We like to know who is logging on, and we send out an email announcing each new posting with a link to the site. To let us know who you are and/or to be incuded on the email list please send an email to: email@example.com
A Note on Format
Links to other parts of the website can only be made to a page, rather than a specific article or part of article and there may be more than one article on a page. Therefore, when you click on a link to another part of the website there may be more on the page to which you are taken than just the material you are looking for.
There will be an occasional short article on the Home Page and the longer weekly post starts in the right hand column of this page. Navigation to another page on this website may be done in two ways. You can either click on the link contained in the article to take you to a continuation of the article, or you may go to the top of the home page where there are tabs to take you to the remaining pages.
The address to which comments or request to be put on the mailing list shoulld be sent is firstname.lastname@example.org or you may use my personal email address which is email@example.com Later I will probably add an automatic email link that can be used to send emails to the website, but right now I am just trying to get the basics done.
Send any comments or criticism to one of the above email adddresses
LINKS TO OTHER ARTICLES STILL ONLINE
click on the link to the right of the article
#160 The Heat Check page 4
#159 Breaking Eggs page 4
#158 Mob Rule page 2
#157 The Untouchables page 3
#156 Perjury of Harry Reid page 6
#155 The Tangled Web page 3
#154 The Druid Priests... page 6
#153 Were Obama's Lies... page 5
#152 Does It Matter? page 5
#151 Political Correctness page 2
All articles on this website are copyrighted on the date first placed online. All rights reserved.
No part of any article may be reproduced for redistribution without express permission
September 25, 2013 Appellate Court Acquits Tom Delay in Texas
A Texas appeal court has reversed the guilty verdict against Tom DeLay for money laundering entered a couple of years ago by an Austin, Texas, trial court. However, instead of sending it back to the lower court for a new trial, the appellate court entered a judgment acquitting DeLay of the commission of a crime. There is a significant difference between an acquittal and the usual remedy in such a situation which is simply sending the case back for a new trial. The appellate court’s action was a complete repudiation of the trial court, thus confirming that the prosecution of DeLay was an example of the politicization of the criminal process.
It will be recalled that DeLay, a very powerful Republican who was the Speaker of the House of Representatives in the U.S. Congress, was targeted by a Democratic Houston prosecutor named Earle, for purely political reasons. Earle was well known for indicting his political enemies and that included some who were Democrats. When Earle was unable to get a Houston Grand Jury to indict DeLay, the case was taken to Austin, the hot bed of leftists in Texas, where a left wing Grand Jury entered the indictment against DeLay for money laundering. The alleged crime consisted of DeLay’s sending some of the money in his campaign war chest to Republican legislative candidates in Texas. Some of the money in Delay’s campaign account consisted of entirely legal contributions from corporations. The Texas statute relating to campaign contributions prohibits corporations from contributing to political campaigns but does not apply to federal candidates such as DeLay. The practice DeLay was following was widely recognized as being beyond the reach of the Texas statute relating to political contributions.
The Texas money laundering statute makes it illegal for persons such as drug dealers to run their ill-gotten gains though legal bank accounts to sanitize them. The theory of Earle and his fellow leftists in Austin was that DeLay’s corporate contributors had run their contributions through DeLay’s campaign account to put them beyond the reach of the Texas political contributions act. Their theory was total nonsense. There was no evidence that any part of the money in DeLay’s war chest was intended for Texas political candidates at the time it was contributed to DeLay. Once in DeLay’s war chest it was, of course, mixed with the rest of the money already there. The money sent to Texas by DeLay was not ill-gotten in any sense, and not, therefore, covered by the Texas campaign contributions statute. No illegally obtained money had been laundered
The Texas appellate court recognized the Earle tactic for what it was, a contrived effort to politicize the criminal process by using a law to cover a situation it was never intended to cover. Nothing could be more destructive of our bedrock principle of the rule of law than the prosecution of DeLay in those circumstances. In fact our bill of rights was included in the Constitution as a reaction to the same kind of tactics used in England in the notorious Star Chamber proceedings. There can be no justice, indeed there can be no democracy, when those in power can corruptly use the criminal process to send their political opponents to jail.
The DeLay conviction was covered in a previous posting on this website. The action of the Texas Democrats in this case is just one of many examples of the fact that leftists are guided by only one principle and that is power. When one attempts to make this argument it is usually met with the response known as ‘a pox on both of their houses,’ in which it is asserted that there is no difference between the political tactics of Republicans and Democrats. While extensive research may find an instance where Republicans have been guilty of conduct similar to that of the Democrats in this case, it has to be contrasted with the ‘business as usual’ approach of the Democrats in similar circumstances. Another case that differs but little from the DeLay case, and was going through the courts at about the same time, was that of Scooter Libby who was convicted by DC jury of a crime that was never even committed. Libby’s prison sentence was commuted by President Bush, but that does not erase the conviction in the same way that a pardon would.
April 16, 2014 #161 ‘Bossy’ Is Not Just A Nickname For A Cow
The feminists have added a new word to the political correctness list of prohibited speech. It is the word ‘bossy.’ It is claimed that the word is used to unfairly discriminate against women in the workplace. As is true of most politically incorrect words, such labeling is meant to prevent rational discussion of subjects which might demonstrate differences between races, or sexes which would justify different treatment of individuals in those groups. In fact, since any differences might have that effect, the whole idea of political correctness is to insist that there are no differences between males and females or majority and minority, no matter how obvious those differences might be. Presumably there are exceptions. Thus, if blacks or females have characteristics which are deemed to be superior to those of whites or males, then, it would be ok to discuss those, and even to discriminate against a white or male who is seeking equality. For example, in regard to playing basketball, blacks have a superior leaping ability (remember “White Men Can’t Jump”) and are, supposedly more agile, and it is, therefore ok to discriminate against whites in passing out the perks in that sport. That is true even though a white player might have other skills which would enable him to excel in that sport (remember Larry Bird, a pre-political correctness white male, was winning NBA championships for the Boston Celtics while black players were insisting that he was an inferior player, and a present day white player, who has the potential to be another Larry Bird, Tyler Hansborough, is not being allowed to contend for a leadership position in the NBA.) The same thing is true when a white male is competing against a female (white or black, but definitely when she is black) and the skill levels are relatively equal, there is no question as to who is going to win. Perhaps, instead of describing political correctness as a rule with the foregoing exceptions, it might, therefore, be more correct to simply define it as a rule which prevents whites and males from competing on an equal basis with blacks and females.
Regardless of how the term is defined, its function is obvious. It is an arbitrary use of power to prevent any discussion which might reveal the unfairness of dispensing the social, economic, and political perks of human activity to lesser qualified blacks and females in any competition with white males. It signals the end of any idea that our system is a meritocracy. Decisions are not to be made on the merits, they are to be made on the basis of sex and race. Aside from the Orwellian nature of the reasoning process which justifies this on the basis of a Constitution, and a Civil Rights Act, which require just the opposite, the negative impact on the efficiency with which our social, economic and political systems operate, is enormous. Not only does it, per se, ensure that our economic institutions turn out a lesser product, in terms of both quantity and quality, the impact on the morale and mental stability of everyone who can plainly see the unfairness of such a system, has its own negative influence on the culture. People who are the butt of the irrational power being displayed by the system may decide they are not required to respond in a rational manner. Or it may not be a rational decision to behave irrationally, it may simply be the mental instability which results from being badly treated by the arbitrary use of power. In either event, they may pick up their guns, knives or bombs and go back to the workplace or school where they were unfairly treated and begin killing those they believe were either the perpetrators or the beneficiaries of the unfairness. Ultimately, any system which has been destabilized by irrational exercises of power is bound to reach the point of total collapse.
The word ‘bossy’ is being used to describe a female characteristic that disadvantages them in workplace competition, according to feminists. Having been out of the workplace for several years, I have never heard it used against a female seeking promotion, but it is not difficult to imagine the situations in which it is used, and why it is used. It is doubtful that it is used against all women, and it is probable it is sometimes used against males. However, the stereotypical female personality is more apt to be passive and narcissistic, and more feminized males, with the same characteristics, are also entering the workplace. Such individuals have spent much of their time in fantasy where they create worlds in which they have absolute power. That world is populated by others who automatically recognize the saintliness and absolute wisdom of the dreamer. While spending time in that fantasy world such individuals are not gaining experience interacting with real people, and they try to control others in the real world with the same kind of arbitrary power they possess in the fantasy world. The arbitrary nature of their approach to subordinates comes across as bossy and it is resented, particularly by those who are objective and rule oriented. The stereotypical male, on the other hand, has been brought up with discipline and takes a more objective approach to others. Such an individual has spent his/her entire life reacting to real people, and better understands how others react. When in a position of authority he/she is more capable of relating to, and bringing a subordinate along with, his/her thinking. The directions of such a person are less likely to be regarded by a subordinate, whether that subordinate be male or female, as bossy. Another way of describing this difference may be that the stereotypical male may be more able to engage with others because of past experience, while the stereotypical female may be less capable of doing so because of lack thereof.
The aggressive/passive personality divide probably also has a bearing on this issue. In fact, it is probable that the narcissistic personality is more apt to be passive and the disciplined, or stoic , personality is more apt to be aggressive. Passive may be a natural consequence of narcissism and aggressive a natural consequence of discipline. However, neither of these sets of correlatives (narcissism/stoic and aggressive/passive) are present in an individual in an absolute way, but are, rather balances between the opposing factors and may sometimes be mixed in seemingly contradictory ways. At any rate, the passive personality is less confrontational and when required to give directions to a subordinate may appear ill at ease, artificial, and arbitrary, and, to the subordinate, such directions may be more difficult to accept and may be described as bossy. The aggressive person has no difficulty being confrontational and is more at ease when delivering directives to a subordinate. As a result the subordinate may find them easier to accept.
As indicated, this is not strictly a male/female issue. An estimate of the way any given group of females would come across on the narcissistic/passive side of the divide (vs. the stoic/aggressive), and, therefore, less attractive as leadership candidates, might be 60/40, with the number of males coming across on the opposite side being about the same.
Whatever the explanation, it is obvious, from the attention it is getting, that it represents an issue currently being raised in workplaces. It is also obvious that it is an issue, the resolution of which is going to have some impact on the extent to which things go smoothly in the workplace and, therefore, how more or less efficient organizations will operate. To put people in responsible positions who are going to create friction because of their leadership styles will not contribute to the efficiency of the organization. In the long term it may be that the female will adjust to the realities of the workplace by becoming more objective and less narcissistic, and the problem will disappear. The feminist approach of making the word ‘bossy’ a part of the political correctness lexicon of prohibited speech is not a solution. It is a refusal to admit the existence of a reality, and no problems are ever solved by denying their existence. However, the feminist position on this issue does validate the reasoning in this essay that the narcissistic/passive approach is generally power-oriented and arbitrary, and an unsatisfactory approach to social/economic/political issues.
One need look no further than the approach of the Obama administration for even more powerful, and damaging, evidence of the truths stated herein. Obama’s inability to engage others is notorious. It stands out in any situation where an effective leader would be confronting, and engaging with, those who are involved in the process of determining the resolution of the issues which confront the Presidency. In the BP oil spill it was 58 days before he contacted anyone at BP, the only people who could do those things necessary to solve the problem, and he spent most of that time traipsing around the country proclaiming that he was ‘the President’ and was ‘in charge’ of the situation. In the debates preceding the passage of Obamacare, he made no contribution at all and made little attempt to contact or engage with the Congress, either those of his party or the opposition. The Democrats followed his example and totally excluded the opposition Republicans, while crafting the law behind closed doors making deals with each other to get the votes necessary for passage. They then presented that 2500 page law to the nation with the announcement that the people ‘would have to read it to find out what was in it.’ The resulting bill, and its disastrous rollout, demonstrate the inability of those who crafted it to grapple with the issues and seek solutions to the problems that might stand in the way of its success. Obama has done the same thing in international affairs and has offered no leadership at all in that area. One of his security advisors has said that the President sits in national security meetings saying little, chewing gum, and looking bored. His actions distinctly mark him out as an extremely passive, narcissistic feminist/leftist who spends most of his time traveling around the nation giving speeches and soaking up the praise of crowds that have been pre-selected to give him the applause that will feed his narcissism.