It's About How Much More We Are Willing to Concede Thing

Dear America,

From The Guardian --

Just when you think American politics cannot get weirder, the White House announced that Barack Obama will trek through the Alaskan wilderness with Bear Grylls for an upcoming episode of Running Wild with Bear Grylls...

 But it fits a pattern. Obama uses unorthodox methods and stunts to project his agenda...

Indeed.

And talk about patterns?

Should we discuss the many mini ice ages?   Or a time when the planet Earth was nearly covered in ICE many millions of years ago, running into a pattern three to four times over?  Or perhaps demand that all 7 billion of us go back to school, to perhaps the sixth grade, to discover the essential elements of the earth and plant growth fully dependent upon CO2, deriving a pattern of the natural give and take of oxygen and CO2 that becomes almost like a daily occurrence -- and a pattern of necessity me thinks?  Has anyone watched the pattern of ice coverage over the are of the Great Lakes, given fluctuations in the natural, in winter, a season that comes and goes, kinda like summer?  Or how about we just take a gander at the pattern of the many embarassing predictions of an Al Gore and his bevy of Global Warming Fanatics?  How about the patterns of using fear and hysteria of all things now generally assumed as "man-made" Climate Change to move bergs of mankind, for political expediency and gain -- if not also to topple America off it's high horse, right Obama?

Here's a really good read from Forbes,

The Period Of No Global Warming Will Soon Be Longer Than the Period of Actual Global Warming

[Now, it was written a year and half ago, so bear that in mind.]

But let's return to the smartest president we have ever had and hear directly from the Authority-and -Theory of Everything-in-Chief:

"This is as good a signpost of what we're dealing with on climate change as just about anything," Obama told reporters waiting at the base of the glacier.

Here's another quote that begins to make heads and tails out of it all, falling into the same honor of never letting an agenda disaster or someone's idiotic hide go to waste; it's pulled from the "Embarrassing Predictions" article (from 2014, linked above), citing within the section titled, "Pentagon Climate Forecasts, " a follow up question in the Washington Times goes to Doug Randall for an explanation for such a great disparity in reality over the last decade, and he says:

“When you are looking at worst-case 10 years out, you are not trying to predict precisely what’s going to happen but instead trying to get people to understand what could happen to motivate strategic decision-making and wake people up,” Randall said. “But whether the actual specifics came true, of course not. That never was the main intent.”

Exactly.

And thanks for the honesty, Doug.

"...[T]o motivate strategic decision-making and wake people up,"  he says, "whether the actual specifics came true...that never was the main intent."

The sideshow going on up in America's upper one -- you know, in the context of the settled science of the lower 48 -- by the O-so-High-One, himself -- proves to be nothing more than another scandalous fraud at the foot of Denali.

It's all about the strategy to create the very conditions  on the ground to warrant the policy changes from On High that The Left deems vital, leading America into energy decisions, economic decisions, quality of life decisions, inhospitable to a growing, abundant, free-enterprising, upwardly mobile, capitalist-friendly, market.

So in hopes of ending this day, rather abruptly -- (what can I say, some days are just better than others) -- let's go to Henry David Thoreau, from deep within his essay on Civil Disobedience:

No man with a genius for legislation has appeared in America.  They are rare in the history of the world.  There are orators, politicians, and eloquent men, by the thousand; but the speaker has not yet opened his mouth to speak who is capable of settling the much-vexed questions of the day.  We love eloquence for its own sake, and not for any truth which it may utter, or any heroism it may inspire.  Our legislators have not yet learned the comparative value of free-trade and of freedom, of union, and of rectitude, to a nation.  They have no genius or talent of comparatively humble questions of taxation and finance, commerce and manufacturers and agriculture.  If we were left solely to the wordy with of legislators in Congress for our guidance, uncorrected by the seasonable experience and the effectual complaints of the people, America would not long retain her rank among nations.  For eighteen hundred years, though perchance I have no right to say it, the New Testament has been written; yet where is the legislator who has the wisdom and practical talent enough to avail himself of the light which it sheds on the science of legislation?

The authority of government, even such as I am willing to submit to , -- for I will cheerfully obey those who know and can do better than I, and in many things even those who neither know nor can do so well, --is still an impure one; to be strictly just, it must have the sanction and consent of the governed.  It can have no pure right over my person and property but what I concede to it,  The progress from an absolute to a limited monarchy, from a limited monarchy to a democracy, is a progress toward a true respect for the individual.   Even the Chinese philosopher was wise enough to regard the individual as the basis of the empire,  Is a democracy, such as we know it, the last improvement possible in government?  Is it not possible to take a step further towards recognizing and organizing the rights of man?   There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all of its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly.

Or  to put it in terms that may strike a  more resounding chord -- is America producing so much CO2  it is now stifling the growth of everything pure, enlightened and magnificent -- more specifically, an intellectual willing to rise up, to offer a wee bit of civil disobedience, when needed -- and chock full of good science to back it up?   Much like the way of the overgrowth within the world's mightiest of rain-forests -- perhaps too much of a good thing leads to a competition of sorts.   A competition of words, resources, ideas, a way of life from this generation and well into the next, and the next.

The thing is --   AMERICA is receding; just how much more are we willing "to concede" these days?

It's a good question.

Make it a Good Day, G

It's About the Equity Theory of Motivation Thing

Dear America,

is it too late to add to your summer reading list?

First -- as a teaser --  just go to a little something from The Daily Signal,  here.

Alexis de Tocqueville Predicted the Tyranny of the Majority in Our Modern World

Arthur Milikh does a superb job breaking down a few of   deTocqueville's observations and words of warning from his book, "Democracy in America"   -- while he also reminds us just how long ago it was written! In  1831!   Just how in the world could he have ever known?   

Incredible, really, this grasp of human nature, characterizing "the new breed of democratic despotism" which would one day be ultimately, totally, controllable  --  shaped by political correctness, with help from mass media and propaganda, either by a slow nudge by nudge or by force, taking full advantage of the gut wrenching fear to speak out against the popular opinion... as Milikh explains:

That is, the majority reaches into citizens’ minds and hearts. It breaks citizens’ will to resist, to question its authority, and to think for themselves. The majority’s moral power makes individuals internally ashamed to contradict it, which in effect silences them, and this silencing culminates in a cessation of thinking. We see this happen almost daily: to stand against the majority is to ruin yourself.

hello, Spot --   meet  On.

Thank you, Milikh, for the cliff notes on a classic, but with all due respect while revisiting our summer to-do list, the real read is really "Democracy in America"  --  for within we apparently find such a gem as this:

“remember constantly that a nation cannot long remain strong when each man in it is individually weak, and that neither social forms nor political schemes have yet been found that can make a people energetic by composing it of pusillanimous and soft citizens.”

Oh and did I say cliff?  Perhaps the metaphor fits.  Perhaps America is on the precipice of a very long fall.

For there it is, right in front of us -- if not also our friends, neighbors, entire communities --  the unimaginable growth of a certain demographic:  the individually weak.

Here's something funny and totally unrelated (or is it...) --

GOOGLE CAN FIND

YOU 100,000 ANSWERS

A LIBRARIAN WILL FIND

YOU THE RIGHT ONE

Now I love to find examples of people who go against the prevailing wind of the overwhelming majority, and to that end and to my surprise, Salon.com and Camille Paglia join together in the production of a rather fascinating interview.    

Of course, being hardly aligned in her liberal, atheist, experience and world view, please don't misconstrue --  it doesn't change a thing for me other than this;  I find Camille's honesty and candidness and fearlessness such a breath of fresh air.   Especially when she says things like this:

"The resistance of liberals in the media to new ideas was enormous. Liberals think of themselves as very open-minded, but that’s simply not true!  Liberalism has sadly become a knee-jerk ideology, with people barricaded in their comfortable little cells. They think that their views are the only rational ones, and everyone else is not only evil but financed by the Koch brothers.  It’s so simplistic!"

Thank you.

Of course, what does she have to fear?
  

Long lauded for her intellectual prowess, who would dare say anything against such a cultural icon, right?   I mean, c'mon, it's Camille Paglia!   [ooh, and happen to love this part, too --  speaking of Jon Stewart, no less, Camille says:  "I cannot stand that smug, snarky, superior tone. I hated the fact that young people were getting their news through that filter of sophomoric snark."]   Can I get an amen to the guest atheist in the house?

The thing is --

in America --

we should all fear becoming one note.

We should all fear social engineering and policy making by facebook, twitter and hash tags.

We should all fear the day we not only stop thinking for ourselves, but with vitriol and brimstone put the fear of God in the hearts and minds of  those who think against the blue tide, the majority ruling class with a smug, sophomoric, tyrannical force, silencing any and all brave opposition, large and small.

We should all fear the day we march to the same beat, crushing the radical thought that breaks away from the popular rhythm according to the law of mass appeal.

We should all fear the day we become one with an often alienating and off-putting "smug, snarky, superior tone."

So here's some Left-stream narratives that seem to run counter-productive to the betterment of the whole to consider, thereby calling upon common sense and individual will to overcome --

• #BlackLivesMatter...um, no, ALL lives matter.   But -- if you want to talk about just the BLACK lives, let's.   What about the black lives in the inner-cities, like Chicago?   Where is the outrage within the community about black on black crime?    And heck, if  black lives matter, how then could anyone within the black community abort their own black baby?  
• #CeciltheLion outrage  turns into # kill the doctor.   Oh okay, that makes a whole lot of sense.   Certainly, Cecil was a gorgeous creature and a legend in his protected habitat, but let's circle back to the hunt in America, shall we?    Enough with the hypocrisy, human lives are lost everyday on our city streets, hunted down in gang violence!  Where is the equally passionate outrage for loss of human life!????

Oh enough with the hash tags!

Newsflash, everything is becoming a politically motivated argument and it is crushing America's true liberty and freedom for all as it simply destroys our Rule of Law by Republic, not to mention a fair portion of our Bill of Rights.

We do not all agree about same-sex marriage --   and the conflict is rooted in something far greater and far deeper than what is paraded in the news; it has nothing to do with being gay.   And it is not up for a Supreme Court of nine judges to decide...

We do not all agree about abortion -- and especially that bit about being partially funded by taxpayers, whether we are discussing partial birth to the birth and salvage of body parts of a 24 week old baby!  See The Patriot Post for more on that.  Or maybe, don't...you have been warned.

We do not all agree about the wide open border and the unconscionable growth of illegal immigrants by Executive Order, usurping the lawful immigration policy and regulations on the books.

AND We certainly do not agree about Left's man-made climate change fraud for pete's fucking sake! [sorry, g thing lost her cool there for a minute...]

We do not all agree on a $15/hour living wage that works against the economic freedoms of a true capitalist, free enterprise economy  -- one that leaves the laws of supply and demand fully in tact, allowing for the market to dictate the proper relationship of production and cost, employee and employer, customer and sale, in proportion, thus protecting the possibility for ample growth and profit all the way around.  

Check out the travesty of Gravity Payments in Seattle on this...um, what,“He gave raises to people who have the least skills and are the least equipped to do the job, and the ones who were taking on the most didn’t get much of a bump." 

oh really now?  And it's not working out?

And you know what they say:  what goes up ---- un-tethered in reality and purely manufactured out of thin air -- must come down.

wow color me surprised.

David Burkus, who wrote the post for Forbes, cites a theory to explain this disgruntled employee conundrum, made famous by J. Stacey Adams in the sixties; it's something called the "equity theory of motivation."  Now, for another surprise, he sends the reader to a Wikipedia page to explain it.  ???But whatever; whatever gets it done, right, let's not hate.

The theory goes something like this:

According to equity theory, individuals are constantly calculating a ratio of their inputs (time, effort, skills, experience, etc.) to the outputs the organization gives them (salary, benefits, recognition, security, etc.). When their ratio appears equitable to that of their coworkers, the organization runs smoothly. When the comparisons are out of whack, that’s when demotivation and strife set in.

Thus people, long story short, we finally arrive at the main thing on this day. 

Not only do we not agree on many, many things these days -- we have an "equity theory of motivation" setting into our daily landscape en masse.   For the poorly thinking majority is making some grave errors while supposedly speaking for the whole -- or at least, speaking the loudest, the smuggest, the snarkiest anyway.

The BENEFITS are increasing for the uneducated, uninformed, unlawful, illegal, unproductive, unincorporated, un-assimilated, the smug and the snarky, and just out and out individually weak of our citizenry upon the shoulders of the educated, informed, lawful, legal, productive, incorporated, assimilated and just simply out and out individually strong of our citizenry,  We're losing our integrity along with our equity.

And Alexis de Tocqueville saw it coming over two hundred years ago; as tyranny reigns, liberty is almost becoming a no show. 

We are out of balance; the exchange of goods and services, costs and rewards, is breaking America's back as the "equity theory of motivation"  shapes our response to the nation's evolution by majority rule.

Have a nice day. 

Make it a Good Day, G

It's a Day to Be All for One and One for All Thing

Dear America,

Sharp contrast in motion:

FIRST, read THIS, from Peter Ferrara @ Forbes.

Then know this:  HE watched the attack in Benghazi, and the very next day he flew to Vegas for a fundraiser.  Appropriate?  Good Call?  huh, allow me to think about that for all of two seconds.

But cue an epic storm, "Sandy" -- he's all of a sudden remembered he needs be the leader.  The President goes back to Washington.

Oh hindsight is 20/20 isn't it, Mr. President?

If only.

If only you had stayed in Washington circa September 12th, 13th, 14th -- at least over a few days, just long enough to get plenty of photo-ops sitting in the Oval Office and showing the world you were on it.  If only you had given it more thought to the advantages of staying, instead of squeezing in a few senseless appearances in the middle of unmitigated "acts of terrorism."  If only, right?

Clearly, looking back at moving FORWARD, the question of 'should I stay or should I go now', was not even considered; you went -- and by all appearances, with no regrets.

Clearly, looking back at moving FORWARD, posing the question of 'who denied requests of more security and why' seems irrelevant, if not totally absurd, to even ask.  It was, and still is, beneath you to answer to such preposterous revelations of any breach of duty whether aimed at you, or anyone within your administration, right?

Who gave the order to 'stand down' right smack in the middle of it?  Not Panetta.  Not Petraeus.

Fast forward to after the fact --  after making an impromptu general statement in the Rose Garden, and after weeks of blaming a video (and about that...talk aboutsomething 'sketchy'...)   -- when we arrive at reality bearing down on a defensive president saying "the suggestion that anyone in my team...anybody on my team would play politics or mislead when we've lost four of our own, governor, is offensive.   That's not what we do.  That's not what I do as president, that's not what I do as Commander-in-Chief."   @Second Debate.

So ironic.    The title, by definition, is to lead the military! through the storm, through the battle, in peacetime and war.  When a moment to stand as the Commander-in-Chief  is before him,  and demanding his attention to order a MILITARY RESPONSE of a terrorist attack [correction, the "act of terror" running in live feed right before his eyes]   he chooses to retreat and then LIE his way out of it.

And Sandy -- now that's a thing calling for his undivided attention.  Matter of fact, he needs to stop campaigning 'full-stop' (that's nav-speak, Mr. President... oh, of course you know...being it's an everyday term used on the bridge of the place where planes land...).   The situation room is calling; he needs to go back to Washington to tell us something we already know:  just stay home, listen to the Emergency Preparedness projections of this storm and prepare; don't do anything foolish. 

Not that a storm can lean right or left -- it actually goes in circles...and how funny is that, but how quickly we digress. It does beg another question:  Which will turn out greater than the other -- the Big Benghazi Lie or the anticipated epic storm bearing down upon our East Coast as we speak?   

It doesn't matter though, does it?  In this moment, we share in the immediate concern for 50 million Americans sitting in harm's way.  So in that spirit, we will keep things rather tame here in Gland.  It's just not a good day to play politics, now is it, Mr. President?  And surely, it would be offensive for anyone to think otherwise.   All politics aside, it's just a good day to be all for one and one for all, for that's what we do.

and all we can do now is pray, and pray hard. 

Make it a Good Day, G