House of Eratosthenes

As has been observed in these parts, and elsewhere, the Modern Left has a quirky fascination with serendipity. An improbable and anomalous wrinkle of fate, a prevaricating readjustment of a classic dictionary definition, a box of ballots found in Al Franken’s station wagon, a treacherous Republican Senator switching sides…Bill Clinton engaged in this sex act and not that sex act…and presto. The matter is decided in their favor, for lack of a nail a shoe was lost, for lack of a shoe a horse was lost. That seems to be their most cherished and prized outcome.

“Nuthin’ but net” would be alright, but they are much more fond of the ball hitting the metal rim, bouncing a few times, sitting there for a second or two…and then rolling down inside at the buzzer. And then the magic of “democracy” does the rest, fifty-point-one becomes a hundred. Motion carried. Since the Florida election debacle twelve years ago, I have gradually come to realize they aren’t quite so much painted into a corner of lusting after such accidental and hair-splitting victories; they prefer them. I’m not sure why. They’re hooked on drama, or they inwardly sense that the more they advance their agenda at any time, the more slender will be the victory and so they make that association. It’s probably a combination of the two.

I see this morning the Internet is absolutely aflame with this “are we better off than we were four years ago” question. The democrats insist, of course, yes we are but they need to re-define “better off” and “job” and “economy” and “improving” and and and…anyone who doesn’t see it their way is a liar!

That’s from Gateway Pundit, along with many other places.

For those who wish to walk through the details, David Harsanyi at Human Events obliges. Bottom line, we are seeing craven shameless lying in either Paul Ryan or Stephanie Cutter, one or the other…and Paul Ryan isn’t lying.

The way I see the “better off” question: Yes, Obama’s people have probably run around and found eight hundred thousand of something they could call “jobs” (and I suspect the massive energy they’ve sunk into this, is somehow counted in that number). I have questions about this, but let’s just go ahead and grant it. Even if that’s a net reading, it doesn’t manifest the ascension of an improving economy if it doesn’t manifest consumer desire. And that’s what they’ve been selling: Tax more, borrow more, put it all in a big pot and then our wise wonderful leaders will force the largess to go here…presto! That teacher/construction worker has a job!

Churchill…man in a bucket…lifting by handle. You’ve heard that quote. it applies.

But hey, we know what’s what, now don’t we? We have fact checkers.

Nevertheless, when you have to re-define “better off than four years ago” just to answer the question, you’re probably not doing it right. In the end, all comes down to, do we want to see the last four years’ worth of “improvement” and “recovery,” over the next four? That is the question, and this hyper-nuanced “depends on the meaning of ‘is,’ ball landed on our side of the net, fifty-one becomes a hundred” logic isn’t going to work there. Recovery is recovery. Pain is pain.

“Hooked on drama” is only part of it, I think. Another part is that their narrative requires that they overcome great and terrible odds to prevail in their noble cause.

The difficulty is that their narrative also requires that their cause be that of all right-thinking people, that everyone knows ought to prevail, but shadowy forces conspire to keep the great majority under harness.

You see the problem at once. The great and terrible odds would imply that they are the lonely single voice crying against all others, but they are also required to sneer that they have a majority vote. They can’t do both at once, so they come up with any number of mental gerrymanders to squeeze those two incompatible things as close together as possible. The 50.1% comes in because they can pitch themselves as that .1%, the lonely voice that made all the difference, and saved everyone from ourselves; it then becomes 100% so they can claim complete moral authority over dissenters. When they lose that argument they become the noble dissenters against great and terrible odds…. lather, rinse, repeat.

Another strategy is to claim that the majority against them are misled by that shadowy minority – hence their fondness for conspiracy theories, who knew what when, and secret motives of the person opposing their theories. Hence too their determination that all such opposition must be irrational – it can’t ever possibly run the risk of being correct or accurate, it must actually be crypto-hate of some form. Thus math becomes “racist” or “bigoted.”
- nightfly | 09/03/2012 @ 09:26
I am better off, if what you look at is my bank balance.

Four years ago, the downtunred economy threatened my ability to produce enough revenue to cover my monthly costs. When my clients watched their revenue drop forty, sixty, eighty percent, I knew that they would be looking at those variable costs that could be reduced. When the boat is sinking, the last hire would probably be marketing manager.

I improvised, I innovated. I went out seeking new clients and found them.

Tragically, I’ve lost some very special, long-term accounts. They are gone. The costs imposed on doing business were too large compared to their ability to create revenue. Every up-tick in the price of fuel or electricity is an up-tick that threatens all jobs’ creators, and through them, me.

By end of year, I believe I shall have enough money banked to survive without any additional income for a year. That I couldn’t have stated four years ago. But here’s the deal; four years ago I wouldn’t have worried about not being able to survive for a year without any income.

I live in rural America. No union or large business bail-outs for us. We’re all Mom and Pops. Hope and change have been killing us. Can we survive another four years?

I hope so. (But more, I’ve worked to ensure it.)
.
- TMI | 09/03/2012 @ 13:09
Take a look at this quote, about what the President would do with a second term:
“The president views a second term in some ways as a second chance, an opportunity to approach the office differently, according to close aides. He would like to tackle issues such as climate change, immigration, education and filibuster reform.” (full article here: link

Notice that there is not a single word about jobs, tax reform, regulatory reform or anything else that might affect the economy. He wants this to continue. We can all get food stamps and hope for that minimum wage increase so that we get a raise someday. Or I guess there’s always jail. They’ve made it so much easier to do something that will land you in jail. All you have to do is be unable to pay a fine for speeding or some other violation and there you go!
- teripittman | 09/03/2012 @ 18:41

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

On Labor Day, We Debate What Truth IsMonday, September 3rd, 2012

On Labor Day, We Debate What Truth Is
Monday, September 3rd, 2012