Posts Tagged ‘Progressivism
If the NAACP was ever actually an organization dedicated to the advancement of colored people, I am certainly too young to remember. Throughout my adult life it seems the NAACP is nothing more than a mouthpiece for the liberal/progressive political wing. If “colored people” happen to align with their politics, great. But anything not part of the official Democrat platform is ignored or outright opposed.
A great example of this last is the NAACP opposition to school choice laws, which have been shown as fairly successful for black children in many communities. You would think an organization supposedly dedicated to helping advance black people would actually want to help advance black children, but since Democrats oppose school choice, you would be wrong to assume so.
In the latest bit of whacky weirdness, the NAACP organized a march to protest voter ID laws. Prior to the march, they distributed a flyer with DOs and DON’Ts. One of the DOs? “Bring photo identification and keep it on you at all times”
In my present state of mind, I am beyond the point of feeling angry about this. The hypocrisy among political power players is so rampant, so obvious, so egregious that I just can’t help but laugh.
Maybe I am laughing the laugh of the damned.
A week or so ago, President Obama made headlines by declaring he’s “got a pen” and “got a telephone” and calling 2014 a year of action! My first thought was, “Gee, Batman must be jealous of your high tech gadgets Mr. President.” My second thought was that Obama was actually threatening to bypass the Constitutional role of Congress by acting unilaterally wherever possible.
In case there was any doubt about the President’s commitment to Executive action, the White House has doubled down on its promise to circumvent Congress.
One of the many interesting sub-plots of the 2014 election year is the possibility that Congress may welcome its first openly gay Republican.
Dan Innis is running for a House seat in New Hampshire. He is a businessman, entrepreneur, Dean of the Whittemore School of Business and Economics, and is married to a man. It was his husband who convinced him to run, saying “You’ve got to do this” to see if Innis could “make a difference.”
Richard Tisei is running again for a House seat in Massachusetts. He lost by just 1 point in the general election to John Tierney, and will face him again this time around. He has already served as a state senator. He is also married to a man.
Carl DeMaio is running for a House seat in California. He is a businessman who provided training and consulting specifically to financially-troubled government entities to help them become more efficient. He has also served as a city councilman for San Diego. At the time of writing this I do not know if DeMaio is married to his partner, but it is my understanding they have been together for six years.
None of these men are making their sexuality part of their campaign. It will be interesting to see what the liberals do, should these men make it through the GOP primaries. Kevin has often pointed out that liberals reveal their ultimate hypocrisy when faced with an opponent who would traditionally be a liberal. As a living example, DeMaio and his partner were booed while walking in the Gay Pride parade, because DeMaio is a Republican and was running for Mayor.
As President Obama rolls out his poorly-named “Promise Zones” (sounds like something a male adolescent would come up with to name a body part), progressives around the nation are simultaneously pushing for higher minimum wage — places like New York, Detroit, and SeaTac have recently had protests and/or legislation passed over higher minimum wage, just to name a few. And the U.S. Senate has mentioned a “$10-ish” federal minimum wage. By the way, it’s not just progressive liberals pushing for it — in Washington state, a self-described Republican is pushing for $15/hour minimum wage. The article calls him a “conservative”, but we all recognize his progressive ideology.
“Income inequality” is shaping up to be the big 2014 liberal campaign platform. The progressives want to re-frame the debate as a humanitarian rather than an economic one. Democrats hope they can ride this horse to victory, and probably even keep riding it through 2016. Never mind the fact that they are essentially admitting to buying votes.
In any free market system, the cost of labor is an input which impacts the final price of goods sold and services rendered. By artificially inflating minimum wage, Democrats promise us a better life for those at the bottom of the wage scale, but the tradeoff a higher cost to produce goods and services. This increase in cost will work its way into the economy in one of three main ways:
- Higher prices for consumers to obtain a good or service (essentially a hidden tax on consumption)
- Less innovation and production and employment growth, due to more business resources being allocated to existing labor
- Lost jobs due to companies moving production overseas, or in the case of business that can’t move overseas, more automation or just plain lower quality of service
Additionally, when minimum wage goes up, it tends to drive all wages up across the board. This exacerbates the above outcomes across the entire economy.
When fast-food workers in 100+ cities went on strike a few weeks ago, they probably never thought their jobs were replaceable. After all, how do you make food without humans? May I present to you, the robot that makes nearly 400 burgers an hour:
With the Olympics on everyone’s television, what better way to highlight the true idiocy of Obama’s “you didn’t build that” comment than with a brand new meme.
Hey Missy Franklin, Michael Phelps, Gabby Douglas and all the other gold medalists… in the spirit of President Obama’s theory on human success… you didn’t win that! Somebody else made that happen! After all, you couldn’t possibly have been successful without the roads and bridges that allowed you to reach the pool and the gym! The focus, the training, the countless hours of dedication… that nice but it’s barely a footnote to the contribution of the government!
No rational person would agree with the paragraph above. And yet, millions of dutifully ignorant Obama supporters see nothing wrong with the application of the same theory towards business owners. It’s madness.
Not everyone can be an gold medalist. Can we agree that these exceptional men and women are indeed born with a natural affinity for their sport? Is it OK to acknowledge that nature does play a role in the creation of an Olympic athlete?
Not everyone can be a business owner either. It takes a certain kind of person to be successful in business, and it takes an awful lot of focus and dedication. Well beyond the level of “hard work” that most non-business-owners — including President Obama — assume is necessary.
The great thing about a truly FREE country is that we don’t all have to be superstar athletes or exceptionally wealthy business owners to be successful. But in that same vein, we should not castigate those folks simply because their success is different than ours, or because we feel inadequate by comparison, or “cheated” by the system. No, we should be celebrating the success of American entrepreneurial exceptionalism the same way we celebrate our phenomenal athletes.
If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.
So said President Obama in a particularly revealing address on Friday. Obama has been blasted lately for going so negative, and the full speech reads mostly like the “Hope and Change” he ran on in 2008. I have to wonder if this and other remarks were the result of an unfortunate TOTUS malfunction. It always seems Obama is most revealing when he is unscripted.
In any case, there is no doubt that Obama meant this as a shot at those who consider their success to be of their own making. The overall theme of his speech was that nobody is successful without some kind of help, especially help from the government. Unfortunately, Mr. President, somewhere around 24 million small business owners may disagree.
Throughout his speech, Obama reveals an obvious bias against pro-business economic theory, not to mention an unprecedented level of ignorance on the requirements of successful entrepreneurship. Here are some examples:
And on their side, they’ve got a basic theory about how you grow the economy. And the theory is very simple: They think that the economy grows from the top down. So their basic theory is, if wealthy investors are doing well then everybody does well.
Obama is displaying his reliance on demagoguery by willfully distorting the economic theory most conservatives refer to as “Reaganomics.” The so-called “top-down” or “trickle-down” theory has very little to do with wealthy investors, and everything to do with the production of value to the consumer.
Think about it this way: do business owners get rich just because they open a business? On the contrary. Most small businesses require a minimum of tens of thousands of dollars of investment to start — often financed in whole or in part out of the owner’s pocket — and at least one-third of them fail within 2 years. Anybody can open their own business, but that alone does not translate into success or wealth.
Unless you have powerful friends in Congress who can subsidize ineptitude, your success in business can only be achieved by creating a value proposition which entices consumers to purchase your good or service. Even then it requires many years of tireless labor and painful sacrifice to achieve success. 40 hour workweeks? Hah! Try 60+. 2 weeks paid vacation? There’s no such thing when you’re the owner. When you own a small business, you’re chained to it for the first several years. Some people never break those bonds.
So why would anybody ever want to own a business? It is the promise of future wealth which entices people to start (and stick with) a business. In the mean time, though, the owner is busy buying materials, producing products or services that people want to buy, and creating jobs. As economist Thomas Sowell has observed, “Reaganomics” is actually not “trickle-down” in practice. The money goes to the suppliers and employees and the value goes to the consumers BEFORE the owner get wealthy — if they ever get wealthy at all! Only after years of successful enterprise will the typical business owner ever truly enjoy above average wealth.
Obviously, this economic theory has nothing to do with wealthy investors as Obama characterizes. It has everything to do with producing value to the consumer, and the presence of a profit motive on the part of the business owner. Unfortunately for all of us, Obama and his progressive cabal seem woefully incapable of comprehending this relatively simple idea.
Look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.
Apparently, Obama is saying that being hardworking and smart is not sufficient for achieving success, which makes me wonder, what exactly is Obama’s measure for success? Surely there are millions of Americans who are not business owners and not “wealthy” who can nevertheless be considered successful by most standards. What kind of message is the President sending about success?
But returning to the core point, the President is right that there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. While hard work can create success for employees, hard work alone is not sufficient to create success for a business owner. Studies have proven what successful business owners already know — the secret to great success goes beyond just dedication, requiring higher levels of sacrifice as well as focused improvement.
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life.
I’m not going to bash teachers. Teaching is tough, often thankless work. But if all that was needed to be successful was having a “great teacher somewhere in your life,” there would be virtually zero unsuccessful people in this country. At some point in their lives, almost EVERYONE has had a great teacher. I remember having undisputed “great teachers” in high school and college, but not everyone got A’s and not everyone who went through their classroom ended up being successful.
Don’t get me wrong. Most accomplished people do have some person or some event to thank for planting the seeds of success. But the cultivation of those seeds into something fruitful is another story entirely. I can say that my own success had very little to do with my education and a whole lot to do with my work ethic and my business savvy. I can thank my parents for planting the seed, but it took hours upon hours of hard work well beyond a 40 hour workweek to bear fruit
Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges.
I always love when liberals give the government extra credit for performing the basic duties with which the government is tasked. But even this argument this is spurious.
Giving the government credit for successful commerce because they build roads would be like Wal Mart giving their building contractor credit for selling me a DVD. Roads weren’t conceptualized by the government. We The People chose the government to be responsible for our road building. If not the government, We The People would find some other way to have roads built because roads are essential to our lives.
The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
False. Actually, the government was one of the main sponsors of a project by MIT called ARPAnet, which is widely (but incorrectly) considered the original Internet. However, an “internet” is a connection of multiple networks, whereas ARPAnet was simply a single network. The MIT research was responsible for some of the underlying technology, but comparing ARPAnet to the Internet is like comparing oil lamps to LED light bulbs.
At the time ARPAnet was being created, other institutions were already researching ways to connect computers together across short and long distances. ARPA got there first, possibly due to a larger influx of capital; at the time, the U.S. government was worried about being technological underdogs after the Soviets launched the Sputnik project. Nevertheless, anyone who says the Internet would never exist were it not for the government is certainly wrong.
Most objective observers agree that it really wasn’t until the government got out of the way, thereby opening the Internet up for private investment, that the World Wide Web was truly born. This is illustrated by the fact that the government’s own standards agency (OSI) actually tried to shut the door on the very same network communications protocol standards (TCP/IP) which are in use by all of us using the Internet today. They believed the technology would never work.
Beyond that, consider the underlying infrastructure supporting the Internet. Data travels across a huge network of fiber optic cables. Cables conceptualized and fabricated by private corporations, installed and maintained largely by private corporations, and funded by well over a trillion dollars of private investments, primarily from Wall Street.
At the very most, we could say the government accidentally helped encourage some of the basic technology of the precursor to the first version of the Internet while throwing money at any project that might have military application to counter the Soviets. After that, it’s at least plausible that the government’s role actually inhibited the development of the Internet we know today.
More to the Story?
By now, Obama’s ideological proclivities should come as no surprise. But reading his remarks, I am suddenly struck by another thought:
Consider his argument; the U.S. has the greatest system in the world, yet even here, people cannot be successful without help from the government. “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.” What does that say about this country, this world, and humanity in general? Not much faith in mankind there!
Does Obama’s speech reveal something deeper, something on a personal level? What kind of life experiences must a person have to hold such a belief? Is Obama telling us that his own successes are owed to others? Did he accidentally reveal that he was the beneficiary of some government initiative, perhaps affirmative action? Or maybe that someone else, like Bill Ayers, wrote Dreams From My Father?
The self-proclaimed language police of the progressive left have now decided that using the term “illegal alien” is inherently racist and inhuman, and damages the immigration debate. The leaders of this movement are asking that everybody stop using the term altogether. For once, the left got it right… sort of.
Set aside for a moment the sheer absurdity of grouping “illegal alien” together with the “N-word.” Set aside the fact that illegal alien gangs have themselves been committing racially-motivated violence (mostly against blacks) for years. Set aside the irony of the left claiming they are “humanizing” a debate while simultaneously branding millions of people as racists simply for using a factual term.
I actually agree with the left that the term “illegal alien” should be dropped. I even go so far as to generally agree with their statement that “people are not illegal.”Allow me to explain.
Punching someone in the face for no reason is illegal, but we do not refer to that person as an “illegal pugilist“. Selling drugs is illegal, but we do not refer to the dealer as an “illegal businessman”. Stealing is illegal, but we do not refer to the thief as an “illegal acquisition specialist.”
Typically, we refer to people’s ACTIONS as being illegal, not the people themselves. The people who commit those illegal actions? We call them criminals.
But what about the charge of racism? I can actually see how someone might object to being called an illegal alien on racial grounds. After all, in today’s society, “alien” has a much different connotation than it did a few hundred years ago.
It kind of makes sense that folks would find racial overtones in being compared to funny looking beings with odd colored skin and strange facial features.
The left would have us replace “illegal alien” with a term like “undocumented immigrant”, or “unauthorized immigrant.” Nevermind that these terms are contradictory, since being an “immigrant” to the United States implies both documentation and authorization. It’s kind of like saying bureaucratic efficiency, or political ethics, or progressive socialism.
Then there’s the hilariously ludicrous replacement term “NAFTA refugee,” which apparently has been coined to give the progressive left a succinct way to blame U.S. capitalism for the plight of Mexican citizens… you know, rather than the systemic corruption of their government, dysfunctional legal system, and rampant drug violence. But that’s another story.
The left is right though: it’s time to drop the I-word. It’s time to stop using the term “illegal alien,” because it lacks sufficient accuracy and context. Instead, I propose we all start using a far more descriptive term to describe those who cross our borders illegally; a term which may have even been coined right here on this very site two years ago:
As I said before, “criminal” is a much more correct and accurate way to describe a person who commits an illegal act than as an “illegal”. And using the word “Entrant” simply describes an action, thereby avoiding the inaccurate and contradictory use of “immigrant,” as well as the racial component of comparing people to little green men (or huge, scary, acid-spitting harbingers of death).
So today, let’s acknowledge that words are indeed important. Let’s follow the lead of our friends on the progressive left. Let’s agree that “illegal alien” is inaccurate, insufficient, and possibly charged with interplanetary racism.
Today, let’s begin using the far more accurate and race-neutral term of criminal entrant.
I decided to post this because of two stories I heard last week.
The first was about Keith Olbermann dejectedly wandering Central Park. Obviously the article is making many assumptions about Olbermann’s state of mind with very little direct evidence. However, Olbermann has certainly had a turbulent career, and his firing from CurrentTV (not to mention his failure to draw the expected viewers) was just the latest in a long string of fiery exits.
I can’t say that Olbermann has “hit rock bottom,” But his career does seem to be coming unglued. The interesting thing to me is that Olbermann is worth tens of millions of dollars. Yet here he is, wandering through Central Park almost as if he’s seeking the validation of being recognized by a random stranger. “Am I still relevant?” he might be wondering.
Normally I wouldn’t be focusing on a rich person who might be depressed. But Olbermann is a progressive. A believer in social justice. A redistributionist. A man who seems to think we can solve all the country’s problems by taking money from the wealthy and giving it to progressive government to redistribute as they see fit. And yet here he is, more money than 99.999% of the world, and still unhappy. It just goes to show you that if you think money is the answer to your problems, you’re wrong.
The second story was about Mel Gibson absolutely losing his mind (language warning). Mel Gibson is a very talented actor. Anyone who hasn’t seen it should pick up We Were Soldiers for a great movie and a great performance by Gibson. It’s one of those films that brings tears to a grown man’s eyes.
Unfortunately for Mel, being a rich, famous, talented actor is not enough to maintain even the most basic level of rational behavior. In his latest rant, he sounded like the grown-up version of a child throwing a giant temper tantrum, as if yelling and using entire breaths to say a single word somehow makes his point more relevant.
Was it fueled by alcohol? Is Mel Gibson psychotic? I can’t say for sure, but it would certainly seem that after a very messy breakup and so many tapes of insane rage coming to light that Mel is well on his way to rock bottom, at least in terms of human behavior.
Although I’ve used two celebrities in this post, it’s not just the rich and famous who suffer from this sort of behavior. Every now and then you hear stories about rich folks who throw their lives away on foolishness, or even commit suicide for no apparent reason. I bet it happens a lot more than anyone realizes, but we don’t hear about it because the people aren’t famous.
Which brings me back to my original point. Progressives would have us believe that money is the key to happiness. Class warfare is their game. They try to make it a fight between the “haves” and the “have-nots”. But “what shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” Or in Mel’s case, his mind? If progressives are correct that redistributing money is the key to happiness, then why are so many rich people unhappy?
It’s actually dehumanizing to suggest that happiness can be purchased like a commodity. If you have a hole in your heart, you can’t fill it with “stuff”. Sure, being poor can be stressful. I know, I used to be fairly poor. I used to have debt. But by God I worked my way out of that hole and I’m a better man for it. I dare say that if Uncle Sam had been there to bail me out with someone else’s money, he would have stolen a piece of my humanity at the same time.
What say you?
For years now I have been engaging in arguments with various lefties, from the typical casual liberal to the committed progressive to the more complicated personally-conservative social liberal (who never lowers themselves personally to the liberal standard, but is nonetheless outwardly supportive of liberalism for social connections or career reasons).
I am big on facts. The lefties I argue with are big on empty rhetoric. For years my initial reaction to any point made by a leftie is to bombard them with facts that completely and utterly destroy their argument. I thought that this was successful. To a certain extent, it is. I’ve never met a single leftie who could best me on the facts – I suppose this is because the vast, vast majority of lefties aren’t big on rational thought. I’ve even had people come up to me later and privately thank me for arguing with so-and-so, and that they themselves weren’t brave enough to stand up and do it for fear of losing a friend or whatever.
But the “success”, if you can call it that, was limited. Yes, I had won on paper, but it didn’t FEEL like a victory. My opponent left with the same absurdly smug aura of self-proclaimed righteousness with which he came. My cascading litany of facts and reason had fallen on deaf ears. I began to believe that these folks were unreachable, unbeatable. It did not matter how right I was or how wrong they were because their close-mindedness and intellectual bigotry would never allow them to engage in a substantive debate on the issues.
To someone like me, this defied logic. I am so driven by a desire to continually pursue the truth that it’s almost impossible for me to comprehend a person who can ignore that truth. But eventually it hit me: liberals do not see truth in the same terms as I do. Whether they realize it or not, whether they intended to or not, their ideology engages in explicit or de facto moral relativism. To them, “right and wrong” does not exist on a fixed linear scale.
To them, the ends justify the means.
In other words, “facts” are not absolute (and, therefore, not “facts” at all but rather tools for achieving a goal). No wonder these people were not swayed by my data. They naturally assumed that any fact with which I presented them was merely a tool that *I* was using to achieve my goal… because that’s what they would do in my position. This little intellectual loophole allows them to maintain their belief in their own righteousness no matter how many facts or rational counter-arguments are presented to destroy their ideology.
In a way, it’s bloody brilliant.
So lately my strategy has been shifting. Partly because I grew tired of long, relentless arguments in which I contributed copious amounts of detail only to have it cast aside or countered with some mind-numbingly inane bit of shallow “wisdom”. Partly because Breitbart identified the strategy first and began utilizing it himself.
Now, I just ask lefties to explain themselves. I simply ask “Why?”
Breitbart was brilliant, really. When he talked about challenging the left with the simple idea of asking them to rationalize their position, he explained that it naturally puts them on the defensive. Liberals aren’t used to having to explain themselves. They just dutifully repeat whatever glib talking point they happened to pick up that day, “RAAAAACIIIIIIIIIISSSSSSTTTT!!!!” being the most common lately. “Tax the rich!” is quickly taking over now that Romney is the presumptive nominee.
For a few months now I’ve been working on this. I admit, it’s hard for me. Pithiness is not my strong suit. But I have to say, it has yielded results. I do get a sweet satisfaction seeing lefties stumble over their own rationale, and it actually makes picking them apart easier. Where I used to deploy “shock and awe”, now I’m a careful sniper. I lure them onto my turf, let them think they can beat me at my own game, and then watch as they tangle themselves up in their own web of unsubstantiated rhetoric.
I can’t claim to have changed minds, but the strategy has definitely forced them to soften their argument. Where initially they were fervent in their position, by the end of the conversation they are subdued, even backtracking from their original stance. One person I recently debated even went from condemning all Republicans at the outset to openly calling for bipartisanship at the end.
This is not to say that simply asking “why?” is a complete substitute for facts and figures. On the contrary. While the typical “casual liberal” will never be able to explain his position, and you can dismantle him with very little effort, the committed progressive will actually be able to take it to the next level. He will come with a basic set of information with which to support his ideology. But remember, he will have one, or maybe two volleys at most. If you have three, you will probably win. If you have 5, you’re almost guaranteed a victory.
So know your stuff, friends, but I encourage you to try this out next time you’re arguing with a leftie. Channel your inner two-year-old. Make them enter your domain, make them commit to your playing field, make them explain WHY they are right, and please do report back and let us know how it goes!
Hey folks, happy Monday!
In case anybody out there missed it, a week ago the SCOTUS began hearing oral arguments on Obamacare. Over three days they heard 6 hours of testimony and, based on the reaction of the Democrat spinsters, I think even the Obama camp is worried he mandate or the entire law may be struck down. Check out the Wall Street Journal for the 5 Take-Aways of the Obamacare hearings.
Thanks to the couple of folks who linked to an update on Olbermann’s firing from Current TV (previous HillBuzz write-up: Olbermann Fired). The main goodie from this article is that Olbermann supposedly complained about his car service because the drivers spoke to him and “smelled”. I wonder how many of the 99%-ers who idolize Olbermann have car services? And I wonder just how far in to the 1% you have to be before you feel elitist enough to complain about your car service?
One of the commentors here alerted us to this story on Breitbart: Shockingly, the left and the media are silent when conservative women are treated similarly to Ms. Fluke. Actually, truth be told, although I do not agree with Rush’s comments, he probably had more grounds to make the ‘slut’ accusation than anybody had to make these comments about Lt. Governor Rebecca Kleefisch. After all, it was Ms. Fluke who chose to put her sexual opinions on very public display. All Lt. Gov Kleefisch did was be a conservative woman elected BY THE PEOPLE to public office.
The emperor is truly naked folks. I’ve come to a realization. By and large, besides doing a lot of research, blogging every now and then, and arguing with friends and family, I’ve basically just been waiting for the media to “fix itself”. Not by magic of course, but I always envisioned that the business model would collapse as they continued to lose eyeballs and they would be forced to become more fair, more honest, etc.
However, the book I’m currently reading (and will review here soon), along with Shakedown Socialism, has made me realize that my belief in the inevitability of said outcome is a fantasy. It is not inevitable. In fact, I’m starting to see that the odds are actually stacked the other direction. Throughout history, the “inevitability” is that the media and the government become increasingly intertwined, and the media become MORE corrupt as a result.
Of course I’ve known this for years, but I never believed it could be possible here in the USA. I never believed that insidious forces could sneak in and take over. But that is happening even as I type this. Media collusion, distributed progressive talking points, voter fraud, and Lord knows what else! Maybe we’ll post a list someday of all the ways the progressive left is working to destroy everything that you and I love and take for granted about this country.
You see, most of us conservatives just want to be left alone to live our lives, raise our families, help our neighbors, etc. We don’t like the government intruding in our lives, but along with that comes a desire to not to have to get involved beyond our civic duty of voting and maybe the occasional argument or debate with a family member, friend, or MAYBE even a coworker.
HillBuzz is a microcosm of the conservative populace. For every person who comments here regularly, there are thousands who do not. For every person who comments here occasionally, there are hundreds upon hundreds who never comment. We have some very dedicated folks among us. We have readers and contributors who even get involved in the races. But those of you who do that are in the minority.
I wonder, even among those of us who are highly involved, how many of us are actively working to reverse our slide into socialism? How many of us are actively working to try to force the main stream media to change? I admit, beyond blogging and some debating with folks, I don’t really even know how to go about doing that. How many of you out there have ideas on how we can go after the media? We would love to hear from you. And we would really love to hear from anyone who has been lurking for awhile but never or rarely comments.
What else is on your minds this Monday?