Header Image (book)

aowheader.3.2.gif

Friday, January 20, 2012

The Sad Irony

(Hat tip to Reliapundit for the graphic in this post)


The facts about jobs related to tourism:
Obama touts low-wage tourism jobs, nixes high-wage energy jobs

A day after President Barack Obama nixed up to 20,000 high-wage Keystone XL pipeline construction jobs, he flew down to Florida to tout his support for low-wage tourism jobs.

[...]

The 1.7 million workers in the “traveler accommodation” category earned an average wage of $27,210 in 2009, according to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).

That’s barely half the wages earned by the estimated 98,210 workers in the “heavy and civil engineering construction” category. In 2009, they earned a mean wage of $50,730, according to the BLS.

[...]

In contrast, tourism jobs are mostly low-skill service jobs — serving dinners, cleaning bedrooms, guiding visitors....They can also be accomplished by immigrants who will accept lower wages than U.S.-born Americans....
Whoever the GOP candidate is should be sure to point out the facts about jobs related to tourism. Such jobs will not drive our economy!

We need a higher GDP to bring this economy out of its doldrums, not what Obama is lamely touting as the solution as he zooms all over the country for photo ops to promote the illusion that he's doing something for our ailing economy.

76 comments:

  1. Of course, our dumbing down of America fits in nicely with his plan to increase low-skill jobs.

    ReplyDelete
  2. 366 shopping days until Obama goes to Disneyland permanently.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The jobs for Keystore were few for Americans and were temporary. Wingnuts constantly bitching about anything Obama does or goes or about his wife...prove they (you) are innocuous schreechers.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Just creating more jobs for the "aliens".

    ReplyDelete
  5. Would someone please explain to me how a President can stop a pipeline from being built. Where did that power come from?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Excellent question, Odie.

    Liberalmann would tell you its because Obama is so dreamy and beautiful and intelligent, and that you and I are just unsophisticated hicks who can't see beyond the high unemployment, towering debt, and economic misery...

    ReplyDelete
  7. Such as Odie concluded, I don't know how a president can legally stop a project that will ulitimately lead to so many American jobs and a more secure oil policy for our country. Where is the outrage from the citizens?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Explain to me how I can read from the report but is missed here that Obama did not say he rejects the idea of the pipeline. He said that the timeframe and the railroading it through congress by the majority was unacceptable.

    As for Oddie and others' question about the right, almost all countries have a requirement for national governments to approve both the go-ahead and the actual planning routes of national infrastructures such as oil, gas and electricity. This is done for the purposes of, in the unlikelihood of war, an opportunity to protect them. That rule has been in existance since the first world war and it would be no suprise that the US has it as well. That this rule is also open to abuse is equally obvious.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Odie, has asked an excellent question. I also would love to know the answer.

    And I have one as well, was the pipeline going to be a danger to an aquifer to three states? I heard that from the spouse.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Charles makes a very good point, but in our system of governance decisions of this sort are not supposed to be made by presidential fiat, they should be debated in congress, and congress should make the decision.

    In extreme cases where congress and the president cannot come to terms the Supreme Court usually decides what's to be done.

    We do not elect a MONARCH or a DICTATOR. Our president's power must be checked and balanced by the other two co-equal branches to make his policies legitimate. The USA is still not a Banana Republic or The United Soviet States of Amerika, but we appear to be heading that way fast.

    Of course building new infrastructure that may aversely affect the quality of the landscape, private property rights and the environment must be approved by government, but no ONE PERSON should be able to make or break such a process.

    We are a DEMOCRATIC REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC. We are NOT a "democracy," neither are we a MONARCHY or FIEFDOM.

    When a president oversteps his authority, no matter how "good" or "well-intentioned" his motives may be, he should be IMPEACHED and REMOVED from OFFICE.

    Six-hundred-thirty-five-thousand lives --including his own -- would have been saved had Congress and the Supreme Court of his day had the wisdom and the courage to impeach and oust Abraham Lincoln, who -- whether you like to face it or not -- ranks among history's most atrocious mass murderers.

    Terrible things happen, because good people sit on their hands and do nothing.

    ~ FreeThinke

    ReplyDelete
  11. Freethinkie,

    I go back to my comment - did not the President simply veto the bill because of the time-line and rushing through debate by Congress? In that case, did he not simply excercise his job (and promiss) to ensure that no party-based bais will rush through bills in the houses?

    ReplyDelete
  12. I think we should all be glad the pipeline was killed. It was toxic crap going thought the country's largest aquifer and it created few jobs for Americans.

    ReplyDelete
  13. No, Charles, he vetoed the bill because he does nothing but play partisan politics. The Truth means nothing to Obama. To be fair, it means little or nothing to most politicians.

    Obama is a committed Marxist, even though he wears the contemporary equivalent of a Brooks Brothers suit. To pretend that Obama is not a Marxist is tergiveration of a most egregious sort.

    ~ FreeThinke

    PS: We on the right do not like dictators or demagogues. Obama is already the latter and has string ambitions to become the former. - FT

    ReplyDelete
  14. By the way, after having watched ten of the debates I have come to the conclusion, despite having a strong liking and respect for the ideas and potential policies of Ron Paul, that we'd all better get behind NEWT GINGRICH and start pushing hard for him to become our net president, because he is the only one who more than a prayer of a chance to put Obrother in his place.

    Mitt Romney is just another cypher in the threadbare, shopworn, run-over-at-the-heels tradition of Bob Dole and John McPain.

    ~ FreeThinke

    ReplyDelete
  15. Free-Thinkie,

    though I respect anyone's opinion, I have to disagree with you on one point. As much as you would like him to be, Obama is neither a Marxist or even a very good socialist. That is good rhetoric if you do not follow or support Obama but the fact of the matter is that he is a centrist Democrat which makes him as centre-left as you can get AND in the American sense. Over here in Europe (I am in Gibraltar which technically is British) we have experienced socialism, communism and even the birth of real Marxism. Obama is neither.

    Also, if you wish, we could argue it this way. On January 8 this year Rick Perry in a debate called Obama a Socialist. He actually said "I make a very proud statement and, in fact ,that we have a president that's a socialist. I don't think our founding fathers wanted America to be a socialist country. So I disagree with that premise that somehow or another that President Obama reflects our founding fathers. He doesn't. He talks about having a more powerful, more centralized, more consuming and costly federal government."

    Perry's statement is based on taxing and is similar to statements by Sarah Palin and Newt (there is no Palestinian identity) Gingrich. PolitiFact in each case explained it quite easily in:

    "...as we explained in our examination of Palin and Joe the Plumber's statements, Obama's tax policy relies on the same progressive approach that has been the cornerstone of American tax policy since the federal government first collected an income tax in 1863, an approach embraced by Republicans and Democrats. It was based on the Tax Act of 1862, which President Abraham Lincoln signed, and which imposed a "duty of three per centum" on all income over $600, and five percent on income over $10,000...." or more clearly "The idea is that the wealthy pay a larger share of their income because they are more able to afford it. To the extent the government then gives some of the money to the less-wealthy through various programs, you could say the income is being redistributed. But that concept has been embraced by Republicans and Democrats for well over a century."

    Socialism is "governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods."

    Something that Obama and any Democrat rejects out of hand and of which Perry would be basically correct - is totally in oposition to the traditions of America.

    No, Obama is not a Marxist, let alone a Socialist - he is a Democrat - something else.

    Mind you, a Republican may be a Conservative, but then as a real Conservative and a paying member of the British Conservative Party for 32 years now, I have my doubts that the new generation of Republicans in America are really Conservative - they are more akin to neo-Nationalists and Fascists.

    ps, a President Gingrich would set back America's standing in the world decades. I do not think you have a worthy candidate to match Obama, regardless if I like the current President at all and frankly with the line-up, your better off with Obama.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Would someone please explain to me how a President can stop a pipeline from being built. Where did that power come from?

    Simple answer - he's a Democrat. They can do whatever in the hell they want apparently. We now ignore the Constitution, Congress, the people, everything if The One wants to.

    ReplyDelete
  17. FreeThinke,
    Of all the candidates in the GOP field, Gingrich is THE ONLY ONE who can beat Obama in a debate.

    Two questions come to my mind about the above:

    1. How many voters actually base their votes on the Presidential debates?

    2. If Gingrich is the GOP candidate and trounces Obama in a debate, will the cries of "Racism!" become deafening?

    I recall the racist undertones when Hillary Clinton was trouncing Obama in a Presidential debate back in 2007-2008.

    ReplyDelete
  18. D Charles,
    a President Gingrich would set back America's standing in the world decades.

    Explain, please.

    Obama is that well loved oversease?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Because of the international border issue with Canada, the Obama administration was able to deny the permits via the Department of State.

    Now China is selling the oil to China.

    ReplyDelete
  20. D Charles,
    The income tax that the Lincoln administration imposed was for the purpose of funding the Northern Army.

    It required Constitutional Amendment 16 to impose a federal income tax.

    A progressive income tax is a way of equalizing wealth. Oh, sure, those of us in the lower tax brackets often "like" that the wealthy people are being taxed more heavily. Sour grapes?

    We do need to reform the tax code, IMO. Way too many tax shelters that only the wealthy can take advantage of.

    It does seem to me that we'd all be better off with a flat tax. Back in the 1960s, a flat tax of 1/2 of 1% would have provided more than adequate funding for the federal government. Of course, since LBJ, the federal bureaucracy that we got courtesy of FDR, has now grown exponentially -- feeding on itself, so to speak.

    And one more thing....The American definition of conservatism and the European definition of conservatism differ greatly. Or so my friend in the UK informs me.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Expect Obama to govern by fiat even more extensively in 2012:

    White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said that President Obama would continue to roll out “We Can’t Wait” initiatives under his executive authority throughout 2012, but maintained that the president will “eagerly” work with Congress when possible.

    “[Obama] has been talking about the fact that he will use his executive authority to advance the priorities of the American people, and he has been doing that,” Carney told reporters during today’s press briefing. “He will continue to do that. It is true that the context here is often, we can’t wait for Congress to act, and that will be true throughout the year.”

    ReplyDelete
  22. AOW, thanks for the interesting comments from Carney - puts a perspective on the issue.

    As for Obama being appreciated overseas - that would not be the word I would use but I would say that he is more appreciated and respected than others including Bill Clinton (who did well).

    It has to do with showing outreach and respect to other nations and not over-doing the American Exceptionalism stance or pushing trade and diplomacy via intimidation and threats of pulling out funds as a consequence of not doing it their way. Make no mistake, that is the image that America had during the Bush Jr and Snr years and even the Reagan years. You may see it as sticking up for America but that is fine unless your American. Actually I am doing a diservice to the complexity, it goes as far back as the Cold War with both nations (US and USSR) basically steam-rolling their politics by force and the perception that it did not stop after the Berlin Wall collapsed. We all know the story of how the US via the CIA (and this is now official) basically made coups in Iran to prop-up the Shah's brutal regime, allowing supporting fraudulent elections in South Vietnam that allowed 99.99 per cent victories and so on - then after the Cold War finished, putting pressure on Japan to buy American rice and not Australian even though the Australian was similar to the Japanese and much Cheaper - simply because the US said that if they did not buy the rice then Japanese Cars would rise in tax by 5 per cent. This, just one example.

    It is not a critism in the sense that the world thinks the US often is a bully, because every country must look after itself - it is the doing so with one hand and then claiming to be the moral high, non-despotic and world's policeman at the same time.

    Clinton to some degree and Obama to a greater degree has put a stop to such an impression. What America needed was basically participation and opening up in a diplomatic and social sense - showing that they are not the street's enforcer. Obama certainly pushes US trade and can play hard-ball - the three trade agreements signed recently all are overwhelmingly benefiting the US.

    The last area in the image problem has been Israel - with an unflinching, no-matter-what we will support you and veto any sanctions or condemnations policy. Basically there was an exclusivity in support for Israel at the cost. This is not, from my part, bagging Israel as I support that country's rights to not only exist but to defend itself - but having said that, the country also constantly flaunts international laws and when fingers are pointed, used the US as a barrier and claims itself as unique. Until Israel plays it honest, helps instead of hinders peace, puts a real halt to Settlements then it can justify its hard hits against the horrible terrors being thrown at it. It was a gamble but a smart move by Obama to put a bit more distance between the US and Israel and to take away that exclusive relations and consider it an important but nevertheless another ME trading partner.

    ReplyDelete
  23. AOW,

    The comments about taxing is interesting but it remains still the same point that destroys any argument that Obama is a marxist or a socialist. It is all about State Ownership that defines what is Marxist/Socialist and it is simply impossible for the American psychie to accept it, be it Democrat or Republican.

    ReplyDelete
  24. AOW,

    Gingrich has already defined a number of positions and made a number of remarks that are exactly the stances that, as I have already explained, has put America into the bad-books with the rest of the planet. The argument that everyone loves and wants to live or be like America - Gingrich used often as argument to counter - never worked because simply put, everyone wants to trade with the US, the freedom and economics made it better there for so many years and of course, it is better to be friends than enemies with the a Super Power.

    We can add that recently Gingrich made the "there is no real Palestinian identity" argument which was blatantly bigoted and of course totally wrong. He did so because he wants that far-right and pro-Israel lobby vote - but all he did was made half of the world's population instantly hope that Obama wins in 2012.

    Gingrich also tried, by implication, that all Muslims in America are suspect and even to go as far as to say, it was Islam that was responsible for 9/11. Politics is tough and rough, we all know it, and trying to produce the right image of being tough, caring and patriotic is not easy - sure enough - but people do not forget and the world always watches the US elections with interest and bated breath simply because of the past and the effect it will have on the globe.

    If Gingrich became the President, trade with the ME will drop instantly, half the Arab countries will simply close their doors, the price of Oil will jump 30 dollars overnight, anti-Israel rhetoric will rise, the Settler Movement will consider itself even more protected and will cause more hate and violence, the far-right in Israel will think it has a mandate, China will consider the US to be more arrogant and thus itself will become more so and the possibility of the world being divided into three or four trade-blocks is the most likely result and that will both divide the world politically and recession will be here for a decade.

    That is how serious the result of electing a stubborn, fringe, old-world bigot like Gingrich is. I would much rather have Romney or even Paul (the latter will be isolationist) than a Gingrich, Santorum or Perry that simply cannot handle the job and thus drive it into fringeness.

    I repeat my view, your better off with four more Obama years and take that time to identify, develope and elect a true GOP President that the country most certainly needs.

    ReplyDelete
  25. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  26. We do not elect a MONARCH or a DICTATOR.

    AOW,

    As a schoolteacher and fellow history buff, I think it would be a service (perhaps redundant service) to your free thinking students to remind them, contra the asinine racist FeetStinke's anti-Lincoln remarks, that the American Civil War was already being fought with shots being fired in insurrection and rebellion well before Abraham Lincoln was even sworn in as President, much less took action as a duly elected Commander-in-Chief of the military the slavers were shooting at.

    Good day.

    ReplyDelete
  27. The illegal insurrection named Jefferson Davis its "President" (without free elections, mind you) on February 9, 1861.

    Abraham Lincoln was sworn in as President on March 4, 1861.

    FeetStinke, crack a book already.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Exhibit A:

    Abraham Lincoln was a poor and humble-origined farm boy who worked through the free labor of his own hands to pursue an education as a man that put him into a career as a lawyer, then as a Congressman opposed the Unconstitutional expansion of slavery into federal territories to the west. After securing the nomination of the Republican Party to run for President against the Democrat Stephen Douglas (who himself was nominated by the Democrats after much in-fighting in the Democratic Party over the constitutionality of exporting slavery westward into Federal Territories (Douglas himself was a "keep slavery in the states that have it, but don't expand it westward because that's Unconstitutional" kind of Democrat), Lincoln won the election for the Presidency of the United States of America in a free and fair Constitutional election.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Exhibit B:

    Jefferson Davis was a priviledged child of slaveowning Southern aristocratic plantation owners, who as the son of influential parents secured entry into the US Military Academy at West Point, where he distinguished himself as a participant in a riot against the West Point ban on alcohol. After sitting out the Black Hawk War going on in the state of Illinois safe from the combat that claimed the lives of 77 of his fellow Americans while he was being provided for by an enslaved assembly of over 20 of his fellow humans at his parent's plantation in Mississippi, the wild and crazy spoiled fratboy Davis was given orders to join the contingent of his fellow soldiers returning from the Black Hawk War to escort Black Hawk himself to prison. Wanting to get out of the military to win the approval of the father of his first wife (her father had served in combat and did not wish his daughter to have to suffer through being married to a man who could be called away to war as her mother had), Davis' brother gave him land to start a cotton farm. Rather than work this cotton farm himself, the spoiled drunken fratboy military veteran of ceremonially escorting Black Hawk to prison acquired more of his fellow humans to enslave to work the farm. (In perhaps a cold precursor of where this man who never earned a thing for himself's life was going, he won the hand of his first wife in marriage after much resistance from her father; she died three months later - complications from malaria contacted on their honeymoon trip.)
    His mind now free of concern for how he might afford more alcohol, Davis got involved in Mississippi politics, rising in popularity among the drunken louts being pampered hand and foot by several enslaved fellow humans while they spoke grandiloquently of perhaps the best manner of achieving dominance over the enslaved fellow humans in their midst with a branding iron or horsewhip. Rising higher in Democratic Party politics, Davis became a US Senator where he as a silver spoon fed never-saw-blood former military reservist continually argued for breaking the Treaty of Guadalupe Hildalgo with Mexico via warfare to acquire more territory to expand slavery into south of Texas as well as invading and acquiring Cuba for the same purpose. Davis was among Southern Democrats who walked out of the Democratic convention which nominated Stephen Douglas when the little Lord Fauntleroys were not going to get their way.

    ReplyDelete
  30. With the free and fair Constitutional election of Republican Abraham Lincoln over Democrat Stephen Douglas, the Southern contingent of Democrats who had walked out of their own party's convention that nominated Douglas over their being unable to win significant support for their favored pro-slavery expansionist candidate's calls to ignore the US Constitution, spoiled aristocrat Davis among them, began announcing plans for their states to violate Article 1, Section 10 of the US Constitution and form a Confederation of states for the express purpose of violating every other jot and tittle of that particular Article of the Constitution, all for the importation and expansion of human slavery into federal territories (and foreign soils) in violation of Article 1 Section 9 of their hated Constitution. These traitors to the US Constitution, and monstrous warmongering advocates of human slavery and imperial conquest to acquire more land and even more slaves decided, of their own accord, that they would carry out this Unconstitutional confederation of states before Abraham Lincoln put his hand on the Bible and swore to uphold that Constitution. To cap off the Southern insurrection's farcical calls to carve their own little slavery expanding country out of United States territory, this band of self-appointed "national leaders" cynically made sure every aspect of the US Constitution's Article 1 Section 10 was thoroughly violated by granting the lifelong spoiled blowhard warmonger Jefferson Davis the noble title of "President" nine days later. Without an election.

    See any "monarchs" and "despots" and above?

    I do.

    It ain't Lincoln.

    ReplyDelete
  31. D Charles,
    a stubborn, fringe, old-world bigot like Gingrich

    Were he to be elected President, he likely would not govern in the manner in which he is electioneering.

    What's more, I think that he would govern WITH Congress instead of with the arrrogance that Obama shows when he makes his fiat proclamations and governs via bureacratic regulation.

    It's interesting that you praise Obama's foreign policies so highly as my European friends do not. BTW, there European friends of whom I'm speaking are not EDL or BNP. Just want to make that clear.

    If America became truly isolationist (hard core, right down to putting an end to all immigration), the world economy would suffer inordinately. It's a sort of damned if you do (interfere, assist) and damned it you don't (let the rest of the world go merrily along) situation, that is, the rest of the world criticizes America, no matter what she does. We're somewhat like the rich uncle -- hated if he helps (sour grapes) and hated if he doesn't (selfish old man).

    The "Israel question," a matter of great complexity if one is to explore all the reasons various contingents have for supporting or not supporting Israel, is one that I've heard discussed from my earliest days. I am not prepared to fight yet another Middle Eastern war in the comments section right now. Papers to grade!

    ReplyDelete
  32. Beamish,
    The Southern states were primed to secede -- even if Lincoln hadn't been elected, IMO. Indeed, the roots of the war go all the way back to the Constitutional Convention.

    I often wonder what the years after the war would have been like if Lincoln hadn't been assassinated. As you know, the Reconstruction Era resulted in the South's continuing to "fight" the war over and over again well into the 20th Century.

    I would like your opinion about something: Do you think that Lincoln would have attempted to send the Negroes "back" to Africa? Certainly, today we would classify Lincoln as a white supremacist, one who believed that a continent is inevitably dominated by one race and one who believed that the mixing of races was something not to be desired. I've heard a lot of theorizing on that topic and would like to know what you think in that regard.

    As I told D Charles again, I have papers to grade. Back later today or sometime tomorrow. I've got to get those book reports done before the Hamlet character sketches land on my desk next week!

    ReplyDelete
  33. I would like your opinion about something: Do you think that Lincoln would have attempted to send the Negroes "back" to Africa?

    I don't think he would have actively pushed such an initiative, although that option for freed slaves was already in place with the establishment of Liberia by freed slaves under President Monroe back in 1820.

    Lincoln pocket vetoed the radical Wade-Davis bill in 1864, nonetheless the Freedmen's Bureau did take land from Southern slave owners and grant it to freed slaves, as well as setting up schools for a quarter-million freed slaves.

    This before Lincoln was shot. Based on that, I'd say Lincoln was aiming at eventual integration, or at least reservation status much as Native American Indians had been given. Considering the civil rights agendas of his fellow Republicans (the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is VERY similar to the Civil Rights act of 1871), the case for Lincoln being a "white supremacist" requires a lot more evidence than the historical record and realities on the ground actually produced.

    No, you can't make Lincoln into a racist / white supremacist and keep reality on your side.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Nor can you make Lincoln into a "despot" or "monarch" for carrying out his oath to uphold and defend the Constitution from all enemies foriegn and DOMESTIC, that last one domestic of course applies specifically to "President" Jefferson Davis and his grandiloquent bands of racist Constitution haters.

    Perhaps by extension, that oath of Constitutional defense will also apply to FeetStinke if he ever gets his dander up to rise from his keyboard and shoot firearms at US military personnel over his dismay at the results of a free and fair Presidential election.

    ReplyDelete
  35. When blowhards bellow, snort and bray
    Wise men shut their ears and pray.
    Each rabble rousing louse
    Shall 'neath these words they be pinned:
    'He who troubleth his own house
    Shall inherit the wind.'


    ~ FreeThinke

    ReplyDelete
  36. AOW asks:

    1. How many voters actually base their votes on the Presidential debates?

    2. If Gingrich is the GOP candidate and trounces Obama in a debate, will the cries of "Racism!" become deafening?


    AOW, it is my never humble opinion that citizens who do trouble to acquaint themselves thoroughly with all viable candidates by observing them in action -- not just reading what "reporters" have to say about them -- should not be allowed to cast a vote. PERIOD! How would that be enforced? I wish I knew!

    As to your second question, we must accept that Obama has, by virtue of his racial heritage, achieved a sort of immunity and sacred cow status very similar to that enjoyed by post-WWII Jews. ANYONE who DARES to criticize ANYTHING about Obama WILL be called a "RACIST."

    Reason has nothing to do with it. It's the result of decades upon decades of agenda-driven mass hypnosis expertly practiced by the Enemedia.

    If you are concerned about anyone's being called a racist, because they don't think Obama should continue as our president, you might just as well conceded the election now, and resign yourself to living in The Union of Soviet Socialist States of Amerika, because that is what we are fast becoming.

    I never believed Ron Paul could win the nomination, and don't seem him as "presidential timber" anyway, but I'm tremendously grateful he's stayed in the race. His presence has outed a lot of the BS the others go by, and has helped the campaign to focus on isaues of genuine significance -- issues that desperately need to be faced and addressed realistically.

    I've always like Newt Gingrich, because he's not afraid of calling a spade a spade, and he is absolutely correct in his views on economic policy -- and right now that is the issue of paramount importance.

    We can't pursue worthy ideals if we're dead broke with half our population on the Dole, and the other half losing equity every day by leaps and bounds.

    I'm praying for Newt to win the nomination, because I think he's our ONLY chance to stem the rising tide of Marxian thinking now threatening to engulf the nation.

    ~ FreeThinke

    ReplyDelete
  37. Charles,

    Thanks for your input. It's always interesting -- if a bit puzzling -- to learn more about how those outside the USA think about our domestic concerns.

    I have a lifelong friend who's lived in Paris since 1967. He and I come from very similar backgrounds. Our politics were virtually identical, until he'd long been conditioned by what-might-be-called the European Press to see things from a radically different perspective.

    Now, he's an out-and-out Marxist -- but of course, doesn't realize it -- so subtle, so clever and so thorough has been the process of brainwashing he's been subjected to by the leftists who control the flow and content of News and Information everywhere.

    Your opinions are fascinating, but far removed from the reality we experience every day. Come here and spend a few months, and see what's going on for yourself. You might find yourself drawing a whole new set of conclusions.

    It's funny! I wouldn't dare comment on the internal politics of another country other than to notice how much farther to the left things have moved in Europe and Great Britain than they have here -- and WE have moved very very far in that direction since I was a wee bairn.

    Regards,

    ~ FreeThinke

    ReplyDelete
  38. WHOOPS!

    SORRY!

    Of course I meant;

    " ... citizens who do NOT trouble to acquaint themselves thoroughly with all viable candidates by observing them in action ..."

    ReplyDelete
  39. FreeThinke,
    Come here and spend a few months, and see what's going on for yourself. You might find yourself drawing a whole new set of conclusions.

    Yes, indeed. Visit Reading, PA, or Steubenville, OH, and see what this depression hath wrought. Those are just two specific areas. There are many more throughout the country -- including Detroit.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Beamish,
    I was referring to certain of Lincoln's words on race. I'm sure that you're familiar with them. They certainly are a jarring read in the 21st Century.

    the Freedmen's Bureau did take land from Southern slave owners and grant it to freed slaves

    The normal consequences for the losing side -- back then, anyway. Now, we nation build. **snerk**

    From what I've read, Lincoln was ready to embrace the South (after a few years of punishing the traitors) and heal the nation as his position was that no destruction of the union was possible. Note his Second Inaugural Address.

    The Reconstruction Era included some brutalities that only served to breed more resentment within the South. No, I'm not basing that statement on Gone with the Wind.

    Of course, the Old South did resist educating the Negroes. That position only served to promote more problems with race relations well into the 20th Century.

    Was Lincoln a tyrant in his own way? I think so, but he was a believer in the Union forever, so he saw what he did not as a furtherance of his or his Party's power but rather as expediency to unite the states -- a far cry from the power grab that we see today on the part of the executive branch.

    In any case, Lincoln was adamantly and personally opposed to slavery, particularly after reading Sufferings in Africa, published in 1817 and a national bestseller. From the blurb at Amazon:

    Listed by Abraham Lincoln, alongside the Bible and Pilgrim’s Progress, as one of the books that most influenced his life, few true tales of adventure and survival are as astonishing as this one. Shipwrecked off the western coast of North Africa in August of 1815, James Riley and his crew had no idea of the trials awaiting them as they gathered their beached belongings. They would be captured by a band of nomadic Arabs, herded across the Sahara Desert, beaten, forced to witness astounding brutalities, sold into slavery, and starved. Riley watched most of his crew die one by one, killed off by cruelty or caprice, as his own weight dropped from 240 pounds to a mere 90 at his rescue. First published in 1817, this dramatic saga soon became a national bestseller with over a million copies sold. Even today, it is rare to find a narrative that illuminates the degradations of slave existence with such brutal honesty.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Beamish,
    the American Civil War was already being fought with shots being fired in insurrection and rebellion well before Abraham Lincoln was even sworn in as President

    A valid point.

    However, the supposed theory was that the states had freely joined and could thus freely leave.

    The institution of slavery was also viewed as necessary for the South's economy, "when cotton was king." Those days would have come to an end eventually, I think, but "eventually" doesn't do a thing for those under the boot of another.

    Ah, well! That's all in the past -- except for the attitude of "Your ancestors kept mine as slaves, so I am entitled to" thus and such.

    The past should be the past -- at least, insofar as possible. Otherwise, the world will be embroiled in never-ending feuds.

    ReplyDelete
  42. FreeThinke,
    we must accept that Obama has, by virtue of his racial heritage, achieved a sort of immunity and sacred cow status very similar to that enjoyed by post-WWII Jews. ANYONE who DARES to criticize ANYTHING about Obama WILL be called a "RACIST."

    I disagree with you about the post-WW2 criticism of Jews (Never experienced or observed anything like that here in America although some of my European friends have mentioned it as a phenomenon in Europe).

    But Obama does have a sort of immunity, one that mostly stems from "white guilt," IMO. "White guilt" has been drummed into our heads for decades now.

    Furthermore, because of America's history of troubled race relations, the sense of entitlement for one's non-white self and for the non-white identity of others has poisoned the well. I don't see that changing as the race card is well in play for the coming election too.

    I believe that a lot of people voted for BHO so as to prove to themselves that they were not closet racists. This is dead-end "reasoning." Indeed, it's not reasoning at all! Individuals should be supported or not supported based on their views -- not on their skin color.

    Right after Obama was elected, over Thanksgiving dinner in 2008, one of my neighbors kept saying, "This is an UNPRECEDENTED time in American history!" When I pressed him to clarify, he stammered around and finally said, "Because Bush is leaving." Sheesh.

    Well, I called his hand and said, "Why unprecedented? Because a black man has been elected to the Oval Office?"

    My neighbor slunk away from the table. You see, as a 30 something, he had been taught not to judge people by skin color. Yet, he was declaring the election of BHO as "unprecedented" exactly BECAUSE of skin color.

    ReplyDelete
  43. You know how you can tell someone is full of it? hey use alot of words. Did you really think I was going to read at that nonsense DC Charles?

    The Democrats can pass Obamacare in the cover of night but they need 60 days to decide about a pipeline? The Democrats can pass a bill limiting the freedom of people to speak out but they need 60 days to decide on a pipeline? The answer was so simple that the next day we had it..shorten the route or change it.....duh

    ReplyDelete
  44. @ D Charles "...as I have already explained, has put America into the bad-books with the rest of the planet."

    Sorry Charles. I remember the mantra of "ugly Americans" going back to the 50s and 60s. Even likeable good old boy Clinton couldn't get the planet to like us and Obama's apology tours may have made him liked by sleazy nations, but that did not translate into liking the USA. And it never will, no matter who we elect.

    In the 19th and 19th century the British were everywhere and were barely tolerated at best or hated and reviled. American global influence grew with WW II, so now we're the bad guy. Frankly, I don't care anymore what the rest of the planet thinks of us. No matter what we do, good, bad, ugly or indifferent, some people and nations will find a reason to hate us. It's just human nature.

    I would like us to be more divested militarily from the rest of the planet. We shouldn't be the global cop but we have been since Korea. I like Teddy Roosevelt's 'big stick' policy. Leave us alone and we'll leave you alone. Mess with us, and it'll be the last thing you EVER do. You know, use a little Chicago reasoning on them.

    ReplyDelete
  45. I was referring to certain of Lincoln's words on race. I'm sure that you're familiar with them. They certainly are a jarring read in the 21st Century

    Not so much, if you read them from the standpoint of Republicans of Lincoln's time (and many Republicans today) that freed slaves and their descendants would only strengthen our national prosperity and character if given the opportunity to do so with equal protection under the law as citizens of our Republic.

    Lincoln may have described an understandably miserable condition of blacks in America (and indeed the world) but he also prescribed a solution for that miserable condition via integration / assimulation into American society and culture. He didn't see blacks as naturally inferior or permanently inferior but rather improvable given the same opportunities for advancement as everyone else could choose to take advantage of.

    I don't think Republicans would have spent the last 158 years championing the idea that free people can improve themselves faster and better than a controlling, regulatory master if they didn't really believe it.

    However, the supposed theory was that the states had freely joined and could thus freely leave.

    An extremely flawed argument from many Constitutional standpoints, including the consent given by ratification from those states that the Constitution be the supreme law of the land, and hence were bound by contract and oath to uphold it.

    Secession was a breach of a clearly worded contract, essentially. The manner in which it was attempted was entirely illegal.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Beamish,
    The manner in which it was attempted was entirely illegal.

    I've never said or implied otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  47. When blowhards bellow, snort and bray
    Wise men shut their ears and pray.
    Each rabble rousing louse
    Shall 'neath these words they be pinned:
    'He who troubleth his own house
    Shall inherit the wind.'


    Thus blew the blowhard.

    Did you have an apologia for your ridiculous ahistorical perspective or not?

    ReplyDelete
  48. The manner in which it was attempted was entirely illegal.

    I've never said or implied otherwise.

    I understand. Forgive me if I was unclear. I'm merely snatching my Constitution back out of the hands of its shredders like FeetStinke and demonstrating that the continued arguments of Constitution hating anti-Federalists past and present have no legal or historical merit.

    There is no right of states to breach a contract they signed onto aimed at forming a more perfect Union.

    ReplyDelete
  49. The contrast I'm making is that Lincoln and his fellow Republicans sought both to preserve freedom and expand it to apply further to other people within America's borders (and in support of those seeking the same throughout the world) while Davis and his fellow Democrat anti-Constitution conspirators for years prior to the Civil War wre seeking ways to expand slavery, including invading northeastern Mexico and Cuba for more territory to expand slavery into.

    This is a crucial historical and philosophical difference obscured by FeetStinke and his pitiful redoubts of neo-Confederate racism which ought to be stressed in defense of the Constitution and the intent of its authors.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Your understanding of human nature and the effect human passions have on real life situations is pathetically inadequate, Beamish.

    Your thinking is theoretical, legalistic and tendentious -- like every liberal fantasist and fanatic purporting to be an idealist I have ever encountered. Your doctrinaire approach to history is entirely divorced from the pragmatic, flesh and blood considerations that keep "history" from being little but a dry recitation of facts, figures and dates.

    AOW, bless her heart, has clearly stated, "Continued invectives and personal attacks will result in deletion."

    I know for some unfathomable reason that AOW, a near-perfect model of patience, tolerance and equanimity in the blogosphere, has a high regard for you, but how many times can you continue to break her rules without suffering the consequences?

    It will be interesting to observe.

    ` FreeThinke

    ReplyDelete
  51. Alligator,

    yes we British were, a century or so ago, similarly at a similar level when it comes to dealing with other nations.

    I am not trying to put the "bad American" ideal across at all. As I have said many times, I respect America for a multitude of reasons. What I am saying though, is that there is a certain political element that most certainly rubs the wrong way and that element almost totally comes from a mostly right-wing hawkish element that overly promotes (if not lives by) the term American Exceptionalism. That certainly through these influencial people, America rode rough-shot over other nations, trade and diplomatic relations and simply put - it rubbed the wrong way and painted (or should I say tarnished) Americas image for a long time.

    I am not into or believe in condepts like American Imperialism, I think that is just scare-mongering and conspiracy theorism, just like modern day ones such as Obama being a Marxist or Socialist, the Islamic Caliphate, Eurabia or crop-circles.

    ReplyDelete
  52. AOW,

    the Obama summons to a court is rather a joke for a number of reasons. I think it is beneath you to even mention such political trash-talk.

    Two points about it - First it is a frivilous attempt to gain air-time, nothing more. Secondly Presidents are immune from local or state summonses and any charges must be through your Federal Supreme Court only - or Congress has to vote to remove the immunity.

    That is done because (I watched this on Sky Television about two years ago), at any given time ANY sitting President has between a dozen and - get this - 50 court actions against them. Obviously, any fruit-cake will just produce claims, then there is the partisan political attacks and of course the individual who instead of putting a complaint against "The United States Government" puts the President's name on it.

    Such immunity legislation is an obvious necessity to stop mindless impedements to the running and reputation of the Presidency. We have similar rules in Britain.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Your understanding of human nature and the effect human passions have on real life situations is pathetically inadequate, Beamish.

    Says the twit who on behalf of long dead slave masters dares to make arguments about freedom and tyranny and attempts to cloak said turd in the Constitution.

    Your thinking is theoretical, legalistic and tendentious -- like every liberal fantasist and fanatic purporting to be an idealist I have ever encountered. Your doctrinaire approach to history is entirely divorced from the pragmatic, flesh and blood considerations that keep "history" from being little but a dry recitation of facts, figures and dates.

    Blah blah blather.

    Are you going to keep barking, little dog, or bite?

    Rise in defense of your attempts to revise Civil War history and paint Abraham Lincoln as a monster oppressing WARMONGERING INSURRECTIONIST SLAVEHOLDERS already, jackass.

    AOW, bless her heart, has clearly stated, "Continued invectives and personal attacks will result in deletion."

    When calling an actual racist a racist becomes a personal attack, I'm certain AOW will let us both know, racist.

    I know for some unfathomable reason that AOW, a near-perfect model of patience, tolerance and equanimity in the blogosphere, has a high regard for you, but how many times can you continue to break her rules without suffering the consequences?

    Once, I'm sure.

    It will be interesting to observe.

    You can run tell my Mom if you'd like. She has Kleenexs too.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Observe closely in nine parts the America of an alternate universe FeetStinke would rather be living in...

    part one

    part two

    part three

    part four

    part five

    part six

    part seven

    part eight

    part nine

    ReplyDelete
  55. FT,
    In answer to your statement as to why I don't delete Beamish's comments or intervene much in the discussions you two are having...

    1) I find the discussion interesting. Both of you are saying things that I've heard from various sources all my life. In fact, as a result of all those disputes from my past life, I turned my back on politics and said, "No more of this! Nothing anyone is saying is convincing anyone else or changing history." Then came 9/11, and I was back in the soup. **sigh**

    2) Beamish is watching his language, his use of Profanitese.

    3) You are up to the challenge of debating with Beamish.

    4) Beamish and I have a blog-war alliance going back some years. Thanks to Beamish and Elmer's Brother, that troll no longer plagues any of us.

    5) I'm not online as much as usual. Troubles here on the home front. I won't whine about them right now.

    Because of the above, I do ask both of you to exercise a bit of restraint and not allow this to escalate into a blog war.

    ReplyDelete
  56. D Charles,
    First let me state that I am not a birther. Yes, I wonder what the truth is, but I can't say definitively that Obama doesn't qualify to be President.

    That said, if Obama were to appear in that court in Atlanta and put all the birther claims to rest to the satisfaction of a court of law, he'd put to an end all the rumors that keep flying around. If he doesn't abide by the summons, it may well be the case that Obama will not be allowed on the Georgia ballot in 2012. Wouldn't THAT be a mess? Particularly in a close election.

    In my view, Obama loves to stoke the birther fires. So as to promote division? So as to promote rumor? So as to make at least some of his opponents look like idiots? Who knows?

    What I do believe: that any other President or Presidential candidate would have put this matter to rest long ago -- on national television, if necessary. Obama hasn't.

    Other birther cases have been dismissed by various courts. I honestly think that Georgia is barking up the wrong tree, but who am I to decide?

    ReplyDelete
  57. 1) I find the discussion interesting. Both of you are saying things that I've heard from various sources all my life. In fact, as a result of all those disputes from my past life, I turned my back on politics and said, "No more of this! Nothing anyone is saying is convincing anyone else or changing history." Then came 9/11, and I was back in the soup. **sigh**

    The "soup" is improved greatly with your contributions.

    2) Beamish is watching his language, his use of Profanitese.

    Heh. I curb my temptations to go bilingual on idiots because of my awareness of your students that read this blog. I also admittedly haven't spent as much time commenting at your blog in the past years or so since my little sister converted to Islam, my own crawling out of the soup as it were. I have nothing but praise for you and the ACTUAL counter-jihad blogosphere (I'm a fellow "banned from LGFer" myself) but for personal reasons I dropped out of contributing to the conversations. I never stopped being a reader.

    3) You are up to the challenge of debating with Beamish.

    You have much more faith in things unseen than I do, AOW.

    4) Beamish and I have a blog-war alliance going back some years. Thanks to Beamish and Elmer's Brother, that troll no longer plagues any of us.

    Z and I had once a similar alliance dealing with *this same particular troll* here FeetStinke at her blog, until her intellectual and moral standards fell short of where I like to keep my feet and she welcomed him back, after so much asking me for assistance and concerted effort towards ridding her blog of his racist and puerile contributions after numerous times of being asked to leave. The grudge FeetStinke has against me for exposing him there is legendary. As is the grudge the sock puppeteer FJ has against me for similar exposures of their intellectual cowardice. I encourage them both to take over Z's blog where such things undoubtedly now play well.

    Nonetheless, I'm not clamoring for either of them to be deleted from here, prefering to let them preen up their mental houses of cards before blowing them down to great and entertaining effect. Again, my style.

    5) I'm not online as much as usual. Troubles here on the home front. I won't whine about them right now.

    I understand. I just ask that you press FeetStinke to answer challenges to his absurd racist offerings, not with blather and cut and pastes from disreputable sources (he was fond of cribbing from Stormfront at Z's not long ago) nor with hackneyed poems or feeble tattling cries of being oppressed and "bullied." I honestly desire to know what makes the guy think he can spout such garbage unchallenged and withour response. But then again, I've been long convinced FeetStinke is a "troll." Hold him accountable for his offerings just as you hold me accountable for mine.

    I am the same secure, principled defender of my thoughts and ideas that began blogging with my particular style in 2004.

    I fear FeetStinke is the same hate-filled person thriving in the discord he generates.

    Because of the above, I do ask both of you to exercise a bit of restraint and not allow this to escalate into a blog war.

    FeetStinke would need a blog for that.

    But, vandals and plagiarists never write books, do they?

    ReplyDelete
  58. Beamish,
    Prepare yourself for a disjointed comment. I'm on the phone with Warren's wife and trying to give her a big of encouragement. She's having a difficult time -- a time beyond any description that I can write about. So awful! None of us have troubles when compared to hers!

    I don't regard FT as a troll. He surely isn't a John Brown. My definition of troll is obviously narrower than yours. After all, Duck comments at my blog.

    Hold him [FT] accountable for his offerings just as you hold me accountable for mine.

    I have noticed that lack of links or other sourcing from FT. Book titles would be welcome too. [Are you reading this comment, FT?] Of course, as we get older (I'll be 60 in a few weeks, sometimes we don't know where the material is coming from. No, it's not dementia.

    I consider Z a friend. How she runs her blog is her own business. Of course, I have no idea as to what you, FT, and Z were doing in certain threads at her blog. I guess that I missed that -- due to personal issues here.

    As a late-blooming political junkie, I am finding these interchanges, well, quite something.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Beamish,
    About the counter-jihad....Here in America, the counter-jihad has become marginalized. Part of that was what Breivik did. Furthermore, the coming election has to be the focus now.

    BTW, HERE is a surreal story:

    "CAIR Says It’s Sending Rick Santorum a Copy of The Koran To Help “Educate Himself About Islam”

    As if Santorum is interested in reading the Koran, a book that Santorum considers an expression of paganism.

    ReplyDelete
  60. As if Santorum is interested in reading the Koran, a book that Santorum considers an expression of paganism.

    If he's even that kind about it.

    Heh.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Huh?

    I wonder how many of those ringtones we'll be hearing here in the D.C. area, where so many are Obama supporters. I'm willing to bet that the subway system resounds with Obama singing.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Thanks for your show of confidence, AOW.

    I may be equipped for the task, but after a while swimming in the moral equivalent of an open sewer becomes sickening as well as tiresome.

    I can't stand people who perpetually lie and indulge in threats, insults and recriminations in order to feel they have "prevailed."

    The regrettable events at GeeeeeZ must have stemmed from an unfortunate misunderstanding on Z's part. It would take too much time -- and wouldn't be worthwhile -- to rehash any part of it. Suffice it to say that Z and I were great buddies for more than six years. We corresponded regularly through email and talked on the phone periodically. After she started GeeeeeZ she became an entirely different person in her relationship with me. It was like walking through a mirror into "Wonderland."

    I will never understand it, and the matter will never be satisfactorily resolved, because some people have to be "right" all the time, and others devote themselves to nursing grudges.

    Am I an angel?

    Certainly not -- nor have I ever pretended to be. But neither am I any of the things this friend of yours wishes you to believe I am either.

    Call it a "personality clash," and let's be done with it. Sometimes these things just can't be helped, I guess.

    Too bad!

    I am so sorry you have more "personal problems" to deal with It seems to me you've had far more than your fair share.

    All the best,

    FreeThinke

    ReplyDelete
  63. If you're looking for some red meat. Here's a bunch of stuff on Newt sent to me earlier today.

    I have no idea what to make of these incredible, tendentious pieces of propaganda, do you? All the campaign rhetoric is so stupidly one-sided.


    Why Newt is the most dangerous, untrustworthy, and PROGRESSIVE candidate the GOP could possibly offer us. Read the pathetic history of this loud-mouthed narcissist!

    Advocated censoring the internet - Newt advocated censorship of the internet as recently as 2006
    http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2012/01/in-gingrich-backed-censoring-the-web-111756.html

    Terrorism - Newt advocated allowing terror attacks to happen to control people psychologically http://youtu.be/qN4I3QoneI8

    Progressive arse-kissing.. "I'm a realpolitik Wilsonian" (and an
    interventionist) http://youtu.be/T76lD4zV1bo and "Progressive’

    And, FDR Was ‘Greatest President of the 20th Century"
    http://youtu.be/T76lD4zV1bo


    Newt defends Obama's NDAA
    http://youtu.be/pLYu4TbYRW4


    Newt says he will help Israel start WW3 http://klein.wp.wnd.com/2012/01/23/gingrich-id-help-israel-attack-iran/

    UN - Newt is a proponent of the UN
    http://www.undispatch.com/newt-gingrich-united-nations-champion

    Newt is anti-gun and voted for Lautenberg! Earned a D from GOA:
    http://www.nationalgunrights.org/the-inconvenient-truth-about-newt/


    "The American challenge in leading the world is compounded by our
    Constitution," he said. "Under our [constitutional system] — either
    we're going to have to rethink our Constitution, or we're going to have
    to rethink our process of decision-making." He went on to profess an
    oxymoronic belief in "very strong but limited federal government," and
    pledged, "I am for the United Nations."


    Newt is another Hippie for the Tofflers - The progressive futurists Alvin and Heidi Toffler's book that defines Newt (his words) calls for the end of the Constitution which "served us so well for so long, and
    that now must, in its turn, die and be replaced.” He wrote the forward for this book which promotes a Fascist World Government.
    http://youtu.be/moFsABsJNL4

    Co-Sponsored Global Warming legislation
    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d101:H.R.1078:

    Supported sending foreign aid to Russia!
    http://www.issues2000.org/Archive/My_Life_Foreign_Policy.htm

    Supported McCain's vote for TARP
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/09/24/troublemaker.html


    Paid lobbyist for ethanol subsidies
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53678.html

    Paid lobbyist for Freddie and Fannie
    http://www.cnbc.com/id/28108013/How_Freddie_Mac_Splashed_Cash_to_Halt_Regulation

    Voted for federal land grabs
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1979-107


    Voted to raise debt ceiling FOUR TIMES
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1984-754

    Voted for illegal Dept of Ed and biggest education spending bill.
    http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll135.xml
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1979-468


    Lobbyist who milked Fannie and Freddie

    Is there no end to the sleaze?
    http://chrisinmaryville.net/a-buried-fbi-investigation-revealed-newt-gingrich-marianne-and-the-arms-dealer.html

    Advocates attacks that would start WWIII
    http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/4203-gingrich-wants-attacks-on-iran-north-korea

    Read more if you can stomach it....
    www.notonewt.com
    www.newtcantwin.com


    Submitted by Freethinke

    ReplyDelete
  64. FT,
    Thanks for the links. It remains to be seen if Gingrich is the GOP candidate.

    Beamish is Beamish. He loves a firefight! And there is no greater ally when one is plagued by vile trolls such as John Brown. Well, Warren is equal to Beamish in troll wars.

    At first, when I started blogging and met Beamish, I didn't know what to make of him. He is a superior satirist.

    But, of course, not everyone's cup of tea.

    And he IS relentless.

    neither am I any of the things this friend of yours wishes you to believe I am either

    Z doesn't trash you to me. In fact, Z and I have little contact offline. But I consider her a friend, particularly after the untimely passing of Mr. Z, although not exclusively related to that terrible event. I have the suspicion that she is a nicer person and a more sensitive soul than I, the TOB that I am. Make of that statement what you will.

    Furthermore, her blog is her property. All blog owners run their blogs their own way.

    Clearly, your acquaintance with Z predates mine. So, you two will have to "work it out." Or not. I ask you not to rehash whatever happened between you.

    ReplyDelete
  65. For the record, AOW, I wasn't referring to Z when I mentioned "this friend of yours." I was referring to Beamish, who perpetually hits below the belt when speaking to me or referring to me.

    I never have and never will understand what caused the antipathy between Z and me. It seemed we were great buddies and confidantes one day and suddenly I was "persona non grata" the next.

    My persistence in trying to maintain the relationship after being made to feel unwanted and unwelcome and my determination to find "Justice" only widened the breach between us and exacerbated the ill will. There was no way I could "win."

    Sometimes, it's better just to walk away and not look back, but it's very hard to do.

    I believe all of us should respect each other's dignity. We owe each other basic courtesy, and should give each other the benefit of the doubt at all times -- no matter what our personal feelings might be.

    My error was in pursuing a relationship after having been firmly rejected. I like to think that if there had been a discernible reason for the rejection, I could have accepted it with more equanimity.

    I don't deal well with capriciousness, I admit. That's my problem, however. There's nothing any of us can ever do to "make" others like us.

    In my experience "TOB's" tend to be reliable, steadfast, make better companions and wear well over time than FFF's (i.e. fragile femmes fatales ;-).

    Best,

    FT

    ReplyDelete
  66. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  67. I do not "hit below the belt," FeetStinke. Whatever estrangement you feel from the rest of humanity in your contorted insistence upon blindfolding yourself with your rectal cavity does not anatomically separate the hands and head which produces the racist garbage you peddle from the racist garbage peddler peddling it.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Well, AOW, after that last series of insults and absurdities, I rest my case.

    I wish I had your capacity to get along so well with fractious -- even pathological -- elements. It's probably a sad loss for the condition of US relations with foreign countries that you never entered the diplomatic corps.

    In case that remark be taken amiss I'd better add I am not kidding.

    ~ FreeThinke

    ReplyDelete
  69. FeetStinke,

    You're going to have to answer why my acknowledging the fact that your continuously resorting to tired anti-Semitic canards and cliches and perfidious cuts-and-pastes from Stormfront and other white supremacist websites to decry Martin Luther King, Jr. and Abraham Lincoln in the past and currently somehow unfairly creates a discernable pattern of unrepentant racism and virulent hatred on your part.

    I find it quite defensibly reasonable, and rational, to consider you a stinking pile of bloviating excrement beneath human contempt in polite company.

    Set me straight. Why am I wrong? Is it because racist anti-Semites have feelings too?

    ReplyDelete
  70. NOTIFICATION:

    I just got home from work (My brain is spinning after working with my students on Paradise Lost, world history, and economics) and will have to catch up on comments here when I'm thinking clearly and able to absorb what commenters have typed in.

    In other words, please stand by. My work week comes to an end Thursday afternoon, but I'll likely be back to this thread before then.

    Signed,
    TOB **wink**

    ReplyDelete
  71. I look forward to your return, AOW.

    Hope your cold is all gone? I don't think you ever got all the rest you needed, did you?

    All this nonsense will keep simmering nicely, I'm sure, until you feel like entering the fray again.

    ~ FT

    ReplyDelete
  72. FT,
    Well, AOW, after that last series of insults and absurdities, I rest my case.

    Scorched earth time, I see.

    My cold is gone, but now I having eye trouble. I think that I need a posterior capsulotomy. I'm 2.5 years post-op from the cataract surgery for my right eye and experiencing blurriness and some eye strain.

    Having had a posterior capsulotomy of my left eye back in 1986, I know that the procedure is easy and without a significant recovery period.

    Anyway, I'm going to call the ophthalmologist today and try to get an appointment ASAP.

    ReplyDelete
  73. The best of luck with your eye problems, AOW.

    I happen to be a veteran in that department having undergone seven eye operation in the past eight years, myself.

    Four surgeries involving two corneal transplants, one cataract surgery, and then reparative surgery on the new cornea that got torn out after a bad fall on the right eye.

    The reparative surgery failed after four suspenseful months, so a second corneal transplant had to be performed using an entirely different technique.

    All this while I was tending a near-helpless invalid suffering from cancer, heart disease, kidney failure (which required dialysis), all combined with diabetes and COPD. A very sad testimony to the profound evils of cigarette adiction.

    Then, a year after the one I was caring for died, I had cataract surgery on the left eye followed by another corneal transplant two months later.

    This last surgery took place last June, and I am still recovering from it. The process can take upwards of 18 months before optimal results may be achieved. That means that right now the vision in my left eye is still very blurry. The right eye tests 20/30, but it's unstable, and likely to remain so.

    I am very lucky to be seeing at all. I can enjoy the computer -- obviously -- ;-) but can no longer read books and magazines for pleasure, and find "paperwork" very daunting. I dread having to sort through the mail. -- Yet another reason to despise all the junk that comes our way via the US Post Office.

    Driving is limited to a radius of, perhaps, three to five miles, and I feel compelled to stick to back roads whenever possible.

    We still have hope the left eye -- which was totally blind for the better part of ten years -- will recover to the point where it's stronger and more stable than the right eye. Right now it's seeing 20/80, which is not good, but much better than nothing.

    I am patiently and prayerfully awaiting the day when it will be correctable with glasses, but prepared for disappointment, as one must be in all these "touchy" things.

    As any good doctor will tell you, medicine is much more of an art than it is a science.

    Please regard all this information as my way of saying "You are not alone, AOW."

    I am reasonably certain the strain of caring for someone in dire straits is bound to wear on the body in a thousand different ways.

    "Lift thine eyes unto the mountains," and help will come. I always has for me, and you probably deserve it more than I.

    I have found the exercise of counting our blessings very helpful in gaining perspective when things look grim.

    God bless you and Mr. AOW.

    ~ FreeThinke

    PS: I have to say I was touched by Beamish's words of condolence to Pris at Z's blog. I know that Beamish and Pris had been at odds for quite a while, but he allowed "the better angels of his nature" to come forth at a time when they were needed most. That was kind and good. - FT

    ReplyDelete
  74. FeetStinke,

    I'm not a "bad guy." I just keep my weak, indefensible opinions to myself.

    ReplyDelete
  75. FT,
    I haven't had such serious eye woes, thank God. I'm sorry that you suffer from impairment of vision. I was blind for in my left eye for several weeks. Because my left eye is my dominant eye, the blindness in that one eye adversely affected my life -- and my personality. Talk about grouchy! Talk about making driving mistakes! I had several very close calls on the road; also, because my dominant eye was affected, I could barely read. I'll never forget the moment that the opaque lens was removed: I could see! I said, right there on the operating table, "It's a miracle!" I did have a few post-op complications that lasted a few years, but over time, my vision returned better than ever. I have 20/15 in that eye now.

    Yesterday, I called the opthalmologist who did my cataract surgery in 2008. Considering my history with cataracts -- hyperactive protein cells that caused my first cataract to hypermature within 6 short weeks in 1984 when I was in my early 30s -- the doctor will be seeing me on Monday morning. As he did in 2008, he may want to move in a hurry.

    As you probably know, a posterior capsulotomy is likely what I need. The procedure is done in just a few minutes with the YAG laser.

    I just got new glasses in December, and until about 2 weeks ago, my vision was perfect. These rapid drops in vision in my right eye are something to be addressed ASAP. The distorted vision is driving me up the wall!

    I am reasonably certain the strain of caring for someone in dire straits is bound to wear on the body in a thousand different ways.

    No doubt. At least, I've adjusted enough to stop having the aches and pains of depression.

    PS: I'll go read what Beamish said at Z's site.

    ReplyDelete

We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective