U.S. Congressman Pete Visclosky thinks you are stupid

Or at least uniformed. Visclosky, in his recent newsletter expressed outrage over the AIG bonuses that have been all over the news.

I am furious that AIG is lavishing over $165 million in “job performance” bonuses on the very executives who ran that company into the ground. (source)

Only a few problems with that. He makes no mention that the Obama administration knew a month ago about the bonuses, which is obviously before Obama read his recent outrage off a teleprompter

[…] For months, the Obama administration and members of Congress have known that insurance giant AIG was getting ready to pay huge bonuses while living off government bailouts.

It wasn't until the money was flowing and news was trickling out to the public that official Washington rose up in anger and vowed to yank the money back.

[…]

The bonus problem wasn't new, as many lawmakers and administration officials knew only too well. AIG's plans to pay hundreds of millions of dollars were publicized last fall, when Congress started asking questions about expensive junkets the company had sponsored. A November SEC filing by the company details more than $469 million in "retention payments" to keep prized employees. […] (source)

There is no outrage at Chris Dodd for saying he had nothing to do with language in the bail out that protected existing contracted bonuses, only now to admit he did insert that language.

Senate Banking committee Chairman Christopher Dodd told CNN’s Dana Bash and Wolf Blitzer Wednesday that he was responsible for adding the bonus loophole into the stimulus package that permitted AIG and other companies that received bailout funds to pay bonuses.

On Tuesday, Dodd denied to CNN that he had anything to do with the adding of that provision. (Thanks to Michelle Malkin - be sure to follow her links)

I’m still waiting for Democrats, that includes you Visclosky, to actually show some outrage over the CRA, Frank, Dodd and at the time Senator Obama running interference against more tightly regulating Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac or simply doing nothing to help overcome the resistance of their colleagues in the Democrat party. Let’s not forget ACORN or voting irregularities experienced during the Indiana Democrat primary at the hands of Obama’s campaign. How about some outrage at Chuckie Schumer for releasing his letter that set off a run on a bank?

Sorry Visclosky, I’m not as dumb or uninformed as your newsletter assumes. That would explain why I’ve never voted for you. Then again, I suppose you may be as stupid and uniformed as you assume your constituents must be when you approved that newsletter.

Maybe you’ll correct these oversights with the next one. Don’t worry, I won’t hold my breath.

If you would like to let U.S. Congressman Pete Visclosky know that you are more informed than he assumes, here is his contact info:

Washington Office
2256 Rayburn
House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
phone: (202) 225-2461
fax: (202) 225-2493

Northwest Indiana Office
7895 Broadway, Suite A
Merrillville, IN 46410
phone: (219) 795-1844
(888) 423-PETE (toll-free)
fax: (219) 795-1850

If you’re in Indiana’s 1st Congressional District you can use the online form here to correspond.

And yes, I sent him a link to this blog post.

---

Filed under: News – Politics

Trackposted to: Nuke's, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, third world county, Allie is Wired, Woman Honor Thyself, Walls of the City, The World According to Carl, Colorado Sports Desk, Leaning Straight Up, Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Technorati tags: Pete Visclosky -- Barney Frank -- Chris Dodd -- Waxman -- Fannie Mae -- Freddie Mac -- CRA -- Obama -- AIG -- TARP -- economics -- ACORN

Mark My Words online store

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions

Straw is easy to burn

Playing with fire is fun until you hurt yourself.

It has been noted by others that President Obama tends to caricature his opposition when he argues for support of his policies. Straw-man arguments are easy to burn, which is why they are so tempting to use against one's opponents. Karl Rove has chronicled President Obama's use of this tactic; though I'm sure there will be more examples in the future.

President Barack Obama reveres Abraham Lincoln. But among the glaring differences between the two men is that Lincoln offered careful, rigorous, sustained arguments to advance his aims and, when disagreeing with political opponents, rarely relied on the lazy rhetorical device of "straw men." Mr. Obama, on the other hand, routinely ascribes to others views they don't espouse and says opposition to his policies is grounded in views no one really advocates.

[…]

Mr. Obama portrays himself as a nonideological, bipartisan voice of reason. Everyone resorts to straw men occasionally, but Mr. Obama's persistent use of the device is troubling. Continually characterizing those who disagree with you in a fundamentally dishonest way can be the sign of a person who lacks confidence in the merits of his ideas. […] (source)

Yes it is disturbing but even more so when this is applied in other areas by way of foolishness. When it comes to negotiating with other nations, many of whom have interests that compete with ours and with liberal democracies in general, one needs to not have a misunderstanding of their counterpart when working diplomatic channels. It's bad enough to present their views dishonestly and then argue against that distortion. It is hardly any better to fundamentally misunderstand their motivations and work from such flawed presumptions. John Bolton called this problem “mirror imaging” in his discussion of the problems in the State Dept. bureaucracy.

“Mirror imaging” is related to moral equivalency, but is perhaps an even more widespread operational problem, involving the inability to see that representatives of other countries do not bargain on the same terms as our diplomats. […] If your “interlocutor” thinks you are a limp-wristed, weak-kneed, morally degenerate envoy  of a decaying civilization, his priorities are likely to be very different from yours. In fact, if the person opposite is not your mirror image, your are poised to be taken advantage of, and will perhaps not even be aware of it. […] (Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations, John Bolton, pg 452)

So while the straw is not being placed intentionally, as Obama does for his American competition, it still piles up with our competitors and enemies. I'm sure they don't mind, it just makes it easier to set us afire when they decide to toss the match.

---

Filed under: Politics – Obama

Trackposted to: Nuke's, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Rosemary's Thoughts, Political Byline, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, Walls of the City, Leaning Straight Up, Conservative Cat, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Technorati tags: Obama -- diplomacy -- straw-man -- fallacy -- Karl Rove -- John Bolton

Mark My Words online store

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions

It’s Only A Joke

There's nothing wrong with laughter right? The problem is that humor is too often used as  a means to avoid personal responsibility with regard to being informed on important matters in the realm of politics.

It's not that making a joke about a politician is the problem. The error is when someone defines that individual by only the jokes and ignores the actual substance and/or record. It doesn't help that some comedians intentionally seek applause from the like minded, rather than be merely humorous.

A case in point, Bobby Jindal has recently been compared to Kenneth of 30 Rock. I actually think that's rather funny and worth a chuckle or two. But how many will allow their complete definition of Governor Jindal be determined by that? Do they have any idea of the substance of his speech and can respond with reasoned disagreement? Do they know he has a successful record of starting to reform the cesspool of Louisiana politics? Do they remember how competent his reaction to a hurricane was compared to the last Louisiana Governor? Have they bothered to see how successful he has been in other government positions or know that he is a Rhodes Scholar and has achieved quite a bit of success in politics by the age of thirty seven?

One may disagree with him on the issues; others choose to be informed only by comedians. That decision seems to be another expression of the lack of personal responsibility that has been a growing problem for some time and is now being encouraged by government bailouts to the irresponsible after having encouraged that behavior in the first place.

This is no different for those who can only express their disagreement with Hillary Clinton by her "cankles" or by falsely claiming that Barack Obama is a secret Muslim. Ignoring their arguments may work for the choir, but at some point substantive replies need to be offered to justify the opposition. To constantly shrink back from that duty is to cheapen the discourse and one should not be surprised, regardless of what side they are on, if they eventually find their views and statements looked at as no better than a cheap bumper sticker.

Perhaps many have the opinion that being informed about politicians and political issues is not important. Would they make a decision on what car or house to buy, which college to attend, what job offer to accept, based merely on who could tell the better joke about the competition? Yet, when it comes to deciding who will be in a position to tax us, determine how much government controls our lives and be responsible for defending the nation, it seems far too many rely on who gave them the best giggle. That wouldn't be so bad if they didn't vote. Unfortunately, it would seem too many of them do, judging from who won the last election.

People with this shallow level of thinking and lack of personal responsibility are themselves reduced to being a joke, but it is certainly no laughing matter when they can decide the fate of our nation.

---

Filed Under: Politics – Culture

Trackposted to: Nuke's, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Rosemary's Thoughts, Investorblogger Dot Com, third world county, Political Byline, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, Leaning Straight Up, CORSARI D'ITALIA, Conservative Cat, Right Voices, and Stageleft, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Technorati tags: Bobby Jindal -- Hillary Clinton -- comedy -- politics -- 30 Rock

Mark My Words online store

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions

Sarah Palin - pro-choice?

I'm willing to bet that some usual idiots are jeering, or soon will be, at the fact that Sarah Palin just appointed a former Planned Parenthood board member to the Alaska Supreme Court. These types are probably getting a kick out of how social conservatives are going to be disheartened or hoping at least to stoke the flames of the imagined and hoped for disappointment. How should a pro-life, social conservative react?

Let's start by merely rolling our eyes at those who hope we will throw Sarah Palin under the bus. They're dream is based on ignoring information as to how a governor of Alaska is involved in the process. We need not be led by their dishonesty or their stupidity. The fact of the matter is that Sarah Palin had little power and could only choose from the candidates that were presented to her by a judicial council.

Gov. Palin's power to appoint judges is very limited in this process. Sure, she doesn't have to get her appointees approved by the legislature; but she can only choose names from a short list supplied to her by the Judicial Council. And in this instance, they sent her two names that she would never choose on her own, but she had no recourse to demand more names. No, this Alaskan system is not ideal. (source)

Be sure to read that entire post for more details and updates.

If there is anyone that should be disturbed, it would be those who try to portray Governor Sarah Palin as some sort of diabolical Christianist seeking to turn the country into a theocracy, if only given enough power. But then those types have never really bothered with the truth regarding Sarah Palin, so it's a rather slim chance they'll start at this late date. For those of us who actually care to be informed by facts, it has been clear for some time now that Governor Palin governs within the limits of the Alaska constitution and has not done much to force her personal social views on the state.

As a pro-life, social conservative, I have no problem with Governor Palin's decision considering how limited, by law, her role was in this matter. That my reaction only upsets or disappoints the usual idiots is just another reason that the sun shined a little more brightly for me today.

---

Filed under: Palin -- Politics – Abortion

Trackposted to: Nuke's, The Virtuous Republic, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Rosemary's Thoughts, Allie is Wired, third world county, Investorblogger Dot Com, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, Conservative Cat, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Technorati tags: Palin -- Alaska Supreme Court -- Morgan Christen -- Planned Parenthood -- pro-choice -- pro-life

Mark My Words online store

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions

I hope Obama fails = treason?

According to at least one lefty Obama fan it is and should result in Rush Limbaugh being executed. The idea was expressed on Larry King's show and went by without comment. Is that the best way to react to such a provocative statement?

STEPHANIE MILLER, LIBERAL TALK RADIO HOST: I guess that is what Nancy and her friends want. As long as you have a place to listen Rush on the radio — if he fails we all fail.

KING: If his policies fail, he fails, right?

MILLER: Exactly. To me that seems treasonous

[…]

MILLER: … If I could say something tonight that gets me that kind of attention, like maybe Rush Limbaugh should be executed for treason. How about that?

Video here at HotAir.

Rather than address the outrageous statement, I think there is more to criticize with the tactic. In my opinion Stephanie Miller was attempting to play a game wherein she would respond to criticism by saying she's just doing what the right did when Bush was criticized. Of course her claim as to what the right was doing is largely just in her imagination and it requires one to also very much distort what Rush Limbaugh actually said. The shocking statement was merely an attempt to provide a moment for once again demonizing and discrediting the right by way of claiming hypocrisy. It matters little what rhetoric is used, or how such words may inflame others to actually consider equating disagreement with a president as being treasonous.

...standing in the middle of a grassy square, the crowd alert around me, each of them connected to me by a taut invisible wire so that my will is their will, my mouth speaks their words, their hearts beat to my rhythm. I have never felt this before, this kind of life, to be part of a group like this, and not just part of it, but the mind of it, the center, so that my self includes them all, hundreds of them, my rage is their rage, their hands are my hands, their eyes only what I show them.

In fact, stirring up the mob may be quite useful for suppressing those who are less courageous. It can have other effects as well, let's not forget the talk of riots in the streets if Obama was not elected. No doubt quite a few who helped start the French revolution felt likewise about the usefulness of exciting group passions. One wonders if they later realized their error before the guillotine interrupted their thoughts.

A momentary silence. A lull. An opportunity. Think of the right words. Think of something to bring them back, they're slipping away. They were part of my self, but now they're sliding away out from under me, one spasm and I've lost control, if I ever had control; what can I say in this split second of silence to bring them back to their senses?

Some people who have a large audience say horrendous things merely to get attention and advance a less ridiculous plan of action. They don't intend to take things as far as their heated words can be used by others, however, that does not absolve them of all responsibility, despite their wish for that to be the case. It also offers little to no protection for themselves when the mob they've unleashed gets beyond their control.

They almost killed him in their rush to leave him, almost trampled him into the grass.

They were his, though, all the same. He had created them, made a single mob of them, and even though they had misunderstood what he created them for*, they were still acting according to the rage he had provoked in them, and with the plan he had put in their minds. Their aim was bad, that's all--otherwise they were doing exactly what he had wanted them to do. Valentine was right. It was his responsibility. What they did now, he had done as surely as if he were still in front of them leading the way. (Xenocide, Orson Scott Card)

No matter one's ideology, placing it's success above all personal responsibility, combined with the ends justify the means, creates a path that will nearly certainly lead to disaster. The foolishness of such short sightedness is clear in history. Must we repeat the past several times over with escalating terror and suffering at each pass before we learn the error of our ways?

---

Filed Under: Politics – MSM

Trackposted to: Nuke's, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, Allie is Wired, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, Conservative Cat, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Technorati tags: Stephanie Miller -- treason -- Larry King -- Rush Limbaugh -- Obama

Mark My Words online store

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions