"Provoking Emotions" = "Political Intolerance"

I guess it's good or bad, depending on if you are in power or not:

S. African President Walks Out of Parliament Amid Chaos

[...] Early this year, the public protector ordered Zuma to pay back to the state a portion of the $23 million used for security upgrades to the home. Zuma was in parliament to explain his response to the public protector’s report. “I have responded appropriately and I am saying people who did the upgrades at Nkandla, they are the ones who always determine who pays, when to pay,” he explained.

But the leader of the newly formed Economic Freedom Fighters, (EFF) Julius Malema, who was expelled from the ruling ANC partly for undermining Zuma’s authority, demanded a precise response. “The question we are asking today and we are not going to leave here before we get an answer, is when are you paying the money?” he stated.

When President Zuma insisted that he had already answered the question, there was commotion as EFF members refused to take instructions from the speaker of the House of Representatives.

It is at this point that Zuma decided to walk out. The speaker then temporarily adjourned parliament and called in riot police to eject EFF members, who violently refused and instead started chanting "pay back the money."

Chaos: scuffling, shoving

When it was time for parliament to resume, ANC members of parliament charged towards the EFF members, leading to a scuffle as they pushed and shoved each other.

[...]

The ruling ANC is now calling on parliament to slap the EFF members with the strongest sanction possible. In a strongly worded statement, the ANC warned the EFF not to provoke emotions, saying this could lead to political intolerance with dire consequences to the country’s democracy.

A bit ironic, that last statement. When the ANC was in political opposition, they did their share of provoking emotions. But now that they are in power, provoking emotions is a bad and dangerous thing.

Here is an earlier post I did, about the money issue the president is being questioned about:

What South African Taxpayer's Money Buys

I'm no fan of Julius Malema. But taxpayers everywhere have the right to question how the government is spending their tax dollars.
     

Public Employee Unions need to Get Real

Government Workers and the New Reality

Too bad the showdown with public employee unions has come to this, however long in the making. One can be pro-union and still feel a growing resentment at these workers' ability to set their own dream retirement benefits as the private sector's were being amputated. Not that they are to blame. They got what they could -- it's the American way -- though they overplayed their hand by resisting honest efforts to reform government, schools above all.

The public workers respond that rather than race to the bottom, others should rise to their level. But the difference between them and others is that they got to fire their employers at the ballot box. Their payoff came in the form of future goodies that wouldn't hit the taxpayers until the politicians were long gone. Hence, retirements at age 50 and gold-plated health coverage for life.

"Do you know how much of our retirement plan we are funding ourselves?" an aggrieved teachers union official asked. To which I replied, "No, I don't know, but I happen to be funding 100 percent of mine."

Public employees are fighting to keep their old-fashioned defined-benefit plans, which have all but disappeared in the private sector. Such plans promise to pay a set amount to each qualified retiree. If the investments can't keep up with the promises, the employer must make up the difference -- in the case of government workers, the taxpayer. [...]

The Gravy Train is over. Taxpayers like me who have to provide for my own healthcare and retirement plans will not tolerate having to provide for cushy union pensions as well, promised to the unions decades ago by some now forgotten politicians, who conveniently passed the debt on to future generations. MY consent was not given for it, and it's my tax dollars they are wanting to take.

Rosen: Unions are "busting" taxpayers

[...] I agree with President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who said "the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service."

The Battle of Wisconsin has focused public attention on a fiscal reality. Whatever the necessity and value of public-sector jobs, federal, state and local governments simply can't sustain their current costs. Irrational unionists and media liberals have preposterously compared duly-elected Gov. Scott Walker and Republican legislators in Wisconsin to anti-democratic dictators. In fact, it's just the opposite. This is democracy at work. Wisconsin voters in 2010 ousted Democrats and gave majority control of their legislature and the governor's office to the GOP. Walker campaigned on exactly the measures he's now taking in regard to balancing the budget, reining in excessive compensation for public employees and restricting their collective bargaining privileges, as is done in 24 other states.

In response, 10,000 angry unionists have laid siege to the state capitol, shaking their fists, shouting epithets and waving signs. So what? That was to be expected. They're defending their rice bowl and their self interest. Meanwhile, millions of non-union Wisconsinites who work in the private sector and whose taxes support the angry unionists haven't descended upon the capitol. Those who voted for Walker and other Republicans are getting what they were promised. In our system of government, free elections trump demonstrations. [...]

The unions aren't being destroyed. They ARE getting a reality check. One that, IMO, is long overdue. They need to learn to deal with reality, like the rest of us.
     

The Fannie and Freddie Question

In a previous post, I mentioned that Fannie and Freddie were costing taxpayers about $7 billion dollars per month. Is it time for them to go? A good case can be made for it:

Say Goodbye to Fannie and Freddie

[...] Fannie and Freddie had a license to print money. They could borrow at an interest rate only a bit over the Treasury rate and then accumulate large portfolios of mortgages and mortgage-backed securities earning the market rate. What a deal — borrow at the low rate, invest at a higher one, hold little capital and let the federal government bear the risk! Investors enjoyed high returns, and management enjoyed high salaries. Incidentally, politicians also got a steady flow of campaign contributions from the companies’ executives.

Fannie and Freddie’s risky policies led to their near collapse; in September 2008, the federal government brought them under federal conservatorship. Fannie and Freddie have cost taxpayers about $150 billion so far.

On Tuesday, the Obama administration plans to hold a conference to address the question of what to do with the two companies. Clearly, it would be an inexcusable mistake to reconstitute them as private companies in anything close to their prior form. Some people have suggested recasting them as a single new “Fan-Fred agency” that would continue to securitize and guarantee home mortgages. It’s true that Fannie and Freddie played an important role in developing the market for mortgage-backed securities. But they have completed that work, and they should not be preserved in any form. They should be thanked for their successes and gracefully retired.

Can the home mortgage market stand on its own, without support from federally sponsored mortgage companies? Experience tells us that the answer is an unambiguous yes. [...]

Read the whole thing for the nitty gritty details. There are many reasons why they should not continue, but this administration has been supporting a lot of things that should have died a natural death. We shall have to wait until Tuesday to see what they will do. Since Fannie and Freddie are government creations, and Big Government is growing not shrinking, I'm not confident that they will be retired. If they are kept, the question will be: "At what cost?"
     

Who are the "real" Tea Party people?

Politicians such as Palin aren't the real Tea Party

[...] Neither Democrats nor Republicans fully understand the Tea Party's inner workings or how to manipulate or co-opt it -- and they won't be able to. The modern-day Tea Party movement is managed by political newcomers whose primary motivation is love of country and a desire for a better future for their children.

Like anything else that grows into a national phenomenon, the Tea Party has seen some enter the scene with ulterior motives. Generally, the motives center around money. Some have slapped the Tea Party name on their tired political action committees. Others are organizations with political interests and agendas, but foremost are the money-gathering operations.

Others are big-name politicians or media personalities such as Sarah Palin, who charge up to $100,000 a speech before packing up and taking their show to another city. They leave little lasting substance, and their words are quickly forgotten.

[...]

I regard the "pure in heart" Tea Party leaders as the real center and strength of the movement. These are the people who work full-time jobs, have family responsibilities and make time to manage and grow their own group.

[...]

The goal is to get middle-class taxpayers engaged in local politics and into the primary and general election voting booths as never before. Each of these neighborhood coordinators and the people they lead are volunteers.

The time they devote to the Tea Party movement comes at the expense of something else in their busy lives. These people don't get huge speaking fees. They don't appear on national news shows. They don't sell books or merchandise. They do what they do because of their devotion to Tea Party principles. These people are the true heroes of the Tea Party movement.

The Tea Party will continue to grow in numbers and power as our leaders in Washington continue to govern irresponsibly. There will be many who try to take ownership of the movement. Certainly, the mainstream media would like nothing more than a single target to attack.

Yet, the Tea Party will succeed. If one leader in a sea of thousands falls, another will replace him or her just as a starfish grows another arm if one is cut off. The Tea Party movement is not about individuals but ideals. [...]

Yes, but politics is the art of compromise. We need ideals for sure, as standards to inspire us. But the world is not, and never will be, an ideal place. Government and politicians are both necessary evils.

You can be 100% right about something, but if you can't win elections and promote your ideas, you can't make any difference, not even incrementally. And if you can't make a difference, why even bother? There comes a point where emphasizing wedge issues is just nonproductive.


Also see:

It's the economy Barbara Boxer,stupid!

More on the California bitch fight

     

CNN's Susan Roesgen; media bias at it's worst

Her "coverage" of Tax Protesters is a good example of many in the Mainstream Media who have contempt for ordinary Americans. And now there is video of what happened after that:

MORE OF THE STORY OF SUSAN ROESGEN'S TEA PARTY MOMENT

I hope that by now, the name Susan Roesgen is a household name. I hope it is a name that is equated with idiocy. I'm sorry, folks. There is no other way to put it. Her little tirade at the tea parties the other day was an embarrassment for CNN.

A blogger has now released footage of what happened after Susan Roesgen decided that her tea party coverage was "no longer suitable for family viewing" .... It seems as though the tea party protestors had their way with her. Gotta love it. Warning: bad words. [...]

Unfortunately, it looks like CNN has yanked the video from Youtube. But not before her little song and dance got exposed for what it was. [I'll update the video link if I find it reposted]

The Boortz article goes on to show how low CNN news is in the ratings. Gee, I wonder if it's because they do crap like this? I hope it costs them advertisers.

I don't believe that ordinary Americans have become "Fringe", although clearly reporters like Roesgen want to make them that way, by any underhanded means they can manage.

Unfortunately, I agree with Pat, that the tea parties started over 5 months too late. Better late than never? I don't know; sometimes too late is too late. We shall see.