Tag Archives: America Is Doomed

Never pass up the chance to be a victim

Another example of comical TSA incompetence.  Nothing new there, though this story seems to have had a happy ending, or should have.  A couple was initially told that their 18-month-old baby was on the “no fly list.”  After a mix-up and, no doubt, some less-than-cordial treatment, “Eventually, the couple were given their boarding passes back.”

Any normal traveler would leave in a huff, get on the plane, and resume her planned vacation.  No harm, no foul.  But, in this case, “The family decided to leave the airport rather than return to the flight.”  That’s the end of the article.

Might there be more going on here?  The family, including a mother in a hijab, will no doubt sic both the “civil rights” police and their tort lawyer on the airline, airport, and TSA.  The fact that this story was in the newspaper in the first place is the first clue.  Heaven forbid someone should just get on with her life if she has the opportunity to play the victim.

Leave a comment

Filed under Culture

Is government an “institution that made this country great”?

A pathetic example of how President Obama might have carried the football over the proverbial goal line in the left’s efforts to transform our society into a government-centered one.  Government is the cause of all ills and the solution to all woes.

The subject of this National Journal article entered into a mortgage (with no money down) that he couldn’t afford and has lost his home.  Now he is blaming Gov. Daniels (Ind.) for “squeeze[ing] him out,” the Obama administration for failing to modify his mortgage, and his local city government for an (admittedly ridiculous) fine.  He also blames the state government (who employed his wife) and his former employer for laying him off.

Nowhere does he express any personal responsibility for his plight.  “I live in a trailer now because of a mortgage company and an incompetent government.”  No, you live in a trailer because you could not meet your financial obligations in the free market.  Of course one feels sorry for a man in this situation, but what happened to the American way of overcoming adversity, getting a job, and pulling yourself back up?

We wouldn’t expect much different from Ron Fournier, but let’s hope that this case study that he dug up doesn’t reflect the typical mentality of a down-on-his-luck man in the heartland, or else this country is truly doomed.

Leave a comment

Filed under Big Government

What’s next, condemning the troops for mooning?

Erich Maria Remarque should have been dragged to The Hague . . . if there was such a thing after World War I.  We really don’t see the big deal with troops at war urinating on corpses.  The corpses don’t mind, after all, and this seems like a pretty harmless way for macho fighters to blow off a little steam in a war zone.  It is certainly morally superior to the way that our Islamic extremist enemies express their disdain for their opponents—i.e., burning down buildings and killing people.

If memory serves us correctly from high school, Remarque wrote charmingly in All Quiet on the Western Front about how the two sides would moon each other across the trenches.  We suppose that the Secretary of Defense would condemn that kind of outrageous behavior these days.

Leave a comment

Filed under Foreign Affairs

Gay “marriage” as a means to an end

I provided a link to an amusing, if perhaps troubling, case-in-point of the inevitable evolution of gay “marriage” in my last post.

I made the point that I don’t really mind gay “marriage,” in fact, because it shouldn’t be any of the government’s business how consenting adults interact with one another and how they choose to characterize their interaction.  But I also share the blindingly obvious observation that traditional marriage promotes modern civilization, so gay “marriage” would tend to undermine modern civilization.  The only thing that bothers me about gay “marriage” is that for the loudest proponents, that is the whole point—gay “marriage” is part of a coherent, multi-pronged strategy by the left to undermine the Judeo-Christian, Western, and American values that have been prerequisites of our prosperity.

The left has an agenda of destruction—whose weapons include socialism, multiculturalism, political correctness, destruction of the family, moral relativism, secular humanism, and promotion of mind-altering substances, among many others—which it has largely achieved over the past 50 years by taking control of schools and universities, the media, foundations, and popular culture.

No doubt many gay couples get married for the same reasons that straight people get married.  But there is also no doubt that some do it (as a hint, we can start with all of those who insist on making public spectacles of themselves) more out of a political or cultural agenda.

Leave a comment

Filed under Culture

Please be prepared for the consequences of gay “marriage”

The normal arguments go like this:

Conservative:  Gay “marriage” denigrates the traditional, irreducible construct of marriage.   If we allow gay “marriage,” then what’s next?  Three people will want to get “married,” or six people and two goats, or a man and his television.

Liberal:  That’s ridiculous.  You are advancing preposterous scenarios in an effort to win an argument over a legitimate issue.  Everyone knows that gay “marriages” have the same features as straight marriages:  two committed spouses caring for each other, raising children, and committing to each other for life.

I can’t think of any other issue on which societal opinion has moved so rapidly from a seemingly time-tested viewpoint to a radically different one as gay “marriage.”  And, unfortunately, the results have not been pretty—those who fear the destruction of traditional marriage have had plenty to substantiate their worries.

For example, a recent advice column in Slate, which I had to pay close attention to because I first assumed that it was a parody, mentions identical-twin brothers who can finally remove the secrecy surrounding their incest because “we live in a state where same-sex marriage is legal, so we’re getting pressure to settle down.”  There are more and more stories like this—various “non-traditional,” even morally repugnant, relationships seeing a ray of light pointing towards legitimacy.

I actually am not really bothered by gay “marriage”; I would prefer that government not be in the business of trying to define, regulate, or intervene at all in any relationship among consenting adults.

Leave a comment

Filed under Culture

The makers versus the takers

We don’t know who came up with the term “the makers versus the takers,” (it wasn’t Ayn Rand, though she characterized it well) but this is operative in describing President Obama’s coalition.  The New York Times had a telling quote today (“The Future of the Obama Coalition”):

“All pretense of trying to win a majority of the white working class has been effectively jettisoned in favor of cementing a center-left coalition made up, on the one hand, of voters who have gotten ahead on the basis of educational attainment—professors, artists, designers, editors, human resources managers, lawyers, librarians, social workers, teachers and therapists—and a second, substantial constituency of lower-income voters who are disproportionately African-American and Hispanic.”

Look at whom Edsall defines as the coalition.  The “voters who have gotten ahead on the basis of educational attainment” are comprised primarily of typical left-wing constituencies, but ignores the vast majority of “voters who have gotten ahead on the basis of educational attainment”—namely, white-collar employees of for-profit companies.

This statement betrays the author’s bias against—or, rather, his utter lack of understanding of—the private sector.  (Kind of like how President Obama used to refer to the “business community” as if it were just another niche special interest.)  What the author really means, we suppose, is voters in jobs in which the title is a function of a specific educational credential, which, admittedly (and appropriately) excludes most large and small business people and white-collar functionaries.

The hodge-podge of professions that made his list is curious and amusing (editors but not writers? physical or psychological therapists?).  The only exception to his exclusion is “human resources managers.” It’s even funnier that this is the only corporate sub-group that the article mentions—being a conspicuous niche of the corporate world that is sympathetic to President Obama’s leftist policies.  (It’s easy to characterize the subset of the corporate and legal professions that naturally fit into the Obama coalition:  those, like human resources managers and class-action lawyers, who jobs owe to market-distorting government mandates.)

It’s also telling that he didn’t include “journalists” on the list, though he probably consciously removed it because it would be too conspicuous to label his own ilk as part of the president’s core constituency.

There is an underlying logic to the article, however.  Since the start of the Obama administration, the electorate has become more and more starkly divided along relatively simple lines:  at-will employees whose job depends on providing value to a customer or employer are Republicans, and everyone else is a Democrat.  In pithier terms, which someone coined, the makers vs. the takers.

Leave a comment

Filed under Big Government

Your kids are your business. Mind them yourself.

Just saw a segment on Fox News about how Sonic, Burger King, and other restaurants in Florida are going to start serving alcohol.  Sounds great to me.  One blowhard was quoted as saying that people should have to go to Applebees or TGI Friday’s to drink because there were children present at Sonic.  This is but a small anecdote, but symptomatic of our nosey attitudes—as if that’s the only consideration that this guy could think of.

One of the only aspects of European culture that is better than American culture is the former’s attitude toward alcohol.  The slightly less oppressive nanny-state instincts of most citizens (except perhaps in the U.K., the Western only country whose nannying rivals ours) is another.

Leave a comment

Filed under Culture