This makes them neurotic, because they hate themselves. They’re too fortunate. In truth, they know that they’re too cowardly and ‘guilty’. Guilty of what? They know – they sneak around at night and ‘do it’ (whatever that is) and think that polite society cares (which we don’t.)

So self becomes inadequate, they have to worship ‘super self’ – someone like them, but arguably more noble. Like Ted Kennedy. Someone who won’t judge them for what they do in the dark of the night, in cloistered defiance of accepted norms.

Well worth the time…

Looks like I’m getting a little link happy. It’s easy, given the widely-reported parade of character poverty that is the human experience. I think I’ll take an aside, and make an observation about what I see going on in the lives of people around me.

We have been an affluent society. Even our poor people are mostly fat, clothed and sheltered. Look at any handout line, and you’ll see that 80% of the people are morbidly obese. I think we’re not just obese in our bodies, but obese in our spirits as well. Flabby, flaccid, lazy.

One thing that I see is a neuroticism that arises out of trying to “keep the stuff that I have.” People are wigging, in changing times, trying to keep all the corners of their position pinned down. When people lose their jobs, or assets, or prospects, they run themselves ragged attempting to keep their house, or their career path, or their retirement plans.

If you want peace, then you’ve got to be ready to part with stuff. You have to be grateful for what you have. I keep my sanity by counting on the Providence that’s gotten me this far.

Suppose I lose my house. Suppose I lose my health. Suppose my spouse dies. Suppose my children go hungry. “It’s all them supposes that keep you miserable.” I began this life blessed, I will lose this life blessed, and any stuff I lose along the way was going to be lost anyway. It’s hard to see my friends, associates, clients, the guy on the barstool next to me, in the grip of the “supposes” nowadays.

On a micro scale, we have never been in control, and never will be – regardless of how much we strive for it. On a macro level, government will never be in control, regardless of the resources it expends in the land of diminishing marginal returns. When we strive for control, the very fabric of the universe conspires against us.

We need to strive, instead, to be blessed and to enjoy those blessings we already have. We don’t earn them, but we can put ourselves in better position to receive them, both as individuals and as a country.

Don’t even try to put a fig leaf on this one.

Marketing Department Chooses ‘News’ Stories

I’d contend that this is beyond a $300k photo op. It’s a little window on the administration’s mindset and overall lack of judgment. Who cares about the NYC public? Who cares that this is hypocritical with regards to their stated ‘green’ position, or the lectures that they give CEO’s for flying around in eensy-weensy private jets? Heck, we need a spiffy new picture of the Prez’ sporty ride. The attitude is beyond cavalier.

This was an operation, fortunately, that didn’t cost any lives. It wasn’t a combat mission, or a strategic mission. The question remains: If the command structure can so easily fall into folly, what else are they screwing up? What secret operations are equally as flawed – ones where the outcome isn’t immediately reported or where the panorama of cascading effects can’t be fully appreciated.

When the Abu Ghraib situation came to light, I seem to recall the flapping left talking about how the President Hisself should take the heat, whether he knew about it or approved it or not. Those critics are now silent.

There is a confederacy of elitist dunces running the country.

Don’t let the door hit you in the tailfeathers.

“A system of limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government,” he wrote. “Democratic efforts to reduce the resulting problems ought not be rejected in freedom’s name.”

I’m not really sure what a ‘regulatory czar’ is, but the two words in the title ought to be a warning — neither of them are particularly indicative of a bent towards liberty. I guess you could call him the ‘autocrat who makes rules’ synonymously. Elitist Minister of Truth, perhaps. I think the last person of note to occupy this position was Joseph Goebbels.