Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Commentary’ Category

The Obama legacy

I came across this extensive summary and couldn’t resist reprinting it. A Google search suggests that it originated in a thread called “The Barack Obama forum” on Amazon.

If anyone can come up with an list of uplifting Obama accomplishments, I’ll be more than happy to publish it was well. Until then I guess this fairly describes the President’s legacy.

*      *      *

Bob: “Hey Jim, did you hear about the Obama administration scandal?
Jim: “You mean the Mexican gun running?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “You mean SEAL Team 6?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “Obama saying the avg family would save $2,500 on their premiums?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “Forcing businesses to violate their religious beliefs by paying for drugs that abort the unborn?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “Violating the rights and sanctity of our Churches?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “Spending $634 million on a website that doesn’t work?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “Obama calling for an increase in our debt when he lambasted Bush for the very same thing?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “Obama having NSA spy on 124 Billion Phone Calls in One Month?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “Saddling our kids with $17 trillion in debt of which they can never get out of and will not have as good a life as we have?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “Bailing out Detroit after decades of corrupt Democratic management?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “You mean the State Dept. lying about Benghazi?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “You mean voter fraud?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “Intentionally trying to hurt Americans during the sequester?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “Blocking veterans who secured our freedoms from their monuments but giving the green light for Illegals to use Monument Mall?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “Denying school kids the ability to tour the White House but still spending lavishly on his parties?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “You mean Obama saying we can keep our insurance and doctors if we wanted to?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “You mean the military not getting their votes counted?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “The NSA monitoring foreign diplomats?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “You mean the use of drones in our own country without the benefit of the law?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “Giving 123 Technologies $300 Million and right after it declared bankruptcy and was sold to the Chinese?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “You mean the president arming the Muslim Brotherhood?”

Bob: “No the other one:.
Jim: “The IRS targeting conservatives?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “The DOJ spying on the press?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “Sebelius shaking down health insurance executives?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “You mean Obama spending $3.7 Trillion on Welfare Over Last 5 Years”

Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “Giving SOLYNDRA $500 MILLION DOLLARS and 3 months later they declared bankruptcy and then the Chinese bought it?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “The NSA monitoring our phone calls, emails and everything else?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “Millions of Americans losing their health care coverage?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “Forcing Americans to include coverage in their insurance policies of items they do not want?

Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “Ordering the release of nearly 10,000 illegal immigrants from jails and prisons, and falsely blaming the sequester?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “Denying Arizona the right to protect its borders?

Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “Providing weapons to Syrian rebels many of whom apparently are Al Queda”

Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “The president’s repeated violation of the law requiring him to submit a budget no later than the first Monday in February?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “The 2012 vote where 115% of all registered voters in some counties voted 100% for Obama?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “The president’s unconstitutional recess appointments in an attempt to circumvent the Senate’s advise-and-consent role?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “The State Department interfering with an Inspector General investigation on departmental sexual misconduct?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “Clinton, the IRS, Clapper and Holder all lying to Congress?”

Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “The President using nearly $1 trillion dollars of stimulus money to fund his cronies?”

Bob: “No, the other one”
Jim: “You mean Fast & Furious?

Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “I give up! …Oh wait, I think I got it! You mean that 65 million low-information voters who don’t pay taxes and get free stuff from taxpayers and stuck us again with the most pandering, corrupt administration in American history?”

Bob: “THAT’S THE ONE!”

Read Full Post »

American Exceptionalism

exceptionalismWhen it comes to denigrating the United States and it’s “self-proclaimed” exceptionalism, the world need only consider only one thing. At the end of World War II, this country had the means to conquer the world but it didn’t. Those who fail to recognize that decision as one that not only clearly defines this nation’s unique character but sets it apart from its powerful predecessors are either exceptionally disingenuous or have given up the right and obligation to think.

Read Full Post »

This is too true to be funny.

The next time you hear a politician use the word ‘billion’ in a casual manner, think about whether you want the ‘politicians’ spending YOUR tax money.

A billion is a difficult number to comprehend, but one advertising agency did a good job of putting that figure into some perspective in one of its press releases.

A billion seconds ago it was 1959.

A billion minutes ago Jesus was alive.

A billion hours ago our ancestors were living in the Stone Age.

A billion days ago no-one walked on the earth on two feet.

A billion dollars ago was only 8 hours and 20 minutes, at the rate our government is spending it.

While this thought is still fresh in our brain…let’s take a look at New Orleans … it’s amazing what you can learn with some simple division. Louisiana Senator, Mary Landrieu (D) was asking Congress for 250 BILLION DOLLARS to rebuild New Orleans. Interesting number but what does it mean?

If you are one of the 484,674 residents of New Orleans (every man, woman and child) you each get $516,528.

If you have one of the 188,251 homes in New Orleans, your home gets $1,329,787.

If you are a family of four…your family gets $2,066,012.

Washington, D.C. HELLO! Are all the calculators broken??

If these facts don’t get your attention, consider the following:

Building Permit Tax
CDL License Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Federal Income Tax (Fed)
Federal Unemployment Tax (FU TA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax)
IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Tax
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service charge Taxes
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax (Truckers)
Sales Taxes
Recreational Vehicle Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Tax
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage ChargeTax
Utility Tax
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax

(And to think, we left British Rule to avoid so many taxes)

STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY?

Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago…and our nation was the most prosperous in the world.

We had absolutely no national debt…we had the largest middle class in the world.

What happened? Can you spell “politicians”!

And I still have to Press ‘1’ for English.

I hope this goes around the USA at least 100 times. What has happened to our country?????

Read Full Post »

In defense of greed

In response to those who think government is the solution.

Read Full Post »

Thirty years ago I had occasion to hear a televised debate between William F. Buckley and Phil Donahue that has continued to have a profound affect on my life.  I would like to share the substance of that exchange so my readers will understand one of the reasons I decided to create this blog.

As you may or may not know, the late William F. Buckley, the founder and editor of National Review, was a well known advocate of conservatism.  Phil Donahue was (at the time of this particular exchange)  a fairly well known television personality and advocate of liberalism. (Please take note that I purposely avoided labeling Mr. Buckley a conservative or Mr. Donahue a liberal. There is a reason for that which I will explain in due course.)

On the day in question, Buckley had been invited to Donahue’s show to discuss some volatile subject. I don’t recall what the topic was but it was clear that toward the end of the interview the two had reached an intellectual impasse and it was the exchange that took place once that point was reached that ultimately resulted in an “ah ha” moment that to this day continues to have a profound effect on just about every aspect of my life.

Donahue, standing in an aisle in the midst of his audience, microphone in hand, hand on forehead, staring at the floor and thinking out loud, tried his best to bring the conversation to a favorable conclusion – that is to say favorable in the sense that his open mindedness would ultimately carry the day.

In an attempt to bring closure, Donahue predicated his closing remarks with the statement that reasonable men respect the opinions of others.  To my surprise Mr. Buckley immediately took issue with what most would have taken as a perfectly civil assertion.

While expressing the highest regard for Phil and his God given right to think for himself, this [Buckley said] did not carry with it an obligation to respect let alone embrace the legitimacy of the opinion Phil had expressed on the issue at hand. He concluded with the assertion that it is insane to think that one can grant respect to diametrically opposed ideas.  “If I agreed to respect the opinion you have expressed on this matter, I would be giving up the right to think.”

Read Full Post »

One of my biggest pet peeves relates to being asked how I feel about something. I fail to see how one’s emotional reaction to things has anything to do with much of anything, especially topics introduced by questions like those having to do with one’s artistic sensibilities.

After all, what has my emotional state got to do with an impending choice between cream or gravy colored paint for the living room walls? Would I find myself less depressed if I walked into a room that stimulates thoughts of vanilla ice cream or Ovaltine?

The thing that really bothers me about such questions is that all too often the interrogator comes off like a Diane Sawyer wanna be, a woman whose sole claim to fame seems to lie in her ability to introduce every story and interview as a sincere and intense emotional experience.

If you really think about it, you’ll discover that the question itself raises questions about the interrogator’s motivations depending on what word, if any, gets emphasis. First, what motivation might we assign the individual who emphasizes the word “do” apart from a bad case of premature assumption. What motivation might one assign the individual who puts an emphasis on the word “feel”?

The question also takes on entirely different meanings depending upon the emphasis the interrogator places on “do” or “you”.  When the emphasis is placed on “do” the inquisitor may be assuming that you really do have an emotional reaction you need to get out of your system.  If the emphasis is placed on “you”, then the  individual is asking you if you share their own emotional reaction. If the question is asked without emphasizing either, the question comes off as less intrusive but no less annoying.

Regardless of emphasis or a lack thereof, I think I’ve found a way to set the amateur interrogator back on his/her heels. The next time someone asks me how I feel about something I’ll just turn the tables and confront him/her with a quick and never ending barrage of the questions making sure he/she is not given ample time to answer them. Here’s a sampling.

  1. Are they still serving that soup like cheese covering on the macaroni back at the asylum? 
  2. Is Bob still there?
  3. Do I look like I need to get in touch with my feelings?
  4. If I don’t look like I need therapy, what did I do to make you think I was in need of therapy?
  5. Do you think everyone thinks I’m a basket case?
  6. What would you prescribe?
  7. How long will this course of treatment last?
  8. Are your services covered by Medicare?
  9. I have an aversion to pain. Do you think I’ll eventually need shock treatments?
  10. Is there a cure? If so, when do you think I’ll get better?
  11. Would it be just as easy for me to take a pill?
  12. How soon do you think I’ll be able to return to work?
  13. How long have you been conducting these sessions?
  14. Are you a member of the AMA?
  15. Do you really care how I feel about anything?
  16. What are your real  intentions?
  17. Are you looking for a fight?
  18. Is this Candid Camera? Am I being punked?
  19. Is this response being recorded? If so, who is going to have access to it?
  20. We’re getting a little personal aren’t we?
  21. What betrayed me? A facial expression?
  22. Do you want the short or long answer?
  23. Why aren’t you taking notes? Do you have a photographic memory?

I’ll only have one question remaining when they turn to leave and I’ll put great emphasis on “you. 

“Where are YOU going?”

About Anecdotal Blogging

.

Read Full Post »

Last night I had a strange wish and that was that Joe Friday would appear on the ABC News set, look straight into Diane Sawyer’s eyes, and say “Just the facts, ma’m. Just report the facts.”

Well, Joe didn’t show up and Diana went on to introduce every story as a deeply moving  emotional experience and, thereby, reinforce the nonsensical idea that her listeners are in need of their nightly sensitivity training session.

It’s no longer deemed appropriate to present the facts and allow listeners to draw their own conclusions. No, the facts must not only be interpreted, but, more importantly, put in an emotive context so we can better contrast the pain brought about by capitalism and the joys brought about by central government planning.

About Anecdotal Blogging

.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »