I greatly respect Gov. Christie for what he knows. He knows how to be effective, he knows how to speak, he knows how to work with people, and most importantly he knows how to lead.
See, there are few people in our country that have that ability to lead. There is a difference between leaders, managers, and figureheads. If you don't believe me, go read a couple decades' of Dilbert. Can you call the Pointy Haired Boss a leader? On the contrary; he's nothing but a manager. Gov. Christie doesn't manage his state. He doesn't just oversee his state. He doesn't sit back and field the underhanded pitches, playing some abstract figurehead in NJ. He leads. And that quality, coupled with the strength of conviction and effective realism is why he'd make a presidential candidate I would be proud to support...
...which is why I don't think he should run in 2012. Do we need him? Oh, more than ever. But Gov. Christie, when asked about a run in '12, said very plainly "No". And I believe him. I believe that he will first and foremost uphold his promise to the residents of New Jersey to lead them well, and he will fulfill that promise. He won't pull a Sarah Palin and eject from office before the first term is up. He won't be like Obama and leave his post to seek higher fame and fortune. His sense of duty, and his sense of honor, will keep him in the place where he can do the most good for the people who need him. That place, for the time being, is Trenton.
I'll be honest with you- if he does decide to run in '12, I would be overjoyed. But that feeling of hope for positive change will be joined by a sense of sadness and some respect lost for the Governor- because he backed down on his word. It's that bittersweet promise to see his term through that hamstrings those of us not in NJ, but a man who keeps his word is rare enough these days.
A man in his position willing to care for his state at the expense of the idol polticians call higher office isn't a member of the rarity these days- he's a member of a class almost extinct.
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
No Sepukku Here
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45285.html
When you're the leader of a party that was essentially thrown out of Congress, fighting to stay in command says more about your selfishness than your desire to serve.
Where are the days when a leader would take responsibility for such a large political failure and honorably resign?
When you're the leader of a party that was essentially thrown out of Congress, fighting to stay in command says more about your selfishness than your desire to serve.
Where are the days when a leader would take responsibility for such a large political failure and honorably resign?
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Friday, October 22, 2010
When In Rome...
I remember a trip to the Louvre I was supposed to take back in the early 2000's that was cancelled because the highways around Paris were shut down. Too many protesters, they said. Apparently enough people thought an increase in the work week to 35 hours was worth shutting down the highways. Let's do the math on this:
35hrs/wk / 5days/wk = 7hrs/day
That's seven hours of work per day- or 9-5, with an hour lunch break. Nine to five. Americans today (and many even back then) would kill for a 9-5 job, and the French thought that was an outrageous demand. This was such an insult to them that they shut down major portions of their road system. When your citizens are protesting that 9-5 is too harsh a work schedule, you have bigger and deadlier problems than you thought.
Which is why Europe is failing. France is an especially bad case. The population is aging. The birth rate within the past 7 years is roughly 0.08%. Immigrants are offsetting the nearly non-existent birth rate, but are using the French welfare system while choosing to remain as foreign as they can.
Thousands of people rioted in the streets as the French government considers raising the legal age for retirement from 60...to 62.
"Presently, a worker who has paid into social security for 40.5 years is eligible for a full pension at the age of 60. Workers in the public sector receive 75% of their last-six-month's salary, and private sector workers, 50% of their earnings in the best 25 years.
The French Labor Ministry says there are 15.5 million retirees in France, which will grow to 18 million in 2030. The Pension Council estimates that this will have a devastating effect on the annual pension deficit, bringing it from $44 billion as of 2010 to $111 billion in 2030."
France is so heavily socialized that people riot and protest when the job market isn't as open as they believe it should be. The 2006 labor protests against the First Employment Contract bill were almost unbelievable.
If you were to get a job in France, it's yours for as long as you want it. The FEC bill would allow companies and employers the ability to fire an employee within the first two years of service if they felt the employee was not benefiting the company. The problem with being unable to fire someone is that it dries up the job market; instead of being able to take a job someone was fired for (say, due to incompetence or lack of skill) you could only compete for jobs that weren't already taken...and once a job was taken, that employment opportunity was essentially lost. To have students protest in the streets because their "right" to employment was threatened was both utterly inane and completely beyond selfish.
What's happening in Europe is an amazing chance for America to realize that a welfare state is not a viable option for survival. To foster an atmosphere where people are so dependent on the government for everything that they burn busses in the streets when the government realizes that it can no longer afford to support everyone is dangerous, foolish, and stupid.
When the federal government takes over the majority of the auto industry, our top banking corporations, and health care, looks to raise taxes, and then proceeds to run our deficit over $1T (that's T for Trillion) how on earth can the Chief Executive, in good conscience, expect people to turn to him and say "thank you"?
We're not in Rome, and we shouldn't be going down the same road the Europeans are on. Our leadership needs to realize that they are part of something bigger and more important than themselves and their opinions. A wise man once said "Learn from the mistakes of others; you won't live long enough to make them all yourself." Perhaps we should sit up, pay attention, and learn from France and the UK.
And no, I don't want my cake. You can keep the stupid cake. What I want is my nation to not end up in history's welfare waste bin.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
On Coolidge
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0830/opinions-amity-shlaes-current-events-great-refresher.html
There's a difference between sitting still and doing nothing.
Sadly, today's government- and the President in particular -are the complete opposite of Silent Cal. "When possible, intervene" would be an appropriate mantra for the over-sized and over-burdened Federal whale we have beached on the East Coast right now.
As the story goes, for those of you who haven't heard it, a woman named Dorothy Parker had a bet with a friend that she could get Pres. Coolidge to say more than two words to her. When she mentioned the bet to him at a dinner party, he simply said-
"You lose."
It's no surprise that a man who favored minimal involvement would be as fond of efficiency in his interactions as he was in his policies.
For those of you looking for a historic Libertarian political model, here's an excellent one.
There's a difference between sitting still and doing nothing.
Sadly, today's government- and the President in particular -are the complete opposite of Silent Cal. "When possible, intervene" would be an appropriate mantra for the over-sized and over-burdened Federal whale we have beached on the East Coast right now.
As the story goes, for those of you who haven't heard it, a woman named Dorothy Parker had a bet with a friend that she could get Pres. Coolidge to say more than two words to her. When she mentioned the bet to him at a dinner party, he simply said-
"You lose."
It's no surprise that a man who favored minimal involvement would be as fond of efficiency in his interactions as he was in his policies.
For those of you looking for a historic Libertarian political model, here's an excellent one.
Friday, October 15, 2010
What Comeback?
I'm not a fan of the movie 'Patton'. I think George C. Scott played the general magnificently, but I find the film hard to enjoy and the main character harder to respect. That being said, one of my all-time favorite quotes actually comes from his performance. When the general is watching the battle rage below he laughs to himself and yells that perfect one-liner on strategy-
"Rommel, you magnificent bastard! I read your book!"
If you ever want to know how or what someone else thinks, and this someone else is in any way your opponent or opposite, don't read material written by your friends, compatriots, or allies for you. Instead, take a serious look at material by or for your opponent. Listen to what they listen to. Watch what they watch. Don't fall into the habit of becoming part of the choir that gets preached to- get out and spend some time in the other side's shoes.
I've noticed over the years that conservatives and liberals tend to treat each other differently when they butt heads. Conservatives tend to treat liberals as if they were stupid. Spend a good amount of time on sites like Real Clear Politics, Townhall, or Right Brothers and you'll see article after article referencing figures, quotations, interviews, ideas, sources, and other generally useful information one would load an argument with if one views his or her opponent as being ignorant of the facts. Go watch Glenn Beck and see how many dozen books, articles, interviews, speeches, web pages, blogs, and phone calls he quotes and cites per episode. It's like watching a 400 level political science course on the "news".
Conversely, liberals tend to treat conservatives as if they were evil (here's a column by Charles Krauthammer explaining the evil vs stupid comparison). Instead of Real Clear Politics, Townhall, or Fox News, spend any amount of time watching Rachel Maddow or Keith Olberman, or read The Huffington Post or blogs like Gus DiZerega's and you'll see vilification of folks who don't agree with the liberal strand of thought. Mr. DiZerega especially likes ad-hominems and demonization. Anyone who blatantly refers to conservatives as "evil" and Christians as "Sauronic demon worshippers" falls squarely in the camp that views opponents as more than just ignorant. Now, I'm not saying conservatives don't slander and liberals don't use facts; I'm just pointing out an observation that each side tends to favor one tactic over the other.
It's easy to compete against someone who thinks you're stupid. Come armed to a discussion (or be quick on your feet) with facts, figures, and quotes and be able to synthesize information as it flows through the discussion while thinking critically and you'll not only hold your own, you'll probably win.
But how do you handle someone who is so quick to use character attacks, especially unfounded ones, and has no qualms about name calling and baseless demonization?
I got into a debate/argument with an acquaintance the other day over Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT). I posed 5 hypothetical scenarios/questions that the military would face, in a specific setting, if it were to revoke DADT. The 5 questions all dealt with close quarters living.
The woman with whom I was debating (quite the liberal) asked me why I was afraid of gay people. When I responded that I said no such thing, she quoted my own questions back to me and then accused me of "gay fear mongering".
My jaw actually dropped. That doesn't happen often.
She then went on to play the female/ethnic minority card and made a few more comments about people like me who engage in spreading the unfounded fears. I was shocked. My questions were not only not intended to offend, they were genuine scenarios I bring up in every DADT conversation I have because I'd like to know how they would be handled. Instead of giving me logical answers, this woman labeled me as someone who engages in said fear mongering because I was clearly "afraid" of gay people.
Look at bumper stickers before California's Proposition 8 went to ballot (and even after). Stickers for the proposition (against gay marriage) had a picture of a stick man man and stick woman and read "Yes on 8" or "Vote for 8". Stickers against the proposition read "Stop the H8" or "NO H8"...a slogan so poignantly referenced in images of people whose mouths have been taped shut (these people are clearly the epitome of kind, caring individuals). Even here the conservatives stickers were simply saying vote yes, and the liberal stickers were labeling conservatives as people who were guilty of discrimination. Are you for traditional marriage? Then you're a hater. Are you for progressive redefinition of marriage? Then you're a tolerant free-thinker. Makes sense, right?
Why bother persuading either your opponent or your audience? Just vilify. It's a much more desirable option to make your opponent hated than it is to make your position attractive. Why? Because it's easier to fuel anger than it is to logically get behind something.
How do you counteract this? What comeback can you give someone who blindsides you or counters your argument with statements or slogans like this?
Here's a video of Bill O'Reilly on The View talking about 9/11. I've personally never seen the show- the thought of half a dozen loud, liberal women preaching to each other's choir is not my cup of tea.
When O'Reilly said he believes the Ground Zero Mosque would be a bad idea, due to insensitivity, he was asked why. He responded by saying that Muslims committed the 9/11 hijackings/attacks.
"This is bullshit!" Goldberg said. "Extremists did that!" She and Joy Behar then walked off stage a moment later. The other women then attacked O'Reilly for slandering an entire religion by making the factual statement that extremist Muslims committed the 9/11 suicide flights and proceeded to demand his apology for offending them.
I was again floored by this response. These women believed that Muslim extremists, not extremist Muslims, committed the attacks; and because the two words are in that order Islam had nothing to do with the killings.
Syntax is important here- if they were Muslim extremists, then they would be first and foremost extremists who happen to be Muslims. That is not the case. They were first and foremost Muslims, who did what they did BECAUSE they were extremists.
How do you answer such a statement? Someone minces words so finely, then argues something so absurd that perhaps the only possible way to counter would be to say something just as ridiculous- or, in the case of my DADT story, to come back with my own absurd ad-hominem.
No matter the case, you can't let yourself slip. Resist the urge to give in to the name calling, the personal slandering, the negative absurdities, or the emotional rhetoric. Not only will you walk away with your personal integrity and honor intact (assuming you had some to begin with) you'll be able to let history show that you relied more on reason than gut reactions and emotional hype to carry your message.
Does this mean you'll lose the argument? In some cases, from the standpoint of the audience, yes. Our society, and our generation, seem to favor catchy phrases, eloquent blurbs, and emotional speakers. What does it matter if you push the nation trillions of dollars in debt or create programs bound for failure that our children will have to pay for? As long as what you preach brings emotional comfort and is backed by the logic of morality, even if one uses twisted logic and twisted morals, people will follow you. With so much emphasis on data and so little push for true understanding, it's easier to feel than it is to think nowadays. Why should we actually take the time turn that data into information and that information into knowledge? It's quicker, less difficult, and more satisfying to attach an emotion to a snippet we heard somewhere and use that as the basis for our preferences and the foundations for our arguments.
And hey- if you lose face or lose ground, just make the opponent seem more dangerously full of bias or hate and less caring than you. It works, doesn't it?
If anybody can come up with a way to fight the down and dirty emotionality that people today are so apt to use, I'd love to hear it. Until then, I'll just sit quietly and hope that somewhere out there exist Americans who still think from their heads before they scream from their hearts.
"Rommel, you magnificent bastard! I read your book!"
If you ever want to know how or what someone else thinks, and this someone else is in any way your opponent or opposite, don't read material written by your friends, compatriots, or allies for you. Instead, take a serious look at material by or for your opponent. Listen to what they listen to. Watch what they watch. Don't fall into the habit of becoming part of the choir that gets preached to- get out and spend some time in the other side's shoes.
I've noticed over the years that conservatives and liberals tend to treat each other differently when they butt heads. Conservatives tend to treat liberals as if they were stupid. Spend a good amount of time on sites like Real Clear Politics, Townhall, or Right Brothers and you'll see article after article referencing figures, quotations, interviews, ideas, sources, and other generally useful information one would load an argument with if one views his or her opponent as being ignorant of the facts. Go watch Glenn Beck and see how many dozen books, articles, interviews, speeches, web pages, blogs, and phone calls he quotes and cites per episode. It's like watching a 400 level political science course on the "news".
Conversely, liberals tend to treat conservatives as if they were evil (here's a column by Charles Krauthammer explaining the evil vs stupid comparison). Instead of Real Clear Politics, Townhall, or Fox News, spend any amount of time watching Rachel Maddow or Keith Olberman, or read The Huffington Post or blogs like Gus DiZerega's and you'll see vilification of folks who don't agree with the liberal strand of thought. Mr. DiZerega especially likes ad-hominems and demonization. Anyone who blatantly refers to conservatives as "evil" and Christians as "Sauronic demon worshippers" falls squarely in the camp that views opponents as more than just ignorant. Now, I'm not saying conservatives don't slander and liberals don't use facts; I'm just pointing out an observation that each side tends to favor one tactic over the other.
It's easy to compete against someone who thinks you're stupid. Come armed to a discussion (or be quick on your feet) with facts, figures, and quotes and be able to synthesize information as it flows through the discussion while thinking critically and you'll not only hold your own, you'll probably win.
But how do you handle someone who is so quick to use character attacks, especially unfounded ones, and has no qualms about name calling and baseless demonization?
I got into a debate/argument with an acquaintance the other day over Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT). I posed 5 hypothetical scenarios/questions that the military would face, in a specific setting, if it were to revoke DADT. The 5 questions all dealt with close quarters living.
The woman with whom I was debating (quite the liberal) asked me why I was afraid of gay people. When I responded that I said no such thing, she quoted my own questions back to me and then accused me of "gay fear mongering".
My jaw actually dropped. That doesn't happen often.
She then went on to play the female/ethnic minority card and made a few more comments about people like me who engage in spreading the unfounded fears. I was shocked. My questions were not only not intended to offend, they were genuine scenarios I bring up in every DADT conversation I have because I'd like to know how they would be handled. Instead of giving me logical answers, this woman labeled me as someone who engages in said fear mongering because I was clearly "afraid" of gay people.
Look at bumper stickers before California's Proposition 8 went to ballot (and even after). Stickers for the proposition (against gay marriage) had a picture of a stick man man and stick woman and read "Yes on 8" or "Vote for 8". Stickers against the proposition read "Stop the H8" or "NO H8"...a slogan so poignantly referenced in images of people whose mouths have been taped shut (these people are clearly the epitome of kind, caring individuals). Even here the conservatives stickers were simply saying vote yes, and the liberal stickers were labeling conservatives as people who were guilty of discrimination. Are you for traditional marriage? Then you're a hater. Are you for progressive redefinition of marriage? Then you're a tolerant free-thinker. Makes sense, right?
Why bother persuading either your opponent or your audience? Just vilify. It's a much more desirable option to make your opponent hated than it is to make your position attractive. Why? Because it's easier to fuel anger than it is to logically get behind something.
How do you counteract this? What comeback can you give someone who blindsides you or counters your argument with statements or slogans like this?
Here's a video of Bill O'Reilly on The View talking about 9/11. I've personally never seen the show- the thought of half a dozen loud, liberal women preaching to each other's choir is not my cup of tea.
When O'Reilly said he believes the Ground Zero Mosque would be a bad idea, due to insensitivity, he was asked why. He responded by saying that Muslims committed the 9/11 hijackings/attacks.
"This is bullshit!" Goldberg said. "Extremists did that!" She and Joy Behar then walked off stage a moment later. The other women then attacked O'Reilly for slandering an entire religion by making the factual statement that extremist Muslims committed the 9/11 suicide flights and proceeded to demand his apology for offending them.
I was again floored by this response. These women believed that Muslim extremists, not extremist Muslims, committed the attacks; and because the two words are in that order Islam had nothing to do with the killings.
Syntax is important here- if they were Muslim extremists, then they would be first and foremost extremists who happen to be Muslims. That is not the case. They were first and foremost Muslims, who did what they did BECAUSE they were extremists.
How do you answer such a statement? Someone minces words so finely, then argues something so absurd that perhaps the only possible way to counter would be to say something just as ridiculous- or, in the case of my DADT story, to come back with my own absurd ad-hominem.
No matter the case, you can't let yourself slip. Resist the urge to give in to the name calling, the personal slandering, the negative absurdities, or the emotional rhetoric. Not only will you walk away with your personal integrity and honor intact (assuming you had some to begin with) you'll be able to let history show that you relied more on reason than gut reactions and emotional hype to carry your message.
Does this mean you'll lose the argument? In some cases, from the standpoint of the audience, yes. Our society, and our generation, seem to favor catchy phrases, eloquent blurbs, and emotional speakers. What does it matter if you push the nation trillions of dollars in debt or create programs bound for failure that our children will have to pay for? As long as what you preach brings emotional comfort and is backed by the logic of morality, even if one uses twisted logic and twisted morals, people will follow you. With so much emphasis on data and so little push for true understanding, it's easier to feel than it is to think nowadays. Why should we actually take the time turn that data into information and that information into knowledge? It's quicker, less difficult, and more satisfying to attach an emotion to a snippet we heard somewhere and use that as the basis for our preferences and the foundations for our arguments.
And hey- if you lose face or lose ground, just make the opponent seem more dangerously full of bias or hate and less caring than you. It works, doesn't it?
If anybody can come up with a way to fight the down and dirty emotionality that people today are so apt to use, I'd love to hear it. Until then, I'll just sit quietly and hope that somewhere out there exist Americans who still think from their heads before they scream from their hearts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)