***
A number of organizations have complained about lack of funding for their causes. Instead of complaining, why not fund raise? Why depend on the government?
Here's what I believe. Many people have good ideas about many things. Asking for funding or a grant is a nice way to set up shop in some cases. Once up and running, that organization must begin to sell itself to the public at large. In other words, relying on taxpayer dollars shouldn't be a means to an end.
If they want to survive and expand in order to continue doing good things, like anyone with a great idea, take it straight to the source - the people. If the idea has relevance they will give. If it doesn't they won't. It will provide a direct pulse of what the people think.
Instead, we get too many organizations hide behind taxpayer money while begging to get it from a bureaucrat. This is the sort of coercion I loathe when it comes to "socialism." There's a certain "people are too stupid" or "people don't care enough" arrogance to the process. Try me. Come to me. Sell me on your ideas. You'd be surprised at the results. It's not easy. You will be turned down. Heck, you may fail. But you have to continue if you believe in your cause. Before you know it - BANG! - success!
Let me put it to you another way. You want to help, say, eradicate illiteracy in Mozambique. Noble cause. You spell out exactly how it's beneficial to Africans and why we should give. Let's say you do a great job and people give. What more of a stamp of approval for your cause do you want?
One cause I gave to was buying a special net to protect children in Africa from flies carrying malaria from attacking them while they slept. It was being advertised. I read up on it and decided it was worth giving to.
No fucking bureaucrat in the way. Just people to people.
Try it. Find faith and hope in your fellow man.
***
Heard a socialist on the radio today make quite the comment. For the longest while, all I've had to endure was how much of a blood thirsty animal Harper is for keepin Canada in Afghanistan, but when Obama does it he's making the case for "moral war."
Oi. The head spins at the stupidity of it all. By the way, he's a guy who demands people buy more energy efficient cars and ridicules people for having a "small" view of things but drives a big, new - you guessed it - SUV.
***
From the "Wow, did he just say that?" files.
Chris Matthews: "Palin’s not so stupid that she actually doubts man-made global warming, does she?"
See. I don't get this sort of stuff. How can a "journalist" or pundit with millions (?) of viewers say a thing like this? Why is it that every time these clowns are questioned they immediately dismiss other people as "stupid?" The way I look at it, the real idiot is the person making the charge.
Attack on the basis of the fucking content of the argument. IT'S NOT HARD.
The way Matthews presents it is, A) she's a douchetard and should be summarily ignored and B) there's no debating this issue.
Gee. I gotta say, there's plenty to discuss and debate Mr. Man on TV.
As for me calling people names on my blog? That's fair game because I can spot - snap! - a douche a mile away.
***
You know, if Bush had said America had "57 states" or "America never fought a war against a democracy" or "when I took office last year" when clearly it was "this" year, the mainstream press would have lost all their marbles.
In my free time, I like googling comments made by politicians. What turns up is sometimes fascinating. Usually, whenever you punch in a quote, you want to see a wide range of organizations, publications and bloggers covering it. However, that's not always the case. You can immediately tell who is covering someone's ass.
On this front, there's no question Obama has been protected - although that's slowly changing. His misquotes are either ignored or dismissed as "honest mistakes." My brother is a classic leftist. Anything Bush said was scoffed at. "He's an idiot." When you present similar comments made by Obama, "He's too smart and people are reaching." I tend to give the benefit of the doubt too. I did it for Bush and I try as hell to do it for Obama. Then again, the President of the fricken United States of America shouldn't be making constant oral mistakes. So if you're one of those people who doesn't tolerate it, I get that. Totally.
What more, I listened to Obama's speech in Norway. It basically is a plea for the acceptance of a "moral and just" war. Hm. I thought I heard this before. Where was it again? Oh yeah, from the previous administration he loves to constantly bash in public! Another example how partisanship skews the perception.
In any event, don't believe me, I'm just a guy who peels potatoes badly, try it for kicks. Take a quote from a politician and see where it lands you. You may interpret it differently from me.
Regardless, you'll be surprise at what you find. It's helped clear my opinion on certain issues.
***
The way I see it, I think both Obama and Bush are the same. They both stink and stank at conveying their message. One happens to sound "better" at it.
***
So. When does Obama start talking in the third person. You know, like Costanza (and Jimmy) on Seinfeld? "George is getting very upset!" "Jimmy doesn't like misunderstandings."
Obama: "Obama doesn't like it when people criticize him. Obama needs to calm down now!"
***
Hear a lot about Sarah Palin being a dominionist have you? Who are dominionists anyway and how does Palin fit into this? Read Huffington and you get the picture she's a dangerous nutcase. Read theocracywatch and you get a more complex picture.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Mysterious and anonymous comments as well as those laced with cyanide and ad hominen attacks will be deleted. Thank you for your attention, chumps.