Google denied Wednesday that it gave President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign special access to a new advertising program, something a sales representative from the search and advertising giant had claimed in an email to customers.
The new ad program would charge clients for every email address (or other piece of user data) they collect. The program is attractive to campaigns eager for that information, so when a staffer at the National Republican Senatorial Committee saw what appeared to be an Obama ad built on this technology on the RealClearPolitics website last month, she emailed a Google sales rep to ask about creating a similar ad campaign for Republicans. . . . .
In short, the end of the matter is this: Google rejected the Republican request. Understand that Google, Yahoo, and AOL/HuffPost are all as Leftest as they can possibly be. I believe we are in the midst of a huge generational struggle . . . . traditionalist versus post-modern and the post-modern mind "is running the joint."
A traditionalist or modernist is one who honors what I call "the larger narratives." I am talking about the Bible, the Constitution, the Civil Code, traditional moral ethics, etc. Try talking to a young college age person about the Bible or the importance of the Constitution or the need to have a military code, etc., etc. and see where the conversation goes. But talk to the same young person about "inner spirituality" or the idea of "living for the moment," and you will have a conversation. You are looking at the Larger Narrative versus the Smaller Narrative, that which governs or has appeal for the greater and historic population versus what is existential and personal and "real" in terms of personal experience. What is critical, here, in my humble blue collar opinion, is this: the conflict is [also] about a collective sense of direction based on historical agreements and witness (the Larger Narratives) versus the existential claims of the moment. The former has a foreign policy plan, for example, rather than charting foreign policy based on knee-jerk reactions that are borne of a personal and idealistic agenda.
Of course, I have Obama in mind as the "typical post modern man." His foreign policy is a maze of reactional decisions with no sense of direction. He has rejected the larger narrative of "fighting for freedom in foreign lands" and has no clue as to what comes next. In May of 2008, months before the election, Michelle had this to say and it fits in perfectly with what I am saying. Understand that as you read, the words may sound good, but where is the alternative to the changing history and traditions. Neither Michelle nor Barack know.
MICHELLE OBAMA: "Barack knows that we are going to have to make sacrifices; we are going to have to change our conversation; we're going to have to change our traditions, our history; we're going to have to move into a different place as a nation."
Until he states otherwise, all he has left are his personal feelings about national/international politics - the way things should be versus the way things are. Social justice is a good thing, for example, except when it is driven by folks who do not understand or admit to basic economic principles (the Larger Narrative). It is good to feed the "poor," give them their own homes and pay for their healthcare but what about the Larger Narrative that screams, "We have no money !!!!"
The reason why that objection is not a driving consideration for the Flaming Liberal is found in the fact that he has moved away from the prevailing narrative, all in the name of "changing times." The phrase "that is soooooo yesterday" is a post-modern phrase, a rejection of the prevailing narrative. The phrase and the concept moves us away from our history but offers nothing concrete as an alternative. The "real" reason Obama seems lost is because his narrative has no transcendent text. History transcend time and there is direction in that fact. The existential moment does not.
And, now you know why things are a mess. We have rejected the traditions of the past, complete with the associated structures and replaced it with . . . . . . . . . . . . . nothing much to speak of.
Udated : 10 am
I give you a second "update," some words about Palin and Bachmann that seem pertinent to this particular discussion:
Sarah Palin, by way of contrast, is one who is steeped in American traditions as to the beginnings of this great nation and its continuance. As such, she often sounds like a genius when compared to Obama. She would never betray Israel or challenge Great Britain or side with the Communists in the Venezuela or send aid to Hamas or, or , or, well, you get the drift. She understands that there is a "right" and a "wrong." Obama, seriously, is not so sure. As a result, Sarah exemplifies the traits of a leader, having a since of foundation and direction that is beyond her own thinking. Obama is lost in a sea of transition and has us, as his captive audience. In the larger scheme of things, there is no alternative to foundational truths and a historicity that has been tried, correct and evolving, all within the boundaries of what has been put in place before, dating back to the beginnings of this great nation. Sarah and, I must admit, Michele Bachmann, know this. If Sarah is not getting into the race, I plan to support -- with zeal - Michele Bachmann. She has actually practiced her law trade, Obama has not. She has fostered 23 children in addition to raising 5 of her own - an "anti-abortionist" who is helping deal with unwanted children, and she is a committed conservative, a leader in the Tea Party Movement and strong conservative voice in the House of Representatives. She has real world experience, as does Sarah Palin and is an excellent "other choice" to the Governor from Alaska.
No comments:
Post a Comment