A Real News Source

May 30, 2012

The Onion:

Obama the Sad Sack

Politics today is purely about image. It really doesn’t matter how well-thought or unthought a policy and its consequences are as long as the policymakers looks good and doesn’t embarrass himself he will grab votes. The Onion really makes a sad commentary about what passes for relevant news in politics today. The president eating dog meat while he was growing up in a third-world country has nothing to do with his leadership or ideas. But such a story spends evenings in the news.

These sorts of stories would be relevant if other nations wanted to launch nukes at the States because of these storylines. But the fact of their irrelavance has not caused any news editor’s to question running such stories. The fake news parodies the real news and it isnhqrd to tell the difference. More seriousness is needed in our current political climate.

“Pettiness and Mud”

March 6, 2012

A few insights from Dr. Sowell before he urges politicians to abandon principles:

What could they possibly have been thinking about, in the first place, when they agreed to a format based on short sound bites for dealing with major complex issues, and with media journalists — 90 percent of them Democrats — picking the topics?

The conduct of the candidates made things worse. In a world with a record-breaking national debt and Iran moving toward creating nuclear weapons, they bickered over earmarks and condoms. I am against earmarks, but earmarks don’t rank among the first hundred most serious problems facing this country.

Issues we face today are often not so simple to be explained in 60 seconds, let have the solutions explained so quickly as well.  The world is usually more complex than we want it to be and less complex than “experts” wish it.  While the masses want quick, easy solutions that fit nicely into a soundbyte, which do injustice to the issue, and experts want drawn out responses to every issue presented, which is unsuitable on television these days, the happy medium in between fits nobody’s tastes.

The format of the “debates” staged the scene for veering away from weighty topics in favor of one-liners about less-important issues the country faces.  The fact that this format has occurred frequently throughout this election cycle is an indicator of a few things

Briefly, first, that party leaders are incompetent, indifferent, or cynical.  Second, that democracy cannot work (in its ideal form) in the age of television because petty issues are more entertaining than weighty issues and thus critical matters are ignored.  And third, that political candidates need not show their qualifications for the highest office in the land but rather their wit and rhetorical skills.

From CatholicAnswers.com:

the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

If this condition is to be met, no nation could ever defend itself properly.  History shows that rolling over with little resistance–generally, though not always–will garner mercy and goodwill from the aggressor.  However, defense and war against the aggressor means violence which intensifies and escalates the longer the conflicted is protracted.  Rules of engagement get ignored, “human rights” become less important to each side, and the body count keeps rising.

War is hell.  Anytime a people decide to go to war they decide to multiply violence and death–that’s the only effective way to fight a war.  There is no such thing as a nice war, a pleasant war.  War is no time for picnics.  War is gruesome and bloody and produces evils and disorders even greater than the real prospective evil imposed by an aggressor.

No war is worth fighting if a nation is unwilling to escalate conflict to the point of inflicting destruction, pain, and death greater than what could possibly be inflicted upon itself.  That’s why this doctrine fails–in theory and, more importantly, in practice.

This is the purpose of war.

Newt Schrute

February 16, 2012

This should be good for a laugh:

Who's your daddy, Dwight?

I think “Newt Schrute” has a nice ring to it.

There’s not enough sugar to coat this with to make it taste sweet:

Politicians generally know the importance of translating complicated policy into language that non-wonks can understand. When it comes to budget numbers, that can be challenging. Many Americans don’t know how many zeros are in a “trillion,” much less what a trillion deficit means in terms of the economy and its economic effects. In this poll question, for example, respondents were given five multiple-choice answers for the question “how many thousands are in a trillion” and just 21 percent answered correctly (barely more than you would expect if everyone guessed randomly).

The Gainesville Tea Party seems to have the right idea: They take some of our key economic numbers — how much money the U.S. government brings in, how much it spends, and how much brave politicians are “cutting” to bring those numbers into balance — and simply lop off eight zeros (i.e., divide by 100 million) to make those numbers something that American families can relate to:

Yeah, it's that bad.

Politicians aren’t taking this seriously because citizens aren’t taking this seriously.  Maybe making the debt “relatable” (whatever that means) to people might change that fact.