My Rebuttal to a Progressive who Admonished Me to Play Nice ....
From six months ago, but superb. We at the Burg always appreciate a well-structured, thoughtfully constructed, righteous rant, and this is one of those.
Posted by: Steve White ||
04/29/2011 09:23 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Is there video of her encounter with camp pinko?
Count me among the abstainers. I won't be watching over-the-top media coverage of Friday's wedding between Prince William and the "commoner," Kate Middleton.
After the "wedding of the century" of William's mother and father in 1981 and the ensuing drama that led to their divorce in 1996 and, eventually, her death on Aug. 31, 1997, the wedding of their son is unlikely to match the earlier nuptials in pomp or circumstance.
Pete Broadbent, the bishop of Willesden in northwest London, demonstrated just how cynical we have become about these fairy tale weddings. Last November, the bishop compared the couple to "shallow celebrities."
He said their marriage is bound to fail. "I give the marriage seven years," he wrote on his Facebook page. But he wasn't through. He went on to trash Prince Charles and Princess Diana, saying of the media coverage of their wedding, "I managed to avoid the last disaster in slow motion between Big Ears and the Porcelain Doll, and I hope to avoid this one too."
The bishop, an anti-monarchist, cited a history of "more broken marriages and philanderers among these [royals] than not. They cost us an arm and a leg. ... Talent isn't passed on through people's bloodstock. The hereditary principle is corrupt and sexist."
I don't go ga-ga over royal weddings, and I'll probably miss this one -- I didn't get an invitation and I'll probably be washing my beard that day. (I don't have much hair left...) But I do have to take issue with his statement that "talent isn't passed on through people's bloodstock." There's lots of evidence to refute that didactic statement of the counter-intuitive. Intelligence (or the lack thereof) can be passed from parent to offspring in precisely the same manner as hemophilia, buck teeth, or red hair. We breed little white mousies all the time for this trait or that, to include the ability to think their way to the most direct route to the cheese.
To whit: Note that the prospective groom resembles his late mother in the face, while his brother got her hair and her complexion. Neither, thankfully, has their father's ears, and hopefully neither has his brain power.
Way back when, Henry VIII was begotten by Henry VII, who was no dummy, and Henry VIII begat the first Elizabeth who eclipsed the pair of them, both for intellect and for ruthlessness. When she pegged out she left the throne to James VI of Scotland, who as James I of England introduced the gene for dumbassery into the line. He got that from his mother, Mary, Queen of Scots. God knows where she got it, but it probably wasn't from Robert the Bruce.
James had a liking for funny hats and practical jokes and a firm belief in the divine right of kings. His son, Charles I had the same belief and as a result got his head chopped off and gave Oliver Cromwell his place in history. Charles II was the original "Good Times Charlie," fathering a dozen illegitimate children, most of whom got government jobs. James II was a divine right disaster.
While there have been kings and queens since then who've been well loved, like Queen Victoria and George V, none have been towering intellects.
Princess Di was a breath of fresh air for the royal family simply because her antecedents weren't picked from the stud book. Miss Middleton takes that a step further: her Mom was a stewardess and her Dad a flight dispatcher. They run a successful mail order company, implying they've got some business sense to them, which the royals demonstrably don't.
My guess is that given a few generations of out-breeding the British royals might become something more than a relic of days gone by. Whether they recapture the glory days of William I is another story. But a few throwbacks to the Plantagenets would probably scare the knickers off the current crop of Brits anyway.
Posted by: Fred ||
04/29/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Not much interest in the affair, except the picture I caught at Fox website of the young men in uniform on the way to the proceedings. At least someone still has that sense of noblesse oblige and has earned their spurs carrying themselves well without apology for doing so.
#2
A shame not to watch such a joyous, refreshing, much-needed change from the doldrums. Not only were the pomp and circumstance equal, but you can see the friendship and chemistry between William and Catherine, which was absent between Charles and Diana. They'll make it.
Not to mention how enjoyable it was to watch some beturbanned sheik at the service, and wonder how intensely uncomfortable he was with all the peaceful Christ stuff. Admittedly, it was infuriating to realize that about once a minute, I found myself wondering if you'd be able to hear the "allahu akbar" before one of his coreligionists blew himself to smithereens.
I hope this day reminds Britons what they're really all about, how much more they're capable of, and inspires them to reassert their identity.
#4
It's a cynical, negative, pessimistic world. Life beats us all up, some more than others, and I don't see how it helps to tune out what little good there is, or openly hope for its demise.
The Bishop of London's address was very uplifting. William's sober salutes were those of a real military man, not just a ceremonial one. It took place in Westminster Abbey, 1000 years old, times throughout which England had some self-respect. A country that once knew better, has now allowed itself to be overrun by Mohammedans, and submits to Continental rule. The celebration today underscored how backwards, Orwellian, and evil it all is. A healthy dose of perspective never hurts.
#5
Many Royal + Media Pundits believe the two daughters of Prince Andrew + ex-wife Fergie deliber wore OUTLANDISH, LADY GAGA-ESQUE HATS to the event, as exemplified by them sitting just behind Queen Liz + Prince Phil, to disply their angst at mom Fergie not being invited.
IMO a worse snub was PRINCE HARRY'S REPOR ON-OFF GIRLFRIEND CHELSY "I'M NOT GOING TO BE QUEEN IFF I MARRY PRINCE HARRY OR NOR, HENCE I DON'T CARE" DAVIS [spelling?] APPEARING TO BE THE ONLY FEMALE INVITEE/GUEST THAT SHOWED UP NOT WEARING ANYTHING SIGNIFICANT = BIG ON HER HEAD, save for a regular hair band. Prolly explains why the Medias focused more on Harry + other Royals, Ladies, e.g. POSH SPICE = VICTORIA BECKHAM, after Chelsy's arrival than later.
"I'M NOT-ANNA-LONGINOVA" POSH BECKHAM BLEW CHELSY AWAY, AS PER FASHION + PROTOCOL.
The wedding was smaller in scale than Charle's + Diana's back in 1981, but still very elegant + well-done.
#6
That little thing on the girlfriend's head is called a fascinator, JosephM. About as many women at the church today chose to wear one of those as wore proper hats. The new princess has been photographed in such things on other occasions.
#8
I don't know who this Thomas person is, but sounds like a blowhard wimp.
People getting married is neat stuff, especially for the right reasons, this just happens to be high publicity. Wife says last sentence is stupid, and I agree it has the key words of slanderers.
Nature vs. Nurture, I am straight down the middle; that is both are determinates. Too simply put, it is a D&D roll. Once a person comes out of the womb, they begin to be a product of environment - parents (who raises them). Example, no matter how hard I worked out I hit a peak, I am only so tall, my eyesight is so much, adrenaline at a point, so on. Now, how I use that becomes my decisions based upon my upbringing - am I a tunnel rat or am I a soccer player, do I stand up to a bully or do I shudder, do I fight or flight, how do I handle something new whether good or bad. These decisions create personality, or soul.
IMHO, and wife's, William is his own man and has chosen his life. Chuckie is only a peripheral, Charon if you will, and as someone who has gone out and did the deed, his decisions are his own and there he goes.
And piss on anyone who decounces any wedding based on social agendas, sad so called expert observer of life.
I piss on royalty, which is what Mr. Thomas procailms himself as, as my better. I have seen no such prejudices from Mr. or Mrs. William "the commoner" person. Whether they call themselve Kennedy, or Sebilius, or Baldwin, or whatever.
And no, I do not believe in the ruler for life; other very brave people fought against for my privilage of holding an opinion and said spirit still exists.
Officials blame the lay-offs, in a large part, to what they call an excessive bed tax the District government slapped on them and other hospitals in the city earlier this year. Hospitals in the city are required to pay $500 in taxes for every licensed bed they have.
Washington Hospital Center, one the largest hospitals in the District, has more than 900 beds.
That word you're probably looking for is "rapacious."
For three long years, the U.S. has been undertaking an experiment in economic policy. Could record levels of government spending, waves of new regulation and political credit allocation, and unprecedented monetary stimulus re-ignite growth? The results have been rolling in, and they represent what increasingly looks like an historic mistake that deserves to be called the Keynesian growth discount. Or uncalculated risks are KOOL
The latest evidence is yesterday's disappointing report of 1.8% in first quarter GDP. At this stage of recovery after a deep recession, the economy is typically growing by 4% or more as consumer confidence returns and businesses accelerate investment as their profits revive. Yet in this recovery consumers are still cautious and business investment remains weak.
Some of the first quarter's growth slump is due to seasonal factors such as bad weather and weaker defense spending. In the silver lining department, the private economy grew faster than the overall GDP figure because government spending declined. But even maintaining the 2.9% growth rate of 2010 would mark an historic underachievement for a recovery after a recession that was as deep as the one from late 2007 to mid-2009.
The most recent recession of comparable depth and job loss was in 1981-1982, when unemployment hit 10.8%. Huge chunks of industrial America shut down and never re-opened. Yet once the recovery began in earnest in the first quarter of 1983, the economy boomed. As the nearby table shows, growth exceeded 7.1% for five consecutive quarters, and it kept growing at nearly a 4% pace for another two years. Growth didn't dip below 2% in any quarter until the second three months of 1986. This was the Reagan boom.
Now look at the first seven quarters of the current recovery. Only briefly has growth hit 5%, in the fourth quarter of 2009 as businesses rebuilt inventories that had been pared to the bone. Growth has been mediocre ever since, sputtering to a near-stall in the middle of last year, accelerating modestly late last year, and now slowing again. This recovery is as weak as the much-maligned "jobless recovery" of the last decade, which followed a mild recession and at least gained speed after the tax cut of 2003.
Most striking is that this weak growth follows everything that the Keynesian playbook said politicians should throw at the economy. First came $168 billion in one-time tax rebates in February 2008 under George W. Bush, then $814 billion more in spending spread over 2009-2010, cash for clunkers, the $8,000 home buyer tax credit, Hamp to prevent home foreclosures, the Detroit auto bailouts, billions for green jobs, a payroll tax cut for 2011, and of course near-zero interest rates for 28 months buttressed by quantitative easing I and II. We're probably forgetting something.
Imagine if President Obama had introduced his original stimulus in February 2009 with the vow that, 26 months later, GDP would be growing by 1.8% and the jobless rate would be 8.8%. Does anyone think it would have passed?
View Full Image
1gdp
Associated Press
Shoppers on 34th Street in New York.
1gdp
1gdp
Liberal economists will blame this latest slowdown on spending cuts across all levels of government, and government spending did fall in the first quarter. But those modest declines follow the biggest government spending binge since World War II that was supposed to kick start the economy and then stop. Remember former White House chief economist Larry Summers's mantra that stimulus spending should be timely, targeted and temporary?
With deficits this year estimated to hit $1.65 trillion, are we really supposed to believe that more deficit spending will produce faster growth? Would $2 trillion do the trick, or how about $3 trillion? Two years after the stimulus debate began, the critics who said all of this spending would provide at most a temporary lift to GDP while saddling the economy with record deficits have been proven right.
The good news is that the private economy seems to have enough momentum to avoid a recession in the near term, but the danger is that growth will continue to be subpar. The evidence is that the combination of spendthrift fiscal policy and a wave of new regulatory costs and mandates are restraining business expansion and hiring.
Then there's the threat of higher tax rates on investment and business that we dodged for two years after the GOP won Congress but that President Obama has now promised for 2013 if he is re-elected. This too deters the animal spirits necessary for robust growth. The great risk is stagflation, a la the 1970s, when easy money tried to compensate for bad fiscal and regulatory policy, which led to sluggish growth, rising prices and declines in real wages.
***
The contrast in results between the current recovery and the Reagan years is instructive because the policy mix was so different. In the 1980s, the policy goals were to cut tax rates, reduce regulatory costs and uncertainty, let the private economy allocate capital free of political direction, and focus monetary policy on price stability rather than on reducing unemployment. This is the policy mix we need to rediscover if we are going to escape our current malaise and stop suffering from the Keynesian discount.
Posted by: Fi ||
04/29/2011 19:50 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
It is the liberal elites who revile the American colossus and devoutly wish to see it cut down to size. Leading from behind diminishing Americas global standing and assertiveness is a reaction to their view of America, not the worlds.
Other presidents have taken anti-Americanism as a given, rather than evidence of American malignancy, believing as do most Americans in the rightness of our cause and the nobility of our intentions. Obama thinks anti-Americanism is a verdict on Americas fitness for leadership. I would suggest that leading from behind is a verdict on Obamas fitness for leadership.
Leading from behind is not leading. It is abdicating. It is also an oxymoron. Yet a sympathetic journalist, channeling an Obama adviser, elevates it to a doctrine. The president is no doubt flattered. The rest of us are merely stunned.
Abbas's plan suffers from a fundamental misconception -- that the General Assembly has any authority to decide about the existence of new states. In fact, the assembly only has the power to make a non-binding recommendation to the world community that a Palestinian state should be established; Abbas would then have to actually declare a state and, by doing so, set the stage for gaining formal recognition by the major powers of the world.
What are the outlines of the new Palestinian state Abbas is hoping the international community will endorse? By all accounts, Abbas would like a U.N. resolution to delimit the borders of his new Palestinian state; in this context, he will seek control not only of the entire West Bank but the Gaza Strip as well. However, since Hamas's violent takeover in 2007, Abbas has been powerless in Gaza -- a fact that has complicated international recognition of Abbas's authority.
RCW: Recent events in Lebanon - government collapse, a looming tribunal decision on the Hariri assassination and periodic protests - are not encouraging. Is Lebanon primed for more violence and conflict?
MT: Probably. None of the outstanding issues that led to violent conflict in the past have been resolved. More war is almost assured in Lebanon, either between Hezbollah and its domestic enemies, between Hezbollah and the Israelis, or both. The status quo isn't sustainable.
The country basically has two governments - the ostensible government with its capital in Beirut, which controls most of the country, and Hezbollah with its effective capital in Tehran that controls the suburbs south of Beirut and the southern part of the country along the border with Israel. The country is too small and fractured to be partitioned, and no country is big enough for two governments. The state will eventually have to disarm Hezbollah, or Hezbollah will devour the state. And since Hezbollah is willing to kill their fellow Lebanese while the government and the pro-government Lebanese aren't, Hezbollah, for now anyway, is the horse to bet on.
RCW: Can the Obama administration shift Syria away from Iran?
MT: It won't work. Syria's President Bashar al-Assad is a blood-spattered tyrant and always has been. A number of officials in both the Republican and Democratic parties have been laboring under the delusion that he's a reformer, though I imagine they must be feeling a little chagrined at the moment now that he's using snipers to shoot peaceful demonstrators in the face. He is not going to reform, nor is he going to suddenly break his alliance with Tehran.
Assad's alliance with Iran and his support for terrorism in Iraq, Lebanon and Israel give Syria far more clout internationally that its size, economic might and conventional military power would ever allow. Syria would be no more geopolitically relevant than Yemen if Assad were to sever his ties with Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah. Trying to yank Syria out of that orbit is bound to fail for the same reason East Germany could not have been extracted from the communist bloc before the Soviet Union was in a state of collapse. Bashar al-Assad may be an Internet junky, and he may have been educated in London, but he was raised in the house of the ruthless Hafez al-Assad, and he will not play nice or go quietly.
#4
Oh my. Most people turn to strong language because that's all they have to say. It's a real pleasure to read what a good writer, who does have something to say, can do with a sprinkling of strong language judiciously applied.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
