Another Hero in the Army of Davids

I’m adding another fellow to my hero list.  You may have run into this video, in which a Wall Street Occupier explains how great things are in North Korea.  I thought it had gone more viral, but it’s only at 38-thousand-and-change as of today.

Thanks to Judge Napolitano, we learn that the videographer is Vladimir Jaffe:  Russian-born American, small businessman, and Tea Partier.  The combination of a Russian accent with the swift exposure of his subjects’ ignorance gives Jaffe’s videos an amusing Borat vibe.

Mr. Jaffe has been steadily uploading new clips for several months, and I have enjoyed following him on his journey to educate the lost leftists of New York City.  Some clips are on the long side, so I’ve culled and annotated a few of my favorites for your expedited viewing pleasure.

Skip right to 2:00 in the next video.  Two young leftists inform Mr. Jaffe that Cuba has the highest standard of living for all the nations in the Caribbean.  “That I’ve heard,” the young lady adds as a bit of an escape clause.

Then, at 3:00, the young lady declares with a straight face that a doctor should not necessarily be paid more than a street sweeper if that doctor’s education was free (I have to assume she means free to him–somebody has to pay for that education).  A person’s hard work, time, dedication, brains and talent mean nothing, apparently.

At about 9:20, the young lady says well, I don’t defend the system that existed in the USSR, so Jaffe asks, then why is the hammer and sickle on this table then?

On to the next clip.  Start about :50, when an old commie guy defends Trotsky.  Then at 2:05 he claims that Lenin’s revolution was bloodless.  (Note to all you Occupiers out there:  don’t try to school a Russian on Russian history, it makes you look really dumb.)

He tries to blame first Stalin, and then the isolation of Russia for the failings of that particular glorious revolution.  Then, at 4:25 he is forced to fold:  “Alright, well, you are welcome to read through the books that we have . . . .”  Just leave me alone, you horrible man with your facts and your logic.

Mr. Jaffe presses:  “You are promoting all of this.  It’s my country you want to change.”  At 5:34, he asks Old Commie Guy for an example of a successful socialist country.

Cuba.

Old Commie admits that he couldn’t set up a table and promote capitalism if he were in Cuba.  Yet, he refuses to back down.  Having revealed his totalitarian core, he walks away.  What more is there to say?

A pattern emerges in these video clips:  through language or imagery the subjects associate themselves with the likes of Stalin, Lenin, Che, Castro, until they are called out by an actual victim of one such regime.  Then, they distance themselves.  They claim that “wasn’t really communism/socialism.”  They insist that they are in the vanguard of a new system.

I have to applaud Mr. Jaffe for his patience.  Unlike Borat, he never descends into simple mockery.  He is actually reaching out to these maddeningly misinformed malcontents.  The folks above remain unmoved, undeterred.  In other clips, however, he may actually be making a lasting impression.  Watch as this poor fellow runs out of talking points.  Skip to 4:00 for the best part:

The awkwardness is palpable as the interviewed fellow admits “he doesn’t know which companies we invest in.”  Mr. Jaffe points out, well, since you are sitting at this table as a representative, I assume you are familiar.  He presses the young man on the question of what is so wrong with coal, and the man folds completely.  He lamely refers Mr. Jaffe to the “research department” in a brochure and gives up on the conversation.

The next video clip is the longest, because the subject interviewed is actually willing to listen.  Skip to 7:50, where the young man makes an outlandish claim about Israel.  Mr. Jaffe then leads him by the proverbial hand down a path of logic and history.  Watching his discomfort as he tries to wiggle off this path is both comical and gratifying.  Because he can’t.  He can’t escape the logic.

“I think there’s a lot of sh** behind that, that we have no idea about,” he mutters lamely at 12:09, but Mr. Jaffe rolls his eyes.  “Why are you rolling your eyes at me?” he says reproachfully.  Look, Mr. Jaffe says, these are simple facts.  If you don’t believe the facts, then I don’t know what to else to say.

The last clip is short and sweet.  A representative of the Freedom Socialist Party dives into a helpful explanation of socialism, until Mr. Jaffe asks her whether Che was a socialist.

Immediately uncomfortable, she refuses to answer.  At 1:50 he asks, how are you going to make socialism different now?  “Russia and the movements in the past also lacked international support,” she offers.  Jaffe runs through a long list of countries with which Russia had relations, both the friendly and the forced, and asked her to help him understand why socialism didn’t work in those places, but will work here.

“I’m sorry, are you filming this? I would prefer that you didn’t.”

Yep.

Well, I hope you’ve enjoyed these videos.  Aside from the amusement factor, they serve as an important lesson for me:  go ahead.  Call them out.  It feels like a waste of time, but it isn’t.

What would happen if we all got out and pressed the loudest propagators of Leftist Lunacy?  As Mr. Jaffe demonstrates, they quickly run out of words.   If leftists were confronted by an Army of Jaffes and Breitbarts and other assorted Davids every time they stood up to bleat something stupid, how many of them would finally, and at long last, shut up?

Hmm.  I think I’m off to Facebook to see if I can pick a fight.

UPDATE:  Cross-posted at Disrupt The Narrative.

How a Real Hero Conducts Himself

If you haven’t yet seen this recent ad by Veterans for a Strong America, well wait no longer:

Some pretty shameless self-aggrandizement in that ad, huh?

Now.  To cleanse your palate, I want to share an example of a real hero.  His name is Bob Baird:

“[Baird's] description of the Dust Off pilot’s job and when he was wounded was matter-of-fact.

However, it was anything but, said Cheryl Fries . . . .

During Baird’s first tour, he was part of an extraordinary mission that saved almost 1 million lives . . . .  As a Dust Off pilot, Baird flew unarmed medical-rescue helicopters into the bullets, through the night, and in all kinds of weather to save lives.  He and his fellow Dust Off veterans put their own lives at risk every day to save others, including American troops, civilians and even, at times, the enemy, she said.

From May 1962 to March 1973, 496,573 Dust Off missions were flown and 900,000 casualties were airlifted. If not for the use of MEDEVAC helicopters, historians believe that U.S. killed-in-action rates in Vietnam might have exceeded those of World War II . . .

‘Bob, like most Dust Off veterans, is both humble about and reluctant to share his war experience.  To a man, they are quick to tell you that the Vietnam War heroes’ names are engraved on The Wall in Washington, D.C.  And yet, the heroes of Dust Off — those killed in action — and those who survived are heroes by every definition of the word.  Their intrepid courage and unhesitating commitment to face death in order that another might live not only saved thousands of people, but revolutionized battlefield medicine and came home to transform domestic trauma care,’ Fries said.”

I love you, Bob.  Thank you for your service, your sacrifices, and your bravery.  You’ve earned that spot in the Ohio Military Hall of Fame, and I am truly blessed to have you in my life, and in the lives of my boys.

UPDATE:  Here’s the write up of the conduct that earned Bob Baird his Distinguished Flying Cross.  An excerpt:

“Braving murderous fire, Mister Baird flew into the compound and landed. Bullets struck all around his ship, and the intensity of the fire increased. Ignoring his welfare, he remained on the ground until his ship was loaded to capacity. Then, skillfully operating the controls, he took off amid a furious enemy barrage and flew the patients to safety. Twice more during the day, he returned through the insurgent’s fusillade to evacuate casualties . . . .”

Time for a Random Link Post

. . . because my essays are not coming together lately.

Via Chicks On The Right . . . could it be?  Our very own Congress wants to go all Magyar on us?

“Capitol Hill politicians are assessing tax changes that could let the Internal  Revenue Service lay claim to a portion of the $18 trillion sitting in 401(k)  accounts and other tax breaks used by middle-class workers, including cutting  the mortgage tax deduction.”

Doug Ross says it all:  “I love the term ‘tax breaks,’ don’t you?  As if it’s the government’s money, and not yours.”

I’m suddenly reminded.  Once, I shared a worry about the federal government changing taxation rules for the Roth IRA.  Most folks on a particular investment website comment string scoffed at me.  Scoffed!

So, okay.  Let’s punish the most responsible among us.  Isn’t that what it is?  Just like student loan forgiveness, which would be fair only if students who paid for their education up front were given the same amount of money as the folks who went into debt.

Moving right along . . .

Let’s talk about defining a family.  I know, the whole “Dad, Mom, and kids” thing is so restrictive.  Flexibility would be best, no?  No.  Teaching My Two packs a punch:

“This is what happens when we start tinkering with a STRUCTURE that has been in place and worked for thousands of years.  When we embark in a DIY . . . it all comes crashing down on us, sooner or later.  And the children are the ones who get crushed.”

Read the whole thing.

Say that reminds me.  As long as we are talking about kids . . . did any of you have friends who went ape-sh*t about the ”GOP rape of women” via state law requiring an ultrasound before abortion?

I did.

All I could say was, well, the ultrasound wand-thingy is no more invasive than the abortion the woman is seeking.  Which is true, but . . .

Apparently, the ultrasound is not only “no more invasive.”  It is also something the abortionist does anyway.

Hear that?

The ultrasound is something the abortionist does anyway.  Put that in your Handmaid‘s pipe and smoke it.

Next, I might as well broach the subject of that awful Allen West and his awful defamation of the Progressive Caucus by calling them communists . . .

What? Yes, it’s true:  only one of them got a lifetime achievement award from the Communist Party.  Surely the other 77-80 have no beliefs congruent with communism . . .

Or not.

On the more positive side of things . . . if the WORM can warm up to Mitt Romney, then perhaps anything is possible.  Well, by “anything is possible,” I don’t mean the preservation of our union or anything drastic, mind, but at least the type of anything we don’t really expect anymore, and that type of anything is better than no type of anything . . .

Right?

Goodnight.

Weirdest Spike In Page Views Ever

Did I miss some big news feature about a type of coffee?

I ask this question because my traffic on Saturday was triple the usual number.  I thought:  whoa, did a Big Dog link?

Nope.  It was mostly from Google, where a whole lotta people searched for:  “the coffee that lets you sleep.”

This query brought them straight to an old Coffee Party post:  The Only Coffee Guaranteed To Help You Sleep.

I don’t think it was what they were looking for.

What were they looking for?  Googling the phrase for myself, the best I can figure is this:

“Gano Coffee . . . is a special kind of coffee that actually cures a person’s disturbed circadian rhythm, or sleeping pattern.  But that is not the reason why it heals an insomniac.  As such, the mind of the consumer will be able to enter rest and repair mode easily, as well as effectively resist stress and fatigue for the whole duration of the herbal drink’s effect.  To get the full effect of the mushroom’s antioxidants, Gano coffee must be regularly consumed before sleep and after waking up.”

There you go.  A coffee made from mushrooms.  If I get insomnia, I’ll probably try reading the Coffee Party website first, though.  Yep, I checked.  Their site is still up and running.

Female Marines to Infantry Officer School

Reblogged from The Patriot Perspective:

Via the insulting leftist social-engineers at  Gannett Marine Corps Times:

The Marine Corps school that produces infantry combat officers will enroll its first-ever female students this year, Marine Corps Times has learned.

As part of the service’s extensive research campaign to determine what additional jobs could be opened to women, an undetermined number of volunteers will attend the Infantry Officers Course in Quantico, Va., said Gen.

Read more… 511 more words

I found an interesting development and good analysis over at The Patriot Perspective. Saying that women don't belong isn't too popular a stance nowadays.  Still, it needs saying sometimes.  It doesn't mean women should have their opportunities limited because their gender is inferior.  It just means the constraints of reality can limit women's opportunities whether we like to admit it or not. Have a great weekend, everyone!

Feminism and Politics

The whole “female” aspect of politics sure is running strong lately.  First, it was the Sandra Fluke thing, about which I didn’t bother to post.

Then, I got all et up with the “Top 25 Political Moms” contest, which turned into a no-holds-barred, claws-out feminist v. conservative battle-to-the-death, or something.  (Like poor old Henry Gunther, I got cut off at the very end, landing in #26.)

Next came Hilary Rosen’s new and exciting mashup of Marxist class warfare with The Mommy Wars.  Then, I get this tweet about whether the gender gap in voting might be permanent.  (I know a solution to this problem, but a lot of you won’t like it . . .)

In the midst of all this, here I am trying to prepare for Offend A Feminist week.

This is my credulous face.

And preparation I sorely need, for although I am female and therefore qualified in at least some respect to comment on All Things Feminine, my view of “feminism” as a field of sociological thought is about the same as my view of “psychiatry” as a field of medicine, which is to say I view them dimly and from as far away as possible, wearing my credulous face all the while.

My understanding of “feminism” was no better back in the day when I fancied myself a feminist-type professional.  If the “old me” were forced to pull a definition out of her nether regions, she might have said this:  feminism is the political movement which gave women their due rights, requiring men to treat them as equals instead of as second class citizens.

Thanks to anecdotal evidence and additional experience, I am now more aware of the leftist underpinnings of the feminist movement.  Beyond that, I can’t say much more.  I’ve never taken a class, nor read a book on the topic.  Blog buds like American Housewife and Missy Sandbox clearly know more.  (Perhaps you kind ladies can gin up a “feminism for dummies” post for the likes of me.  Ha.)

As much as I might wish otherwise, the feminist movement is not relegated to the history books.  This movement is alive and well today.  So, I have made an effort to educate myself about what “feminism” means in the political landscape of 2012.  I used the “Top 25 Political Moms” contest site as a starting point.  Here’s what I found.

Over at PhD in Parenting (via Mamafesto), I learned that the Mommy Wars are not about different opinions on parenting.  Rather, the problem is we don’t have the right governmental policies in place to support mothers:

“As with real wars, these mommy wars are not truly about a clash between moms, but about a system that has let people down, poured fuel on the fire, and left each family to fend for themselves.”

If Congress would just subsidize day care, pay for all employees’ maternal and paternal leave, and fast track that universal health care (freeing folks up from those healthcare-covering jobs they hate), then maybe the Mommy Wars would just go away.  Don’t worry, the government will get the funds needed from those evil rich people, Insha’ Allah.

Over at Feminste, I learned that requiring a single mom to work in order to get federal assistance is really, really mean because:

“The crux of the issue is that Mitt Romney’s definition of ‘stay-at-home mom,’ like his definition of ‘good mom,’ is limited to women in his racial group and economic class. I would wager a lot of money that when Romney made those comments in January, he wasn’t even thinking of the term ‘stay-at-home mom’ — because a low-income mother who relies on state aid is not a stay-at-home mom. She’s a welfare cheat, or lazy, or a drain on society. She’s undignified.”

Of course, this quote is not based on Mr. Romney’s own words, but from the feminist’s interpretation of conservative fiscal policy.  Funny, how not wanting to pay an endless stream of federal tax dollars for an activity the government cannot control (motherhood) gets demonized as the act of a meanie who thinks moms are lazy, cheating, and undignified.

Over at The Radical Housewife, I learned that “FREE FEMALE LABOR PROPS UP OUR ECONOMY,” which is bad, because it helps prop up capitalism.  And capitalism is bad.  Apparently, the feminists of yore screwed up Big Time, because:

“The revolution should have demanded as many stay-at-home dads as female CEOs.  But it didn’t.  The goals of the movement became allied with making money, which is one reason why feminism gets accused of being anti-family.  Family is so precious is cannot be allied with something DIRTY like MAKING MONEY!  It’s the madonna/whore binary all over again.”

Okey-dokey, then.  Does anyone see why I try to stay clear of feminism?

Over at the Monologues of Dissent, mercifully no opinion is offered as to the wisdom or lucidity of Hilary Rosen, Sandra Fluke nor anyone else as of late (save Governor Walker).  Still, I learned that the stereotyping of girls as the ones who like to attend dances, and boys as the ones who could care less about dances, is a form of gender discrimination that should be combatted.

Okey-dokey.

If we humans don’t have real problems, we’ll just make ‘em up if we need ‘em, right?

Finally, over at One Flew Over The Playpen, I learned how the government is the entity that will resolve our “Mommy War” differences, if only we let it:

“The real story is that it IS a major problem that every mother does not have the ability to stay home for more than a handful of weeks when her children are born.  And by stay home, I mean the very hard job of providing the constant, grueling care that goes into raising a child.  Our government simply does not truly value the importance of giving women this time with their family, no matter what their economic situation is.

Stay-at-home moms – you know this.  You know you WANT every woman to have the ability to stay at home with their kids during the day if that’s right for them . . . .  So if for even a second, you are feeling compassionate for picked-on Ann Romney, think about whether her husband as president would do anything to make raising children easier for women.  Does he support extended paid maternity leave?” /italics added/

Ah, there you go.  American moms don’t have value unless the federal government recognizes them with cash dollars.  So. . . if Romney started touting extended paid maternity leave, would he then become a darling of the feminists?

/cue crickets/

Clever, too, is the insistence that I, as a stay-at-home mom, “know” that I want every woman to have the ability to stay at home with her kids.

I want every woman to have the ability to stay at home with her kids?  Well, sure.  That would be great, if possible.   Unfortunately, some women sabotage their own best interests, including their ability to stay at home with the kids.  Unfortunately, some men sabotage their partner’s best interests, including their partner’s ability to stay at home with the kids.

The government cannot fix these problems.

I want every woman to get exactly what they want out of life.  I want them to be smart enough to realize that libertarian and conservative policies will maximize their liberty.

I want them to have a pony, too.

The thing is, not every woman wants a pony.  Not every woman wants to marry wisely.  Not every woman wants to be a stay at home mom.

And that’s okay.  I’m totally cool with that.

I wish the left were cool with that, too.

Cross posted at Disrupt The Narrative

My Mental War

Recently, Missy and I debated whether Obama spoke out of ignorance or calculation when he said that overturning his healthcare law would be “unprecedented.”

Today I find myself mentally debating this question again, this time about Hilary Rosen’s “never worked a day in her life” schtick.

Was it a gaffe, in which she let the mask slip?  Or was it calculated to distract us from The Real Issue?

I wrestle with this mental debate a lot, and I can never truly make up my mind.  Neither answer satisfies my rather unfortunate urge to understand these people because either way, the truth is unsettling.

Take Ms. Rosen’s case, for example.  Either she is disdainful of women who (if they are “rich enough” to have the “luxury” of the choice) decide not to work, or she is willing to say anything with a straight face if it will benefit her political party.

Which is it?  And did you notice how clever that little limitation is?  The disdain is reserved only for the rich stay-at-home moms, ‘natch.  Disparaging the opinions of all stay-at-home moms would be beyond the pale, even for the most leftist of the left.

Of course, this limitation only works if it’s true.  First, it must be true that rich persons cannot understand the difficulties of the poor.  In other words, there is no such thing as empathy in Ms. Rosen’s world.

Second, it must be true that staying home is a luxury reserved for the wealthy.  And oh, looky, right on cue, the President enters stage left with his ridiculous claim that they couldn’t afford the “luxury” of Michelle staying home.  (Never-you-mind about the First Lady’s opinion.  That was way back in 2007 when she said that staying home makes her ill.)

Do you know what?

I’m tired of wondering whether these people are actually thick enough to believe the ridiculous things they say.

Is it purely partisan political hackery?  Or do they really believe that only the rich can live comfortably on one income?  If so, then the Obamas and the Rosens may as well live on the moon, they are so far out of touch.  Come on over to my house, guys.  Meet me and all my stay-at-home mom buddies.  We exist.  None of us are even the teensiest bit rich.

Oh, no.  See what I’m doing?  Mentally debating the “ignorance v. calculation” question.  Again!  I may need professional help.

It’s just . . . I’m confused.  I can’t even keep up with the various lines of reasoning.  Does the left believe there is a real Republican War on Women?  (In which women are dying!  Dying!  Because evil conservatives are killing them during childbirth!)

Or not?  Because we have Ms. Rosen saying the Democrats had actually never used the phrase “War on Women,” and that it was a Republican invention.

Wait.  Is it really . . . Obama’s War on Women?

Okay.  I guess I’m done.  I thought I’d have something more meaningful to say about The Left and The Right and The Staying Home and The Mommy Wars, which is normally like crack to my little brain.

Yet, here I am too far into a post to just delete it, and with nothing more meaningful to add than this:  it doesn’t matter what we say anymore.  We’d probably be better off not responding at all.

Ann Kane at The American Thinker says it best:

“Wouldn’t it be cool if he next time the Left entices us with some manufactured crisis, we just ignore it and continue on with exposing what’s really going on?”

UPDATE:  John Malcolm takes a stance opposite from Ann Kane, and his argument (via Red State) is quite effective:

“Contrary to what a lot of folks on our side are saying these attacks are far more important to defend against than obsessing over Romney’s position on Afghanistan or the capital gains tax because this election is not going to be fought over issues and ideas. . . .  Obama . . . doesn’t have issues and he doesn’t have accomplishments so all that is left to him is to tear down Romney.

If he can convince you that Romney is a cross between Scrooge McDuck and Moe Howard who adheres to a very strange set of religious beliefs then he wins.”

Cross-posted at Disrupt The Narrative.  Hop on over there, too.  You know you want to!