7 Responses to Not in Our Stars, But in Ourselves

  • I once heard that the US could survive President Obama, but could not survive the people who elected him.

    It has gone through my mind on more than one occasion recently that President Obama will soon say “See? We are trying to get the health care industry/markets open to everyone and look! it doesn’t work. Only Single Payer will work.”

    I believe we may get it sooner rather than later. Why? There may really not be enough people to stop the Low Information Voter. Our State Legislature just adopted Common Core after a long fight; more dumbing down of the children, the creation of more Low Information Voters. Even the Catholic schools in our area have adopted the Core.

  • Sorry to be a bore on this subject but…

    1. Mr. Carter made a number of poor policy decisions. However, this reflected to some degree the mentality in the matrix in which he was working. I doubt there were many issues where Mr. Carter’s preferences were not more sensible than the median of the (northern) Democratic Party of that era. (Northern) Democratic legislators of that era could be decent and collegial in a way that seems foreign today; however, economic illiteracy and functional pacifism were the order of the day.

    2. Electoral politics was Jimmy Carter’s third career. He had prospered adequately as an engineer in the Navy and in agribusiness (though the family’s wealth was largely accumulated under his brother’s management of the family business). He had had experience as a public executive. Compare his accomplishments to BO and it is embarrassing to BO.

    3. Carter had deficient people skills for a working politician. The grossest error he and his camarilla made was assuming the dispositions of the U.S. Congress would be similar to those of the Georgia legislature. Question: are B.O.’s dealings with Congress any more edifying than Mr. Carter’s?

    4. Mr. Carter was the most resistant to public sector borrowing of any American President post 1960; B.O. is the least.

    5. Carter is abrasive and sanctimonious on occasion. It is doubtful that narcissism is one of his problems. Also, Carter’s embarrassing apologies co-exist with a patriotism which is standard equipment for a Southerner born in 1924. B.O. is post-American, like his mama.

    6. Who would you want to share a household with, Rosalyn and Miss Lillian or Mooch, VJ, and Mrs. Robinson? Would you rather go fishing with JC or play basketball with Choom?

    It is unfair to Mr. Carter to compare him to B.O. Carter was and is out of B.O.’s league.

  • “Mr. Carter made a number of poor policy decisions. However, this reflected to some degree the mentality in the matrix in which he was working. I doubt there were many issues where Mr. Carter’s preferences were not more sensible than the median of the (northern) Democratic Party of that era. (Northern) Democratic legislators of that era could be decent and collegial in a way that seems foreign today; however, economic illiteracy and functional pacifism were the order of the day.”

    He fully shared both Art. He began his Presidency by preaching how we had to get over our inordinate fear of Communism and I will never forget how when Afghanistan was invaded by the Soviets he was angered because Brezhnev had lied to him. His disastrous stewardship of the economy speaks for itself.

    “. Electoral politics was Jimmy Carter’s third career. He had prospered adequately as an engineer in the Navy and in agribusiness (though the family’s wealth was largely accumulated under his brother’s management of the family business). He had had experience as a public executive. Compare his accomplishments to BO and it is embarrassing to BO.”

    The Peanut Farmer had a more extensive experience than Obama but that is rather beside the point in judging them as Presidents.

    ” Carter had deficient people skills for a working politician. The grossest error he and his camarilla made was assuming the dispositions of the U.S. Congress would be similar to those of the Georgia legislature. Question: are B.O.’s dealings with Congress any more edifying than Mr. Carter’s?”

    Carter was a disaster in dealing both with Congress and the Georgia legislature. He did not engage with either but rather acted as if he were Moses coming down from Sinai bearing the tablets of the Law. Obama’s problem is that he will not negotiate with Republicans and thus the legislative part of his Presidency came largely to an end after the 2010 election. Considering Obama’s agenda that doubtless is a good thing for the country.

    “. Mr. Carter was the most resistant to public sector borrowing of any American President post 1960; B.O. is the least. ”

    Untrue Art. JFK I believe would hold that title, followed by LBJ and Nixon. Carter had the advantage additionally over LBJ and Nixon that he wasn’t fighting a war.

    ” Carter is abrasive and sanctimonious on occasion. It is doubtful that narcissism is one of his problems. Also, Carter’s embarrassing apologies co-exist with a patriotism which is standard equipment for a Southerner born in 1924. B.O. is post-American, like his mama.”

    I have always found Carter to be a mean-spirited spiteful little man as well as an anti-Catholic bigot. He has gotten worse with age.

    “. Who would you want to share a household with, Rosalyn and Miss Lillian or Mooch, VJ, and Mrs. Robinson? Would you rather go fishing with JC or play basketball with Choom?”

    I would burn the house down and jump out of the fishing boat.

    “It is unfair to Mr. Carter to compare him to B.O. Carter was and is out of B.O.’s league.”

    They were both disasters Art, although Obama has edged Carter for the title of worst President not named James Buchanan.

  • You are correct. Mean public sector borrowing since 1960 has been about 3.0% of domestic product. The median during the following Administrations is as follows:

    kennedy 0.876
    johnson 0.859
    Nixon 3.5
    ford 3.8
    carter 2.6
    reagan 4.6
    bush 4.23
    clinton 0.5
    bush 2.8
    obama 8.0

    Among other variables, who controls Congress the state of the business cycle is important. The figures for Bill Clinton’s first administration differ markedly from his second, after he had to get past the Republican Congress.

  • ad astra per aspera

  • I have always found Carter to be a mean-spirited spiteful little man as well as an anti-Catholic bigot. He has gotten worse with age.
    Donald R. McClarey

    James Earl Carter’s anti-Catholicism and general spitefulness was kept out of the papers and six o’clock news as he strove for national office. Once he was de-elected and no longer president, he let ’em rip. Alas, he’s not unusual among Southern Baptists either.

    When the fashionably secular and atheist among college Democrats feign their fear of theocracy coming to America, I like to respond with, “Theocracy? Oh yeah, Jimmy Carter the fanatic Southern Baptist president from Bomont. “Transform and purify” sure gets Democrats excited.” This spoils their narrative.

  • Katie Sebelius can hire somebody else to make her a web site. Only herself can make her a Catholic. Would that someone had handed Obama’s Secretary of Abortion a copy of Catholicism for Dummies.

4 Responses to Low Information Voters Explain Why Obama Deserves His Nobel Peace Prize

  • That’s nothing.
    I used to listen to Howard Stern (yes, I have no taste) before, um, budget cuts took effect. He would send his staff out to do man in the street interviews.
    2008:
    “Who are you voting for?
    “Obama.”
    “Do you agree with hm about making homosexuality illegal[or bombing Iran, or deporting illegals]?”
    “Well, um . . . yeah . . . it’s the right thing to do”

    After the election:
    “Did you vote yesterday?”
    “No.”
    “Who would you have voted for?”
    “Obama.”
    “Are you aware he lost the election by ONE vote — McCain won.”
    “[expletive]!’

    Can’t we bring back literacy tests?
    Scratch that, literacy isn’t the problem.
    How about a quiz to ensure voters know the candidates and the duties of each office. I’d accept any general in-the-ballpark answer.

  • Sad and funny at the same time. I laughed out loud on the ONE vote win remark.
    Basic literacy test- a great idea; however, we live in a nation where a simple requirement to identify oneself at the poll as a legitimate registered voter is objectionable to many.

  • The carnival music is very appropriate.

  • I’m beginning to think a civics/political literacy/current affairs test should be required of all voters. If it were, it is certain Obama would not be president.

Fourth Trimester Abortions?

Thursday, July 25, AD 2013

You can never underestimate low, low information voters.  It is a funny bit, but I wonder on campuses how many students would be willing to sign a petition allowing a mother to commit infanticide up to the age of one for the victim?  I guess infanticide would first have to be defined for many of the individuals approached.  If infanticide is too “harsh” a term I bet “retroactive abortion” would do the trick!

Continue reading...

7 Responses to Fourth Trimester Abortions?

  • You may think you’re kidding but the British Medical Journal ran an article advocating “post-natal abortion” which caused an uproar.
    Far from being ashamed the authors bemoaned the fact that the hoi polloi now have online access to their enlightened deliberations.

  • I think the video is extremely interesting because it displays a startling lack of scepticism and reasonableness by the signers.

    For example, one woman asks “does it harm the baby?” and, while signing the petition, briefly engages the petition seeker in conversation. She suspects something is wrong with his pitch but, because it isn’t immediatly evident, she signs anyway.

    This seems to me to be significant because it may hint that a general lack of scepticism is one of the core problems with polling reliability and the GOP’s message in elections.

    On reflection and anecdotally, I notice in new hires – ages 40 and under – that I have reflexively taken to probing their experience to determine if they already possess the requisite scepticism for the job. In most cases they do but I have, on a few occasions, had to convince them that 1. people lie, 2. what is true can be discovered, and 3. there is nothingrude about asking for clarification.

    We see this at play in the video: I am asked to sign a petition, you give me non-specific information or information I don’t readily grasp about the petition, I suspect there is something wrong but, rather than challenging you, I sign it so as to end the uncomfortable encounter.

    It really is extraordinary and the phenominon is worthy of further consideration and observation.

  • I saw a video wherein a faux-petition-maker told obama zombies that President Alinsky, er, Obama needs to repeal the Bill of Rights. He didn’t need to say, ” . . . in order to get it done.”

    Most of the imbeciles signed the petition to repeal Constitutional liberties without comment.

    Liberalism is a fiasco. And, the surplus of resentful, uninformed people continually expands.

    Each day, the president’s professional liars and the MSM (accomplices in national fraud) mass-produce propaganda that bears no relation to the truth/facts, not even the minimal germ of veracity that exists in the common lie.

  • Peter Singer of Princeton’s DeCamp Chair of Bioethics no less, has publicly advocated post natal abortion until six years of age, in case the parents find that they do not want to be parents. Singer is still at Princeton teaching the next generation that they have a right to destroy the human being, our constitutional posterity, George Washington’s constitutional posterity, endowed with an unalienable right to Life, as though it was normal, without a shred of shame or moral outrage. Indoctrination into genocide.
    T. Shaw: “Most of the imbeciles signed the petition to repeal Constitutional liberties without comment”…without informed consent, this maneuver is a swindle and unconstitutional.

  • Peter Singer’s 1994 book, “Rethinking Life and Death: The Collapse of Our Traditional Ethics” is valuable for the way in which he exposes the fallacies of most pro-abortion arguments.

    “[The argument that a fetus is not alive] is a resort to a convenient fiction that turns an evidently living being into one that legally is not alive. Instead of accepting such fictions, we should recognise that the fact that a being is human, and alive, does not in itself tell us whether it is wrong to take that being’s life”

    As a utilitarian, Singer argues that only beings that have preferences, such as the desire to go on living, can experience pleasure from their satisfaction or pain from their frustration. His support for animal rights is a corollary of this.

    Of course, Singer’s own argument is a trick of perspective; what it does is to take the ceaseless, living flow of which the universe is composed and to make cuts across it, inserting artificial stops or gaps in what is really a continuous and indivisible process. The effect of these stops or gaps is to produce the impression of a world of apparently solid objects. These have no existence as separate objects in reality. It is rather like taking stills from a motion picture. It was this insight of Henri Bergson that produced so great an effect on the Catholic philosopher, Maurice Blondel.

  • LOL at the “Carlos Danger” line!