We have someone who “doesn’t call anyone,” is “not close to almost anyone,” and “really doesn’t like people” — which is Obama — according to former aide Neera Tanden. On the other hand we have someone “who seeks to keep people at a distance because he does ‘not trust others,’” which is a person who suffered faulty childhood attachment. And we also have someone who will only “associate with, other special or unique … people,” which is a narcissist. Is there any connection here?
You’ve got to hand it to that Joe Biden. He certainly has chutzpah. After all, what do you call it when a man who was banned from receiving Communion diocese-wide by a bishop chastises an apparently more faithful Catholic for a lack of doctrinal purity? I’m of course referring to the vice-presidential debate and Biden’s comment that Paul Ryan had an “issue” with “Catholic social doctrine.”
Given all of the precious time that they have invested in talking about the gazillions in debt with which Democrats are saddling future generations, it appears that Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have imbibed their party’s conventional wisdom to the last letter.
The ignorance of the professionals is what has made a total sham of American public education. Their ignorance of our educational history is appalling. Dozens of books have been written by conservatives on the failures of progressive education, yet the professional educators simply will not read them because they don’t comply with their political agenda.
The funny thing about the Labor Department’s monthly unemployment report is that the number-crunching bureaucrats act like they’re delivering high-carat diamonds when the real worth of what they’re reporting is closer to the value of a mud pie. Consider: A college graduate with a degree in biomedical engineering who gets a $90,000 job in his field is counted exactly the same in the government’s unemployment report as a biomedical engineering graduate who can’t find a job and is working weekends as a bus boy at Applebee’s.
Consider Joe Biden's behavior at the vice-presidential debate. If his grasp of human nature is so poor that he didn't know obnoxiousness was obnoxiousness and how it would play in Peoria, will he be able to project the right image to Muslim jihadists, the Chinese, and Russians and read their intentions? And, in light of this, is it any wonder that his bird-of-a-feather boss projected weakness by bowing to potentates and pathologically apologizing for America?
Is it remotely possible that the 2012 presidential election will be decided by an eight-foot-tall, bright yellow bird? I know it sounds ridiculous. But the liberal cognoscenti in this country are going absolutely gaga over Mitt Romney’s promise during last week’s presidential debate that he would end government funding of the Public Broadcasting System.
Bill Clinton is certainly full of himself these days. That might have something to do with the fact that no one is likely to ask why he hasn’t owned up to his share of the blame for the housing and financial bust.
Some Ron Paul supporters argue that a vote for either Romney or Obama is unacceptable, for even if one can be said to be not as bad as the other, a vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil — and it is always immoral to vote for evil. I challenge this reasoning in the light of the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas.
There is this idea among many that we can get past apparent differences by concluding they don’t exist. This is reflected in the now common belief that racial distinctions are mere “social constructs.” And this theory isn’t just espoused by liberals, but has become so mainstream that even many conservatives echo it. But just as new research in the 1990s debunked the ‘60s-spawned “gender-neutrality” nonsense of the sameness of the sexes, there has long been research pointing to the reality of race.