SamSaid!

Gary Kasparov is not a household name in the USAas it is in much of the rest of the civilized world. He is a Russian intellectual author and the primary voice of the dissidents who oppose the policies and leadership of Vladimir Putin.  He is a contributor to the Wall St. Journal. His international fame rests on his having been  the International chess champion for several years.  But for his celebrity status he might well be languishing in a Russian Gulag somewhere in Siberia.

Here is his take on Mr.Obama.

” Like many Russians, I was encouraged by Mr Obama’s inspirational speech in Moscow last July, but he must know there is more to statesmanship than printing money making speeches.  Inflated rhetoric like inflated currency, can lead to disaster. The goodwill bubble Mt Obama is creating will burst unless there are real results soon.”   10/19/09

Twenty years ago, MargaretThatcher, the British Iron Lady offered some cogent comments about “consensus”.  She said, ” To me consensus seems to be to process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies in search of something in which no one believes but to which no one objects  —   the process of avoiding the very issues that have to be solved merely because you cannot get agreement on the way ahead. What great cause would have been fought and won under the banner, ” I stand for consensus”?

Maybe we would only have had 9 colonies instead of 13.

During the next two weeks, Obama and his brain trust will be trying  to develop an Afghan strategy for the war which seems to be going badly or at least not good enough. It doesn’t seem all that long ago when the might Red Army of the USSR packed up their gear and walked away from Afghanistan. Their military defeat in large measure can be attributed to the Stinger missiles supplied to the Afghans by the USA. The Afghan defeat in part led to the disintegration of the old USSR.  Now we face the same dilemna as did the Russians. Do we get out or don’t we? Our military leaders want 40,000 more troops . Obama who is anything but a hawk is reluctant to make such a commitment in “his” war. So,  now we seek a”consensus”. Do we make a major commitment or don’t we?? One thing is for sure  –  the basis of whatever decision is reached will be based on the consensus.  It will not be an Obama decision. The soaring rhetoric has produced nothing and an inexperienced  Obama is in over his head. In short, he doesn’t know what to do. Keep looking for the word “we”. Brain picking is OK, But Harry Truman had it right, “The buck stops here”.

Back in my growing up days, a favorite saying was “robbing Peter to Pay Paul”. No harm done, no winner and no loser.  Well, sort of. But now that old saying hs been converted into a political philosophy.  The Dems now champion the cause of  “share the wealth” and “Re-distribution of income” . They make it sound like a fair policy.  On the road to Socialism, what could be more fair, and certainly, Paul will not complain as long as Peter is paying the bills and providing the cash.   How close to outright theft is this nifty little slight of hand?  Does the graduated income tax follow the theme??  Sounds like it to me!!

Our country faces some big complicated problems and there is no shortage of gurus and self styled experts offering  advice on all sorts of issues day after day. And there are all kinds of periodicals citing their own expertise on everything. You name it  –  foreign policy,  taxes, medical reform, same sex marriage, sex scandals, Social Security, baseball,  trillion dollar deficits, political appointments, judges, etc etc etc. But for most of us, the problem is always who to believe?  Is it fact or another con job?

Some years back, a canny old timer gave me some good advice  —  advice that I have followed faithfully. He said “The best OP/ED pages in the country are in the Wall Street Journal. When in doubt, follow the WSJ”.  Pretty good advice  –  they don’t go wrong very many times. We have survived Slick Wille and now live with BamBam and company. Any time we want to fix the educational system, just make the WSJ required reading. Maybe not for Fashion or Sports but everything else. Especially in election years.

The watchword of the Obama campaign was “Change”  –  BIG change.  And his efforts are now being put to the test. “Change ” is a good word. It conveys a positive connotation. ” I am for change, change is good, so vote for me”. And he rode the wave of change all the way to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Gotta hand it to him.

Fundamentally, there are two ways of achieving major political (governmental) change. The quick route is by force. Overthrow the status quo  –  seize power by force –  suppress or suspend individual freedoms  –  enhance the role of big government  –  limit the power of the press  –  create the police state.

THAT’S CALLED REVOLUTION

The second way to implement major change  is more gradual and more peaceful but just as devastating.  Control Congress and the court system.  Enlist a friendly media. Downplay individual freedoms and rights. Stress the “common good”. Dominate the TV and written media sources.  Attack the successful people and criticize wealth. Apologize for our competitive successes. Share the wealth and redistribute income.

THAT’S CALLED TAXATION

Sound familiar?  We are witnessing a major try at Choice # 2

It was a surprise when Sarah Palin resigned as Governor of Alaska.  It was not a surprise when Big Media jumped all over her and her family for doing the wrong thing at the wrong time.  Still acting on the campaign strategy of  “Destroy Sarah at all costs” they could not resist the temptation to further attack and belittle her and her family members in the press and TV.

All people do things for a reason.  Sometimes a good reason, sometimes not.  Sometimes several reasons  –  good ones and bad ones. Maybe she cited all of her reasons, and maybe we will have to await  further explanations from her.  In the meantime our public word merchants continue to criticize and show that their main source of exercise is jumping at conclusions.   But we haven’t heard the last of Sarah. Lost among all of the criticisms of the Lady is the plain fact that she struck a responsive chord in much of the populace –  women and men, and Reps and Dems.

I think I”ll wait. Time is on my side.  Sic em,  Sarah.

To many people, Michael Jackson was a larger than life entertainer and public figure and the ceremonies and rallies following his death are understandable  –  at least up to a point. While conceding his talents, there are many others who think that 5-6 days of saturation TV are a bit much.  To many of us who can either take or leave his showmanship, a week of glorification is about 3-4 days too long. At best, his legacy will be a mixed bag, notwithstanding the current attempts to smokescreen his eccentricities.

Let’s all give him his due, and bring down the curtain.

A few days ago I ran across an interesting article on the Business Page of the AM newspaper.  It seems that Valero, the largest refiner of oil in the USA, has made a sizeable investment in a windmill farm to generate electricity. For years the Greenies have sung the song of clean power from air –  windmills. And recently, T Boone Pickens spend a small (maybe not so small) fortune exrolling the virtues of wind power.  So, the Greenies would understandingly support the idea of a member of Big Oil investing in wind turbines to generate electricity.

But it turns out that there is more to this story than meets the eye. The power to be generated by Valero wind turbines is not for general utility purposes; rather, the wind turbine power is to be used to supplement the needs of the refinery and thus make the refining process more efficient. Imagine  –  Big Oil using wind power to supplement the electricity produced from fossil fuel.

Most energy experts consider wind power as a supplememt to our basic sources of energy. Not a replacement  –  just a supplement. The Valero experiment would seem to make the case   –  at least to most sensible people. Oh yes, wind turbines now provide maybe 2% of our current energy needs.  If the Greenies are cheering, what are they cheering about??

Sometime back I offered the thought that the one term most despised by left wing liberals is “Re-distribution of income, or wealth”. While dreaming up their great social schemes they are frequently challenged (rightly so) by the simple question  –  how do we pay for all this?? And in an effort to avoid that ultimate question, the like to play semantics. Think about it.  “Fairness, equality, affirmative action, sharing the wealth, upward mobility, diversity, affordability, and the list goes on. But when you cut through the fog, it all comes down to taking from some citizens and giving to others. Now, the Democrats deeply despise admitting that  –  so they look for other ways to describe the process. Imaginative semantics.

Let’s face it, you can’t get a lot of money from people who don’t pay taxes anyway. That leaves the rest of us who do. I’d feel a lot better if we just called a spade a spade rather than the flimsy lingo clearly intended to disguise the arithmetic facts of life.  And then we have a Prez who likes to tell people that they have the RIGHT to enjoy largess paid by someone else.   So when you see these catch words listed above, just remember that when the code is broken, redistribution of wealth remains  the goal of Obama economics. All of this under the umbrella of “change”. They would have you believe that redistribution is a kind word. Think again.