WHITHER THE DEMOCRATS?

It is disturbing when one of a country’s major parties takes a radical turn, but that is what we are seeing with the Democrats this year, particularly in terms of their platform. It appears that they are bent on self-destruction, as they have committed to positions far outside of the mainstream. The party is now indistinguishable from European socialists, and has truly become a Social Democratic party. Moderate Democrats have been driven away by the “progressives,” so it is unsurprising that Republicans have reached near parity in party identification, an area where Democrats once had a commanding advantage. They produced a platform  in keeping with statements in a film shown at the convention- that “The Government is the Only Thing We All Belong To.” Most of us would answer that with a resounding NO!  The government belongs to US. 

This kind of collectivist thinking permeates the party’s platform and the mentality of the activist left, which basically is now in control. Apart from this, the platform endorses gay marriage, late term abortion, and until pressed, left out any mention of God for the first time, as well as the status of Jerusalem as Israel’s capitol. I am not taking a position on these question here, but simply noting that they are out of step with the sentiments of a substantial portion of the population. It may be true that nobody pays attention to the platform, but it had clear consequences for the party’s presentation of itself. 

In front of the country there was a voice vote taken three times on restoring God to the platform, and each time the yeas and nays were about the same, only salvaged by a chairman who ignored the lack of a 2/3 vote and declared the affirmative anyway. In a country where upwards of 80% of the population believes in God it only shows how far out of touch they are. You don’t have to be a believer to see the folly in this. 

Then there was the array of speakers, with the old breathy-voiced standbys Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, as well as the blabbermouth Wasserman-Schultz, and the truly nutty Elizabeth Warren. They were joined by various starlets, and incredibly, a woman whose claim to fame is a demand that the rest of us pay for her birth control pills, who was given a prime time speaking slot. The convention came off looking like a conservative caricature of the party, and like the handiwork of someone who wanted to make the Democrats look bad. The Republicans could do worse than simply replay parts of this convention in their advertising. True some of this was offset by the relatively innocuous remarks of Presidents Clinton and Obama, whose speeches reflected very little of the underlying radicalism of the convention. 

The real question is how this is going to play in Ohio.  Why Ohio? Because that is where the election will be decided this year. My guess is that little of this sits well with people in there, but the question is whether they will be aware of it or not, since most people weren’t watching.  Whoever carries Ohio will win. Romney could run the board of toss-up states and still lose if he doesn’t carry Ohio. Similarly, Obama’s re-election prospects dim without Ohio. So on election night when you see who carries Ohio you will know who won the election. 

WebRep

currentVote

noRating

noWeight

EGOMANIA AND POWER

Today’s New York Times, of all places, contains an article about President Obama’s unbridled ego, his hypercompetitiveness, his high opinion of himself, and his need to dominate, even in relatively trivial pursuits. However, “he tends to overestimate his capabilities,” to put it mildly. For a long time I have felt that egomania is one of the most significant negative features of our time, an idea that will be developed in detail subsequently. 

Everything kids are taught and fed today is designed to build and reinforce “self-esteem.”  As a result, we have a population that views itself as the center of the universe, has a sense of entitlement, and often engages in obnoxious behavior as a result. Everything revives around “me,” and “I” is a term you read and hear ad nauseum. The world is viewed entirely through the prism of the self, so that everything is perceived in terms of how it affects or relates to that individual, which determines its place in the hierarchy of values. Everything is perceived in terms of how it relates to "me." So, for example, in the case of an actor who was informed of the death of a friend, his only reaction was to say that he wasn’t feeling so good either, going on to describe a slight pain he had. But if everyone, or at least many people, go around thinking “I am special,” we wind up with things like aggressive driving and road rage when they are not given their proper due behind the wheel. 

But the more severe the pathology, the more one is likely to fall off a cliff at some point, as limitations become unavoidable, and it becomes clear that one is not so special after all. When this recognition is achieved, it essentlally determines how mature a person is, and the best characters learn it sooner rather than later. But a few people go through life never having to deal with a larger reality, as everything they encounter seems to reinforce their special status and confirm their self-perception. It never registers that their situation has come about largely due to luck and they continue to perceive themselves as possessed with some special grace. The result is the kind of megalomania we see with stars and their entourages, or Presidents with their worshipful aides. 

However, under such conditions contradictory information tends to get filtered out, reinforcing a sense of invincibility increasingly divorced from reality. That appears to be what is happening in the White House today, with a President who believes he is always right, the best at everything, and inherently great. He was anointed with a Nobel Prize before he even did anything. He was chosen as “the One” by millions around the world. He was validated by a fawning media, which only confirmed the inevitability of his rise. Thus it is unsurprising that he has an overabundance of confidence. 

There are, however, “facts on the ground.” He is often described as “eloquent,” which only indicates how far our standards of rhetorical quality have fallen. For he is a mediocre man in a time of mediocrity. His idea of the Presidency is all appearance and ceremony rather than substance, so, for example, he left it to the congress to fashion his unpopular health plan, while he has spent his time almost continuously campaigning with agreeable crowds. When there is such a dynamic in Hollywood it is frivolous, but when coupled with real power in government it is frightening. 

Due to the fact that his eminence is constantly reinforced, anything that stands in the way is heretical. Thus, his greatness should not be limited by inconvenient nuisance things like the the Supreme Court and congress, or an obsolete document like the constitution. Given this, we may be headed for catastrophe if he wins the election- not because he would be President again, but because he would feel vindicated to the point where he would feel entitled to rule by decree. He would issue proclamations and presidential orders contravening the other branches of government and possibly precipitate a constitutional crisis, resulting in impeachment proceedings. Then while our government is self-destructing the world would spin out of control; all because we have a man who is not as great as he thinks he is, but there is no one who can convince him of that fact. That is the truth of our situation today, which can only be rectified, perhaps, by the electorate. 

WebRep

currentVote

noRating

noWeight

INSIDIOUS IDENTITY POLITICS

The mainstream media echoes the Democratic party obsession with identity politics, relishing pointing out the alleged lack of “diversity” in the Republican party. Never mind that they deliberately cut away from speakers at the Republican convention that would contradict this, for they have an ideological need to maintain it. 

The most ridiculous myth is the alleged Republican “problem” with “women.” But, just maybe, there is a Democratic party problem with men. The prevailing assumptions about gender are not only misleading, they are dead wrong. This only makes sense if you accept the ridiculous liberal notion that women somehow constitute a homogeneous interest group. However, in reality few women identify first and foremost as “women,” for they are wives, mothers, and sisters before anything else, and vary tremendously in their career and life choices. Obviously their political beliefs are going to vary accordingly. The notion that any woman “represents” women makes about as much sense as saying a particular man represents “men.” Apart from a few left-wing fanatics we don’t maintain our perceptions in this fashion. 

Nevertheless there is a difference between how the aggregate of men and women vote, but the reasons have little to do with “women’s issues.” For one thing, married women tend to vote Republican. It is among single women that there is a significant disparity, and here the reasons are largely economic; i.e. think of single mothers on welfare. Those in the lower income brackets tend to identify historically with the Democratic party. Ideology only plays a role for those with higher incomes.  

Then we have the notion that Republicans have a problem with minorities, due to voting patterns. However, here again it is just possible that the Democrats have a problem with white people. After all, no Democrat running for President has won a majority of whites since Lyndon Johnson, five decades ago. So it is by no means clear just who has the real problem. 

When the Democrats and their allies in the liberal media incessantly point out how the Republicans are predominantly white, it presumably means that minorities are “underrepresented.” However, the reverse of this is that minorities are overrepresented in the Democratic party. They never consider that though. It is unclear why minorities carry some special grace and greater value as people in this warped calculation. 

Along these lines we have the notion that the Republicans are doomed to minority party status because minorities represent the “future,” presumably due to a disproportionate increase in population, as the white birthrate plummets to European levels. However, it is not completely clear just who is a “minority.” In one sense, everyone is, to some degree. But the liberals mean people they have defined and stereotyped into categories, such as “Hispanic” and “Asian,” who are in some sense “nonwhite.” But here they categorize people into nonexistent groups, because no one is “Asian” or “Hispanic.” Each belongs to a discrete and unique culture. Thus there are Mexican-Americans, Cuban-Americans, etc., but there are no “Hispanic” Americans. Even more preposterous is the “Asian” label that  is supposed to cover people from very different and geographically distinct cultures. What do people from India have in common with people from Japan, that warrants imposing a shared identity upon them? 

On closer examination the liberal’s dream world falls apart. First of all there are white “Hispanics,” which means they are not a racial, let alone a political, monolith. Second, many in the “Asian” category have an entrepreneurial proclivity which, longer term, would probably lead to identify more with Republicans. 

We need to go back several decades to understand where a lot of this silliness came from. In the New York State legislature initially the Democrats had a “black caucus.” Then it became the “black and Puerto Rican” caucus. Then it changed to the “black and Hispanic caucus,” and ultimately, the “black, Hispanic and Asian caucus,” as ridiculous as that sounds, thus enabling some politicians to claim they represent all “minorities,” usually without their consent. It is the liberals that segment and divide people into group identities, preferably with a grievance, as opposed to conservatives, who see them as individuals. 

The future of this country does indeed depend on which vision prevails, in terms of how people identify themselves. Will they be members of an ethnic group first, or Americans? A good start would be to stop the federal government from forcing group identity on people. We know the pernicious efforts of the left to keep people in group categories will continue, while conservatives encourage them to be individuals within a unified whole, and only time will tell which concept will prevail. 

WebRep

currentVote

noRating

noWeight

R.I.P. NEIL ARMSTRONG

Neil Armstrong was one of the very few men of our time who was truly great.  He was great not because he was the first man to walk on the moon, but because he never did anything to exploit that fact.  How many of today's dismal celebrities would have the character to deny themselves all the lucrative opportunities that could have been his? Rather than try to benefit himself, he lived his life with integrity and quiet modesty, despite his achievement, or really because of it. For he knew that he had been given a singular, special role in history, and he always conducted himself with dignity and a maturity appropriate to his achievement. He deserves the admiration of people everywhere for his accomplishments as well as how he handled them. He remains an exemplary example of how a good man conducts himself in life. How much better our world would be if more people emulated him. We should all pause to salute the passing of this great man. 

WebRep

currentVote

noRating

noWeight

FILM TO DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY

One of the saddest developments in corporate history has been the decline of the once-mighty Eastman Kodak company. For the better part of the century the company was so dominant in photography through the production of film, processing and materials, that it was subject to constant anti-trust suits. There were competitors, but Kodak was dominant in photography because of its consistent high quality. It was a household name known to all. I remember the huge picture displays they used to advertise in Grand Central Station, and the photo gallery on 42nd St. and Sixth Avenue in New York. They are history now, along with its overwhelming presence in Rochester, New York that benefited that city immensely. All that has been swept away due to digital photography and the decline of film, even though nothing matches its fine resolution. Once digital arrived, the camera market was flooded with products, not only from the traditional camera makers, that previously were not players in photography, but other companies, such as Sony (which absorbed Minolta’s system),  Korean companies (which I personally would not touch),and even cell-phone makers.  Kodak manages to trudge along humbly, still making good products, like a small underwater video camera and a printer system that uses the most inexpensive ink refills on the market and works wirelessly. 

I am now in the process of scanning and digitizing thousands of those ubiquitous yellow boxes full of slides taken over decades, with those legendary names Kodachrome and Ektachrome, along with an occasional Fujichrome. It took many years before I could find a satisfactory reproductive system. I tried a couple of consumer scanners, but the results were poor. Then I used camera attachments to make duplicates, but this was a tedious, one-at-a time process. Finally I bought a high quality scanner (Plustek OpticFilm 7600 with Silverfast software) and got excellent results. Although the cost was higher it was well worth it. With this kind of configuration you can get high resolution scans that faithfully reproduce pictures from slides or negatives for almost any size you realistically might want to print, or you can further edit them with something like Photoshop or Aperture. However there is still no way to match the fine resolution of a slide or negative, and so some people stick with film even now. 

On the other hand there were also many inconveniences, such as changing film rolls, waiting to get the results, and getting into repeated fights with x-ray security personnel on airline trips, to avoid having my batch of film ruined by x-rays. (It’s a good thing that is in the past because I’d probably get arrested for doing that these days). The cost of pictures has also dropped radically as digital shots don’t cost anything, although high quality SLR camera prices have increased significantly. I didn’t fully switch to digital until I bought a Canon EOS 7D, which enabled me to use all my old interchangeable film camera lenses, and produced pictures with a high pixel count. But I still take pictures the old-fashioned way, through the viewfinder. This also significantly extends battery life. I find the digital screens on the back of cameras useless in bright light, and I’m baffled as to why they aren’t making many cameras with viewfinders these days. I personally recommend getting one with a viewfinder if you can find it, so you can actually see what you’re taking, never mind at least doubling your battery power if you turn the screen off. 

Computers have also been a major factor in changing photography, along with so many other things. Way back in the film era pictures were first digitized in order to be enhanced on the computer. The first program I had was called Digital Darkroom, which eventually became Photoshop. It’s just amazing what you can do these days to correct pictures. With the setup I have, I’ve been able to revive photos given up for dead because of darkness, and pull a serviceable image out of it on the scanner. Thus, overall, technology has been a blessing, especially to the extent that most people just want to point and shoot and don’t care all that much about high resolution. That, however, is a subject for another essay. 

WebRep

currentVote

noRating

noWeight

SUPPORT THE SYRIAN PEOPLE

The Syrian people have been engaged in a heroic struggle to overthrow one of the most  tyrannical regimes in the world, with little more than moral support from the West. This is shameful especially given the intervention in Libya, where conditions were not as bad. The Assad government has murdered some 20,000 of its own citizens so far and is clearly on the way out, yet we are providing very little help. Yes, people are tired of war, but this doesn’t require troops, just supplies, weapons, and at most some air cover. Fellow tyrants in Iran are supporting the regime, and Russia and China are blocking any action by the UN, despite a majority in favor of it. They will have a lot to answer for when this regime falls, and it will fall. 

Imagine living in a country where one family has been in control for decades. Then consider a government and elite  that is largely populated by members of a single minority sect, the Alawites. It would be like ,say, the Methodists controlling everything here and oppressing everyone else. Then imagine they started killing anyone who opposed them. The Assad government is guilty of such war crimes. It is disgraceful to allow this killing to go on, when it wouldn’t take much to topple the tyranny at this point. 

Hesitation and excuses are made because of a fear of causing “instability” in the middle east, which is kind of an oxymoron. Everyone knows the regime is going to fall so why not align ourselves with the winners? Instead of worrying about what may follow we should be in a position to influence that. Given that Syria is an ally of Iran, it would also be a major victory over that odious, oppressive government, which has been an ongoing vicious enemy. Instead of trying to “engage” with these tyrants we should actively oppose them. When I say “we” here I don’t just mean the United States, but the western world, and NATO in particular. 

Unfortunately the fall of Sarkozy leaves the west without a dynamic leader, although there is one other. Ironically he is in the middle east, namely Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel. He understands the Iranian regime and what their intentions are in terms of obliterating his country. Changing the regime in Syria would be a severe blow to Iran, and might even give the opposition there the courage to rise, and hopefully we would support them this time. 

When such evil regimes are threatened we must stand with the people and be on the side of history.  We should be taking steps to assure that they are succeeded by free and open societies instead of burying our heads and looking the other way, or worse, "engaging" with the oppressors. What was done in Libya can be done in Syria. Libyan elections did not produce an Islamic tyranny but a rather liberal government committed to an open society. To repeat I am not suggesting sending troops, but simply providing logistical support. We ignore these things at our own peril. For even if we want to ignore the rest of the world, the rest of the world doe not want to ignore us. 

WebRep

currentVote

noRating

noWeight

LET THE TEACHERS TEACH

I  rarely agree with the teachers’ unions, given how they expend funds on politicians, and sometimes get in the way of reforms, but I think they are solid ground in a resolution recently passed by the AFT concerning mandatory national standardized testing. One of the dumbest programs of the Bush administration and Teddy Kennedy has turned out to be “No Child Left Behind.” It seems like every recent President wants to leave his mark on education, with one scheme for improvement or another, none of which seem to do much besides inflating bureaucracy.  That is not to say that schools don’t need improvement; clearly they do. But most are financed by state and local government and embedded in communities, and sweeping federal mandates do not work, and in fact may be counterproductive. 

We’ve more than doubled spending on education over the past thirty years with little significant improvement because not that much has gone into hiring or justly compensating the people who actually teach. What we have instead is an ever growing bureaucracy with more layers of administration, specialists, and support staff that never see a classroom. This has occurred because of ever more stupid mandates about what ought to be done. Every time legislation creates a program meant to solve something, it is inevitably accompanied by a bureaucracy to manage it- a principle that applies across the board, not just to education. Too often that’s how your tax dollars are spent.

In addition, broad standardized testing is too simplistic. What of Special Education? It is preposterous to apply the same standards to these children that are used for the general population. That makes no sense. Special Education teachers have to cope with children with learning disabilities, along with a surprising number of obnoxious parents who insist on trying to enroll their children in it, even though there is nothing wrong with them. It makes no sense not to differentiate, and it is unfair to teachers who constantly make their best efforts. 

At the opposite end of the spectrum we are also shortchanging the brightest students, who have different needs. After all these are the pupils that will likely grow up to be the innovators, entrepreneurs, scientists, artists, intellectuals, etc. that our society as a whole needs to remain competitive in the world. One size fits all simply does not work and is detrimental to overall education. 

The job of teachers is to teach and they should not be encumbered with ill-conceived requirements, stupid mandates, various useless specialists, and administrative fiat. If the federal government is to be involved in education at all, which is debatable, it should be through block grants with no strings attached. Again, this applies across the board to all government programs, for it is only through particular local initiatives that creative solutions can be found, and the more “laboratories” we have trying different approaches, the better. That is the only way we can really determine what works and what doesn’t work. 

WebRep

currentVote

noRating

noWeight

SELECTIVE MORAL OUTRAGE

I never heard of Chick-A-Fil before the recent “controversy” erupted over an executive’s expressed position against gay marriage. When this became known, left-wing activists organized a boycott as well as a harassment campaign against the company. In some cities demagogic politicians stated that they would (illegally) prevent the company from opening any stores in their city, along with a clear disregard for free speech. This backfired as people in turn sympathetic to the executive’s viewpoint flocked to the stores in record numbers. 

Both sides responded to perceived moral imperatives, though the morality of one is incomprehensible to the other. One side believes in traditional values while the other believes they are upholding perceived principles of equality. I am not going to say anything about the substance of these positions, but that does not mean they are morally equivalent. For what we have here is a conflict of fundamental values that are irreconcilable, and therefore can only be resolved through the political process, if they are to resolved peacefully. However, it is troubling how wide the gulf between viewpoints has become. 

This fizzling “boycott” is a regular tactic of the intolerant left, which ironically claims to be opposing “intolerance.” These are people who routinely discriminated against those they disagree with. They publish home addresses of people they don’t like, try to intimidate them with demonstrations, and threaten their families along with other despicable behavior. Due to the fact that they increasingly only interact with people who agree with them, they assume their view is widespread when it is not. In fact when it comes to these sorts of tactics the left should tread carefully, or they will soon come to realize just how outnumbered they are of the other side starts to respond in-kind. It must be noted that honest liberals who believe in free speech did not support this action, and indeed were critical of it. They should not be confused with the hateful, radical left, who continually seek to undermine this country and its institutions. 

It is disturbing how far what passes for political action has degenerated. It is reflective of the overall coarsening of our society and the decline of civility. The necessary approbation for misbehavior is no longer there. But that pales besides the problem of maintaining a civil society when people no longer share the same beliefs as to what is moral. How this will be resolved in the long run is an open question. 

WebRep

currentVote

noRating

noWeight

OF HEROES AND EVIL

One of the most poignant stories to come out of the Aurora, Colorado movie massacre was how three young men rushed to cover and protect their girlfriends from the gunfire. They shielded them with their bodies, sacrificing their lives in the process. Sadly all three died, but all three women survived. It is striking how each man had the same reaction, instinctively acting to protect their female companion. We live in an age when gender roles are supposedly blurred and their is endless pressure from "progressives" to eliminate them completely. Nevertheless there are things in human nature that cannot be changed so easily. It is not simply a chivalric response, but a natural protective impulse of self-sacrifice. Such stories occur over and over, such as in the case of a pair of young people found frozen on a mountain, the male shielding the female with his body, as well as throughout history. While a strong sense of duty may be socially inculcated, there is more at work in instinctive actions to protect women and children.

It is true that the role of women has changed radically over the past one hundred years. This has only been possible through the veneer of civilization and law. However, most women still appreciate and will seek out men who act like men. Yes, there are in fact characteristics that are particularly male as well as female. Neither is better than the other. They are simply different, and no amount of blurred sex roles can change this. This is clearly most evident in the absence of civilization, or when civil society breaks down and natural tendencies become more obvious, notwithstanding all the nonsense on tv and in the movies depicting women acting like men. The three heroes were not from an older, presumably more traditional generation, but were young men in their twenties with everything to live for, and raised with contemporary assumptions. They grew up without anyone like John Wayne on the scene, yet each one "did a John Wayne," as they used to say during the Vietnam war era.

There is another false premise of the left apparent in this incident. It is best summed up, continuing with movie metaphors, in a scene from the film The Good Son, when one boy warns a liberal psychologist of the awful deeds of another boy and she responds "I don't believe in evil." But the reality is that there is evil in the world. That is obvious in the meticulous, extensive preparation of the murderer in this incident. While lawyers will no doubt come up with some "insanity" defense, on the assumption that such a heinous crime could only be attributable to mental derangement, the pre-meditation and methodical, rational planning belie that explanation. Nor can lax "gun laws" be blamed, as prior to this incident this individual could have passed any kind of background screening. He was an honor student with a clean background. The reality is that some people do terrible things. Fortunately the most extreme are few in number, but there are evil people willing and capable of committing horrendous acts.  While it is possible to come up with psychological motivations for almost anything, there is no way that evil deeds are blameless.

Sometimes a whole regime can be permeated with evil,such as those we have struggled with in the past, often through war,  as well as a place like Syria today, where the government has slaughtered over 17,000 of its own citizens. The belief that proper conditioning is somehow going to eliminate evil in the world is a dangerous fantasy, for whether one is a believer or not, there will always be evil in the world. But against this backdrop we can take comfort in the ubiquity of good in life, most apparent in the actions of our heroes.

WebRep

currentVote

noRating

noWeight

AN UNHINGED PRESIDENCY

It is just incredible that a President of the United States would state that business people are not responsible for their own success, based on the assumption that the government makes this possible. On that basis, he argues further, the government is entitled to a larger share of their earnings in order to spread the wealth. This is outright socialism, and an unprecedented attitude on the part of the chief executive, who apparently has gone off the deep end. Does he really think the radical left is going to re-elect him, along with minorities? He has pursued a divisive strategy of pitting groups against each other that is unworthy of high office. He has exceeded presidential powers in issuing decrees that override the will of congress. He has successfully intimidated the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court with veiled threats. The list goes on and on, as it becomes evident that for the first time in the history of this country we have a genuine radical in the White House.

He and his followers regard the constitution as a nuisance and hindrance to their great plans, rather than as the ironclad law of the land. But the result of his policies is an economy that is stalling and a nation in decline. As a result we are facing a capital strike, as corporations with a great deal of cash on their balance sheets refuse to invest in this country, unsurprisingly, given the anti-business rhetoric and policies of this administration. I try to avoid being partisan, but we are on the path to disaster and terminal decline under this administration and I cannot ignore that reality. I am frankly baffled as to how the election could even be close at this point even with a lackluster opposition candidate. Perhaps we really are seeing a divide between the producers and the takers, when half the country pays no income tax and huge numbers rely on government support.

If this continues the country will soon be unrecognizable and we will pass over the cliff to the point of no return. There is little chance of economic recovery if these policies continue, and our standing in the world will be irreversibly diminished. This election will truly determine what kind of country we are going to be, and whether that which we have held dear throughout our lives is going to survive. If re-elected, we can expect an acceleration of these trends via an unfettered presidency. This has never been a radical country, but what has thus far been implemented by stealth will become overt and inexorable. There is only one way to avoid this now, and that is to elect a new President.

WebRep

currentVote

noRating

noWeight