Flip-Flop, much?

Nancy Pelosi press conference, September 7, 2006:
[E]ven if [Osama bin Laden] is caught tomorrow, it is five years too late. He has done more damage the longer he has been out there. But, in fact, the damage that he has done ... is done. And even to capture him now I don't think makes us any safer.

Nancy Pelosi, earlier today:
The death of Osama bin Laden marks the most significant development in our fight against al-Qaida. ... I salute President Obama, his national security team, Director Panetta, our men and women in the intelligence community and military, and other nations who supported this effort for their leadership in achieving this major accomplishment. ... [T]he death of Osama bin Laden is historic....

Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/nancy-pelosi/2011/05/03/pelosi-caught-flip-flopping-big-time-bin-laden#ixzz1LKtyzfs3

I am a contemporary adult, will someone please help me with this subtle issue?

Like most contemporary adults,  I am the product of today's public schools, faith based institutions, political climate and the Fourth Estate.   Consequently I am very fuzzy on the whole "good" vs. "bad" thing.  Like most of my contemporaries, I don't really have any strong opinions or beliefs, which coupled with filing an annual income tax return makes me a good citizen.  I am proud of being a good citizen. The recent government turmoil in the Middle East and in Wisconsin have made me very concerned.  I am having moral, emotional and intellectual crises that I have no training or experience to deal with let alone resolve.  I am desperate for some authority figure to step forward with the proper attitude.

I know the rioting in Egypt is "good".   I know Egypt must be a "bad" country because they are US allies, which makes us, good citizens obligated to support the democratic uprising in that country aiming at overthrowing  the bad government (ally)  that has denied democracy to their freedom loving people.  I realize when the celebrating Egyptian throng beats and sexually tortures a Western reported because she was suspected of being Jewish, that we good citizens should not condemn their behavior because it shows how intolerant of cultural diversity the US is.  This is just a good mob doing the things a good mob does.

And by the same token,  Iran must be a "good" country because they are the enemy of the US and their leader is revered  by the freedom loving countries of the UN and the EEU.     When uprisings occur by the people in Iran I know that is "bad", because that promotes instability in the Middle East and could lead to US (and Israeli)  hegemony in the Middle East.  I realize when the celebrating Iranian security forces beats and sexually tortures the demonstrators because they suspect that they are being influence by the Jews, that as a good citizen, I should not condemn their behavior because it illustrates how intolerant US citizen's are of cultural diversity.  Another case of a diverse mob doing what a culturally diverse mob does.

So I understand the two general principals: US enemy is "good", US allay is "bad".  And mob violence can never be condemned without being  opposed to cultural diversity, which is not only bad it is also very uncool. 

So that brings us to the Wisconsin, where anti-government demonstrators are trying to overthrow the government.  It is obvious that mob violence in Madison must not be condemned because that would be culturally insensitive.  So that gets me down to the "good" and "bad" thing.  And I admit, years of contemporary culture has kept my moral compass spinning so that  I am woefully inadequate to understands the subtleties of this conundrum.  Are the anti-government mobsters "good" because they are attacking a part of the US? In that case, a state would be similar to a US ally.  But if you call all the states US allies doesn't that insult all the many states like Wisconsin and California and New York that have done so much to undermine and oppose the US government?  States like Wisconsin and many others have worked tirelessly to undermine the US abroad on a wide variety of issues from immigration, to national defense, and internally in opposition to the US on a range of issues from law enforcement to fiscal responsibility.  Therefor states cannot are not  US allies but US enemies.  Or can they?  This is the crux of my moral spinning ; are the protesters in Wisconsin, the "good" Egyptian kind rioting and looting in the name of democracy.  Or are they the "bad" Iranian kind of rioters trying to promoted US global dominance?  Can someone PLEASE tell me what to think before my head explodes, so I can  watch TV WITHOUT a moral headache?

Non PC Holiday Greeting

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year 2011 AD
Sincerely yours,
-t

PC Seasonal Greeting

To one and all,

Please accept*, with no obligation, implied or implicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low stress, non-addictive, gender-neutral, celebration of the solstice holiday, practised within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasions and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all.
And a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling, and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2011, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make our country great, (not to imply that our country is necessarily greater than any other country) and without regard to the race, creed, colour, age, physical ability, religious faith, choice of computer platform, or sexual preference of the wishee.
Yours truly, in political correctness,
-t

---

*By accepting this greeting, you are accepting these terms. This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal. It is freely transferable with no alteration to the original greeting. It implies no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of the wishes for herself/himself or others, and is void where prohibited by law, and is revocable at the sole discretion of the wisher. This wish is warranted to perform as expected within the usual application of good tidings for a period of one year, or until the issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first. Warranty is limited to replacement of this wish or issuance of a new wish at the sole discretion of the wisher.

Panel finds Justice reluctant to take cases of white victims - Washington Times

Panel finds Justice reluctant to take cases of white victims - Washington Times

A Real Inconveniet Truth

In between late night massages and  saving the planet, the prototype ecco-warrior Mr Al Gore emerges now filled with angst over his earlier choices.  He originally urged that we all switch to corn ethanol so we could burn up our food supply in our automobiles.  Al Gore admitted today that corn ethanol was “not a good policy,” according to Reuters.  "One of the reasons I made that mistake is that I paid particular attention to the farmers in my home state of Tennessee", Mr Gore said.  Sure he made a mistake, but dog gone it, the reason he made the mistake was his heart was just too big and he was too compassionate.  Now Mr Gore has become a real pragmatist.  Now he says don't use corn ethanol instead use the "second generation technologies which do not compete with food".   Second generation technologies convert glass clippings into bio-fuel, ala "Back to the Future Part 2". It seems that this change of heart about fuel sources also comes with a change in his funding.  It turns out that Mr Gore is a partner in a venture capital company, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, which is now promoting, wait for it.  Yes, you guessed it the so called "second generation technologies". 
There is a great post in the Green Hell Blog that details this newest hypocrisy  from the former VP:   Green Hell Blog   http://greenhellblog.com/2010/11/22/al-gore-cries-crocodile-tears-over-ethanol/
It turns out that former VP not only likes receiving those late nigh massages, he also will administer them to the public - for a fee.

US Tax System Explained Through Beer

15 October, 2008 by Scott Nolan Smith from the site "theSkittzo" http://scottnolansmith.wordpress.com/ "I received the following in an email earlier, thought it was clever and decided to post — though it is a bit of an oversimplification. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this: The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh would pay $7. The eighth would pay $12. The ninth would pay $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59. So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.” Drinks for the ten now cost just $80 total. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’ They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so: The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings). The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings). The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 ( 25% savings). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 ( 22% savings). The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings). Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. 'I only got a dollar out of the $20,' declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,'but he got $10!' 'Yeah, that’s right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!' 'That’s true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!' 'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!' The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill! And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier." While I agree this is over simplified it is a excellent illustration of our current tax system and by following the simplified illustration, anyone gets a gut level understanding of why  there is so much emotion over this issue.  And it really underscores the demagoguery of no tax cuts for the rich.