War on Women?

A short time ago, an old acquaintance wanted my support on a social site against what she called the Republican War on Women.  I respectfully declined, saying that there was no such "war," and it was just another attempt by the left to divide us.  I was supported by comments of others who I didn't even know.  This acquaintance had fallen victim to the media sound bites without doing any fact checking.  I'm afraid that happens to lots of people.


Soon thereafter, I read a piece by Charles Krauthammer that explained this divisive strategy.  It is too well-written to pick apart, so I'm posting almost all of it.  

The entire Obama campaign is a slice-and-dice operation, pandering to one group after another, particularly those that elected Obama in 2008 — blacks, Hispanics, women, young people — and for whom the thrill is now gone.

What to do? Try fear. Create division, stir resentment, by whatever means necessary — bogus court challenges, dead-end Senate bills and a forest of straw men.

Why else would the Justice Department challenge the photo ID law in Texas? To charge Republicans with seeking to disenfranchise Hispanics and blacks, of course. But in 2008 the Supreme Court upheld a similar law from Indiana. And it wasn’t close: 6-3, the majority including that venerated liberal, John Paul Stevens.

Moreover, photo IDs were recommended by the 2005 Commission on Federal Election Reform, cochaired by Jimmy Carter. And you surely can’t get into the attorney general’s building without one. Are Stevens, Carter and Eric Holder anti-Hispanic and anti-black?

The ethnic bases covered, we proceed to the “war on women.”

It sprang to public notice when a 30-year-old student at an elite law school (starting private-sector salary upon graduation: $160,000) was denied the inalienable right to have the rest of the citizenry (as coinsured and/or taxpayers — median household income: $52,000) pay for her contraception.

Despite a temporary setback — Hilary Rosen’s hastily surrendered war on moms — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will resume the battle with a Paycheck Fairness Act that practically encourages frivolous lawsuits and has zero chance of passage.No matter. Its sole purpose is to keep the war-on-women theme going, while the equally just-for-show Buffett Rule, nicely pitting the 99 percent versus the 1 percent, is a clever bit of class warfare designed to let Democrats play tribune of the middle class.

Ethnicity, race, gender, class. One more box to check: the young. Just four years ago, they swooned in the aisles for Obama. No longer. Not when 54 percent of college graduates under 25 are unemployed or underemployed.

How to shake them from their lethargy? Fear again. Tell them, as Obama repeatedly does, that Paul Ryan’s budget would cut Pell Grants by $1,000 each, if his domestic cuts were evenly distributed. (They are not evenly distributed, making the charge a fabrication. But a great applause line.) Then warn that Republicans would double the interest rate on student loans. Well, first, Mitt Romney has said he would keep them right where they are. Second, as The Washington Post points out, this is nothing but a recycled campaign gimmick from 2006 when Democrats advocated (and later passed) a 50 percent rate cut that gratuitously squanders student aid by subsidizing the wealthy as well as the needy. For Obama, what’s not to like?

More beneficiaries, more votes.

What else to run on with 1.7 percent GDP growth (2011), record long-term joblessness and record 8 percent-plus unemployment (38 consecutive months, as of this writing)? Slice and dice, group against group.

There is a problem, however. It makes a mockery of Obama’s pose as the great transcender, uniter, healer of divisions. This is the man who sprang from nowhere with that thrilling 2004 convention speech declaring that there is “not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there’s the United States of America.”

That was then. Today, we are just sects with quarrels — to be exploited for political advantage. And Obama is just the man to fulfill Al Gore’s famous mistranslation of our national motto: Out of one, many. 

Thinking about taxes

Thinking about taxes.  After all, it's April.  I heard someone suggest once that every citizen should get a vote in an election, but in addition, those who pay income taxes should get an additional vote for each specified amount of taxes paid.  I think it's an idea that has value.  But then, I'm one of those people who also thinks voters should have to show proper identification too.

There was a good article about the economics of our current level of deficit spending.  The last few paragraphs are worth reading.  Especially since the President is trying so hard to make people angry with those who have managed to be successful.



There are far too many people who don't want their handouts to stop.  Having a job is much harder.

Disturbing misogyny

A number of things in the presidential race media coverage have struck me. There are two that I found particularly annoying.

First, the double standard of an already disturbing misogyny. A conservative radio personality reacted to a D.C. college student's complaint that she needed help paying for birth control. He called her a slut.

Okay, I don't know much about that student--and I suppose neither did he--so the name calling was unacceptable. I guess he has since apologized, but the liberals and their accompanying media went nuts. As though they had no idea he ever said anything controversial.

Then something really interesting happened. A liberal woman wrote a column saying that the liberal left was just as bad--maybe worse--at misogyny and racism. She named names and gave examples. A news commentator/entertainer has repeatedly demeaned Hilary Clinton, referring to her as a "she devil," "Nurse Ratched," and "witchy," among other things. A liberal radio personality said Sarah Palin "set off a bimbo alert" and called Laura Ingraham "a right-wing slut." Another (whose name you would recognize) said that a conservative commentator "should have been aborted by her parents." The same man called Michelle Malkin "a mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick" and thought it appropriate to discuss Carrie Prejean's breasts on his MSNBC show.

I pulled a paragraph from her article:

But the grand pooh-bah of media misogyny is without a doubt Bill Maher—who also happens to be a favorite of liberals—who has given $1 million to President Obama’s super PAC. Maher has called Palin a “dumb twat” and dropped the C-word in describing the former Alaska governor. He called Palin and Congresswoman Bachmann “boobs” and “two bimbos.” He said of the former vice-presidential candidate, “She is not a mean girl. She is a crazy girl with mean ideas.” He recently made a joke about Rick Santorum’s wife using a vibrator. Imagine now the same joke during the 2008 primary with Michelle Obama’s name in it, and tell me that he would still have a job. Maher said of a woman who was harassed while breast-feeding at an Applebee’s, “Don't show me your tits!” as though a woman feeding her child is trying to flash Maher. (Here’s a way to solve his problem: don’t stare at a strangers’ breasts). Then, his coup de grâce: “And by the way, there is a place where breasts and food do go together. It’s called Hooters!”

The author of the article is Kirsten Powers. You can look the whole thing up if you are interested.

I wonder if these men say these things about their wives and daughters. I also wonder why there is so much difference in the reaction of those who hear it. When is it ever okay to debase women just because they are female?

My second annoyance will have to wait until my next post. This is enough for one day.

Going to hate this year!

I am going to hate this year. Election years are always filled to overflowing with political rhetoric, accusations, information spinning, misleading and downright false statements. It frightens me that there are vast numbers of people who believe the sound bites and empty promises.

There was an article that stated that if some tax policy was changed, a family making $20,000 a year would see their taxes go up by 60%. But, in reality, a family like that is paying no income tax. They are likely getting the earned income credit--a "refund" of money paid by someone else. 60% of nothing is still nothing. The article was purposely misleading to promote an agenda.

The vocabulary of the political left is fascinating. I believe Thomas Sowell pointed out that the left considers it to be "materialistic" and "greedy" to want to keep what you have earned. But it is "idealistic" to want to take away what someone else has earned and spend it for your own political benefit or to feel good about yourself.

If someone benefits from a hamburger, clothes, an education, a house, who should be forced to pay for it? I agree with Mr. Sowell that the only morally correct answer is that the person who receives the benefit should pay for it. Unless we are thieves who only care only about our immediate enjoyment, and who pays is irrelevant. One of our country's problems is too many Americans want to benefit from things for which they expect other Americans to be taxed.

The French economist Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850) said, "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." He is as correct today as he was 150 years ago.

Tired of the Occupiers.

I am tired--no I am very tired--of the media's coverage of the silly antics of young people with nothing more productive to do than camp out in a public place and complain about their lot in life.

These "99 percenters" have tents, sleeping bags, money for food, cell phones, cameras, and nearby sanitation facilities. How do they think all that came about? I took this quote from an article, sadly I don't remember just where. It does make some good points about the silliness of the occupiers.

Protesters don't really have a coherent message except they seem to want what someone else has earned. They feel entitled to more somehow. Why? Yes, some of them took out loans to attend college. So what? No one required them to. They could have worked their way through like lots of us did. But loans were easier. Oh, I'm beginning to see a pattern here.

The media tries to compare the "occupy" movement with what they called the Tea Party. There is little in common. The occupy protesters are just entitled young people who feel like they should have more possessions and less debt, but don't know what to do about it. I have a few ideas, but they wouldn't want to hear them. These ideas would involve responsibility, sacrifice, and work (perhaps for less money than they "deserve" for a while). Maybe they could earn enough to pay a few income taxes. ICK.
The Tea Party had well-specified goals: small government, less intrusion into private lives, lower taxes. But the media tried very hard to diminish coverage and vilify citizens attending meetings supporting those goals.

I'm wondering how long this self-indulgent foolishness will continue when the weather gets seriously wet and cold. Maybe all these "dedicated" campers will find it uncomfortable enough to go back to their dry and heated homes.

With the exception of some "reality show celebrities," and I use the word celebrities very loosely, and the rare people who are born into wealthy families, those with a lot of money worked very long and hard for it. I guess that idea doesn't appeal to everyone.

Hating the coming year

In a way, I wish the elections were tomorrow. I think another year is going to be torturous! The Republican candidates will be trying to be conservative enough, while explaining that they can be moderate and work with Democrats. Democrats seem to want to seed fear, envy, and name-calling without giving any indication they are willing to work with anyone for a solution to the impending melt-down.

Charles Krauthammer describes President Obama's strategy:

"What do you do if you can't run on your record--on 9 percent unemployment, stagnant growth and ruinous deficits as far as the eye can see? How to run when you are asked whether Americans are better off than they were four years ago and you are compelled to answer no?

Play the outsider. Declare yourself the underdog. Denounce Washington as if the electorate hasn't noticed that you've been in charge of it for nearly three years.

But above all: Find villains."

A couple of months ago Obama tried excuses: blaming Japanese supply-chain interruptions, the Arab Spring, European debt, and various acts of God. Those didn't work. So the new strategy, as stated by Mr. Krauthammer is: "Don't whine, blame. Attack. Indict. Accuse. Who? The rich--and their Republican protectors--for wrecking America."

"In Obama's telling, it's the refusal of the rich to 'pay their fair share' that jeopardizes Medicare. If millionaires don't pony up, schools will crumble. Oil-drilling tax breaks are costing teachers their jobs. Corporate loopholes will gut medical research.

It's crude. It's Manichaean. And the left loves it. As a matter of math and logic, however, it's ridiculous."

I've blogged before about the weakness of that argument. Charles Krauthammer raises several more examples of Obama's taking the low road. "...this kind of populist demagoguery is more than intellectually dishonest. It's dangerous. Popular resentment, easily stoked, is less easily controlled, especially when the basest of instincts are granted legitimacy by the nation's leader."

Oh I'm going to dislike the games being played before November 2012.

Obama failures just keep coming.

President Obama continues to pander to his radically liberal base while showing little concern about the welfare of the people of the United States. His focus is solidly in promoting sound bites of policies with no real substance and trying mightily to incite the class envy the believes will get him reelected. A couple of recent articles in the Morning Bell highlight some very real concerns.

But, as with so many other ideas, the song changed once he was elected.

David Brooks, a columnist for the notoriously liberal New York Times, wrote a piece calling himself an "Obama Sap." He mentioned the many times he had high hopes for something President Obama said or did, only to be disappointed in the truth of the man's actions. I wonder if there are other Obama saps out there. I'll bet there are.