Robert Robb: Democrat Platform is for Whiners.
The Democrats have titled their party platform, “Renewing America’s Promise.”
A more honest and accurate title would be, “We’ll Give You More.”
The soul of the Democratic philosophy is summed up in this passage from the platform: “For decades, Americans have been told to act for ourselves, by ourselves, on our own. Democrats reject this recipe for division and failure.”
Note the disdain for the ethos of self-responsibility. Democrats do not merely regard it as insufficient. Instead they regard the idea that people should provide for themselves as divisive.
Even more significantly, Democrats regard self-responsibility as a “recipe for failure.” In other words, Democrats don’t think the American people are capable of making it on their own.
And so, Democrats have a government program for, well, everything.
Democrats want government to help you raise your kids, send them to college, train and retrain for a job, buy a home and save for retirement.
They must be saving the burial assistance program for 2012.
If you want an abortion or want to keep the child, it doesn’t matter.
Democrats want taxpayers to help pay for it either way.
Democrats are also big on “investment” in “infrastructure.” Of course, in the Democratic view, everything is infrastructure. It is paradoxical that the Democrats are stressing the need for public investment at the same time that their tax policies will shrink private investment.
Simply put, Democrats say they will give you more than Republicans, and that’s why you should vote for them.
More
ESPN: Meeting Chinese Gymnast? Like Jail Visiting Hour.
BEIJING — For a few brief moments, it was as if a curtain had parted. We had one of China’s young — perhaps too young — Olympic gymnasts alone.
Yang Yilin, through no fault of her own, has been one of the stories of these games because of questions about whether she and two other gymnasts on the Chinese team are old enough to compete. China insists they are, but that hasn’t erased the doubts that they may be under the minimum age of 16.
Now we had our chance to find out more, to get a close-up look at this 4-foot, 11-inch figure of controversy, as she waited for her medal-winners’ news conference to begin.
How fragile she looked, like a baby deer in the headlights of an oncoming SUV. Little pink hearts and the word “love” in blue letters decorated her hair clips. The glitter on her forehead twinkled under the lights. Chalk was encrusted where the skin met her slender fingernails. So thin, so uneasy, so out of place she seemed, in a downstairs room in Beijing’s National Indoor Stadium. She’d just won an Olympic bronze medal in all-around gymnastics, one of the toughest sporting tests there is.
Two Americans had stood with her on the podium. Nastia Liukin got the gold, Shawn Johnson the silver, and they were late. As minutes passed, reporters crowded around Yang, scrutinizing, asking questions.
Unlike Johnson, who arrived later, obviously delighted with her medal, Yang displayed little outward emotion. She smiled obediently, all small teeth, when reporters asked her to pose for photos. Her little mouth pursed again when the lenses were turned away.
Perhaps Yang is shy by nature. But, really, she just seems to have been sheltered by the Chinese coaches who direct her life.
“For the drug test,” coach Liu Qunlin said, passing Yang a bottle of water so she would be able to provide a sample for the dope-testers.
Then, a little hesitantly, Yang started to answer the questions. And the more she said, the more shocking it was. The answers were brief, spoken without heart. What emerged was a picture of a young girl who has been kept largely cut off from family and the outside world for more than a year, so she could be intensely trained to win medals for China at its own Olympics.
Were your parents here to see you compete, among the cheering crowds?
“I don’t know.”
When was the last time you went home?”
“Ummm … before I joined the national team,” Yang said, her small voice hard to hear.
When was that?
“More than a year ago.”
Will you go on holiday after the games?
“I don’t know.”
How many holidays do you get a year?
“I have not had a holiday since I joined the national team.”
SkyNews: Athlete Berated Over Bronze Medal.
Beijing’s ruthless demand for perfection was highlighted when Tan Zongliang was made to squirm on China Central Television after missing out in the men’s 50m pistol competition.
Even though it was his first ever Olympic medal, he was harried until he bowed his head and admitted he had “let his country down” for not getting gold.
His grilling goes against the central belief of International Olympic Committee founder Pierre de Coubertin, who stated: “The important thing is not to win, but to take part.”
…In the interview, a CCTV journalist asked Tan: “In your first shot you only got 7.9 points. What is the reason for this?”
“I was maybe a little bit anxious,” the 36-year-old replied, before adding: “Overall my performance was fine.”
“But you came into the finals leading on points,” the reporter chipped away. “The result really is a shame. Feel bad?”
The reporter continued the grilling until Tan lowered his head and apologised to his motherland.
(HT: Michelle Malkin)
See Clifford Berryman’s original cartoon here.
…
McClatchy: Civilians Were Only Targets Left As Russia Kept Bombing.
GORI, Georgia — On the day that Russia declared an end to its war in Georgia, Jumberi, a taxi driver who gave only his first name, took a long drag on a Marlboro Red cigarette and said that after the first bomb hit, all he saw was body parts.
He motioned to the shattered windshield of his Toyota Corolla and the bloody handprints on the side of the car — left there when the wounded and dying collapsed as they begged him to take them to the hospital.
“I heard the sound of the jets, but I did not see them,” he said. “They were just bombing and bombing the city. Everything was out of control.”
It wasn’t clear what military targets were left for Russian aircraft to hit on Tuesday. Georgian soldiers had fled their positions sometime overnight and all that remained of their presence were abandoned vehicles _two transport trucks crashed in the middle of the road and the charred remains of an armored personnel carrier, its bits blown across the street.
Yet explosions boomed across Gori and the valley around it, and their toll was grimly evident.
Jumberi pointed to his backseat, where blood was pooled on the floorboard — left, he said, by a man who staggered over to his cab before an ambulance took him away.
A few minutes later, three Russian helicopters launched missiles over a ridgeline in the distance. The clouds overhead, dark with rain, flashed with every explosion.
Eteri Tatishvilli marveled at the continuing attack.
“The Georgian troops have withdrawn completely,” she said. “The last time I saw them was last night.”
Miles away, at one of Tbilisi’s main hospitals, doctors struggled to care for the wounded, who arrived in waves throughout the day. Many were elderly. None was a soldier.
“Just now, we admitted eight patients,” said Tamara Saria, a doctor. “The age of all of them was no less than 80.”
“Do you see any military people here?” asked Nikoloz Kvachatze, another doctor. “These are all civilians.”
He was walking past an 80-year-old woman who had shrapnel wounds across the right side of her face. The woman, frail with thin white hair, was gasping and wheezing into an oxygen mask
“They are punishing us,” Kvachatze said of the Russians. “They are punishing us for trying to be independent.”
John McCain in The Wall Street Journal: Today We Are All Georgians.
Holman W. Jenkins: What A “War For Oil” Really Looks Like.
Bill O’Reilly: Vlad the Assailer.
Flashback, 1984: “There is a bear in the woods…”
Glenn Spencer: Union’s Card Check Gimmick.
Today, unions represent a scant 7.5 percent of private-sector workers, with the rest of their members employed in government, their only significant growth market. Demographically, the news is even worse: The largest single group of union members is between the ages of 45 and 54, nearing retirement — while just 6 percent of unionized workers are between 16 and 24.
Sadly, many unions seem to be choosing government power and restrictive legislation as their way out of the wilderness, instead of enhancing their value proposition. The AFL-CIO and its affiliates plan to spend $200 million of their members’ money to elect pro-labor candidates in 2008…
What makes this massive political spending so concerning is the element of coercion that lies behind labor’s political agenda. The centerpiece of that agenda is the Employee Free Choice Act, a masterpiece of Orwellian doublespeak.
The act would effectively strip workers of the protection of secret ballots in union certification elections. Replacing the privacy of the voting booth, workers would be asked to publicly sign cards indicating support for a union, exposing them to harassment and intimidation. Unions could badger workers repeatedly, at work and at home, to sign a card acquiescing to representation and, in most cases, employers would have limited ability to give workers their side of the story.
Could workers still choose to have a secret ballot election? Technically, yes, but in practice, no. Unions have made it clear that they will make the decision for workers, and they will never choose a secret ballot. Otherwise, why pour so much money into pressuring politicians to pass the card check legislation?
And one point unions can’t gloss over is that once they can “convince” enough workers to sign cards, it would be against the law to have a secret ballot election regardless of how many workers wanted one.
Why would unions, who claim to be advocates for workers, want to take the free choice out of forming a union? Well, secret ballot elections require investing time and resources into convincing workers that membership is worth the dues they have to pay. And there’s the risk that, in the privacy of the voting booth, workers may not choose the union.
The net result of this coercive legislation will be a lot more unionization — in retail stores, in restaurants, in banks and in high-tech firms — whether the workers really want it or not. And the impact on the economy, and the well-being of workers could be substantial.
Unions portray card check as a “ticket to the middle class.” In reality, states with the heaviest union presence tend to have slower economic growth, slower job growth, higher unemployment, higher costs of living, significantly heavier tax burdens and less entrepreneurial activity than states with the least union presence.
Taking away workers’ ability to make an informed decision about a union in private isn’t “free choice” — it’s tyranny.
Rocky Mountain News: Obama backs Free Choice Act.
John McCain opposes.
The Wall Street Journal: Wal-Mart Warns of Democratic Win.
National Right to Work Foundation: Another Card-Check Myth Debunked.
John Hood: Workers, Prepare To Be Carded.
