The Real Problem With Regressives: They Live In A Fantasy Future

The most marvelous Daniel Greenfield has written (yet another) stellar piece, The Destruction of Contradiction.  He writes (in part, but do read the rest):

People, countries and ideas are destroyed through their inability to resolve their contradictions. The left gained a foothold in America by exploiting the country’s contradiction between its insistence on moral superiority and the actual way that the sausage got made. The left did not resolve this contradiction, instead it pretended that it had transcended the contradiction because when it made the sausage and broke the omelets, it was doing it for the greater good.

Under the old system, human misery was caused by the pragmatic problems of reality. Under the new system, it was caused by the idealistic necessities of the greater good.

For example, before ObamaCare someone who couldn’t get health insurance was suffering for pragmatic reasons. With the advent of ObamaCare, someone losing their doctors and getting stuck with insurance they couldn’t afford was suffering for the idealism of the greater good.

The contradiction between the aspirations of the ideal and the brutal necessities of the real were not resolved. Instead the left made the suffering of individuals and groups irrelevant.

Read that last part again.  It’s key to understanding the seeming heartlessness we perceive in the regressive, statist, and collectivist (i.e. totalitarian) policies of the radical left where “motive” (i.e. intent) matters more than outcome, where the “ends justify the means.”  We see this clearly in decades of failed leftist policies purportedly designed to help the poor; despite hard evidence that poverty is increasing and the middle class shrinking, the left clings to the welfare state not because it works but because they think it should work.  When you ignore reality (in this case measurable poverty for real people) in favor of unrealistic idealistic dreams of outcomes, you end up with Detroit, not a shining city on a hill.

And leftists do this all the time, on every issue.  In their drive for equality, they ignore the fact that everyone is not the same and that “equality” doesn’t and shouldn’t mean “sameness.”  Instead of allowing for this in their blueprint for the perfection of the human race, they plow ahead, lowering the bar for all in every arena they touch, be that education, law enforcement, or the military.

For example, the purportedly “equality-based” push for women to hold combat positions in the United States military sounds great, right?  Women can do anything a man can do as well as any man can do it.  Except we can’t.  Likewise, men can’t do everything we can do as well as we can do it.  That’s the way it is, that’s reality.  Leftists have no time or patience for facts or reality; they think they can bend both to their will.  So instead of carving out roles in the military that foreground women’s abilities and strengths, that take advantage of our superiority in some areas (face it, women are damned good shots, make excellent pilots, are great at strategy, make great diplomats (as long as they aren’t pretending to be men when they do it), etc.), leftists instead insist on their faulty “equality means everyone is the same as” rubric.  As one female Marine and Iraq veteran notes, “the best woman is still no match for the best man” in combat situations.  That’s just fact.  Indeed, leftists have conceded this very point by lowering physical training standards for women.  That’s not okay, and it’s a clear and obvious threat to our national security, but that doesn’t matter to the radical left.  Only that distant (and impossible) future matters.

Everyone should be the “same,” they think, and if they aren’t, we’ll just change “sameness” . . . and, while we’re at it, we’ll also punish people who’ve been “privileged” (be this because they are born white and male–a shameful thing to regressives–or because they are young and/or healthy).  It’s madness.  They don’t want to redistribute only wealth; they want to redistribute race, heritage, heredity, genetics, values, and a host of other things they have no power or control over.  It doesn’t work, can’t work, but they plow “forward!” working on the principle that destruction and misery are just the temporary but necessary steps toward some sort of fantastical Utopia that they envision as some sort of heaven on earth with our government overlords acting as our beneficent and loving council of gods raining manna down on the unwashed masses from their Olympian perches.

Breaking eggs is just part of the process.  Yes, Obama and his hordes, including House and Senate Dems (and Republicans), knew that millions upon millions would lose not only their health insurance plans but also their doctors.  They knew that Sarah Palin was right about death panels.  They also knew that millions upon millions would lose their jobs or have their hours drastically reduced.  This is built into 0Care.  Logic dictates that you don’t screw up a health insurance system that covered 253.4 million people to accommodate 35-50 million (depending on the estimates) people.  Logic dictates that if you have a government panel meting out treatments, you have not only rationing of care but a handful of people in DC deciding who lives and who dies.  Logic dictates that when you reduce the work week from 40 to 30 hours and make it financially onerous for employers to comply with the 0Care mandates, millions upon millions of people will lose their jobs and/or their health insurance.  But we’re not talking about logic.  Or results, at least not immediate results.  We’re talking about that drive toward a perfected human race living in Utopian harmony in the new Garden of Eden.  And yeah, shrugs the regressive, radical leftist, a bunch of people will suffer, even die.  That can’t be helped because some distant, fantasy future is the end goal (and yes, they actually do believe it’s achievable, but they also know that the only people living the new American dream will be the tiny segment of the population who do not live in abject poverty.  They are okay with that.).

So back to Daniel’s point that the suffering of individuals and even large groups does not matter to the self-proclaimed most “compassionate” of all people.  You see this when they attack cancer victims for complaining about losing the health insurance they like, for losing the long-term doctors they trust.  You see this when they dismiss more than 5 million people losing their health insurance as a “small percentage” of the “market.”  We’re not a “market,” we’re actual people, and the inability to grasp that in the here and now is what really distinguishes regressives.  They aren’t interested in the here and now.  They are only interested in that magical future they march in blinkered lockstep toward.

This is why they are totally comfortable trampling the rights of individuals and groups in the present.  It’s all for “The Greater Good” and that distant future they envision.  So a few thousand or even hundred thousand cancer victims die today . . . well, they were really just a drain on society anyway, right?  They can’t contribute to the brave, new world.

Remember when the Occupiers were calling for the overthrow of the government, a return to “nature”?  And remember how they dismissed the fact that millions of people can’t (physically or mentally) live the lifestyle they want?  One interviewee (I think it was in a Breitbart piece, but extra points to anyone who can find it) actually evoked Darwin in stating, with a dismissive shrug, that though it’s “mean” to say, some people have to die to fulfill the leftist mission.  Incredible.  Or not really at all incredible when you understand that the radicals running America into the ground have no compassion for anyone living in the present, their entire purpose is focused on an unrealistic, unachievable future replete with rainbows, sunny skies, and Skittles-pooping unicorns.

Stand in their way and prepare to be trampled under a herd of cloven-hoofed unicorns and to have your trampling cheered by the “compassionate” left.

Shiny, Happy Faces: What I Learned By Revisiting 2008

I read this now-bizarre and I’m sure embarrassing pre-2008 election article on Obama (of course I didn’t stick it in my full-to-bursting “Post” file and now can’t find it).  You know the sort of thing, though: exuberant, hopey-changey, full-on brain freeze, idealistic, certain that Obama was more than human, maybe even a god.

In other words: delusional.

It was truly sick-making to be pulled back in time to 2008 and read the fawning, deaf, dumb, and blind near-worship that gripped our nation.  I was completely tossed back there:  to the gleeful, shiny faces of Obots en masse, and I was dumbfounded (I so wish I could find that article again, but I can’t even remember where it was posted or what it was called, so can’t do a realistic search for it–“realistic” meaning it won’t take me freaking hours to find it).

I remember sitting across the table from a then-colleague and now former friend (thanks, Divider in Chief) as she waffled on about how fabulous it was that Obama was elected.  Gag.  I smiled, nodded, tried to pretend that I wasn’t heart-broken inside (not because I wanted McCain, who the hell would want that?, but because even McCain would have been better than what we got saddled with. Twice). After some careful questioning, I realized that she-like so many others back then-didn’t really know why she liked Obama, but she did.

Magically.

Our friendship dissolved a couple years later, when I could no longer pretend that I was indifferent.  It was weird, really, that incident:  she started attacking Sarah–not at all sure why, really, since it had been a couple years since Teh Won won, but she just kept going on and on about how stupid Sarah is (yes, even citing the SNL “I can see Russia from my house” line as if Sarah had actually said it /smh).  After a while, I just couldn’t take it anymore, and full-knowing the risk I was taking, came back with a few choice dumb-frak asshat drooling idiot remarks that Obama had made.  Oh, erm, that’s different, everyone (insert: “whom I like”) can make a mistake.  Hey, I just hate talking about politics . . . .

Uh huh.

I remember that it took all the tact I had (and I am not endowed with an abundance of that, let’s be honest here) to write a post after the ’08 election debacle saying that “maybe he can.”  It was the low-point in my blogging life, actually, and I wish now I’d never written it.  I tried to find it, but I couldn’t because I guess I didn’t migrate my posts from Multiply (where I was blogging in ’08) to either blogger or WordPress.  Anyway, it’s out there somewhere.  And if it’s not, I remember it.  And feel shame.

I knew better.  I wrote all the way back in 2006 that Obama was sketchy, empty, useless.  Oh sure, back then I wasn’t quite so attuned to the problems we are now facing (read: I was beyond clueless), but I heard him speak for an hour and say absolutely nothing.  That wasn’t just once, that was every time he spoke.  And I knew something was wrong, plus my inner cynic (who very much resembles my outer cynic) recoiled at all the unspecific hopeandchange.  I didn’t like it.

I didn’t like it at all.

I remember sitting at lunch with some leftist loon I worked with as he sung Obama’s praises (almost literally, I half-expected him to hoist his considerable bulk off the chair and start jiggling and singing), and I just sat there wondering what the hell was wrong with everyone.  Finally, when the Obot incantations stopped, I asked this person what Obama stood for, what he represented, what his plans were for America, what “yes we can” even meant in real terms.  The person, after giving a pretty impressive impersonation of a large-mouth bass, mumbled something about “hope” and “change” and how great was the “race speech,” anyway?!

You mean the “race speech” a white guy wrote and that Obama read off a teleprompter?

Eye roll.

These people weren’t alone; there was (nearly) a whole nation under the same spell, and they could easily connect and sing in near-unison the early version of the Mmmm Mmmm Mmmm song.  I was the one who was alone (or felt like it) because I didn’t buy the charade.  I heard what Obama said to Joe the Plumber, I knew about Bill Ayers being his bestest bud and the bad Reverend Wright being his preacher, and I listened hard to his speeches, then I read them.  Then I read them again.

Talk about no there there.

But the media was swooning all the way back to 2006, as was almost everyone I knew.  I have to admit that there were times I doubted myself.  Could all these people be right?  What the hell was wrong with me that I didn’t trust him, didn’t think he should be elected president?  OMG, was I a racist without even knowing it? Was that even possible?  I mean, don’t you have to hate people because of their race to be a racist?  I didn’t hate Obama (not back then, anyway, and even now, I don’t hate him for his race. Obviously.).  Frankly, I didn’t even think about his race (most conservatives don’t think about race, as you know).  So I determined that I wasn’t racist; I was just alone in doubting this person, alone in thinking he was too good to be true, alone in thinking that he was purposefully presenting an empty canvas upon which every voter could paint their own hopes and dreams.

Obama was the second coming, the “one we’ve been waiting for,” the messiah back in ’08.  He was articulate, handsome, presidential.  He was everything and anything to everyone and anyone all the time.  He was intelligent, intellectual.  He was tech savvy and the epitome of the rational man, no knee-jerk “dead or alive” comments from him.  He was going to change everything we hated and double-down on everything we loved (that this varied from person to person didn’t seem important).  He was a unifier:  post-racial, post-partisan, post-American.

Barack Obama:  better than sliced bread, better than sex.  The young, the old, the white, the black, the Hispanic, the Asian, the gay, the straight, the bi and transgendered, the Christian, the Jew, the male, the female, the rich, the poor, the middle-class, the center-right and center-left, the left, the right, the far left (okay, not the far right :P)  . . . nearly everybody loved Obama.  Except me.  I didn’t love him.  I didn’t know him, and I didn’t trust him (I trust no one who can speak for an hour and say absolutely nothing, let alone anyone who can do that and somehow inspire cheers and literal swoons from an adoring throng. Gag.).

Election night, 2008: across the country people cheer, dance in the streets, hold up lighters, hug one another (often with tears in their eyes), wave American flags (yes, even leftists!).  The entire nation seemed to have been swept up in the Obama fervor.

It was chilling.  Like witnessing a real-life episode of the Twilight Zone or wondering if everyone had been replaced with pod people.  All those happy, shiny faces, all that glee and joy, all that faith in unclear, nonspecific hopeychangey stuff.

Unsettling.

That was leading up to and into November 2008.  By spring 2009, the hopeychangey stuff wasn’t working out so well, and the shiny, happy faces sort of froze into a grimace.  A grimace that still held hope in its eye.  A hope that started fading in 2010 and was pretty much extinguished by 2012.  That’s the year Obama ran not as the messiah who could stop the oceans from rising and heal the planet while simultaneously eliminating poverty, inequity, and those horrible boils unicorns sometimes get, but as the exact opposite.

He ran in 2012 as the divider: everything is about race, class, gender, sexual orientation, red state, blue state; everything is about ensuring that each voting bloc stays not only separate but feeling the Obama “love” (which is very like the Obama “hate” except that with the former he’ll smile at you indulgently and condescendingly as he bankrupts you. If you’re a particularly good Obot, he won’t send the IRS after you.  Or the ATF, FBI, EPA, DOJ, etc.  Yay!?!).

And now, here we are in 2013, and some of us are still feeling the pain and disillusionment from the last election.  But here’s what I learned from my foray into the recent past: there is absolutely no comparison between today’s Obama and the 2008 Obama.  Not only has he shown his true tyrannical and treasonous colors but even his Obots have an inkling that all is not what it seemed with their messiah, their chosen one.

He’s inarticulate (let’s face it, he can barely stutter out a coherent sentence that he hasn’t practiced–probably for days–if he can’t read that practiced line off a teleprompter), he’s not tech savvy (remember the president who had over a million followers on Twitter tell a Chinese audience that he had no idea what Twitter was?), he has nothing new to say (what he does say is either “it’s Bush’s fault” or “I have no idea what the hell is going on in my own administration”), and he has nothing new to offer (the world has seen petty, paranoid dictator wannabe bullies who oppress, intimidate, imprison and otherwise silence opposition).

When Obama was first elected, the dissatisfaction with President Bush was palpable, even amongst die-hard republicans (I don’t consider myself a republican, btw, I’m a Constitutional conservative–the GOP, generally speaking, are not), and Democrats outnumbered Republicans by a somewhat shocking margin.  That changed quickly, and by December 2009, the disillusioned had jumped ship, and the percentage of Democrat and Republican voters evened out again.  Floating indies (who seem to change parties, at least in part, on a whim due to some perceived wrong or because it’s Thursday) tend to be more conservative, at least fiscally, so the numbers aren’t set in stone.  But what they do offer is a glimpse into Obama’s popularity.  Or lack thereof.

His star is falling and falling fast.  Whatever his plans were, he will never be able to fulfill them because there is no way in hell he’ll ever again reach the exalted high he enjoyed in ’08.  America knows him now and has his number; it will take a great deal more than fake Greek columns, phony presidential seals, and dramatic readings of other people’s scripts to get those faces shiny and happy once more.

VP Musings: A Girl Can Dream

Our very own, most fabulous JACG (aka Just a Conservative Girl) has written a thoughtful post about the potential VP picks for a Mittens McRomneyCare ticket, and I thought it would be fun to consider picks for the others, as well.

By the way, here’s what I commented about potential Mittens’ picks:

Romney needs two things: foreign policy cred and TEA Party support. Make that three things, actually, because he needs to reach out to minorities, too.

For these reasons, the short list for the Romney campaign probably includes Rubio, Jindal, and West. No way in hell is either Palin or Bachmann on it, but they may be stupid enough to consider Christie or Rand Paul. I doubt he’s thinking Ryan as Ryan’s strength is the economy and budget (the same as Romney’s purported strengths). Ryan would add to a Santorum ticket, not Romney’s. I’d love to see him pick Herman Cain, but seriously doubt it’s even a distant thought. My pick is Colonel West.

There is a chance that he’ll go with Nicki Haley, a smart choice for the women’s/minority vote, but I wouldn’t put money on that one.

To expand a bit on this (as I am wont to do):  Romney is a crap RINO, big government nightmare, so the last thing he’s going to do is consider (even for his political fortunes) either Sarah or Bachmann, it just won’t happen.  They are everything that his tiny little soul loathes (i.e. strong proponents of American principles, small government, and we bitter clingers).

The “stupid enough to consider Christie” thing is based in the fact that Christie is a moderate at best, a RINO at worst, but if the establishment/RINO GOPs are anything to go by, they won’t care about that.  Christie would add nothing to a Romney ticket that isn’t already there (except a stark contrast in personality).  Rand Paul . . . okay, I’ll admit it, my feelings about his lunatic father influence the way that I think of him.  He’s not really been bad (or nuts), so that’s probably not fair, but . . . it’s there.

I love, love, love Paul Ryan.  Just love him.  But he’s not going to add anything to a Romney ticket, alas.

Hermann Cain I also like, but his big claim to fame is his 9/9/9 plan, so that’s not a help to Romney.

That leaves Nicki Haley and Allen West.  I doubt that Haley would be picked, but she’d be a good choice (despite having only been governor since 2010; Romney picks up the experience slack), so I go with Allen West for a good Romney match.  He’ll bring TEA Party support, and he’s got the foreign policy experience and deep understanding that Romney utterly and totally lacks.

So what if it’s Santorum and not Romney (a girl can still dream)?  Santorum would do himself no favors selecting someone like Sarah or Bachmann, and he’d be making a mistake to select Cain; these are all “controversial” figures, and he’s got that market cornered (alas).  Santorum’s strengths are foreign policy and Constitutional grounding, so he doesn’t need that from someone like Colonel West.  What Santorum lacks are economic credibility and secular appeal.  That’s where someone like Paul Ryan can be a boon (who am I kidding, there is no one like Paul Ryan. So Ryan it is).

And what about Newt I love FDR Gingrich?  [insert heavy eye-rolling]  He’s great as a sort of attack dog against the media and BO, but he’s still a big government is the answer guy, so he needs to look at someone who’s not.  He’s also unstable and strange, so he needs to balance that out with stability and normalcy.  His best pick would be someone like . . . you know I’m going to say it . . . Paul Ryan.  Would Ryan agree to run with Newt?  Yikes, I’m just not sure.  Bob McDonnell might be a good choice (see JACG’s reasoning).  But maybe Newt could do something that would shake up the entire process, select a moderate Democrat (i.e. a real, old-fashioned America-loving Dem, not a commie) like Evan Bayh or Joe Manchin.

Newt’s got the . . . um, brass to do it, and it would certainly make things . . . interesting.  Heck, I’d support that ticket even though it would save the Democrat Party, or maybe because it would save it.  Conservative Democrats are a dying breed, pushed out by progressives (aka communists), so it’s in our best interest, as a nation, to restore the Democrat Party to its former, pro-American ideals.

Yeah, yeah, I’m dreaming.  But a girl can dream.

.
.

.

BO, Palin, and the Future of America

With his 41% approval rating baffling his propagandist hack mouthpieces in the dinosaur media, BO has released an ad attacking . . . Sarah Palin.  Yep.  Sarah Palin who is not running for any office, let alone against the Commie in Chief, so why the ad?

Ben Shapiro at Breitbart.com does a good job of analyzing this ad:

Let’s parse this for a second. Palin was talking about the Derrick Bell story when she said all of this. Here’s the actual transcript, unspliced together by the Obama campaign. Here’s the “man of valor” clip – she was clearly talking about how Obama was accepting campaign cash from Bill Maher, a man who had called Palin a “c—“:

I don’t know how anyone can sit in the audience of a commentator like Bill Maher and chuckle and laugh and think that that’s entertaining. I think it’s disgusting and it’s dirty money that he has now provided Barack Obama’s campaign, and I don’t know how Barack Obama can sleep at night if he really thinks about Sasha and Malia and the treatment of some women today, how he can accept that dirty money. And granted Barack Obama has never been, I think, seen in the conventional, traditional way of we who would describe a man of valor, so it shouldn’t surprise us that Barack Obama would accept that dirty money and try to get re-elected with it. But I think it does not bode well for our president’s character to not speak out against that dirty money.

So she wasn’t saying anything at all about race.

As for the rest of this, she’s talking about Professor Derrick Bell. But the Obama campaign splices the footage so you have no idea what she’s talking about. The purpose is to avoid any association between Obama and Bell, of course. Here’s the full context of what Palin said:

It is a tragedy that the media did not do its job in vetting Barack Obama in 2008. Here, this is belated vetting of Barack Obama, but it must be done. People must be aware of his radical past, his radical associations … He has chosen these people because what went into his thinking through those college years, through years probably before his college years and his profession as a community organizer, what went into his thinking was this philosophy of radicalism, based on the people whom he chose to be around. He has chosen now to help lead this country more of these radicals.

So far, uncontroversial stuff. Obama’s past matters, and his philosophy matters.

But what about those Civil War comments? Again, roll tape:

He is bringing us back to days, you can hearken back to days before the Civil War, when unfortunately too many Americans mistakenly believed that not all men were created equal. And it was the Civil War that began the codification of the truth that here in America, yes we are equal, and we all have equal opportunities, not based on the color of your skin, you have equal opportunity to work hard and to succeed and to embrace God-given opportunities to develop resources and work extremely hard and as I say, to succeed. Now, it has taken all these years for many Americans to understand the gravity of that mistake that took place before the Civil War and why the Civil War had to really start changing America. What Barack Obama seems to want to do is go back to before those days when we were in different classes based on income, based on color of skin. Why are we allowing our country to move backwards instead of moving forward with that understanding that as our charters of liberty spell out for us, we are all created equally?

In other words, she’s opposing Obama’s attempt to divide us along racial and class lines. Which is what Critical Race Theory is all about – it suggests that our charters of liberty are fundamentally corrupted and there is no possibility of true change so long as they hold sway.

Notice what Obama’s team left on the cutting room floor: the vast bulk of the interview about Bell and Maher. This is a selective editing hit-job designed to make Palin look like a racist. That’s how Obama’s team is fighting back. And that’s why we must not be afraid to vet this president. The dangerous rhetoric here isn’t Palin’s – it’s the rhetoric and philosophy that infused this president with his views on race relations. That must be exposed, despite all the bully tactics of the Obama left.

So why run an ad against Sarah Palin when BO is running for president (and she’s not)?  Because BO gets what too many (on the left and right) don’t get: this election is not about who will be the next president, it’s about what America will be.  Will we be a Constitutional Republic grounded in and bound by the Constitution or will we be a totalitarian, fascist banana republic?  We’ve veered dangerously close to the latter, and it will take real work to bring us back to the former.  But we won’t be able to do so if BO wins another term.  He knows what’s at stake in November.

Look at what he’s done, at what Sarah’s pointed out in her response to BO’s (seemingly bizarre) attack ad:

Just off the top of my head, a few of these concerning issues include: a debt crisis that has us hurtling towards a Greek-style collapse, entitlement programs going bankrupt, a credit downgrade for the first time in our history, a government takeover of the health care industry that makes care more expensive and puts a rationing panel of faceless bureaucrats between you and your doctor (aka a “death panel”), $4 and $5 gas at the pump exacerbated by an anti-drilling agenda that rejects good paying energy sector jobs and makes us more dependent on dangerous foreign regimes, a war in Afghanistan that seems unfocused and unending, a global presidential apology tour that’s made us look feeble and ridiculous, a housing market in the tank, the longest streak of high unemployment since World War II, private-sector job creators and industry strangled by burdensome regulations and an out-of-control Obama EPA, an attack on the Constitutional protection of religious liberty, an attack on private industry in right-to-work states, crony capitalism run amok in an administration in bed with their favored cronies to the detriment of genuine free market capitalism, green energy pay-to-play kickbacks to Obama campaign donors, and a Justice Department still stonewalling on a bungled operation that armed violent Mexican drug lords and led to the deaths of hundreds of innocent people.

I’m sure I missed a few things, but the list is just for starters. Along with millions of others, I’m willing and free to discuss these issues with the President anywhere, anytime; and I’m sure any of the four patriots currently running for the GOP nomination would also welcome the opportunity to talk about the problems everyday Americans face due to the abject failure of our current administration’s policies. The President will dismiss all of these problems by saying, “Well, uh, ‘change isn’t easy.’” But considering that candidate Obama promised to turn back the waters and heal the planet, the American people had at least a reasonable expectation that, at the bare minimum, he wouldn’t bankrupt our country.

This latest ad is quite odd, but also quite telling. It shows that our President sure seems fearful of discussing the economy, energy prices, and all the other problems people need addressed. And intended or not, now that his ad opens up the discussion of Barack Obama’s radical past associations and the radical philosophy that shaped his ideas about his promised “fundamental transformation” of our country, I welcome the media to join ordinary Americans in finally vetting Barack Obama. The media failed to do so in 2008 to the detriment of us all. Maybe this time around they can do their job.

Sarah gets it. His attack on her, on the “far” right (i.e. normal people who love America and reject his commie utopian crap) is very telling.  He understands that this election is, at core, an ideological battle for the future of America, for America.

Do we?

.
.

.

Let Me Count the Ways

One of my favorite Twitter buddies (@TalkSouthRadio) asked me how I’m liking Florida compared to “up North” (aka Massachusetts, from which I recently fled moved).  Being long-winded, I had rather more of a response than the 140 characters Twitter permits, so I thought this would make fodder for a blog post (heh, feel free to stop reading now).

So let’s hit the let me count the ways that Florida is better than Massachusetts things I’ve noted:

Christmas

For the first time in many (many) years, I heard people in stores wishing me a “Merry Christmas” before I wished them one.  This was a rare and noteworthy occurrence in MA, but one that I encountered in Florida time and again leading up to Christmas.  It made me smile inside and out.

One thing I really loved about this was the near-defiant spirit with which some said “Merry Christmas!”.  Take that BO and you leftist loons! seemed to be the subtext in some of the wishes.  Now, that may not be in the spirit of Christmas, but it sure meets my understanding of the spirit of America. 

There are whole neighborhoods that decorate–many quite extravagantly–for Christmas (it’s not “the holidays” here, nor–thank God and all that is holy–a “festival of lights” or “winterfest” or whatever crazed claptrap the leftists dreamed up).  Whole streets and blocks festooned with lights and yard decorations.  Imagine!  It was beautiful, and I insisted on driving around at a snail’s pace to take it all in (much to my mother’s boredom and chagrin, but hey! I hadn’t seen anything like it in oh-so-long).

Anyone But Obama

It’s not just a conservative bloggers’ mantra but that of (almost) everyone I’ve encountered in the Sunshine State.  The mere mention of the Fascist in Chief’s name evokes eye-rolls, lip curls, head-shaking, full-body shudders, and in one case, an involuntary shoulder twitch thing that was rather worrying until I realized that the poor girl couldn’t express her utter disdain and contempt for BO with only an (actually rather impressive) eye-roll-lip curl-shudder combo. 

Note that I am not (by design) in or near any of the myriad Floridian leftist strongholds, so I can’t comment on what they’re doing/saying/thinking.

In all fairness, I often met people in Massachusetts who loathed BO, but there were many many more who defended him and/or proudly announced that they would be voting for him again.  In Florida, however, I’ve yet to meet one person who defended him (let alone said they’d vote for him).

Leftist Television

Okay, this isn’t really about FL vs. MA, but one thing that’s come to my attention as I languish on my mom’s or dad’s couch and watch the television programs they watch is the unrelenting, heavy-handed leftist messaging in certain television shows.  One, in particular, makes my blood boil.  Let’s call it Awe and Lorder.

Remember that old “the butler did it” thing?  Well, apparently, on Awe and Lorder, the white guy did it.  Always.  And if his (or her) motive wasn’t RAAAAACISM it was some invented Christian “cult” thing.  In one, and I’m not making this up, they’d apparently run out of “other” groups who inspired unhinged hatred from white supremacist types that they actually used “gypsies” as the persecuted minority of the week.  Gypsies.  I kid you not.  In another one, they used Santeria as the preferred religion, while bashing Christianity (of course).  Bizarre.

(If I have to watch even one more episode of this idiocy, my head may explode.)

My Cross

So I wear this cross on a thin gold chain around my neck.  I’m a Christian.  It’s a thing.  Anyway, I would get the most horrendous looks in MA–everything from bugged to narrowed eyes at the audacity of my daring to wear such a thing in public.  So far, I’ve received only knowing smiles of fellowship and a couple of “I like your necklace” comments.  It’s yet to evoke anger or to “offend” anyone, and that’s all (pleasantly) new to me. 

Bitter Clingers

Did you know that you don’t need a gun permit to own a gun in Florida?  Neither did I.  But Floridians know.  And they have guns.  And ammo.  Lots of both. 

There are also a lot, and I mean a LOT, of churches in Florida, and they seem to be built in bunches.  You’ll be driving along and all of a sudden hit a section of town that is peppered with all sorts of churches, all denominations (some of which I’d never even heard of).  The signs on the church sign thingies are telling, as well.  A couple of which made me smile:

The only change we believe in comes from Jesus Christ.

Our hope lies in Heaven not DC.

You don’t elect the Messiah.  He IS.

Sarah Palin and My Dead Cat

True story: so I’m sitting at this person’s Christmas party a few days before Christmas, and as conversations tend to go when I’m around, the conversation turned to BO and the 2012 election.  There seemed to be near-consensus that Sarah was the one who should be running, who should get the nomination.  I found this a bit surprising because I was so used to hearing that people disliked her (to say the least and for no concrete reason other than the journolist-coordinated effort against her).

Sarah is a star here, but she’s not running.  So at one point, I said that my dead cat would make a better president than BO, and one of the older women turned to me, and with the perfect amount of deadpan sarcasm asked, “What’s his name, Dear? He has my vote.”

.
.

.