It is a fact that I probably align with Sean Hannity on most matters relating to politics, the economy and social issues. That said, I have just about had my fill of listening to him on the radio or watching him on TV. And I actually don’t do either very often.
Among the reasons why I have reached this point is because he rarely says anything new. Whenever I listen to or watch him he is railing on the very same subjects that he did during the presidential primaries over a year ago. And he incessantly brings up the same well worn arguments about why he dislikes and distrusts Barack Hussein Obama. I honestly feel like if I do not listen to or watch Hannity for a couple of weeks and then catch one of this programs, that I will not have missed a single thing. In so many ways, it is like the Bill Murray movie Ground Hog Day.
Now, like a dog with a bone, Hannity is absolutely obsessed with the fact that B.H.O. is going to Denmark to lobby for the 2016 Olympic Summer Games to be held in Chicago. Apparently, Hannity would prefer that Obama stay at home and tend to, and I assume resolve, such matters as unemployment, finalizing a military strategy for Afghanistan and leading the process of crafting a health care reform compromise that the president rhetorically claims to want. The reality is that Obama will be on this “mission” to Denmark for just a matter of hours. But evidently Hannity feels like these few hours away from the Oval Office are sufficiently distracting so as to really put a dent in the president’s ability to manage the problems facing the country. And this line of reasoning also presupposes that the president cannot be attending to these matters while travelling.
Using reductio ad absurdum (reduction to the absurd) applied to Hannity’s contention, I suppose that we should be attempting to keep track of the hours that Obama sleeps, or grooms, or exercises, or eats, all with the expectation that he cut back on each of these, so as to devote more attention to ”other pressing matters” as Hannity refers to them. During his television show this evening, Hannity tried to get his guests to bite on this trip to Denmark, but even the conservative, a role played tonight by Dana Perino, former Press Secretary to President Bush, would not take the bait. Good for her.
Former President Jimmy Carter, the man whose time in office people in his own party would like to forget, has surfaced again. This time, he is making outrageous claims that even the White House has disavowed based on pure common sense, if not common decency. You can listen to Carter’s absurd comments HERE (along with those of Brian Williams, who seems to think he got a great scoop with this interview, so good in fact that he aired at least this segment of the larger interview before its originally scheduled time).
The question I have for President Carter is this…if there is, as he insists some pervasive racist mindset in the country that holds that an African American is ”not qualified to lead this great country”, how exactly did the current president get elected?
Does it make any sense whatsoever, that all of the “racists” in our country (who according to Carter now so numerous that they are jeopardizing the implementation of health care reform), would lay down their racist sentiments for the purpose of electing an African American to the presidency, and then take those sentiments up again when he begins to govern? Nonsense!
What a contrast in styles we have in these three headline-grabbing examples over this past weekend by our cultural icons in sports and entertainment.
First, on Saturday a profanity laced outburst takes place in a stadium holding thousands, during a live television broadcast, with an audience of perhaps millions. Her tyrade and subsequent point loss, that lead to match loss, paved the way for the eventual winner of the Women’s Championship of the U.S. Open, and may well cost her a bundle of money in penalties and forfeiture of prize winnings.
And then on Sunday night there was this. Maintaining his reputation for being outrageous in conduct and utterly mindless in comment, this knuckleheads’ ridiculous behavior got him literally thrown out theater where the awards were being presented and even has his fellow celebrities calling him a variety of unflattering names.
A gesture that was not at all required on her part, but demonstrating a graciousness that stands in stark contrast to the misdeeds of the other two. Well done Beyonce!
Readers of JT’s blog are already aware the subject of this post. But for those who are not familiar with that blog, here is a LINK to an article in the September issue of The Atlantic Online. It is written by a man named David Goldhill, who identifies himself as a Democrat and a business executive. It is a long article; over 10,000 words and it will take you some time to go through it. However, this is the most powerful and informative thing that I have seen yet on the broad subject of health care in the United States, and its institutionalized problems, that are in fact in need of reform. As the writer of the article notes though, virtually nothing that is being discussed by Congress now, comes even close to fixing the fundamental problems with our health care system.
This article stands so far and above all of the other highly partisan/politicized rhetoric, that I emphatically encourage you to read this thing carefully. My linking to it is not to suggest that I agree with all of his recommendations. But his is the first voice of reason that I have heard among all of the other conversations about this very hot topic.
Stand up and stretch, grab a cup of coffee and dig in. You will be amazed. At least I was.
With the scheduled piped-in address by President Obama to school children around the nation next week, we step over a line that I don’t believe has been crossed in this country, ever. That is, of having a sitting president deliver a message directly to school children, on a forced basis, accompanied by a White House provided curricula, designed to augment whatever message Obama intends to supply.
While this approach by a U.S. President is best described as untested, it is not without precedent. The heads of state of the former Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea (the Dear Leader), and Venezuela have all spoken to the school children of their nations. One can only conclude that the rationale for such an approach is to communicate an age appropriate message, that leans favorably in support of that leader’s policies. Is there ANY reason to believe that Obama would approach this with a different motive? The short answer for those pondering the question is “NO.” And naturally, this will be pulled off without parental consent or the ability to provide an informed response in reaction to it. It seems to me that this is a form of indoctrination cloaked in the trappings of providing encouragement, or inspiration. Irrespective of a parent’s political leanings, this cannot be viewed as a good thing.
And for those who believe it is not possible to indoctrinate children, watch this. (In answer to the question in the title of the video…..CREEPY!)
Posted by Chuck 
Posted by Chuck 
Posted by Chuck 
