ELITES

David Brooks runs into Karl Marx and has interesting observations of our educated elite class here.

Victor David Hanson looks at the world elites in the last few weeks and does some interesting analysis here. His conclusion:

• "A final suggetion for these unhappy and privileged few: To end your obsessions with the pathologies of America and the West, find a way to create your own alternative sports, literature, corporations, soft drinks, and filmmaking in the non-West.
• It is not that we Americans are mad at what you say. It is just that you have all become so hypocritical, then predictable, and now boring - you are all so boring."

Both articles are a great read!

A RE-WRITE!

The Boston Globe editorialized the "gang of seven" to a pedestal, before which they feel we should all bow! Problem is, they got it wrong!

Quote:

• "The nuclear option required breaking the rules to change the rules. Had Frist done it, he would have proven himself an unscrupulous partisan, wrecked the Senate's reputation for consensus and comity, shown the Senate in thrall to the White House, and hurt the judiciary by seating blatant partisans on the bench."

Re-Write(could have been written anytime in last 4 years):

• "The nuclear option required changing the rules. The Democrats have done it, proving themselves unscrupulous partisans, wrecking the Senate's reputation for consensus and comity, showing the Senate in thrall to the Democratic Party, and hurting the judiciary by attempting to seat blatant partisans on the bench."

That is a good summary of the real "nuclear option!"

DO NOT FORGET THESE SENATORS

• Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island
• Susan Collins of Maine
• Mike DeWine of Ohio
• Lindsey Graham of South Carolina
• John McCain of Arizona
• Olympia J. Snowe of Maine
• John W. Warner of Virginia

They have interfered with the process and delayed the resolution of the greatest problem of our day.

We shall see if they are smarter than the rest of us!

IF YOU BELIEVE THIS, I HAVE A BRIDGE I'D LIKE TO SELL YOU!

daveweigel at KOS posts the results of a recent CNN/USAT/Gallup poll that shows that W and his administration are so far behind the Dem's in public approval on all policies that if you believe it 2006 is lost! And obviously 2004 was a fluke!

I'd love to see the demographics of this poll. Do you believe it? I think it is wishful thinking on the part of MSM and Gallup. We'll know in 18 months!

THE REALITY OF GEORGE BUSH

Victor Davis Hanson writes an interesting column comparing the left's caricature of W versus his accomplishments over the last 4+ years, by asking our reaction to a hypothetical speech on September 12, 2001, predicting what has happened. Thought provoking and on point!

Any theories as to why the left will not see this?

SECULAR THEOCRACY?

Sounds like an oxymoron, but it is not. The United States has been a SECULAR THEOCRACY for several decades, and the civil war we are going through at this time is a result of the imposition of this theocracy by the left. Think about it.

If you disagree, please explain to me the difference between the courts in the U.S. making moral decisions for the population, and the Taliban of Afghanistan making moral decisions for the population.

This idea was triggered by Dennis Prager in a segment of his radio program today, to give credit where it belongs. It sure made sense to me!

TENURE

Victor Davis Hanson takes on a subject which needs to be scrutinized and probably terminated if we want to change the ideological mix at our colleges and universities.

If tenure is to protect those with controversial ideas so they are unfettered in challenging young minds, why is their arena so homogenous? As the writer says in his penultimate paragraph, it has led to a "mandarin class" that accepts a privilege no one else has.

HAVE A GREAT WEEKEND!

NAH!! There's no slippery slope re Value Issues(3)

Just one more example and I will drop the subject for a while.

I suggest you think about what will be going on in 10 years if we don't change the direction of this society.

"The Latest Liberal Crusade"

Thomas Sowell explains in simple and easy to understand terms why the concern with Wal-Mart and its pay policies are misplaced. I like this penultimate paragraph:

• "It would be devastating to the egos of the intelligentsia to realize, much less admit, that businesses have done more to reduce poverty than all the intellectuals put together. Ultimately it is only wealth that can reduce poverty and most of the itelligentsia have no interest whatever in finding out what actions and policies increase the national wealth."

A challange to any readers: point to any misstatement or illogic in this article and explain why it is not true or logical. I don't see anything but truth!

AT LEAST HE'S HONEST!

Howard Dean let's his true feelings come through in a telephone interview regarding the self-pronounced Socialist Bernie Sanders run for the Senate in Vermont saying it would be a good thing for the Democratic Party.

Wonder how many members of the Democratic Party agree with him? Could it be a glimpse of the Dem agenda? Just wondering!

NAH!! There's no slippery slope re Value Issues(2)

Happened to see another example at PowerLine and thought I would share it. This technique is really not fair, since there is a plethora of samples daily.

At least a Clinton appointed judge notices the real agenda and has stopped the implementation!

NAH!! There's no slippery slope re Value Issues

If you can read this and still keep your lunch down, I give you great credit.

When are we going to wake up!!!

WORD FOR THE DAY: insouciant

HINT: An insouciant attitude will doom us.

SOCIAL SECURITY SUMMARY

Charles Krauthammer writes an accurate summary of the Social Security problem and says in a few hundred words what I tried to say in a long series of posts here.

Do yourself a favor and read - NO, STUDY - his points so you can make an intelligent decision when you vote.

He feels my frustration:

• "As I have been writing for years with stupefying redundancy -- and obvious lack of success -- this idea [Social Security trust fund, et al] is a hoax. There is not trust fund. The past Social Security surpluses were spent the year they were created. The idea that in 2017, when the surpluses disappear, we will be able to go to a box in West Virginia to retrieve the money we need to make up the shortfall (between what Social Security takes in and what it pays out that year) is a deception. There is no money there. It will have to be borrowed or garnered from new taxes."

You owe it to yourself to understand this perspective. It is real!

THE REAL THIRD RAIL!

I know I have too many favorite columnists/pundits, but it is not my fault there are so many! Thomas Sowell writes a column on illegal immigration here. A must read if you really want to understand the core of the problem.

Here are three central paragraphs, the logic of which is not disputable in my mind:

• "Virtually every job in the country is work that Americans will not do, if the pay is below a certain level. And the pay will not rise to that level so long as illegal immigrants --"undocumented workers"-- are available to work for less.
• Even those who write editorials about how we need Mexicans to do work that Americans will not do would not be willing to write editorials for a fraction of what they are being paid. If Mexican editorial writers were coming across the border illegally and taking their jobs, maybe the issue would become clearer.
• You cannot discuss jobs without discussing pay, if you are serious. And, if you are serious, you need to discuss all the welfare state benefits available to Americabns who won't work."

Let's get serious! Could it be our welfare state benefits are the problem, allowing a segment of our society to not work, so the demand for illegal aliens stays with us?

If you have never read Thomas Sowell, get one of his short and very readable books on various economic and societal problems. He has tremendous insight and a way of expressing it that is quite understandable.

SOCIAL SECURITY: INSURANCE?

Matthew Yglesias, standing in for Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo this week, tries to prove that Social Security is in fact an "Insurance" program by picking apart an excellent article at reasononline by Julian Sanchez: "Social Security's Progressive Paradox - Retirement "insurance" as a Rube Goldberg machine."

The problem with referring to Social Security as Insurance is that you are using a business, free market term to try to describe what is obviously a simple transfer of wealth from the young to the old, disabled and family survivors, created and controlled by government! Insurance is a misnomer! IT IS SIMPLY WELFARE!

That is part of the great SCAM the government propogates to acquire extra billions of dollars each year into their coffers without having to ask us for increased taxes ($145 billion in 2004!). It is a hidden gold mine for our representatives and the bureacracy. And Matthew (not to speak of Josh) cannot see this because of their partisanship.

A sad commentary on very intelligient bloggers on the left.

"On Being Disliked"

Victor Davis Hanson, the historian and prolific writer with the greatest insight into our world, posits here that it is not to bad to be disliked. My favorite paragraph:

• "At the U.N. it is said that a ruling hierarchy mistrusts the United States and that a culture of anti-Americanism has become endemic within the organization. No wonder - the Americans alone push for more facts about the Oil-for-Food scandal, question Kofi Annan's breaches of ethics, and want investigations about U.N. crimes in Africa. If we are mistrusted for caring about those thousands who are inhumanely treated by a supposedly humane organization, then why in the world should we wish to be liked by such a group?"

Good Question! A good read to help understand why we are not liked, and appreciate it!

"The Perils of Obstructionism"

Michael Barone writes a very calm, analytical column on the change in the electorate and the Media here. I believe he is right on point. My favorite quote:

• "At the moment, Democrats seem determined to reject this progressive approach [W's Social Security plan]. But even Old Media's polls, often slanted on this as on other issues, show that voters recognize there is a problem. So far as I can tell, no Republican was defeated in 2002 or 2004 by a Democrat who pledged "no change in Social Security." Republicans who had a plan beat Democrats whose plan was a blank piece of paper."

Worth a read to give perspective to the battle!