By Mike Thayer
Blog For Iowa, the state's faithful liberal propaganda machine is spewing at an increased rate with their latest posting: George Lakoff: It’s Time To Occupy Elections
It's a piece trying to encourage members of the Occupy movement, to get in lock step with the Democrat party. He also tries to convince you that any success a person enjoys is owed to the public, a false notion. And here's something any reasonable person can object to, Lakoff ineptly offers contrast and comparison between Occupy and what he grossly mischaracterizes to be a "Right Wing Morality."
Instead of actually trying to learn more about how conservative Republicans think, George Lakoff makes things up. Blog For Iowa perpetuates the nonsense by posting the propaganda. Lakoff and Blog For Iowa are two tired old dogs that can't learn new tricks.
The article is nutjob stuff straight out of the liberal Democrat playbook. Instead of providing substance and example - MAKE STUFF UP! This is all the liberals know how to do. This is a party that gives us platitutes about a need for civility, tolerance and bi-partisanship.... This same party then spews complete horse manure about anyone holding a different point of view.
This guy Lakoff, he's a professor. He TEACHES (shudder) the youth attending UC Berkeley. He PRETENDS that the GOP uses language and the media to dominate public conversation. Like Republicans have encypted speech and decoder rings or something.... The guy is a complete nut job and Blog For Iowa is a collection of nuts for spewing his crap.
Let me give you some examples, you'll laugh, while you pull your hair out.
Lakoff: "All the hundreds of the Occupiers’ legitimate complaints and important policy suggestions follow from a simple general moral principle: American democracy is about citizens caring about one another and acting responsibly on that care."
HUNDREDS of LEGITIMATE complaints? That's not accurate at all! And note that Lakoff didn't provide one example, not one complaint or policy suggestion was offered up to support/explain his claim. Why? Because it's complete horse manure, straight out of the liberal playbook. He can't support what he claimed above.
The Occupy movement without question is disgruntled with how our government is "managing" things, their grunting though is by no means legitimate. The key is defining "managing." See the Occupy Wall Street page on the Coralville Courier for multiple examples of illegitimacy. And the latter part of Lakoff's comments: "American democracy is about citizens caring about one another and acting responsibly on that care." More crap, it's feel good baloney, designed to tug on your emotions, not your common sense. First off, we live in a Representative Republic, not a democracy. Democracies always fail. There is no such thing as American democracy, you've been fed a complete line of bull from a liberal professor and others like him. A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine. ~ Thomas Jefferson. Our Founding Fathers were wise men, they avoided creating a democracy at all costs, crafting for us instead a Representative Republic. And let me translate for you what the professor said and what the Occupy movement is really all about: We don't want to work hard for anything in life, we want it given to us.
Mob rule. See Occupy Oakland
More nut job rhetoric: "The Public has been what has made Americans free - and has underwritten American wealth. No one makes it on his or her own. Private success depends on a robust Public."
Lackeeoff couldn't BE more wrong. Does this guy even CARE to know American history? Individuals made this country great and a free people. It wasn't a Borg Collective that crafted the country, it was hard working men, women, inventors, farmers, entrepreneurs, soldiers and craftsmen working towards the same goals that made this country the greatist nation on earth. Private success doesn't depend on a robust "Public," it depends on FREEDOM.
More Professor Lakoff *teachings*: "The rationale for the Occupy movement is that all of this has been under successful attack by the right wing, which has an opposing principle, that democracy is about citizens only taking care of themselves, about personal and not social responsibility. According to right-wing morality, the successful are by definition the moral; the one percent are taken to be the most moral. The country and the world should be ruled by such a “moral” hierarchy. Except for national security, the Public should disappear through lack of funding. The nation and the world should be ruled for private profit alone – and by force."
The notion that the Occupy movement is only about people taking care of other people should be rejected outright. And no reasonable person objects to true need social responsibility. The professor is trying to put new window dressing on the bogus liberal Republicans want toxic air, dirty water and have old ladies eating dog food" argument. And there's some irony here. If the professor was right in how the Occupy movement is about public *caring*, then why have there been rapes, shootings, drug overdoses and numerous assaults in the tent cities? If the professor was right, then why do members of the Occupy Movement kick the homeless out of the parks they're in? The Occupy Wall Street protesters in New York's Zucotti Park for example were feasting on organic chicken, smoke salmon, spaghetti Bolognese, roasted beet, sheep's milk-cheese salad and wild heirloom potatoes.... Word got out and the homeless tried to blend in for the good eats. They got kicked out and the menu suddenly changed to peanut butter sandwiches to turn the homeless off. In Occupy Salt Lake City, protesters got the homeless booted out. A freeloader is a freeloader. Occupy can put up tents, but the homeless can't?
And then there's Lakoff's version of morality. Noting the ironic lack of it by Occupy protesters in their treatment of the homeless, Lackoff defines "Right Wing Morality" as, "the successful are by definition the moral; the one percent are taken to be the most moral. The country and the world should be ruled by such a “moral” hierarchy. Except for national security, the Public should disappear through lack of funding. The nation and the world should be ruled for private profit alone – and by force."
That's COMPLETE crap! Not only is this guy wrong, he watches too many Hollywood movies and obviously doesn't even try let alone care to learn the truth before he spews. And it's not "Right Wing Morality." Like "American democracy," there's no such thing. The man is making reference to conservative Republicans. The TRUTH is, the morality part of it is, conservatives believe in the ability of an individual to create and achieve. And if individuals have the freedom to create, achieve and be successful it transcends to the family. Hard working successful men and women can provide for their families much better than the government can. Strong families aren't in need of government assistance, they're independent of it and that's a GOOD thing! It's the basis of this country. Strong families are in a position to offer help to their extended family if needed and neighbors as well. Strong families contribute to churches and community organizations. Regular readers have seen the following: If you need help, go to your family. If your immediate family can't help, go to your relatives. If your relatives can't help, turn to your neighbors. If your neighbors can't help, ask your church or a community organization. That's how this country is SUPPOSED to work, government is an absolute last resort! THAT's what conservatives stand for, STRONG, independent families that HAVE NO NEED for government handouts. Dependency is a bad thing so the more STRONG families we have the better! And Lakoff's notion that "Right Wing Morality" means "the PUBLIC should disappear for lack of funding" and "the nation and world should be ruled for private profit alone - and by force," is nothing but emotionally charged b.s. (Barbra Streisand). No conservative has said that, let alone believes such garbage. You would think a PROFESSOR would provide an example to support his claim, but Lakoff didn't. Hmmmmmm.....
The ONLY thing that Lakoff got right was that there are two opposing principles at play here. Everything else he wrote was complete garbage.
The Occupy movement represents not having to work for anything, rudderless demanding, chanting, jazz hands, chaos and the coming mob rule. Say, did you see the story about the lady that pepper sprayed other shoppers on Black Friday to get what she wanted?
Here's a little story that says it all......
She replied, "I'd give food and houses to all the homeless people." Her parents beamed with pride.
"Wow...what a worthy goal." I told her. "But you don't have to wait until you're President to do that. You can come over to my house and mow the lawn, pull weeds, and sweep my driveway, and I'll pay you $50. Then I'll take you over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use toward food and a new house."
She thought that over for a few seconds, then she looked me straight in the eye and asked, "Why doesn't the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50?"
I said, "Welcome to the Republican Party." Her parents still aren't speaking to me.