The fires of failure are fueled by the planks of stability. They reach a zenith of fanaticism, as fact and fiction become obscured by the smoke of government's failure to govern. I read a comment the other day by a gentleman who was explaining what he had heard on a certain business channel, that the average government worker earns fifty thousand dollars per year.
This business channel also told him, that if, the federal government would just lay off 10 percent of its work force it would save taxpayers a trillion dollars a year. Well, if you divide a trillion by fifty thousand you get twenty million workers. If twenty million are only ten percent of the total, it means the total federal workforce is somewhere in the neighborhood of 200,000,000 workers. That's strange because there are only one hundred and thirty nine million workers in the workforce.
It would be easy to assume that this comment came from some ignorant hillbilly without a calculator. Except, the same day I read an article on the Bloomberg website, that was explaining that the sky would indeed fall, if the federal government didn't extend the Bush era tax cuts for the wealthy. To bolster his argument he explained, "With a median income of $70,000", but wait, I thought. The median income isn't $70,000 its $47,000. Maybe our ignorant hillbilly didn't have his numbers so far wrong, The Bloomberg economist was off by nearly the same margin as the hillbilly.
The media has become so partisan that it has become the news to fit our preconceived notions. I know from my years in business that the reason they fire someone isn't usually the reason the employer explains publically. I knew of an executive who wrecked a company car while driving drunk. He was said to have resigned to pursue other business opportunities. Sometimes the employee is just skating on the edge, either poor performance or incompetent, moody or rude.
So when Juan Williams goes on Fox and makes racist comments about Muslims what happens? The truth is we don't know why they fired him. Conservatives are jumping up and down calling for NPR to be defunded and Democrats are saying, "good riddance!" Odd isn't it? The party of "right to work" is up in arms because an employer practices "right to work" policies. The Democrats,the party of organized labor support the practices of "right to work".
This so called liberal media bias is buttressed by fair and balanced. Wasn't it the New York Times leading the charge to war in Iraq with its editorials? Did Keith Olbermann speak out in his broadcasts about the former parent company GE's efforts to push nuclear power into the third world? Selling plants and equipment to countries that refuse to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is a crime.
It was a crime when George Bush tried to do it, is it a still a crime when the Obama administration does it? When the Bush administration tried to lift the ban on deep water oil drilling the administration was excoriated as being anti-environment. When Obama asked for the same ban to be removed the Democrats in congress answered, sure, good idea!
Republicans condemned Obama's healthcare package as socialism and communism. With death panels and life and death limits while Democrats hailed it as a great step forward. In 1971 Richard Nixon proposed a far more generous version of the Democrats health care reform package. The Democratic congress of that day dismissed it out of hand because it was an attempt to privatize healthcare. Thirty nine years later Republicans opposed the Nixon plan while Democrats defended it.
The rhetoric doesn't seem to match the espoused party philosophies. George W. Bush ran for office as a compassionate conservative, opposed to big government and nation building. He then created two new government agencies, the to Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Safety Administration. He then invaded two countries for no practical purposes and embarks on nation building. He is responsible for the needless death of hundreds of thousands and has admitted to war crimes in his new book.
Barack Obama ran for office as a moderate progressive and upon assuming office this former constitutional law professor codifies the Bush doctrines. He asks his attorney general to defend the CIA, defends DADT and decided not to defend the American people in the foreclosure gate scandal. His administration gave BP a drilling permit based on Bush era environmental plans. After the blowout, the agencies responsible always agreed with the low spill assessments numbers of the oil company.
The Obama administration has increased the defence budget and started attacks on two new countries. That's quite a record for just two years, especially for a moderate progressive Democrat, who ran as Clinton and rules as Ronald Reagan.
The Bush administration destroyed the Republican party. The Obama administration is destroying the Democratic party. What exactly did George W. Bush stand for? What was his philosophy of government? What exactly does Barrack Obama's stand for? What is his philosophy of government? Tax cuts, more deep water drilling, protection for Wall Street, corporations and continued war? Is this guy is supposed to be... a Democrat?