I’m talking to you Point of Inquiry, although others are just as bad) that have nothing to do with a critical examination of the so-called “gun issue”.

So, I might be listening to a show about Conservative groups pressuring elected officials to either ignore or go against both accepted knowledge and common sense on a given matter, and in drops a peripheral comment denigrating all gun owners as drooling Neanderthals unwilling to get with the program of being civilized (read: unarmed) members of society.

In one particular instance the discussion was about the First Amendment, and the danger posed by various power groups wanting to modify, reinterpret, or even change both its meaning and reach. My position is that except in very few instances, the First Amendment should be interpreted as broadly as possible, and restricted as little as possible.

But in the same show, here comes a slam against the Second Amendment, and how it has outlived its purpose, and should no longer be applicable in modern society. See, this is where I part company with many on the Left and many on the Right; both groups are selective in what freedoms they are willing to allow others.

A particularly annoying group of anti-gun people are The Skeptics. You know, the hard-core ones, the ones who live and breathe hard data, and will pound on your ass if you dare make a logical argument as opposed to citing hard data from double blind studies.

The thing is, there is a lot of data on guns, murders by guns, accidental shootings, and the impact of gun ownership. Guess what? Look at the data, and many (some say all) the arguments anti-guns nuts make go up in smoke as those arguments are shot full of holes. There are well-run studies using rigorous research methodology that point to conclusions the anti-gun groups, and their supporters, just don’t want to hear. In contrast, the data used to sell fear of guns is often wrong, misleading, or plain made up.

In all the debates I ever had on the issue of guns, at the end of the day, when all sorts of references have been provided, when data has been shown to counter popular misconceptions, when logical arguments, historical arguments, and legal arguments have been laid out, the truth is finally laid bare . . . most people who are anti-gun have only one reason for banning guns; they do not like them.

And they are willing to not only ignore part of the Bill of Rights to appease their distaste for these supposed evil implements of death and destruction, but are also willing to set aside their mantra of “show me the data”. No data. No logic. No reasoned arguments. They do not like guns, so no one should be allowed to have guns. Period.

We have all them Amendments for a very good reason. While many of the Founding Fathers saw them as so self-evident that they did not need to be enumerated, others correctly foresaw the eventual erosion of these rights by sometimes well-meaning people, but more often by powerful individuals who like to maintain their privileged status. The Amendments do not confer rights. The Founding Fathers recognized those rights as innate to free individuals, and put limits on the government’s ability to encroach upon them. Limits that are ever-shrinking as one group of people or another picks away at them. What those people forget is that when those rights are gone they are going to be very hard to get back. Especially if one is unarmed.

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

I generally don't like posting other people's speeches on this blog but today the Republican Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell delivered a compelling speech that was designed to address the upcoming Defense Authorization Bill. However, Senator McConnell took this time to remind all Americans what is really at stake in the November elections and again in 2012. I think this smart mind-tweek is worth revealing here on Politically Incorrectile Dysfunction.

[Senator McConnell]
“It’s no secret Americans are unhappy with the way our friends on the other side have handled things over the past few years, especially the past year and a half.

“Americans have been speaking out across the country about the need to return to a smaller, more competent, more accountable government that lives within its means.

“And instead, Democrats in Congress have given them more government, more spending, more debt; and now they’re threatening a massive tax hike to top it all off.

“But what’s been most remarkable to me, in watching all this play out, is the way our friends on the other side have doubled down on their plans in the teeth of public outrage.

“Just yesterday we saw a CNBC survey showing most Americans don’t like the idea of seeing taxes raised on anybody at this point.

“And CNN says most of the economists it surveyed say the best thing we can do for businesses is to assure them their taxes won’t go up at the end of the year.

“Yet Democrat leaders are still clinging to the discredited idea that government needs more power and more money for more Washington programs.

“Maybe the reason is that the Democrat vision of a recovery, their idea of success — according to the Assistant Majority Leader is 9 percent unemployment.

“That’s right, yesterday, the Number Two Democrat in the Senate said Congress could, ‘breathe a sigh of relief’ at 9 percent unemployment or less.

“That’s their idea of success.

“Well, our idea of success is for businesses to start hiring again and to get this economy back on track.

“It seems like the more Americans say they want Democrats to stop what they’re doing and focus on jobs and the economy, the more determined they are to press ahead with their various liberal agenda items while they’ve still got the chance. And that’s basically what today’s vote on the Defense Authorization Bill is all about.

“The defense authorization bill requires four or five weeks to debate at a minimum.

“But instead of having that debate or turning to the Defense Appropriations Bill which funds the military, they want to use this week for a political exercise they want to weigh this bill down with controversy in a transparent attempt to show their special interest groups that they haven’t forgotten about them ahead of the election.

“It’s astonishing, really.

“Democrats have called up this bill not to have a vote on it or to consider amendments to help our troops in the field, but to put on a show to use it as an opportunity to cast votes for things Americans either don’t want or aren’t interested in seeing attached to a bill that’s supposed to be about defense.

“The Majority Leader has already said this bill isn’t going to pass with these items attached to it before the election but he’s keeping them on there anyway.

“So this is not a serious exercise. It’s a show.

“And it’s because of shows like this that our friends have lost credibility with the public.

“Americans want us to take care of the basics and to do it competently.

“This isn’t too much to ask.

“But evidently, it’s too much to ask of Democrat leaders in Congress before the election.”

Sunday, August 15, 2010

Mosque and the U.S. Constitution

I find myself in the unfamiliar position of defending President Obama against many of my fellow conservatives on the issue of the rights of those who wish to build a mosque complex on the site near the 9/11 tragedy in New York City.

As a Jew one of the things I am most sensitive to is the liberty of religious freedom and expression. As a people, we Jews have witnessed and been made victim to centuries of ethnic/racial/religious cleansing and bigotry. We are even seeing remnants of this kind of intolerant hatred coming from our own in the State of Israel today by a band of ultra-orthodxy and their attack on the Law of Return and the definition of "Who is a Jew".

However, in the United States one of the bastions of freedom has been the constitutional guarantee of the freedom to exercise a religious belief without governmental interference or control. It has been rightly stated in the past that the foundation stones of liberty as stated in the U.S. Constitution are:

1. Freedom of speech (a free press)
2. The right to bear arms and,
3. Freedom of religious expression.

Removal of any one of these three would undermine said liberty and bring an end to the kind of freedom envisioned by the nation's founders. Without all three fully entrenched in the hearts and minds of its people, America would simply be a faded copy of a weak and demoralized democratic Europe whose residents honestly think their psuedo-liberty is real freedom.

In a White House speech delivered during a dinner to acknowledge the end of the first fast day of the Islamic celebration of Ramadan (a dinner hosted by Presidents going back to Thomas Jefferson), the President said he fully understands how many feel about the idea of a mosque being placed on the "hallowed ground" of the 9/11 site, but more important is the defense of the hallowed ground of America's "committment to religious freedom" and that committment must remain "unshakable" even when it leaves a sour taste in our mouths.

As much as I loathe the idea of anything related to Islam being a part of the 9/11 area I must never forget that those responsible for what took place on that horrific day have killed more Muslims over the years than any one else and many American Muslims died in those two towers when all they were doing was their daily jobs and living out their lives as free Americans. What happen on 9/11 had little to do with religion or faith and much to do with terror, hate and intolerance. Should we who remain carry on that tradition of hate or can we move on from it to something better? Perhaps the real test of our nation's resolve and dedication to its Constitutional perogatives is being measured by our response to this very thing.

Is it a Constitutional right for those who wish to build their mosque on this site? Absolutely and unequivocally yes. BUT: a real question for Islam, as a religious movement that claims to stand for peace, tolerance and boasts of its sensitivity to the needs of its surrounding communities, is it appropriate? I think not!

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

Kudos to Senator Johanns of Nebraska

On July 26, 2010 Senator Mike Johanns of Nebraska introduced legislation that, if passed, would prevent cap-and-trade (or as it is commonly called "cap-and-tax") from being stealthly slipped into law without any or little debate on the Senate floor.

One of Congress' past tried and true methods of getting unpopular legislation passed has been to wait until after the fall's elections so there is less accountability to the voting public for some Senators. This allows retiring Senators and those who will be required to give up their seat to the newly elected in January to vote a Yay for legislation they would normally oppose simply because they are unscrupulous and are no longer concerned about getting reelected.

Senator Johann's legislation would place a real road-block that would prevent these kinds of lame duck strategies that have proven so successful in the past. The law would require 67 Senators, which is a full two-thirds of the Senate, to vote straight up or down in order to either allow cap-and-trade to become law or be defeated after the necesary full Senatorial floor debate.

I applaud the Senator from Nebraska for his putting the American people above party politics and for sticking to the Constitutional mandate that indicates bills should only become law after a full debate on the issue so that all sides can be heard before a vote is taken. This is appropriate in all cases, but especially with this particular piece of legistation that would so dramatically increase energy taxes on all levels and affect the pocket-book's of so many hard-working Americans in lower and middle income brackets.

Many in this country believe that the impact of this cap-and-trade bill on this nation's already troubling economy would be devastating in the least and horrific at worst. With this much controversy surrounding this law it is only fitting that the Senate not be allowed to play politics-as-usual and be forced into a real debate, even if it means nothing might be accomplished until January 2011 after the new full Senate returns to Washington D.C.

I congratulate Senator Johanns for his forward thinking by putting this country's farmers and workers before partisan politics.

Wednesday, June 23, 2010

Who is to Blame for the Gulf Oil Fiasco? - More Reflection

If anyone reading this owns any shares in BP, then you own it. I have shares (plenty of them) in BP, so I also own it, and like any honorable business owner, I too must also OWN UP to having some responsibility for the spill. It is my investment in the company and everyone else around the globe with shares in it and who receives dividends off those shares, as well as, every citizen of every nation who purchases a BP product (regardless of type), and every mom and pop BP franchise station owner, and all their employees, from the grandma working at the register to the guy who keeps the BP convienience store shelfs stocked, to the mechanic that keeps the BP car wash operating, to the 18-wheeler hauling BP petro across the highways and roads, to the tanker captain and his crew moving it from well to refinery, to those refinery and rig workers who put food on their tables and in their kid's mouths, to the........well, you get the idea --- there is plenty of blame to share and we are all responsible for what happened in the Gulf 2 months ago.

However, it is solely BP execs, the strong-arming of environmental groups, and the U.S. Government, in particular, the Obabma Administration, who must share complete blame for the really disgusting and horrific way in which the spill has been dealt with since.

Sunday, May 30, 2010

Who is to Blame for the Environmental Tragedy in the Gulf?

Not all of this can be laid at the doorstep of BP or any other oil company, nor does it all fall into the government's aisle or those citizens around the world who insist on continuing to drive their fossil fuel cars. Those ultra-crazy left-winged uber-liberal rabid environmental groups must also take some of the blame as well. It was their radical agenda of demanding that government force oil companies to go out farther from shore where the drilling was required in deeper and more dangerous waters that made it near impossible to fix deep-drilling problems that were bound to occur one day. If this same event had taken place on land or in shallower waters nearer the shore this baby would have been capped-off within hours of the explosion with very little environmental impact.

Call me naive' but the demand for oil in this world of 6 billion people isn't about to slow down anytime soon so wouldn't it make more environmental sense to drill in areas where these kinds of accidents can be contained and fixed quicker with as little environmental destruction as possible? The oil can still be found in safer locations in vast quantities, so why the need for dangerous drilling in such deep (miles in some cases) locations within our oceans?

Yes, yes, in a perfect world we would all be living in a wind tunnel and harvesting the natural solar rays or some other just as exotic sources of energy, but for those even more naive' than myself, to think this will happen, even in the lifetimes of those now in their twenties, it is time to wake up, smell the petro and suck up the fact that the world will remain dependent on crude for a long time to come, so instead of fighting about whether or not we should drill for it, perhaps it is time to begin harvesting it from safer locations than miles deep mining shafts in our ocean floors.

That leads me to another thing that occurred since the rig exploded and the leak started gushing out that viscous poison in our gulf waters -- the government called in the Coast Guard with its booms and looked to burn-off much of the top sitting oil while it was still out far enough from the shoreline. What prevented the government from taking action that may have at least diminished some of this tragic situation? Those same environmental groups demanded a study be done first on what kind of environmental impact using the booms and burning off the oil would do. Environmental Impact? Please, a study? And who did the government listen to? Those officials in the Coast Guard, and the elected Governor of Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas, as well as those who make their livelihood from the Gulf waters? No, the government backed down because of pressure from environmentalist who wanted the study done first - which, by the way would take months. Hmmmm, I wonder what kind of environmental impact the millions of gallons of oil that has already made its way to America's pristine wetlands and Gulf beaches has and will make? Don't think we are going to need a lengthy bureaucratic study to give us that answer - we are living it.

If I may close by quoting famed liberal and Democratic pundit James Carvill - "We are dying down here!"

Thursday, May 27, 2010

Thursday, April 15, 2010

Still Hope for America in the Lives of Our Young

No electronic prompter, no external notes, just the heart and mind of an 11 year old American.

click on the title of this post to watch the video.

Monday, February 1, 2010

"Yes We Can!"

Can we spend more than any other generation that has come before us and leave our children and grandchildren so deep in a financial hole that they will never see the light of day?

"YES WE CAN!"

Can we pretend that 9/11 never happen and mirandize terrorists, botch questioning of a known underwear bomber and lawyer him up to silence just as he was about to give details of other bombings getting ready to occur?

"YES WE CAN!"

Can we frighten the American public into thinking that only if they call up their Senators and Congress Representatives to pass our stimulus spending bill we will keep unemployment below 8%, when in reality it has surpassed 10% since passage of said bill?

"YES WE CAN!"

Can we go back on our campaign promise to not hire lobbyist to serve in our government and then employ at least 11 known such lobbyists after being sworn into the Oval Office?

"YES WE CAN!"

Can we totally ignore over 68% of the American electorate who don't want Obama/Reid/Pelosi Care and insist on pushing it down their throats anyway, because these 68% simply don't know what's best for them and we do?

"YES WE CAN!"

Can we make the United States a bit player in space exploration by completely stripping the NASA budget for the lunar Constellation/Orion program and becoming totally dependent on Russia to ferry our astronauts to and from the International Space Station for the unforeseeable future?

"YES WE CAN!"

Can we introduce a budget for fiscal year 2011 that will increase our federal deficit in just one year by another $3.8 trillion?

"YES WE CAN!"

Now this is CHANGE we can believe in.