This post is what you might call a sincere attempt at flattery. Every once in a while, the conservative writer Thomas Sowell posts a column entitled Random Thoughts, the most recent being today's, in which he briefly discusses a bunch of different topics. This is the same type of post, except that I will call it Musings, to be consistent with this blog's subtitle. Since this is my first post of this type, some of the following items are things that I've been thinking about for a while. In any event, with apologies to Dr. Sowell, but with no further ado:
According to an old saying, there are three types of people who spend other people's money - children, politicians and thieves. One thing I have realized is that these three groups are not mutually exclusive.
According to another old saying, fascism will come to the United States under the guise of national security. I would add that if this ever happens, whoever brings fascism to America will accuse (or his supporters will accuse) those who oppose him of being fascist. I also realize that there are some out there who believe fascism is already here, but whether that's true is a topic for another day.
The recent revelation that the Obama administration "accidentally" revealed the name of the CIA chief in Afghanistan has caused some people to recall the Valerie Plame affair. One thing I remember is that the left was hopping mad about the leaking of Plame's name, but directed just about none of their anger at the actual leaker, Richard Armitage.
Even though I would still disagree with his many of his policies, I think that President Obama would be doing a half-decent job if he would govern according to Senator Obama's criticisms of (the second) President Bush.
Another thing I remember about then-Senator Obama is his 2008 statement about a "civilian national security force". More recently, I've read about various federal civilian agencies, even the Department of Agriculture, creating armed divisions. Is this a coincidence, or is something going on here?
Isn't it just a little bit strange how just after acts of violence by one or more muslims, we're told that their actions do not reflect the true "peaceful" Islam, even though the perpetrators often shout "Allahu akbar" in the course of their actions, and even though they sometimes cite Koranic verses to justify what they do? If a bunch of Christians went around committing violent acts while yelling out "praise the Lord" or "Jesus is great", and cited Biblical verses as justification, would Christianity be given the same benefit of the doubt?
Americans are often accused of "intolerance" and "hate" if they don't agree with gay marriage. In Islam, homosexuals aren't merely not allowed to marry, but in parts of of the muslim world, aren't even allowed to live. Even so, it seems that the same side of the aisle who call Americans "intolerant" for opposing gay marriage generally consider Islam to be tolerant.
Come to think of it, can anyone point out any specific culture or society, anywhere in the world, past or present, other than the West, where gay marriage has been officially sanctioned for the general populace?
Supporters of abortion rights will often base their arguments on privacy. Yet at the same time, at least some of them will advocate for public funding of abortions, which would involve my tax dollars. If a woman's pregnancy and "right to choose" are not my business, then how can I be justifiably required to pay for her abortion? If I'm supposed to stay out of her bedroom, why should anyone have the power to force me to toss in my wallet?
If church and state should be separate, it makes no sense to invoke religious teachings about "helping the poor" when trying to justify government spending programs. This is not to say that there shouldn't be government anti-poverty programs, but that such programs are not the same thing as real charity. Let's also not forget that with government programs, much if not most of the money goes to running the program (paying the salaries of bureaucrats, etc.) instead of going to people whose needs the program is intended to serve.
Has anyone else noticed how Democrats like to tell people to be careful about what they say when one of their own is in the White House, but instead talk about the right to dissent when a Republican is president? If a Republican wins in 2016, you can bet that "civility" will go out the window and "don't question my patriotism when I dissent" will again be in vogue.
When anyone talks about "hate" or "special interests" or "big" anything, you can be sure that they have a problem only when it's hate or special interests, etc. that they disagree with. For example, the left loves to complain about "big business", but seems to have no problem with the entertainment industry, which is a huge business. The left will complain about all that money coming from the Koch brothers, and the right will likewise complain about the Steyer brothers.
I don't like it when politicians and elites try to tell us how to conduct our lives, but I would give them a little bit of respect if they were to practice what they preach. For example, I think that the multi-millionaires in Congress who tell us that our wealth must be "redistributed" should offer up their own wealth first. I also would suggest that former Vice President Al Gore and others who would pluck the SUV from my eye first need to pluck the limousines and private jets from their own.
You know that something is messed up when both illegal aliens and terrorists held in GITMO have better health care than our military veterans.
If it were up to me, false accusations of racism would be treated like racial slurs.
OK, that's enough for one post. I'll figure out other things to gripe about somewhere down the road.