No!
The first memories I have of being told that compromise is the best way to get things done are from Sesame Street. The children's "educational" program. On public television. Run by progressives, I must assume.
Compromise is the best way for progressives to get bits of their agenda done. That's why they push it so much.
Now is not the time for compromise. Now is the time to stand up for what we believe; to defeat the progressive agenda; not to allow "a little bit more"; to insist on doing what's right.
Occasional thoughts, sermons, parables, and rants from a Constitutional Republican who is sick of Progressivism in America.
17 February 2010
11 February 2010
This is Why Polar Bears Attack People
NewsBusters® posted an article with this video of MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan, along with the quote below it. Their quote is longer, and has emphasis on his conclusion. I wanted to emphasize a few words in his argument.
"Why is that? The thinking that warmer air temperatures on the earth, a higher air temperature, has a greater capacity to hold moisture at any temperature," Ratigan said.
He said first, "warmer", then "higher", then insists on it being "any temperature." Which is it? It can't be both.
This kind of inconsistency knows no bounds in progressive speech. If people were actually taught to think, like in the private school I attended, nobody would believe any of it.
"Why is that? The thinking that warmer air temperatures on the earth, a higher air temperature, has a greater capacity to hold moisture at any temperature," Ratigan said.
He said first, "warmer", then "higher", then insists on it being "any temperature." Which is it? It can't be both.
This kind of inconsistency knows no bounds in progressive speech. If people were actually taught to think, like in the private school I attended, nobody would believe any of it.
09 February 2010
Compromise? I Got Yer Compromise!
Tonight, the Governor of Nevada gave a State of the State address, and called for a special session of the legislature to address a nearly $900 million dollar deficit. Also tonight, Glenn Beck asked both Carly Fiorina and Chuck Devore what would be the first thing they'd cut spending on.
If I were asked that, I would answer without hesitation, "education!" Propose not just to cut, but to eliminate all public spending on education.
Gov. Gibbons said in his address that he wants to improve the quality of education in Nevada. And how do conservatives maintain that the quality can be improved in any field? Get government out of it!
Besides, when you can no longer stand the yelling and screaming and whining and puling of people who mistakenly believe that education is an entitlement, you can always offer to trade. "Would you rather have your welfare check, or education for your children?" "Would you rather have the state provide habitat for the desert rat, or buildings and furniture for schools?" "OK, so you don't want to give up funding for education; what government agency money pit would you rather give up?"
Of course, the people may decide that education can be sacrificed for rats, and that would suit me just fine. Have the private sector provide real education, and stop funding progressive indoctrination centers with my money. We can always stop feeding the rats later. Or is it the same thing?
01 February 2010
The End of Yucca Mountain Does Not Mean the End of Nuclear
Michelle Malkin has a recent piece on her blog, which seems to suggest that the fact that Obama's budget provides $0 funding for the Yucca Mtn Nevada nuclear waste dump means that his administration lied about wanting to pursue nuclear energy in America.
My first reaction is, "Good! The State Bureaucratic Apparatus is actually refusing to spend money on something!"
Furthermore, I have heard Gov. Jim Gibbons express on more than one occasion his belief that the Yucca Mtn project was conceived as a way to ensure the American nuclear industry was shut down once and for all. He is against the project not on environmental grounds--he's a trained geological engineer--but on the grounds that the spent fuel should not be simply dumped and sealed. Instead, he favors reprocessing the spent fuel into new fuel rods that can be used in even more efficient ways in new plants.
The best way the administration could support a growth in nuclear energy in the U.S. is to appoint judges who won't rule against new plants because of environmental law; better yet, propose the repeal of the legislation that allows environmental groups to bring suit after suit to retard or stop the construction of new nuclear plants. And that wouldn't cost a bit!
The fact that the administration is not proposing these changes, not the failure to fund a particular project, is what puts the lie to Obama's statement.
My first reaction is, "Good! The State Bureaucratic Apparatus is actually refusing to spend money on something!"
Furthermore, I have heard Gov. Jim Gibbons express on more than one occasion his belief that the Yucca Mtn project was conceived as a way to ensure the American nuclear industry was shut down once and for all. He is against the project not on environmental grounds--he's a trained geological engineer--but on the grounds that the spent fuel should not be simply dumped and sealed. Instead, he favors reprocessing the spent fuel into new fuel rods that can be used in even more efficient ways in new plants.
The best way the administration could support a growth in nuclear energy in the U.S. is to appoint judges who won't rule against new plants because of environmental law; better yet, propose the repeal of the legislation that allows environmental groups to bring suit after suit to retard or stop the construction of new nuclear plants. And that wouldn't cost a bit!
The fact that the administration is not proposing these changes, not the failure to fund a particular project, is what puts the lie to Obama's statement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)