About Me

Name: Mike Silverman
Location: Milford, MA
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

GOODBYE REPUBLICANS - HERE'S YOUR TERMINATION NOTICE

Hello and welcome to whomever of you may be gazing at my little blog today. And I would also like to extend a very special "Good Morning" to a fine old group of fellows out there. Good Morning Republican party. Good morning General Powell, Senator McCain, Mr. Steel, Senator Ridge, and the rest of you who have expressed reservations about being too critical of Judge Sotomayor for the position of Supreme Court Justice. We appreciate the service, the time, the effort you have given your grand old party. Now, if you will please open and read the letters you have just been handed we would greatly appreciate that. Please don't feel too badly.  It's simply that your services are no longer needed.  Please walk single file as you exit the stage, you will find transportation outside ready to take you permanently back to your private civilian lives. When, as a political party of alleged moral principle and opposition to the spread of the structural disease known as liberalism, it becomes a debate as to whether a debate should be made against the rise to power in the highest unchallengeable lifetime appointment in government a person whose proven rhetoric and body of work represents the antithesis of our foundational freedoms, it is time to clean out the house. When, as a political party founded on preservation of the essential moral and structural framework of the documents which gave rise to independence and freedom and self determination for our nation, the party itself can no longer see the enemy for who it is, it is time to clean out the house. It's so very plain that Liberals and those who call themselves "progressives" want to destroy the Republican party, it rather goes without saying. It's so crystal clear that Powell and the other self proclaimed moderates are the tools being used by enemies of Conservatism for that end. To listen to the lies... the perverse lies... from those who seek to destroy Republicans and more precisely destroy Conservatives... that they are trying to "SAVE" the Republican party is an insult that cuts to the heart of anyone with a scrap or more of intellect. And the thing is , we all know that this is what it's all about. The left wing media knows it, the liberal analysts know it, and the moderates know it. And yet we are treated to this fantasy theater of the likes of Powell clomping around on a media stage like pinnocchio, a useful idiotic puppet of the people who want to destroy the Republicans and he is a willing and happy mouthpiece for them. He sits there like a vetriloquist's dummy mouthing the words of the liberals who hate Republicans and want to dilute Conservatives out of existence as a power, which of course will put the final nail in the Republican coffin. Either Powell and his fantasy-weavers have an Obama-Complex and want to be lead by a Republican version of Obama, in which case if they succeed there is no more Party, or they are happily working to destroy the party principles that they desperately hate and their satisfaction will come from taking it down into the final flames of Hell where it appears is the only fire hot enough in their minds to purge the party of the sin of Conservatism.
 
With regard to recent dangerous actions of North Korea, just a thought... what if... China is using North Korea as a cover to test their own nuclear weapons technology? Given the provocative and radical nature of North Korea's leader why not let him be the front man and scapegoat for testing tht China wants to do? I'm not sure of that, it's just something that occurred to me as I was considering the situation. Anyway, the question I'm looking to have answered is will the Republicans come up with the right response, regardless of whether Obama will implement it. Republicans , according to liberals... ( and of course if we follow the "moderate approach" we must always view Republicans through the liberal lens..., ), are war mongering nuts. So, if Republicans as a party follow suit with Powell leading the way, they will want to "sit down" and "talk" with Kim Jong-il and try to convince him that this is a bad thing he's doing, like some sort of political version of the Jehovah's Witness but without the moral conviction of their beliefs. Instead of being strong on foreign policy and defense which is , or was..., something Republicans had a lock on..., they will kowtow to the pied piper of liberalism beause those Republicans who gaze through the liberal lens see their opportunity as being right now... with the election of Obama being thier proof that "they" are the type of leaders the country really wants. The right approach is to lead... lead the way by laying down the law, not talking but ordering North Korea to immediately cease or face immediate response. We CAN'T just sit here like a bunch of blithering dolts while that little pig Jong-il makes a mockery of US power. Faliure to bring the North Korean government under control, to allow them to mock us, is going to undermine the war on terror, and further deteriorate our effectiveness and image around the world. For God's sake..., our ALLIES are in the line of their fire. We need to have a US Navy battleship off the coast of North Korea and start doing some "test" firings of its cannons in the general direction of North Korea.
 
- Mike Silverman

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

THE CASE AGAINST MODERATES

Hello.  I'm not sure if anyone reads my posts here anymore, but I felt that I needed to comment regarding recent statements made by Colin Powell about the Republican party and specifically that he feels it needs to "moderate" , to move to the middle ground and not be so strident in holding a particular point of view. I disagree with Powell. And here is my reasoning. In a basic sense, in accordance with societal admonitions, we are told, "if you must drink, then drink in moderation." Smoke in moderation.  Eat in moderation. And so on. In schools, churches and at home from the time we are children we are instructed to resolve our conflicts, make peace with our enemies, seek a compromise.  In many circumstances, all of this advice can serve a person very well. Today we face a world of economic uncertainty, and hostile governments with dangerous weapons. We live in a world where it seems to make sense that finding a way to compromise, to find a middle ground between light and darkness, where we can help each other economically and ease tensions by reaching out with friendship to those who mistrust us, is a common good. No one wants to fight a war every day. No one wants to wrestle with principles and ethics and personal values that sit outside of the accepted normal vistas of familes , friends, and nations. In this I'm reminded of a gentleman I used to work with. His name is Bob.  A very mellow, easy going, likeable guy. A Grateful Dead fan, among other music. We got along quite well for about 1 month. We talked about all sorts of things, from music to politics, to science. And then, one day..., he asked me if i'd like to try some "mushrooms". I remember staring blankly at him for a long moment, and something welled up inside me as I looked at him. At first I wasn't sure what the feeling was. Later I realized it was shock, and a sudden deep mistrust. I told him I wasn't interested, that I didn't prefer to ingest things that warped my perception of reality and caused addiction. But, Bob..., being the nice guy that he is, tried in his own way to convince me of how wrong I was, in his opinion. Every day he would try to pursuade me as to the "health" benefits of both body and mind of ingesting these "magic mushrooms"" of his.  He actually brought me in case studies done in other countries in an attempt to prove that his fungus was not addictive. It began to be a bit of a struggle to convince him that I simply had no interest in it. I tried in every way that I could think of to gently but firmly rebuke his offers. But I began to realize that this simply was not going to work. This issue was something he was so passionate about , that he could not let go of it.  This was not a case for conflict resolution 101. He held a very specific, unwavering point of view.  As did I, to the exact opposite of his. There was no middle ground to be achieved. There was no moderate view that we could both aspire to. This was not a bi-partisan matter. He was a partisan for his view, and I for mine.  Now, the only reason I bring this up is to point out that moderation, making peace, conflict resolution... does not work in every case.  In the real world, there are times when personal values clash, and do so without a means of reaching a middle ground. The clash of values can be important, as means of defining the argument for and against something. Going back to what I said at the start of this, we are raised with certain values pertaining to moderation. But we must not lose the line between moderation of activity we choose to do as individuals or within friendships and familes, and the personal ethics and values that form our individual perceptions of the world and the moral fabric of our souls. Within politics today we hear quite often from the "voice" of those who insist that moderation and middle ground is vital to great leadership. This is a case of carrying the lessons taught to us as children for survival in a basic sense, to find common ground with your friends, your family, don't overeat, or over-exert yourself, and taking it to the extreme and improbable command to compromise one's personal values and principles so as avoid the appearance of being hard and unreasonable. In other words, taking moderate views of anything that forces you to diminish and withdraw from your closely held and passionte principles is as being asked to barter your soul for the sake of avoiding an argument. This is not the lesson from childhood. Such a thing is a perverion of that lesson. Those who engage in this level of compromise have pared their individuality down to the form of a mime being pushed left and right according to the whims of others. To take a solid and principled stand based on the formative experiences of your life is the essence of leadership.  And the remaining argument from childhood goes as thus, "always be open-minded". Open-minded is such an abused phrase today.  Again it's vital to differentiate between what "open-minded" means in the informal vista of one's personal life, as opposed to the circumstance one would face in the role of a leader. Is the lesson from childhood of being "open-minded" that one must never maintain a solid value or principle that is worth fighting for? No. The admonition against failing to be "open-minded" is meant as a tool to use for the purpose of cooperation, to look beyond superficial things and welcome participation from those who have something constructive to contribute. But lest we confuse "cooperation" with "moderation" , let's look at it this way.  Imagine you are an engineer designing a suspension bridge over san fransico bay. You bring your sound scientific principles of design and construction to bear in the plans for the bridge. Another bridge engineer opts to use a different design, one that has sweeping lines and grand curves, but a weakness and flaw in the basic design that will cause problems for the bridge in the future. Being "open-minded" you review the design of the other engineer and after careful consideration conclude that it's far too dangerous. Since people's lives are at stake, you insist that the bridge be built with the normal standard sound principles you have learned. The other engineer refuses to give up his own plan for the bridge.  Rather than construct a problematic bridge that looks good but has flaws in its substance, you step away from the project and refuse to be part of it. It is a reasonable decision to refuse to participate in construction that you know is flawed and dangerous. Thus, it's important for those in a leadership position not to give in to the cries and shouts and demands for being moderate and open-minded if in any way such a thing requires you to abandon the principles and values that have carefully shaped and guided your intellect and ethics.
 
- Mike Silverman

 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

THE SICKNESS OF GOVERNOR BLAGOJEVICH

I have been studying the case of Governor Blagojevich, and after some careful consideration I believe I have discovered a new psychological disorder. I call it Blagojevism; a form of political corruption that causes the victim to believe that by denying what everyone knows to be true you can make a scandal disappear. First known case on a national level, President William Jefferson Clinton denying sexual relations with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. The strength of the Blagojevistic approach is in it's use of political capital. Typically, Democrats with strong political capital in media circles are able to employ Blagojevism in a successful deflection of criticism. This heavily relies upon a secondary form of Blagojevism called Hyper-Ratherosis. This is a deeply rooted psychological ailment which typically appears after obtaining credentials with agenda driven news media networks such as CBS CNN, MSNBC and NBC. Psychiatrists have been studying this abnormality for years. The desire to achieve a political agenda at any cost appears to form a cranial depression in the frontal lobe that manifests itself in the form of ridiculous analysis and skewed world views. Some psychiatrists believe this has it's roots in a strange condition called Colin-Powellitis; A syndrome marked by the need to be respected for having no core principles while in fact having a core belief in liberal dogma. The mental dilemma this poses to the victim eventually causes the victim to be engulfed in a delusional state of grandeur believing that anything that the individual says is beyond reproach. People with Colin-Powellitis often display fits of anger when criticized and can only be calmed through an interview with CNN's Fareed Zakaria.
 
- Mike Silverman
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »