Thursday, May 7, 2009

Common sense is just that

The liberal MSM gets it’s collective jollies calling critics of Obama’s spending orgy hypocrites due to their sudden concern for a tripling of the deficit. So why isn’t the ‘hypocrite’ charge equally valid when applied to those on the left who after 1/20/2009 are telling us deficits don’t matter?

This Brett Favre kabuki theater is really disgusting. First, because the sports media is actually covering it. This is, after all, the fourth or fifth year that Favre is playing his Hamlet-of-the-Huddle role. Why pay him any mind at all? Second, it is disgusting to witness a 40 year old man trying to get some revenge on his old boss for the great sin of moving on without him. If the Vikings actually sign him, and set themselves back a year or two, I truly hope Favre is still healthy for the late season game in Green Bay, and that the Packer defense squashes this selfish, ego-driven wash out.

In the 50’s Eisenhower dipped into deficit spending, and the US got the Interstate Highway System, a real asset. In the 60’s Johnson used deficit spending to fund the War on Poverty and Great Society. The US saw no reduction in poverty, decimation of inner city families, and public housing projects that became crime ridden war zones to live in. In the 80’s, Reagan used deficit spending to buy a 600 ship navy, Pershing II missiles, and started missile defense development. Real assets that made the Soviets realize they were in a race they would never win. Cold War over, no shots fired. Bush went into deficit spending to prosecute the War on Terror, sorry, “overseas contingency operations”, and 52 million real human beings were liberated from tyranny. An ROI that is beyond price. What can we expect from Obama’s spending?

How come the UAW winds up with a larger ownership stake in General Motors than the actual bondholders? Shouldn’t the people who actually risked their money own more of GM than the people most responsible for making the company’s financial obligations untenable? If you can’t see socialism in this, then you do not know what the word means, or you are willfully blind.

The New York Times deserves its coming fate. Ideologically driven leadership, ideologically driven editorial board, ideologically driven reporting. And its ideology is being rejected by (former) subscribers, at the newsstand, and on the Internet. The public is voting with their feet. Same goes for MSNBC and CNN. I happen to think this is a reflection of the general population’s fatigue with the liberal bent anywhere and everywhere you look. And the left is going to feel the backlash soon enough. Anyone for tea?

I think the US has to walk away from Pakistan. If the Pakistani Army (the best functioning organization in that country) cannot deal with both the Taliban within their borders, and their home grown Islamic extremists, then we should keep Pakistan at arms length. The US should get firmly behind India. Imagine the worst. An extremist Pakistan has a nuclear exchange with India. Pakistan is gone forever. Islamic extremism is crushed. India dusts itself off and moves on. That may sound simplistic, but an examination of the relative size and destructive capabilities of their respective arsenals and delivery systems bears out my assertion.

1 comment:

Hefty Lefty said...

It was Gorbachev who moved the USSR towards freedom. Reagan had little to do with it. And we can expect less poverty, fewer weapons, and greater peace from our new brilliant president.

Post a Comment