"He knew that joy is best found not in the pursuit of pleasure, but in the execution of responsibility."
As far as I'm concerned, that statement is among the most mature of conclusions possible about life's central purpose. Take a moment to learn, or reinforce, a lesson about love, about sacrifice, about duty.
Sunday, June 19, 2011
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Rainbow Repression
I'm going to assume that by now you heard about the Arab-lesbian-blogger hoax. (If not, google it.) Mark Steyn has a good piece (doesn't he always?) about how the entire episode is demonstrative of Western liberal gullibility over such things. The Left wants, the Left needs, and desperately so, to believe in an otherwise repressed rainbow world. So, when they hear of something like this, without pause, they jump. And not just to conclusions, also to accusations, to demands, etc..
Steyn's probably right, but I think another interpretation is possible.
I've mentioned before that one of my all-time favorite Rush Limbaugh routines was when he used to claim he was a "male lesbian"" That is, he was a woman trapped in a man's body who prefers women to men. You have to stop and think about it for a moment, but once you grasp it.... I think something like this just might be applicable to the current case and make the hoax not a hoax after all.
As it happens, the "real" blogger is some fellow from Georgia named MacMaster. In his on-line explanation for what he had done he wrote: “While the narrative voice may have been fictional, the facts on this blog are true and not misleading as to the situation on the ground.”
You see, perhaps the blogger is in fact a lesbian. That is, he's a "male lesbian", a woman trapped in a man's body who prefers women. And if his sexuality can be repressed, then why not his ethnicity as well? He's not a Westerner at all, he's a repressed Arab. And if both of these are so, then the blog was true and the Left need not be embarrassed. (They probably weren't anyway. I think it's impossible to embarrass them.)
"This is silly Sage," you protest.
Well, no less an authority than the US Supreme Court has ruled that, "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."
Steyn's probably right, but I think another interpretation is possible.
I've mentioned before that one of my all-time favorite Rush Limbaugh routines was when he used to claim he was a "male lesbian"" That is, he was a woman trapped in a man's body who prefers women to men. You have to stop and think about it for a moment, but once you grasp it.... I think something like this just might be applicable to the current case and make the hoax not a hoax after all.
As it happens, the "real" blogger is some fellow from Georgia named MacMaster. In his on-line explanation for what he had done he wrote: “While the narrative voice may have been fictional, the facts on this blog are true and not misleading as to the situation on the ground.”
You see, perhaps the blogger is in fact a lesbian. That is, he's a "male lesbian", a woman trapped in a man's body who prefers women. And if his sexuality can be repressed, then why not his ethnicity as well? He's not a Westerner at all, he's a repressed Arab. And if both of these are so, then the blog was true and the Left need not be embarrassed. (They probably weren't anyway. I think it's impossible to embarrass them.)
"This is silly Sage," you protest.
Well, no less an authority than the US Supreme Court has ruled that, "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Shaking My Head
POLITICO, like virtually every other news source by now, is reporting that Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) will in fact resign after all. But this is not about that.
It's about these two sentences from the POLITICO report:
But then I can't be sure, can I?
It's about these two sentences from the POLITICO report:
The Clintons, the sources said, and their extended world, are furious and want no contact with Weiner. But they are deeply supportive and protective of Abedin, whom Clinton called a “second” daughter when he officiated her wedding.I'd like to think the reporters and editors at least paused when they wrote and then approved that particular passage for publication.
But then I can't be sure, can I?
ATMs and Unemployment
The president has been taking more than a few shots for his unfortunate comment about ATMs and airport kiosks and stubbornly high national unemployment numbers. Most of the shots have been unfair. He was, after all, only using the ATM as a single example in order to make a larger point.
That point, of course, was that in an earlier time an actual human being would have been employed to cash your check or check your bags and that same human being has now been replaced by automation. Multiply the case of the ATM by the number of similar cases across the economy and you have uncountable jobs once performed by people now being accomplished by machines.
Those who criticize the president for his hypocrisy in this are correct to do so. Obama and the Legion of Lefties he represents are the ones always arguing, for example, that going "green" is not a job killer. Instead, they insist that pursuing what they deem to be environmentally friendly policies will release the American entrepreneurial spirit. Newer, safer, more efficient, less fossil-fuel dependent technologies will be developed as a result.
The problem is that I don't believe them. The country they envision as a consequence of following their often draconian rules and regulations is not the country of some Stephen Spielberg sci-fi dream (I'm thinking of the pristine landscapes depicted in, for example, Minority Report and AI), but is, rather, a return to an America that existed prior to industrialization. Heck, if they're lucky, maybe even prior to the arrival of the evil white man altogether.
But, aside from the hypocrisy, what the president's comments reveal is a way of thinking that is fairly typical of lefties. When they consider things economic (which ain't often), their thinking is both static and narrow.
Focus just on the case of the ATM. It's true, the advent of the ubiquitous ATM meant the end of employment for a very large number of tellers across the country, across the world in fact. That hard fact is what the president and most lefties focus on. Regrettably, they focus on that fact alone.
They rarely think further about the efficiency and convenience brought along with the ATM. Most of us can still remember a time when, if you needed some cash at other than what used to be called "bankers hours", good luck. Now, 24/7 and virtually everywhere, it's available. Available cash is cash to spend on other things, things produced and sold by other people, perhaps even former bank tellers, employed to do so.
Moreover, the end of the need to hire as many tellers as before means that banking is relatively cheaper than it would be otherwise. Because of competition in banking those savings are invariably passed on to the consumer, savings the consumer can now spend, again, on something else. Oh, I don't know, a Sea-Doo maybe, the manufacturing, marketing, and sale of which also requires the employment of people, again, maybe former tellers.
I've not even mentioned the obvious point that someone, some real human being, a good number of them in fact, must be employed to produce, distribute, and maintain the ATMs themselves. Should I say it again? I should. Maybe even former bank tellers.
Automation, and the indispensable liberty to fuel it, should never be feared. Instead, it should be embraced. An economic policy that intends seriously to create jobs is one that should encourage it. Chiefly, I might add, by getting the government the heck out of the way.
That point, of course, was that in an earlier time an actual human being would have been employed to cash your check or check your bags and that same human being has now been replaced by automation. Multiply the case of the ATM by the number of similar cases across the economy and you have uncountable jobs once performed by people now being accomplished by machines.
Those who criticize the president for his hypocrisy in this are correct to do so. Obama and the Legion of Lefties he represents are the ones always arguing, for example, that going "green" is not a job killer. Instead, they insist that pursuing what they deem to be environmentally friendly policies will release the American entrepreneurial spirit. Newer, safer, more efficient, less fossil-fuel dependent technologies will be developed as a result.
The problem is that I don't believe them. The country they envision as a consequence of following their often draconian rules and regulations is not the country of some Stephen Spielberg sci-fi dream (I'm thinking of the pristine landscapes depicted in, for example, Minority Report and AI), but is, rather, a return to an America that existed prior to industrialization. Heck, if they're lucky, maybe even prior to the arrival of the evil white man altogether.
But, aside from the hypocrisy, what the president's comments reveal is a way of thinking that is fairly typical of lefties. When they consider things economic (which ain't often), their thinking is both static and narrow.
Focus just on the case of the ATM. It's true, the advent of the ubiquitous ATM meant the end of employment for a very large number of tellers across the country, across the world in fact. That hard fact is what the president and most lefties focus on. Regrettably, they focus on that fact alone.
They rarely think further about the efficiency and convenience brought along with the ATM. Most of us can still remember a time when, if you needed some cash at other than what used to be called "bankers hours", good luck. Now, 24/7 and virtually everywhere, it's available. Available cash is cash to spend on other things, things produced and sold by other people, perhaps even former bank tellers, employed to do so.
Moreover, the end of the need to hire as many tellers as before means that banking is relatively cheaper than it would be otherwise. Because of competition in banking those savings are invariably passed on to the consumer, savings the consumer can now spend, again, on something else. Oh, I don't know, a Sea-Doo maybe, the manufacturing, marketing, and sale of which also requires the employment of people, again, maybe former tellers.
I've not even mentioned the obvious point that someone, some real human being, a good number of them in fact, must be employed to produce, distribute, and maintain the ATMs themselves. Should I say it again? I should. Maybe even former bank tellers.
Automation, and the indispensable liberty to fuel it, should never be feared. Instead, it should be embraced. An economic policy that intends seriously to create jobs is one that should encourage it. Chiefly, I might add, by getting the government the heck out of the way.
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
TV Rights, and Lefts
Need a warm-weather diversion? Try this: What are the most conservative television shows of all time?
NRO's Ben Shapiro tackles the question, listing, with some pretty serious constraints to be sure, his own Top Twelve.
This is very difficult for me for a couple of reasons. First, for the past 20 or so years, aside from news and sports shows, I've watched very little TV. So, when Shapiro includes Lost and 24 among the most conservative, I'm afraid I can't comment one way or the other.
Second, and Shapiro alludes to this, much of what we consider conservative is so because it's explicitly not political. That is, it affirms traditional mores and habits of the heart simply by not attacking them. This is true of television shows as well. Shapiro on Leave It to Beaver:
One quick answer: M*A*S*H.
I loved that show at first, but the longer it ran, the preachier it got, and the sermons were always replete with left-wing bromides.
NRO's Ben Shapiro tackles the question, listing, with some pretty serious constraints to be sure, his own Top Twelve.
This is very difficult for me for a couple of reasons. First, for the past 20 or so years, aside from news and sports shows, I've watched very little TV. So, when Shapiro includes Lost and 24 among the most conservative, I'm afraid I can't comment one way or the other.
Second, and Shapiro alludes to this, much of what we consider conservative is so because it's explicitly not political. That is, it affirms traditional mores and habits of the heart simply by not attacking them. This is true of television shows as well. Shapiro on Leave It to Beaver:
The real question isn’t why Americans loved this show — the question is why liberals hate this show. The answer: It’s wholesome, clean fun and doesn’t see suburbia as a prison. It doesn’t try to paint the American dream as a nightmare. For the typical Hollywood leftist view of Leave It to Beaver, watch Pleasantville, which tries to infest the 1950s-era ethos with overt and promiscuous sexuality, injecting color into the black-and-white conservative world.As Shapiro asked the question one way, let me ask it the other: What are the most liberal TV shows of all time?
One quick answer: M*A*S*H.
I loved that show at first, but the longer it ran, the preachier it got, and the sermons were always replete with left-wing bromides.
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Looks Like He Got the Memo
I mentioned only the day before yesterday that in the absence of any incriminating emails, the elite media's new tactic in their crusade to disparage, discredit, and destroy Sarah Palin is to argue that, "No, she wasn't always the shrill, vindictive, uncouth moron she is now. She's changed."
Well, consider today's piece by former Bush speechwriter and current Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson. Gerson has long since revealed himself to be a "conservative" only in the David Brooks, David Frum, Ross Douthat mode. That is, he's unreliable at best, saving much of his harshest invective for those who thought he was on their side.
Anyway, note in particular this line from the piece:
Well, consider today's piece by former Bush speechwriter and current Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson. Gerson has long since revealed himself to be a "conservative" only in the David Brooks, David Frum, Ross Douthat mode. That is, he's unreliable at best, saving much of his harshest invective for those who thought he was on their side.
Anyway, note in particular this line from the piece:
How did a likable, consensus-oriented governor become such a divisive figure? This is a different and deeper scandal, in which many are implicated.As I was saying,,,
Adult or Adolescent?
I'm aware that more than a few have already weighed-in on the "This or that?" gimmick used by CNN moderator John King in last night's first GOP debate--"Coke or Pepsi? Mild or spicy?"--but I just can't let it pass without comment.
This was bad, altogether bad, and not just because it was corny. Even if it worked, no, especially if it worked, it doesn't so much personalize the candidates, as it was apparently intended to do, as diminish them, and along with them, the very serious process in which we are now engaged.
Second, it's revealing, or should be, and disturbingly so. The same John King we witnessed prancing around on the stage asking silly questions like "Leno or Conan?" will, on Sunday morning, among other like-minded pundits, sit and offer what appear to be informed and sober judgements about this or that candidate, this or that plan. I'm sorry, but I can't take seriously anyone who participates in turning the election of a president into the equivalent of a TV game show.
I'm afraid this is of a piece with Rep. Weiner's photos of his private parts. Unless and until we, the electorate, accept nothing less than adult fare from both the candidates and the people who make their living reporting on them, we'll competently solve very few, if any, of the grave troubles facing us as a nation.
This was bad, altogether bad, and not just because it was corny. Even if it worked, no, especially if it worked, it doesn't so much personalize the candidates, as it was apparently intended to do, as diminish them, and along with them, the very serious process in which we are now engaged.
Second, it's revealing, or should be, and disturbingly so. The same John King we witnessed prancing around on the stage asking silly questions like "Leno or Conan?" will, on Sunday morning, among other like-minded pundits, sit and offer what appear to be informed and sober judgements about this or that candidate, this or that plan. I'm sorry, but I can't take seriously anyone who participates in turning the election of a president into the equivalent of a TV game show.
I'm afraid this is of a piece with Rep. Weiner's photos of his private parts. Unless and until we, the electorate, accept nothing less than adult fare from both the candidates and the people who make their living reporting on them, we'll competently solve very few, if any, of the grave troubles facing us as a nation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)