Monday, March 16, 2009

Comments on Belmont Club
"The Guardians"

Just watched Barney Frank on The News Hour on PBS. He was in full bleat that as he now owns the company he should be able to declare that these employees have not earned their bonuses, and he blamed Bush/Paulson for not providing sufficient oversight. The draw dropping moment was when he said that "it is natural for everyone to cover their own mistakes" and therefor the people who caused the problem should not be allowed to evaluate the performance of employees. He meant it as a criticism of AIG's current management's fitness to award bonuses. The truth is that as VDH and The Old Guy make clear Barney Frank, along with Dodd, Raines, and Gorleck, is among the last people to be trusted with evaluating a two teller Savings and Loan let alone a firm like AIG.

The legal definition of "Chutzpah" is killing your parents and then demanding the mercy of The Court as an orphan. Barney Frank's portrait should appear next to the definition.

Let us consider Wretchard's original submission. The true horror of rule by a Lil' Kim isn't that the buildings are ugly, or food is bad or the clothes are shoddy or the light's go out. The true horror is in those poor women desperately applauding as Dear Leader walks by in a modest casual sweater. Watching any American yearns for a soul brave enough to step forward and yell out "Hey fat boy, you suck." The gutless wonders of the Western Press were in Onanistic Glee when the Iraqi threw his shoes at President Bush. Like late night talk show hosts they only choose safe targets. Right now it is possible that if Obama ever gets humiliated in public he would deflate like the Wicked Witch under a bucket of water. My concern is that in three years, after Acorn gets its army together and the acolytes of Ayres get their hooks deep into the State apparatus, people may be afraid to insult the Leader.

@MarkJ (who said he believed America is different because of guns),
Just to be clear, I do not agree with you on either your facts or your implications. I see not a shred of evidence that would lead me to believe that the armed forces or law enforcement would side with people threatening or using armed force under any circumstance including those arising from the conduct of Barack Obama. The "militia" movement of the 1990s was an embarrassment at best. The answers to our problems simply do not lay in dreams of or threats of armed revolution. I do believe in the Second Amendment and can believe that there could be circumstances in which an armed citizenry can induce a sense of caution that could mitigate abuses by an oppressive corrupt local machine, particularly in isolated communities. As a meaningful part of the national dynamic it is an invitation to disaster. As Talleyrand said of the murder of the Duc d’Enghien by Napoleon I, "It was worse than a crime, it was a blunder." If you really want to invite repression that that is the road to follow. What is needed is harder; old fashioned politicking, constant communication, presence in every polling site to try to ensure an honest vote and instant response to every abuse or lie are where we must start.

When people have their enabling paradigms threatened they can become dangerous. They will do anything to validate their beliefs that they relied on establish their connection to a coherent social network. To affirm that Bush (or someone declared to be like him) did not win, should not have won and could not be allowed to win someone like your ex-girlfriend's sister will accept conduct that in other circumstances they would repudiate. There are a series of simple steps from agreeing with those whose approval you crave (so many never leave adolescence), to discounting evidence of misconduct by Acorn, to participating in what would be a criminal act. Few go as far as Bernadine Dohrn or Rachel Corrie but the path is well trodden. We should all stop and examine our assumptions constantly.

@Unsk, Concur.

No comments: