Jobs: New York City Mayor Bloomberg has put out a call for jobs. Obama knows that we need jobs. Obama has put together a jobs bill. In this bill, he states that he wants more of our money thrown his way, so he can send more of our money to select places like Solyndra to create jobs. Bloomberg appears to back this contention:
“At least he’s got some ideas on the table, whether you like those or not,” he said. “Now everybody’s got to sit down and say we’re actually gonna do something and you have to do something on both the revenue and the expense side.
“Obama didn’t create this economic mess, it developed “over long periods of time,”” Bloomberg said.
Bloomberg is correct. We’ve had decades of liberalism that have led to such strangling regulation that manufacturing jobs have been sent overseas by private corporations; we’ve had a raise in minimum wage that has led to private corporations hiring less people; we’ve had illegal immigration infiltrate our marketplace to such a degree that it has led to less job availability; we’ve had unprecedented money spent to propel the politicians’ beliefs that the green sector is the future of job creation, and now we’re left wondering where all the jobs went. For the answers, we turn to the liberal politicians who call for more regulation, more money sent to theoretical sectors, and an executive order for amnesty for illegal immigrants. This has led most liberals, and Bloomberg, to wonder why Republicans in Congress aren’t for this new Obama jobs bill. They think they have an answer: politics. Political partisanship. Republicans want Obama to lose in the next election.
Terrorism: I hate to join those in the media who seek to absolve the Muslim religion for terrorism attacks made in the name of the Muslim religion, but most terrorists are Muslim in name only. Most Americans are not pro-Muslim or anti-Muslim. Most Americans understand that terrorists bastardized the Muslim religion to satiate their bloodlust, and they accept that the Muslim religion is another religion in the great melting pot of religions of America. Some seek to tie the Muslim religion in with terrorism, however, because the terrorist leaders claim Muslim domination to be their driving force. While the claim that not all Muslims are terrorists but nearly all terrorists are Muslim is true, we must make the note that an overwhelming majority of Muslims do not have a bloodlust. So, the question must be asked was Muslim domination the true driving force of terrorists, or did they simply need a cause through which they could satiate their bloodlust?
Everybody has friends and family. Terrorists have friends and family. We all have people we care about, and we care what those people think of us. Killing indiscriminately will not gain you anything among your friends and family, so you have to have a cause. You have to become a warrior for a cause, as opposed to a man who just wants to indiscriminately kill people and break things. Backers of that cause will love you. You will have power. CNN will talk about you. You’ll be that guy that walks into parties and everyone notices. You will be famous. You may not win over your friends and family, but at least you’ll have internal ammunition against their condemnation when you’re sitting alone trying to deal with the fact that your friends and family have abandoned you. You will be able to say that you did it all for a cause.
Politics: Most people are not satisfied with the candidates the Democrats and Republicans have for this presidential election. It doesn’t matter when you’re reading this.
Vanity: Most people don’t care about the author of a biography. Nothing bores me more than an interview with an author that begins with the question: “What inspired you to write this book?” I delete, scroll down, turn page, or throw in trash depending on the manner in which I am reading such a question. The author’s motivation has never driven me to buy a book. The only reason we care about author John McCullough is because he didn’t talk about himself for years. By the time he wrote John Adams we were a little curious, but this is only because by that time he had already written a number of great books.
On that note, there’s nothing worse than an interviewer, or a moderator, who asks a question to allow us insight into their worldview. As with the author of a biography (McCullough being the exception) very few of us watch a national debate to see or hear from a moderator. A moderator’s job is to ask the question and fade into the background to let the subject shine or fail. Some egoists can’t help it though. They’ve worked so hard to attain their positions in life, and they hope continued exposure will keep the spotlight on them, regardless of the venue. We’re not interested in what you think Brian Williams. Can we be spared your thoughts on world affairs for five minutes? We get it nightly in The Nightly News. Do we have to get it in a national debate? Some may have seen the Brian Williams question as wonderful and challenging, but should a debate moderator ever ask the subject of their question if that person feels guilty for opposing the moderator’s worldview?
Bernard Goldberg had an interesting point on this matter when he said, “Let’s flip the matter around. Let’s say that a conservative journalist asked a liberal about abortion in a national debate.” (Brian Williams asked Rick Perry if he felt guilty about the number of people Texas has executed during his tenure as Texas governor.) “What if that conservative journalist asked a liberal politician in a national debate about the number of innocent, potential lives lost due to abortion? That conservative journalist would rightly be accused of injecting his worldview into the debate.” In short, a national debate moderator’s job should be equivalent to an NFL referee’s. No one should know your name when the debate is over.
Jane Fonda: On that note, I know my opinion doesn’t matter, but I was walking through the bookstore when I saw Jane Fonda’s biography. I was about to pass the mindless twaddle without a second’s thought when I saw the cover. WoW! People have always told me that she was good looking, but I never saw evidence of it myself. She may be a mindless ditz, and she may be a traitor to her country, and she may have single handedly had American servicemen beaten and/or killed in Vietnam prison camps, and she may have had a hand in millions of Cambodians being slaughtered after the war, but she used to be good looking.