TheBlackberryAlarmclock.com

Thingish Things

Banking on Paul’s Vote

Written By: William F. B. O'Reilly - Feb• 22•12

There’s an old political adage: Anyone who robs Peter to pay Paul can always rely on Paul’s vote. The operative question, though, for the long-term health of the country is, are there more Peters or Pauls out there? Because if there are more Pauls than Peters, we’re in trouble. 

Turns out it’s a good time to ask the question.  The Heritage Foundation reports new data today showing that 49.5% of Americans now pay no income tax, up from 14% in the early years of the Reagan presidency. In other words, the critical mass — the balance between Peters and Pauls — is about to shift into negativity territory. The number of people taking money from the federal government without putting any in is about to exceed those kicking into the federal coffers. That’s a bit of a freak out. 

What it suggests is that a politician in a median district will soon lose any electoral incentive to keep tax rates reasonable or to work to control federal spending. If 51% — or 61% —  of voters are the beneficiaries of one’s legislative munificence, that patron politician will, in all likelihood, have continual electoral success.   The U.S. is already borrowing 42 cents on every dollar it spends; one shudders to think how much worse it could get should Pauls become a significant majority. 

This also means that more Americans are failing to meet the income threshold for paying federal income tax. That’s equally depressing.  

A theoretical (for now) question. Should the balance between Peters and Pauls one day go to 70-30 Paul, or even, God forbid, 80-20, will the Left still be able to argue with a straight face that the minority aren’t paying their “fair share?”

 

 

 

The Matter of Media Matters

Written By: William F. B. O'Reilly - Feb• 22•12

Jeffrey Lord provocatively asks today if Media Matters is President Obama’s Watergate in a piece penned for American Spectator.  I’ve been half living under a rock lately, so I was unfamiliar with the issue, despite seeing Daily Caller publisher Tucker Carlson mention it on Hannity last night. In both cases, I could not easily figure out what either was writing/talking about.

Media Matters may or may not be the President’s Watergate, but if it were to be, it would need to be explained more simply. Americans, including this one, are too busy to follow conspiracy trails. Correct me if I’m wrong.  Is this the core of the matter: The White House paid people with political money to spy on Fox News reporters?

If it is, that’s bad. Whoever is making this charge should just say that. Or am I missing something? 

Quote of the Day, Gov. Chris Christie

Written By: William F. B. O'Reilly - Feb• 22•12

On Warren Buffet’s not stop moaning about not paying enough taxes:

“He should just write a check and shut up. Really. And just contribute. I’m tired of hearing about it. If he wants to give the government more money, he’s got the ability to write a check. Go ahead and write it,” Gov. Chris Christie, 02-21-12

Satan Joins Campaign Trail

Written By: William F. B. O'Reilly - Feb• 21•12

This may fill a news cycle or two…

(Campaign conversation: “Any last advice for me, John? 

“You’re going to be great!  Just try not to talk about SATAN today.”)

The Goldilocks GOP

Written By: William F. B. O'Reilly - Feb• 21•12

This porridge is too hot. This porridge is too cold. This porridge is just…come to think of it, this porridge is too cold, too. To hell with porridge!

So goes the finicky GOP primary electorate this year in taking the temperature of its Republican candidates for president. We have sampled each one, swished him vigorously through our gums, and spat him back into his bowl, only to do the same with the next and the next and the next. (Sorry for the visual.)

Have we considered for a moment, though, that the problem might be us?  Maybe it’s our taste buds that have become too picky — or, more likely, maybe we are looking for a silver bullet when a plain old lead one will do.

The remaining Republican candidates for president are the Republican Party. They represent it in all its strains.  Ron Paul is the libertarian; Rick Santorum is the social conservative; Newt Gingrich is the populist, and Mitt Romney is the establishment moderate. They are central casting. Take your pick.  Yet we yearn for new entries — a Jeb Bush or a Mitch Daniels or a Paul Ryan or a ….

I like each of those men — I would eagerly vote for any one of them — but how would they taste to our tongues on center stage in this environment? Bush would likely become “too mushy”, Ryan ” too hard”, and Daniels “too bland” — or some variation of those themes. If you look microscopingly close at anything, its cillia tend to show, and, as important as they are to our biological constitutions, cillia tend to look hairy and monstrous under a microscope.

This all seems very anti-Republican to me. Since when did we believe that our destinies lie in our elected leaders? Aren’t we the Party that seeks to elect those who will do the least harm? Since when have we seen heads of government as our saviors?

Someone once wrote for President Obama, “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for.”  That speechwriter was right. It’s the American worker and entrepreneur who will get this country back on track. And none of the four remaining candidates would likely do anything to get in their way.

Now if only Newt and Ron Paul would drop out…

On a Lighter Note…

Written By: William F. B. O'Reilly - Feb• 20•12

http://youtu.be/LbzaDt0IbF4?t=22s

 

Ca$hing in on Whitney

Written By: William F. B. O'Reilly - Feb• 20•12

http://youtu.be/eS4v431Mlak

Wasn’t going to weigh in on Whitney Houston’s death, but this review of a ridiculous new book out on addiction got in the way of my plans.   The book, “The Power of Habit” by Charles Duhigg, is the latest meme on “new” ways to deal with addiction — that is, alternatives to abstinence-based programs.

The news hook for the book review, of course, is Ms. Houston’s death from drug and alcohol addiction — there is no need to wait for the coroner’s report — and no doubt plenty of people will buy the book while the story remains in the news.  The irony is that books like this one, and there are libraries full of them, are exactly the type of reading that keeps addicts in businesses. As long as there is a softer landing than abstinence available for an addict, he will take it. And it will eventually kill him — or her.  Witness Whitney.

This author and reviewer describe with a straight face things like “spontaneous recovery” as a method of cure for, they claim, 5% of all addicts. (“Duhigg addresses spontaneous recovery — a phrase that should, by now, really be part of the lexicon,” the reviewer writes.)  Perhaps that’s true.  Perhaps one in twenty addicts does get sober spontaneously. What is undoubtedly true, though, is that 100% of active addicts reading about “spontaneous recovery” will cling to the notion for hope while chopping cocaine on a glass table or pouring their next Smirnoff on the rocks.

Two other passages in the book review that leap from the page:

” Lewis spent much of his life addicted, consecutively, to booze, pot, cocaine and opioids. He finally quit after many, many tries, writing the word “NO” on a piece of paper and pinning to his wall, telling himself that this was the end of his drug use. It worked; he’s 30 years clean…though he still drinks and doesn’t consider that a problem.” 

Reaction: Ha, ha, ha, ha!

“Along with many other leaders in the field, Lewis believes that the recovery model needs an overhaul, that addiction should be treated as manageable disease, akin to HIV, rather than a curable one.

“There’s a saying: ‘Relapse is part of recovery,’ ” he says. “It’s really true. Nobody quits on the first try.” (Recent breakthroughs in the study of willpower, which is now understood to be a finite resource that the brain depletes and regenerates, are also cited by advocates of harm reduction.)”

Reaction: Whitney Houston, Amy Winehouse, Heath Ledger, Michael Jackson, Brittany Murphy, and so many others probably agreed.

(Couldn’t help including that spectacular National Anthem. Just because.)  

The Santorum Cringe Factor

Written By: William F. B. O'Reilly - Feb• 19•12

from dcbarroco.blogspot.com

Rick Santorum is a necessary character on the national stage. He is immovable on social issues that so many in the Republican Party, including me, would prefer to run as far away from as possible, both personally and politically. But he is doing the nation a service by raising issues that make so many of us cringe.

It would be a lie to suggest that sexual permissiveness in the U.S., through the proliferation of contraception and abortion, has not had adverse and unintended consequences.  But how many of us, men in particular, have the moral standing, indeed the chutzpah, to raise the issue?   I spent the 1980’s and a good chunk of the 90’s chasing girls, to a debatable degree of success, and I wasn’t seeking mixed doubles tennis partners.  Mixed drinks and coupling was more the idea – the concept anyway.  

Today, as a 48-year-old father, when I read about things like gender selective abortions and “half-abortions” – the in utero eradication of a single fetus in the case of twins – I want to lock myself in a closet and throw up or cry. Cold, clinical procedures like that make me fear that we are finished as a species – that we are poking in the eye with a stick our very Creator.

I feel that way, too, when considering that more than 60% of all African-American pregnancies, and more than 40% of all pregnancies, are terminated by abortion every year in New York City – almost a million in the past decade alone.  However one feels about the legality of abortion – there is no question the procedure will remain legal and readily available – those statistics have to make one feel…something.  To me that something is sickness and cowardice for not doing anything about it.  

Mr. Santorum is in the minority, too, evidently in opposing the assignment of women into combat brigades. He hasn’t explained his position on that well, in my opinion, but he has made it clear that it feels wrong to him, as it does to me.  And he talks about the unintended consequences of careers on motherhood, something women discuss amongst themselves all the time, but men can’t voice without sounding like Neanderthals.  So we don’t.

I can easily understand why women’s rights advocates attack any mention of these issues – they undermine decades of feminist successes – but conversations like these, already whispered in hallways, will eventually be aired, full-throatedly, and Mr. Santorum is the candidate willing to voice them. That’s all for the ultimate good, even if it’s bad for some in the Republican Party.

Rick Santorum is, in all likelihood, too socially conservative for this country.  He is too socially conservative for me, frankly. But he stands unbowed and unapologetic for a set of principles– whether we like those principles or not –and that’s an admirable thing.

When the Republican Primary comes to New York, I will not giving Mr. Santorum my vote. But he has earned my respect, even where I firmly disagree with him.

U.S. Presidents Day Medley

Written By: William F. B. O'Reilly - Feb• 17•12

http://youtu.be/xBrSgyPgwYg

If someone was willing to put this together, the least I could do is post it.  It’s really pretty well done. Kind of leaves you with the warm and fuzzies.  Some pretty rad haircuts in those early days. 

Pretty Good Santorum Ad

Written By: William F. B. O'Reilly - Feb• 17•12

http://youtu.be/OtOcrS6axnE

Not sure this will be effective, but it must have been a blast to make.