Idle comments *UPDATED*
Bookworm on Feb 03 2010 at 3:58 pm | Filed under: Open Threads
I’ve had a few thoughts swirling around my brain today, so I thought I’d toss them in the mix.
Thought one: Rahm Emanuel’s been getting heat for insulting the mentally disabled by using “retarded” as an insult. The focus has been on the hurt feelings of the mentally disabled, and I think that’s valid. More valid, though, is the fact that this is such a perfect example of what a debased human being Emanuel is. Civilized discourse has no room for that kind of crude, abusive temper tantrum. Someone with that disdain for other people, and that lack of self-control, should not be in a position of power, period.
Thought two: I heard a few minutes of Mario Rubio on Sean Hannity’s radio show today. I tuned in without knowing who was speaking. After a few seconds I thought, “what a lucid speaker.” A few more seconds led me to “what a lucid thinker.” I then realized he was a politician and thought, “how rare to hear that level of intellectual clarity from any politician, whether Left or Right.” When I learned that it was Rubio, I thought, “How lucky the Florida voters are that they have this man on the ballot.”
Thought three: I need to get out and dust off my old post about the difference between statism and individualism. I think that’s going to matter a great deal this year and in the coming years.
Thought four: I continue to believe that Obama’s personality, which is a mixture of ambition, distraction, uglification and, especially, derision, is going to make him unable to pull a Clinton and move to the center. His intransigence on the health care issue (he keeps pushing in the face of acute voter distress) and the utterly insane budget he submitted would seem to support this. I hope I don’t make the mistake of underestimating Obama — he’s a dirty fighter and a survivor — but I do think his fundamental belief that he is a genius in a world of idiots will play against him with both voters and other politicians. It’s worth remember, in this regard, that Obama has been good at winning but, to the extent he has a track record, he’s been lousy at performing.
UPDATE: By the way, on the subject of Obama’s stubbornness, simply witness his unwillingness to apologize for his second attack on Las Vegas. Instead, after praising Las Vegas, he pretty much repeated his original point, which is that you shouldn’t blow your hard-earned cash there, but instead, you should have a family friendly vacation. Perhaps Obama is a little unclear on the concept, but Las Vegas makes its money by giving people a good time, while they blow their hard-earned cash there — a decision that should be theirs, not the president’s. This is a man who needs to control others, and who will never issue a true apology. Can we say “malignant narcissist?”
Related posts:
- A few comments about the debate *UPDATED*
- Idle thoughts of an idle female
- Idle thoughts of an idle blogger
Email This Post To A Friend
9 Responses to “Idle comments *UPDATED*”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I agree with you, Book. Obama cannot move to the center because, contrary to his declarations, he IS an ideologue. Was it Charles “The Hammer” that introduced that wonderful phrase, “invincibly ignorant” to our discourse?
Obama lives in a universe comprised entirely of *words*. Almost certainly, “Las Vegas” to him is strictly a symbol; the fact there there are actual people who live and work there probably never crossed his mind.
Well, I don’t think I take a backseat to very many people in my disdain and distaste for Rahm Emanuel, but Geez Louise, folks!! Isn’t this going a bit far? You do know that his remark about “retards” (or was it “retarded”?) was made clear back in August….so it’s being brought up now purely for political reasons.
Now, there’s a (large and insistent) part of me that is thoroughly enjoying the spectacle of the Dems getting covered with a giant pile of P.C. manure, since they are the ones who began and perfected this little gambit….but let’s think this through! How long before EVERY word expressing a negative opinion is off limits because someone’s feelings will be hurt if we use it?
What SHOULD Rahmbo have said? I mean, how could he have expressed his frustration, and the judgment he was making about the mental processing of the Far Left, in normal human language? Does it not occur to ANYone else on this thread that we’re heading down a road that leads to a brick wall where at some point we aren’t going to be able to say anything at all that wouldn’t be appropriate at a ladies’ tea party — and I’m not talking about the kind taking place on the streets of Washington, D.C. and other big cities, either!
I completely agree with Book on Rahm Emanuel’s crudity and abusiveness. I would add that such tactics only work in the short run and are counterproductive after awhile. No dynamic range. If you shout all the time, people tune you out. If you are always angry, people drag their feet because they figure “what difference does it make?– it can’t get any worse”. Emanuel the hatchet man will wind up with many hatchets in his back — he’s made too many enemies.
If you’re going to be Machiavellian, at least be competent at it.
Book said,
> I hope I don’t make the mistake of underestimating Obama — he’s a dirty fighter and a survivor — but I do think his fundamental belief that he is a genius in a world of idiots will play against him with both voters and other politicians. It’s worth remember, in this regard, that Obama has been good at winning but, to the extent he has a track record, he’s been lousy at performing.
I’m reading a book called “Meditations on Violence” by Sgt. Rory Miller, who has a track record of dealing with all kinds of violence and seems to know what he’s talking about.
He makes the point that most violent confrontations that are *serious* are over quickly. They have nothing in common with extended action fight sequences in the movies. By “serious” he is talking about those where winning is the only key, not the extended “monkey dance”, as he calls it, of social conflict, ie, two guys bristling at each other in a bar, leading up to a fight that is primarily social in nature (impress the girl, establish the territorial bounds or alpha supremacy – for attractiveness.) It’s not attractive to totally wipe someone out with devasting injuries in a bar fight… Rarely happens, apparently.
How does this relate to Obama? In politics, he is *serious* violent. It’s no accident that each competitor against him has been blindsided and banished from the political fight by an unforeseen emergency or happening. The latest was McCain/Palin, destroyed by the so-called “emergency” of the liquidity crisis that hit in early October. Happening under the watch of Republican Bush, the Republicans really had no shot at that point. And I still strongly question the validity of that “emergency”, seeing as how the urgency of hours stretched into days and then weeks… and then they sat on the money…
The possibility of market manipulation – especially as the cash-value of the holdings plummeted and mark-to-market demanded an immediate payment in cash that everyone in the know KNEW the banks didn’t have, gives rise to the possibility of such manipulation by internationalist financiers (e.g, George Soros). With Obama being such a strong internationalist, it’s quite possible the whole thing was planned months in advance, just waiting for the right moment to strike.
Political violence, engaged in at exactly the right time, and with devastating, uncounterable effect. Game instantly over. Obama’s done it time and again, it seems.
However, the necessity of *governing* after the win, and after you’ve made so many promises to so many constituent groups; promises that conflict with each other and therefore cannot possibly be kept, and promised to people who believe in you with the fervency of a religion… guaranteed exactly what we are seeing now. Obama in free-fall.
Progressivism is a particularly nasty ideology. It feeds on the egos of those who “know better” and automatically divides the world into two seperate classes. This works fine in europe where they have been ruled by class for generations, but the American Model was specifically set to break that mold.
The President and his advisers do not understand how we could possibly reject the ideas and gifts we are being handed by our “betters”.
I think this is going to get real ugly.
Pass the popcorn.
No popcorn.
You need to be in the trenches…
We all will have to be, somehow. My problem is trying to figure out _how_.
<B>I’m reading a book called “Meditations on Violence” by Sgt. Rory Miller, who has a track record of dealing with all kinds of violence and seems to know what he’s talking about.</b>
Was this from JKB’s recommendation here?
<B>Pass the popcorn. </b>
It’s poisoned, but go ahead.