Mamet Versus Obama/ Hoffa - Civility vs Goonmanship!

In Monday's local paper a woman, who is president of The Savannah Regional Central Labor Council wrote: "Job 1 for Politicians? Job creation."

My response, which may or may not be published, was: "The number one job for politicians is to get out of the way and allow the free market to resolve our unemployment issues. Competitive not bureaucratic thinking is the preferred prescription.

Uncertainty created by Obama's failed leadership and Far Left Socialist theorem is creating investment and hiring reluctance. Over regulation and the throwback impact of a Rube Goldberg tax system only adds to the political insanity.

The philosophical differences between Liberals and Conservatives is beyond solution

The electorate must ultimately allow Conservative thinking to prevail and Conservatives must stick to their principles and not return to being political whores..

The purpose of government is protective and our Constitution was crafted to prevent the State from harming us.

Get out of the way government, stop the intrusions in every fact of American life and allow normalcy to return. Allow and challenge old fashion American common sense and ingenuity to flourish and things will improve.

Keep along the same dependency route, and continue to embrace Affirmative Action and PC'ism nonsense and we will continue to sink like a stone trapped in the muck and mire of DC politics and dumbing- down Liberal solutions."

I had no sooner sent my missive off when I got a call from a friend who had been out of town, missed reading some of my memos and learned of my wife's condition from mutual tennis friends. His own wife has been through a more serious form of cancer and we discussed the advances that have taken place and, in the absence of 'Obamascare,' could continue. He agreed.

My friend is a rational middle roader and probably voted for Obama but not likely to do so again. He stated, he wished Hillary had been nominated. We agreed that would have been better than Obama but I remain circumspect about Hillary. He said he had reservations about two Republican candidates and mentioned Perry and though he did not mention the second, I feel it would be Bachmann.

He is concerned about Perry's views on creationism and climate change. I pointed out, as a regional politician, Perry had to align himself with Conservative thinking and, Texas being an energy producing state, Perry had to mouth his objection to irrational science. My friend agreed and we both accepted the fact that when politicians run for president they are forced to mouth things middle folk want to hear.

He said that is what he expected Obama would do and was chagrined to find he remained far too Left.

This got me to thinking about how can voters really know what a politician is going to do once elected. Certainly circumstances, like 9/11, can alter their course, certainly their public record can provide some inkling insight but, in the final analysis, the desire to get elected in a nation as large as ours with so many varied regional and ethnic demands actually makes predicting post election behaviour difficult, at best.

That is why voters need to think for themselves and listen and watch carefully for clues that might provide answers. That is why I distrusted Obama from the git go and always saw him as a political rendition of Meredith Wilson's "Music Man."

The more I read Mamet the more I see how aligned we both are in our thoughts about various topics.

So now for more Mametisms:

His book is broken into very short writings about a variety of topics - 39 in all.

His discussion of 'Greed' starts with reference to the Ten Commandments and he makes the distinction between greed, which he notes is unacceptable behaviour, from desire for gain, which should be a natural consequence of wanting to better ones lot.

Mamet proceeds to discuss the Liberal desire to achieve 'fairness' which is not only a non-legal term but an anti-legal process. Why? Because fairness does not deal with universality but rather individual claimants and their desire for extra-legal preferential treatment, ie Affirmative Action, subsidies etc.

His attack on feminism highlights their abandonment of Clinton's victims under the premise they were 'trailer trash' and unworthy of feminist concern and the attacks on Palin, because she was a worker. Apparently, female workers fall beneath feminist standards unless they are executive level glass ceiling folk.

Mamet discusses his Ashkenazi European roots and grandparents devotion to the Torah and the command to pursue justice. Here again, Mamet dissects the true meaning of Justice and points out, in a litigation sense, justice calls for choice which equates with pain because someone wins and someone loses. Mamet makes an interesting observation when he writes America was not always good to the Jew or other ethnic groups but was always good for them.

Though Mamet believes all people care, the issue is the means to address and the potential to understand and correct disparity, sorrow and injustice. The problem with government caring, ie social justice, is that it all too often leads to waste, subvention and ultimately corruption ending in the destruction of the recipient and the elevation of the bureaucrat. All claims cannot be met so the eternal problem of addressing fairness ,through the distribution of Government funding ,is where everything breaks down and tax payers get it in the neck.

In discussing the plight of the family, Mamet believes the child learns their first lesson of civic virtue, religious devotion, marital behaviour, restraint and self esteem in the family environment. The consequent destruction of the family, the negating of its influence and/or derision by reason of Welfare and Liberal Arts education, is at the root of so many of our nation's problems.

Socialists want to do away with the notion of property and marriage. The Right sees the erosion of marriage through sex education, cohabitation, homosexuality, single motherhood and abortion as a moral affront.

The written law proceeds from the unwritten and this is why the Torah's Five Books of Moses is the 'family story' and the lessons learned therein extend vertically and horizontally as a construct for society.

Mamet discusses fairness in the context of children playing. Fixing the game for money is called corruption whereas fixing the game for sentiment is called Liberalism. Justice is blindfolded. She purposely holds two objects in her hand to prevent her pulling the blindfold down and so it must be with referees. Referees are human and make bad calls but when they stray in pursuit of abstract justice they corrupt the process.

Touching on, what I call 'Obamascare,' Mamet, in tongue and cheek fashion, writes Obama made his health care plan so attractive to the individual buyer that if the buyer rejected it they were subject to committing a Federal Crime. This reminded me of the great line in "Tea House of The August Moon" when the American Colonel said: 'Speaking of the Okinawans, I will teach them Democracy if I have to kill every one of them.'

Government intervention into private enterprise ultimately becomes its death knell - history teaches no less. A peoples' prosperity is in relation to their ability to fill needs of others and all life needs to consume according to Mamet. To consume means to produce and Government cannot produce. Government only only confiscates, intrudes, allocates all on behalf of the cupidity of current office holders - always done in the name of 'change,' progress and the clincher - humanitarianism.

Government by The Left is intent on taking from the consumer freedom of choice. However, replacing free enterprise with state control does not eliminate failure and mismanagement. It simply removes the possibility of self correction. Government is not prone to correct itself but it can produce inflation which is egalitarian because it impoverishes everyone.

In his concluding stories Mamet restates that it is not the job of the State to be compassionate but to be just.

Mamet's chapter on Alinsky, Obama's radical teacher, and what a community organizer is all about is worth reading. Mamet concludes a community organizer is one who seeks power to do whatever he wants and in the service of those in his community. In most instances, however, their behaviour, pursuits and dictates seldom bring about social justice but end, in most instances, with the rationing of more misery and poverty. Mamet cites Alinsky's role in forcing banks to make home loans to those who could not sustain the mortgage payments.

Unlike risk takers of the Civil Rights Movement, community do gooders risk little in the pursuit of 'Herohood.' Mamet asks why does society consider the 'enemy's anger' irrational but the furor over 'social justice' is brave and laudable. Mamet sticks to his view that most do gooders engage in cost free self aggrandizement.

Finally, Mamet asks why do Liberals hang onto the their deeply held beliefs claiming the principles underlying them are self evident. Mamet relies upon Hayek who offers two answers. First, Liberals are afraid of leaving the group having traded the burden and discomfort of choice for the comfort of Group think and secondly, because their principles have generally proven untrue and unworkable.

Since Liberals fear their concepts being exposed to the light of practicality they tend to become contentious when challenged, citing GW, Palin, Abortion, Greed as their list of defenses is endless. SO OUCH AGAIN!

In revisiting the word 'fair' Mamet repeats its pursuit opens the way for evil in the name of good and cites 'busing.' For those who read my memos know I applaud the Supreme Court's decision against racial distinction but believe their choice of solution was inappropriate and ultimately became self defeating.

Mamet concludes Leftist thought is a devolution from reason to belief in an effort to stave off the fear of powerlessness.

Mamet's son summed up Mamet's effort to decipher the difference between Liberals and Conservatives by saying it was the difference between the Heavenly Dream and God-Awful Reality.

For Liberals, Mamet's thinking will prove challenging and uncomfortable so I doubt many will make the journey and read "The Secret Knowledge" because it is easier to remain huddled in the crowd. For Conservatives, perhaps Mamet will offer a clearer understanding of the risks of freedom that allows them to think independently and give them courage to remain so.

Don't confuse me with facts when my mind is already made up and is the tripe we are likely to hear when Obama addresses the nation this week. Certainly that is what unions leaders were screaming this past weekend as did the woman who wrote the LTE in our local paper.. (See 1 below.)
---
I seem to recall, Obama and Biden stated they would return civility to politics. What we are witnessing, as they get in gear for their brass knuckle and inflammatory Chicago style of politics, is the most divisive and contemptible stirring of the basest of instincts.

Biden At AFL-CIO Rally: "You Are The Only Folks Keeping The Barbarians From the Gates"

Hoffa at labor rally, where Obama spoke, referred to the opposition,ie. Tea Partyers, as 'sons of bitches.' (See 1 below.)
---
It is never wise to trap yourself into a mental corner and preclude the other side as part of your thinking. This was sent to me by a friend and fellow memo reader.

The pressure is on and positive things can happen. Even politicians can screw up and do something right on occasion. (See 2 below.)
---
In my last memo I referred to how Western media and press portray the Palestinian-Israeli conflict as entertainment and resort to biased reporting and I cited the staged 'Jenin Rape' as evidence. Well here is more current evidence. (See 3 below.)
---
Dick
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) Tea party group to Hoffa: Resign!
By Matthew Boyle

Matthew Boyle is a reporter at The Daily Caller. He studied journalism at Flagler College in St. Augustine, Florida, where he worked as an editor at the school's newspaper, The Gargoyle.
inShAfter Teamsters union president Jimmy Hoffa, Jr. called for a “war” against Republicans and tea partiers on Monday, one tea party group is calling for the union leader to resign.

“Calls to violence can never be acceptable in this civil society,” the Rockford, Illinois tea party group said in a statement. “Hoffa’s remarks were made in an introduction to Obama speaking to Auto Workers and Unions in Detroit and this sort of angry, hateful, call to violence should be repudiated by the President with a call from the President to ask Hoffa to resign his very public position of influence.”

While warming up a Labor Day crowed in Detroit before a speech by President Obama, Hoffa Jr. said unions need to pick a fight with tea partiers and congressional Republicans.

“President Obama, this is your army,” Hoffa Jr. declared. “We are ready to march. Let’s take these sons of bitches out and take America back to where America we belong.”

The Rockford tea party called Hoffa’s comments “incendiary and dangerous.”

“If even one member of the Tea Party is harmed by anyone after Hoffa’s call to violence, then Hoffa should be held accountable by the Justice System and Charged appropriately,” the group said.

Though Obama wasn’t present when Hoffa Jr. made his incendiary remarks, Obama noted the presence of the Teamsters union president during his speech. Other union bosses joining Obama at the rally were United Auto Workers President Bob King, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka and SEIU President Mary Kay Henry.

A spokesman for the AFL-CIO has not answered multiple requests from The Daily Caller as to whether Trumka supports Hoffa’s comments.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)Six Reasons the Supercommittee Will Succeed
By Paul Weinstein

Whatever you think of Standard and Poor’s decision to downgrade America’s credit, their justification was fairly plain. Political gridlock has managed to scuttle several successive efforts to get a handle on the federal debt. And few, if anyone, is sanguine that the new “supercommittee” in Congress will have any better luck.

But a closer look reveals that, despite the nation’s pessimism, there are several reasons to believe that the 12-member supercommittee may be able to implement a plan that sets the nation back on track. The setup has been rigged to force a deal. So, in an age where “shorting” the market has become a sort of dirty word, the smart money may be in betting that Washington will enact a responsible comprehensive budget framework by the end of the year.

First, the dynamics of the committee itself suggest that that building sufficient support in the room will be that much more palatable. Negotiators need only corral seven of the twelve members (50 percent plus one) to send any deal straight to the floor of both houses of Congress. By comparison, the Bowles-Simpson Fiscal Commission was required to receive a full 77 percent, and managed only 61. In essence, the fact that a decision by any single member could boost any proposal past the required threshold will compel every member of the commission to negotiate in a serious manner. That diminishes the likelihood that political shenanigans will scuttle this deal like they have undermined previous negotiations.

Second, the supercommittee doesn’t have to start from scratch. Several proposals already developed–the Fiscal Commission, the Gang of Six, the Rivlin-Domenici plan, and the Obama-Boehner discussions—have already outlined the parameters of what might be in a grand bargain. As a result, most members of the supercommittee understand where the tradeoffs can be made.

Third, every member knows what is at stake. If the supercommittee, and subsequently Congress, can’t pass a deal that actually puts our country back on a sustainable path, then the markets will continue to tumble, our ability to climb out of the current economic funk will be lessened, and the prospects of a double dip recession will grow. No member of the supercommittee wants to be subject to that sort of culpability.

Fourth, the American public is hungry for a grand bargain. According to a recent poll, 60 percent of Americans say the committee should compromise, even if the deal is something they personally don’t agree with. Even if you break the participants down by party ID, a majority of Democrats, Republicans, and independents support a deal.

Fifth, the automatic triggers that will take effect in 2013 in the case that the supercommittee fails would cut against the interests of both Democrats and Republicans. Conservatives have railed against cuts to the armed forces, and progressives are dismayed by the prospect of more cuts to education, infrastructure, and the environment. So members from both sides are likely to be more fearful than previous negotiators by the prospect of failure.

Finally, and maybe most important, the path to the final approval of any deal the supercommittee passes has been short-circuited. If seven member of the supercommittee can agree on a plan, the proposal will go directly to both the House and the Senate for an up or down vote, without any opportunity for amendments. And that means that Congress’ arcane procedures will not be able to scuttle any negotiated settlement.

No doubt, there will be white knuckles in the months to come. The supercommittee has been given a difficult task. But much as previous efforts have fallen short, there are several reasons to believe this next effort may succeed. Here’s to hoping that, despite the conventional wisdom, this new path toward fiscal responsibility manages to implement the elusive grand bargain the public demands.

Paul Weinstein Jr. directs the graduate program in public management at Johns Hopkins University and is a fellow at the Bowles-Simpson Moment of Truth Project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)Wash. Post inverts UN report on flotilla raid to blacken Israel
By Leo Rennert

Let's start with the actual conclusions of the UN report on last year's Israeli commando raid on the Mavi Marmara, the lead Turkish vessel in a flotilla attempting to breach Israel's blockade of Gaza . To wit:

--Israel was within its legal rights to blockade Gaza because of persistent attacks from this Palestinian territory on Israeli towns. "Israel faces a real threat to its security from militants in Gaza," the report declares. It calls the blockade a "legitimate security measure." In this respect, the UN panel -- personally appointed by Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon -- completely repudiates an earlier finding by the discredited, anti-Israel UN Human Rights Council that the blockade was illegal.

--Violence-bent activists aboard the Mavi Marvara engaged in "reckless" attacks on the commandos descending from a hovering helicopter to the top deck.

--Israel was justified in using force to repel this assault on the commandos.

--Turkey should have done more to screen passengers on the ship before departure to weed out dangerous characters.

--Israel need not issue a formal apology to Turkey, but should come up with an expression of "regret" and pay compensation to families of the nine Turks killed in the battle with the commandos. This is exactly what Israel has offered to do all along, except that Turkey has kept insisting that it would not be satisfied with anything less than an apology.

--Israel's own investigation, which cleared the commandos, was the work of professional and independent investigators, while Turkey's investigation was "tendentious" -- i.e. propagandistic.

--The commandos, when screening other passengers, were sometimes abusive.

-- While the commandos were perfectly entitled to use force to protect themselves from getting killed, they nevertheless used "excessive" force under the circumstances.

All in all, a UN report that tilts heavily in favor of Israel and doesn't let Turkey off the hook. No wonder that Israeli officials view it as a rare vindication of Israel at the UN, while the Turkish government went ballistic in repudiating nearly all its major findings and conclusions.

But now guess which part of the report gets to play in the Washington Post. Yup, the main headline in big type on page A6 of the Sept. 2 edition blares: "Israel's use of force in raid called 'excessive.''

A smaller-type sub-head reads: "U.N panel calls blockade of Gaza legal but decries deaths in flotilla assault."

The article, by Colum Lynch, the Post's UN correspondent, is similarly selective in playing up the charge of excessive force, while downplaying the events, provocations and the violence against the commandos aboard the Mavi Marmara that triggered the fatal clash in the first place.

High up in the article, for example, Lynch devotes two paragraphs to details in the report about what its authors deemed excessive force, while hiding much farther down in his story -- in the second sentence of the eighth paragraph -- the conclusion that the commandos "faced significant, organized and violent resistance from a group of passengers when they boarded the Mavi Marmara, requiring them to use force for their own protection."

In contrast, the New York Times reported this crucial conclusion high up in the second paragraph of its report. The Times didn't hide the UN panel's approbation of the commandos' resort to force; the Post did.

In a similar vein as he' tilts the scales against Israel, Lynch plays up the report's recommendation that Israel issue an expression of "regret" and pay compensation to the families of the dead -- while omitting the crucial fact that this jibes with Israel's own position and is totally contrary to Turkish insistence that it won't accept anything short of a formal apology. In the political/diplomatic strains between Israel and Turkey, this UN report, in the vast majority of its findings, sides with Jerusalem and against Ankara..

Far down in the article, Lynch quotes an unnamed Israeli official as satisfied that the report "endorses our position" and acknowledging Israel's acceptance of it, while the Turkish member of the panel filed multiple dissents from its conclusions. But perusing Lynch's piece and the headline, Washington Post readers could be forgiven for wondering why in the world the two nations would take such positions if they only read the headline and the top half of the article.

Very few readers. of course, go beyond that -- as is well known to Lynch and Post editors. What counts is the main headline and the first few paragraphs. And those stack the deck against Israel.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------