Much to My Annoyance

Much to My Annoyance

I have a friend who sends me articles every once in a while.  A few weeks ago he sent me one from New York Times columnist Paul Krugman.  Krugman, if you don’t know is a Nobel Prize winner. A fact which used to be a huge accomplishment, today doesn’t mean that much.

I’m too lazy to explain why, so I’ll insert this picture:

See what I mean?  I know, it’s sad isn’t it? It is like a Nobel Prize has become the elitist equivalent of a participation metal. “Yeah, for us!!  Everyone gets a trophy.”  Anyway, back to Krugman. Even though I read it a couple of weeks ago, it took this long to fully annoy me.  Keep in mind I’m STILL amazed at how stupid the American people are for re-electing a President who’s done nothing but make the economy worse.  But, the people have spoken.  If the economies of Greece and California are lookin’ OH SO FINE to you, and if Santa Claus is your idea of a President who am I to complain?  But, oh yes, I will complain.

Krugman began spewing his editorial vomit by pointing out that in the 1950’s American survived a 91% income tax rate.  So apparently it’s time to bring back the good ol’ days.  Of course, I’m not surprised by this. The last election confirmed the majority of Americans believe higher taxes somehow create prosperity.  They just ignore the plethora (a word I learned from watching the “Three Amigos” as a kid) of historical evidence and common sense that suggest otherwise.

But that’s not the part that annoyed me.  Here is the paragraph that did:

“There are, let’s face it, some people in our political life who pine for the days when minorities and women knew their place, gays stayed firmly in the closet and congressmen asked, “Are you now or have you ever been?” The rest of us, however, are very glad those days are gone. We are, morally, a much better nation than we were. Oh, and the food has improved a lot, too.”

So, Mr. Krugman (if that’s your real name) just so I’m clear, “some” in our “political life” pine for a more oppressive society based on race, gender, and sexual orientation?  My question is WHO?  Give us a name of one politician who is calling for the oppression of women, minorities and gays.  Enlighten us with the name or number of any Republican bill, in any Committee that calls for these things.  With someone as super smart as Krugman to say “let’s face it,” these people have to be front and center in our “political life,” right?  Or am I missing something?

Remind me, didn’t the recent RNC have more women and minorities giving speeches than the DNC?  OHMIGOSH, it did.  But anyone as super smart as Krugman would be able to see right through that, it’s obviously smoke and mirrors.  Clearly, there is an underlining tone of sexism, racism and homophobia that is the ONLY reason that ANYONE could POSSIBLY be conservative.  Right?

Then there’s the, “We are, morally, a much better nation than we were” thing.

What the hell is he talking about?

Whenever a jackass like Krugman talks about morality, your walls of defense should really shoot up.  Morality isn’t food, where everyone’s opinion is valid.  As long as it tastes good to you, that’s all that matters.  To understand morality you have to have an understanding about standards.  What is right and what is wrong.

Killing someone because they have a nicer car is wrong.  Period.  The state can’t legitimately make laws that say otherwise.  Regardless of societal whims.  Our nation was founded on the idea that all men (including women) are “endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights.”  I hate to break it to you, but rights and morality are linked, all morality originates with God, not government.

If the government is what decides morality, than morality, just like everything else is economical.  How moral is it that more Americans live in poverty than ever before?  If morality is all about the living conditions of women and minorities, how are we more moral now with 72% of black children being born into families without a father?  Doesn’t that all but guarantee a continual cycle of poverty?  Of course we couldn’t POSSIBLY suggest the God-given morality of being married if you’re going to start cranking out babies.  Or, at a bare-ass minimum, suggest that fathers MAN UP and take care of their kids.  No, no, no. It’s more moral to give free contraception.

Well, at least they will all continue to vote Democrat.

I’ll agree with Krugman on one thing.   The food has improved over the past several decades.

 

LIFEZILLA:  Having more fun then two monkeys in a poo throwing contest.

 

 

5 responses to “Much to My Annoyance

  1. I read that same Krugman article. I hated his either/or fallacy: You are either with us or you’re a homophobic, misogynistic, xenophobe, anti-communist. A long time ago I realized that when people do or say something that is obviously wrong they are either (putting it nicely) misinformed or they must be intentionally misleading people (I call this “Evil”). I tried to give Krugman the benefit of the doubt (“He must be stupid”), but over time I’ve decided that he is a propaganda mouth piece of the communists (Yes, they still exists, they’re just called by a different name). Here’s another sample of Krugman’s work…

    In 2002 Krugman called for a housing bubble: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/02/opinion/dubya-s-double-dip.html
    “To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.”

    So how’d that work out?

  2. I think the term “moral” is used far too loosely these days. Dictionary definition: “of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.” So morality is, in essence, based on what one thinks is right. For this guy to claim the nation is more moral, he means it’s more in line with what HE thinks is right. But it’s all subjective. It reminds me of this video I posted before the election about the Dems and their “tolerance,” but this could easily be applied to this type of self-righteous claim to being more “moral.” http://www.theblaze.com/stories/even-jon-stewart-finds-tolerance-at-the-dnc-doesnt-extend-to-conservatives-nazis-and-evil/

  3. Morality is defined differently by every individual. And yes, our nation was built upon the ideal of inalienable rights for all, well unless you were black or female, but aside from those pesky differences, you are correct. Slavery was considered moral by some people too. I don’t know how, but who am I to judge anybody’s definition of morality? And yes, the only reason to be a Conservative would be because you are a racist misogynistic Christian who loathes homosexuality. Just as all Liberals are baby killing, useless, lazy, uneducated, godless, immoral heretics who hate hard work and success. Perfectly rational. Oh, I forgot to list stupid…silly me. Stupid Liberal.

  4. My question is WHO? Give us a name of one politician who is calling for the oppression of women, minorities and gays. Enlighten us with the name…..

    Okay, you asked.
    Clue: He just ran on the Republican ticket for president and campaigned by saying: We’ll get rid of planned parenthood, over-turn Roe vs. Wade, encourage self-deportion and re-instate Don’t ask-Don’t tell. Hint: He ran for gov of Mass 12 years earlier touting an “unwavering” (that was the word he used) pro-choice stance on abortion rights, tolerance and amnesty for illegals & he looked fwd to the day when Gays didn’t have to hide their true selves and could serve proudly & openly in the military.
    His name rhymes w/ TWIT DOMFEE.

Leave a Reply to Wendy Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *