Curtis Dahlgren
"You can't DO that. You can't SAY that!" [BUT WHO SAYS SO?]
By Curtis Dahlgren
"Diplomacy, like politics, is the art of the possible; and if we use our leverage toward an unachievable end, we will create a mess." – George Ball
ANOTHER PARADOX! Some days the comic strips are our only salvation. In a recent Dilbert strip, his boss says, "The key to success is ignoring the people who say it can't be done." And Dilbert says:
"But what if they're right?" And his boss says:
"They aren't right.," and Dilbert says:
"Really? Other people are never right?"
Point is, people who think that they're never wrong are dangerous. Dangerous on both the foreign and domestic policy fronts. By analogy, Dilbert's boss is a metaphor for national leaders who think that the opposition is never right! A president who assumes he has a monopoly on "RIGHT" thinks that the "people" are working for him – not the other way around ("If you love me you gotta help me pass this bill; and if you don't love me, you'd better keep your mouth shut."). He even says to Congress, "Who are YOU? I am the throne" [whether his goals are "achievable" or not]!
One hundred percent insurance coverage was never achievable, and "income equality" is also not achievable, and when one uses his leverage or spends his political capital toward such an end, in the words of George Ball, we create a mess (such as the mess that the Venezuelans are enduring). I have family who have family in Venezuela and they say that Chavez' successor is even worse than Hugo was.
You think modern America is "unfair"? Try living without toilet paper under a socialist government that has spread misery "equally"! Under free enterprise in America, the only toilet paper problem we have is when one paper company sues another one for trademark infringement involving the flowers embossed on the TP. That plus Hollywood stars who nag us about using more than three squares a day (if they want to reduce paper usage, let them just go to the bathroom every other day).
Speaking of "fairness," the White House nags us about overtime pay for over 40 hours (while a lot of people wish they had 40 hours of work). We old COOTS (coming out of the shadows) remember growing up on the dairy farm and in the summer we used to work 40 hours a week before noon and 40 hours a week between noon and sundown (and we got paid with room and board). BTW, the reason slavery was stopped cold at the Kansas state line is because farmers had KIDS to do that kind of work. We farm boys just laugh at the complaints of today's "victims."
The point is: We need some balance in politics and academe. Forget the rhetoric and demagoguery. Let's forget the unachievable ends, push for the achievable ends, and be able to tell the difference between the two!
Some of our political "experts" claim that it's impossible to repeal Obamacare or stop the invasion from the "South." That's what the Whig party thought after the compromise of 1850. They thought the issue of slavery was "settled" and that if they didn't talk about it anymore, the issue would go away! Likewise, Country Club RINOs think that the Era of Reagan is over, and the principles of Reagan will go away if they don't talk about them anymore.
Those "experts" think that a Reagan could never win in the "21st century," but even the politically incorrect Reagan Democrats know better than that. "Let your aye be aye and your nay, NAY," says the Good Book. The Democrat party survived because they were consistently the party of NO on freedom and civil rights, while the Whigs were the lukewarm, middle-of-the-road, all things to all people party. The Whig party became extinct therefore.
THE CONCLUSION: Lincoln warned the Republicans in 1860 not to seek some "middle ground between the Right and the Wrong." Like Reagan's, the era of Lincoln's principles are not "OVER." Jefferson said, "In matters of style, go with the flow, but in matters of principle, stand like a rock." Without principles, the Whig party had died years before, essentially killed by the issue of immigration (immigration of slavery into the federal Territories).
P.S. The Old Media (TV and the dead-tree-paper-press) act more and more like Pravda and Izvestia. They are now spending an inordinate amount of time talking about a guy named Sterling so that they don't have to cover Syria, White House scandals, or over-reaching outrages by the Federalis (think cattle in Nevada or the nixing of the Keystone pipeline). At least in Russia they call the state-controlled media the state-controlled media! We can call the New York Times – literally now – "deadwood."
PPS: Charlotte in my rear-view mirror.
The reason this column is late is because I was in North Carolina visiting relatives. It was in the 80s when I left Charlotte and in the 30s when I got home. We still have piles of snow in the Banana Belt of the Upper Peninsula on the last day of April! If winter lasts any longer, farmers may have to cancel the planting season. The coldest day of the winter was in March and May is coming in like a lion in places such as Marquette (4 or 5 inches of new snow I heard).
Still believe in man-made global warming? Don't start with me. You don't want to go there Buddy! For example, get a load of this:
– 17 December 2012 (from TheCommentator) –
Supporters and detractors of Greenpeace alike will be familiar with co-founder Patrick Moore's stance on the controversial NGO; he basically doesn't think much of it at all.
And he's not letting up.
According to quotes reported by New Zealand-based website Voxy.co.nz, Moore has suggested that Greenpeace should not gain charitable status in New Zealand.
It's worth quoting from the article at length since it makes for some seriously uncomfortable reading for the anti-growth group:
"I find Greenpeace's latest attempt to seek charitable status in New Zealand via the Charities Registration Board to be ironic," said Moore, adding: "My view is that the organization I helped found and lead during the 70s and 80s is anything but charitable today."
"Since I left Greenpeace, its members, and the majority of the movement, have adopted policy after policy that reflects their anti-human bias, illustrates their rejection of science and technology, and actually increases the risk of harm to people and the environment."
"Greenpeace has a zero tolerance for genetically modified food crops, even though this technology reduces pesticide use and improves nutrition for people who suffer from malnutrition."
"They are opposed nuclear energy, even though it is the best technology to replace fossil fuels and reduce greenhouse gas emissions while meeting growing electricity demand."
A formidable combination of blows there from Moore; but he saves the best till last:
"There's no reason to reward Greenpeace's misinformation campaigns with a subsidy from New Zealand taxpayers."
Hear him, hear him.
Read more on: Patrick Moore, greenpeace, and The Commentator [kudos to them] -
© Curtis Dahlgren
May 1, 2014
"Diplomacy, like politics, is the art of the possible; and if we use our leverage toward an unachievable end, we will create a mess." – George Ball
ANOTHER PARADOX! Some days the comic strips are our only salvation. In a recent Dilbert strip, his boss says, "The key to success is ignoring the people who say it can't be done." And Dilbert says:
"But what if they're right?" And his boss says:
"They aren't right.," and Dilbert says:
"Really? Other people are never right?"
Point is, people who think that they're never wrong are dangerous. Dangerous on both the foreign and domestic policy fronts. By analogy, Dilbert's boss is a metaphor for national leaders who think that the opposition is never right! A president who assumes he has a monopoly on "RIGHT" thinks that the "people" are working for him – not the other way around ("If you love me you gotta help me pass this bill; and if you don't love me, you'd better keep your mouth shut."). He even says to Congress, "Who are YOU? I am the throne" [whether his goals are "achievable" or not]!
One hundred percent insurance coverage was never achievable, and "income equality" is also not achievable, and when one uses his leverage or spends his political capital toward such an end, in the words of George Ball, we create a mess (such as the mess that the Venezuelans are enduring). I have family who have family in Venezuela and they say that Chavez' successor is even worse than Hugo was.
You think modern America is "unfair"? Try living without toilet paper under a socialist government that has spread misery "equally"! Under free enterprise in America, the only toilet paper problem we have is when one paper company sues another one for trademark infringement involving the flowers embossed on the TP. That plus Hollywood stars who nag us about using more than three squares a day (if they want to reduce paper usage, let them just go to the bathroom every other day).
Speaking of "fairness," the White House nags us about overtime pay for over 40 hours (while a lot of people wish they had 40 hours of work). We old COOTS (coming out of the shadows) remember growing up on the dairy farm and in the summer we used to work 40 hours a week before noon and 40 hours a week between noon and sundown (and we got paid with room and board). BTW, the reason slavery was stopped cold at the Kansas state line is because farmers had KIDS to do that kind of work. We farm boys just laugh at the complaints of today's "victims."
The point is: We need some balance in politics and academe. Forget the rhetoric and demagoguery. Let's forget the unachievable ends, push for the achievable ends, and be able to tell the difference between the two!
Some of our political "experts" claim that it's impossible to repeal Obamacare or stop the invasion from the "South." That's what the Whig party thought after the compromise of 1850. They thought the issue of slavery was "settled" and that if they didn't talk about it anymore, the issue would go away! Likewise, Country Club RINOs think that the Era of Reagan is over, and the principles of Reagan will go away if they don't talk about them anymore.
Those "experts" think that a Reagan could never win in the "21st century," but even the politically incorrect Reagan Democrats know better than that. "Let your aye be aye and your nay, NAY," says the Good Book. The Democrat party survived because they were consistently the party of NO on freedom and civil rights, while the Whigs were the lukewarm, middle-of-the-road, all things to all people party. The Whig party became extinct therefore.
THE CONCLUSION: Lincoln warned the Republicans in 1860 not to seek some "middle ground between the Right and the Wrong." Like Reagan's, the era of Lincoln's principles are not "OVER." Jefferson said, "In matters of style, go with the flow, but in matters of principle, stand like a rock." Without principles, the Whig party had died years before, essentially killed by the issue of immigration (immigration of slavery into the federal Territories).
P.S. The Old Media (TV and the dead-tree-paper-press) act more and more like Pravda and Izvestia. They are now spending an inordinate amount of time talking about a guy named Sterling so that they don't have to cover Syria, White House scandals, or over-reaching outrages by the Federalis (think cattle in Nevada or the nixing of the Keystone pipeline). At least in Russia they call the state-controlled media the state-controlled media! We can call the New York Times – literally now – "deadwood."
PPS: Charlotte in my rear-view mirror.
The reason this column is late is because I was in North Carolina visiting relatives. It was in the 80s when I left Charlotte and in the 30s when I got home. We still have piles of snow in the Banana Belt of the Upper Peninsula on the last day of April! If winter lasts any longer, farmers may have to cancel the planting season. The coldest day of the winter was in March and May is coming in like a lion in places such as Marquette (4 or 5 inches of new snow I heard).
Still believe in man-made global warming? Don't start with me. You don't want to go there Buddy! For example, get a load of this:
– 17 December 2012 (from TheCommentator) –
Supporters and detractors of Greenpeace alike will be familiar with co-founder Patrick Moore's stance on the controversial NGO; he basically doesn't think much of it at all.
And he's not letting up.
According to quotes reported by New Zealand-based website Voxy.co.nz, Moore has suggested that Greenpeace should not gain charitable status in New Zealand.
It's worth quoting from the article at length since it makes for some seriously uncomfortable reading for the anti-growth group:
"I find Greenpeace's latest attempt to seek charitable status in New Zealand via the Charities Registration Board to be ironic," said Moore, adding: "My view is that the organization I helped found and lead during the 70s and 80s is anything but charitable today."
"Since I left Greenpeace, its members, and the majority of the movement, have adopted policy after policy that reflects their anti-human bias, illustrates their rejection of science and technology, and actually increases the risk of harm to people and the environment."
"Greenpeace has a zero tolerance for genetically modified food crops, even though this technology reduces pesticide use and improves nutrition for people who suffer from malnutrition."
"They are opposed nuclear energy, even though it is the best technology to replace fossil fuels and reduce greenhouse gas emissions while meeting growing electricity demand."
A formidable combination of blows there from Moore; but he saves the best till last:
"There's no reason to reward Greenpeace's misinformation campaigns with a subsidy from New Zealand taxpayers."
Hear him, hear him.
Read more on: Patrick Moore, greenpeace, and The Commentator [kudos to them] -
© Curtis Dahlgren
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
