The Joe Biden Theory of Police Presence and Increases of Instances of Rape can be put to teh test in other areas besides Republican fiscal responsibility.
Joe Biden supports OWS and like movements across the country.
Prominent officials' support of such movements encourage local city governments to tolerate their presence no matter how violent, unhealthful, etc. they get.
A large assemblage of shady characters requires a larger than normal police presence.
Those police are not on their usual beats.
This causes rapes.
Therefore, according to his own logic . . .
Joe Biden causes rape.
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
If We Wanted to: How to Comply With OWS Demands
OWS demands pretty much fly all over the place. This should get even more freaktastic now that Islamic militants have joined in common cause bare breasted hippie girls that have (useless) college degrees. But a few stand out. Universal distribution of food and through the roof minimum wages are only a couple of the proposals/demands heard from these protests.
Conservatives claim that such demands are impossible. We are wrong. They are possible, as well as easy, to fulfill. We cannot do these things through simple taxation because American businesses and individuals simply do not have enough wealth to cover the bill.
One model of society that could satisfy the demands made by OWS was proposed over two thousand years ago in Plato's Republic.
Hippies would love this. Philosophers, defined by Plato as the enlightened, not necessarily the ones from the ivory tower, get to rule. Bankers, soldiers, merchants, artists, and professionals have their place in this system. The intelligent, educated, and enlightened get to spend all of their time pursuing the work that fulfills them and avoiding other kinds of dull or dangerous labor.
Sounds great so far. Just what the young want. Fulfilling work that pays. There is a catch, though. Plato insists that each person fulfill their intended roles. He then lists a number of jobs and includes the word "slave" in the list. Plato's model state rests on slavery. This produces the wealth that enables everyone else to pursue their dreams without worrying about who digs the ditches.
Let's say that we don't want to enslave anyone. We can still pay off the debt and do as OWS desires, at least for a few decades. The answer is conquest. Yes, we can pay for everything by seizing the wealth and resources of neighboring states. We have military strength and resources to seize Canada, Mexico, Cuba, and any other nearby area that suits our needs. We then just take what we want for the greater good.
Towards the end of the Roman Republic, the masses were encouraged by opportunistic political leaders to demand more and more handouts. The constitution, once revered, was increasingly seen as an obstacle rather than a guardian. Poor leaders demanded action now, even if it violated individual rights and constitutional law. Once leaders started down that road, it led to civil wars, conquests, and, eventually, an empire led by insane tyrants.
Yes we can do what OWS wants. We could enslave our own population. Or conquer others and lose our own constitution in the process. Or we could ignore the simple minded drivel and make long term plans to cut spending, cut regulation, spur economic growth, and diligently climb out of the mess created by greedy government.
Conservatives claim that such demands are impossible. We are wrong. They are possible, as well as easy, to fulfill. We cannot do these things through simple taxation because American businesses and individuals simply do not have enough wealth to cover the bill.
One model of society that could satisfy the demands made by OWS was proposed over two thousand years ago in Plato's Republic.
Hippies would love this. Philosophers, defined by Plato as the enlightened, not necessarily the ones from the ivory tower, get to rule. Bankers, soldiers, merchants, artists, and professionals have their place in this system. The intelligent, educated, and enlightened get to spend all of their time pursuing the work that fulfills them and avoiding other kinds of dull or dangerous labor.
Sounds great so far. Just what the young want. Fulfilling work that pays. There is a catch, though. Plato insists that each person fulfill their intended roles. He then lists a number of jobs and includes the word "slave" in the list. Plato's model state rests on slavery. This produces the wealth that enables everyone else to pursue their dreams without worrying about who digs the ditches.
Let's say that we don't want to enslave anyone. We can still pay off the debt and do as OWS desires, at least for a few decades. The answer is conquest. Yes, we can pay for everything by seizing the wealth and resources of neighboring states. We have military strength and resources to seize Canada, Mexico, Cuba, and any other nearby area that suits our needs. We then just take what we want for the greater good.
Towards the end of the Roman Republic, the masses were encouraged by opportunistic political leaders to demand more and more handouts. The constitution, once revered, was increasingly seen as an obstacle rather than a guardian. Poor leaders demanded action now, even if it violated individual rights and constitutional law. Once leaders started down that road, it led to civil wars, conquests, and, eventually, an empire led by insane tyrants.
Yes we can do what OWS wants. We could enslave our own population. Or conquer others and lose our own constitution in the process. Or we could ignore the simple minded drivel and make long term plans to cut spending, cut regulation, spur economic growth, and diligently climb out of the mess created by greedy government.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Ann Coulter
I had a chance to see Ann Coulter at Georgetown University last week. She put on an impressive show.
About 2/3 of the student crowd were respectfully hostile. Coulter delivered a lively and confrontational performance. She did not just want to preach to the choir, but also to afflict the comfortable liberals and leftists in their own academic lair.
Coulter cast her lines and reeled them in. No one disrupted the forty minute speech, but the question and answer session, called by Coulter "the fun part," brought forth lines of undergraduate students offering themselves up as neophyte gladiators against a master of rhetoric.
An academic world dominated by leftists and liberals can only with difficulty produce people of that ideology who can argue their own cause. The best resorted to ad hominem attacks against her while the worst spouted incoherent and untrue anecdotes of things that were said to have happened ten years ago. At one point, in mock frustration, she stated that she gave them a half an hour of actual issues to attack her on, but none of them were creative enough to go beyond what they found on "AnnCoulterisacword.com" talking points.
It's true. They attacked her language and image, but none took issue with the substance of her speech on economics and society.
Most amazingly, a few of the very critical questioners, whom she dispatched easily, showed up afterwards, her $29 book in hand, to get an autograph and shake her hand.
It reminded me of a scene from the movie Private Parts where the network executives were aghast that not only did Howard Stern's fans listen regularly, but also those who hated and complained about him.
In this sense, Ann Coulter entertains liberals. She offers herself and her views on their turf and invites their attacks. Like the old contests where an average guy can win a prize if he lasts three minutes with a boxing champion, they test themselves. They come out the loser each time, but they can at least brag that they faced their conservative devil and lived to tell the tale. Coulter goes beyond the preaching to the choir mentality that a lot of commentators have. She engages, entertains, and provokes. Very likely, liberals often leave a presentation of hers at least rethinking some of their ideals because she presents her own very logically. But they also enjoy the kind of rhetorical tussle with an accomplished conservative that rarely happens on a college campus.
It's also obvious that she loves the fight as well.
About 2/3 of the student crowd were respectfully hostile. Coulter delivered a lively and confrontational performance. She did not just want to preach to the choir, but also to afflict the comfortable liberals and leftists in their own academic lair.
Coulter cast her lines and reeled them in. No one disrupted the forty minute speech, but the question and answer session, called by Coulter "the fun part," brought forth lines of undergraduate students offering themselves up as neophyte gladiators against a master of rhetoric.
An academic world dominated by leftists and liberals can only with difficulty produce people of that ideology who can argue their own cause. The best resorted to ad hominem attacks against her while the worst spouted incoherent and untrue anecdotes of things that were said to have happened ten years ago. At one point, in mock frustration, she stated that she gave them a half an hour of actual issues to attack her on, but none of them were creative enough to go beyond what they found on "AnnCoulterisacword.com" talking points.
It's true. They attacked her language and image, but none took issue with the substance of her speech on economics and society.
Most amazingly, a few of the very critical questioners, whom she dispatched easily, showed up afterwards, her $29 book in hand, to get an autograph and shake her hand.
It reminded me of a scene from the movie Private Parts where the network executives were aghast that not only did Howard Stern's fans listen regularly, but also those who hated and complained about him.
In this sense, Ann Coulter entertains liberals. She offers herself and her views on their turf and invites their attacks. Like the old contests where an average guy can win a prize if he lasts three minutes with a boxing champion, they test themselves. They come out the loser each time, but they can at least brag that they faced their conservative devil and lived to tell the tale. Coulter goes beyond the preaching to the choir mentality that a lot of commentators have. She engages, entertains, and provokes. Very likely, liberals often leave a presentation of hers at least rethinking some of their ideals because she presents her own very logically. But they also enjoy the kind of rhetorical tussle with an accomplished conservative that rarely happens on a college campus.
It's also obvious that she loves the fight as well.
Monday, October 24, 2011
Republicans Need to Talk Team In Presidential Race
America is living through a crisis that we have not seen in two generations. Somewhere between the Carter years and the Great Depression is our economic mess, caused by big government, easy credit, tax policy that is beyond stupid, and overregulation.
Republican presidential candidates and political minds, too influenced by both "The Won" and the Ron, offer themselves as the solution.
Most of us following the chase for the Republican nomination know that no free market white knight messiah exists on stage. One has personal baggage, the presumed winner before it starts is more liberal than Joe Manchin, another sees aggressive foreign policy as a covenant with death, the leader's demise has already been predicted, and the guy from Texas is just making it up as he goes along.
The GOP choices look way too much like a Washington Redskins quarterback controversy. All bring strengths to the table, but none stand out as a definite winning horse, not yet anyway.
So I want to hear something more team oriented. Not "I." We don't have complete confidence in any of you yet. You have all had failings and flaws at some point. You all bring weaknesses to the table, even you, Newt. Talk about the team. Talk about working with John Boehner, other prominent members of Congress such as Allen West and Marco Rubio, state governors, and even each other.
What we actually have is a slate full of great potential Cabinet appointees. Paul at Treasury (imagine the Federal Reserve boys if he actually got that appointment!), Gingrich at State, Romney or Cain at Commerce, Perry at Homeland Security. Bachman should stay where she is and work towards a committee chairmanship. Santorum to Labor, or something else domestic. But we have to pick one of these people for president.
Conservatives ridiculed and decried "The Won." Now we are foolishly looking for our own version. We only got one of those in the past century and some countries never see his ilk in their entire histories. They need to talk about how they will work together after the primaries and a successful GOP campaign. Even Romney and Perry, who obviously share some dislike, need to talk about cooperating in the future.
The team concept is how to sell the GOP nominee to the country. You don't just get the nominee, but you also get the Republican team. The adults are coming back to set things right again.
Republican presidential candidates and political minds, too influenced by both "The Won" and the Ron, offer themselves as the solution.
Most of us following the chase for the Republican nomination know that no free market white knight messiah exists on stage. One has personal baggage, the presumed winner before it starts is more liberal than Joe Manchin, another sees aggressive foreign policy as a covenant with death, the leader's demise has already been predicted, and the guy from Texas is just making it up as he goes along.
The GOP choices look way too much like a Washington Redskins quarterback controversy. All bring strengths to the table, but none stand out as a definite winning horse, not yet anyway.
So I want to hear something more team oriented. Not "I." We don't have complete confidence in any of you yet. You have all had failings and flaws at some point. You all bring weaknesses to the table, even you, Newt. Talk about the team. Talk about working with John Boehner, other prominent members of Congress such as Allen West and Marco Rubio, state governors, and even each other.
What we actually have is a slate full of great potential Cabinet appointees. Paul at Treasury (imagine the Federal Reserve boys if he actually got that appointment!), Gingrich at State, Romney or Cain at Commerce, Perry at Homeland Security. Bachman should stay where she is and work towards a committee chairmanship. Santorum to Labor, or something else domestic. But we have to pick one of these people for president.
Conservatives ridiculed and decried "The Won." Now we are foolishly looking for our own version. We only got one of those in the past century and some countries never see his ilk in their entire histories. They need to talk about how they will work together after the primaries and a successful GOP campaign. Even Romney and Perry, who obviously share some dislike, need to talk about cooperating in the future.
The team concept is how to sell the GOP nominee to the country. You don't just get the nominee, but you also get the Republican team. The adults are coming back to set things right again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)