Friday, November 27, 2015

A Handy Dandy Guide to Understanding Obamaspeak

President Obama, like any socialist politician, uses code phrases peculiar to leftist dogma. Understanding and decoding the obfuscation, distortion, confusing language, and doubletalk can be a daunting task. I've collected here a few phrases that Obama has used recently, and I have thoughtfully provided a translation of the real meaning behind the code of Obamaspeak.

I think we made some bad decisions subsequent to that attack [9/11] in part based on fear, and that's why we have to be cautious about it.

What President Obama is really saying is that he still blames George Bush for the state of Muslim countries in the past, as well as today. And, of course, he blames Bush for creating ISIL (despite being founded in 1999) and blames Bush for all subsequent terrorist responses. Implicit is the idea that Obama knows supremely better than anyone on the planet how to lead the US against terrorism.

We'll deliver justice to these terrorists and those who sent them.

President Obama's idea of justice consists of dropping a few bombs here and there, bravely authorizing air sorties, then recalling the military before it can do any real harm to terrorists. President Obama's peculiar strategy also includes that idea that he should apply US law when it comes to finding terrorists, but ignore the law when it comes to keeping whole populations of the US safe, for example, by allowing nearly unrestrained immigration.

Well, no, I don't think they're [ISIL] gaining strength. 

Obama famously said this hours before the attack on Paris. He meant to reassure the liberal US media that his strategy of not containing ISIL is really working. What that means in reality is that ISIL is now free to travel about the world, to wreak havoc on innocent lives, and to destroy property wholesale.

Cooperation and support of France would continue....

President Obama means that he'll assign someone in the State Department to think about France every now and again. He has no intention of changing US policy in the Mideast. With Obama's recent talks with the French president, Obama spewed even more empty rhetoric than usual.

Coalition of 62 countries....

President Obama means by this statement, repeated several times in the past week, that his coalition is bigger and better than George Bush's MNF coalition at the start of the Iraq war. The untold story is that Obama's coalition doesn't provide combat troops, nor does it really do much to stop ISIL.

No specific and credible threat....

This is President Obama's standard code phrase whenever he is asked about the possibility of terrorist acts in the US. It basically means, "We have no idea. There could be an attack or not. If there's an attack, we can argue plausible deniability. If there is no attack, our policy is vindicated."

If there’s one thing that threatens opportunity and prosperity for all of us… it’s the threat of a changing climate.

This is the biggest red herring in President Obama's rhetorical arsenal. Obama uses the threat of climate change as a liberal bludgeon to beat today's real issues from the brains of an otherwise thinking population:

Muslims are attacking and killing people in Paris? Climate change is a real threat!

Liberal cities are falling apart at the seams, rioting and killing cops? Hey! Look at that climate change!

Obamacare is falling to pieces and is threatening to be crushed under its own weight? Climate change is a much, much bigger threat. The oceans will rise. The polar bears will die. The heat will cause the poor Syrians to become terrorists.

I hope this little exercise in decoding Obamaspeak will help guide you along the way to understanding the biggest danger we face today, namely President Obama's bankrupt policies. Don't be fooled by Obamaspeak.

Monday, November 23, 2015

Milton Friedman Quote: Equality Destroys Freedom

I was reading a work by Milton Friedman and came across this quote, which is a concise expression of the reason why modern progressive dogma is so dangerous:

The argument is not that it is literally impossible to reduce or eliminate specific instances of inequality, but that the very processes created to do so generate other inequalities, including dangerous inequalities of power caused by expanding the role of government.... 
A society that puts equality—in the sense of equality of outcome—ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom. The use of force to achieve equality will destroy freedom, and the force, introduced for good purposes, will end up in the hands of people who use it to promote their own interests.

Saturday, November 21, 2015

Video: Modern Educayshun

You may have already seen this, but I just found it, and it deserves to be seen again and again.

Funny. Sad. But True.

Friday, November 20, 2015

Short Review of Ulysses S. Grant: A Victor, Not a Butcher

The main point of this book by Edward H. Bonekemper III should not be a surprise to anyone who's acquainted with the history of the Civil War. The author goes to great lengths to prove his thesis that Grant was a victorious general who didn't deserve the epithet as a butcher of men. Instead, Bonekemper argues that Grant deserves a high place among all generals throughout history for his ability to win.

To me, the thesis was obvious and the book provided no great revelations. Nor did it provide an extensive biography of Grant. Nor was it terribly lucid in dealing with the many, many commanders of the Civil War.

The book, however, did provide a fast-paced recounting of Grant's battles and did demonstrate why Grant really should be included in a list of great generals throughout history. While it provided sketchy outlines of Grant's tactics, it did clearly delineate his strategies in his western campaign, in taking Vicksburg, and in his ability to finally destroy Lee's army. I would have liked the author to have spent a bit more research and time in detailing Grant's tactics when covering each battle.

The best generals in history win the love of the men who follow them. Grant's men admired him and trusted him to make their efforts, and in many cases, their deaths, have meaning. I came away from the book with a better appreciation for Grant as a commander who time and again won the trust of those who served under him.

This is not a great book to really learn about the life of US Grant, nor is it a great introduction to the Civil War. However, if you are familiar with Civil War history, Bonekemper's book will add a new dimension to understanding Grant and add a new appreciation for Grant's ability to command.

Wednesday, November 18, 2015

The First Black Man I Met at UCLA

When I first started attending UCLA, I made a tour of the campus to find such things as the graduate library, the student union, and the big statue of the bear. Just outside of the student union, a black man in his thirties came over to me, acting like I was his long-lost best friend.

He said something to me that strikes me to this day. Extending his hand he said, "It's all right. You can shake the hand of a black man."

I remember that moment so well because it was the first time I realized that racism - real racism, not the fantasy of progressive agitators - was a two way street. The stranger in front of the student union assumed that because I was white, I would immediately assume him to be a threat or some such nonsense. It wasn't until he made reference to himself in such a disparaging way, that I had even thought to mistrust or misjudge him.

As it turned out, he was panhandling and wanted me to give him money. In LA, no panhandlers ever tell you directly that they want money. Instead they make up lies to make you feel sorry for them. In the case of this guy on campus, he gave me a story about raising money to fund some activist group or another. No, he was not legit.

Since that time, I've watched progressive dogma drive a wedge ever deeper into the black community, fomenting a greater hatred of others and disfranchising entire communities from mainstream America.

Within modern liberal dogma, class and race warfare must continue to be spread in order to justify an ever more expensive, powerful, and intrusive government. Like that man at UCLA, liberals always use shame and disdain for others to promote their panhandling agenda.

Monday, November 16, 2015

Some Thoughts on the Islamist Terrorist Attack in Paris

This past week, there were over 40 Islamist terrorist attacks in the world. The series of attacks that killed 129 people in Paris was the largest and the deadliest, yet on the same day, a suicide bomber in Bagdad killed 21 people and wounded 46 while attending a funeral. The day before in Beirut, two Sunni suicide bombers killed 43 people and wounded 240 in a Shia residential neighborhood.

This is the face of evil. Islamism is a plague, wantonly killing the innocent.

Yet, what strikes me about the attacks in Paris is the predictable and stupid reaction of most media sources which refuse to name the enemy and refuse to acknowledge the evil for what it really is. Searching news sites, we rarely find any sources willing to mention the word Islam (or Islamism, or radical Islam) in connection with the killings. In fact, leftists go out of their way to exonerate Islam in order not to appear bigoted or judgmental. Left wing liberals have crawled out of the woodwork to assure us that Islam is not the enemy. At least the New York Times blames those with an Islamist ideology for the violence.

Many news sources call this "senseless violence." While it is violence, it only appears senseless to ideologues who deny that Islamists have declared war on any who oppose their depraved and evil demands. Islamic terrorists have devolved into a sort of Medieval barbarism, waging a war against all whom they perceive to stand in their way. Viewed as ideological warfare, the violence may be abhorrent, but it does makes sense.

President Obama, after declaring that ISIS was contained the day before the attack on Paris, also thinks that it was “an attack on all of humanity and the universal values that we share.” Islamists know who their enemies are. It is a shame that the president of the US refuses to acknowledge our enemies are, and it is a crime that he refuses to protect the people of our country.

After the Paris attacks, several of my more illiberal friends posted on Facebook and tweeted that the real blame for the attacks on Paris, and for the creation of ISIS, was George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. ISIS originated in 1999 (when Clinton was president) with a resurgence in 2013 (when Obama was president). ISIS declared a worldwide caliphate in 2014. During the war in Iraq, the Sunni group spent most of its time blowing up Shia Muslims. After the surge in Iraq, al-Qaeda and ISIS (and several other terrorist factions) were fractured to a crisis point and were forced into hiding. It was only after Obama reduced the US military in Iraq that ISIS became a unified terrorist force, attacking and wantonly slaughtering Shia Muslims in Iraq and Syria.

Of course my befuddled leftist friends think that the US is the Great Satan (if they actually believed in Satan), because we dared to interfere with the "peaceful" Muslims when Bush was president. We deserve the blowback from ISIS. Such reasoning is like sitting in a restaurant and seeing a man out on the street getting mugged and shot by gangsters. When we try to gather our friends together to go help the man, they say, "Nah. He probably deserved it." Blaming the victim for the evil actions of the perpetrator is logic that can only be understood by a liberal ideologue.

Lastly, in response to the attacks in Paris, some of the infants posing as college students who apparently hadn't finished complaining about how oppressed they feel, instead complained about how the attacks in Paris stole the spotlight from them. As an example, one ignorant child tweeted: "Interesting how the news reports are covering the Paris terrorist attacks but said nothing about the terrorist attack at #Mizzou." There were hundreds of such inanities, comparing the hurt feelings of some Mizzou students to terrorist attacks. After all, how dare the news media cover terrorists blowing up and shooting hundreds of people in Paris and ignore the plight of black students who were faced with an imaginary swastika drawn in feces?

Despite the convoluted thinking inculcated into leftist brains, we must still recognize evil for what it is. ISIS is evil and should be eradicated.


I barely finished writing this when I crossed another news story about a Islamist terrorist attack against Christians at a university in Garissa, Kenya. 147 are reported dead. Of course, the students probably deserved that because, hey, they were Christians.

Saturday, November 14, 2015

How Much Do I Hate White Men? Let Me Count the Ways.

I saw this photo of a poster cluttering up my Facebook feed the other day. While obviously posted by clueless individuals, it does pose and interesting question: "What are the logical and historical fallacies behind this poster?"

Your ideas? Why is this poster 180 degrees wrong?

Friday, November 13, 2015

A Nation of Miscreants

Yesterday, while taking the day off from teaching for Veteran's Day, my wife and I headed to the zoo. The weather was pleasant. The usually raging Arizona sun was hidden behind a cloudy sky. We had a great time. The day was marred only by a few malcriados - children who probably learned their manners from university campus protestors.

For example, my wife and I sat down for a moment on a pavestone block wall to enjoy a snack and to watch the myriad wild birds which descend on the zoo every day. While we sat talking, a young man, perhaps about ten years old or so, walked along the top of the wall, then stopped in his progress because we were sitting in his path. Without missing a moment's thought, the yelled out, "You're in my way!" My wife and I, of course, did what we usually do with such miscreants. We ignored him. He yelled, "You're in my way!" at us again, and again we ignored him. Too young and small to pick a real fight, he finally went around us.

Again, as we were hiking back to our car, a different young man raised his voice to whine about some perceived injustice. The man with him, most likely his father, argued with him the entire time, while also including what I assume he considered to be witty putdowns.

It's nearly axiomatic these days that some petty offense or misplaced idea will spark a protest on one of our campuses of higher learning. We can assume from such frantic outbursts that the term "higher" learning is a measure of how much cannabis is currently in the bloodstreams of our college students, rather than as a measure of any real gains against ignorance. Such outbursts are the province of ten year old children whose parents have never taught them an ounce of self control, nor the merest foundations of manners.

The parents of these spoiled brats, whether they are the ten year olds at the zoo, or the children playing grown-ups on a university campus, have failed to instill that rarest of social commodities - common courtesy. We have become a nation of miscreants.

Monday, November 2, 2015

Hillary Clinton, Self Control, and the Restructuring of Society in Her Image

Modern liberalism maintains the doctrine that society can and must be tinkered with in order to create a more "just" and "equitable" system. The fatal problem with this social engineering rests on the fallibility of those people who change the system to suit their peculiar view of the world. As we have seen within the past fifty years or so, those who have been chosen to lead the charge into this Brave New World are almost universally incapable of governing themselves, let alone being incapable of rearranging a just society.

Johnson lied to hide the Vietnam War and his expensive social programs. Nixon lied to cover up the Watergate break-in. Carter screwed up in the Mideast so badly we're still paying the price for his incompetence. Bill Clinton lied about the women he cheated with. He even denied the definition of sex.

Now take Hillary Clinton. Please.

Hillary is the quintessential liberal, spewing socialist dogma with a vigor that would make Lenin blush with envy. We know, we absolutely know, that she has lied her way through her adult life from one subject to the next to the next. She is incapable of producing a gram's worth of personal integrity. This bastion of liberalism cannot govern her own life. How can we expect her to govern others?

Yet in today's political climate, Hillary is exonerated as a champion of social engineering, even while leaving a wake of death and destruction behind her. She is propped up by a news media who, in turn, is run by deceivers.

Edmund Burke, considered the father of conservatism, wrote against such hubris of social engineering. Writing during the French Revolution, where the French social engineers literally hacked off the heads of anyone who stood in their way, Burke turned out a scathing commentary.

To Burke, society was a living thing that cannot be disassembled and then reconstructed to suit the designs of social engineers. The results of such social rearrangements are fatal to society. Burke wrote that the French were like children, hacking a body into bits and pieces, then throwing them into a "kettle of magicians" to try to regenerate them.

Hillary, and nearly the entire Democrat party have become little children. They hack the social body of the US to pieces, then wave their wands and make their incantations in the attempt to regenerate a the pieces into a living organism.