Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Democrat Created Dependence Class Doomed Strategy
On Paper it looks great. You just have to take money away from the rich (the middle class actually) and give it to the poor. Then the poor idolize you and pledge their eternal loyalty to you and your ideals.
It's romantically reminiscent of Robin Hood and his band of Merry Men but it is a fairy tale and a farce.
If Republicans and Conservatives are 'Idealists' then certainly the Democrats and Liberals are 'Opportunists'.
Back in the days of Jim Crow, Democrats formed the Ku Klux Klan in order to intimidate other white people who might be sympathetic to the plight of black slavery. But today you wouldn't know the Democrats had anything to do with it.
In the 1960's Democrats fought tooth and nail against the Civil Rights bill that would give equal share in society to people of all colors. It was republicans that put that legislation into law. But if you watch the news today you would swear all those white conservatives had grown up with 6 generations of hatred for blacks, Mexicans and any other non-white race.
My point is that Liberals will use any tactic to their advantage and switch around on those tactics so as to blame their consequences on others. You might say "Wow, does that make them smarter than conservatives?" No, it makes them Amoral. When you do not allow any set of principals to ground your behavior, when you have no moral guidelines then you become an opportunist. In a world that is governed by standards for behavior and civility, if you choose to disregard them, you can achieve your goals more quickly at the expense of others. But I digress...
Liberals have the idea that if you take away money from some to give to the poor then you will solidify your base of poor voters and that will in turn provide a cushion for your political advantage. Here is the problem with this thinking.
When a person does not work for what they have, it is human nature to devalue it. When people received free things, money, food, favor; they tend to become 'ungrateful' and greedy. To imply to these folks that they must now go out and vote for a democrat as 'payback' for their goods, also implies that they must 'do something' to maintain their freeloading status. People receiving free things very quickly become accustomed to not having to do anything for it. It works this way with our kids as well. When they screw up and we pay for their mistakes constantly they become unproductive employees, citizens and people in general. This effect does not apply only to the poor, it applies to humanity. Conversely when a person earns and works for what they have, their judgement becomes sound, and their value system becomes more balanced.
In this regard, we can go back to the old adage that 'Money doesn't buy happiness' and it has never been more true than what we see in the lowest ranks of welfare recipients. Ronald Reagan was such a successful president because he brought hope and self-respect to people on the dole. Reagan told them that they mattered, that they deserved the right to earn the american dream, and that they were good enough to do it. Reagan said to all Americans simply "I believe you can do it, I believe in American exceptional ism".
Democrats are saying that with 50% of Americans on welfare and government payrolls it's a shoe in that we will re-elect Obama. But they are scared. It reminds me of the scene in Princess Bride when Buttercup and Humperdink are at the alter and there is a big ruckus outside, so the prince tells the priest to 'hurry up and skip to the end'. Buttercup says to the Prince "My Wesley is coming for me" to which the Prince touts "Your Wesley is dead, I killed him myself earlier today". To which Buttercup says simply "Then why is there fear in your eyes?"
Democrats will stand like Baghdad Bob proclaiming their unquestionable victory in the 2012 elections but I wonder... Why is there fear in their eyes?
It's romantically reminiscent of Robin Hood and his band of Merry Men but it is a fairy tale and a farce.
If Republicans and Conservatives are 'Idealists' then certainly the Democrats and Liberals are 'Opportunists'.
Back in the days of Jim Crow, Democrats formed the Ku Klux Klan in order to intimidate other white people who might be sympathetic to the plight of black slavery. But today you wouldn't know the Democrats had anything to do with it.
In the 1960's Democrats fought tooth and nail against the Civil Rights bill that would give equal share in society to people of all colors. It was republicans that put that legislation into law. But if you watch the news today you would swear all those white conservatives had grown up with 6 generations of hatred for blacks, Mexicans and any other non-white race.
My point is that Liberals will use any tactic to their advantage and switch around on those tactics so as to blame their consequences on others. You might say "Wow, does that make them smarter than conservatives?" No, it makes them Amoral. When you do not allow any set of principals to ground your behavior, when you have no moral guidelines then you become an opportunist. In a world that is governed by standards for behavior and civility, if you choose to disregard them, you can achieve your goals more quickly at the expense of others. But I digress...
Liberals have the idea that if you take away money from some to give to the poor then you will solidify your base of poor voters and that will in turn provide a cushion for your political advantage. Here is the problem with this thinking.
When a person does not work for what they have, it is human nature to devalue it. When people received free things, money, food, favor; they tend to become 'ungrateful' and greedy. To imply to these folks that they must now go out and vote for a democrat as 'payback' for their goods, also implies that they must 'do something' to maintain their freeloading status. People receiving free things very quickly become accustomed to not having to do anything for it. It works this way with our kids as well. When they screw up and we pay for their mistakes constantly they become unproductive employees, citizens and people in general. This effect does not apply only to the poor, it applies to humanity. Conversely when a person earns and works for what they have, their judgement becomes sound, and their value system becomes more balanced.
In this regard, we can go back to the old adage that 'Money doesn't buy happiness' and it has never been more true than what we see in the lowest ranks of welfare recipients. Ronald Reagan was such a successful president because he brought hope and self-respect to people on the dole. Reagan told them that they mattered, that they deserved the right to earn the american dream, and that they were good enough to do it. Reagan said to all Americans simply "I believe you can do it, I believe in American exceptional ism".
Democrats are saying that with 50% of Americans on welfare and government payrolls it's a shoe in that we will re-elect Obama. But they are scared. It reminds me of the scene in Princess Bride when Buttercup and Humperdink are at the alter and there is a big ruckus outside, so the prince tells the priest to 'hurry up and skip to the end'. Buttercup says to the Prince "My Wesley is coming for me" to which the Prince touts "Your Wesley is dead, I killed him myself earlier today". To which Buttercup says simply "Then why is there fear in your eyes?"
Democrats will stand like Baghdad Bob proclaiming their unquestionable victory in the 2012 elections but I wonder... Why is there fear in their eyes?
Monday, December 12, 2011
Most Bizarre Suicide
At the 1994 annual awards dinner given by the American Association for Forensic Sciences, AAFS President Don Harper Mills astounded his audience in San Diego with the legal complications of a bizarre death. Here is the story...
On March 23 the medical examiner viewed the body of Ronald Opus and concluded that he died from a gunshot wound of the head caused by a shotgun. Investigation to that point had revealed that the decedent had jumped from the top of a ten story building with the intent to commit suicide. (He left a note indicating his despondency.) As he passed the 9th floor on the way down, his life was interrupted by a shotgun blast through a window, killing him instantly. Neither the shooter nor the decedent was aware that a safety net had been erected at the 8th floor level to protect some window washers, and that the decedent would not have been able to complete his intent to commit suicide because of this...
Ordinarily a person who starts into motion the events with a suicide intent ultimately commits suicide even though the mechanism might be not what he intended. That he was shot on the way to certain death nine stories below probably would not change his mode of death from suicide to homicide, but the fact that his suicide intent would not have been achieved under any circumstance caused the medical examiner to feel that he had homicide on his hands...
Further investigation led to the discovery that the room on the 9th floor from whence the shotgun blast emanated was occupied by an elderly man and his wife. He was threatening her with the shotgun because of an interspousal spat and became so upset that he could not hold the shotgun straight. Therefore, when he pulled the trigger, he completely missed his wife, and the pellets went through the window, striking the decedent.
When one intends to kill subject A, but kills subject B in the attempt, one is guilty of the murder of subject B. The old man was confronted with this conclusion, but both he and his wife were adamant in stating that neither knew that the shotgun was loaded. It was the longtime habit of the old man to threaten his wife with an unloaded shotgun. He had no intent to murder her; therefore, the killing of the decedent appeared then to be accident. That is, the gun had been accidentally loaded...
But further investigation turned up a witness that their son was seen loading the shotgun approximately six weeks prior to the fatal accident. That investigation showed that the mother (the old lady) had cut off her son's financial support, and her son, knowing the propensity of his father to use the shotgun threateningly, loaded the gun with the expectation that the father would shoot his mother. The case now becomes one of murder on the part of the son for the death of Ronald Opus...
Further investigation revealed that the son became increasingly despondent over the failure of his attempt to get his mother murdered. This led him to jump off the ten story building on March 23, only to be killed by a shotgun blast through a 9th story window.
The medical examiner closed the case as a suicide.
On March 23 the medical examiner viewed the body of Ronald Opus and concluded that he died from a gunshot wound of the head caused by a shotgun. Investigation to that point had revealed that the decedent had jumped from the top of a ten story building with the intent to commit suicide. (He left a note indicating his despondency.) As he passed the 9th floor on the way down, his life was interrupted by a shotgun blast through a window, killing him instantly. Neither the shooter nor the decedent was aware that a safety net had been erected at the 8th floor level to protect some window washers, and that the decedent would not have been able to complete his intent to commit suicide because of this...
Ordinarily a person who starts into motion the events with a suicide intent ultimately commits suicide even though the mechanism might be not what he intended. That he was shot on the way to certain death nine stories below probably would not change his mode of death from suicide to homicide, but the fact that his suicide intent would not have been achieved under any circumstance caused the medical examiner to feel that he had homicide on his hands...
Further investigation led to the discovery that the room on the 9th floor from whence the shotgun blast emanated was occupied by an elderly man and his wife. He was threatening her with the shotgun because of an interspousal spat and became so upset that he could not hold the shotgun straight. Therefore, when he pulled the trigger, he completely missed his wife, and the pellets went through the window, striking the decedent.
When one intends to kill subject A, but kills subject B in the attempt, one is guilty of the murder of subject B. The old man was confronted with this conclusion, but both he and his wife were adamant in stating that neither knew that the shotgun was loaded. It was the longtime habit of the old man to threaten his wife with an unloaded shotgun. He had no intent to murder her; therefore, the killing of the decedent appeared then to be accident. That is, the gun had been accidentally loaded...
But further investigation turned up a witness that their son was seen loading the shotgun approximately six weeks prior to the fatal accident. That investigation showed that the mother (the old lady) had cut off her son's financial support, and her son, knowing the propensity of his father to use the shotgun threateningly, loaded the gun with the expectation that the father would shoot his mother. The case now becomes one of murder on the part of the son for the death of Ronald Opus...
Further investigation revealed that the son became increasingly despondent over the failure of his attempt to get his mother murdered. This led him to jump off the ten story building on March 23, only to be killed by a shotgun blast through a 9th story window.
The medical examiner closed the case as a suicide.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
by David W. Andersen