A consulate in a foreign country, sovereign American soil, is attacked on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11. But the president has a big trip to Vegas the next day, so he goes to bed. The next day, he finds out four men died in the attack, including the top diplomat in Libya.
Fortunately, the administration had no forewarning of this attack. It was spontaneous and unexpected, triggered by a low quality YouTube video. It's not like the British ambassador was nearly killed in a bombing just weeks before the attack. Nor is it like the American ambassador himself requested additional security for the consulate mere weeks before the attack. No one was responsible for the deadly attack that ensued that day.
Except Republicans and their spending cuts, of course. After all, cut funding for consulates and you most certainly cannot allocate funds intelligently. That would just be responsible.
Recently, however, the American public learned of something even greater that could very well lead to a chilling effect on speech in the nation.
For years, the IRS has been hampering conservative groups that have applied for 501(c)4 tax exempt status. Instead of granting the status in a reasonable amount of time, groups were kept waiting since 2010 and subjected to audit after audit. Is there any doubt that this increased the president's re-election chances? After all, haranguing groups, forcing them to spend money and time on lawyers and compliance with the strongest agency in the federal government had to have affected their ability to organize.
However, despite these actions being of obvious political benefit to the president, he only found out about it through the papers, like the "rest of us." This was all clearly the work of a couple of middle managers in Cincinnati, acting completely of their own accord.
Of course, President Obama knew nothing of the Justice Department's investigations into journalists, either. Not even his top man in the Department of Justice, Attorney General Eric Holder, knew anything. He recused himself and thus had absolutely nothing to do with anything, anytime, anywhere.
It goes down through the line. Whether it is the president himself, his highest ranking subordinates or his defenders, the president is always lacking in direct knowledge of what is happening in his government. Instead of taking responsibility, the president is instead the last to know. Or it is his predecessor's fault.
The tendrils of the evil George W. Bush administration run deep, it seems.
President Obama, on the other hand, doesn't know a thing about what happens in the government during his tenure. The supposed genius god-king, here to save us from our excesses and Texas, is apparently so dumbfounded by the revelations of the past few weeks, it's any wonder he can dress himself in the morning.
But wait! He did allow himself to be accountable for something! He stands by his decision to expand Bush administration policies tenfold and to the homeland! After all, President Obama has to stand behind decisions he's made that either he thinks are good or make him look good. After all, Osama bin Laden was finally killed during his tenure (in a chain of events started before his tenure).
There's something very wrong with the behavior coming out of White House during this presidency.
The purpose of a leader is to lead. A leader sets the atmosphere and the tone of his organization, whether it's a company or the government. One might argue Obama didn't directly give the orders for any of these controversies, but he created the atmosphere in which all of these things became okay to do in someone's mind. It only gets worse when they claim Obama had no idea any of this was going on.
Ultimately, Obama is the product of the "participation trophy" generation. They voted him in and then allow him a pass for everything under his watch. He tried and that is enough for them.
Unfortunately, in the real world, trying is not enough. Failing to uphold your oaths erodes liberties and gets people killed. If only we had not learned this the hard way through President Obama.
If only we had known before he was given another term.
Monday, July 29, 2013
On Civility
A common complaint with the modern age is that the myriad communication technologies we have access to has cheapened human interaction.
I believe this is true. Who hasn't seen a young person with their noses to their phones, texting or playing games on them? They are obsessed, even when in public or ostensibly hanging out with friends. Instead of talking to each other and having discussions, we sum up our lives with quaint abbreviations or amusing memes.
However, our ability to connect to each other at any time also leaves us ignorant of proper social interaction. We grow casual where we should be professional. We behave glibly when serious tragedy has struck. We call out people who have done us wrong in public where it is better left in privacy.
That last one in particular is obvious to anyone who has been on social networks.
It seems that in our mad rush to publicize every little detail in our lives, we forgot the boundaries when it comes to other people. Instead of privately discussing why "X" wronged us with X him or herself, we call X out in public, doing our best to demonize that person. We turn every minor disagreement into a major argument.
Even worse, by making these disagreements public, we drag our networks of family, friends and acquaintances in with us. We jade and color their perceptions of us and those around us with our behavior. Often, we just show them an ugly side of ourselves no one knew existed. People make assumptions, take sides and, ultimately, many more people are hurt by events that should have only ever affected two.
Something I have observed for years has become increasingly obvious over time: the anonymity of the internet leads people to behave badly.
We can, in essence, become entirely different people online. Whereas we might be polite in personal company, being nobodies on the internet causes us to break down much needed barriers in our behavior. We are a clean slate, able to behave as well or poorly as we please. There are no nuances in written communication that can tell us how another person truly feels or the mood they're in.
Even if we reveal our names, our jobs, our sexual preferences, et al. online, we're still shielded from the dynamics that develop from speaking mano-a-mano.
We forget that the one on the other side of the wires and servers are also human beings. It leads the crueler, less caring among us to be selfish and narcissistic. They behave like jerks and complain when it is thrown back in their faces.
Of course, our emails, text messages, cell phones, video games and whatever else you can think of have brought innumerable advantages. We can interact with people who were out of our reach just two decades ago. They can enrich our experiences in life and we should not be afraid to embrace them for their positive purposes.
At the same time, however, we should be vigilant not to lose our humanity in the process. Civility and manners are precious commodities and must be nurtured--most especially in this age of digital living.
I believe this is true. Who hasn't seen a young person with their noses to their phones, texting or playing games on them? They are obsessed, even when in public or ostensibly hanging out with friends. Instead of talking to each other and having discussions, we sum up our lives with quaint abbreviations or amusing memes.
However, our ability to connect to each other at any time also leaves us ignorant of proper social interaction. We grow casual where we should be professional. We behave glibly when serious tragedy has struck. We call out people who have done us wrong in public where it is better left in privacy.
That last one in particular is obvious to anyone who has been on social networks.
It seems that in our mad rush to publicize every little detail in our lives, we forgot the boundaries when it comes to other people. Instead of privately discussing why "X" wronged us with X him or herself, we call X out in public, doing our best to demonize that person. We turn every minor disagreement into a major argument.
Even worse, by making these disagreements public, we drag our networks of family, friends and acquaintances in with us. We jade and color their perceptions of us and those around us with our behavior. Often, we just show them an ugly side of ourselves no one knew existed. People make assumptions, take sides and, ultimately, many more people are hurt by events that should have only ever affected two.
Something I have observed for years has become increasingly obvious over time: the anonymity of the internet leads people to behave badly.
We can, in essence, become entirely different people online. Whereas we might be polite in personal company, being nobodies on the internet causes us to break down much needed barriers in our behavior. We are a clean slate, able to behave as well or poorly as we please. There are no nuances in written communication that can tell us how another person truly feels or the mood they're in.
Even if we reveal our names, our jobs, our sexual preferences, et al. online, we're still shielded from the dynamics that develop from speaking mano-a-mano.
We forget that the one on the other side of the wires and servers are also human beings. It leads the crueler, less caring among us to be selfish and narcissistic. They behave like jerks and complain when it is thrown back in their faces.
Of course, our emails, text messages, cell phones, video games and whatever else you can think of have brought innumerable advantages. We can interact with people who were out of our reach just two decades ago. They can enrich our experiences in life and we should not be afraid to embrace them for their positive purposes.
At the same time, however, we should be vigilant not to lose our humanity in the process. Civility and manners are precious commodities and must be nurtured--most especially in this age of digital living.
Monday, July 22, 2013
On Victim Blaming and the IRS
Yesterday, Representative Jim McDermott of Washington attempted to damage the credibility of leaders of several conservative groups when they came to testify before congress about the IRS Scandal. Complaining about them seeking a "subsidy," the congressman essentially blamed the groups for bringing the scrutiny on themselves because of their "political activity."
In so doing, he revealed the hand of the left.
First of all, he obviously believes that the targeting of the conservative organizations was just fine, contrary to his opening statement. He spends so much time justifying what the IRS did, he clearly does not care about the unfair targeting. One does not try to justify actions that are objectively wrong unless one agrees with the activity. To cover for this breach in ethics, McDermott essentially blamed the victim, claiming their political activities is what drew the unfair attention (and constant delays in the bestowal of 501(c)4 status) rather than intentional targeting by the IRS.
Also note his attempts to further justify the targeting by pointing to behavior in the George W. Bush administration. He essentially tries to justify bad behavior by pointing to other (allegedly) bad behavior. Which, of course, contradicts the point he made in the beginning (again), where he claimed to believe that the IRS did something wrong.
Congressman, either the IRS did something wrong in targeting conservatives or what they did was okay. You cannot have it both ways.
And, of course, he used the classic leftist refrain equating "tax exemption" with "tax subsidies." I fully believe he knows the difference between the two, but just doesn't care. For the uninformed, "not paying taxes" is not the same as "receiving funds from the government." It is called "getting to keep your own money."
Then again, to the left, all money is the government's money. They just haven't found a way to take it yet.
I believe there is something else that is missed when discussing the point of granting 501(c)3 and (c)4 status to organizations. While such organizations must fulfill certain requirements to gain the status, the primary reason they have it is that they are non-profit organizations. It has little to do with what the specifics of their activities are. It has far more to do with whether or not they are specifically out to make a profit. Like churches, political action groups are not in business nor are they making a profit.
And every dollar the IRS takes from them hurts far more than the dollars taken from a business. Running on donations means running purely off of the goodwill and ability of donors. Businesses can try to improve their bottom line when times are tough. Non-profits cannot.
Considering the past actions of leftists, there are likely only a handful who truly believe what the IRS did was wrong. They will pay lip service to the fact that it was abusive, but their true feelings are far more reflected by McDermott's victim-blaming and justification. They just happen to be more shrewd with their feelings.
To the left, any means are justified to reach the end of marginalizing, if not destroying, the right.
In so doing, he revealed the hand of the left.
First of all, he obviously believes that the targeting of the conservative organizations was just fine, contrary to his opening statement. He spends so much time justifying what the IRS did, he clearly does not care about the unfair targeting. One does not try to justify actions that are objectively wrong unless one agrees with the activity. To cover for this breach in ethics, McDermott essentially blamed the victim, claiming their political activities is what drew the unfair attention (and constant delays in the bestowal of 501(c)4 status) rather than intentional targeting by the IRS.
Also note his attempts to further justify the targeting by pointing to behavior in the George W. Bush administration. He essentially tries to justify bad behavior by pointing to other (allegedly) bad behavior. Which, of course, contradicts the point he made in the beginning (again), where he claimed to believe that the IRS did something wrong.
Congressman, either the IRS did something wrong in targeting conservatives or what they did was okay. You cannot have it both ways.
And, of course, he used the classic leftist refrain equating "tax exemption" with "tax subsidies." I fully believe he knows the difference between the two, but just doesn't care. For the uninformed, "not paying taxes" is not the same as "receiving funds from the government." It is called "getting to keep your own money."
Then again, to the left, all money is the government's money. They just haven't found a way to take it yet.
I believe there is something else that is missed when discussing the point of granting 501(c)3 and (c)4 status to organizations. While such organizations must fulfill certain requirements to gain the status, the primary reason they have it is that they are non-profit organizations. It has little to do with what the specifics of their activities are. It has far more to do with whether or not they are specifically out to make a profit. Like churches, political action groups are not in business nor are they making a profit.
And every dollar the IRS takes from them hurts far more than the dollars taken from a business. Running on donations means running purely off of the goodwill and ability of donors. Businesses can try to improve their bottom line when times are tough. Non-profits cannot.
Considering the past actions of leftists, there are likely only a handful who truly believe what the IRS did was wrong. They will pay lip service to the fact that it was abusive, but their true feelings are far more reflected by McDermott's victim-blaming and justification. They just happen to be more shrewd with their feelings.
To the left, any means are justified to reach the end of marginalizing, if not destroying, the right.
On Thinking About the Children
So, yesterday, Erick Erickson, editor of RedState got into a bit of hot water over commentary he made on the rise of women as the primary breadwinners in families. Outcry from both left and right complained of Erickson's "sexism," equating his words with saying that women "should stay in the kitchen." Of course, listening to and reading what Erickson said demonstrates pretty clearly that what he was saying was nowhere near offensive. At least, not in the way everyone who complained about it did.
I observed something as the complaints heated up.
Many of the arguments against Erickson, when they weren't personal attacks calling him a misogynist or worse, focused around women. Using the false assumption that he believes women should not work, many talked about themselves or women in their lives with careers or as the primary breadwinners in their families.
Their mindset was entirely focused on "women working" and whether or not it was okay.
In a sad testimony to the pervasiveness of leftism, so many women focused on themselves or on women in general. They reacted to the (false) characterizations of Erickson's opinions as a leftist feminist might. They talked about themselves. Their careers. Their choice.
The perspective they took into this (wholly unnecessary) debate was self-centered.
However, Erickson's comments seemed to have another, more important point: the children.
"In modern society we are not supposed to say such things about child rearing and families. In modern society we are not supposed to point out that children in a two-parent heterosexual nuclear household have a better chance at long term success in life than others. In modern society, we are supposed to applaud feminists who teach women they can have it all — that there is no gender identifying role and women can fulfill the role of husbands and fathers just as men do."
He's talking about the children raised in the homes where women work. Let us be honest with ourselves, the majority of homes where the women are the primary earners are not stable, nuclear homes. They are broken homes. Absent fathers, abusive fathers, lost fathers and any other scenario one can think up are the reason so many women have to work. It isn't by choice or because they can make more than their husbands; it is out of necessity.
And our society encourages it. In saying that women can replace men in the home (working or not) or that men are unnecessary creates the environment that makes single mothers. No one ever said that there weren't exceptions. Sometimes the the children of single mothers turn out alright. Look at Dr. Ben Carson. His mother pushed him, an under-achiever with anger issues, to become one of America's foremost neurosurgeons. But that exception does not make the rule.
And that rule is that single motherhood, which is truly what the study tells us about, hurts the children.
But the way we're taught to approach this issue in modern society is to see it as a "women's issue." That women and their rights are the largest. most overriding aspect to the exclusion of all else. This is why the arguments against Erickson focus around women in the workplace rather than his larger point about the family.
This isn't just about women.
It is a men's issue, too. It's also a children's issue. It's a family issue.
It's a society issue.
I observed something as the complaints heated up.
Many of the arguments against Erickson, when they weren't personal attacks calling him a misogynist or worse, focused around women. Using the false assumption that he believes women should not work, many talked about themselves or women in their lives with careers or as the primary breadwinners in their families.
Their mindset was entirely focused on "women working" and whether or not it was okay.
In a sad testimony to the pervasiveness of leftism, so many women focused on themselves or on women in general. They reacted to the (false) characterizations of Erickson's opinions as a leftist feminist might. They talked about themselves. Their careers. Their choice.
The perspective they took into this (wholly unnecessary) debate was self-centered.
However, Erickson's comments seemed to have another, more important point: the children.
"In modern society we are not supposed to say such things about child rearing and families. In modern society we are not supposed to point out that children in a two-parent heterosexual nuclear household have a better chance at long term success in life than others. In modern society, we are supposed to applaud feminists who teach women they can have it all — that there is no gender identifying role and women can fulfill the role of husbands and fathers just as men do."
He's talking about the children raised in the homes where women work. Let us be honest with ourselves, the majority of homes where the women are the primary earners are not stable, nuclear homes. They are broken homes. Absent fathers, abusive fathers, lost fathers and any other scenario one can think up are the reason so many women have to work. It isn't by choice or because they can make more than their husbands; it is out of necessity.
And our society encourages it. In saying that women can replace men in the home (working or not) or that men are unnecessary creates the environment that makes single mothers. No one ever said that there weren't exceptions. Sometimes the the children of single mothers turn out alright. Look at Dr. Ben Carson. His mother pushed him, an under-achiever with anger issues, to become one of America's foremost neurosurgeons. But that exception does not make the rule.
And that rule is that single motherhood, which is truly what the study tells us about, hurts the children.
But the way we're taught to approach this issue in modern society is to see it as a "women's issue." That women and their rights are the largest. most overriding aspect to the exclusion of all else. This is why the arguments against Erickson focus around women in the workplace rather than his larger point about the family.
This isn't just about women.
It is a men's issue, too. It's also a children's issue. It's a family issue.
It's a society issue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)