Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘current-events’

 

In a statement about the tyranny of the Internal Revenue Service, Obama declared that “Americans have a right to be angry about it, and I’m angry about it.”

 

This is BIG NEWS. The head of the Executive Branch has announced that there is a Right to be Angry.  Will someone please let me know where this is codified? The Federal Government usually uses the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to justify rights that were not previously enumerated, so does this mean that my right to be angry applies only to someone across the state line?

 

Will someone please tell me if this is a natural right or a fundamental right? Apparently not all rights are equal rights, and I am struggling to understand how the right to be angry could be politically correct. Yet, simple deductive logic would show it must be a PC right because none other than Mr. Obama himself has said so.

 

I am glad to see the President is exercising his right to anger. This will go a long way in modifying the stodgy old mores of society.  Not that long ago, only radical groups and inner city gangs routinely displayed anger in public. I am sure that with the President’s endorsement of such a powerful emotion, the Untied States will flourish. (BTW, there is no spelling error in that last sentence.) Soon, folks everywhere will be angrier than ever before.

 

In the past, many people bad-mouthed the God of the Old Testament for using lightning, thundering, earthquakes, plagues, and other displays of anger.  At long last, the President is ruling with a rod of irony.

Read Full Post »

I checked in to the election coverage of the day and saw this headline, “OBAMA: ‘A New America In Which Prosperity Is Shared'”

I was skeptical, but tried to remain objective. I clicked for the quote. Here it is:


“Do we go forward towards a new vision of an America in which prosperity is shared?” Obama asked. “Or do we go backward to the same policies that got us in the mess in the first place?”

Seriously? Who is writing this guy’s speeches?

Anyone who has passed second grade arithmetic and learned about borrowing in subtraction problems is going to recognize that the “sharing exemplar” taught back in one’s pre-K classes is an outmoded paradigm. Sharing cookies never created more cookies, just more crumbs; and every time something is borrowed from the tens column to make the ones bigger, the tens lose a major chunk of their value.

As I recollect, Old King George thought that the colonists ought to “share the wealth” too. They did not like it very much. That was fifth grade social studies.

I suppose a true cynic would say that before one can share prosperity, one must first have prosperity. I don’t think I learned that in school at all. I think I probably overheard that attitude from some late-night comic.

It is rather curious that Obama would bring up “the same policies that got us in the mess,” as if he’d been doing absolutely nothing the past three-and a half years.

Not to Worry, Mr. Obama. I know you have been doing stuff. The headline right before that one said, “Treasury: U.S. to lose $25 billion on auto bailout.” David Shephardson of the Detroit News explains, “The Treasury Department says in a new report the government expects to lose more than $25 billion on the $85 billion auto bailout. That’s 15 percent higher than its previous forecast.” The loss was calculated two months ago when GM stock sold for $22.20 a share. It has since dropped to $20.47, making the loss to taxpayers even greater. Okay, perhaps the economics of the stock market was not studied until high school, but I think most people can understand that the President has been working hard to save a vital industry that has been held in the thrall of labor unions that contribute to his campaign.

Of course, you really do not need a formal education to select a President. You can always fall back on getting your information from TMZ instead.

Other credits
The headline video The Prosperity Shared Video
The auto bailout article
The Detroit News article

Read Full Post »

I have been reading the news stories and seeing how Dan Cathy’s seemingly ordinary interview with the Baptist Press suddenly took on a life of its own. Dan Cathy is the CEO of Chick-fil-A. Years ago, I read the autobiography of Dan’s dad, Truett Cathy, It’s Easier to Succeed than to Fail. Considering that Chick-fil-A is a family owned business, there was nothing in the recent interview that should have come as a surprise. As the saying goes, the acorn does not fall far from the tree.

It occurred to me that the over-reaction of the GLBT is a lot like the cows used in the Chick-fil-A ad campaigns. The company is known for its billboards with cows almost as well as it is known for its chicken sandwiches and for being closed on Sundays.

The cows are Holsteins, and as dairy cattle, their lives are not endangered. They are far more likely to be kept alive as contributors to your milkshake than they are to be slaughtered for burgers. The cows are forever making a big media fuss on billboards, acting like mortal peril is imminent, when no one has suggested butchering them at all!

Why is the Jim Henson Company making such a big squawk about severing ties now? If they truly cared about social issues, then they ought to have researched their business partners before signing the contracts. If they did not know what Chick-fil-A was all about before now, then they are dumber (and probably more neurotic) than Telly Monster.

The billboard bovines are poor logicians. One cannot deduce attitudes toward beef consumption based solely on a preference for chicken. Similarly, one should not presume an anti-gay disposition based on a preference for traditional marriage. If that were true, then all gays must hate heterosexuals.

… … do you think that is possible?

Read Full Post »