You've Got to be Kidding Me: Part 1

Wow, so many things in my Dad's last round of comments, a few of which drive me nuts and I want to talk about. I'll spread them out over a few posts so we can stay focused.

What is with the conservatives latching onto, and demonizing the most OBSCURE liberals!?!
#1 Saul Alinsky, a man who revolutionized the methods of community organization is now under attack by the conservatives because Obama is a student of his teachings. Why would you NOT want your president to be a strong community organizer? Oh yea, because he's organizing communities against what you like. But seriously, who had heard of this guy before the 2008 election? It seems the only people who are really studying his tactics right now are the TEA Party! The fact of the matter is that he is the creator of a tactic which can be used for either side, so why exactly is he the new conservative anti-christ?

Aside from his modern applications, what exactly do the conservatives hate about him so much? Is unifying poor communities to help them better their situation such a detestable cause? Other causes being attributed to him are the civil rights and the anti-Vietnam war movements. While some of those organizers may have used improper versions of his tactics, he was intentionally not involved with these young groups because he thought their tactics like flag burning and aimlessly rebelling against middle-class America were counter-effective and idiotic. And all things said and done, if his tactics had been followed, those movements would have been non-violent, effective movements for honorable causes and probably would be remembered in a more favorable light. Where exactly is the beef with Saul Alinsky, other than the fact that a guy on the other side is intelligent enough to be using his tactics successfully?

#2 George Soros, survivor of the Holocaust, investment genius, self-made billionaire, and major philanthropist, is another totally random and undeserving whipping boy of the conservatives. His life and career are nothing short of inspirational. Over the course of the last 30yrs he's donated over $6 billion to organizations promoting democracy in eastern Europe, desegregating South Africa, ending poverty in Africa, setting up internet infrastructures for Russian students, scientific research grants, etc. The list of worthy causes he has supported seriously goes around the block. So where's the beef? From 2002 to 2004 George Soros became the LOUDEST (that link is not just for reference, I highly recommend reading exactly why he was against Bush, because his points and predictions were unequivocally correct) voice in the battle to get Bush out of office. While not donating any money directly to the campaign, he did donate $18 million to groups supporting the Democrats.

Going back to his investment portfolio, while being well diversified, he is heavily invested in oil, and that has been the source of much recent criticism. But name a major industry and there's bound to be some rich dude heavily invested in it. The fact that he's well invested in Petrobras, the industry's fastest rising star, run by Brazil, one of the fastest growing nations in the world, should be NO SURPRISE. It's what you call smart investing, not a conspiracy. The theory is that he is Obama's puppet master because he wants the oil spill to cause a moratorium on off shore drilling so that the rigs will be sold and leased to Petrobras. Further evidence they site for this is that the government has already given Petrobras a $2 billion of tax payer money to purchase drilling equipment. The truth of the matter is... well, just hit the link, it's bogus on so many levels and already well debunked in that link. Not only was it the equivalent of a dealership lending you money to buy their product, it's COMPLETELY unrelated to either Obama or Soros.

I believe the disconnect between libs and cons in this is the differentiation between a puppet master and an unintended beneficiary. George Bush's puppet master was Karl Rove, the man who engineered his career, stood as his primary senior adviser, and had the power to say yes or no on critical issues. Bush's unintended beneficiaries were Osama Bin Laden and China. Through Bush's actions and policies concerning Iraq, more people rallied behind Al Qaeda's causes and our economy was left badly injured and vulnerable to the political pressures of the East. I don't think anybody would argue Bush was in bed with Osama and China, but they're the unintended beneficiaries. Big difference.


I find both of these cases to be absolutely absurd, but if you have more information than I do, please FACT CHECK IT FIRST, then let me know.

Major gripe #2 to come soon.