On-Air with the Pseudo-Intellectual Elite

When poetry represents historical scholarship, a Hollywood film is hard science and Wikipedia becomes the final arbiter of fact, one should be careful about saddling up their high horse and denouncing the intelligence of anyone.  Yet time and time again, the leftists in the media rush to rebuke conservatives as unintelligent buffoons.

In June, while speaking in Boston Sarah Palin mentioned that Paul Revere had warned the British that "they weren't gonna be takin' away our arms by ringin' those bells and by makin' sure that as he's ridin' his horse through town to send those warnin' shots and bells that we were gonna be secure and we were gonna be free … and we were gonna be armed."

Naturally, the liberal left began reciting the Longfellow poem and thought to themselves, "Hey, there's nothing in there about Revere warning the British or warning shots and bells."  Using all the knowledge they had garnered of Paul Revere from their childhood, they felt safe to openly mock her.  From Mediate:

CNN anchor Brooke Baldwin, who was covering the story this afternoon, could barely contain her contempt as Palin described Paul Revere “sending those warning shots and bells” to tell Americans that “the British weren’t taking away our arms.” 

Palin strung together an off-the-cuff explanation of the famed Midnight Ride for those listening that seemed to involve a ton of noise, bells, gunfire, and a warning that the British were out to take away Americans’ as-yet-nonexistent Second Amendment rights, which Baldwin couldn’t help but react to with deer-in-the-headlights confusion. “History lesson from Sarah Palin on the Midnight Ride of Paul Revere,” she deadpanned.

I can just hear her saying, "That stupid Sarah Palin.  Revere didn't warn the British.  Duh!" 

The following is an excerpt from Brandeis University professor David Hackett Fischer's book Paul Revere's Ride entailing the events that took place following Revere's capture on the night of his famous ride:

At last the [British] officers began to feel the full import of what Paul Revere had been telling them. His words of warning took on stronger meaning when punctuated by gunfire. The sound of a single shot had suggested to them that surprise was lost. The crash of a volley appeared evidence that the country was rising against them. As they came closer to the Common they began to hear Lexington's town bell clanging rapidly. The captive Loring, picking up Revere's spirit, turned to the officers and said,"The bell's a'ringing! The town's alarmed, and you're all dead men !"

The media was so ignorant of the actual history, that they didn't even comprehend what Palin was saying.  If they had been smarter than a 5th grader, they would have remembered that Revere was captured during his ride.  Revere (and Loring) used the shots and bells to warn the British regulars it was a sign the citizens were prepared to fight.  As Palin correctly points out, the pretense for the British mission was to confiscate guns.

Another kerfuffle developed earlier this year when Michelle Bachmann hailed the "different cultures, different backgrounds, different traditions" of the European settlers who formed our nation to highlight the diversity and tolerance of our founding.  She also noted that the founders, notably "men like John Quincy Adams... would not rest until slavery was extinguished in the country."

The criticism came immediately from the talking heads that Bachmann was a "bubblehead" for believing the founders ended slavery.  But that is not what she said.  I can say that I will not rest until I've extinguished stupidity, but if stupidity should outlive me, that would not invalidate what I've said.  It just means I failed.

If only they had bothered to check their research library - I mean - Wikipedia on John Q. Adams,

...he was famous as the most prominent national leader opposing slavery....Adams vilified slavery as a terrible evil and preached total abolition.

In 1841, Adams had the case of a lifetime, representing the defendants in United States v. The Amistad Africans in the Supreme Court of the United States.   He successfully argued that the Africans....should be considered free.  [His] speech was directed not only at the justices of this Supreme Court hearing the case, but also to the broad national audience he instructed in the evils of slavery.

Adams repeatedly spoke out against the "Slave Power"...

You would think the left would have known this already.  After all, Amistad was a movie.  But when the founders and slavery are found in the same story, the Constitution's 3/5th clause is used to disparage the document and the men who wrote it.  What many don't realize is that this was an anti-slavery clause. 

All free men, no matter their race or ethnicity were held as equals in principle, if not in  practice.  The Northern founders wanted to limit the slave trade and didn't want slaves (considered property with no right to vote or citizenship) to count towards a state's population for the purposes of apportioning representatives to the new national legislature. That would have given the Southern states, whose framers were insisting on a full count, a voting advantage. (before parties, political power often came from geography)  So, the delegates to the Philadelphia convention of 1787 agreed to the three-fifths compromise.

While certain statements by Bachmann can be considered controversial, that doesn't make their substance incorrect.  Too often the media elite considers anything it finds contrary to their world view baseless, and attack it out of ignorance.

In last week's speech, President Obama made a small error when he said that Abraham Lincoln had started the Republican Party.  Unlike when a Palin or Bachmann make such a gaffe, there was no outcry against our "bubblehead-in-chief" getting history wrong.  In fact, PBS (government funded television) edited out the remark in their transcript of the speech. (nothing to see here, move along)

Also seemingly washed away was the president's 57 states, speaking Austrian and "corpse-man" gaffes along with many others.  But of course it would be wrong to expose those, because Obama is obviously so much more intelligent than conservatives that there is no reason to question it or even release his collegiate grades.

For the media, the "he's dumb" schtick only applies to politicians on the right.  Recently, the MSNBC team took offense when Texas governor Rick Perry  described Social Security as a Ponzi scheme during a Republican debate.  Chris Matthews said that was crazy talk and Lawrence O'Donnell quickly googled the term to explain a Ponzi scheme was named after Charles Ponzi, a fact that we already knew and noted that it was a criminal endeavor, which we all also knew.  

A Ponzi scheme, according to O'Donnell's research database(Wikipedia) is an

...operation that pays returns to separate investors, not from any actual profit earned by the organization, but from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors.... The perpetuation of the returns that a Ponzi scheme advertises and pays requires an ever-increasing flow of money from investors to keep the scheme going.

And Social Security is so very different.  Why just listen to Noble prize winning economist Paul Samuelson gush about the wonders of our Social Security program in 1967.

The beauty of social insurance is that it is actuarially unsound. Everyone who reaches retirement age is given benefit privileges that far exceed anything he has paid in....

How is it possible? It stems from the fact that the national product is growing at a compound interest rate and can be expected to do so for as far ahead as the eye cannot see. Always there are more youths than old folks in a growing population. More important, with real income going up at 3% per year, the taxable base on which benefits rest is always much greater than the taxes paid historically by the generation now retired…

Social Security is squarely based on what has been called the eight wonder of the world — compound interest. A growing nation is the greatest Ponzi game ever contrived. And that is a fact, not a paradox. [Emphasis mine]

Naturally, he doesn't know what he's talking about.  Let's check back with Chris Matthews, who we last saw wondering how Perry could appeal to independents with such crazy talk about Ponzi schemes.  The next day on his own show HARDBALL, in a discussion with former Speaker Tip O'Neill, Matthews said this,

Today, lots of people fortunately make it past 65. They live into their 80s and 90s. They’re still getting checks. The system doesn’t work that way anymore. It’s not as healthy as it once was. So, how does a Republican deal with the fact it is a Ponzi scheme in the sense that the money that’s paid out every day is coming from people who paid in that day? It’s not being made somewhere.[Emphasis mine]

As Samuelson noted, Social Security's fiscal soundness is reliant on an expanding youth population.  But as Matthews explained, what we actually have now is an expanding retiree population.  In a Ponzi scheme, "once investment slows down, the scheme will begin to collapse under its own weight as the promoter starts having problems paying the promised returns ." 

An investment scheme that seems too good to be true in the beginning yet turns into a bad deal as the number of new investors (taxpayers) dwindles?  Well, maybe Perry is not quite so off base now, is he?  In fact, Governor Perry is simply a realist who knows we need a solution that can overcome the basic fallacy inherent to the program.

During the same debate Perry, in defending his stance that a scientific consensus does not necessarily equate to good science on Climate Change, mentioned that Galileo was on the outs with consensus too.  He analogized that Galileo had been outvoted in the past.

In the immediate post-debate coverage on MSNBC, Al Sharpton spoke up to show how he felt about Perry's "anti-science" stand by saying he didn't understand all this talk of "Galeo".  The viewer was left to ponder whether he was disagreeing with Perry's statement,  whether he was unaware of Galileo's history or whether he just had no idea who "Galeo" or Galileo was or why Perry mentioned him or her or whatever a "Galeo" was in the first place.

Can you imagine how hard it must be to jump into that void on a national TV and begin talking, when you have absolutely no knowledge base to speak of?  For too many in the media, Al Gore's movie An Inconvenient Truth is as close to hard science as they get.  What they may not realize is that a British court ruled that this movie contained factual errors and could only be shown in schools with a set of guidelines.

Our psuedo-intellectual elites in the media mock conservatives as anti-science, yet they have no idea who Richard Lindzen, or Jasper Kirby or Hans Svensmark are despite the fact that they each have been a part of important research that contradicts the "consensus" on Climate Change recently.   Instead, Chris Matthews likes to ask conservatives if they believe in evolution, then laughs at whoever answers incorrectly.  For the longest time I thought Chris was doing a homage to IDIOCRACY with this bit.  The irony that a question of belief substitutes as a statement of scientific merit obviously escapes him.

Are there intelligent leftist in the media?  In my heart, I believe there are.  But for now I have no empirical evidence of it.  But despite the facts, I will continue to believe they exist on faith.  It's the least I can do for a group of people who have such utter faith that they are right, even when all evidence is to the contrary.

Casual Friday Edition

Bureau of Labor Statistics will release unemployment data for the month of February.  Initial reports are mixed, but let's hope that we see some movement in the right direction.

Employment in my household has now reached 60%.  The beautiful Dawn, after the recovery from her winter of discontentment, has begun dipping her toes in the labor pool, but has yet to plunge in.  My seven year old son is contemplating an offer to drop out of 2nd grade to become a video game pro.  We are encouraging him to maintain his amateur status for Olympic considerations (I'm aware that the restriction against professionals no longer exists, but he doesn't - after all, he's only seven).  So far, he is sticking with school, which he will need if he ever hopes to become a video game scientist.

Speaking of unemployment, it seems that the cast and crew of "Two and a Half Men" are soon to join the ranks of the unemployed.  CBS has shut down production of the show following Charlie Sheen's "bi-winning" interview this week on ABC.  That's a great job by ABC - top ratings for the interview and shutting down the competition in the process.

I do not know whether Charlie is going through a phase, needs serious help or if this is just who he is.  But as I was driving in to work today, KFTK 97.1's Dana Loesch was playing a game of "Charlie Sheen or Omar Gadhafi?"  It sounded fun so I'll try it here.  I'll give you a quote and you decide who said it - Charlie or Omar.  Let's play.

1. "I have defeated this earthworm with my words. Imagine what I would have done with my fire-breathing fists."
2. "Your face will melt off and your children will weep over your exploded body."
3. "Life without dignity is worthless."
4. "Every great movement begins with one man."
5. "I woke up at 4 a.m., before dawn. You should be asleep. You're all tired after a sleepless night."
6. "I am like the Queen of England."
7. "I'm different. I have a different constitution, I have a different brain, I have a different heart. I got tiger blood, man. Dying's for fools, dying's for amateurs."
8. "...it is our planet and they can go to another planet."
9. "Do not believe these channels—they are dogs."
10. "I closed my eyes and made it so with the power of my mind, and unlearned 22 years of fiction"
11. "and people can't figure me out; they can't process me. I don't expect them to. You can't process me with a normal brain."

Go ahead and try before looking below for the answers.  It's harder than you would think.

After this week's SOTUS ruling on the Westboro group, I wrote Common Decency is Not a Law.  In it, I take up the notion that shame is our weapon against actions that fall outside our common decency.  The law exists to prevent and punish the actions of those who would act against the right's of another.  Murder, theft, arson, assault are crimes for this reason.  But we should not make it a crime to operate outside our common decency.  Our society must use the tools available to us, in order to bring citizens into voluntarily heeding this unwritten code.

Shame can be a powerful weapon.  When you see someone look around before telling an offensive joke, they are operating under the effect of shame.   To paraphrase Gordon Gekko,

"Shame, for lack of a better word, is good. Shame is right, Shame works. Shame clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of our common decency.  And Shame, you mark my words, will not only save your community, but that other community called the USA."

Our children are being taught that shame is bad.  They are encouraged to take a stance that says, "This is who I am - deal with it!"  They see shame as someone else's problem not theirs.  They couldn't be more wrong.

Shame is what powers us forward when we fail.  Shame is a signal to look inward and see if an adjustment needs to be made.  Shame is the converse of pride.  When we lose a sense of shame in our actions, we lose the opportunity to feel pride also.  Self-esteem is built in moments of pride.  Self-esteem is lost when pride loses its meaning. 

Shame is a basic building block for a civil society.  We watched Charlie Sheen's interview this week and we were shocked by him.  What we saw was the excess of a man who lives without the presence of shame in his life.  We've seen this before in countless celebrities, from Hugh Hefner to Lady Gaga.  But because we have fallen in love with the characters Sheen has played, perhaps we expected better from him. 

Sorry, if that went too long.  Remember, shame like any weapon in the wrong hands or used without caution is dangerous.  I'm also sorry if my mockery of Sheen offends anyone.  In truth, I feel very sorry for him - in a way that would immediately cause him to laugh if he became aware of it.  Sorry Charlie, I was looking forward to another Major League movie, too but get some help, dude.

NUTS

My favorite nut, Chris Matthews goes off on Newt Gingrich saying, "He looks like a car bomber.....He looks like he loves torturing."  [h/t Geoffrey Dickens at Newbusters]

Documentary director Michael Moore said recently about wealthy people, "They're sitting on the money, they're using it for their own ... That's not theirs, that's a national resource, that's ours."  [h/t Newsbusters]  I would personally like to accept a check from Mr. Moore, on behalf of the nation's poor, which I will use to buy a new oven, then distribute in like manner to others.  Just email me with your request.

Remember back in the 1970's when we had those crazy scientists telling us we were headed for an ice age.  Quotes like this were commonplace, "This number seems small until it is realized that a decrease of only 4°C would probably be sufficient to start another ice age... A final push in the cooling direction comes from man-made changes in the direct reflectivity of the earth’s surface." - Dr. John Holdren.  It's good to know that President Obama can rely on good competent scientists instead, like his Advisor on Science Technology, Dr. John Holdren.  Hmmm...that name certainly sounds familiar.  [h/t Hotair]

From US News & World Report, in a new book, President Obama spoke candidly about race & his opposition,   "In May 2010, he told guests at a private White House dinner that race was probably a key component in the rising opposition to his presidency from conservatives,".  Sorry, but my opposition to Russ Carnahan, Dick Gephardt, Mel Carnahan, Bob Holden, Claire McCaskill along with everyone else I've ever voted against has never been held against me as a sign of racism.  I thought living in a color blind world meant that we judge people by their actions and not the color of their skin.  But even when a group of people choose to act as a result of his actions, the President feels that's racist.  I suppose by the same token, that would make the union groups protesting in Madison, WI racist, too.  or maybe I just don't know what words mean anymore.

[I include this next one with a disclaimer.  Clicking on the link included will take you to a story that is a bit more graphical than mine with links that will continue to up the ante.  Just sayin.]
Northwestern University professor John Bailey used sex toys for a demonstration for his Human Sexuality course.  The unusual exhibition included the use of the an "item" on a naked woman.  h/t Hotair 
What makes it worse is that the university has defended the professor (another example of no shame).  I only included the link because you will find a reference to a scene from Monty Python's Meaning of Life.  Remember, those skits were funny because they were so preposterous.  They're a little less funny today.

Here are your answers to the quiz:
Sheen - 1, 2, 4, 7, 10, 11
Gadhafi - 3, 5, 6, 8, 9

That's it today.  Have a safe weekend.  Spend it with your family if you have one.  If not spend it with your goddesses then, I suppose.

One final question - Are we bi-winning the future yet?

#snOMG! Snow Day Civics Test

Take this quick test.

1)      The USA has what type of government?

2)      Prior to passage of the 17^th amendment, who elected Senators?

3)      Who elects your United States Representative?

4)      Who elects the President?

5)      Are you willing to brave the ice and snow to meet your mail carrier at the street?  How much is too much to even consider it?

As events in the Middle East develop, you will hear some disputes regarding democracy in Egypt.  Recently, I heard Chris Matthews say that because of Bush’s freedom agenda, the right should be embracing what is taking place.  But it’s not necessarily as easy as Chris makes it sound.  Democracy without the proper safeguards is a bit like welding without a face shield.  It's a quick way to put something together, but it may blow up in your face.

Our founders were fearful of (direct) democracy.  Democracy in action can be a powder keg because the passion of the masses burns hot.  Have you ever found yourself in a large crowd doing something you would never do in a small group such as yelling, dancing, singing, and booing or maybe even, while under the influence you found yourself becoming violent.  In those moments, we lose ourselves and refrain from using our impulse control.  Our individuality is sacrificed to the group.

As our government was discussed and formed, the founders sought to add buffers and protections to balance the various groups. A democratic republic (answer 1) would be the form, loosely based on the British system which was composed of a King, a House of Lords and a House of Commons.  The “king” in our government would be the president who would be elected by a group of chosen electors, the Electoral College (answer 3).  The House of Lords would become our Senate, whose members would be chosen by the state legislatures (answer 2) and represent the individual states in the Federal Government.  The House of Commons would become our House of Representatives, which would be each citizen’s most direct line to the Federal Government since they were directly elected by the voters (answer 4).

The founders chose to create a government with three branches.  The two houses would form the legislative branch; the president would lead the executive branch, with a judiciary comprising the third branch.  This three branched government with a bi-cameral legislature formed from out of so many states, a structured set of checks and balances was provided in order to maintain the ability to govern in an orderly and peaceful manner.

The checks and balances were a necessary component to prevent tyranny on one hand and anarchy on the other.  Unfortunately, the 17^th amendment to the US Constitution in 1913 ended the election of Senators by the legislatures and they are now directly elected by the voters in each state.  This has removed the individual states participation in the federal government and allowed the Federal Government to run roughshod over the states.

By the way, here are your answers in case you missed them earlier.

1)      Democratic Republic

2)      The state legislatures

3)      The constituents of each House district

4)      The Electoral College

5)      Please post your response to this question in the comments section below.

So now we come back to Egypt and the call for democracy.  The fear among many is that Egypt does not have the proper liberal cultural base for democracy and the people may be sacrificed to the masses.  How will democracy exist in the absence of any check on the leadership?  There are many democratic elections held all over the world where the people have no liberty.  Often the leaders, once elected and without restraint, wield that power mercilessly in suppressing opposition.  Even in Egypt, sham elections are held to give the false pretense of democracy.  Our diplomats spent many months and years helping Iraq form a government with its own checks and balances to better ensure the durability of their democracy.  In Iran and Cuba, we can see that massing together in revolt does not necessarily end in democracy.

As we see the masses in Cairo protesting for a new government, we must remember that without the virtues of our system, a democratic Egypt may provide liberty, but how long can they suppress its vices before the people find themselves under another tyranny?  It is not in the United State’s interest to see a friendly, secular tyrant replaced with an un-friendly, Islamist tyrant.