Need more than a speech
Well, Bill Clinton still has his charm — if you discount the many untruths and half-truths he articulated on Sept. 5 in defense of President Obama.
Listening to the pundits and talking heads such as Chris Matthews of MSNBC swoon over Bill Clinton's rhetoric was hilarious — if not pathetic. A much larger problem was the time devoted to praise and criticism by the news media in general at both the Democratic and Republican conventions when "slicing and dicing" each keynote address. It is as if a good speech is all that's needed to solve a problem. Nothing could be further from the truth.
This country is crashing. If we don't do something about our $16 trillion debt very soon — instead of just making speeches about it — the American dream is dead.
PETER T. WILSON
Winston-Salem
Featured letter
Please help me to understand how any letter that refers to people having a different view as a "moronic view" would rate as "Correspondent of the Week" ("Clint's classic comedy," Sept. 9)?
SUSAN C. TAGUE
Winston-Salem
Finish the Thought
Saturday, we asked readers to complete the sentence: "Americans can strike a balance between individualism and shared effort if …"
"… others (including government) cease trying to impose shared views and values on individuals. When an authority tells people what they must do or think, it is not shared in the true sense of the word.
"We are a productive, caring and generous people, and over time the result of tens of millions of individuals' efforts has been remarkable improvement in the common good. This has been proven over and over again since our nation's founding. In the urgency to solve immediate problems through the substitution of mandated behavior for voluntary contributions, as a nation we move further and further away from that which is truly shared."
PAGE WEST
"… everyone cares and helps his fellow person as he would himself."
WILLIAM SAMS
"... we heed Thomas Jefferson's counsel from his first inaugural address: '(A) wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.'
"Despite broad, modern-day interpretations of what constitutes 'injury' in Jefferson's statement, his body of writings makes clear that Jefferson believed good government is limited government, and limited government encourages our civic happiness."
DEB PHILLIPS
"…if 'the greater good' is valued. I am reminded of Spock in 'The Wrath of Khan' when he said, as he sacrificed himself, 'The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.' I am reminded of Jesus Christ who said, 'I did not come into the world to be served but to serve.' More attitudes of servanthood and self-sacrifice would make this a better place."
CAROLYN MATTHEWS
"… those who are shared with continue to share, i.e. pass it forward."
RENEE HARRIS PATTERSON
"The sentence fragment, as posed, is biased in and of itself. You imply individualism and shared effort are mutually exclusive or an either/or proposition They are neither. Shared effort is the result, not the means.
"Individualism must come first and dominate. That is the driving force for all efforts, including charitable efforts. The individual decides to do something and enlists the aid of the group.
"Forced shared effort is the status quo of a dictatorship. Shared effort is the byproduct of freedom and if misused becomes the death knell of freedom."
KEN HOGLUND
"... they reject the false preaching of extreme individualism by Ayn Rand and realize that a little socialism (like Social Security, Medicare and unemployment benefits) is good for society."
BOON T. LEE
"... good government is limited government, and limited government encourages our civic happiness.": Would Ms. Phillips then agree that the most recent abortion requirements and the Marriage Amendment be repealed? Granted, it would require government to repeal them, but if not for government intrusion to initiate them . . .
ReplyDelete"... shared effort is the result, not the means.": By this reasoning, the 1% would have no problem sharing the "means" with the 99%.
"... a little socialism (like Social Security, Medicare and unemployment benefits) is good for society.": I agree that there is good in the programs mentioned, but there is ALSO a long history of dependency that should be acknowledged and addressed.
I have great respect for the writings of Thomas Jefferson but when he was inaugurated March 4, 1801, the population of the United States was 5.6 million, about the size of the Boston Metropolitan Area, long distant communications were usually by horseback, foreign policy by ship, and the throws of the industrial revolution were yet unknown.
ReplyDeletePerhaps we should look to the Constitution, Article I, section 8, the very first words:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;.
Only problem is some members of Congress refuse to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises to pay the Debts and to provide for the General Welfare, but give credit where credit is due, they will go Keynesian to provide for the common Defence.
DeleteGood AM, folks! I was asked to come to work much earlier than usual (groan--not a morning person).
ReplyDeleteBoon T. Lee's comment is about as moderate as I have seen for him.
Providing for the common "Defence" is necessary despite the cost. Without it we have nothing.
I realize that people living in the late 18th century would have no idea of the communication and traveling advances that would be made in the following 200 years, but still I don't think "common Defence" meant providing for the Defence of Western Europe, the Middle East, SE Asia, etc as well.
DeleteLaSombra, good comments. While I think the 99%/1% dichotomy has been oversold by Dems, press, and outfits like OWS, I think that a slight boost to high marginal tax rates is in order.
ReplyDeleteBob, was your rooster on time this AM?
ReplyDeleteoh yes, all of them. There are several different breeds.
DeleteGreat...a rooster chorus...nothing improves the song like a bit of competition. You're a lucky man, Phargo.
DeleteA veritable avian symphony of roosters,ducks, peacocks, and macaws.
DeleteIf you have never seen the famous duck parade at the Peabody Hotel in Memphis, it is worth a trip.
DeleteThe grand lobby is a veritable Venice of watery canals. The ducks live in a penthouse on the roof. Each morning, their minder leads them from their palatial dwelling to the elevator, thence to the lobby.
There, a red carpet, stretching from the elevator to the waterway awaits, along with a huge crowd of spectators. The ducks waddle single file from the elevator to the waterway, where they spend the day paddling about, eating, preening and posing for tourists.
It is a great comic spectacle, which says far more about us than it does about ducks. Get there early for best viewing.
"Need more than a speech". Good conventions are supposed to have good speeches. The ones that support the prevailing narratives are deemed exceptional. Facts or half truths don't matter in this scenario. This country is indeed crashing on the rock of debt and most know it to one degree or another. Heck, the American Dream 2012 is just one thing-- a full time job. But fear not. The Federal Reserve- our counterfitter of last resort- is rumored to start printing more credit money after their meeting ends today.
ReplyDeleteThey make money the old fashioned way, they print it. :)
DeleteGimme some!
DeleteI heard that you could take a free tour of the US mints in Philly and Denver.
DeleteSome time ago, Stab mentioned that when you took a tour of the old Schlitz plant here, they gave out free samples at the end.
Do they do that at the mints as well?
I took a tour of the NY Fed once...I was working on a project there. It was pretty cool, but I didn't get a chance to slip a gold bar under my waste band.
DeleteYou'd think you would at least get some chocolate covered mints or perhaps some peppermints. It is a mint afterall, isn't it?
Delete"Please help me to understand how any letter that refers to people having a different view as a "moronic view" would rate as "Correspondent of the Week". If someone strays from what the current culture deems the "right view" on any given subject, then that is your answer. When media members are caught on an open mic organizing themselves and their questions of a presidential candidate, then you understand the "how" the permitted narrative is maintained and spread. If you are a candidate in sinc with the dominant media/culture then these people are your enablers, allies and hacks. The candidate on the opposite side has to be cornered and defeated. This media is nothing more than a marketing arm and is now clearly understood and should be disrespected and its product as well until it dies in its own filth.
ReplyDeleteIt always has been. One need look no further than the biography of Thurlow Weed.
DeleteRon Paul comes to mind. The only media outlet that I know of that actually covered his campaign was the New York Times.
DeleteAnd despite the fact that he took a respectable percentage of the primary vote, he was excluded from the Republican convention. Romney may rue that decision later on.
Before 1861 newspapers were political organs of the parties fighting for the lucrative federal printing business. The National Intelligencer, The United States Telegraph, The Globe, The Richmond Enquirer to name a few.
DeleteI know the Times covered Ron Paul...surprise surprise. Some of Ron's financial policy beliefs, which I believe, will be incorporated into a Romney financial overhaul agenda. They have to be. I doubt any repercussions from Libertarian voters. I doubt any repercussions from Green Party voters either.
DeleteThere is nothing surprising about the fact that the Times covered Paul. The Times is the only newspaper in the US that covers everything. And its coverage is considerably more accurate than any other major newspaper. There is no "slant" to their reporting...content is carefully edited for neutrality...if you find a news story that you don't like, it is because you don't like the truth.
DeleteIf you don't like their editorials, you don't have to read them. Their op-ed page(s) is the best in the country and features all of the top conservative minds...the real ones, not the crackpots like Cal Thomas and Ann Coulter.
And, if, after all that, you're still unhappy with the Times, you can contact their ombudsman, whose job it is to be on your side.
Life is sexually transmitted.
ReplyDeleteIf so, we may be in bigger trouble than we think we are.
DeleteOT: It is so.
DeleteJust imagine some people you know reproducing
DeleteWW, that is a very bad idea...could lead to suicidal thoughts.
DeleteGood point
DeleteMy friend at the library taught Eng at FTCC for many years. His best friend on the faculty was another Eng teacher who was a former cop.
DeleteFTCC has a large Law Enforcement Education Program (LEEP). The two teachers would read essays written by some of their LEEP students, then say "Can you imagine giving that guy a gun and a badge?"
Chilling thought!
LaSombra, thanks for the info...I wasn't sure.
DeleteWhen I was a kid, some adults said that babies were brought by the stork, others said that babies were found in cabbage patches.
I'm glad to have this matter cleared up.
:-D
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMy Reply button is not functioning again.
ReplyDeleteOT, I can't say for the NYT, but I questioned the neutrality of the LA Times' omsbudsman, who was a former Times reporter. She was/is married to Robert Scheer, one of the hardest left columnist.
I had contacted the omsbudman re labor reporter Nancy Cleland's reporting of labor issues, specifically a referendum that would have required unions to obtain members' permission before using their dues for politics. Nancy's opinion was that there was a balance of political power and that passage of that initiative would undue the balance (this was realy irelevant, had nothing to do workers' rights over how money used, but that's beside the point at the moment).
Balance of power? The governor was a Dem; the CA Assembly was Dem-controlled; the CA US House delegation was mostly Dems. Both Senators were Dems. And Dems get almost all of unions' contributions. I questioned Nancy's even-handedness in that analysis. The response? Oh, Nancy gets complaints from both sides.
Ms. Cleland is now the public spokesperson for the union-owned NLRB.
Good afternoon folks!
ReplyDeleteLTE 1: I realize the 300 word limitation on LTE's, but it would be nice to list some of the "many untruths and half-truths" and how they differ from the "truth" when making such a claim. I don't believe anyone thinks a convention speech, or any campaign "promise" for that matter is going to actually solve anything unless a person is hopelessly naive. Nothng can be done about the debt until the UR comes down.
LTE 2: It was a poorly argued strawman. There were better LTE's to choose from.
Finish the thought: Not surprised that there would be such a wide take on the subject. I don't think there is as big a gap between the two as the extremists on both sides would indicate. Kudos to Ms. Matthews for quoting Spock in The Wrath of Khan (that scene was sooo sad). I'm a bit confused by Mr. Hoglund stating individualism "must come first and dominate", but then stating if that indvidualism comes in the form of an individual dictator, then it's "the death knell of freedom". Any person who takes sole control of a group, be it govt, private, corporate, or whatever, is effectively the dictator of that group, however that "dictator" is still reliant on the group's efforts to achieve the goals of the group especially if the goals are complex and have numerous prerequisites attached.
Fed announces QE3 with a $40B bond buyback per month. My guess is that this will kick start the economy and in the process drop kick Romney's election bid. Like I mentioned earlier, you want the Fed chairman on your side come election day. Threatening his job isn't the way to accomplish that.
ReplyDeleteI don't really care about the LA Times, because I don't pay any attention to it. Despite the similarity between names the LA Times and the NY Times have nothing in common except that both are called newspapers.
ReplyDeleteThe Wall Street Journal leads the league in phony stories and sex, lies and videotape, minus the videotape.
This began during the Monica Lewinsky business, when they were forced to publish several front page retractions of their hysterical anti-Clinton crap. And it has continued to today.
Last year there was the famous case of a botched economics study which supported right wing ideas. When the scientists involved discovered their errors, the WSJ refused to publish the new findings and also refused to publish a retraction of the original flawed piece. So the Atlantic Magazine did it for them.
This summer, the WSJ ran an unsigned editorial confirming a pack of lies created by a couple of right wing nuts to get the president of the University of Virginia fired. When the whole smelly mess was revealed, the WSJ ignored it, pretending that it didn’t exist.
Earlier this year they flat out lied about Cal Berkeley’s funding to expand their stadium. In July, the WSJ published an editorial attacking the ACA using quotations from an article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Here is part of several responses by the authors of the article:
Thank you for your email. The Wall Street Journal misrepresented Dr. Jain and my views in their editorial. We are both very strong supporters of the ACA. Our letter in response (submitted today) is below.
Regards,
Christine K. Cassel, MD MACP
Two months later, no response. I could list many others, but don’t have the time.
This kind of crap happens in many newspapers and magazines and, of course on any website that does not have a professional staff or simply doesn’t care.
It does not happen at the NY Times. On the extremely rare occasion that the Times prints false info, which usually comes from sources and not mistakes by Times staff, corrections or retractions, as required, are published as soon as possible.
I prefer the truth to its alternative.
Ah, Miss Monica. Well, that did happen, about which you care not, as you approve of Willard's Presidency. But, Hillary, also beatified in this forum, called it a Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy when she knew full well it was most likely Billy boy's Middle Leg Conspiracy. And no retraction on that conspiracy crap when Clinton finally had to 'fess up.
ReplyDeleteAnd this post has nothing whatever to do with my post above.
DeleteWasn't meant to have anything to do with it, just a bit of conversational garnish, or languid trollery, depending on one's point of view.
ReplyDelete