Obama Slays Another Straw Man

-- by Micheal

In remarks during a speech in Maryland on Thursday, Obama attempts to make himself look progressive by besting a fake foe.  Obama claimed that president Rutherford B. Hayes failed to get his image carved on Mount Rushmore because he thought the new telephone technology was a waste of time.

Really? That's the best Obama could do? Dig up an obscure president from the 1870s to prove how forward-thinking HE is? That would be pretty lame, even if it were true, which it is not.

First off, there are only four presidents on Mount Rushmore. When it was begun in the 1920s, there had been 34 presidents. That meant that 30 of them did not make the cut. So how significant is it, really, to NOT be on Mount Rushmore? Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and Roosevelt were selected because they either protected the republic, or expanded it. Technophilia was never a criteria.

Second, there is no record that Hayes ever said 'It's a great invention but who would ever want to use one?'.  Like many a famous line, it's more urban legend than real history.  As a matter of fact, Nan Card, curator of the Rutherford B. Hayes Presidential Center said there's no record Hayes ever said that, and that Hayes was actually the first president to have a telephone in the White House.

So, Obama tries to show how forward thinking he is, by citing a fake "failure" of a minor president from over 100 years ago, with false facts.

Lame as it is, it will probably work for Obama. To paraphrase Santayana: Those who are clueless about history, are doomed to be duped by politicians who fabricate it.

The OTHER 1%

--- by Micheal

When I walked to South Station in Boston on Monday, I noticed all the "Occupy Boston" folks, and tents and signs were gone. All there was were policemen, barricades and fresh green sod.  I'd seen the crudely made cardboard signs on my evening commute. "We are the 99%" some said.  Since they, the 99, seemed to have nothing to do with me, and I wasn't the evil rich 1%, I had to wonder what percent I was. Zero maybe?

The whole "Occupy" movement was crafted to resemble the popular uprisings in Tunisia, Libya and Egypt.  What was totally lacking, however, was any kind of a similar coherent message. As demonstrators, they had no demand that could be granted. The arab youth demanded that Ben Ali, or Mubarak or Kadafi be removed. The old anti-war protesters of the 60s had a demand: stop the war.  There was something the authorities to could do. Some action to satisfy the protesters. The Occupy groups, had no collective demand.  The could never be satisfied.

Instead, they seemed to have had a bunch of pre-existing demands -- Capitalism is Bad, Stop Greed, Free Healthcare For All, Legalize Marijuana, Stop Global Warming, End Nuclear Power, Stop Wars, Stop Supporting Israel, etc. etc.  Google "OWS Signs", and see some for yourself.  There is no coherence to them.  There is also nothing new to them.

It occurred to me, riding the bus back home, that these were all the old "Progressive" agenda items from the past forty years. These people have always been with us. There has always been some small percentage of our population which rants about something or other. 

They are the other one percent. Not the richest 1%, but the angriest 1%. 

They don't agree on what their issue d' jour is: whales, nukes, healthcare, war, weed, greed, whatever. What they agree on is that they're angry the world isn't doing things the way they want. These are the vocal, angry one percent who were sufficiently funded from somewhere, to camp in city squares, chant and hold cardboard signs.  When they held up their signs declaring they are the 99%, they were apparently very wrong.  They are not the 99%, They are just a different 1%.  The lack of any popular uprising, as in the Arab Spring countries, should prove this out. The real 99 did not rally behind this other 1%.

Speaking as one of the real 99, I don't mind that this other 1% are submerging again.

Who Is Responsible?

--- by Micheal

A recent article in the Union Leader titled "Suit dropped over defective deer stand" (11/22, p B1) raises the critical question of Who Is Responsible?  In the article, we learned that a man fell from a "defective" tree stand and was "permanently injured."

Tragic, right? Someone's got to pay for this injustice. Right? So, whether on his own gumption or pursued by lawyers eager to become the 1%, the land owner was sued. How dare he have defective personal property? How irresponsible. Make him pay!

Trouble was, the man who gave the hunter permission was not the property owner. In fact, the real property owner never installed tree stands. Oops. Sorry. Suit dropped. Nevermind.

But wait. If the land owner isn't responsible, who is? Someone has to be responsible, don't they? Whenever anything goes wrong (or at least not the way we wanted it to), someone (else) must be responsible and so should pay big-time.  That's what's made America what it is today!

Problem is, Mr. Jasmin is still "permanently injured" (whatever that means). Whose fault is it? By dropping the suit, the lawyers seem to be admitting that it might just be Jasmin's own fault. He climbed the tree. He sat in the stand. Did he check it out to see if it was sturdy enough first? Does Jasmin have a legal right to go hunting and never get hurt? What if he tripped and hit his head on a rock? Who do you sue then?

Admittedly, I don't have all the background facts, but simply dropping the suit is evidence enough. Mr. Jasmin was responsible for himself. His "permanent injury" is his own problem, no one else's.

This is a legal decision that needs to be applied all over our litigious quagmire of a culture. You are NOT a ward of the state. You are an adult, responsible for your own actions -- and the results of them. If you put hot coffee between your legs and get scaled, that's your problem.  If you use your lawnmower as a hedge trimmer and cut off your finger, that's your problem. If you are too obese to fit into a fast-food booth, that's your problem.

Want to stimulate the economy? Stop accepting the stifling culture of frivolous litigation. The law can protect us from swindlers and malice, but it should never be used as a substitute for our responsibility for ourselves.

Seeking Non-Romney

-- by Micheal

What is it about Romney that makes the larger GOP keep looking for anyone else to be their front runner?

First it was Bachmann. Best thing since sliced bread. Then she faded out. After some muddled anticipation that it might be Palin, Perry jumps in. Almost instantly, HE is acclaimed as Sliced Bread.

After a bit of exposure, and some foot-in-mouth trouble, Perry loses his Sliced Bread crown. Almost as if the GOP power brokers didn't want Romney grabbing it, they quickly bestow it upon Herman Cain. HE is the new Sliced Bread.

After a bit of exposure, and some pesky accusations, Cain had the Sliced Bread crown yanked from his hands too.  Again, there seemed to be an awkward silence in GOP land, as if trying to decide who else to crown. (but not Romney)  Now it seems like Gingrich is being given his turn as Sliced Bread king.

After a bit of exposure, will Gingrich have the crown yanked from him? Most likely.

The open question is, why is the GOP machine trying so hard to NOT pick Romney?

It all reminds me of 3rd grade and picking teams for softball. The pool of kids has narrowed to Robin, the fat girl who just could not run, Miller the special needs kid, and myself.  The two team captains squint long and hard at the three of us. Finally, the one captain picks Robin.  Then it's down to me and Miller. The other captain takes even longer to decide between me and Miller.

Seriously? It's that hard to decide? Miller, nice kid in his own way, but could not put his two hands together without a half-hour of practice with the teacher's aide. Catch a ball? Not a chance.

But the other captain picked Miller over me.  The "losing" captain rolls his eyes and whines that he got me. Solid leadership material, that captain.

I have to wonder if Romney feels like I did.  The GOP seems eager to pick ANYONE else but him, no matter how bad. Why? What bones does he have under HIS bed? Or is it that he's as charismatic as, say, a slice of bread?

If the GOP is forced to pick a slice of bread to run against Obama, it would seem Obama will probably win.