SAYING WHAT HAS TO BE SAID...IN TRUE LIBERTARIAN FASHION
Recently, the laughable Howard Dean speaking to a crowd for Black History Month said the Republicans "talk like the 1850s." In realty we could only be so lucky.So what did the GOP stand for in the 1850s?
"Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Speech, Free Men...."
None of which can the Democratic party claim, freedom of any kind is a foreign concept to the Democratic party, in lieu of freedom we are asked to check our liberty at the door and freely accept the yoke of state centered control of every aspect of our daily lives. To be true the modern Republican party has strayed far from its freedom centered roots, but the Democrats are certainly in no position to criticize anyone, Howard Dean most of all.
Dean went on to regale his audience with the myth of Democratic support for civil rights...invariably one must face up to reality that the Democrats were and continue to be the greatest threat to civil rights anywhere in America, beginning with the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which would not have been possible without the support of the GOP, certainly this is true when you recognize that most opposition to the bill came from Democrats.
Furthermore, since that Civil Rights era, the American left has gone to great lengths to create a subservient class of citizens functions as little more than wards of the state with no hope of making any decisions on their own behalf, indeed is this teh same Dem,ocratic party that demands American children remain shackled to failing schools while their counterparts in the industrialize (and developing world) lead far ahead of us. Is this the same Democratic Party that opposes Social Security Reform, leaving future generations trapped and tied to a bankrupt system? Is this teh same Democratic party that consistently seeks to raise taxes and deprive more and more American of the fruits of their own labor?
Exactly how does this highlight a commitment to Civil Rights? It doesn't it highlights a commitment to the state, more akin to Mussolini's Fascist state than anything a freedom loving American would be familiar with.
http://www.georgetownvoice.com/2008-02-28/news/howard-dean-talks-politics-in-icc
With the presidential race (at least on the Democratic side) showing no signs of coming to an obvious conclusion as of yet we have heard a great deal about experience. Pundits have summed it up this way: Obama is the change candidate and Clinton is the candidate with the experience. Both champion themselves as change candidates, lets just hope we have change in our pockets when this election is over, but what of the issue of experience, and what type of experience truly matters?
Hillary Clinton, with clockwork like regularity claims she has the experience to lead from day one, but does she in realty she is no more "experienced" in the conventional sense of the term as her chief rival, Barack Obama. In truth Clinton's experience has been limited to 7 years in the United States Senate. While she may claim experience based on her marraiage to Bill Clinton, marriage is hardly a basis for actual experince. Who, afterall, would trust the spouse of their surgeon to perform a critical operation or teh spouse of an airline piolt to land a 747? The premise would be laughable if it did not have such negative implications for our nation.
The inescapable truth is, either of the two leading Democratic candidates for president would be among the least qualified inidividuals ever to obtain their party's nomination.
But what of expereince, what kind of experience truly matters when it comes to a presidential candidate? A quick perusal of history tells us that "experience" in the traditional sense has not been an accurate barometer is evaluating potential success. Perhaps the most obvious example is Jimmy Carter, a businessman, an engineer, a decorated Navy veteran and a succesful former governor, yet Carter's presidency was an unqualified disaster. And Carter isn't alone, Herbert Hoover, Warren Harding, Ulysses Grant, and James Buchanan. All were touted as highly qualified candidates and all were colossal failures as president. And when we look at some of our more inexperienced candidates we witness a strange dicotomy. Kennedy clearly was teh lesser qualified candidate in 1960 and in 1860, Lincoln, perhaps the most inexpereinced person ever to hold the office, is widely recognized as one of the best presidents.
Perhaps political, business or military experience is a secondary factor compared to other factors. Intellectual fortitude, analyitical and problem solving ability, strength of character, these ceratinly are qualities that have proven far more critical for our nation's leaders than how many years they served in this or that office. In this race only time will tell what factors will prove decisive.
Hillary Clinton, with clockwork like regularity claims she has the experience to lead from day one, but does she in realty she is no more "experienced" in the conventional sense of the term as her chief rival, Barack Obama. In truth Clinton's experience has been limited to 7 years in the United States Senate. While she may claim experience based on her marraiage to Bill Clinton, marriage is hardly a basis for actual experince. Who, afterall, would trust the spouse of their surgeon to perform a critical operation or teh spouse of an airline piolt to land a 747? The premise would be laughable if it did not have such negative implications for our nation.
The inescapable truth is, either of the two leading Democratic candidates for president would be among the least qualified inidividuals ever to obtain their party's nomination.
But what of expereince, what kind of experience truly matters when it comes to a presidential candidate? A quick perusal of history tells us that "experience" in the traditional sense has not been an accurate barometer is evaluating potential success. Perhaps the most obvious example is Jimmy Carter, a businessman, an engineer, a decorated Navy veteran and a succesful former governor, yet Carter's presidency was an unqualified disaster. And Carter isn't alone, Herbert Hoover, Warren Harding, Ulysses Grant, and James Buchanan. All were touted as highly qualified candidates and all were colossal failures as president. And when we look at some of our more inexperienced candidates we witness a strange dicotomy. Kennedy clearly was teh lesser qualified candidate in 1960 and in 1860, Lincoln, perhaps the most inexpereinced person ever to hold the office, is widely recognized as one of the best presidents.
Perhaps political, business or military experience is a secondary factor compared to other factors. Intellectual fortitude, analyitical and problem solving ability, strength of character, these ceratinly are qualities that have proven far more critical for our nation's leaders than how many years they served in this or that office. In this race only time will tell what factors will prove decisive.
Now we have heard it all to be sure...two 18 yr olds claim they were discriminated against on a recent Southwest Airlines flight because of their appearance. Sarah Williams and Nisreen Swedberg claim that the flight crew of the Southwest flight spoke harshly to them and refused to serve them during the beverage portion of the flight.Swedberg and Williams claim this "discrimination" began the moment the stepped on board the plane in Tampa. The girls claim they did nothing to warrant such treatment. Also during the flight these poor victims were involved in a verbal altercation with another passager regarding a lavatory and of course they did nothing.
"I think they were just discriminating against us because we were young, decent-looking girls. I mean, no one else on the plane looked like us, except us..." - Sarah Williams
Isn't it a shame when people are the victims of "discrimination," perhaps they can write they congress in support of a new Civil Rights Act, to prevent discrimination against such ravishing beauties, or perhaps we can buy these two some glasses, along with a reality check.
http://www.kctv5.com/links/15411478/detail.html#
As if we needed any additional evidence that American children lag far far behind their counterparts in the rest of the world (industrial or otherwise).
We already no students in the US have a subpar understanding of math and science, now it seems that educational deficiency extends to history and literature as well (big surprise) and thus the failure of the American educational system is now complete.
The American Enterprise Institute conducted a survey of some 1200 students and the results were quite telling (and disappointing). According to the survey, less than half of the students surveyed knew when the Civil War took place. Other subjects students were unfamiliar with include the Communist Scares of the 1950s and prominent works of literature.
We already no students in the US have a subpar understanding of math and science, now it seems that educational deficiency extends to history and literature as well (big surprise) and thus the failure of the American educational system is now complete.
The American Enterprise Institute conducted a survey of some 1200 students and the results were quite telling (and disappointing). According to the survey, less than half of the students surveyed knew when the Civil War took place. Other subjects students were unfamiliar with include the Communist Scares of the 1950s and prominent works of literature.
Once again we see the results of a deficient system that provides no depth young children, yet we are surprised as our country continues to fall behind.
Link to USA Today article
Link to USA Today article
The New York Times published an article insinuating that Republican Presidential Candidate John McCain had an improper relationship with a female lobbyist and as a result of that inappropriate relationship, McCain may have dolled out favors on the behalf of that lobbyist' clients.
McCain to his credit, or perhaps to the credit of his political advisors, wasted no time in responding.
Obviously damage control and political expediency were fresh in the mind of the McCain camp. McCain has insisted that he has not been involved with this woman and has had no improper relationship...but this begs the question: Does it matter...
The press certainly has no shortage of stories related to unscrupulous politicians who have been caught with their pants down, but does it matter, does it have any affect on the voters, do voters even care and should they care.
Naturally, the answer is complicated. Is it of concern to John Q? Probably not, after all do the private indiscretions of a public figure require public scrutiny. Certainly people who have made such decisions shouldn't be held to a separate standard than any other...but a legitimate case can be made for the argument that such people can't be trusted, that such actions reflect squarely on their character and their ability to lead. Perhaps what happens in the bedroom, even of a president or other prominent political doesn't have an impact on their ability to govern or does it?
Think of marriage as a contract, in a way a marriage is a contractual obligation between two parties. Perhaps the most important contract a person can be party to. If one of those two parties engages in an affair or some other type of adulterous relationship, it could be argued that said person has violated that contract. They have also demonstrated they are untrustworthy and furthermore, if a person violates such an intimate trust with perhaps the most important person in their life, can anyone truly believe that they can be trusted with the reigns of government? If you will betray your closest family members who's to say where your loyalties lie in times of crisis.
Surely, the answer to that question will vary for every voter, but it must weigh on the minds of many. The fact of the matter is character DOES matter. No one would feel comfortable entrusting our government with someone who can be bought and paid for at the drop of a hat or with an unscrupulous liar can an adulterer, the ultimate betrayer be much different?
McCain to his credit, or perhaps to the credit of his political advisors, wasted no time in responding.
Obviously damage control and political expediency were fresh in the mind of the McCain camp. McCain has insisted that he has not been involved with this woman and has had no improper relationship...but this begs the question: Does it matter...
The press certainly has no shortage of stories related to unscrupulous politicians who have been caught with their pants down, but does it matter, does it have any affect on the voters, do voters even care and should they care.
Naturally, the answer is complicated. Is it of concern to John Q? Probably not, after all do the private indiscretions of a public figure require public scrutiny. Certainly people who have made such decisions shouldn't be held to a separate standard than any other...but a legitimate case can be made for the argument that such people can't be trusted, that such actions reflect squarely on their character and their ability to lead. Perhaps what happens in the bedroom, even of a president or other prominent political doesn't have an impact on their ability to govern or does it?
Think of marriage as a contract, in a way a marriage is a contractual obligation between two parties. Perhaps the most important contract a person can be party to. If one of those two parties engages in an affair or some other type of adulterous relationship, it could be argued that said person has violated that contract. They have also demonstrated they are untrustworthy and furthermore, if a person violates such an intimate trust with perhaps the most important person in their life, can anyone truly believe that they can be trusted with the reigns of government? If you will betray your closest family members who's to say where your loyalties lie in times of crisis.
Surely, the answer to that question will vary for every voter, but it must weigh on the minds of many. The fact of the matter is character DOES matter. No one would feel comfortable entrusting our government with someone who can be bought and paid for at the drop of a hat or with an unscrupulous liar can an adulterer, the ultimate betrayer be much different?
According to a recent documentary produced by venture capitalist Bob Compton, students in American schools continue to fall well behind their counterparts in other nations. As the documentary reports and as the Phalanx has been arguing for years. Its not just that students are far behind in the class room but a major factor is how society at large views academic achievement.
Here in the United States, the attention of parents and the community is not on academic success, as in should be, but on various extracurricular activities, particularly sports. The documentary, which focused on students in three countries (US, China and India) noted that outside of the US the "the community recognizes and awards intellectual and academic achievements."
Naturally, this documentary has been criticized by some, the Public School Apologists in particular who have consistently fought every effort from Vouchers to Teacher Accountability, or anything else which might improve opportunities for America's children. The fact remains, however, that in countless barometers, American students simply don't measure up and not only when compared with China or India but practically the entire industrialized world
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=4313028&page=1
Previous Post:
http://www.thephalanx.com/2005/10/why-is-johnny-so-stupid-public.html
Here in the United States, the attention of parents and the community is not on academic success, as in should be, but on various extracurricular activities, particularly sports. The documentary, which focused on students in three countries (US, China and India) noted that outside of the US the "the community recognizes and awards intellectual and academic achievements."
Naturally, this documentary has been criticized by some, the Public School Apologists in particular who have consistently fought every effort from Vouchers to Teacher Accountability, or anything else which might improve opportunities for America's children. The fact remains, however, that in countless barometers, American students simply don't measure up and not only when compared with China or India but practically the entire industrialized world
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=4313028&page=1
Previous Post:
http://www.thephalanx.com/2005/10/why-is-johnny-so-stupid-public.html
About Us
- We are Editor
- Location
- Our profile
About the Phalanx Editor:
Last posts
Archives
- October 2005
- November 2005
- December 2005
- January 2006
- February 2006
- March 2006
- April 2006
- May 2006
- June 2006
- July 2006
- August 2006
- September 2006
- October 2006
- November 2006
- December 2006
- January 2007
- February 2007
- March 2007
- April 2007
- May 2007
- June 2007
- July 2007
- August 2007
- September 2007
- October 2007
- November 2007
- December 2007
- January 2008
- February 2008
- March 2008
- April 2008
- May 2008
- June 2008
- July 2008
- August 2008
- September 2008
- October 2008
- November 2008
- December 2008
Links
- Google News
- So what is pulling a Mussolini?
- Why is Johnny so stupid?
- Why is Johnny so poor?
- Why does Johnny vote Democrat?
- The Quotable Phalanx
- JasonPye.com
- The Liberty Papers
- Atlas Blogged
- Adam Smith Institute
- Slow Turning
- My Right Mind
- Reason's Hit and Run
- Adam Smith Institute
- Hammer of Truth
- The Conservative Voice
- The Patriot Act Research Website
- The Drudge Report
- Nealz Nuze
- Cato Institute
- Balanced Politics
- Americans for Fair Tax
- Alliance for School Choice
- My 4 Cents
- Democratic Underground
- MoveOn.org
- National Education Association
- Democratic Party
- Republican Party
- Westboro Baptist Church
- United Nations
- Kyoto Protocol
- Kelo vs. New London
- February 2005
- March 2005
- April 2005
- May 2005
- June 2005
- July 2005
- August 2005
- September 2005
Phalanxian Diatribes:
Other Important links:
Know your enemy (or least those with diametrically opposing points of view):
Earlier Archives:
ATOM 0.3