hopperbach


Saturday, May 10, 2008

Obama's 57 states of confusion

Barack Obama's campaign staff has an interesting dilemma -- how do we get our candidate to talk to the press without actually using words? The LA Times blog, Top of the Ticket brings us a rather Quayle-worthy moment from the Democratic Presidential candidate:

"It is wonderful to be back in Oregon," Obama said. "Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it."


Later, Obama's aides watched in horror as the unthinkable happened -- their candidate opened his mouth again:

At a later stop Obama was talking with reporters and expressed concern he'd also mis-stated the number of potential cyclone victims in Burma. He said, ""I hope I said 100,000 people the first time instead of 100 million. I understand I said there were 57 states today. It's a sign that my numeracy is getting a little, uh." At that point, an aide cut him off and ushered journalists out. Before he could mis-speak again?

Campaign fatigue? Mmmmmm.... maybe. Amiable wabbit that I am, I'm not even going to ride him too hard... this time. I'll leave that to the other bloggers. More interesting to me is the fact that the media-at-large is virtually ignoring this gaffe. You'll be hard-pressed to find it anywhere outside the blogosphere. Can you imagine what would have happened if George Bush had made the same comments back in the 2000 campaign. Think the MSM would have given him the same pass? Nope. They would have dogged him until it actually became a campaign issue and Leno would have gathered a week's worth of material out of it.

But what about the future? Can we can look forward to more Obamisms in coming months? As the Golden Boy himself would say, "Yes we can."

Labels: , , , ,

Friday, May 09, 2008

Obama courts the envy vote: promises CEO tax hike

In an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer yesterday, Barack Obama promised to stick-it to evil Corporate America by raising "CEO Taxes" when he becomes President:

“If you’re a CEO in this country you’ll probably pay more taxes,” Obama said. Obama speculated his CEO tax rates “won’t be prohibitively high, you’ll pay roughly what you did in the 90’s when they were doing fine.”

Obama also said he would eliminate the Bush tax cuts and install what he called a “middle class tax cut.”

Blitzer asked Obama to define “middle class.”

Obama replied, “You know, I think the definitions are always a little bit rough” and said “if you’re making $100,000 a year or less, then you’re pretty solidly middle class…On the other hand, if you’re making more than $100,000 and certainly if you’re making more than $200,000 or $250,000, you’re doing pretty well.”


"Solidly middle class"? Says who? Apparently for Obama and liberals like him, it's all about digits. $99,999 puts you in the middle. One more dollar and you're a heartless corporate FATCAT -- or at least you get invited to their cocktail parties. Either way, you clearly have more than you need and it's time to give some of that excess wealth to those we have determined to be the less fortunate -- that poor Joe who is struggling to make ends meet on a meager $50,000. Curiously enough, the less fortunate in this country still seem to have managed to scrounge up enough pennies on their paltry income for a satellite dish and a 42" HDTV. But, as Obama and his ilk will gladly point out -- they don't own a private yacht like the average CEO does -- and that's just not fair.

In truth, it's all relative. A person living in a hut in a third world country would view even the lower class in America as "well off" -- and would probably wonder why some of them don't work a little harder given the freedom and opportunities they have. The middle class would look absolutely fabulously stinking rich in their eyes. Two cars? Electricity? Plumbing? Life is sure good over there.

So where do liberals like Obama get their numbers? Nowhere. They are purely arbitrary and are based on emotion rather than any solid data. $100,000 "sounds" rich to a person making $36,000. But even someone making $36,000 a year can still have a decent quality of life provided they manage their money. Conversely, there are people making $250,000 who are barely living within their means. It's all a state of mind.

But Obama's philosophy is nothing new. It's the typical liberal strategy -- divide people into classes, pit the lower against the higher, and then position yourself as the hero who will charge in and make things right. Obama has merely tweaked it a little by giving the enemy a face -- the face of Bob Nardelli, Michael Eisner or any other of a growing list of famous CEO's who have become notorious for their apparent greed and excess. By adding this extra emotional layer Obama hopes to garner that "solid" middle-class vote.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Thursday, May 08, 2008

If you're happy and you know it...

This is something I've always suspected. Very interesting story from FOXNews about liberals, conservatives and happiness:

Individuals with conservative ideologies are happier than liberal-leaners, and new research pinpoints the reason: Conservatives rationalize social and economic inequalities.

Regardless of marital status, income or church attendance, right-wing individuals reported greater life satisfaction and well-being than left-wingers, the new study found.

Conservatives also scored highest on measures of rationalization, which gauge a person's tendency to justify, or explain away, inequalities.

Couldn't have said it better.

If your beliefs don't justify gaps in status, you could be left frustrated and disheartened, according to the researchers, Jaime Napier and John Jost of New York University. They conducted both a U.S.-centric survey and a more internationally focused one to arrive at the findings.

"Our research suggests that inequality takes a greater psychological toll on liberals than on conservatives," the researchers write in the June issue of the journal Psychological Science, "apparently because liberals lack ideological rationalizations that would help them frame inequality in a positive (or at least neutral) light."


Bingo. But these are just the results of one study, right? Not quite...

The results support and further explain a Pew Research Center survey from 2006, in which 47 percent of conservative Republicans in the U.S. described themselves as "very happy," while only 28 percent of liberal Democrats indicated such cheer.


Not a bit surprising from what I have observed over the years. I've met only a couple of liberals in my lifetime who I would say are pleasant, calm, rational people. The rest , by and large, I have found to be bitter, cynical, sarcastic, unhappy folks who absolutely live to be offended. They actively seek inequality and injustice so that they can further confirm to themselves that the deck is stacked against them. Now that I think of it, they're not a lot unlike those cavemen we see in those GEICO commercials. Constantly offended. If you're reading this and are one of the "happy" few who are both happy AND liberal, then congrats. You are a rarity.

That is why Obama's campaign has done so well with his promise of "change". Change to what? Liberals don't know or care. They just know that they are unhappy, are sure that Bush has something to do with it, and will not rest until their valiant knight comes galloping in to make things right. Not able to find happiness in front of their eyes, they embrace any candidate who peddles the all-magical "change" -- even if they have no idea what that change will be.

So what about us conservatives? Aren't we always angry? Nope. Don't we always rant and rave in blogs or talk radio? Sometimes. But we're not chronically angry people. We leave it on the desk when we go home. We have the ability to enjoy life outside of politics and enjoy the company of others in social situations regardless of their beliefs. Basically, anger is not a way of life for us and -- here's a deep dark secret -- even when we are ranting and raving we are actually having a lot more fun than you may realize.

But don't us conservatives get mad or unhappy at things going on around us? Sure we do. It's just that we have a better ability to put things in perspective and get on with our lives. We don't believe that our happiness or quality of life depends upon government. We don't rest our hopes and dreams upon who takes office in 2008. We don't take every bit of unsavory news as evidence that the world is going down in flames. We don't lug our anger around like an albatross and -- most importantly -- we don't look outside of ourselves for our own happiness.

And therein lies the heart of the matter -- only YOU have the ability to make yourself happy. No person, place or thing can do it. No politician, political party, musician, activist, artist sage or guru can ever bring it to you. Infinitely wiser folks than I have recognized that happiness comes from within.

So why then do "happy" conservatives like myself become active in politics? Because liberals are becoming too powerful in society. We recognize the happiness that we inherently enjoy may someday be snuffed out as our freedoms become increasingly scarce due to social conditioning, consumer activism, political correctness and this unending quest to "level the playing field" (translation: if that guy next to you is miserable then YOU have to be miserable too). We recognize it and we do our part in speaking out against it so that our children will enjoy the same freedoms we had.

And in speaking out we offer an alternative: find your own happiness. The Founding Fathers called it a "pursuit" and it is this RIGHT to that pursuit of happiness that truly makes us all equal.

That's the truth as I know it and I am HAPPY to report it to you.





"What are you smiling at?"


Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, May 07, 2008

We now know who the Democratic Nominee Will Be...

Tim Russert has pretty much pronounced Hillary Clinton's campaign dead, describing it as "very much like being on life support. Once they start removing the systems, you really have no choice".

Paging Dr. Kevorkian...





Also, Drudge reports:

CONGRESSIONAL SOURCE: Hillary having trouble finding superdelegates who will meet with her... 'No one wants to see her today'..."

Not looking too good.

But if her campaign's prognosis is terminal, apparently Hillary hasn't yet made it through the denial stage. After all, she has loaned herself 6.4 million in the past month and there are rumors of more to come. And today, Clinton is meeting supporters in West Virginia vowing to keep fighting.

Can't blame the ol' gal. After all, her husband was hailed as the comeback kid a few years back. But she just doesn't possess the slick factor of Billy Boy and moreover she can't play the saxophone. Without another constructive outlet for all her hot air, her campaign has now begun the dying process.

A word of advice to her campaign staffers... keep a good distance over the next few days. She's a really good aim with dishware.

Labels: , , , , ,

Monday, May 05, 2008

Bach in action

Yawwwwwwwn. That was one heck of a hibernation.

Obviously, a lot has happened since my last post. I will not attempt here to summarize or recap the last three years. This is a just post to say I'm back -- for whatever a rabbit in a baroque wig being back is worth.

As for why I have been absent for so long, I guess the phrase others might use would be life took over. Problem is I hate that weenie phrase. Its a cop-out used by people who give up on their dreams too early. Life never really takes over. We just don't know how to organize our time. You can make time for anything if you have a passion for it. So here I am and that's that.

I'll be updating the rest of the site (in case you were wondering why I still have "Katrina" links). Be looking for more posts soon. It's good to be Bach.

Labels: , , , , , ,