Friday, December 31, 2010
The head of the Fed Ben Bernanke is Jewish of course as are other board members and other prominent Jews associated with the government are Rubin/Volcker/Geithner. Even the most notable bear Nouriel Roubini is Jewish.
Surely there must be economists and businessmen from the vast American ethnic community who have the experience and standing to be placed in these positions which are so vital to the welfare of all Americans. Are there no Italian Americans at Harvard, no Irish Americans at Yale, no Black or Hispanic Americans in leading corporations capable of economic management?
My concern in this matter is not for the direction of the economy or concern that non-Jewish Americans are being passed over perhaps for these senior roles but the concern is for the Jewish community.
When the economy is booming and everyone is "getting a taste" then Greenspan can rule the Fed forever and no one would care. However should the economy have a second, major downturn then with so many Jews so prominent in the highest echelons of economic policy making there might be an upwelling of anti-semitism.
When things turn really bad history shows that scapegoats are looked for and history has shown that the Jews were the ultimate scapegoat for the last depression. This happened after the Russian revolution in which Jews, such as Trotsky, Sverdlov, Zinoviev, Litvinov and many others were prominent in the highest echelons of the Communist party. When the economy turned disastrous it unleashed waves of anti-semitism in Russia and the Nazi's used these same Russian leaders as political straw men to aid their rise to power, with terrible results for European Jews.
Logic falls by the wayside when unemployment rises to massive numbers. Mad conspiracy theories emerge, such as the Warburg banking family (one of whom helped create the Fed) ran America, with one branch, and Germany with another, that there was a secret Jewish organization with a master plan to take over the world (The Protocols of Zion).
There is no doubt whatsoever that non-Jews could fill major roles in the economy, it is a puzzle as to why they are not being brought forward by both Republican and Democratic administrations. I believe it would be in the Jewish communities long term best interest if there was more of an ethnic balance at the top.
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Being of a conservative nature I found the Presbyterian church amicable. I liked the simplicity of surrounds, of ceremony, of vestments. I liked the plain spoken "person in the street" congregation and the lack of structure-no Bishops, Archbishops, Cardinals etc, and the democratic nature of church decision making.
The basic Protestant emphasis on The Word as the guiding light for person and church without any appeal to or direction from ecclesiastical hierarchy fitted, again, a conservative nature.
However, I reached a point where all this basicness, to coin a word,
was, I found, rather boring. As Giovanni Guareschi put it in 'The Little World Of Don Camillo' "Even the eye needs some satisfaction, and in matters of religion its the same as with a doctor,there's a lot to be said for personal sympathies and moral impressions!"
So as an happy alternative I started attending the Episcopalian church. Here there was color, an uplifting ceremonial and, since the hierarchy of the church never entered into any aspect of my personal life, I was more than happy to disregard that aspect of the church structure
But, sadly I find it impossible to continue in the congregation.
I was impressed with the Cardinal from Washington D.C. who,when questioned on television about the Catholic church attitude to more or less advised that that was a line in the sand they had to adhere to.Otherwise they had no reason to exist as a faith if in effect their doctrine was so malleable on matters of life and death that it could change with the political/cultural ethos of the moment. His answer on DADT which he advised was a political question, I found less convincing however.
But he is absolutely right the church has to have some basic,bottom line premise. For the Episcopalian hierarchy to accept women at all levels is grand,although in matters of church leadership I personally would prefer to attend a church with a male pastor-only because in matters of ceremonial e.g. funerals/weddings "the eye needs something to look at " and the ear needs gravitas-but that's just my point of view-and I am entitled to "shop around" of course.
The Episcopalian church is in turmoil and in danger of splitting apart
On the other hand I can't accept having male or female homosexuals as Pastors/Bishops etc. I would have absolutely nothing against them as individuals in any shape or fashion, and like many families I have gay relatives whom I love and admire, but I wouldn't support them for ordination, a matter which is clearly against biblical injunction. On which subject I would feel confident that Catholics would concur.
Again, if we accept the lead of the Episcopalian church on this then there is absolutely no end to having any variation in "lifestyle" acceptable for any position,nor matter of faith which is not malleable.
So it's back to the rather plain trappings of Presbyterian worship again-unless I move to England where the Anglicans have not gone down the Episcopalian path, at least for now. Why not the Catholic church? To much color I'm afraid, too much structure and there are a few doctrinal positions which are not for me e.g. transubstantiation and letting priests marry. I think it no accident that all the many troubles the Catholic church has experienced lately stem from the lack of that particular option for their clergy.
At the end of the day the important thing is that one's faith is exercised and we are fortunate, I believe, in having a number of options where one can do that. At the end of the day unless a faith has a bedrock of imovable core strucutre amicable to its founding values it is "salt that has lost its saltiness and should be cast aside"
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
A Conservative Responds To "Is It Right For Conservative Blogs To Use Pic's Of Semi-Naked Women,Like These,To Attract Readers?
I posed the question-Is it acceptable for Conservative sites to use pictures of semi-naked young women like these to attract readers? Does the end result of garnering a wider audience (particularly of young male activists) for the conservative viewpoint justify the means.
I asked-are we as conservatives not by our very nature superior to the commercial soft porn magazines and web sites who peddle the idea they are libertarians somehow when all they are in fact is exploiters? Surely we can, by presenting logical ideas in an exemplary framework, over time win the argument?
One of the conservative blogs I used as an example "JerseyNut" replied with a deeply thought out and constructive response which I reprint below.
The JerseyNut said... Hmmm...the question is valid, and one I have debated internally before getting into the "Rule 5" game...
But there is a marked difference between the liberal appreciation of women and the conservative appreciation of women, one that I feel can often be seen in the "Rule 5 lineup".
For all of the liberal talk of "equal rights" for women, it is just that: talk. Think of the lewd and lacivious things that have been said about Sarah (and Bristol) Palin, about conservative Miss America Carrie Prejean, about Michelle Malkin, Christine O'Donnell, Meg Whitman...you get the drift. And let's not forget whoremonger Elliot Spitzer or leftist hero and rapist Julian Assange...
Now conservatives, on the other hand, actually treat woman as equals - both intellectually and morally, and pay homage to the gender with such old-fashioned ideas as the sanctity of marriage, chilvary, and politeness both in public and in private.
What does this have to do with pictures of pretty girls? When I see a liberal site splashing around some girlie pix (and it is usually celebrity softcore porn in order to maximize hits - NATALIE PORTMAN (almost) NAKED!) I can only think of the way they treat women, and what the photos are meant to be - flypaper to catch similar scuzzies, in the hopes they will actually do more than gawk at the pictures...
Now, we conservatives look at it differently. It's a lot less celebrity skin, and a lot more appreciation of the female form - part and parcel of the artistry of God, if you will - a concept mocked by the left. And while conservative sites are also playing the Sitemeter game, the entire enterprise just seems a little less dirtier. The appreciation of female beauty is there, but without the attendant disrespect and smuttiness that is part and parcel of the left-wing girlie posts. Maybe it is just perception, but knowing the reality of the two ideologies involved, I feel "our" Rule 5 mutual linkage is more innocent and respectful than anything conjoured up by the left.
And speaking for myself - I will usually go Rule 5 only to make a point, or to illustrate a theme. Take my Hanukkah Honeys series (http://jerseynut.blogspot.com/2010/12/7th-night-of-hanukkah-honey-brings.html), for instance - sure, they're filled with pictures of semi-nude Hebrew hotties, but the point is - "Did you know she was Jewish? And when you reach into the anti-Semetic bag of hate, do you realize you are slurring these lovelies as well"?
The Sexy Santas, so to speak, was simply to provide some balance....
The critique of the false liberal premise by "JerseyNut" is entirely valid but to me the concept of ideas alone,presented certainly in a modern,attractive format, should be convincing enough to stand on their own merit.
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Is It Wrong For Conservative Sites To Exploit Women With Semi-Naked Pic's Like These To Attract Readers?
As is often the case, the well known Blog "The Other McCain" (amongst numerous others who engage in this tactic) http://theothermccain.com/2010/12/27/rule-5-sunday-falls-on-a-monday-this-week/
has a number of links to many conservative web sites which, in an attempt to garner as many readers as possible, show photographs of nubile young women in various states of undress.
It is understandable that, in order to promote the message of conservatism in a crowded "market" these bloggers would consider using any means to grab possible readers. However the question must be asked-by using photographs like these of semi-naked women are they not descending to the depths of liberal "thinking" as promoted by such exploitative rags as 'Playboy" and 'Penthouse' who pretend to a libertarian framework, whilst really just exploiting hormonally driven young men?
There are a number of conservative magazines and blog sites who have a strong following and stay out of the gossip/exploitative pathway. I believe one can present a serious message, as does "The Other McCain" and attract readers-it is a hard, long slog, but garners respect. On the other hand, perhaps the end does justify the means when what is at stake is the future of America-but for me those ends can be achieved with an appeal to reason not pulchritude
Judge for yourself.
I think it was Columbia records producer Tom Wilson (with whom I shared an elevator and have an amusing anecdote about-which can wait for another day) who said that apart from, perhaps, English choral music there is no such thing as "White" (as distinct from "Black") music.
If not Tom then certainly someone else of his standing said this, which statement I take issue with. Irish, Scot's, Elizabethan (I can't imagine a Black 'Greensleeves') Appalachian, Gregorian chants, are definitely "White" music amongst numerous other examples.
Of course Blacks can participate in each and every one of these aspects of basically European musical cultural heritage, and could certainly do justice to them-but an indefinable "something" would be missing.
This came to mind when I was watching videos of the immortal Otis Redding. His versions of "Pain in my heart" and "I've been loving you" are incomparable and I can't imagine any White singer coming within a country mile of his performances. And yet when he performs the Rolling Stones "Satisfaction" there is just something missing, it doesn't seem to work like the other songs do.
Strangely, even Devo's oddball version of "Satisfaction" somehow works better than Redding's soulful attempt which, to me, comes across as Los Vegasy.
Conversely, although Eric Clapton is a brilliant musician and does Bo Diddley's "Before you accuse me" very well, if you played the two versions, one after the other, Clapton’s has nothing of the raw power, depth of feeling and frankly quality of voice that Mr. McDaniel had.
To fall into the trap of liberal political correctness and pretend there are not inherently differences in music as far as presentations, based on cultural inheritance and physical differences, is to deny reality. These grand achievements by both White and Black artists are a tribute to these inheritances and are to be celebrated not denied.
Sunday, December 26, 2010
Speculation abounds as to why Bristol Palin has bought a 5 bedroom house in Maricopa Arizona. Whether or not Bristol moves to Arizona to go to ASU is a sidelight to the overarching reason i.e. Arizona ia the perfect base for Sarah Palin to conduct her 2012 presidential campaign from.
It is hardly a coincidence that one of her key staffers, her lawyer Thomas Van Flein, is moving to Washington to work for newly elected Arizona Congressman Paul Gosar, whom Palin endorsed. Also, that Todd Palin had a long look-see at the area with the Deputy Mayor of Maricopa before Bristol bought the house (whose 5 bedrooms would seem excessive for Bristol and her baby).
Sarah Palin clearly found that McCain’s 2008 base was ideal as a hub and the electoral map for 2012 clearly dictates the same reasoning would apply. Obviously, given the enormous distances involved, Alaska would be to challenging, time-wise at least, to run a campaign from.
Then why Arizona?
An examination of the electoral map (below) route to victory for Palin makes everything clear. If on election night Florida goes for Obama, then Republican supporters might as well turn off the television, as there is no combination of states, subsequent to the loss of Florida, which can give the Republicans the 270 electoral votes needed for victory.
This implies that Palin's VP choice should be a Catholic with experience cred's such as Rudy Giuliani, or an Hispanic Catholic from Florida i.e. Marco Rubio. Both would appeal to the Hispanic voting block in Florida (Rubio being the obvious choice based purely on pragmatism) and in the vital southwest states.
Assuming Florida goes for the G.O.P. then North Carolina and Indiana should come back into the fold. Virginia is crucial as 270 EV's can't be reached without it unless the Hispanic vote in Nevada or New Mexico can be won over to some degree. Given this scenario the absolute key states start to unfold.
Ohio, Iowa, are battleground states each with their own peculiarities. Arizona, Colorado, Texas, New Mexico and Nevada are states where the Hispanic/Catholic vote will be crucial. Having a base in Arizona would allow Palin substantial time to make as many visits to these states as would be necessary.
Palin has many allies who can take up the cudgels on her behalf too, which is a legacy of her brilliant endorsement program, such as McCain, Gospar, Brewer, new Governor Terry Branstad in Iowa and of course Governor Perry in Texas.
It is obvious that next to zero time and resources should be spent in the Eastern or Western states or in the safe states of the South and Mid-West. This is an excellent situation as it allows for the maximum spend in time, advertizing and supporters energy where it matters most.
Once again Palin confounds her critics who are dumbfounded as to why Bristol has purchased a house in Arizona. Let them continue to write her off as having no electoral skills, they will be utterly undone in November 2012..
Thursday, December 23, 2010
With all due respect to C4P the true case is on a different plane as the two links below clearly show.
Firstly Rudy offered a vigorous defense of Palin (and of course was her NYC/baseball mentor when Sarah visited New York-where the Letterman incident happened) when she came under attack.
Secondly Giuliani is, rather than a stalking horse,an ideal VP for Palin as set out previously
For more of Orriel (Whose new CD will be out early in the new year)
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
The final 2012 Census Bureau Electoral College adjustments are now in and we can take a preview snapshot of what the most likely result will be for Sarah Palin. With the population shifts and a net Republican states gain of 6 electoral votes over the 2008 allocation Palin would assume the presidency with an eleven electoral vote margin.
There is room therefore to lose Colorada or Iowa and still win comfortably.
Monday, December 20, 2010
New York Times columnist Ross Douthat posits it is hard to be a Christian in the run up to December 25th-whilst advising that "in a sense there's no better time to be a Christian". This dollar each way suits, of course, the liberal ethos as exemplified by 'The New York Times'.
According to Douthat the problems for the pious are threefold. Firstly, they are surrounded by commercialism and can see many once a year Christians who "regard religion as just another from of mid-winter entertainment".
The deeper, more philosophical anxieties are canvassed with reference to two books 'American Grace’ which advises that organized Christianity may be being abandoned altogether. The second book 'To Change The World' sets out that Christian churches are mainly influential nowadays in what the author describes as "peripheral areas of life".
There is nothing new in any of these concepts as anyone who grew up in the deeply conservative and Christian cultured America of the 1950's would know. The decline of organized Christianity as a centrepiece of American life from that vantage point is obvious.
Rather than the church proselytizing to bring people to it, the new Christian ethos is one of people coming to the church. The numbers so arriving may be smaller, but those who arrive through deep thought, via their own personal quest and life path may, in the long run, be a spiritually healthier flock. If one can use the term quality versus quantity, without being misunderstood it adds a validity to the concept.
In truth, what makes the Christmas season tough for believers is not some existential angst regarding the decline of the church in American life. Nor is it the crass tide of commercialism besetting it-when has it not been the case in living memory? Rather, it is that the gospel story is exposed to the wider public view, the details of which are then under scrutiny and attack as "myths and legends".
For a non-fundamentalist Christian the nativity story, as told by Luke and Matthew is a challenge. Aspects such as "the slaughter of the innocents", which it might be expected to have been recorded elsewhere, are set out by the biblical scholar Elaine Pagels in 'The Origin of Satan' (The Penguin Press 1995) as parallels to the Old Testament.
Pagel sets out that much of the Gospel story can be viewed as documents of a nascent sect challenging the majority they split off from. They do this in part, by creating a new theology by running the Gospel story as a mirror image-thus Christ is the new Adam, the Passover story is the slaughter of the innocents, the flight of Moses out of Egypt is reverse mirrored with the Holy Families flight into Egypt and other mirrored events.
That even devout Christians can move beyond these textural problems and accept the beauty of myth and fable is charmingly set out, for example in this delightful"Nativity Tale Never Fails To Touch the Heart". Certainly the writers faith is not challenged in the least, rather it is enhanced. This is the result of the individual coming to the faith rather than the other way around as I suggested.
If one has experienced the physical presence of the living Christ through baptism in the Spirit then such things as the absolute reality, or not, of e.g. Jonah's sojourn in the whale, and talking mules, are of no concern. If they are real to one person, and allegory to another, and both are Baptised in the Spirit then so be it-the facts of the matter will be settled finally "when we meet face to face".
That the truth of the resurrection, which is the absolute touchstone of Christianity, (Pagel;
" According to Paul "the gospel" consisted of what he preached, which he summarized as follows: "that Christ died for our sins, according to the scriptures; that he was buried; and that he was raised on the third day") can be physically experienced gives many freedoms. Not least of these is to be able to enjoy the Christmas season free of liberal angst.
As the aptly named Noelle McCarthy put it;
" For believers, the miracle of Christmas is the humanity of Christ, the Word made Flesh through a human birth. You don't have to believe in that to love the story though. It's beautiful enough to love it for itself. A lady with a baby, in a manger.
A simple, humble allegory of love."
Sunday, December 19, 2010
In a major policy statement in early November (in contrast to the idiotic advice from Joe Klein of Time Magazine that "She has no positions on any issue") Sarah Palin warned of the dangers of inflation due to the money printing of Bernanke's Reserve Bank
"All this pump priming will come at a serious price. And I mean that literally: everyone who ever goes out shopping for groceries knows that prices have risen significantly over the past year or so. Pump priming would push them even higher. And it’s not just groceries. Oil recently hit a six month high, at more than $87 a barrel. The weak dollar – a direct result of the Fed’s decision to dump more dollars onto the market – is pushing oil prices upwards. That’s like an extra tax on earnings. And the worst part of it: because the Obama White House refuses to open up our offshore and onshore oil reserves for exploration, most of that money will go directly to foreign regimes who don’t have America’s best interests at heart."
This prescient statement attracted,of course,criticism from the left, for whom a gut negative reaction to all things Palin comes ahead of the professional detatched analysis they are supposed to provide. There were sensible voices from the professional financial community who, as they deal in the real world, saw the truth of her analysis.
Here is what has happened in the real world, reported, ironically by the San Franciso Chronicle, in the bastion of liberalism, just a month and a half after Palin's sage comments;
"For the first time since 2008, inflation is hitting consumers in the stomach.
Grocery prices grew by more than 1 1/2 times the overall rate of inflation this year, outpaced only by costs of transportation and medical care, according to numbers released Wednesday by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Economists predict that this is only the beginning. Fueled by the higher costs of wheat, sugar, corn, soybeans and energy, shoppers could see as much as a 4 percent increase at the supermarket checkout next year.
"I noticed just this month that my grocery bill for the same old stuff - cereal, eggs, milk, orange juice, peanut butter, bread - spiked $25," said Sue Perry, deputy editor of ShopSmart magazine, a nonprofit publication from Consumer Reports. "It was a bit of sticker shock."
But it makes sense. Since November 2009, meat, poultry, fish and eggs have surged 5.8 percent in price. Dairy and related products have gone up 3.8 percent; fats and oils, 3 percent; and sugar and sweets, 1.2 percent.
While overall inflation nationwide was 1.1 percent, grocery prices went up 1.7 percent nationally and 1.3 percent in the Bay Area, said Todd Johnson, an economist for the Bureau of Labor Statistics office in San Francisco. "The largest effects on grocery prices here over the last month were tomatoes, followed by eggs, fish and seafood."
But it makes sense. Since November 2009, meat, poultry, fish and eggs have surged 5.8 percent in price. Dairy and related products have gone up 3.8 percent; fats and oils, 3 percent; and sugar and sweets, 1.2 percent.
It is clear that not only does Palin understand the real life situations of the average person who is facing rising prices for staples, in contrast to the Beltway elite who live in a closeted world unaware of the struggling lives of the great mass of poor and middle class they purport to champion, but that she has positive policy prescriptions which, time after time, put the lie to the leftist talking heads who wrongly decry her on exactly that point.
Saturday, December 18, 2010
The folks at "Crooks And Liars" which is my favourite nutty leftist blog for the juvenile postings and comments which surpass even Kos's denizens, has surpassed itself.
In its breathless reporting of the repeal of Don't ask don't tell it has stirred up the Dante's pit of hell
"The Military doesn't care just as long as they have enough warm body's to send into combat.
Even the Nazis got to the point to where they took anybody willing to put on uniform when they started running out of manpower toward the end days."
This comment was attacked-not because it is evil but because it rained on Obama's triumphal parade.
The leftist mindset keeps surprising on the depths it can descend to.
In a previous analysis of the gross distortions in the television network polling on Sarah Palin I pointed out how, uniquely, the NBC and CBS polls have a distorted level of "Undecided" and in NBC's case (alone of all pollsters") a "Neutral" category.
The levels of undecided/neutral in the latest polls are 22% with NBC, and ridiculously, 29% with CBS.
The average of "Undecided " in the five latest polls from other polling outfits is 8.8%
The average of "Favorable" is 38.4%. This figure matches the putative Palin versus Obama poll which has Obama at 54% and Palin at 39%.
It is instructive to remember that, in election year '76 Ford was 25% behind Carter, and if a few thousand votes had switched here and there in the general election, Ford would have won.
Thus for CBS to have Palin's "Favorables" at 22% (16% below the average of the five latest polls) and NBC to have them at 28% shows a distortion unseen in polling of any other candidate too date.
In contrast and at this stage these are the only sort of polls that really have any bearing on the immediate situation "Palin leads GOP polls in Wisconsin and Ohio"
Monday, December 6, 2010
John F. Kennedy. Party: Democratic
According to Answers.com John F. Kennedy had (at least) four affairs. The list includes Marilyn Monroe and Judy Campbell Exner. The latter was reputed to have been, as the same time as servicing JFK, also attending to a mafia leader Sam Giancana. Numerous other affairs, including, famously, with a prostitute just before the Nixon/Kennedy debate (whilst the Secret Service obligingly guarded the hotel room door) marked JFK’s life story.
Franklin D. Roosevelt. Party: Democratic
FDR had a “30 year affair” with his wife Eleanor’s social secretary Lucy Mercer, and, at the same time was having an affair with his own personal secretary, Miss Lehand (sic)
Understandably, the First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt was said to be having a lesbian affair with an Associated Press reporter Lorena Hancock (sic) in the White House itself, where she took up residence in 1940.
Bill Clinton. Party: Democratic
According to this linked site Arkansas state troopers helped solicit women for Bill Clinton’s alleged prodigious appetite which was said to include nude Penthouse model Gennifer Flowers and having oral sex performed on him in the White House by a young intern Monica Lewinsky.
The Clinton’s marriage was described as “a strange atmosphere to bring up a 12 year old child in.” There are too many adventures the Clinton’s engaged in over the course of his presidency-and her subsequent run (Hillary “misspeaking” about being “under fire” at an airport being one notable item) to deal with in this short summary.
John Kerry. Party: Democratic
Although a devout catholic Kerry’s first marriage was annuled in 1997 according to this site. His first wife suffered from depression and they were initially separated, then divorced in 1988. Kerry subsequently married an Heinz heiress with a fortune estimated at up to 3.2 billion dollars.
Harry S. Truman. Party: Democratic
Truman’s Father-In-Law was an alcoholic and suicide. Truman’s early career was one disaster after another “He failed at every business venture he tries” including as an haberdasher.
The local Missouri Democratic Party kingpin, Boss Prendergast, nominated Truman for County Commissioner but Prendergasts association with mobsters involved Truman in scandal. Truman stated “Prendergast is the price to pay for being in politics”
Fiercely supportive of his show business Daughter Margaret’s musical talents Truman wrote a personal letter to a music critic “Assailing him of his opinions” because the critic was less than kind reporting on Margaret’s abilities.
John Edwards. Party: Democratic
Edwards had an affair and fathered a child with a campaign aid Rielle Hunter whilst running for president and whilst his wife, Elizabeth was stricken with cancer. Edwards was alleged to have instructed an aid to say the child was the not Edwards but was his and is further alleged to have made a sex tape with Hunter
Jimmy Carter. Party: Democratic
Whilst serving as president, President Carter’s brother, Billy (Billy Beer”) Carter, who allegedly had a drinking problem, described himself as “The only sane one in the family”
Whilst promoting his beer brand “Billy Beer” Billy Carter went to Libya to drum up business, describing that dictatorship as having " A hell of a lot more Arabians than Jews“. This venture led to the “Billygate” scandal as it was alleged Billy Carter received a $220,000 loan from Libyan sources which raised concerns about possible influence being put on his Brother, the president.
Teddy Kennedy; Party: Democratic
As would be expected there is simply not enough space in this brief summary to do justice to this gentleman’s life, loves and female relationships. All of which was deemed acceptable to his colleagues in the Democratic party during his abortive campaign for the presidency.
Woodrow Wilson. Party: Democratic
Wilson’s second wife connived to keep secret that Wilson had a massive stroke whilst in office. This left him blind in one eye and paralysed down on side of his body. She effectively ran the presidency at this time and blocked Vice President Thomas Marshall from seeing Wilson’s condition. This might have changed the course of history. If Marshall had taken over from the incapacitated president he might have had a better relationship with the Republican’s than the dogmatic Wilson, and thus enabled America to join the League of Nations-possibly stopping the European dictators in their tracks.
Lyndon B. Johnson. Party: Democratic
As famously catalogued in the book“The Means Of Ascent” Johnson owed his rise to the senate by his team bribing the sheriffs to stuff ballot boxes.
He had a long term mistress who became pregnant. She refused an abortion and he had a son by her who was fatherless whilst Johnson pursued his career-which facts were not mentioned by the liberal media.
Grover Cleveland. Party: Democratic
Whilst running for president rumors that Cleveland had fathered a son whilst unmarried surfaced. There was some confusion regarding the matter however. The woman in question, Maria Halpin had been having relations with several men at the same time.
Her son Oscar Folsom Cleveland was named after both Cleveland and Cleveland’s law firm partner Folsom. Grover Cleveland took responsibility for supporting the child “As I was the only bachelor” amongst the various men involved. The Republican campaign song was “Ma Ma where’s my Pa? Gone to the White House ha ha ha”.
Cleveland, whilst in the White House subsequently married his ward, Frances Folsom, who was the 21 year old daughter of his law firm partner-he was 49 at the time.
Thus it can be seen that the liberal left and main stream media are setting a very high standard for the Palin’s to live up to. Some commentators on the right have viewed the liberal and republican elites as condescending, looking down on the Palin’s humble origins. It seems that Sarah and Todd’s example of a long marriage and fidelity may struggle to keep up with the standards set by peerless Democratic party exemplars.
Divorces, marriages, remarriages, infidelities, hypocrisy, business failures, debasing the office, hiding bastard children, lying, cheating, fixing elections, corrupt family associations, hiding from the press in the toilet, leaving the scene of an accident.
These are just some of the qualities these Democratic Party leaders present as challenge to subsequent seekers of the highest office in the land. Perhaps the Palin’s, in their humble lifestyle, are better off not trying to emulate their supposed betters, even if that doesn’t satisfy the elite.
Saturday, December 4, 2010
"This is it. This is the last time I’m going to write the name Sarah Palin until she does something truly newsworthy, like declare herself a candidate for the presidency. Until then, I will no longer take part in the left’s obsessive-compulsive fascination with her, which is both unhealthy and counterproductive."
He goes on to describe her as "the Zsa Zsa Gabor of Politics" in the typically liberal NYT condescending manner and describes as the main reason he will not give the world the benefit of any further elitist thoughts about Palin "until she does something truly newsworthy'-newsworthy in his exalted opinion of course as;
"Yet the left continues to elevate her every utterance so that they can mock and deride her. The problem is that this strategy continues to backfire".
The truly ironic, and in reality hilarious aspect of this, is that his column has generated, so far, over 500 angry, anti-Palin rants in the comments sections across the three liberal sites (Kos/Balloon Juice/NYT) that I took the time to count. They just can't help themselves, the very name Palin, even when being used in an article calling on the left to ignore her, incites such mad passions that nothing can be said or done to restore sanity.
In passing, I recall Rachel Maddow making the same comment on her television show "We will not mention the name Sarah Palin again" and the very next day Maddow showed up in waders, looking like a fool by the way, as some sort of dig at Palin being interviewed in her fishing boat whilst wearing waders. Such is the madness she sends these hard core liberals into.
I am getting more and more excited at the prospect of a Palin presidential campaign as the sight of the left exploding into uncontrolled madness-even when one of their own, like Blow, tells them it is unproductive, will be one of the best tools for her campaign success.It will reveal in broad daylight the true mechanism of liberal thought behind the mask-a world view built on a foundation of jealousy, misogyny, statism, redistribution, isolationism, mercantilism, restrictive unionism and anti-life.
Orriel Smith is, beyond any argument, the possessor of the most beautiful voice ever recorded. Pure in tone...no need to gild the lily, the original analysis is here which links to her songs.
The old saw that advises "nobody remembers the name of the second person to fly the Atlantic" has some validity (who was it BTW?) but in the case of "The second most beautiful voice ever recorded" that is not quite the case.
Margot Sylvia is, sadly, gone but far from forgotten. The Tune Weavers were, basically, one hit wonders with "Happy Happy Birthday Baby, being their one and only great hit.They actually mined it a number of times with subsequent variations (Merry Merry Christmas Baby) but basically the first was it. I actually like the flip side a rollicking version of "Old Man River" too.
The aspect which made their hit stand out, apart from the excellent baritone saxophone intro, is of course Margot Sylvia's voice.
In common with Orriel, Margot has a most beautiful pure tone. From the pitch-perfect first note to the soaring chorus, she sings effortlessly. Her voice, which the first word "happy" illustrates, sounds like the purest note on a musical instrument-almost as if the sax which delivered the opening low notes suddenly switches into a higher register but with the same, almost reedy tone.
Margot was blessed with having a backing group who who were perfect for her clear sharp voice-much as Judith Durham (yes, she is the third most beautiful voice ever recorded) had with The Seekers.
Here is Margot Sylvia in full flight (linked to YouTube in case the embed below doesn't operate). I must have listened to this a thousand times since I bought it on a 78 rpm all those years ago.
NB; "I Remember Dear" is a lovely example of perfect pitch and this is a lovely comment on that site
"There will never be another singer like Margot Sylvia....it is so sad that she is not with us anymore. I listen to "come back to me" every night, over and over again. Does anyone out there know if there is a Margot Sylvia fan club?
Friday, December 3, 2010
Obama Makes Harding Look Good (With Buchanan [Updated:Pierce] On The Horizon) Palin Must Be The Better Choice.
The air of disillusion in America has grown stronger, and the voters expressed what they thought about the direction of the country in unmistakable terms in the November elections.
Whether a particular policy of this administration is good or bad, whether the foreign policy is disastrous, and a myriad of other negatives, the overarching factor is that the most important thing which affects the average person-unemployment is getting worse.
9.8 headline unemployment "surprisingly" announced today-the rate of real unemployment is tragically much higher-is the ultimate confirmation of President Obama's failure.
The only change to the drift of the original post is that the presidents I compared him to have changed. In Krugman's latest column of despair on his lamented-hope and change president, to paraphrase,"what happened to the man we believed in, where is his spine"-a commentator said;
Obama is a caretaker president like Fillmore, Pierce and Buchanan whilst we wait for the agent of change".
When I wrote the original article Buchanan was the worst example I could think of at the time. Since then Obama has plumbed the depths to be at the level of Pierce who historians reckon as having been the absolute worst in history.
Like Pierce Obama will be a one termer and perhaps the only good thing we can hope for is that he will have cleared the ground for the true exponent of hope and change, President Palin. Let's hope in the remaining two years he doesn't emulate Fillmore, who is considered a laughing stock, their is nothing to laugh about frankly.
You know you are in trouble when even the foreign press says your credibility has hit "rock bottom" as is the case with this report in England's "Telegraph" from their Washington based correspondent Toby Harnden.
Harnden points to Obama's "soporific" press conference and his disastrous handling of the BP oil spill-which Harnden contrast poorly with G.W. Bush's Katrina role-pointing out that in the same duration, 39 days, Bush had visited the Katrina sites 7 times compared to Obama's 2 Gulf area visits.
The Sestak/Emmauel/Clinton/Specter affair also comes in for hard lines from Harnden who summarizes that Americans are now deeply disillusioned with their government and President.
However the best aspect of the piece is the pithy comment from a reader. Trust the British for the best in ironic humor, (if humor it sadly is) which advises that Obama has gone well past the most recent of incompetent presidents and is now surpassing what are considered two of the most incompetent presidents of all time
" This man is not only making President Carter look good, but also Presidents Grant, Harding, Nixon and Bush 43. What in the world were the Americans thinking? "
There is further to fall however-the depths of Pierce and Buchanan are yet to be breached-as breached they sadly will be.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
The vitriolic hatred of Sarah Palin by the radical feminists, as exemplified especially by the Blog “Shakesville” shows, beyond doubt, the terrible dilemma and schizophrenic mindset the conundrum that is Sarah Palin has put such feminists into.
On the face of it, a woman of Palin’s achievements should be the cause for triumphalism amongst feminists. In every aspect of her life, her career achievements in a “patriarchal” world, her completely equal sharing role with her husband (a “real man” if that has any bearing on the matter), her capacity to be an author, outdoors person, activist and caring mother are an incredible advance on where women were as late as the mid 1960’s.
But no, Palin is under ceaseless attack for one reason only, her dedicated pro-life stance. Whatever feminism was before the rise of Palin, and of course its aim of equality of opportunity was laudable, it is now seen to be mono-focussed. Pro/anti life considerations are its defining motif above all else.
No matter what Palin has achieved, no matter what she may further achieve-even to the ultimate feminist triumph of becoming the first female president of the United States, she will never be acceptable to the feminist left.
This is the ultimate failure of feminism in its current aspect as a manifestation and tool of the Alinsky radical left. In this current guise its goal is to defeat Palin and prevent her from achieving the highest office in the land. This is because she is a woman whose life views they disagree with-at the cost of negating economic policies which will help all women.
This dichotomy in the collective mind of radical feminists is highlighted further by their failure to grasp that there are elements in society, and human nature, which transcend the blinkered notion of “patriarchy” and the liberal world view.
Their attitude to Palin’s life reinforcing/religious stance is mirrored by their non-comprehension of the Dionysian nature of humankind which finds its expression in women as well as in men. The surrealist paintings of Dorothea Tanning are an odd journey into a world which, if depicted by a man, would be the subject of much feminist attack as misogynist e.g. one of her seminal works Eine Klein Nachtmusik .
Tannings paintings bring the viewer into “an unsettling world” of what appears to be Victorian repressive neurosis.
The male created surrealism of e.g. Dali has a dreamlike, or similarly other worldly nature, but there is nothing of the overt, distorted nature of Tanning’s work. Even the title of her major work (pictured below) “The Truth about Comets and Little Girls" reinforces this unsettling innuendo "Her work explores the female psyche through the medium of dreams. Her paintings often combine a superficial childhood innocence with rather disturbing undertones and morbid symbolism"
Even Hieronymus Bosch, the predecessor of what we know as surrealism presents nothing of the nature of Tanning’s oeuvre. His work, even with his most gory depictions, have an element of being so over the top that they transcend being unsettling.
Feminists, Paglia perhaps excepted, have been so radicalized by years of extreme anti-patriarchal propaganda that they have inured themselves to viewing the broader brush of humanity. This humanity expresses itself in regarding men and women as having diverse, but equal natures, some aspects of which are not particularly attractive, but that in reality are held nonetheless.
Women can hold to a pro-life stance for which they shouldn’t be demonized by other women who “know better” and which demonization leads to, ultimately, the detriment of all women and society as a whole. The feminists, in their black and white view of the world are unable even to entertain a reasonable dialogue regarding an individual’s pro-life stance. By doing so, they expose themselves as lacking a truly humanistic and balanced view which accepts the diversity in women in the arts and in the body politic.
Kathleen Parker of The Washington Post- A beltway mainstay of there ever was one-has joined the trial balloon lift off. She names names and further tills the soil for the forthcoming launch. People don't raise a million dollars for fun-this is serious business.
She concludes her column with this statement;
"All that's missing from a centrist movement that could be formidable is a leader....Anyone?"
I think that "anyone" except Bloomberg need not bother applying for this leadership position.
Certainly Bloomberg would, like Perot before him, have substantial financial resources to launch a viable third party campaign. Unlike Perot however, Bloomberg would not be seen as quirky. Looking objectively, Bloomberg would be a serious and respected candidate, whose business/financial, administrative skills are unquestioned. He could organize a support team of top flight professionals, and would be a skilled debater.
He is of course nobody's fool, and if he did run it would be because he saw a path to victory. Certainly no one could accuse him of running as a quixotic gesture, or simply as a spoiler. Rather, he would be viewed as running to advance a set of principles.
If such a person, with such principles and resources ran, it would be a massive threat to, and condemnation of, Obama and his administration. It would be a Kennedy versus Carter campaign all over again, but this time throughout the general election campaign itself.
What are the implications for a Palin run from this scenario? They are nothing but positive. Map 1. (below) shows a possible result of a straightforward Obama versus Palin campaign. It shows, based on the 2004 result and the new electoral college numbers factoring in population drift, a Palin victory by two electoral votes. If Virginia went to Obama the victory for Palin could come from winning Colorado and Nevada.
Map 2. shows what I believe Bloomberg's maximum result might be. Realistically he is not going to win the Republican states of the South and Midwest. No candidate in this scenario has the required 270 electoral votes and the House of Representatives would decide the winner from amongst the top two candidates. A Republican House would of course choose Palin over Obama. [NB.The electoral college analysis has been updated further to Texas 38/Florida29/New York 29/Missouri 10 which gives Palin her 272 result.]
Map 3. Shows Bloomberg's worst case scenario, the result of which is ideal for Palin. It denies Obama 270 electoral votes even if he wins Virginia, and puts him in second place with the House again choosing Palin.
Even if Bloomberg mounted a hugely successful campaign and the economy was so poor that he won the rust belt states, plus Florida, New Jersey, Connecticut, California, Palin would still be situated in first place in the electoral college with the House choosing her subsequently.
Personally speaking as a Manhattanite, I would not hesitate to vote for Bloomberg (splitting my vote for all the Republican candidates below president of course) in New York. In point of fact, if most Republicans, joined by PUMA's did that, Bloomberg would have a great chance of winning the state. My vote would, instead of being "wasted" go obliquely to helping Palin win-wonderful! And if voters similarly voted tactically in California, Connecticut and New Jersey-so much the better.
As has been shown on numerous occasions, the latest being the 2000 election where Bush lost the popular vote by half a million, the popular vote is of secondary importance.What happens in the electoral college, and possibly subsequently in the House is all that matters. Whether there is a "mandate" can be discussed by pundits for four years subsequent to the 2012 election. The Dem's were happy for Woodrow Wilson to win by a plurality of popular votes, so the have no cause for complaining about mandates.
"Run Mike Run". I look forward to having my vote count towards electing Palin by you winning New York.