Archive for July, 2008

Lest We Forget…

23 July 2008

In a previous post, I noted Obama’s vacillation on issues. Since the Obamanists are actively rewriting Barack Obama on his web site, I feel it necessary to remind the curious of what was there:

Regarding the successful troop surge in Iraq: “The problem—the Surge: The goal of the surge was to create space for Iraq’s political leaders to reach an agreement to end Iraq’s civil war. At great cost, our troops have helped reduce violence in some areas of Iraq, but even those reductions do not get us below the unsustainable levels of violence of mid-2006. Moreover, Iraq’s political leaders have made no progress in resolving the political differences at the heart of their civil war.” – barackobama.com

It is interesting to note that Barack Obama has been backed into a corner by the publicized perception that he has been whipsawing on his various positions, attempting to appear more of a centrist than the devout leftist his record shows him to be. So, rather than now publish that he supports the surge, he’s simply saying “I don’t know.” Bravo, Barack – for the first time, you have placed your finger firmly on the number-one issue that concerns me about you – that which should concern every American: you don’t know – you can’t even guess. During your political career, you have done nothing substantive. You clearly know nothing in the realm of foreign policy. You’re equally baffled on the subject of energy. I could go on, and on, and on.

I do not want this “change” you promise, Barack. I like having a job. I like being able to drive my own car. I like being able to save some money for a rainy day. I like being able to afford to eat and heat my home. I like not fearing terrorist attacks as I conduct my daily life.  I don’t want to change these things!

To paraphrase Ebeneezer Scrooge of Dickens’s A Christmas Carol: I fear you more than all the others…

Interesting side note: Obama’s website is designed to not let you easily navigate away once you land on it. If you came there from another site, hitting the back arrow simply presents you with yet another version of his front page – similar to his inability to show consistency on the issues, his website cannot be consistent on its appearance. And, just as he would like to hold our country’s safety and prosperity hostage for “…eight to ten years” (quoting him on his understanding of the 22nd amendment), his main page holds you hostage until you sign up for his newsletter, type in another URL, or close your browser. All seemingly a case of art imitating life…

-Pateratic

Bowling|Leading

23 July 2008

 

If Barack Obama had given a speech on bowling, it might well have been brilliant and inspiring. But instead he actually tried bowling and threw a gutter ball. The contrast between talking and doing could not have been better illustrated

 –Thomas Sowell

I like to think of myself as non partisan. I have always looked to a candidates position on the issues rather than their party affiliation. Most voters can’t or won’t do this. They focus soley on the -R or -D following the candidates name, district, state, etc. This is a scary, scary point. One that, I believe, has the near opportunity to demonstrate its potential for disasterous consequences.

As this presidential contest races forward, we are faced with a choice. As of this writing (3 June 2008), it appears that Barack Hussein Obama, an enigma, will become the Democratic candidate for the presidency in the 2008.

Think about that for a moment. Barack Hussein Obama. Someone very few had even heard of prior to this presidential race. Someone whose very name generates suspicion, considering the current geopolitical situation. It begs the question “Why now?” Is this another demonstration of the Democratic Party’s recent role as the “please everone all of the time (except those damned conservatives)” party?

Who is this Obama? What does he stand for? Change? What is this change? He says a change to hope. And, after listening to the ever vacillating rhetoric; after divining what I can of the fabric of his character,  I am left asking: “Hope for whom?

-Pateratic

 

On The Cutting Room Floor

11 July 2008

In reference to the “Reverend” Jesse Jackson’s recent exposure of one of his many faces to an accidentally open mic, I have only this to say: “Though our motivations are different: yes, Jesse. Me, too.”

Pateratic

Red Light On Green Lights

9 July 2008

So-called “green” compact flourescent bulbs are far more dangerous to the environment than the “carbon footprint” of an incandescent bulb. Consider this: the plants that generate the power will operate no differently simply because you choose to use a more energy efficient bulb. Power plants are not like producers of goods in that they can significantly “slow down” the assembly line when demand falls; and it is unlikely that demand would drop off in any region to the point that a generation plant is taken offline. Secondly, flourescent bulbs, compact or otherwise, are full of compounds long known to be toxic to the environment – in particular: they contain mercury which, for decades, polluted our waters due to run off from the land, and it is toxic to the fish and wildlife  these alarmists claim to be protecting.

Recycle them, you say. Dispose of them in controlled environments through recycling programs such as offered by Home Depot and the like. Ha! I say. Communities across the US have curbside recycling programs for more innocuous household disposables which achieve nowhere near 100% participation – from 12 to 41% is typical. Do you think for a minute that the participation in a flourescent bulb recycling program in which you must go to the recycling center would be anywhere near that of a curbside program? Stop kidding yourselves.

Me? I’d rather have some glass, traces of tungsten, and the metal base of a lightbulb in a landfill than the mercury from Gore’s nightmare. The farcicle “carbon footprint” is essentially unchanged in either case. Do you truly want to reduce the “carbon footprint” of electricity? Wind and solar are little more than industrial curiosities. Each produces relatively small amounts of power through relatively expensive equipment when compared to more traditional means. Outside of hydocarbon-fueled steam generation plants, hydroelectric and nuclear are the two most viable means of low-cost, mass generation available. Unfortunately, for the first, you need a source of mass-flow water, and these are not universally available where power is desired. And, thanks to all the lovely activists within our country, for the second, you need an act of God…

-Pateratic

Stupid Students Become Stupid People. More At Eleven…

8 July 2008

A recent email from “Student Loan Justice” has moved me. Yes, I have been moved to pity these poor hapless oafs who were duped into thinking that a student loan was in actuality a charitable gift. Poor, poor… idiots.

I took many student loans back in the ’80s to complete my undergrad work. I also worked , on average, two jobs to help fund my collegiate habit. This made for a slow-go as you cannot heap on many credit hours when carrying such an outside load.

Upon graduation, the hounding for repayment promptly began from The Loan Servicing Center in Lawrence, KS (yes, they made such an impression on my then-young mind that I recall EXACTLY where things were handled from 20 years later) – they greedily demanded I repay my loans, and craftily provided a payment coupon book to facilitate the task. The evil, greedy bastards! The payment book sitting on my desk silently chided me to pay… pay… pay them off. So? How did I respond? I got a job and paid them all off as quickly as I could, that’s how! Unfortunately, during that same time, many of my contemporaries chose to ignore these loans and defaulted on them. Their irresponsibility is what precipitated the changes in the laws (ca 1997) to allow collection of penalties on these loans. Oddly enough, the highest percentage of Student Loan Skippers are also those who landed the highest paying jobs. Huh! So just who are the greedy bastards and who are the wounded victims in this case? I’m confused.

Here’s the bottom line, kids: when you take a loan of any type, it is a loan; not a grant. It is a responsibility. It is YOUR responsibility to repay these loans. Unfortunately, our society currently does not accept responsibility and accountability as valuable tenets. We think it is “OK” to sign contracts, then default on them. And we don’t think there should be any repercussions for our careless actions.

The recent laws now punish all. It used to be that those few who defaulted on their student loans did not burden the system to the point that lenders were unwilling to issue these loans. These were usually the folks upon whom some hardship or other had fallen – back in the day when accountability and responsibility were cherished. In my era, it became just about everyone who took a student loan and something had to be done to protect the lenders and preserve the program. As a RESPONSIBLE ADULT who took advantage of student loans, accepted the responsibility of them and promptly repaid them, I accept what the loan industry has done as right and in measured response to the situation. Otherwise, low-cost (to those who act responsibly) educational loans would have dropped out of existence.

Banks aren’t charities. If they cannot recoup the loans, they lose money. No bank doing this as a matter of course would exist for long. Go and default on a car or home loan and see what happens (or, in this economy, just watch your neighbors – I’m sure someone nearby is in foreclosure or having possessions repossessed). At least there, there is something to repossess. What are they to do for defaulted student loans? Repossess you brain? Apparently, based on the arguments at StudentLoanJustice.org, there’s no value there; that brain isn’t worth much to start with…

It is a shame. It is a crying shame that this is what our society has come to.

-Pateratic