Who but the maximum leader could manifest such passion for this nations' youth: "At a bare minimum, we should be able to count on our government keeping our kids safe when they eat peanut butter."
- US Pres. Benito Husseinolini Obama via the Today Show
"A bare minimum"?? Crud - you'd think the (putative) $3.1 TRILLION 2009 Federal budget would buy a bit more than peanut butter police. Does this mean the deficit grows larger still if we want jelly and (God forbid) bread with that?
I'm betting that a fit of mission creep (the bureaucratic mutagen) produces a new alphabet soup agency to keep our chilluns safe from smushed peanuts: The BATFEPB
2009/02/13
That Which Works Locally...
...falls flat on it's face when dealing with the Beltway Bandits. I just called the Washington offices of my two Senators and was treated to a stilted and insulting "conversation" both times. No surprise, as they're both socialists - oops, um - Democrats.
I expressed my overall horror at the so-called stimulus bill and my specific objection to the $20 billion federal seizure of medical records. I asked both how it was that a right to privacy so absolute that it allowed mothers to kill unborn children could possibly allow the government to take control of and snoop through my medical records without my consent.
I must have accidentally slipped into Farsi or somesuch, as this question was quite incomprehensible to both operatives.
Both were well trained in the art of discussion prevention, as manifested by outright unresponsiveness. They clearly already knew best and thus didn't need my input. (Why stoop to actual conversation with those whose lives you manage? What an unconscionable burden that must be...)
What was most revealing came toward the end of each "conversation" when I tried to elicit what percentage of calls were against the bill. The sympathy ploy I outlined below didn't work at all. They responded VERBATIM that the calls were running roughly equal for and against. (Sure. That 50% support for pork is how congress has an approval rating that makes GW look like Mother Teresa! What a crock) The responses were incomprehensibly vague, and they were worded identically. It was as if the first guy I talked to had rushed over to another office to answer the question again the second time I called.
VERBATIM!!! So the fix is in. These clowns obviously have a script for the tough questions, and they are trained to follow it. Obedient soldiers, in other words, and they're lying to us about what we say want - all as cover for predetermined votes yet to be cast. This adds a whole new dimension to slanted polling, doesn't it?
The first guy did at least ask for my zip code and apparently recorded me as "against" or "crackpot" or something. The second guy just hung up.
Those who ostensibly represent us at the federal level have a fixed agenda. If we agree with them, we're at least useful idiots. If we disagree we don't get the time of day. Grim as this is, we should note and consciously relish these times, as I foresee the day when those who disagree will suffer a fate much worse than indifference.
So the Federal Government is now inaccessible by way of reasoned moral argument. Those whose artful ounce of discussion prevention keeps constituents from reasoning with their leaders are in actuality escalating matters. One wonders if they've pondered the obvious pound of cure, or if they think their power is absolute?
It is, as I am wont to say, later than we think.
I expressed my overall horror at the so-called stimulus bill and my specific objection to the $20 billion federal seizure of medical records. I asked both how it was that a right to privacy so absolute that it allowed mothers to kill unborn children could possibly allow the government to take control of and snoop through my medical records without my consent.
I must have accidentally slipped into Farsi or somesuch, as this question was quite incomprehensible to both operatives.
Both were well trained in the art of discussion prevention, as manifested by outright unresponsiveness. They clearly already knew best and thus didn't need my input. (Why stoop to actual conversation with those whose lives you manage? What an unconscionable burden that must be...)
What was most revealing came toward the end of each "conversation" when I tried to elicit what percentage of calls were against the bill. The sympathy ploy I outlined below didn't work at all. They responded VERBATIM that the calls were running roughly equal for and against. (Sure. That 50% support for pork is how congress has an approval rating that makes GW look like Mother Teresa! What a crock) The responses were incomprehensibly vague, and they were worded identically. It was as if the first guy I talked to had rushed over to another office to answer the question again the second time I called.
VERBATIM!!! So the fix is in. These clowns obviously have a script for the tough questions, and they are trained to follow it. Obedient soldiers, in other words, and they're lying to us about what we say want - all as cover for predetermined votes yet to be cast. This adds a whole new dimension to slanted polling, doesn't it?
The first guy did at least ask for my zip code and apparently recorded me as "against" or "crackpot" or something. The second guy just hung up.
Those who ostensibly represent us at the federal level have a fixed agenda. If we agree with them, we're at least useful idiots. If we disagree we don't get the time of day. Grim as this is, we should note and consciously relish these times, as I foresee the day when those who disagree will suffer a fate much worse than indifference.
So the Federal Government is now inaccessible by way of reasoned moral argument. Those whose artful ounce of discussion prevention keeps constituents from reasoning with their leaders are in actuality escalating matters. One wonders if they've pondered the obvious pound of cure, or if they think their power is absolute?
It is, as I am wont to say, later than we think.
In Local News...
...17 year old Marie Morrow may find out today if she will be expelled from school for having a trunk full of fake rifles used by the Douglas County Young Marines drill team, which she commands.
This poor kid's only mistake was driving into another dimension/school district and having some ninny student see the toy guns and turn her in.
Spineless *!%*<#@(*?* Quisling....
Whew. (I'm okay now.) Anyway, one could hardly expect her to have known that such idiocy could occur, given that her drill team was invited to and did perform for students at several different Douglas County Schools for Veterans Day events.
She is being railroaded by the Cherry Creek School District - one of the most liberal in the state.
I called the spokeswoman's office and roused her secretary. After some small talk I congratulated her on having bested George Orwell's fiction in real life. Alas, she knew not of whom I spoke.
I told her in simpler terms that they were railroading a student who a) didn't even attend that district, and b) had done nothing wrong. I submitted that if they had the funds for this kind of mischief we could address that at the next election. She was taking notes so I made a few moral analogies illustrating the injustice being done. She even expressed interest in Orwell so I told her about "1984" and "Animal Farm". The conversation went on politely but she was clearly the wrong person, so I thanked her and hung up.
I called right back and got the superintendent's secretary on the line. She knew all about Orwell and was somewhat taken aback at the comparison, which led to a short vut obvious silence. She said that they felt they had no choice in light of state policy. I responded that this was spineless and tyrannical. I pointed out that soldiers shackling Jews into rail cars were doing exactly the same thing - following state policy - and that morally there was no discernible difference between the two acts. Sure, if murders occurred later there could be accessory to murder charges for the soldiers who closed the shackles, but tyranny is tyranny in either instance.
I was very civil, but I let the district have it for what's going on. I used terms including but not limited to: railroad, tyranny, injustice, spineless and kangaroo court. You get the idea! I pointed out that the entire country is in a crisis right now, and that we're looking (with a conspicuous lack of success) for leaders who have a backbone. Any leaders. Even in the wasteland of public schools.
I told her that the moral solution was obvious: the Superintendent could simply announce that she would not enforce this unjust law. She could explain the right of jury nullification, and since the law made her the jury she would be exercising just powers. She could call the law the farce it is, drop proceedings against the student and challenge the legislature to correct it's earlier stupidity. The Superintendent could state that she'd rather be fired than hurt any student. I asked the secretary if she thought anyone would dare fire the superintendent after taking such a stand. Silence. Then - "well, probably not." Damn straight!
There was no doubt that I'd fully made my point to a receptive person, so I changed course and sympathetically observed that it must not have been much fun to have her job the last few days. (The moment you've vanquished an opponent in a moral debate, show compassion and step aside so they can join you if they're so inclined. Always clear a wide path for people once the light comes on!) I observed that many people were not very well spoken (as she and I were) and that she must have taken a lot of abuse in some of the calls. (See - we well spoken folks are on the same team here! That's how, in about 5 minutes, I was "working from the inside" as an ally of sorts!) Once that rapport was established, I reminded her that even the inarticulate and downright crude callers could vote, and that those calls should not be taken lightly.
I told her the script was now written, and all she had to do was hand it over to the superintendent and alert the media. I asked if she thought the superintendent might want to talk with me but she said they had heard the message loud and clear from numerous irate calls. Well, I said, good luck with this mess...
It's easy to be effective at this kind of call. Here's how: The "prime directive" is don't personalize. Don't say "you" or " you guys" when you mean "the district". "You" refers to your listener, and that's personal. "The district" is where your listener works. So stay impersonal - it's this easy to deprive them of the opportunity to get their hackles up, which is how they dismiss you.
Remember that few people (even bureaucrats) like all policies - particularly ones that bring embarrassment raining down. You will often be able to use this to develop a sympathetic relationship rather quickly. Don't curse, and don't shout, but be firm. I do not brook rationalizations, and I always point out what rationalization is (by way of analogy) when they do it.
If you don't have experience speaking, make up a cue card before you call. Write down what you want to say and whatever quotes or examples you want to use. That way, if they interrupt you, you can get right back on track.
I used to write things out this way, and it never occurred to me that I was training myself. It worked, though - I no longer use notes and don't even remember when I stopped. After some practice I became more confident and at some point my subconscious mind took over. Repetition, just like any other endeavor!
You'll win a high percentage of your tries if you follow this. As your victory becomes obvious and the conversation is drawing to a close, take a deep breath, let it out, put a smile on your face and then sympathize with what they're going through! Then, just shut up and wait to see what they say next. Sometimes the intel you glean will astonish you.)
This is nothing more than a mild version of the "good cop - bad cop" interrogation technique. Everyone uses it, because it works. Probably every other call she took today was critical, and I'm sure darned few were sympathetic in any way. It was by sympathizing with her that I was able to elicit how many calls there had been in opposition to this persecution, along with several other tidbits...
In a moral dispute always use your intelligence and cunning to achieve multiple objectives: We need to capture the high ground (fairly easy), to hold it (also fairly easy), to convert the enemy where possible (requires grace and compassion in victory, but still fairly easy) and to gather more intelligence (depends on the first three and some measure of luck)...
These local people are not like congressmen accustomed to Gulfstream travel and fine dining at constituent or lobbyist expense. They often know right from wrong, and all we have to do is let them know that we do too, and that we're watching! Pick up the phone, folks. Let 'em know! A victory is priceless, but a loss is a kind of victory too: The kind of enemy who doesn't listen is the kind that does what they want regardless. By raising our voices we can paint them into an intellectual corner - even if they don't listen this places them in the position of lying to themselves about their actions. Over time, that takes a toll on their spirit. That toll will inure to our benefit, and it's a toll I'm happy to exact...
(Now to call my Senators and discuss the bailout! I know they'll be be far less receptive, but I'll make my points to them and report back on that as well.)
This poor kid's only mistake was driving into another dimension/school district and having some ninny student see the toy guns and turn her in.
Spineless *!%*<#@(*?* Quisling....
Whew. (I'm okay now.) Anyway, one could hardly expect her to have known that such idiocy could occur, given that her drill team was invited to and did perform for students at several different Douglas County Schools for Veterans Day events.
She is being railroaded by the Cherry Creek School District - one of the most liberal in the state.
I called the spokeswoman's office and roused her secretary. After some small talk I congratulated her on having bested George Orwell's fiction in real life. Alas, she knew not of whom I spoke.
I told her in simpler terms that they were railroading a student who a) didn't even attend that district, and b) had done nothing wrong. I submitted that if they had the funds for this kind of mischief we could address that at the next election. She was taking notes so I made a few moral analogies illustrating the injustice being done. She even expressed interest in Orwell so I told her about "1984" and "Animal Farm". The conversation went on politely but she was clearly the wrong person, so I thanked her and hung up.
I called right back and got the superintendent's secretary on the line. She knew all about Orwell and was somewhat taken aback at the comparison, which led to a short vut obvious silence. She said that they felt they had no choice in light of state policy. I responded that this was spineless and tyrannical. I pointed out that soldiers shackling Jews into rail cars were doing exactly the same thing - following state policy - and that morally there was no discernible difference between the two acts. Sure, if murders occurred later there could be accessory to murder charges for the soldiers who closed the shackles, but tyranny is tyranny in either instance.
I was very civil, but I let the district have it for what's going on. I used terms including but not limited to: railroad, tyranny, injustice, spineless and kangaroo court. You get the idea! I pointed out that the entire country is in a crisis right now, and that we're looking (with a conspicuous lack of success) for leaders who have a backbone. Any leaders. Even in the wasteland of public schools.
I told her that the moral solution was obvious: the Superintendent could simply announce that she would not enforce this unjust law. She could explain the right of jury nullification, and since the law made her the jury she would be exercising just powers. She could call the law the farce it is, drop proceedings against the student and challenge the legislature to correct it's earlier stupidity. The Superintendent could state that she'd rather be fired than hurt any student. I asked the secretary if she thought anyone would dare fire the superintendent after taking such a stand. Silence. Then - "well, probably not." Damn straight!
There was no doubt that I'd fully made my point to a receptive person, so I changed course and sympathetically observed that it must not have been much fun to have her job the last few days. (The moment you've vanquished an opponent in a moral debate, show compassion and step aside so they can join you if they're so inclined. Always clear a wide path for people once the light comes on!) I observed that many people were not very well spoken (as she and I were) and that she must have taken a lot of abuse in some of the calls. (See - we well spoken folks are on the same team here! That's how, in about 5 minutes, I was "working from the inside" as an ally of sorts!) Once that rapport was established, I reminded her that even the inarticulate and downright crude callers could vote, and that those calls should not be taken lightly.
I told her the script was now written, and all she had to do was hand it over to the superintendent and alert the media. I asked if she thought the superintendent might want to talk with me but she said they had heard the message loud and clear from numerous irate calls. Well, I said, good luck with this mess...
It's easy to be effective at this kind of call. Here's how: The "prime directive" is don't personalize. Don't say "you" or " you guys" when you mean "the district". "You" refers to your listener, and that's personal. "The district" is where your listener works. So stay impersonal - it's this easy to deprive them of the opportunity to get their hackles up, which is how they dismiss you.
Remember that few people (even bureaucrats) like all policies - particularly ones that bring embarrassment raining down. You will often be able to use this to develop a sympathetic relationship rather quickly. Don't curse, and don't shout, but be firm. I do not brook rationalizations, and I always point out what rationalization is (by way of analogy) when they do it.
If you don't have experience speaking, make up a cue card before you call. Write down what you want to say and whatever quotes or examples you want to use. That way, if they interrupt you, you can get right back on track.
I used to write things out this way, and it never occurred to me that I was training myself. It worked, though - I no longer use notes and don't even remember when I stopped. After some practice I became more confident and at some point my subconscious mind took over. Repetition, just like any other endeavor!
You'll win a high percentage of your tries if you follow this. As your victory becomes obvious and the conversation is drawing to a close, take a deep breath, let it out, put a smile on your face and then sympathize with what they're going through! Then, just shut up and wait to see what they say next. Sometimes the intel you glean will astonish you.)
This is nothing more than a mild version of the "good cop - bad cop" interrogation technique. Everyone uses it, because it works. Probably every other call she took today was critical, and I'm sure darned few were sympathetic in any way. It was by sympathizing with her that I was able to elicit how many calls there had been in opposition to this persecution, along with several other tidbits...
In a moral dispute always use your intelligence and cunning to achieve multiple objectives: We need to capture the high ground (fairly easy), to hold it (also fairly easy), to convert the enemy where possible (requires grace and compassion in victory, but still fairly easy) and to gather more intelligence (depends on the first three and some measure of luck)...
These local people are not like congressmen accustomed to Gulfstream travel and fine dining at constituent or lobbyist expense. They often know right from wrong, and all we have to do is let them know that we do too, and that we're watching! Pick up the phone, folks. Let 'em know! A victory is priceless, but a loss is a kind of victory too: The kind of enemy who doesn't listen is the kind that does what they want regardless. By raising our voices we can paint them into an intellectual corner - even if they don't listen this places them in the position of lying to themselves about their actions. Over time, that takes a toll on their spirit. That toll will inure to our benefit, and it's a toll I'm happy to exact...
(Now to call my Senators and discuss the bailout! I know they'll be be far less receptive, but I'll make my points to them and report back on that as well.)
What Could Have Been...
Thanks to WRSA (see blog links) I've learned that Alan Keyes has started a blog of his own, which is now linked here as well. (Dang, I'm in good company!!) Who is Alan Keyes, you ask? Read this humble servant's report from the front lines of the war for America's soul, and get to know an Illinois politician we can all respect:
"Civil War Disguised As Politics"
From Alan Keyes' Loyal to Liberty blog:
When I ran for the U.S. Senate against Barack Obama I did my best to speak the truth. I knew when I accepted the invitation of the Illinois Republicans that I stood little or no chance of victory. With few exceptions, everyone I consulted advised against it. Most thought it political suicide. But the facts convinced me that Obama is a dangerous left-wing extremist. When confronted with the proven depravity of his moral views, my faith and conscience convicted me as well. After years of telling audiences that we had to stand for right and truth no matter what the cost, I felt that the Lord would hold me accountable if I refused to walk the talk. Sometimes we are not called to victory, but to witness for truth, as Jesus did, even unto death.
So when I campaigned in Illinois I let no false ambition; no kind of blandishment or intimidation; and no whispers of political gain or loss distract me from speaking the truth. I talked about Obama's extremist support for abortion (including his unconscionable willingness to tolerate infanticide in Illinois hospitals); I described him as a hard line socialist, pointing out his uncompromising commitment to central government control of health care and education; I pointed to the contradiction between his professed support for traditional marriage and his consistent promotion of the homosexual agenda. I remember talking to people, including Republican leaders, and others who have built little empires and big reputations as leaders of the so-called "Christian right", (what I call more appropriately the moral conservatives).
Time and again I heard in response feckless mumblings about how moderate he seemed in his speech at the Democratic convention. Time and again I felt the implication that I was somehow exaggerating, imprudently "demonizing the opposition." They did little or nothing. And when the pro-abortion elements of the Illinois Republican Party openly went on the offensive against my refusal to back down from my stand for moral principle and real conservatism, in silence and inaction these leaders complied with their politically ruthless intention.
Meanwhile I and my family encountered from the Obama forces the ugliest indignities I have ever experienced in politics: Parades in which Obama's marshaled minions shouted curses and epithets almost every step of the way; and forums in which they rudely launched expletives with gestures just short of physical violence. At one such forum the environment they created was so ugly that my wife was visibly shaken, and my daughter in tears. Even on Election Day, when we went to the polling place to vote, a man there created a disturbance. He shouted insults. He acted in a physically threatening way. Nothing was done to stop him, and the pandering Illinois media breathed hardly a word about it in their so-called news coverage.
In all of this there was a hard edged disdain for decent civility that reminded me of the murderous invective Lenin launched against those who opposed the communist agenda. But it all took place behind a media fabricated façade of false hope and moderateness, like the propaganda screen behind which the totalitarians of the twentieth century hid their perpetration of atrocity.
Having felt the cutting edge of this reality, on election night I refused to engage in the nice ritual usually associated with the resolution of our political contests in America. Obama's people treated politics as war. But in war only gutless servility congratulates a ruthless opponent on the victory he has gained without civility. Mine was, to be sure, a silent protest but loud enough to have some so-called leaders, supposedly on my side, losing no opportunity to "apologize" for my behavior.
Since 2004 I have walked in the political wilderness. This walk is not without its burdens, but I am heartened when I remember whose footsteps I find there: those of people like Reagan and Winston Churchill who in their dedication to right refused to let ambition triumph over truth. Assaulted, ridiculed, caricatured, ignored, at times reduced to a small and almost covert band of like-minded adherents, they kept their faith. They witnessed the rising power of the evils they warned against. They witnessed the policies of appeasement, retreat and surrender practiced by unprincipled leaders in the face of those evils. They witnessed the day when hard experience finally forced those who had all but forgotten their existence to turn and make a stand against wickedness triumphant over freedom.
I have an ominous feeling about the years ahead. With Obama, we have crossed the line that separates civil politics from civil war disguised as politics. Occupying the White House is a man known for his support and association with people (like leftist Kenyan politician Raila Amollo Odinga) for whom that line appears never to have existed. I predict that American politics as we have known it is gone. And unless we Americans wake up, more than civil politics will end up dead. For there are other footsteps in this wilderness, left by leaders who opposed the Communists when they took over Eastern European countries in the late 1940s, or Asian countries in the fifties, or African countries in the sixties, or South American and South African countries in the eighties, and so on. Mostly we do not know their names, nor can we mark the spot where their lives were overtaken because their compatriots did not wake up in time.
But, with the Psalmist, I will fear no evil, for here, as everywhere, I see the footprints of the one who conquered death itself.
Wherever they lead, there is life renewed.
Keep Those Plates Spinnin'
Spending three trillion earlier this week must not have been enough to sate the appetites of the Washington Wizards, who announced the afternoon of the 12th that they will buy down the principal (not to be confused with principle, of which there is none in sight) on delinquent mortgages. This according to a means test yet to be devised.
Translated, this means that the folks who had little if any business buying a house will get the most help, and at our expense.
The market turned up at this news, as did my stomach.
Translated, this means that the folks who had little if any business buying a house will get the most help, and at our expense.
The market turned up at this news, as did my stomach.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
