Remember way back during the Bush administration when the media and the left (but aren't they really the same?) had such a problem with a group of energy execs that helped create an energy bill? Think about it. They brought together some people who spend their time working with energy advising the administration about energy.
These people were helping craft legislation that was to be passed or not passed by the Congress and then signed by the President. None of these people could make policy. They simply gave suggestions to put into the legislation.
Now years later we have a jobs panel enpaneled by the current President. These members are a motley group but many of them are fund raisers and bundlers for Obama. Many more are net job killers. They are corporate CEO's that have a history of large layoffs.
Now Obama decides that he isn't going to wait for Congress to pass his jobs bill. He says it is the Republicans holding up his jobs bil, but actually the Democrats in the Senate don't like it either. President Obama has directed his jobs panel (who are unelected remember) to find ways that he can implement job solutions without Congress. I think they call that dictatorship. Do CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN have a problem with this? Not that I have seen.
Is this the change you voted for? Eliminating Congress from the policy debate? Does any of this sound like liberty?
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Disagreement equals hate
My first common sense rant is the phrase haters. You see it on bumper stickers, face book et al. They will say something to the effect 'All you haters can ...'. If you take the time to find out what the haters are guilty of, it is more times than not simple disagreement. If you don't like rap music you are a hater. Disagree with affirmative action when it includes quotas? HATER!! Think marriage should stay man and woman? HATER!! Don't like the movies of some actor or another? HATER!!
The practice of classifying people as hater simply tells us there is no room for a shade of gray. For instance I mentioned gay marriage above. It is possible to have compassion for gay people, desire to see common sense reforms such as allowing survivorship rights etc. next of kin rights without wanting to extend everything about marriage. The side accusing of being a hater simply does not allow any such distinction. It is black and white. Agree with me or you are a hater.
Why is this employed? Saying I disagree with you doesn't make you a bad person, but saying you are a hater means you have no right to be involved in any responsible discussion in our society. Why would we let you speak? You are a hater. The list of the subjects that can make you a hater could go on and on. Most often in my experience they involve some sacred subject of the church of political correctness. Common Sense would dictate we actually talk to one another. But that doesn't fit into a text message or a tweet or a face book comment now does it?
The practice of classifying people as hater simply tells us there is no room for a shade of gray. For instance I mentioned gay marriage above. It is possible to have compassion for gay people, desire to see common sense reforms such as allowing survivorship rights etc. next of kin rights without wanting to extend everything about marriage. The side accusing of being a hater simply does not allow any such distinction. It is black and white. Agree with me or you are a hater.
Why is this employed? Saying I disagree with you doesn't make you a bad person, but saying you are a hater means you have no right to be involved in any responsible discussion in our society. Why would we let you speak? You are a hater. The list of the subjects that can make you a hater could go on and on. Most often in my experience they involve some sacred subject of the church of political correctness. Common Sense would dictate we actually talk to one another. But that doesn't fit into a text message or a tweet or a face book comment now does it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)