PROMETHEAN ANTAGONIST

Paying One's Fair Share For A Piece Of Something You Barely Use Or Want

2012-01-26T10:10:00.005+09:00

Analogies are not statistics -- not that statistics offer air tight cases for anything -- but I like them.

Perhaps you're familiar with the scenario I'm about to describe. You or someone else goes to a party at a restaurant. You've already eaten or you're not feeling well so you don't want anything to drink. Or, you arrive late after having been to another party. You eat one slice of pizza and have one beer while most at said event have downed several appetizers, several slices of pizza, and at least a pitcher of beer. When you're all about to leave and people are getting their wallets out, you offer to pay the same as everyone else but sane people recognize that you've had a mere fraction of the party's food and drink and tell you, "Just give us ten bucks and we'll call it even." You make one more polite offer to pay a full portion and others insist that you don't. After the etiquette dance you end up paying "ten bucks" and no one feels you've somehow cheated them or somehow been greedy or sinister. Of course, on rare occasions you'll be dealing with some clown who fully expects you to pay what they consider to be you're "fair share." It's doubtful that anyone would actually say, "you know, you ate and drank a fraction of what we did but you're richer than us so you should pay more."

Only in the bizarre world of "progressive" politics is it seen as an affront to decency that a person who is part of the group that pays 40% of all federal income taxes is somehow "not paying their fair share." The argument that "you should pay [an arbitrary amount] more" because you have more wealth doesn't even address the issue of what the money is being spent for. Imagine being at a restaurant where they've ordered sardine flavored ice cream with pickles and chocolate sauce and insisted that since you're comparatively rich you should pay more than the already large amount you were going to pay (for something you didn't want).

It's probably an instinctual reaction among most people to want the guy with "all the stuff" to pay for everyone's [the state's and politicians] everything but, come on! There's fairness and there's stupid.

You know we've entered surreal times when the state is full of sardine flavored projects and it's considered a testament to fairness that those who pay the most be forced to pay more. It's even more pathetic that a good portion of our population have been so easily swayed by demagogues to believe that one is selfish, "greedy," or even evil for not wanting to fill the state's ever growing list of pathetic Vote buying schemes and dependency traps.

When we freely choose the goods and services we want and pay for them at a mutually agreed price we are "paying our fair share.". When we submit to the commands of politicians and bureaucrats and fork over large percentages of our earned wealth we are "On the road to Serfdom," as Friedrich Hayek put it. "Fair" isn't fair...no matter how good someone thinks the sardine flavored ice cream is.

They Hate Us....So

2012-01-22T21:27:00.003+09:00

This is an excellent article that examines many European's favorite pastime -- hating the United States.

"'Most of the Germans,' insisted one reader, 'followed the rules and fought a civilized war.' Another agreed, saying that America 'is way worse then Nazi Germany ever was.' A third asserted that during the Vietnam War, the US, that 'sanctimonious and arrogant s*** country,' had outdone Hitler. A couple of readers cited the Allied bombing of Dresden as proof that America and the western Allies were at least as bad as the Nazis; one recalled having 'seen videos from WWII of P51 planes mowing down German farmers in May 1945.' Several readers insisted that it wasn’t the Western Allies that whupped the Nazis and freed Norway, but the Soviets: 'America would have been a**-f***ed in a one-on-one against Nazi Germany.' Much of the article made me cringe, not because I'm particularly patriotic or blind to my county's flaws and misdeeds but because it's an issue I've been exposed to many times personally."

There are so many expats in Japan where I live who, in addition to a passionate hatred of capitalism and conservative values, absolutely despise America. Their rabid hatred is bordering on the bizarre and always leaves me believing that there must be some deep psychological motivation far beyond reasoned disagreement with a country's actions or collective character.

My own observations regarding rabid anti-American sentiment is that it stems from a very snobbish and elitist worldview. It's not really about Germany, France, or New Zealand (for example) "vs." the U.S., it's about an archetypal leftist snob who has conjured images of a hybrid monster; half uneducated and classless hillbilly and half cunning capitalist predator. The U.S is neither. It's a very diverse, dynamic, and creative nation with a major positive impact on modern history. Skeletons in the closet...of course (actually, less closeted than most countries as it is under constant critique).
When I hear the usual cliche' bitterness toward the country of my birth my impulse now has become one of simply rolling my eyes up at the arrogance of anyone who would portion so much of their passions at a country so unlike the cruel, oppressive tyrannies that have covered so much of our recent history.

...how does one roll their eyes up in script?

The Anti-authoritarian Personality, and Dictators Large and Small

2012-01-15T21:48:00.005+09:00

Sorry for my recent extended period of non-posting. I want to at least put something up here so the site doesn't seem be completely dormant so I fished this out of my documents. It was probably posted on this site at some time fairly long ago. If I ever take the time I'd like to add to my "Big Rants" links (on the left side of this page -- sometimes near the bottom in some browsers) with more articles like the following. Of course many educated people are familiar with Theodor W. Adorno's writings on "the Authoritarian Personality" who he concluded was -- Ta Da! -- conservative. The part most college professors will leave out when they mention this Phd's B.S. is that he was -- TA Da! (again) -- a devout Marxist. Anyway, I've seen more than my share of Authoritarian types and they're often -- typically -- statists of one type or another. They're definitely not free market/limited government types. I think one would find considerably more authoritarian types among the rabble of "Occupy Wall Street" than among "Tea Party" protesters. May the following entertain or spark contemplation:

I once heard a socialist express his hatred for free markets because corporations were -- to him -– like thousands of “little dictators.” This is a response we can expect from left-land when we decry the horrors of real dictatorship; mega-states and cult figures dedicated to monolithic all-consuming power and oppression. We note Castro's one man rule over everything on his island prison and the left retorts the horror that trendy coffee shops are expanding in capitalist societies.

It is, indeed, true that large corporations have power and are, in a sense, authority figures, but do they really pose the same threat as a single person, group or ideology that seeks control of all industry, labor, information, cultural expression, and ideals?

The socialist worldview inevitable shares with libertarians distaste for authority -- on the surface. The apparent difference lies in the left’s actually favoring authority when it is invested in the state and directed to their cherished purposes. The right favors business as a default condition of its favoring the individual freedoms that promote prosperity and private commerce in general.

A significant difference between government authority and “power in the hands of business” is that government, by its nature seeks to become monolithic in its interests and goals – business does not. A free society has other power centers besides those of business, though one would never know this from a socialist’s rant (i.e. the National Education Association is hardly a business and can not be called “weak” and ineffectual by any definition). The interests of a dental clinic are hardly the same as those of a toy store. The interests of an aircraft manufacturer are hardly the same as those of pet food suppliers. They of course can all be expected to favor a political / economic order that allows for their freedom to exist, succeed, and excel, but this hardly constitutes a conspiratorial plot for monolithic authority, or a shared scheme to “oppress.” The average soap company doesn’t dream of a day when their insurgents will seize control of state capitals to create a new world where their company will rule over all aspects of society.

Government’s goals are; to govern, everything from children’s education to who is permitted to cut hair and under what conditions. The private sector’s goals are to be as free as possible to pursue infinitely diverse and contending interests and, yes, those in the private sector also usually “want money” (as if the government doesn’t?). Regarding the capitalists themselves, while most of them certainly favor the system that allows for their own existence and opportunity, it’s clear that there are more than a few who actually don’t favor a free-market. While this is certainly counter intuitive, it has occurred none the less throughout the history of capitalist society (e.g. Marx’s side-kick, Friedrich Engels, was quite the capitalist, and used portions of his profits to advance the cause of socialism as well as provide financial upkeep for his less than hard-working friend, Karl).

There may indeed be thousands of “little dictators” out there in the corporate business world (varieties of authority figures exist as well in daily life in general under any system) seeking to sell more dog food or convince you to buy a newer and better television, but lets consider this in a realistic light.

Common sense should allow for an ability to distinguish the difference between “threats posed” by a million and one authorities and, often conflicting, special interests, vs. a single dominating spirit with an obedient bureaucracy and punitive legal apparatus at its disposal (e.g. the state). At the core of this basic conflict lies one’s degree of tolerance for (or allegiance to) authority in forms either concentrated or dispersed.

It is one thing to oppose authority and “little dictators” and quite another to oppose the authority and all-consuming power of the state. Among authority figures large and small, I’ll tolerate the small ones and recognize the reality that there will always be degrees of power and authority present in others. A philosophy that believes it can end the reign of all the “little dictators” that inhabit daily life is one to be most careful of. The mere desire to sell stuff and “make a buck” is a “dictatorial” condition most of us can live with…and, we may even buy a new and better TV as part of our condition as “oppressee” in such benign circumstances.

Anyone can be “anti-authority” or repelled by the presence of “little dictators,” just as anyone can fear the power and authority of an omnipotent state. It seems that not everyone can equally perceive the more potent or dangerous threat.

Observations, Quotes, and Reverie

2012-01-03T21:55:00.002+09:00

Please have a look at my Promethean Observer blog to see a mass of my own comments (some stupid, mundane, or cliche -- and I'd like to think, some grand, insightful, or reasonably imaginative) and quotes by others, which are definitely grand, insightful, and imaginative.

Very Insightful Take on the "Bush Hatred / Obama Love" Issue...

2011-12-31T21:54:00.004+09:00

Excerpts:

"... They face (at least) two options:"

"Barack Obama is a sellout, “just Bush with a tan,” subservient to the same malevolent political and economic forces that Bush was.

OR the Bush administration was actually pretty reasonable to adopt these policies in the first place, and the Obama administration has been reasonable enough to recognize the fact.

Both options require the liberal to admit a mistake: either he was wrong about Obama, or he was wrong about Bush. But the first option requires the liberal to sacrifice his love for Obama, while the second option requires him to sacrifice his hatred of Bush. Either Obama was dishonest in the campaign or overwhelmed by baleful influences once he came to the Oval Office — or Obama, once he came to the White House and had the same information and responsibility that Bush had, came to more or less the same conclusions as Bush had."

"Unsurprisingly, Option #1 comes out the huge winner here. So powerful is the partisan mindset that I haven’t seen a single prominent liberal writer take Option #2. They puzzle through the “mystery” of “George W. Obama” and conclude that the contradictions between Obama’s ideals and actions compose “a subtle disaster for all those whose hopes once rested with him.” They would rather abandon their love of Obama than their hatred of Bush. To put it more sharply: they are so deeply committed to the nefariousness and malfeasance of the Bush administration that they would rather believe Barack Obama a failure, a liar or a dupe than believe that George W. Bush took reasonable actions in light of the circumstances...."

The Conservative Worldview...in 4-D

2011-12-20T10:16:00.004+09:00

This speech by Mark Steyn is not only an excellent synopsis of his current book, "After America: Get Ready for Armageddon" but is also the best current testament of conservative values and views in our unique era of encroaching socialist, world authority, fanatic appeasing...nonsense.

Very witty, insightful and cogent.

OWS Sucks!

2011-12-18T18:06:00.001+09:00

...in my humble opinion...

Two Excellent Articles

2011-12-17T16:57:00.004+09:00

What Does It Mean to Be an ‘Intellectual,’ Anyway?

"...Yes, there are non-leftists who are sometimes described, perhaps grudgingly, as intellectuals. But when that label’s affixed to them, the people doing the affixing almost invariably feel a need to prefix “intellectual” with some word like “conservative” or “right-wing” – even if the person in question is somebody you or I might consider pretty middle-of-the-road. Meanwhile a left-wing intellectual is typically prefix-free: a left-wing intellectual is just an intellectual, period."

"To be sure, many people on the left dismiss the idea that anyone not on the left could be legitimately described as an intellectual. For them, intellectualism consists essentially of reiterating and fiercely defending their own lockstep ideology. Google “right-wing intellectual” and the very first hit you’ll get is a snarky post at the Democratic Underground website asking “Is there such a thing as a right-wing intellectual?” Google “conservative intellectual” and the top hits include items about “conservative intellectual collapse” and “conservative intellectual bankruptcy.”"

"The difference between the U.S. and continental Europe (Britain leans more our way) is that America has a vibrant network of non-left intellectual institutions – think tanks, magazines, websites like this one – and electronic media that are receptive to their ideas. In Europe non-left intellectuals are more on their own. And they are almost never, ever referred to by anybody as intellectuals."

"And why is this? Because being an “intellectual,” at least in the European sense, isn’t about being intelligent. It’s about belonging to a class of high priests whose role is to preserve and pass on its own sacred dogma. It’s not about contributing to a free exchange of ideas in the expectation that the best ideas will rise to the top, but about trying to demonize and intimidate opponents and stifle dissent. It’s about “speaking truth to power” – and the “power” is always democratic capitalism, and the “truth” always comes in various shades of red."

and...

Inequality: The Eternal Wellspring of Collective Power

"So, to repeat the question defenders of economic liberty have been asking socialists for over a century: what percentage of tax paid by the Evil Rich would be “fair?” It’s obviously not a tax burden equivalent to their share of income, because they’re paying two or three times that much now. Why don’t we isolate that number, according to some logical formula, and put it on the table for consideration?"

"The answer, of course, is that “inequality” is the eternal wellspring of collectivist power. It is the dragon that can never be slain, the Grail that can never be seized. It will always dance just out of reach… and there will always be socialists leaning over our shoulders and whispering that we must hand over more control of our lives, so they can get us just a little bit closer. They’ll never tell us exactly what “fairness” would be, because then we would know if we had achieved it. Blindness is an important tool of control."

Amnesty International and What's Left of It

2011-12-03T21:25:00.005+09:00

I can't believe that I used to give money to these clowns. They were actually a bit more sincere in their mission back than. The treatment described in the linked article is often dished out to former defense secretary Rumsfeld as well. To folks like me, this stuff is just plain weird, but not entirely unexpected. The left in general has been feeling quite confident in the last decade or two, evermore “empowered” in feeling they can push the most bizarre schemes and knowing that many will back them completely.

It's a world where acceptance of the totalitarian worldview is in resurgence everywhere – whether two bit pseudo-dictators in Latin America, Muslim extremists spouting anti-Semitic rants at the U.N., or just garden variety classrooms with teachers inculcating their students with their own hatred for the democratic hand that's been feeding them.

Amnesty International, like a host of other NGOs, is obsessed with America and Israel. I don't think it's too far-fetched to imagine them existing in the early 40's and devoting most of their passions to the “crimes” of the allies while turning a virtual blind eye to Hitler and Japanese militarists.

Soooo typical leftism, 'sad to see Saddam Hussein gone and Starbucks so widespread.

Mark Steyn covers nonsense like this with superb precision and wit in, "After America..." – a book I'll, again, strongly recommend.

We've actually reached a point in our pathetic non-development where beheadings and mass genocide are either brushed aside or seen as mere equivalents to the non-lethal interrogation (water-boarding causes no physical harm of any kind) of the man who planned 9/11.

Another typical expression of the Jacobin spirit of our time; ...despicable. They have no honor.

(I realize that some will note that the linked article was posted by Fox News and will therefore see it as somehow irrelevant but...too bad).

Never Send a Theoretician to do a Pragmatist's Job

2011-11-29T10:22:00.000+09:00

When considering all the negative attributes of the current Obama-nation (and his administration), they all boil down to a fervent allegiance to the theoretical as a standard for making policy.

In addressing the economy, social issues (i.e. healthcare), and even foreign relations, Obama and his staff of social planners view the U.S. as one large laboratory for the conducting of societal experiments and the imposition of theories.

To address genuine problems in a practical fashion using known solutions is beyond him / them. The economy is in a tailspin? Now would be a good time to go shopping for every item on the Democrat's wish list. Millions unemployed? What could be a better time to try to implement a massive healthcare grab.

Unemployment, economic growth, energy production, international tensions? -- throw the taxpayer's money at solar panels and tilt at windmills. Drill known oil reserves? -- not a chance ( a case in point).

Classic leftism. While not the gulag, citizens are none the less to become laboratory animals to test the dreams of eggheads who have produced nothing of value and have never participated in anything with practical or successful ends.

"Hope and change" doesn't pay the bills.

Mundane Crimes in Mundane Times

2011-11-23T21:21:00.002+09:00

('Just wanted something to fill the space, at a time when there's plenty to comment on but little time to do so. The following may have been posted before -- long ago. This blog is usually not for posting poetry but...oh well...)

I passed a wealthy man on my left and a poor one on my right and realized that neither of them was of harm or help to me.

I passed a country club of leisure success stories and later a shanty town of broken sidewalks and destitution and realized that I had created neither (except within the fantasies of mock rebels who would blame the very weather on innocent bystanders).

I and my kind were accused of both crimes and lapses in morality for failing to obey the edicts of imposed guilt – but were later found guiltier still…for not feeling guilty (by those with less innocence than my own).

The world spun out its charms…and its fouler images, never reaching equilibrium ("equality") or the satisfaction that imposed order affords planners with mundane gripes against the hands that feed them.

The world remained quite normal and I collaborated with its non-existent scheme to side with no one while some well-paid philosopher kings demanded I hang my head in shame so they could pretend to occupy a moral throne above and beyond the simple things that have always been.

Excellent Insight and Prosaic Sarcasm by Mark Steyn

2011-11-07T10:11:00.002+09:00

(sorry, the link hadn't effectively posted earlier)

[“]They're anarchists for statism, wild free-spirited youth demanding more and more total government control of every aspect of life – just so long as it respects the fundamental human right to sloth. What's happening in Oakland is a logical exercise in class solidarity: the government class enthusiastically backing the breakdown of civil order is making common cause with the leisured varsity class, the thuggish union class and the criminal class in order to stick it to what's left of the beleaguered productive class. It's a grand alliance of all those societal interests that wish to enjoy in perpetuity a lifestyle they are not willing to earn[“...]

[...“]It's the voice of youth, yet everything about it is cobwebbed. It's more like an open-mike karaoke night of a revolution than the real thing. I don't mean just the placards with the same old portable quotes by Lenin et al, but also, say, the photograph in Forbes of Rachel, a 20-year-old "unemployed cosmetologist" with remarkably uncosmetological complexion, dressed in pink hair and nose ring as if it's London, 1977, and she's killing time at Camden Lock before the Pistols gig. Except that that's three-and-a-half decades ago, so it would be like the Sex Pistols dressing like the Andrews Sisters. Are America's revolting youth so totally pathetically moribund they can't even invent their own hideous fashion statements? [...“]

The “99%”

2011-11-01T11:34:00.000+09:00

Don't make me laugh. The whining spoiled brats of America's Occupy Wall Street crowd actually think that their hodge-podge of leftist stew represents 99% of what American's believe – pleeeeaze.

As usual, this crowd is demanding XY and Z with no regard for what actual fellow citizens want. While fellow citizens may have gripes with Wall Street, most are probably okay with our capitalist system (even though it's actually become a mixed system with increasing government control and collaboration). We can, of course find out what people really think on election day. I doubt if the Communist party or it's many socialist variations are going to be getting 99% of the vote (as they often do in Communist countries – where no one else is allowed to run).

My advice to these clowns; they can vote – even for communists if they choose. Then again, it may just be possible that they're really not the “99%” but just another extremist clique' seeking to impose their deluded will upon everyone else – that certainly wouldn't be a new thing.

(p.s. I'm well aware the exception. Not everyone at these demonstrations is without good cause to protest. Ironically, the Tea Parties were the first to protest the Obama – Democrats' collaborations with Wall Street and were merely mocked by the press for it. Exceptions aside, it's clear what mentality is dominating these groups; it's the pathological crowd we've seen whenever the closet authoritarian thinks his time has come)

Pampered Spoiled Brats Protesting Against – Only Some – Other Pampered Spoiled Brats and Supported by Other Pampered Spoiled Brats

2011-10-20T09:54:00.003+09:00

I'm not going to take the time to gather the many links out there in netland that exemplify the character, motives, and goals of the “Occupy Wall Street” crowd (but I think this and this article offer a good insight that you won't see on CNN, NBC, CBS, and The New York Times et.al.). It's safe to say that, in the American case, these people represent not the “99%,” but a mere sliver of our society (a few percent demographic that never changes – the disgruntled, pampered, faux radical chic crowd). The mob's significance is only occasionally swelled by organized unions, and assorted fellow travelers from America's new socialist Democratic Party.

It appears that the demands of this Jacobin rabble generally revolve around the fact that they want more free stuff and that it be paid for by the “rich” (who already carry most of the country's federal tax burden – in spite of “loop holes”). Nonsense as this is, it's fair enough to whine that you want stuff and are mad that others have obtained it – 'certainly not a new idea; “I want stuff because I don't have it” and “it's not fair that someone else is rich and I'm [a loser].” It's funny to see posters stating things to the effect that, “[We're] paying, the rich aren't” held high by people who obviously aren't “paying” for anything – or, at least are yearly getting a full refund and extended “credits.”

Those of us who have taken interest in history and particularly the “revolutionary” movements like the great one in 18th century France recognize the psychology and themes that run throughout this clown show of reckless hopes for totalitarian government (that is what they're ultimately steering for). It's the pathetic early successes of a typical left-wing mob's ability to rouse the tendency of a society to eventually eat itself.

I know these people. I worked with them in restaurants, I sometimes saw the same “type” on the streets begging for money, and, of course, I went to college with them. They tend to have the moral character, backbone, and dynamic striving of a one-celled pond germ – when a guy looks Swedish but has dreadlocks, I'm skeptical about the whole show.

The mainstream media is, as can be expected, willing facilitators to the nonsense; the same media that sought to veil the Tea Party crowds (favoring limited government) as an ominous image of danger and “fascism” (When, in fact, they looked more like big Kiwanis club meetings). OWS is no “Tea Party” they're certainly not protesting against the size and scope of state authority or the current mega-state facilitator-in-chief.

The good part of the current clown show is that our, increasingly clueless, president (he really seems to think that a class rant will sway the election) has thrown his – guarded – support in with the rabble. The longer average folks see images of these clowns, particularly on alternate media, the greater margin the Republicans will win the next election – guaranteed.

In the long scheme, this is the style of joke in history that brings down decent societies and replaces it with pathological chaos and eventual tyranny. Unfortunately, some of the posters I've seen are true, “This is only the beginning.”

The Jacobin Anti-civilization Rabble At It Again

2011-10-13T10:19:00.001+09:00

Something I've always considered...it's going to get ugly.

"The most ridiculous (and, if you’re sympathetic to them, tragic) thing about OWS is that they’re trying to mobilize the left against “the system” at the very moment the left is mobilizing to re-elect the guy who’s in charge of the system. In an alternate reality, state senator Obama would be giving a speech today at Occupy Chicago about how greed is the cancer of America or whatever; in this reality, President Obama needs to watch his mouth and stay on the good side of those Wall Street one-percenters who helped bankroll his campaign last time. The whole dynamic is a cosmic joke, amplified by the reality that millions of liberals have eschewed protests over the last few years out of allegiance to the current ruling Democrat and/or the perpetual fear of the imminent wingnut apocalypse that’ll surely unfold if their own party leadership is weakened. That’s why the anti-war movement has faded into nothing; that’s why there’s apprehension but no outrageously outrageous outrage over The One ignoring his own lawyers to wage war in Libya or relying on a secret national-security panel that can place Americans on a “kill list.” Those sins, committed by a Republican, would signal the end of the republic per standard left-wing blather. Committed by a Democrat, they’re merely … “troubling.” Or maybe not even that.

All of this changes, obviously, if Obama is ousted in favor of Perry or, heaven forbid, Mitt Romney, whose patrician air and banking pedigree would give the left the cartoon villain that thoughtful sophisticates like them require."

Jacobins true to form every time.

2011-10-05T10:59:00.004+09:00

...I know, nothing new here in awhile. It's just a low priority. There are plenty of things to appraise and enrage but it'll have to wait. I may (or may not) get something up here eventually but for now, have a nice week!

Snippets

2011-09-03T16:03:00.001+09:00

Socialism; the economic pie that eats itself.

***************

Widespread lack of interest in politics is often a healthy sign in a balanced and free society. Conversely, when a passion for politics grows it is often a symptom of emerging chaos and eventual tyranny.

***************

To paraphrase Lincoln Steffen's famous statement regarding the Soviet Union (“I have seen the future and it works”); “I have seen the future and [it's just another fucking dictatorship].”

Wiki-leftism

2011-08-28T14:18:00.003+09:00

I kind of knew this. I mean, why shouldn't an online encyclopedia just be another font of the left's talking points.

I have to reiterate what I've said several times about such things. There's no "conspiracy" going on here. It's merely a matter of like-minded people (people less likely to go to church, bowling, or the local shopping mall) reinforcing their dogmatic view of life. God forbid anyone stray from their pervasive "consensus."

No doubt this hyper-clique' will be very disappointed next year in November.

The Media...not learning any lessons from previous exercises in non-objectivity

2011-08-26T10:41:00.005+09:00

I have to say, the more I read the left's (most of the dominant media sources) "appraisals" of Rick Perry, the more I like him. If for any other reason, out of sheer spite. The media made themselves look like fools during the last presidential election. It appears they're about to out do themselves. I'd say Perry stands to gain an extra 3 to 5 points -- if he's the nominee -- just from independents' disgust with Obama coddling and Republican caricature fabrication.

Being On The Level...Playing Field

2011-08-21T21:16:00.001+09:00

The economic truth of our time is that we live in a world where those in developed countries, who own smart phones and flat screen TV’s, think they're living the life of Spartacus or a 1930's coal miner just because some college professor, journalist, or rock musician told them it is so – it's not.

To despise and punish the very people who's risks and choices have extricated us from the swamp of collectivist obedience will just return us to a new dark age feudalism where we'll all be equally miserable. A “level playing field” is meaningless when its against the law to play.

Communism, Anti-communism, and Anti- Anti-communism

2011-08-20T17:16:00.002+09:00

I'm currently listening to an audiobook of Whitaker Chamber's classic insight into the communist (and ex-communist) mind; Witness. I sought it out after reading of so many conservatives who sited it as, not only a required reading of conservative philosophy, but a book that “Changed [their] life,” Before beginning the unabridged version of the audio book (my circumstance makes audio books a convenient format if I'm to cover half of what I wish to in “reading” material) I had read a Chambers biography and several articles to refresh my understanding of related topics covered in a most interesting period of American (and the world's) history.

It's no doubt difficult for many today to understand the concepts of communism, “fellow travelers,” and Soviet espionage after movies and public education have served up a weak copy of events condensed into some lame soundbite/script like, “McCarthyism.” (For what it's worth, Whitaker Chambers came to see McCarthy's legacy as doing little for – actually damaging – the anti-communist cause). The “artists” and professional intellectuals of the 30's, 40's and 50's were often similar to today's limp stock of the same – enamored with any philosophy that places their imagined inferiors into a planned and controlled condition.

The psychology of communism and opposition to it (my own stance) has always held a certain fascination for me. The whole dynamic is a bit Star Warsish. On a base level there is the individual and the collective, each pulling at the rope of earthly existence and hoping (or demanding) that others will rally to their respective sides. On one side of the divide, an existence where imposed “equality” will supposedly eliminate the messy embarrassments of human moral flaw. On the other side, the cynical awareness that such flaws go with the territory of worldly existence, and a desire to be free of the “planners'” dictates.

It has always amazed/shocked me (no, pissed me off) that so many who are not communists and not sympathizers to mass slaughter and bondage are none the less apologetic, sympathetic, and sometimes in agreement with much in a political ideology that -- to me -- is clearly wrong, bad, and evil . Communism in theory and practice speaks for itself. Anyone who truly understands the theory should have no difficulty expecting the outcomes of communism in practice. If one despises the desire of an individual to be basically left alone and prefers that, instead, individuals be compelled to “join” into some greater collective unity swallowed by an all-powerful central authority, then communism is definitely the way to go – “and long live comrade Lenin!” No doubt those philosophically inclined to recoil against such a world view are seen as mere polar opposites by many and therefore part of the same tension dynamic – equally flawed or worse. I can understand that. I realize that not everyone is enamored with trials to weed out spies in the state department or inquires and blacklists regarding screen writers who supported a totalitarian enemy. Some people don't want to be part of any passion filled polarity – again, very understandable. The truly independent should be of bother to no one. What freaks me out are the “fellow travelers” and anti anti-communists (this would include many in today's Democrat(ic) party – the “progressives,” or what I like to call neo-comms since their goals, illusions, and temperament are remarkably similar to the communists of most of the 20th century). Am I accusing “progressives” of being communists? ...Well, yeah. That may not be their conscious intent but they are definitely kindred spirits and their hatred of wealth and free-markets is certainly on par with each other.

The modern day fellow traveler/true believer literally has a problem with people who are opposed to communism! Some of today's fellow travelers are among the increasing “moderates” who play up a concocted hyper-objectivity that “takes no sides” as an expression of a pervasive relativist view and phony radical skepticism (they often possess a skewed view of what is relative). Although some from this niche of “independents,” “take no side,” they definitely don't defend the side that opposes the Marxist state. It seems that – for them -- playing the “Devil's advocate” can indeed be played for the Devil only. There are few Devil's advocates that advocate the position of the United States or modern capitalism. I suppose many of these people would be now called “liberals” in mainstream jargon. Further out on the fringe, “progressives” (though the labels are now often used interchangeably). They know Stalin was bad and they know that Pol Pot didn’t exactly improve the circumstance of Cambodians but, to them, capitalism, commercialism, and “materialism” are no better. The gulag or a Big Mac? The secret police knocking on your door or a grande latte? – they're really all the same you know.

What is the anti anti-communist for exactly? 'Hard to say. Usually they spout some random cliche' about “social justice” but, again, they can't get too worked up over labor camps and mass famines (all end results of prior crusades for “social justice”). Of course social justice itself isn't a bad thing if one considers a strict dictionary definition just as “democracy” isn't a bad thing...until one realizes that generic uses and actual meaning are worlds apart. It's a pity that those who utter the cry for social justice seem so opposed to individual justice and seem incapable of even noticing that the social realm is ultimately composed of individuals.

When reading (or listening to) Whitaker Chamber's “Witness” or other overviews of events in the Cold War period, one can't help but notice that the communists who had often attained high positions in America's government at that time, are no different than many like characters we find today, continuing their worldly crusade to establish Marx and Lenin's bloody distopia – highly educated and pampered intellectual elitists demanding that the world we all come to live in is the one modeled in their heads. ...Who with an ounce of decency really wants to live there?

"Democratic" Socialism As Usual

2011-08-15T22:24:00.003+09:00

Barely known but very important information regarding the continued injustice of socialism's grip on the future.

Hobbies and Laziness...

2011-08-13T12:15:00.006+09:00

Hi! It should be clear to anyone who views this site that it's usually pretty static. It's ultimately just a hobby of sorts and I don't like spending the time I used to on it. I still appreciate that some people find it worthy of looking at for agreement, amusement, or to anger themselves (knowing that there are people who dare disagree with the holier than thou view of the Jacobin class of intellectuals, artists, and armchair neo-comms). I think nothing infuriates a left-wing intellectual more than to find someone who completely disagrees with their worldview but also, appreciates Beethoven symphonies, Gothic architecture, and T.S. Eliot's poetry. They really would like to believe that the only way one could possibly support capitalism and a free society (especially the United States) is to be a raving Jesus freak, high school dropout, or "greedy" corporate caricature of "selfishness." Sorry to disappoint.

After having recently explored more deeply the issues that engulfed America n the 30's through the 50's regarding Soviet espionage and "fellow travelers" in the U.S., I'll soon post a brief essay regarding my thoughts on Communism, Anti-communism, and Anti-anti Communism. 'Nothing special, but I do like expressing my views on such things -- just another "guy in pajamas."

As usual, please look at my other stuff here if you're so inclined.

Now, back to mundane living and leisure....

Promethean Dude

"Anti-war"...Except When One is Kind of Okay with It

2011-08-12T15:09:00.002+09:00
Move along...no cultural bias here.

Idealists Full of Hate

2011-07-13T09:25:00.004+09:00

We on the right often cut a tiny fragment of slack – too much in my view – to leftists when we attribute their motivations to naivete' or idealism. we often assume they simply want to create utopias and that their idealism gets out of hand when the reeducation camps spring up and the blood starts flowing. This assumes that the violence and horror of “ revolution” is an unplanned by-product of the road to a hoped-for noble end. The more I talk to, watch, and read the thoughts of “progressives” / leftists, the clearer it becomes that the “full of hate” moniker so often directed at conservatives or libertarians (i.e. the “tea party”) is much more accurately applied to leftists themselves. "Full of hate" is ultimately an impassioned statement stemming from mere projection. (I'm assuming that those knowledgeable and honest recognize that National Socialism and fascism are not strains of laissez - faire limited and decentralized republican government – “right wing.” Fascist beliefs were certainly “full of hate” but capitalism –tolerated to a degree – was hated as much as other enemies of the national socialist belief template).

I've come to believe that a rabid leftist knows and expects that purges and blood-letting, or at least some brand of punishment, will flourish if they get to have their “revolution.” Historical examples and rage on paper – not to mention mundane debate – are wrought with an incredible bitterness, jealousy, and sense of inadequacy on the part of “progressives.” I just read of a German Communist Party song that used to be sung in the streets of Weimar, Germany with the lyrics; “Grease the guillotine with the blood of tyrants, blood must flow, blood, blood, blood!” These lyrics are characteristic of the underlying sympathies of many on the left, and by far, most on the far left. Lyrics like, “Raise the standard of living amongst the poor to that of middle class or better” just doesn't have the rhythm that any respectable “revolutionary” strives for when venting their passion. For all the lip-service they conjure to the contrary, they are ultimately motivated by a strong will for violence and destruction. Though they may imagine an idyllic world of cooperation and equality in the end, they crave the first phase of their plans – wanton release of raw Id energy upon the perceived source of their jealousy. I believe the average leftist relishes the thought of inevitable executions, settling imaginary scores in their pampered but resentful minds. Can one imagine a trio like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Barrack Obama if they had complete and total power to do as they wish. Can one really imagine they'd merely raise taxes and regulations, and increase spending? There are too many scores to settle for them against all the imaginary right wing extremists out there who have dared question their heavy-handedness (and such heavy-handedness has been under constitutional restraint thus far).

Every far left “experiment” brought to fruition has resulted in incredible destruction and death and, for what? They'd tell us it's all for, “a better world.” Deep in their transparent hearts it's clear that unbridled vengeance is the true “utopia” they ultimately strive for – and we conservatives ...we're supposedly “full of hate” because we want to be left alone and think that's best achieved through limited constitutional government. Go figure...

Andrew Klavan Excellent As Usual

2011-07-09T20:56:00.001+09:00

Jacobin Consistency

2011-07-03T21:47:00.003+09:00

Is there any reason why Obama’s actions in Libya (and Afghanistan and Pakistan) are not example of “blood for oil,” or why he's not “guilty of 'war crimes',” or why the Patriot act and Guantanamo under him are not “unprecedented breeches of civil liberties?”

Where are the mass marches? – 'Just wondered.

The answer is that the lefts' international propaganda machine in schools, entertainment, and journalism haven't called out their stupid mobs against Obama because somewhere “in their heart they know he's [left]."

The way George Bush was treated compared to this inept Marxist clown was and continues to be pathetic.

2011-07-02T21:29:00.003+09:00

Some basic facts can be very upsetting to some people. I mean, if you're a Marxist or other garden variety socialist -- say, a Democrat for instance, how can you possibly stand the thought that more economic freedom means a better life for most citizens?

On a similar note. I'm not going to do a review or anything but Ann Coulter's new book, "Demonic: How the Liberal Mob Is Endangering America" is absolutely excellent. Of particular note is the superb overview of the French Revolution and the radicals from America's 60's. Take away the sarcasm and wit (which I happen to like actually) and it's scholarly. Her basic premise is spot on. The left is "the mob." The mentality and actions are always that of mob psychology. And so it is we must perennially go through upheaval, chaos, and violence so they can appease the god of slogans, chants, and clenched fists.

Oh yeah, I also loved her comparisons between the mythological violence and danger of Tea Party people and the real history of violence that has always been part of the left's legacy.

Excellent book.

Another Means to Self-adulation

2011-06-25T20:27:00.003+09:00

I'd like to coin a new word; “Wiki-genius” – someone who knows a lot about something [wants people to think he or she knows a lot about something] because he or she just read a Wikipedia article about it.

Random Observations...

2011-06-18T16:07:00.006+09:00

The following is just a collection of aphorisms, gripes, and general expressions I've made and accumulated over time for my Promethean Observer website. I don't have time to organize them as I'd like to so I've simply posted them below -- mostly to fill space. As usual; agree, be sparked to thought or be enraged by the fact that there is a conservative view of things and it's valid before the eyes and ears of many:

Those who blindly waddle into the socialist snare do so expecting a miracle...ultimately they find a bland government office with teeth...and a line at a rationing trough.

For people who bandy about the "F word" (fascist") so frequently, the left harbors an odd sympathy for the authority of a centralized state.

(A socialist's creed). My golf game trumps your trips to the bowling ally. My alternative music collection isn't materialism! Your country music collection is. Your stuff is an expression of materialism. My stuff is a symbol of my superior intellect and moral values .

It is a fact that if humans are free to live by their own standards, choices, and goals, some will fail . But, does one man's errant judgment or stupidity justify another's bondage? The leftist says, "yes." The left always chooses stupidity as noble and brands achievement a crime against humanity. Is it no wonder that the stupid are among the left's greatest constituencies?

"The greatest good for the greatest number" sounds great until you realize that you may not be among the chosen "number."

Hope breeds action. Complete oppression does not lead to revolution. It is when people can actually see the promised land that they demand access to the promised land. (This is exemplified in numerous historical circumstances).

The "progressives'" hopes of establishing varying levels of socialism and “sacrifice” for various schemes is no more than an attempt to reestablish feudalism and -- in more than a few examples - monarchy.

The only true revolutions to have occurred in modern times are those which have freed the individual from external oppression and constraint. The freedom to voluntarily interact as one chooses is revolutionary in he grand scheme of history. The desire to compel obedience to an all powerful state and its bureaus from a conjured “society” is no more than a transparent power-grab by an elite clique'.

The difference between a socialist and a communist is that a socialist is a communist that doesn't realize it until they've achieved adequate power to impose their demands.

A political party chastising another for “being partisan” is like red accusing blue of being a different color.

I'm going to wait until the end of the world before I panic about the end of the world.

When rich people complain about people who are rich...I'm not impressed.

A parasite is an oppressor that works from the ground up.

Anyone who uses the words “workers” and “party” in the same phrase probably favors a dictatorship.

The whole nature of bureaucracy is to afford considerable power and authority to people who – in optimal circumstances – would have NO power and authority.”

At the heart of every leftist scheme lies an inability to acknowledge human nature. In their eyes, all imperfections can be rectified by planning, molding, and coercing human behavior. And, when that fails to accomplish it's ends, sufficient deprivation or punishment is always the next step in their compulsive drive to gain compliance.

Compassion has absolutely nothing to do with what you're “willing” to force someone else to do.

P.C. Is B.S.

When someone makes the idiotic comment that “we are too free,” they can either truthfully mean, “I'm too free,” which is a blatantly stupid thing to say, or, “other people are too free,” which means the person making such a claim wishes he or she could merely control the lives of others.

Contemporary “capitalism” can be considered “capitalist” in the same way that an ice cream parlor can be considered “cold.”

The difference between a communist and socialist/progressive is that the latter hasn't worked up the honesty to say they want to have people who disagree with them imprisoned or executed.

At probably no other time in history have so many people – living freely and in abundance -- chosen to be enemies of their own society.

No one ultimately “wins” a war. All a nation can do, if it immerses itself in the chaos of Mars, is their best effort and hope that things in the end settle in their favor.

The Selfishness of the Selfless / The Independence of the “Inter-dependent”

2011-06-17T11:03:00.003+09:00

While the concept of the group, the collective, or “society” has a valid essence it is equally true that individuals exist in their own right. One inevitably chooses where one's allegiances are more closely allied and it is from there that one's stance on a million and one issues and perspectives can be extrapolated. Ironically, those who value group orientations tend to – themselves – be typically individualists, but not in the conservative sense.

The socialist/collectivist tends to have all the elements of selfishness, ego, and delusional arrogance that they often imagine and project on to those who honestly acknowledge their preference for individualism. Yet, for all their self-absorbsion, the collectivists' lip service is always for “the people, “the oppressed,” and “society” (or at least those parts of society they haven't selected for punishment). While such “individuals” often see themselves as a just and unique force for good to be unleashed, they typically see most others as philistines to be subdued. The dichotomy of right and left is more one of hypocrisy and lack of self-honesty on the part of collectivists then any real identification with favored levels of group affinity.

The Horrors of “Big Oil”

2011-05-11T11:40:00.002+09:00

It's become a recent strategy of the Democratic Party (America's de facto mainstream socialist party) to publicly use the label “big oil” often to rouse the class envy crowd with Orwellian mind-prints.

Of course, when directing rage against the producers of energy, one should not note the 40-50 % tax applied to gasoline or the stupid subsidies given to produces of corn ethanol. And, definitely don't even suggest that oil is used for anything other than gasoline (when in fact it's used for practically everything in addition to gasoline – not to mention transporting virtually everything).

But...

Don't ya just hate “big oil?” I so much prefer little oil. You know, the little mom and pop oil companies with the little refineries, little exploration and drilling equipment, and little tankers to transport all that little oil. We need to supply our little desire for gasoline, clothing, cars and transportation uses operating ambulances, buses, trains, planes, and delivering food to local supermarkets with a virtuous little oil. Fueling our needs, demands, and lifestyles only requires – cute – little oil. Why let big oil cater to our needs when windmills and solar panels ...and, little oil will do the job just as well. Sure, being a cave-dweller has its drawbacks but “sustainable” retrograde lifestyles is the wave of the future. Under the virtuous guidance of socialism inc. we will no longer need to sweat over the horrid principle of actually paying for a product that must be extracted from the ground, refined, and delivered to a million and one locations to power our leisure lives. And, think of all the “green jobs” available when big oil is chased out of town. Or, perhaps it could be nationalized. Big oil under big government will bring cost down and increase efficiency...I think?...maybe?

With 87% or so of the world's oil companies being owned by governments isn't it time we reined in those greedy 13% that are actually making a profit off of the product they produce?

Remember, “big oil” is evil...and, big government is caring, loving, and downright okay.

The Problem With Japan...

2011-05-05T21:23:00.012+09:00

I don't wish to be a "typical foreigner living in Japan," by hurling non-stop verbal abuse upon a country that's been rather good to me and my circumstance. I love Japan, It's my home -- or at least my second home. Of course it must also be noted, considering the time proximity, that they've endured some horrid circumstance, this year in particular.

Like all countries, Japan has flaws and weaknesses. I've often speculated on the basic reasons for the many defects that appear to me in daily life in Japan and I believe I've narrowed them to a specific issue.

The people of Japan are willing to tolerate inconvenience and inefficiency. That's it, in a nutshell. The economy, the bureau cluster-f...s found everywhere from garbage disposal to getting a driver's license; they all stem from a very compliant population that is more than willing to accept inconvenience and inefficiency. It's no wonder that the translation for a common response to negative circumstance here is, "it can't be helped." America, with all it's flaws, has a noteworthy and contrasting manner that sees the attainment of convenience, efficiency, and personal pleasure as a guiding principal of existence. "It can't be helped" American style is, "what's the problem and why isn't anyone working on a solution...and if they do, that's where my money is going."

Japan is just too damn nice for them to continue to allow a downward spiral because they've been lead to believe that individuals barely exist before a contrived allegiance to bureau-decrees and inept drones. May they overcome this fatal weakness.

Sleeping for a month or two...

2011-04-19T10:26:00.002+09:00

Too many annoying computer ailments. 'Off line for awhile. Everyone have a jolly spring...

Promethean dude...

Tragedy on All Levels

2011-03-19T18:06:00.003+09:00

Some may have noted that this blog origionates in Japan and therefore may wonder if I have any information or comments in reference to events that have taken place -- and continue to take place -- here. No...What can be said. I and my family are in a safe part of Japan that has not been directly affected by events. What other have experienced, and continue to experience, is absolutely tragic (it goes without saying).

I certainly can't speak for the people of Japan but I know that they are greatful for the support and concern shown by many.

I hope many more will contribute what they can to assist and that problems are resolved as quickley as possible.

May others be spared such tragedy...

2011-02-26T16:37:00.001+09:00
...out of the blogging scenario for at least a couple of weeks...

Have a fun month in these very interesting times...

A dude

Generalized Defenses of America and Freedom vs. The Prosecuting Attorneys of the Left

2011-02-12T16:09:00.002+09:00
(This is another reposting of an earlier rant. 'Just plain out of time for new stuff)

(The following post elaborates upon the issues addressed in an earlier post. Admittedly, it's more emotionally motivated tirade than a practical analysis – in other words, “just bitching.”)

I've always sought to avoid becoming ensnared in one of the many on-line arguments which occur regularly on many web sites, not because I'm particularly docile or well mannered but, more simply, because I’d find it a waste of time.

I'm one of those guys who will occasionally tell the writer of an impressive blog post that they've stated their case well, or in some instances, I’ll write a few general comments of agreement or vent a few of my own passions on a given topic. I’d never consider wasting hours dredging up facts and citations to prove to another individual or a few onlookers that, "I'm right and you’re wrong." Recently, on one blog site, I came close to being pulled into just such a time-consuming and wasteful enterprise.

The leftist I sparred with comments often, in incredibly lengthily diatribes, clearly frazzled that the blog's writer and some other commentators, like me, have dared take a view different from his own. In terms of political views and style, this character's comments are a cliché version of all I've come to know and despise from the Jacobin crowd. In this sense, my on-line encounters with him are perfect examples of what conservatives and libertarians regularly encounter from most "progressives." His approach (when I refer to "him" I stress his significance as a symbol more than a personal polemic nemesis), is classic left in all ways; constant citing of Chomsky, obsessive criticism of anything American, and constant defense of any totalitarian enterprise, so long as it is anti-capitalist. Because his arguments often run pages and pages, it literally indicates that he has massive amounts of free time on his hands or can research, contemplate, and type, at miraculous speeds. At times, the obsessiveness of a stalker has come to mind when scrolling over his comments, which are often longer than the original blog post. His greatest gripe with me, and others of like persuasion, is that we won't specifically respond to his meticulous points. I've made it clear in my own blog on more than a few occasions, that I consider it to be futile arguing fine points with such characters – where does such an investment get either side really? I can surely loose sleep and leisure time over more worthy and productive endeavors. I realize that not responding with my own lengthily lists of scholarly retort implies defeat – oh well. To tell the truth, I can write all I want on my own blogsite and readers can agree or disagree all they want. The real world contains many contending viewpoints and most have some merit in some contexts with some people, so why should any of us go in to court-case mode in the fanciful hope of swaying a true believer (in this case the irony of a true believer in skepticism). I’m not going to surrender my belief in the virtues of free and open society, and the opposition will surly not relinquish allegiance to the socialist worldview – again, oh well.

So…I don’t like the left’s take on things. None the less, I’m more than willing to acknowledge that many spokespersons for their cause are quite bright, often well read and, may on occasion genuinely be motivated by a noble purpose (at least in their own eyes). No such dignity is afforded the libertarian right. Even in the most civil debates with the left, they always manage to imply -- or directly state -- that we conservative / libertarians are intellectual inferiors, unschooled in historical fact, and usually morally corrupt enough to earn the pervasive label, “fascist.” The particular polemic opponent I had dealt with skirts that issue by merely calling, “[my] ideas” fascist – thanks.

Jacobins love a straw man. Somehow appreciation for my countries character, history, and system, or my defense of it from the likes of Michael Moore or Noam Chomsky, is morphed into flag-waving nationalism in the mind of such opposition. This is the only way the left can view anyone who actually likes America, when comparing conservative views to their own excessive dislike for everything the U.S. represents (particularly its free market economic system). To dare like the U.S. (historical warts and all), and to desire limited government and a free economic system can only be judged by them as examples of rabid patriotism, intellectual ignorance, and, of course, “fascism.” Such critics are the same people who will respond to comments regarding the domination of academia by the left with the usual statement that this is because conservatives simply aren’t smart enough to make it into academe -– and they’re completely serious when they say this. They actually believe that intelligence correlates with a specific political philosophy -- theirs (too bad about Winston Churchill and Edmund Burke).

Most of us who are conservative or libertarians are well aware of the tragedies, misdeeds, and acts of horror done by the American government though its history. None the less, we still favor our relatively adaptable and open system, especially when comparing it to the one party dictatorships that the left all too often defends (often denying that they are in fact dictatorships).

The left's obsession with matters of patriotism (the topic of a future post) now regularly produces an increasingly heard retort that they are the "real patriots," that their "criticisms" (i.e. Michael Moore's, "Americans are the dumbest people on the planet”) are made because they care so much about the US. Who could possibly read the average leftist appraisals of America and miss their true sentiments regarding the country? They clearly do despise the US in general (not just its government or selected personalities in power at a given time).

In the left’s fantasy scheme there are conservative flag-waving fools who see no wrong in anything their country has done, and on the other side, themselves, the wise intellectuals, all knowing and unswayed by any doctrine. Such noble self appraisal would hold more credibility if it weren't for these character’s constant defense of communist dictatorships (i.e. China, Cuba, Vietnam). This attribute is so consistent amongst the left that I think it can be accurately said that, to them, the worst is always assumed of the U.S. and the benefit of a doubt always laid at the feet of any authoritarian institution so long as it is left of center.

Another conflict which inevitably colors my own encounters with the socialist crowd involves the different way people appraise ideas and circumstances in general. I don't know if it's a conservative trait specifically, but I personally prefer to deal in "generalities" and the more basic motivating factors that drive particular worldviews. People can debate minutia endlessly regarding the Enron scandal, McDonald’s marketing, or unfair labor practices but, in the end, one’s reasons to side with capitalism or socialism are beyond any such details they may wish to bring to the argument. All too often I find that the left wants to ramble to no end on fine points (and it seems, endlessly increasing points), often completely unrelated to another's simple call for less laws and government regulation. I don't think this particular quirk of character is necessarily a coincidence; in fact I find the leftist concern for detail to be a characteristic trait of what I call bureau-mind and the desire to micro-manage in general. Instead of recognizing that some people prefer to see things in “the big picture” the left often just discounts the value of an entire worldview if one chooses to not respond to their specific prosecution style “questions.” There’s certainly nothing wrong with citing examples to make one’s case but in confronting the left, all too often I find that my mere desire to live under limited constitutional government or favor individualism is deemed invalid unless I can specifically cite scholarly evidence and facts that prove that the Sandinistas were authoritarian, or that the numbers killed by Mao Zedong are completely accurate. To the left, responding to their specifics and details are critical to debate, to me…I couldn’t care less, and I don’t think my preference to view things in generalities somehow disproves my right to be free of the imposed collectivist schemes so cherished by the left. I think it's bad that Communist governments regularly control, coerce, and kill people to establish their vision. Arguing that the actual numbers harmed or persecuted may be exaggerated may make a valid micro-point but hardly contradicts the value of the initial sentiment.

One of the more typical accusations that continually emerges in debates with left-land is their pervasive implication that one is somehow a fascist (nationalist/statist/collectivist/authoritarian) for holding classical liberal views (a definite contradiction to say the least), and that somehow one's intellect and moral character are found weakened by their stance in support of limited government. I don’t believe that those of us who side with individuality, liberty, and self-government as value systems need apologize for our chosen position. We needn't "prove" our values are worthy amongst contending ideas, and we are under no obligation to justify ourselves before the specific micro-interrogations of Chomskyites, Trotskyites, or garden variety socialists. Also, our intellect, morality, or value systems are not somehow weakened by not having read the specific tracts a leftist would demand we read (I really wouldn't expect or demand that they read "our" stuff).

It's amazing how often the demagogues of the left-wing intelligentsia insult America, religion, traditional values, and anyone who fails to follow their demanding drummer. Is this the way they hope to expand their following?

This is admittedly a rather long winded whine motivated more by emotion than the much prided intellectual detachment of our Jacobin betters. I think I can speak for many of us on the libertarian right however, in stating that our beliefs are valid, and worthy of sober consideration. We needn’t feel compelled to respond to polemic micro-points and demands of left-land’s court of bogus accusation ("admit your crimes!"). There are certainly many libertarian / conservative writers who do address fine points and statistics if a leftist is so desperately in need of such.

The leftist polemic defines open-mindedness and inquiry as, consulting their sources and adopting their viewpoint. Is it any wonder that on many college campuses today the very concept of, “diversity and tolerance” is defined, in effect, as eliminating the conservative view altogether.

Of course, it can be said that I’m being general and subjective and that I'm offering no "facts, proof, or citations" as would be demanded from the holier-than-thou high priests of the left -- so...

I'm a free individual who believes in open and free society and limited government -- a fairly simple concept. If someone wishes to counter this value system with lengthily lists “proving” that America is selfish, greedy, and evil and that communist dictatorships are really crusaders for “the poor,” then…go for it. Just don’t assume that everyone who fails to bow down before your secular inquisition is lacking in intelligence, character, or morality…and, oh yeah, get over this “fascist” labeling thing. Fascists believe in one party centralized tyranny, the complete opposite of free-market classical liberalism, and in fact more closely akin to the socialist bureau-state that most on the left favor.

The prosecuting attorneys of the left will continue to state their smug demands that evidence be presented to "prove" -- to their satisfaction -- that a free constitutional republic (The U.S.) is preferable to their own favored systems of bureau-imposed collectivism. But, what exactly have they proved? -- beyond their own capacity to present themselves as arrogant elitists.

We don't want the product you're selling. Now, go back to your commune and leave the rest of us alone.

High Hopes for Tyrants

2011-02-05T12:03:00.001+09:00

A reposting from, "The Big Rants"

I’m amazed at the number of times I’ve heard educated people express their trust in absolute political authority. For such people, the only criterion for good government is that it eliminates free market transactions and that it promises to magically produce, “equality.”

Mao, Castro, Ho Chi Minh, even Stalin are often afforded the benefit of a doubt by idealists on the left -- the local businessman is not.

When references are made regarding the famines (resulting from collectivization schemes), the summary trials, purges, executions, and “reeducation” programs in communist states, the left’s response is always…”well, what about…[the flaws in open free societies]?” They just will not concede that communist governments or their ideologies are bad.

Statistics can be sited back and forth between the right and left regarding, “wars of aggression,” poverty, and oppression etc., but why are statistics even required to prove that absolute power corrupts absolutely? Shouldn’t common sense insight be enough to tell anyone that a group or individual with absolute power can be expected to do terrible things?

On more than one occasion I’ve been asked to “prove” that Mao Zedong and the Chinese Communist Party were really all that bad. Widely accepted statistics estimate deaths in China from the “Great Leap Forward” of the late fifties to have been somewhere in the 30 million range. Okay, let’s say the “capitalist – imperialist – revisionists” are lying to “discredit the achievements of socialism.” Lets say only 10 million died from famine (a regular feature of communist “planning”). Lets say only 100,000 were killed or imprisoned for not obeying “the Party” -- maybe Mao wasn’t so bad after all.

There are some people who actually believe a communist dictator – like Mao or Castro - wouldn’t hurt anyone that didn’t actually deserve to be punished or killed.

Think! A person or party holds total power over a society, has eliminated and outlawed all opposition, and makes it a crime to question any aspect of imposed dogma, and… the resulting society will be no different – perhaps better -- than our lives under liberal democracy?

I hold a simpler take on this issue. Dictatorships are…dictatorships [!]. Saying they’re taking complete control over society “for the good of the people” just doesn’t convince me. Somehow the left’s love for political planners and their high ideals overrides any common sense appraisal as to what happens when absolute power is focused in one viewpoint.

Any political authority that refers to an outlawed opposition as, “enemies of the people,” or “counter-revolutionaries,” is probably not going to be very open and tolerant towards different viewpoints in general. It’s not so far fetched to assume such political authority could be deadly for many. By coincidence, “debatable” statistics seem to bear this to be true. What a surprise! – lets debate the numbers some more.

Of course, the usual response from the intellectual egotists in left-land will be, “you only think you are free [in capitalist society].” These “geniuses” know we’d all be much freer if we obeyed the party loved “the leader,” or confessed our crimes in self-criticism sessions. These are the same people who will repeat the cliché (and untrue) mantra that Bush “stole” his eight year term of office, yet really believe that Fidel Castro actually -- fairly -- gets 99% of the vote, several decades strait. When I pointed out this last bit of obvious nonsense to one leftist, their response was, “His people love him.” Of course, what’s not to love about a decaying socialist enterprise that no one is allowed to change or disagree with? As an aside, beware when citizens of any country are referred to with a possessive pronoun (“his” people).

The average leftist can often be rather “smart,” but such intelligence rarely appears to include the common insight required to call a dictatorship a dictatorship, proving that a person can be a genius with facts, data, and polemic…yet, not have a lick of common sense.

The Basics...

2011-01-28T12:14:00.003+09:00

...Antecedent perspectives which determine viewpoints on a variety of issues large and small.

At the heart of every leftist scheme lies an inability to acknowledge human nature. In their eyes, all imperfections can be rectified by planning, molding, and coercing human behavior. And, when that fails to accomplish it's ends, sufficient deprivation or punishment is always the next step in their compulsive drive to gain compliance.

Be Careful What You Say

2011-01-15T14:09:00.000+09:00

A Random "Something to Say"

2011-01-15T13:59:00.000+09:00

I realize that it's a bit lame to simply cut and paste one's other ramblings as a blog post. I don't have time to play much in blogland but I hate to have nothing posted for so long. So...what follows is a slightly edited response I sent to a friend on topical matters. Nothing grand or exceptional but just something to say:

Fox occasionally has some lefties among their commentators as other networks will occasionally toss in a token conservative. The difference is that the conservative will be labeled "a conservative" and the lefties are typically labeled, "former adviser [with no partisan political alignment presumably], member of [non-aligned] think tank, lawyer, observer, etc. etc."

Regarding members of congress, there are partisan organizations that rate degrees of conservatism or liberalism based on legislators' voting records, which adds some element of objective criteria. For example, several conservative organizations gauged Obama to be the most left-wing ("liberal") member of congress when he was a senator. Likewise, liberal organizations (equally respected for such things), found Obama to be the most "liberal" (seen as a plus from their viewpoint). If both sides are saying the person in question is very left (or right), they probably are. Communists don't think Obama even begins to go “far enough,” but on the the whole they feel his heart is in the right place (though he's increasingly a disappointment to them when he moderates for political expediency).

The fun sites are the ones that tell you the members of Hollywood who are conservative or "liberal" (often, dare I say - in "McCarthy fashion," socialists/communists). I don't remember the exact names of the sites and organizations noted but they can all be found easily in searches. One has to make their own judgments regarding how "legitimate" or professional they are in their appraisals. The conservative entertainment personalities tend to be lower key (often silent) in their political comments (Jon Voight and a few country singers being a recent rare exception). The leftist ones (many can hardly be called mere “liberals”) are typically front and center and I dare say “full of hate” in appraising America and the free enterprise system – the hand that feeds them.

Regarding the Palin thing. It's almost amusing that the clowns of leftland attacked her after the shooting with no legitimate criteria and now that she defended herself (on her personal facebook page), they're attacking her for doing that. (When a conservative defends themselves or their values it's because they're “full of hate,” of course). To me this is all great because it means that they're so obsessed with her that they think she can win. This will help facilitate a genuine win by someone like Guilliani or Romney etc.

The left almost always overstretches and acts on rapid impulse. When they feel that their “revolution” is in site, they run with it. The public – who overwhelmingly do not support Palin – isn't swayed by their hyperbole because the truth is, most of them aren't very moved by the values and lifestyles of metropolitan intellectual cafe' “rebels” who have issues with their parents but enough money to complain to the apprehensions they see in the mirror.

They can't pull off talk radio, they can't pull off successful polemic movies (Fahrenheit 9/11 being a rare exception), and they're seldom able to keep momentum up when they're in office, which is why they have to tear down the opposition. It's a cliché argument on the right but I believe it's true that most leftists/”progressive” values just don't stand up to reasoned debate (“liberal” values, in the old sense of the word, can). So why state one's case if you can simply write your opponent off as “full of hate, dangerous, violent, racist, a war-monger, and fascist.” ”The tea parties have no legitimate issue, the government isn't too big, taxes are not hurting economic recovery and Obama is god...so why debate conservatives or libertarians on the issues, they're obviously racist homophobes who eat babies (and make insane people wound congresswomen – and kill nine year old girls and Republican judges).”

American's on the whole aren't socialists (in spite of Newsweek's stupid cover story to that effect). That's why it's a critical part of the leftist strategy to make as many people as possible dependent on the state – it's a constituency building effort (“if they aren't socialist, we'll make them socialists by necessity”). Then the Jacobin progressives get what they've always wanted, a society that is “well-planned” by the “experts” who know better how we should all be directed to live “for the common good”...or, “the Volksgemeinschaft” (folk community) as a German socialist once called it.

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year...

2010-12-19T00:49:00.002+09:00

'Outta here for awhile. Maybe I'll get something up in a few weeks or so. Please glance through my "Big Rants" or archives and have your ideas reinforced or your anger aroused. Either way, do have a nice "holiday" which for most people in America (where I'm originally from) and several other parts of the world is, CHRISTMAS (not some generic vague non-event).

When Ramadan comes around again, try telling a Muslim to have a generic vague and secular non-event and see where that gets ya. Most media outlets and academia certainly won't find your greetings on said occasion very "inclusive." So what's wrong with being inclusive to the millions who, religiously or not, celebrate Christmas?

Ho, Ho, Ho...

Generic Observations From a Guy Too Busy to Write Anything of Substance Before the "Holidays" (i.e. Christmas)

2010-12-12T17:56:00.004+09:00

While “early to bed” may offer health, wealth, and wisdom, “early to rise” is to be avoided at all costs.

The imagined past and imaginary future are in pervasive tension with a willingness to accept the real present.

God created the universe;... and since then it's all been pretty much just an act.

A fine symphony is as if beauty itself had been cut from the air by a mind lathe.

Death is when all of life becomes nothing but memory.

It is a fact of human psychology that we can be "having a bad time" when in fact, nothing bad is happening. And, conversely, we can be having a good time when nothing particularly good is happening.

I don't think that god comes in a book.

There's something sad about the future when it becomes a memory.

Those who fail to see the magic aren't blind...they're stupid.

My shoes even hurt when I'm not wearing them...

Some sheep have no problem with the smell of lamb chops.‏

“How can you say such things?” ...well, easy actually. And the ease of saying them is facilitated by the fact that they're true.

2010-11-27T17:41:00.000+09:00

Edland Follies

2010-11-20T14:07:00.001+09:00

To Learn what this cliche' exercise in pedegogy is, see the post after it.

More Nonsense In Edland

2010-11-20T14:05:00.001+09:00

Below is an example of the typical "lesson" in learning English in Japan. Like America and a host of other countries, the actual subject at hand has now taken a secondary position to proselytizing politically correct views on the environment, race, war, internationalism, etc.

I certainly have no objection to the idea of recycling or even occasionally noting the benefits of doing so before students but...This stuff is just plain stupid. This text comes from an English language class. Where many of the students can barely say, "Excuse me, where's the bathroom" they devote their energies to leaning the "three R's" (which, ironically used to mean basic classroom curriculum).

Later in the book, a lesson began with an overview of the life of Stevie Wonder. I thought, "great!, finally something of interest without a left-wing aftertaste." I was wrong. After the introduction it went off on a tirade about Apartheid and AIDS. The issues were relevant to Stevie Wonder's life but to see them creep into the text I couldn't help but note it was just a continuation of each unit's purpose as cheap political theater (instead of instruction).

This nonsense occurs regularly in the U.S. of course and I saw it first hand -- classes full of kids who literally know nothing but "know" that the Earth is doomed and it's "our" fault.

So...learn to recycle, save the Earth, and support the latest Jacobin fad but, by all means, don't simply learn a school subject for use in later life -- that would be "selfish" of course.

The Anti-Obama

2010-11-20T12:23:00.000+09:00

An Accurate Depiction of Leftworld's Way of Disscussing the Issues

2010-11-08T12:29:00.001+09:00

This is great.

Some Random Observations

2010-10-30T14:28:00.002+09:00

A political party chastising another for “being partisan” is like red accusing blue of being a different color.

Saying that the U.S. should be more like Sweden or Denmark is like saying England and France should be more like Lichtenstein or Monaco. They are all completely different countries in a host of ways.

Freedom has its drawbacks. The worst being that people are free to allow themselves to be enslaved (and usually bring others along with them in the process).

Insight and honesty does not necessarily correlate with intelligence. In fact, all too often, the intellectuals have exhibited a remarkable lack of common sense, insight, or honesty. In the realm of ideas simple is often better.

A truly honest politician would disavow the need for their to be politicians.

Few communists (and even many socialists) go into a "revolution" with the specific intent of erecting a police state, but it's always the inevitable result. Most "revolutionary" wannabes probably aren't evil killers but it could virtually be guaranteed that if they were told that they now had unlimited power to "fix" things, the blood would start flowing.

NGOs are non-governmental organizations that promote the growth and authority of government organizations.

A government that doesn't fear its own citizens doesn't deserve to exist.

Regarding attempts to “facilitate” voting (i.e. “postcard registration”):
An individual who is informed and conscientious will typically vote. The type of people who choose not to vote are the types of people who shouldn't be voting anyway (unless the end goals of your society are decay before the passions of a mob or some hollow catch phrase like, “yes we can.”

America's greatest sins are:
Acting in its own self-interest, and success. The first, hardly unique in the world of nations, the second, hardly sinful.

The weak-willed mud of post modern neo-marxist sophistry has so permeated media and education that a renewed confrontation between America and Hitler himself would find much of the world cheering for swastika flags. Feigned intellectual sophistication has never been so misguided, careless or corrupt.

Evil, Greedy, Selfish, and Cruel Capitalism

2010-10-16T13:31:00.004+09:00

Thank god for common sense. Milton Friedman sets Phil Donahue strait. (Hat tip to my friend Steve).

Form Your Own Conclusions

2010-10-09T13:08:00.002+09:00

This guy is currently on trial in the Netherlands...for having a viewpoint and expressing it (no, he's not attending an American college).

He hates Islam and the Koran and he tells people why he feels that way.

...Should that be against the law?

Jacobin Consistency

2010-10-02T14:35:00.001+09:00

The Marxist/Leninist left (and affiliated rabble) lost their footing in 1989-90 when the Soviet Union collapsed and international authoritarian socialism lost it's prime poster boy for "world revolution."

It's no secret amongst us folks on the right that many, if not most, of these clowns wandered aimlessly for a brief period before finding a home in the environmental movement. This is of course not to say that the cause of preserving a clean environment is not a good thing. I also, wouldn't begin to claim that anyone who believes in the benefits of recycling or reducing carbon emissions is a communist agitator. But(!), any self-respecting believer in limited government would be deluded to not notice the fervent familiarity of spirit amongst many "environmentalists." The leadership is clogged with old-school Marxist and garden variety "anarchists" (more old-school Marxists).

The overarching plan and purpose among many "environmental" groups today seems to have more to do with leveling capitalism, weakening (or disposing of) the United States, and imposing strict international authority over the lives and actions of the world's free citizens. Even the most passionate green-comm knows that "redistributing" (distributing) the world's wealth and forcing people into a lifestyle of subsistence or decline will barley make a half a degree difference in global temperatures -- over decades. They know this, but it's not about temperatures or "the environment," it's about the usual rage and rebellion amongst "angry white males [and females]" who just can't stomach the idea of other people leading other lives.

The video link in this post's title is a graphic example of the spirit of the left. It's philosophy is always red and the fact blood is the same color is probably not a coincidence.

Wealthy Capitalists Movie Makers...who hate capitalism

2010-09-25T11:51:00.001+09:00

Reason TV captures the issue well.

Living in Interesting Times

2010-09-25T11:31:00.003+09:00

I seldom involve myself in the time-consuming and angst producing debate that occurs on message boards and comment sections after timely articles. It just doesn't seem worth the time or effort – I mean, so what if someone far away is among the millions who disagrees with you? Are you really going to change his or her mind? (Very doubtful). And since I'm fairly well informed and like the concept of individual freedom first and foremost, I'm not likely to be convinced that maybe the government is a bit too small and needs to be placed into the hands of unelected bureaucrats a little more. So, call me stubborn or inflexible like almost everyone else, on the issues of the day I'm likely to be pretty consistent. “Islam is really a religion of peace” and “most Muslims have no desire to see their belief spread (through violence if necessary)” -- you've got to be kidding me (!). I get that often espoused idea that most Muslims are themselves not violent, but the fact that they're fine letting the more fervent wings of their cult “do the heavy lifting” doesn't in my eyes see them as being just like the local Christian church down the street. Of course, folks in some Muslim dominated suburbs in the capitols of Europe have a better perspective on just how adaptable and freedom loving Mohammad’s warrior cult is . In America the size of the Muslim population (relatively small) affords them the luxury as a debate subject worthy of defense by many “progressives” (while they continue their perennial attack on anything capitalist, Christian, western, or American).

On "immigration," I'm one of the many people who can see the obvious; that people sneaking into a country and sucking it's resources dry while bringing a net rise in violence is not “immigration.”

Such issues are debated daily in the world's press, coffee shops, schools, and of course on line.

Against my better judgment of time constraints I recently took the time and got pulled into a back and fourth debate on these issues (something I try to avoid at all costs).

Obviously I won't hint as to who or in what context the exchange took place as that wouldn't be fair to the individual I debated these issues with. I realized, however that all the writing I had done would be useful as a post on this blog thus allowing me to first, get another post up (my posting here is rather scant lately) and also, to layout some of my basic views on things – which is what this blog is all about anyway (an exercise in personal complaint agreeable to or disdained by others...depending on the observer). I'm sure the person I “debated” is a nice enough fellow but his views (clearly intelligent and well-informed) were just too darn cliche' for me. I've heard it all before crouched in the same cloak of being “reasonable” and nice. (The only reason I'm not posting the other person's comments is because I don't have his permission to do so and If I were to get his permission than it would only be fair to then continue a time-consuming back and fourth debate – something I have no time for). I realize that most of what I write in this regard is also “cliche'” from the standpoint of those who daily defend the “religion of peace” in it's noble goals of world Jihad, and the illegal flow of migrants across America's boarders in the name of “immigration.”

So, fairly unedited, I cut and paste my last response in a debate on some important topics of the day:

Like anyone who takes passionate interest in such things, I thought of all the things I'd write in response but realized it's rather impossible under current time constraints. I seldom participate in message board and website comment sections even though I really would like to, and such back and fourths really don't accomplish much aside from honing one's debate style.

If you wish to respond again, please do so but don't be offended If I leave you with the “last word” on the issues. I've got to get back to more mundane matters.
I'm sure, like me, you discuss these very issues almost daily. I've concluded that, in the end, most politically charged viewpoints are ultimately not based on facts regardless of how many facts or anecdotes one may be able to bring to a topic. Most people claim that after they've examined the facts they arrived at a particular conclusion but I think that's nonsense. I no longer claim that to be the case when expressing my own views. It's a rare person indeed who confronts an issue without a predisposition to a stance. It's after that more visceral appraisal is formed that one typically seeks or compiles facts “proving” they are on the right side of a debate. I'm not saying it doesn't happen or that you are not among those rare people who literally have no opinion until they've exhausted all facts available on all sides. If you're like most -- and like me -- you've got a niche on the political spectrum (realizing that there are different styles of political spectrums that gauge different things) and most of the facts you encounter coincidentally back up the world view you had before you found them.

If a person believes in the primacy of the individual over various collective affiliations It's logical that a million and one issues will be appraised in a particular way. If a person views “society” or “the people” as having greater significance, a host of questions are bound to be approached in a predictable style. And, of course there are things like “nature vs. nurture.” It's unlikely that one will hear a person say, “I'm a vegetarian, feminist who teaches yoga and I supported George Bush and Tony Blair in their decision to invade Iraq.” It would be equally bizarre to hear one say, “I worked hard to forge a financially sound position in life and I'm proud of the achievements I've made and wish to keep as much of my earned wealth for me and my family but...I hope the government passes some more regulations over capitalist war-mongers.” I wouldn't say such things would never happen but they're highly unlikely given that there are temperaments and circumstance that predispose us to a certain behavior and belief. There's a kind of cluster of like ideals that are archetypal in nature and usually manifest in predictable attitudes. Because of that, I prefer to “debate” the basic issues and not the fine points or transient topical matters. One's position on those stems from the more basic orientation.

I used to tell my high school American history students that if they believed America was an oppressive racist country, they're right and they can find numerous example to prove it. If they believed that America and its citizens are basically good and a just people who have created a civilization remarkable for it's diversity, pluralism, and achievements and that most Americans are not racist...they too are right and can find plenty of facts to back them up. People tend to just choose a side and run with it. In spite of this, I hardly believe in relativism (thus I think Papal decrees from 500 years ago and Sariah law as practiced now are not moral equivalents).

I have no problem with anyone honest enough to come right out and say they don't like America's political or economic system and prefer a more ordered society that favors global institutions and strong centralized government authority. Some people think Che Guevara was a hero (even though he hated rock music and homosexuals and persecuted both). As the antithesis of the typical leftist take on things, I take no shame in supporting the values of American constitutional government and the values of individual striving, self-motivated creativity, buying and selling, or believing as one chooses with as little interference from the state as possible. I don't think that the fact Jefferson owned slaves somehow makes the Declaration of independence or first amendment irrelevant or the fact that European explorers invading native lands centuries ago justifies letting anyone waltz into the country undocumented in the year 2010. Most (I don't know of an exception but there probably are a few) countries seem to agree on this one. The open boarders that some defend are just not something widely embraced – anywhere. I definitely don't believe that those who favor a powerful state distribution system are somehow more “compassionate” because they believe in spending other people's money or that they are morally and intellectually superior because they can find reasons to defend dictatorships over our own flawed but reasonably open system.

No one can prove that I should submit my individual values and life choices to the dictates of government bureaucracy and someone else's blueprint “for a better world” and I can't prove that I should be left alone. None the less, I choose to be left alone (to make my associations and contributions based upon my own values unbridled by the coercion of state imposed ideologies).

Protest was once called the sincerest form of patriotism...until “tea-baggers” started doing the protesting. Now protest can only mean one is racist...as if top-heavy statist ideals would be openly embraced if a light skinned person proposed them.

Islam may once again hope to resurrect great cities of learning (again after aggressive defeat of those cities and placing non-believers – in the “prophet” businessman/warrior Mohammad – in second class status) but there is little we hear from even moderate Muslims that indicates their satisfaction with anyone in the “non-believer” camp. The very people who espouse concern for feminism and gay rights are mysteriously not only silent but openly defensive of the Islamic inspired regimes that stone or execute people for expressing freely what so many American's take for granted. People who are very concerned about how Christians have behaved through history should at least have a fleeting suspicion of any other religion that harbors very rigid ideals on how others should live.

It seems that now the same people who cried “censorship” when people chose not to buy Dixie Chicks Cd's are completely okay with the idea of death threats dictating what art or cartoons are permitted – that won't “offend” Islam.

Visigoth warriors and migrants occupied the Iberian peninsula centuries ago. Should the citizens of Spain now see that as justification for letting anyone become permanent residents of their country and drawing upon it's tax-funded services today without going through any process of formal immigration? If they would call for official documentation of new residents would that make them nativist racists “full of hate?” (not your words, but the phrase often stated when the issues is addressed by those who can't understand why anyone would oppose a free-for-all system of migration law). Would you let anyone into your home to stay without at least knowing who they are and what their background is (a legal immigration process)? Responses to the obvious absurdity of current Illegal migrant activity that simply note colonial aggression hundreds of years ago sounds great in a coffee shop but has little value in addressing the serious problems currently affecting many of America's local and state governments. I just don't buy the “argument” that we should make citizens of anyone skillful or lucky enough to sneak into the country because Christopher Columbus was able to pull it off. If this was a standard for policy decision, I could rob banks because other people have done so and gotten away with it.

The idiot pastor who wishes to burn Korans will of course be used as an example of America's intolerance in spite of the fact that virtually everyone looks upon him with scorn. These are the same people who look at a nut-case killer of an abortion doctor as indicative of the Christian / conservative world view. If such a person was found to have watched FOX News or read a book by Ann Coulter, they and their “connection” would be a major news topic for weeks. The guy that threatened the staff at the Discovery Channel recently was a devotee of Al Gore and clearly had extremist environmental views. He fell off the radar rather quick if you ask me...what's up with that?

Ultimately I wouldn't be too concerned about liberal sentiments not having an impact. If it's a mega-state the left wants, they've got it ten times over. We're hardly in great danger of cutting D.C. and it's programs down to size. Prior to the mid 90's the Democrats controlled the house of representatives for four decades. That was taken in stride. When Republicans gain control as they briefly did in the mid 90's it will no doubt again be viewed as the result of “angry white males.” After all, how could anyone simply be for less taxes, less government, or a more positive appraisal of one's country unless they were just plain evil racists (and of course – horror of all horrors – white or male)? The left (in a general sense) currently hold control of both houses of congress, and the executive branch (which is now huge with it's massive edict declaring bureaus and “czars” etc.). Aside from the much maligned Fox News, the dominant media in the country is left of center (I'd be rolling my eyes up if one claimed the contrary -- of course Marxists find anything right of Mao Zedong to be “right wing”). Colleges, public schools, movies, and TV shows all tell us that we essentially are a bad country that needs to be transformed into a weak apologetic bureau-enterprise. Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky are required reading to the captive audience of many college and high school classes and we're still made to believe that public education is somehow reinforcing the authority of “the man” (“the man” is always a wealthy white male...therefore, the current president is not “the man”).

Maybe “progressives” will get their wish. Maybe anyone who wants to sneak across the boarder will be made instant citizens. Maybe the “flag of Islam will fly over the nations capital.” Now, wouldn't those be improvements over a diverse, pluralistic constitutional republic with a high per-capita income and chains of fast food restaurants (our dreaded “materialism”).

There are a million sites on the web that span the spectrum and convey the same things you and I have expressed. Don't assume that anyone who is a conservative or libertarian (similar to conservatives in regard to economic issues) is automatically, ill-informed, ignorant, racist, mean-spirited, or otherwise unqualified to take a valid stand on today's issues. I know you didn't say that but it is often the case that the conservative viewpoint is treated as something basically invalid and unworthy of addressing (and some wonder why conservative books are now best sellers and the left can't pull off talk radio no matter how many millions George Soros or Hollywood producers put into it). Conservatives (one must remember that like the left, there is a range within that general label) can only be addressed and depicted in such negative ways for so long until they start making it a point to vote in every election. 'Bad move on the “progressives” part (suicidal actually in the upcoming election).

For Those Who -- Still -- Don't Get It

2010-09-18T13:07:00.001+09:00

"Today, when a concerted effort is made to obliterate this point, it cannot be repeated too often that the Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals--that it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government--that it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizens’ protection against the government."

-- Ayn Rand

The Anti-Obama

2010-09-07T11:59:00.001+09:00

This is what I like to see in an executive position.

I'd love to see this guy be the one to undo the Obama socialist "revolution" and get back on track being a secure, prosperous, dynamic capitalist society.

Screw the "Yes we can" nonsense.

Buy This Book...

2010-09-04T11:09:00.002+09:00

For "The People," from "The People," of "The People" etc....

In Denial...and, Missing the Point Again...

2010-08-31T12:30:00.002+09:00

A Crowd of "tens of thousands" [estimated at three-hundred thousand actually] of "mostly white conservative" citizens rallied in Washington this weekend...

You'd swear at this point that the journalists and politicos of leftland actually want to lose this next election. How stupid do they think the public really is?

Yes, It Sucks

2010-08-28T16:13:00.001+09:00

Awesome "hate speech." Andrew Klavan does it again. Truth, facts, and humor.

Stop The Thinking And Do As You Are Told...for a better world ®

2010-08-28T15:07:00.005+09:00

...We need to stop taking things so seriously and start taking things more seriously -- I'm serious.

We need a new change, a big change, some spare change.

We need you, you need us, we need we, and I need me.

Jump on the band wagon and ride for the world, but don't pollute it while protesting in Cancun (Mexico).

We need a better car, a better life, and a better god -- goddamit!

Jump in the parade, NOW! Do as I say, and think as I am, and follow my logic and buy the scam.

We've got a meat grinder specially made for you and your thoughts...and your rights.

Follow the leader and bow down before every lie they tell ya...because they care! -- in five colors and sometimes alternate choices.

There's a sunbeam in their heart and rabid secret in their soul, and in the end they want to push the same buttons you do while pretending to feed old cripples and crowds of rejects.

Follow their smiles and and learn to shed tears for every phony lie they throw at ya.....

I don't know about you, but I'm really into separting my trash...

Burkas for Euroland

2010-08-24T12:22:00.002+09:00

(no time for blogging so here's a repost from long ago that still remains relevant today)

Nowhere today is the concept of "be nice to your enemy" more bizarrely displayed than in the limp and pampered realm of Euro-Socialist Land. Not all Europeans of course have bought into this self-destructive P.C. nonsense but the one's that have, as in America, pull a lot of strings in media and education.

Amir Taheri has an excellent overview of "pre-emptive obedience" at FrontPageMag.com.

"...In most European countries, an official black of list of books has emerged, containing works deemed to be "hurtful to Muslim sentiments". The list includes the names not only of such major European authors as Voltaire and Thomas Carlyle but also of Muslim writers whose work has been translated into European languages. For example, the novel Haji Agha by Sadeq Hedayat, translated into French and published in the 1940s, is no longer available. The novel Four Pains by Cyrus Farzaneh has also disappeared from French bookshops and libraries along with The Master by Darvish...."

Taheri's essay reminded me that; if one word were to overwhelmingly encompass the positive attributes of the American people, the word would be, "disobedience."

Europe's obedience of late is going to land it into one giant Burka if they don't soon come to their senses and realize they are under siege -- again -- from a totalitarianism within.

“What's the deal with all the dumb asses?”

2010-08-11T10:57:00.001+09:00

(note: This is intended to be light, whimsical, and perhaps crude...not for the uptight and fussy).

Scholars have debated the “dumb-ass” equation for millenia. I believe it was Marcus Aurelius in the 4th Century, who first confronted this vexing issue with the grand statement, “...what a dumb ass...is everyone a dumb ass or something? ...what's the deal with all of these dumb asses?”

Later in the 17th century, Descartes was known to ponder the dumb-ass issue with the now seminal philosophical statement, “I think, therefore most others don't think, therefore they are probably dumb asses.” Dumb asses have indeed been a pivotal part of each and every society, contributing their lack of purpose to humanity with that sense of overwhelming meaninglessness we have all come to appreciate as light entertainment or occasional horror (as in the idea of people voting for someone based on a hypnotic mantra, “Yes we can”).

Dumb-asses are a particularly relevant segment of the populations at K-mart and government offices. Many achieve high office and contribute to a sort of noble malaise so prevalent in the perennial dumb- ass paradigm.

Attempts have been made to confront the dumb-ass societal affliction with such statements as “don't be such a dumb-ass”.

Dumb-asses seem to manifest eternally. They in fact often serve a great purpose to society's well being by allowing us non dumb-asses to feign sympathy for their unique form of victim-hood. The huge sums of money spent by governments to lift people out of dumb-ass inspired inertia is the finest example of how dumb-asses can help on another. Remember, dumb asses are just like you and me...except they're dumb asses.

The Reasonable Man and Radical Nothing

2010-07-31T13:39:00.006+09:00

It appears that a new phenomena has emerged in the webs of discourse amongst citizens of free nations. I attribute it to years of bogus schooling, charlatan journalism and a flaccid life philosophy dispensed through shoddy entertainment venues.

In pre-baby-boomer times it seemed that most people held convictions; sometimes strong ones, sometimes less fervent. Often issues and events called for a passionate stance but issues that were neither life or death would often elicit the reasonable response – a noncommittal, dispassionate “take no sides” adaptability. It was reasonable to be reasonable.

The role of the reasonable person today has devolved into something neither reasonable or marked by great conviction, a sort of radical nothing. Ironically, this muddy soup of non-conviction is spouted -- fervently -- as something held with...great conviction.

Daily one can find conversation, sound bites, and proclamations that reveal allegiance to no one or nothing, but stated with self-righteous certainty and passion. A pride in one's empathy for dictators and derision of all that has been done to the ends of family, nation and liberty is felt by some to be a sort of middle of the road non alliance. Within all this dogma there is an implied but subtle shield that proclaims the espouser is somehow taking no side.

When I hear one state with passion their lack of allegiance to anything of substance or moral value I typically sense that they feel they've reached some pinnacle of awareness. In short, nothing actually drives their feigned adaptability more than simple arrogance; the desire to be seen as having risen above petty concern for things like moral clarity or choosing good over evil. Of course such dichotomies are viewed to no longer exist anyway (at least since Nietzsche).

Perhaps its a genuinely new thing (at least to our era) to plant one's values so deeply in mere mist, but there's nothing new about stupidity or arrogance. Being “reasonable” and “seeing the other side” of an issue can be just and objective. But the contemporary prevalence of less sincere stances are certainly no way to support a family, nation or sober world view.

What more could authoritarian regimes and ideologies hope for from a civilization in decline and an expanding population of those who now believe so strongly...in nothing.

Random Observations

2010-07-10T15:40:00.005+09:00

Regarding attempts to “facilitate” voting (i.e. “postcard registration”):
An individual who is informed and conscientious will typically vote. The type of people who choose not to vote are the types of people who shouldn't be voting anyway (unless the end goals of your society are decay before the passions of a mob or some hollow catch phrase like, “yes we can”).

***********************

America's greatest sins are:
Acting in its own self-interest, and success. The first, hardly unique in the world of nations, the second, hardly sinful.

***********************

The weak-willed mud of post modern neo-marxist sophistry has so permeated media and education that a renewed confrontation between America and Hitler himself would find much of the world cheering for swastika flags. Feigned intellectual sophistication has never been so misguided, careless or corrupt.

***********************

“What if everyone thought like that?” is a stupid statement regardless of what the “thought” is directed toward because the fact of the matter is, everyone doesn't “think like that...”

***********************

Liberty vs. the lemmings of state adoration:
The choices are basic and clear; maximum individual liberty or increasing degrees of government “intervention.” The problem is that individual liberty (with obvious constraints against aggression or fraud against others) can only be “maxed-out” so far. Any degree of state “intervention” by its very nature always calls for more authority and control. A lover of government can always come up with reasons why “we need” more government (usually to “fix” problems created by government in the first place).

State authority means coercion. Those who choose freedom simply wish to be free – to be left alone. Those who favor the intrusion of the state into personal life and transactions are ultimately choosing to dictate the lives and actions of others.

***********************

The odd obsession:
Does anyone not find it odd that, with all the instance of violence, war, oppression, and cruelty in the world, the left is so fervently obsessed with the tiny democratic state (amongst a sea of authoritarian regimes) of Israel?

California and Reality

2010-07-03T13:32:00.002+09:00

This Reason TV mini-documentary, although about California specifically, explains some basic realities about economics and government.

"Angry Racist" Belief in Limited Constitutional Government

2010-07-03T00:23:00.006+09:00

I had recently seen an editorial cartoon in a Japanese / English newspaper which depicted a crazed Republican screaming, "They're coming! More and more people getting health care!". Alongside him, an equally absurd caricature of an anguished "Tea Party" person saying , "Minorities! Women! Children! It's the end of the world!"

Uhh,...yeah, right...

Hasn't much of mainstream journalism overplayed this card a bit? Unlike many among the general public, the usual allies of bigger and more centralized state authority appear to genuinely believe that conservative or libertarian values are somehow invalid and unworthy of engagement in legitimate debate.

Rising protests against growing state authority seems to have struck a nerve with many on the left, and their only response seems to be some variation on the repeated mantra that; the right is "full of hate." So just what is it that progressives are so “full of" when addressing conservative or libertarian ideals? I don't remember them being exactly full of tolerance, compromise, or “understanding” during the previous administration (group hug for Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld anyone?).

The coddling of the Obama administration by many media sources has become laughable. Likewise for a common assertion by some talking heads that anyone who opposes an unread 1000 page piece of "health care" legislation could only be taking issue with it because of they are racists or, in the above noted cartoon, fear women and children receiving health care. Meanwhile, “anti-war” and anti-capitalism protests are still often depicted as mere cross sections of society when they are often organized by genuinely violent extremist groups, several which advocate a complete overthrow of our constitutional system so as to replace it with their much loved Marxist gulag state. When was the last time we heard of a Tea Party protest where rocks or Molotov cocktails were thrown at private businesses and police (or anyone for that matter)?

As for the phony attempts to label opposition to Obama's state-enhancing agenda as a product of "racism,” do some people really believe that if a white male tried to ram through a thousand pages of unread bureau-growth legislation that conservatives and libertarians would somehow then find it palatable? Nonsense.

Belief in limited government and sound economic policy as espoused by most in the Tea Parties has no relation to "hate," racism, conjured threats and dangers, or general "mean-spiritedness." That so many pseudo intellectuals try to concoct such a fantasy is more a reflection of their own inability to tolerate popular viewpoints different from their own than any genuine danger from citizens questioning a president and party's grasp for expanded authority.

It's often said that if you repeat a lie often enough it will be believed . But that's not completely true. If you tell a lie too often people wonder why you feel the need to keep repeating something that you claim is obvious and apparent.

Some Republicans and many Tea Party advocates will be laughing all the way to the polls this fall... and perhaps in 2012 as well.

Evil, Fascist, Racist, War-mongers

2010-06-22T12:20:00.001+09:00

...ah, that would be the left's typical descriptive terms for conservatives.

I recently read an article that noted the stated values of a small Tea Party like conservative group called "The Lincoln Club," and was struck with the simplicity of their purpose:

..."to promote, educate and advance conservative principles of fiscal responsibility, small limited government, free enterprise, the rule of law, private property rights, and the preservation and protection of individual liberty."

I think it pretty accurately describes the core of conservative belief. But, I'm missing the part about fascism, racism, and war-mongering. Indeed, these are the values so feared and abhorred by the clowns of leftland whose worship of wall-to-wall state coercion is threatened by those who favor limits on government authority.

Clowns on parade...

Get a Clue Folks...

2010-06-20T11:49:00.002+09:00

The left in general really loves to see the state move in on anything private. After all, us little people are too stupid to actually make our own choices and run our own lives. I dare say that some "progressives" may be a bit weak in forsight themselves on some occasions. For example, give lots of authority to the government and than look puzzeled or angry when someone else is running the show (this has happend on both sides of the aisle -- solution, don't give government enhanced authority in the first place). It always backfires. I don't think any sane person would want to see the internet fall under the control of the state but, stranger thoughts and goals have occured by some.

Socialism vs. Capitalism...as usual

2010-06-16T12:18:00.000+09:00

For a variety of reasons -- all of debatable merit -- a leftist will always choose subsistence or deprivation over abundance and growth. (though not necessarily for themselves).

The Values of Annoyance

2010-06-13T12:06:00.002+09:00

First the Tea Parties and now this. The clowns of leftland aren't going to be happy if this trailer is any indication of what this movie is about. Someone is always interfering with the "path to revolution" with emotional expressions that value freedom. It's rare to see something like this on a screen. The only truly effective anti-communist movie in decades (that wasn't it's intention, it was just conveying a true story) was "The Killing Fields."

It's not that all leftists are devout fans of Mao or communist dictators...it's just that it's fairly typical that they cut such authoritarian regimes plenty of slack. When criticism is made of the pathetic track record of Marx's many clones, the left goes into their default position and turns the conversation around into how terrible America and capitalism are.

Idiots..."useful" (to the socialist cause) or otherwise.

A Timely Issue

2010-06-13T00:13:00.001+09:00

I probably post this cartoon about once every year and still feel it gets right to the matter of those issues and personal values that this blog is so opposed to:

2010-06-12T23:51:00.002+09:00

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule."

-- H.L. Mencken

Contradictions in Leftism

2010-06-08T12:27:00.001+09:00

It stands out as an enduring paradox among leftists that they are both highly critical of (the U.S.'s) government yet proclaim the need to expand it's scope and authority significantly.

"The state is bad. The state is wrong. ...The state is, too small and has too little authority [?]."

"Smart" Doesn't Equal Right

2010-06-03T11:57:00.002+09:00

The worst thing about dealing with someone who is clearly intelligent and even well-informed is that some of them tend to think that their knowledge automatically makes their judgement superior -- "[They're] smart, so [they're] right."

With a largely left wing intelligencia that regularly shows sympathy to authoritarianism in all its guises and scorn upon the free-wheeling individualism of America it's a hard case to prove that knowledge and wit necessarily means an honest or insightful view of things.

If We Could Only Have a Bigger and More Intrusive State -- That Would Save Us

2010-06-02T09:38:00.002+09:00

"We need_____." "The government needs to_____." "Why isn't the government doing more about_____?"

Or, framed in another more revealing way, "The government isn't big enough. We need more powerful politicians, bureaucrats, and government...the state is just too darn small!"

Liberal Fascism

2010-05-29T13:58:00.003+09:00

In my last post I made a reference -- link -- to a speech by Jonah Goldberg regarding the issues he analyzed in his book, "Liberal Fascism."

I read "Liberal Fascism" and it's quite good. (Here's an amazon.com review that I had written after reading to it).

The link to the speech in the previous post warrents repeating -- it's very informative. I'm reposted it here.

'An excellent overview of what "Fascism" and "Socialism" really are and how they've manifested in history.

"Knuckle Dragging Neanderthals...full of hate"

2010-05-29T13:30:00.007+09:00

The clowns of leftland have been rather successful in painting a portrait of conservatism as a philosophy of ignorance, greed, and "mean-spiritedness" for quite some time now. They've done this (and continue to) through virtually all organs of communication from journalism, education, and entertainment. In the conjured view of philosopher-king wannabes, those who favour the centralized authority of the state and micromanagement of individuals' lives are enlightened, loving, and caring. Their only motive is that of "making a better world" -- laughable!

One minor tactic used for some time by the left is to have painted left wing talking heads as somehow simply nice folks with professional insight who wish to inform us of the events of our times. This is the fantasy land ideology that successfully morphed John McCain -- previously known as a Republican "maverick" for his moderate to liberal views on a variety of issues -- into a blood-thirsty war-monger. Leftland's propaganda organs also, as many know by now, morphed a pseudo-Marxist community organizer with no real-world job experience into a god-man.

So, who are the pundits and thinkers "on the right" who speak for conservative and libertarian values? Common appraisals would tell us that they are Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and Glenn Beck. They may even toss in Bill O'Reilly even though his style is a bit more restrained (or less sarcastic).

I can't say that I don't often agree with the above personalities. I'm well aware that their styles tend to the dramatic and their delivery often clouds the valid positions they often express. Most people have no idea that Ann Coulter's books are full of little-known facts and and Glenn Beck actually unveils some serious issues we should be thinking about backed by some rather insightful historical knowledge. But....the delivery and showmanship often trips up the message and loses the independents and uncommitted center -- Oh well.

What media leftland doesn't want people to know is that there are many genuinely scholarly pundits on the right with a level voice and head. They're the regular reading stock of many conservatives who share the view that the government that governs least governs best and that the U.S. -- warts and all -- is essentially a good country that has often been threatened by horrid ideologies and authoritarian institutions.

Getting to the point; below is a list of some very sober minds on "the right." Common folks who take little interest in daily political debate probably never heard of many of these people. It's in the interest of the left that citizens not be aware of these writer's ideas and that people think that the only spokespersons for conservatism those who rant on talk radio.

If you don't know the work of the following people, you should. You'd gain some insight that isn't readily available in pop/mainstream venues:

Victor Davis Hanson

Charles Krauthammer

Thomas Sowell

Mark Steyn

Johah Goldberg (An excellent informative speech regarding "Liberal Fascism")

Walter Williams

Larry Elder

Cliff May

Theodore Darymple

These are but a few. But those independents and centrists who have been led to believe that Tea Party activists are racists/fascists or who think that a controversial statement made by a loud talk radio personality and taken out of its actual context are the "conservative viewpoint" may find some interesting ideas among the writings, speeches, or interviews from/with the above mentioned conservative/libertarian personalities.

Redistribute Common Sense...

2010-05-15T15:29:00.000+09:00

"Full Of Hate" For Thee But Not For Me

2010-05-15T12:32:00.004+09:00

If one hates Obama, big centralized government, bureaucrats, lawyers, and assorted busy bodies and control freaks (if one wishes to be left alone), one is "full of hate." (Don't forget the hateful concept of favoring low taxes and maximizing individual freedom).

If one hates George Bush, businesses, entrepreneurs, and individualists, one is full of ...what exactly? --(besides shit).

The Greece-y Hands of Wealth Envy

2010-05-15T12:23:00.006+09:00

Regarding Greece and the greed of the non-wealthy.

...The whole scenario is a preview of what's to come for most "developed" nations who have been lured to the scam that the state "should"/must provide for all issues that confront one in the real world. Just pay for it by stealing it from productive creators of wealth.

Get people fired up about how "unfair" it is that others have more wealth. After said wealth is bled dry, whine and continue to demand the fruits of further theft from victims of theft who have barely been allowed to exist.

It's no coincidence that Greece has such a large communist party membership.

There isn't anything "free" and the products of theft only lasts a limited time. Socialism always leads to an economic graveyard -- idiots.

The Law of Unintended Consequences - Garbage Disposal in the Mountains of Japan

2010-05-08T16:50:00.000+09:00

Japan is Dying

2010-05-06T16:25:00.004+09:00

…That's not to say that other countries, for similar reasons, are not also on the critical list. Demographics and the absurd demands of statist control freaks have made it almost impossible for advanced states to maintain their unique standings as places where the middle class can emerge and flourish in relative comfort and independence.

Like so many other countries (the United States included), Japan is slowly -- has been -- killing itself. One can drive along many roads in a country with limited space and find row upon row of rusted and abandoned factories, stores, and warehouses, carcasses that show witness to the effects of top-heavy state strangulation. Taxes are only a minor issue in the equation. There is virtually nothing one can do to maintain or augment one's livelihood without time and money consuming bureau-encounters. The drones of state stoically push papers, fees, and decrees in your face and at the end of the year they receive the popular windfall "bonus" that rewards mere compliance with dust. If one questions these persistent breaks on dynamism and economic health, the answer (excuse) usually relates to some phony pre-packaged statement that "Japanese culture"…is different from American (or any other) culture. But, what does the typical socialist bureau decree have to do with the tea ceremony, flower arranging, or leaving one's slippers at a home's entryway?

My criticisms of the Japanese bureau state certainly don't mean to imply that the U.S. or other countries are somehow free of the plague of statism. In many ways though, Japan offers a model upon which all dynamic and free societies will find themselves as politicians and the people who love them load political guns and point them at their country's hearts.

Many people are under the impression that Japan is simply an American clone and, looking at it superficially, one could be prodded to think just that but Japan, in many ways, retains the obedient collectivist nature that it had before its war with and defeat by America.

The citizens of Japan are amazingly tolerant of the bureau-oppressiveness around them. Even tiny issues like garbage collection are muddled by a thousand rules and fussy standards. In most towns, such edicts are arranged in complex charts specifying exactly what is to be thrown out and when and in what ceremony-styled manner (i.e. in the town I live in, aerosol cans must be punctured and placed in a separate bag with a large note saying "spray" on it). Of course in any country where classic socialist sentiments dictate that human nature must not be diverse and imperfect, people find it difficult to meet the high standards of their masters – almost no one gets the details of garbage disposal done "correctly." The anti-statist view of "simpler is better" is proven a thousand times over in such mundane ordained chaos. Throwing appliances away becomes incredibly annoying and tedious (one must purchase special stickers, pay special fees, call special departments, or return the product to where it was purchased -- they don't account for used products or ones purchased from a place that no longer exists). This results in what any free-market libertarian would expect. If one travels in the countryside or mountains of Japan they will eventually find a graveyard of dumped appliances no doubt put there by people who simply wanted to throw something away and found it nearly impossible or too annoying to do so. This is not to say that those who do such things are okay for tarnishing the natural landscape but, common sense would tell anyone that such things are bound to occur when the system is so clearly not organized to "serve the customer" in any way. Like any socialist template, the citizens of Japan are encouraged (forced) to "serve society" (i.e. bureaucrats and the government offices they dwell in).

I once tried to dispose of a Toshiba laptop here that I had purchased in America. The screen was toasted and getting rid of it my prefered "option." I had read in the lengthily trash disposal guidelines (perhaps I should have gotten a lawyer?) that one is supposed to take their laptop to a local electronic appliance store and pay some fee, give it to them and be done with it. No, I had purchased it in America and even though it was a Japanese made model they couldn't deal with it. I was told to send it back to the manufacturer. I instead simply dismantled it piece by piece over a couple months time and put the barely recognizable pieces into "non-burnable" weekly trash (a special purchased bag, of course). I'm sure I'm not the only one that has taken the time to accomplish my mundane goal with stealth and wasting of personal time. At least I wasn't littering the sides of mountain roads.

It's amazing to see so many huge SUV's in Japan -- they're everywhere and certainly defy the conjured myth that America is somehow the only place where big enviro-unfriendly toys are indulged in. In America, one occasionally has to have one's car checked for safety and pollution standards. The cost depends on the state one resides in but none even come close to the insane amounts Japanese citizens are forced to pay (even a small "earth-saving" car is typically tagged for a grand every couple of years and this fee doesn't even include annual taxes one must pay on a car as well – this doesn't include the state's take in gasoline taxes, nearly half what the "greedy" oil companies get to make with their average 13% profit margin – they at least give us the oil we want while the state just keeps robbing Yuko to pay Kenji...and some politician's construction buddies).

The clowns of state can't stop human nature (though they keep trying). Some people want a big car…and they act on their desire by – duh – buying a big car. I wonder though how many people don't send their kids to college or send them to a lessor college than they would like because every two years they have to dish out a grand or two to the political class. This car fee is only one example of many fees, taxes, and government roadblocks that channel Japan's wealth into the coffers of the political class instead of feeding a vibrant economy and allowing citizens the personal freedom to spend the fruits of their labor in the diverse ways that free people choose. Allowing for the unfettered creation, sale, and purchase of products and services increases a nation's wealth and overall living standard. Allowing the state a thousand and one ways to seize a nation's productive capacity creates stagnation, apathy, and decline (although it's beyond the scope of this rant, I'd venture to guess that such state imposed decline results in everything from reduced birth rates to increases in crime).

The state in Japan gives -- GIVES! -- me and everyone else with a young child about a hundred bucks a month. I take it of course, knowing that the reasoning behind it is blatantly stupid. No, that doesn't make me a hypocrite. I'll take all the ridiculous nonsense a socialist government throws my way knowing full well that the concepts that drive them are absolute nonsense. And, forfeiting it would certainly gain nothing for anyone either. The new socialist prime minister is going to hike that giveaway to about a hundred and thirty dollars (I know, it's yen). Supposedly, these huge outlays will encourage Japanese citizens to have more children (more accurately, to have children at all). Surprise, the birth rate keeps declining. Instead of handing other people's money to people like myself who may or may not be able to afford the monthly expenses of rearing a child, how about getting rid of the fees, taxes, and roadblocks to economic prosperity that are the default position of leftist governments? No, we have to keep that wealth envy going until a nation litterally eats itself (as has been the case in Greece for quite some time).

There comes a point in a "mixed economy" (as Ayn Rand refers to the socialist / capitalist hybrids we now live in -- always edging closer to the socialist end of the spectrum) when even private institutions begin to act as functionally fixed and sclerotic as their government models. I guess people become so used to the pervasive lack of service in the state sector that the private one simply feels it's an acceptable standard. In a small town coffee shop my wife was once told she couldn't order a simple piece of chocolate cake. It was advertised as a "set" with coffee. It was beyond the owner's rigid clerical thought process that he could simply sell my wife the cake she wanted without the coffee. No, he'd rather make less money and let the cake go to waste – idiot.

Capitalists being the "greedy bastards" that they are want to make money. Idiots haven't a clue about such things. Not because they're less greedy or because they're brimming with altruism, but because the entire system now teaches people to be mere functionaries that obtain a bare minimum result. Excellence or something so philistine as "giving the customer what he or she wants" is beyond even most "capitalist" enterprises. They're all just extensions of the hand of state. Cradle to grave lassitude.

Somewhere along the road to socialist hell citizens have been weaned from the concept of striving for a better life. A high standard of living is of no concern. Of course it will be too late when they find out that a high standard of living and a thriving economy are good things and that nations nosediving into deliberate decline have nothing to look forward to. Japan and America may not become North Korea but we may become Greece. (Anyone who's aware of economics and current events should be aware that being Greece at this time in history is not a good thing).

In America, the threshold has almost been reached where a majority of the population is either directly employed by the state or receives considerable benefits from the state and the spoils from the productive classes. When that threshold is breached a society permanently bounded by passions of wealth envy, dependency, and a blind march to economic suicide becomes firmly established. From there it's all downhill.

Japan's citizens were easy picking for the arrogant politicians of the modern bureau-state. They tend to accept most nonsense that's imposed on them and certainly wouldn't rebel against the hand that they think should feed them. A "tea party" would never happen in Japan (and in America, a media dominated by allegiance to socialist values won't allow such a rebellion to get the traction it needs to roll back an encroaching dystopia either).

Japan is a good country with good people but adopting the tired values so meticulously developed in Europe to guide (subdue) it's citizens is going to destroy it for good. America's fate will likely be little different. Huge tax burdens, unaffordable social schemes that will no longer pay, substandard healthcare, and rationed everything. The fruits of socialist "compassion" and the vegetables of blind followers into history's dust heap.

Too bad…really.

More Good Stuff From Nealz Nuze

2010-04-24T16:50:00.003+09:00

...which he got from Reason.com

Earth Day Predictions, 1970

"We have about five more years at the outside to do something."
â€¢ Kenneth Watt, ecologist

"Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind."
â€¢ George Wald, Harvard Biologist

"We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation."
â€¢ Barry Commoner, Washington University biologist

"Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction."
â€¢ New York Times editorial, the day after the first Earth Day

"Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years."
â€¢ Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

"By...[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s."
â€¢ Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

"It is already too late to avoid mass starvation."
â€¢ Denis Hayes, chief organizer for Earth Day

"Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions....By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine."
â€¢ Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University

"Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support...the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution...by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half...."
â€¢ Life Magazine, January 1970

"At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it's only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable."
â€¢ Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

"Air pollution...is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone."
â€¢ Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

"We are prospecting for the very last of our resources and using up the nonrenewable things many times faster than we are finding new ones."
â€¢ Martin Litton, Sierra Club director

"By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate...that there won't be any more crude oil. You'll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill 'er up, buddy,' and he'll say, `I am very sorry, there isn't any.'"
â€¢ Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

"Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct."
â€¢ Sen. Gaylord Nelson

"The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age."
â€¢ Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

There you have it..."the experts"

Neal Boortz Sayin It The Way It Is

2010-04-24T16:04:00.001+09:00

["...]since when was it written into law that your earnings must "contribute to society as a whole"? Can you imagine what would happen to our economic system if every financial transaction was judged - or perhaps regulated - on whether or not it contributed to society as a whole? You do realize that this "society as a whole" noise is collectivist nonsense, don't you? I engage in an economic tranction - or "function" as Obama calls it, to get something that I want, not to contribute to society. The person on the other side of the transaction is getting something he wants as well. It's a trade ... a trade negotiated and transacted between two free individuals. Society plays no role here. Society isn't putting up any of the money, society isn't taking any of the risk. So long as I'm not harming someone else ... just leave me the hell alone. When I want to contribute to society as a whole I'll send some money to the Red Cross.[...]

Remember, "society" is no one in particular and everyone but you -- something only a leftist could rally around.

On Anti-Americanism

2010-04-23T12:25:00.001+09:00

In school, the loud, lucky, spirited, and optimistic kid is typically hated by the stern, bitter, pessimistic kid.

Dictatorships can always be counted on to despise America. Those who sympathize with dictatorships and authoritarian views will always despise America...and stern, bitter, pessimistic people will typcially despise America.

Hardly a loss for America.

More from the Control Freak-in-Chief

2010-04-13T12:03:00.003+09:00

More new stuff from the Operant Conditioner-in-chief.

A very important read if you know history and have seen this all before (or if you like science fiction and distopian fiction...and have seen this all before).

2010-04-07T11:42:00.002+09:00

Sorry. Another hiatus. I'll be back eventually but right now I'm too overwhelmed with trivial real life stuff.

Have fun and, always enjoy the nonsense. Remember, socialism and it's values primarily exist for our entertainment!

It's Happening Again...

2010-03-30T11:14:00.002+09:00

Intellectuals and bureau-planners are having a difficult time imposing their usual schemes and follies (imposing conformity of thought and lifestyle). Free individuals acting in consort with like-minded others are resisting "the revolution" again. The yellow-stream media, academia, education, and "entertainment" are rallying the forces but....

Real revolutionaries don't sit down and shutup.

Compassion carved in stone

2010-03-21T12:37:00.002+09:00

The thing about the state is that, it's so difficult to determine which marble building facade' cares about you most.

note: as stated here many times before, once again, I'm not going to be posting for quite some time. Of course, I've said that before and may make an occasional note or post to what I think to be a noteworthy link but, for now...outta here.

Do have a look at some earlier postings. I haven't fully compiled all of my "Big Rants" -- topical essays -- yet (in the side bar), but over the years I've accumulated a lot of my personal complaint with the nonsense that perpetually eminates from intellectuals, journalists, academics, and other assorted scoundrels who think "their shit don't stink" and everyone but themsleves should be relegated to the status of servitude to collectivist visions of obedience. Freedom is not the "right" to enslave another, whether that other be a middle-class shopkeeper or a wealthy doctor. Freedom is the right to be left alone to choose one's own path. When that path is obstructed by idiots, clowns, or control freak demogogues, people who can see the writing on the wall need to act or at least be aware enough to resist perrenial attempts to impose conformity. May the bureaustate and its minions perish.

Just Don't Call Them Communists...

2010-03-05T12:12:00.004+09:00

...or communist sympathizers. It needs to be noted as a reminder to the more delusional out there; Communism is a ruthless, violent, one-party, coercive philosophy of government responsible for the enslavement and death of over 100,000,000 people in the last century alone.

Thomas Friedman of the New York Times recently had this to say:

"One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages. That one party can just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st century."

...another rich arrogant elitist and authoritarian sympathizing...asshole.

Does this clown really think that the style of government he praises would have any room for a wealthy "pundit" like himself.

Sooooo pathetic. Seems that film-making and journalism is in close competition as to who can be the most ridiculous.

Important, Insightful, Informative, and Scary...

2010-03-03T12:15:00.003+09:00

(I know I stated that I'd be away from computer-land activity for some time but I couldn't resist posting this link)

Mark Steyn is brilliant. I'm quite certain that most leftist/"progressives" must thoroughly hate him (I've noted more than once that there is one thing a leftist hates more than a capitalist, it's an articulate, intelligent spokesperson for the "working class" worldview).

Anyway, this piece by Steyn is very informative and ...scary.

Very Funny

2010-03-01T15:38:00.001+09:00

....Yep. Nailed it.

'Away from Computer/Blogging ventures for a month or so (maybe a bit longer)

2010-02-20T18:43:00.002+09:00

The world will continue to be facinating...and crazy.

...obey no one but your inner conscience.

President Reagan Was A Great Leader

2010-02-19T12:14:00.001+09:00

...Obama just plays one on TV.

"Greed" is:

2010-02-06T01:16:00.002+09:00

It was asked on a website recently what an appropriate definition of “greed” is. Typically the word is tossed around to mark anyone who has been successful or wealthy as being somehow evil and morally corrupt (as the word has now come to be associated with mere wealth).

So, I offer the following observation:

Greed is; when one's lust for material gain or power surpasses a point where their intentions, actions, and interactions are peaceful, honest, and responsible.

By this definition, the mere -- normal -- desire to succeed, excel, and acquire is not “greed” no matter how wealthy or accomplished one may be. And, of course, one can be “poor” and exhibit these very traits as well.

Most business people are not “greedy,” but most politicians surely are. In the end, the pathological and morally corrupt attributes defined above as greed are standard behavior amongst those who seek to impose their will through compulsion and thus increase their power and authority over the lives of others.

Repeal the First Amendment...

2010-01-28T12:43:00.004+09:00

...God, if this ain't classic! (Scroll to the "petition"Video)

Follow Up

2010-01-23T12:11:00.001+09:00

This beginning overview of socialist history -- by Glen Beck -- is EXCELLENT.

(The Real) Che Finally Goes Public...

2010-01-23T11:30:00.005+09:00

I haven't the time or desire to go into an extended commentary on Glen Beck. I'll fully acknowledge that he has a style that lacks the professional seriousness one wants to point to when backing a viewpoint. He's overly dramatic and sometimes a bit cliche' no doubt. For those on the left his biggest "crimes" are probably that he's both religious and patriotic (and those are big crimes to "progressives").

I've noted several times on this blog how disgusted I am that the worthless authoritarian idiot, Che Guevara, has become such an idol amongst the clueless. More than a few blogs and essays have gone over the issue well and further informed that relatively small niche of society that cares about such things,but..

Finally, some serious exposure to undercut that mass admiration that Hollywood and others have hoped to stir for Che Guevara. Beck has a massive audience. Even many on the left that so hate him acknowledge actually watching him and, of course, a lot of just simple folks who used to take no interest in political issues watch him too. So, love him or hate him -- or, don't care -- Glen Beck exposes some serious issues widely. And now, the Che that only a few conservative/libertarian types know of is in full view of a public that is increasingly finding that "progressive" icons and ideals are rotten to the core.

'A guy who barely ever bathed, shot a twelve year old in the head for "pilfering food," wanted Russia to initiate a first strike on New York with a nuclear weapon, hated rock and roll (because it was "bourgeoisie and imperialistic"), and who thought black people were lazy and inferior.

That's the Che "progressives" so love.

...'figures.

"When are you all going to wake up..."

2010-01-22T11:23:00.001+09:00

Scam, scam, scam..."

2010-01-20T21:28:00.001+09:00

While “early to bed” may offer health, wealth, and wisdom, “early to rise” is to be avoided at all costs.