Monthly Archives: December 2016

Desperation of Ego

Posted on by
Reply

President Barack Obama (D) has both.  In a podcast interview with his bud David Axelrod, he said

I am confident in this vision because I’m confident that…if I had run again and articulated it, I think I could’ve mobilized a majority of the American people to rally behind it.

And

Obama also warned [against ending up] “…starting to shut ourselves off from different points of view, shutting down debate, becoming more dogmatic, becoming more brittle. And I don’t see that being a successful strategy for us winning over the country.”

Which is exactly what he’s been doing these last eight years.

Contemplate that for a moment against the backdrop of the bubble in which he lives, thinking in all seriousness as he does that his foreign and domestic policies actually are successes.

Some Folks Get It

Posted on by
Reply

Whether or not the attack on Pearl Harbor was treachery or straight-up war, or whether our dropping nuclear bombs on Japan at the other end of that war was butchery or straight-up war, it’s more than three generations ago; the folks responsible are mostly gone.

No apology needed, said 96-year-old Alfred Rodrigues, a US Navy veteran who survived what President Franklin D Roosevelt called a “date which will live in infamy.”

“War is war,” Rodrigues said as he looked at old photos of his military service. “They were doing what they were supposed to do, and we were doing what we were supposed to do.”

This sailor who was there understands the thing.

It’s past time to move on, especially for the press, whose interns seem to have been having trouble—ever since Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s visit to Pearl was set up—finding things for their scribes to write about.

Dumbing Down our College Pupils

Posted on by
1

This from College Fix:

George Washington University recently changed its requirements for history majors, removing previously key courses for the stated purpose of giving students more flexibility.

The department eliminated requirements in US, North American and European history….

More flexibility.  Now, in GWU’s infinite wisdom, it’s possible for a pupil there to get a degree with a history (small ‘h,’ now) major without so much as a survey course—a 100-level Freshman course—in US history, Western history, or any idea at all about how we got where we are today: a nation that allows children to study unvarnished history at all.  This statement from Katrin Schultriss, GWU’s Department of History Chair, comes without any sense in her of the irony of her remark:

Whatever they want to do, there’s a way to make the history department work for them.

A GWU History degree is now a participation award.

Unfortunately, GWU isn’t a standout on this; they’re just joining the mediocrity of our secondary “education” system.

…fewer than one-third of the nation’s leading universities require history majors to take a single course in US history.

No knowledge of who we are or how we came to be.

Dumbing down, indeed.

It’s an Old Technique

Posted on by
Reply

The technique is illustrated in HL Mencken’s Minority Report, excerpted by Don Boudreaux in his Cafe Hayek:

The really unanswerable objection to Prohibition was always the Prohibitionists.  If, in fact, they had believed honestly that forbidding rum to man would improve the world and had offered serious arguments for it, however unconvincing, most other men would have been disposed to listen to them politely.  But it was quickly manifest that improving the world was the last consideration in their minds.  What moved them was simply a violent desire to satisfy their egos by harassing their fellow-men.

It’s been about ego and not about social betterment for the Left for some time.  Even Mencken’s remark merely repeats the Left’s own characterization of its ego.  Here, to repeat a theme of my own, is Herb Croly, one of the founders of the modern Progressive movement, on his intellectual and moral inferiors:

[T]he average American individual is morally and intellectually inadequate to serious and consistent conception of his responsibilities as a democrat.

Completely Despicable

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal accurately summed up President Barack Obama (D) regarding his betrayal of Israel with his decision to allow a nakedly anti-Israeli resolution before the UN Security Council to pass unopposed.

The decision by the United States to abstain from a United Nations Security Council resolution condemning Israel over its settlements on the West Bank is one of the most significant, defining moments of the Obama Presidency.

It defines this President’s extraordinary ability to transform matters of public policy into personal pique at adversaries.

Obama didn’t even have the courage to vote, through his UN mouthpiece Samantha Powers, for the resolution: he hid behind the moral cowardice of an abstention.

Although the WSJ‘s op-ed went on to describe as well other aspects of Obama’s act, those opening sentences sum up the man.  This is a petty, small man who has chosen throughout his reign [sic] to allow his ego and his penchant for hurt feelings to interfere with policy.  His legacy has become one of unbroken venality, failure, and betrayal of American values and of America’s friends and allies.