Monday, January 31, 2005


Usual Suspects / Usual Nonsense

It appears that a professor from my alma mater has publicly voiced what every leftist member of the academy would like to say. University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill is actually confronting some opposition in regard to his questioning the innocence of victims killed on 9/11 in the World Trade Center towers. Churchill compared the victims of the terrorist act to Nazis, because they worked for "the mighty engine of profit.” What's really pathetic in this controversy is the lukewarm distancing from the issue that CU Interim Chancellor Phil Distefano expressed:

"I wish to make it clear that Professor Ward Churchill's views of the events of 9/11 are his own and do not represent the views of University of Colorado faculty, staff, students, administration or Regents. While I may [MAY!?] personally find his views offensive, I also must support his right as an American citizen to hold and express his views, no matter how repugnant, as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution."

Soooo full of it. Does this academic bureau-clown actually believe that he'd be taking the same "pro-First Amendment" stand if a professor had said something like, "Gays 'deserve' to die from AIDS?" The hypocrisies of political correctness are phony to the core, and here we have a striking example.

I personally think this worthless Marxist trash receptacle (Prof. Churchill) should be sent to live in one of his beloved "worker's paradises," preferably North Korea. Thank god the reign of socialist dominance over America's college campus's will soon be coming to a close thanks to a new generation of students that can see through such nonsense.


Iraqi's are finally getting to vote -- clearly, bad news to some left wing media outlets. The media research center notes the irony of those who will no doubt question the validity of the results when compared to their take on prior "elections."


The treatment of terrorists at America's Guantanamo facility in Cuba is always a favorite topic for the Left and their public relations apparatus in the international media. The evil and "far right" FOX NEWS channel (sarcasm intended) brings up a valid question (in an editorial piece). How does France deal with the "rights" of terrorists? Fair question -- interesting answer.


Some perspective can be gained when one realizes that the current excess in anti-Americanism isn't really all that new. In a book review of Barry and Judith Colp Rubin's book, "Hating America: A History," Richard B. Speed reveals some interesting facts regarding Europe’s long history of disdain for us low-life, uncultivated capitalist types. Even Der Fuhrer (Hitler) would have made a contemporary European proud:

"During the nineteenth century anti-Americanism was an intellectual orientation of both the conservative right which loathed the “masses,” and of the romantic left which simultaneously championed and feared the “dangerous classes.” With the Bolshevik Revolution anti-Americanism acquired a state sponsor. Hostility to capitalism merged with hostility to the United States in the torrent of propaganda sponsored by the Soviet Union throughout most of its history. Fascists on the right conflated anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism. Accordingly one Nazi propagandist commented, “Uncle Sam has been transformed into Uncle Shylock.” Hitler himself once asked a friend, “What is America, but millionaires, beauty queens, stupid records, and Hollywood?” Demonstrating that he had accepted Buffon’s degeneracy theory, Hitler told another friend, “Transfer [a German] to Miami and you make a degenerate out of him—in other words—an American."


Since my own first hand impressions of the "People's Republic of China" were rather negative, I was glad to see that others don't think so well of the entrenched socialist/"market" state either. By all means,"Boycott Beijing 2008 Olympics."


On a similar note, regarding the entire edifice of Communism, a long (about nine pages) but very well written and concise overview of Communism's ugly legacy can be found here. What's particularly good about this essay is that it notes the numerous cases of sympathy shown to the brutal system by Western intellectuals and media clowns. I found the following particularly amazing:

" In Webster’s New College Dictionary, for example, Hitler and Mussolini are described as “dictators” while Lenin, Stalin, Mao Zedong’s, and Pol Pot are simply called “leaders.” Fidel Castro is given special status as “Cuban revolutionary premier.”

In the same dictionary, communism is defined as “a social system marked by the common ownership of the means of production and common sharing of labor and products.” There is no reference to firing squads, famines, gulags, killing fields, censorship, the denial of basic human rights."

I had to see what the mundane dictionary at work said and indeed, Hitler and Mussolini were accurately described as dictators but, mysteriously, communism's tyrants were mere leaders or "premiers."

Take a look at your own dictionary and check it out, then ask yourselves, "What is wrong with this picture?"


A good critique of the "Global Warming" issue can be found here.

The left has created a sacred cow that's difficult to challenge (media coverage of this topic is really skewed). Every school kid "knows" the world is coming to an end and the only solution is to redistribute global wealth (from the United States to other countries). Most "facts" regarding "global warming" are completely bogus and most people have been hooked into the scam. The authoritarian bureau-clowns are milking this sacred cow for all they can.

" What I have outlined today won't appear in the New York Times. Instead you'll read much about "consensus" and Kyoto and hand wringing by its editorial writers that unrestricted carbon dioxide emissions from the United States are harming the planet. You'll read nothing, of course, about how Kyoto-like policies harm Americans, especially the poor and minorities, causing higher energy prices, reduced economic growth, and fewer jobs. After all, that is the real purpose behind Kyoto, as Margot Wallstrom, the EU's environment minister, said in a revealing moment of candor. To her, Kyoto is about "leveling the playing field" for businesses worldwide-in other words, we can't compete, so let's use a feel-good treaty, based on shoddy science, fear, and alarmism, and which will have no perceptible impact on the environment (Chart #6), to restrict America's economic growth and prosperity. Unfortunately for Ms. Wallstrom and Kyoto's staunchest advocates, America was wise to the scheme, and it has rejected Kyoto and similar policies convincingly. Whatever Kyoto is about-to some, such as French President Jacques Chirac, it's about forming "an authentic global governance"-it's the wrong policy and it won't work, as many participants in Buenos Aires grudgingly conceded."


I don't have time to "review" it, but I've just finished the audio version of John Stossel's, "Give Me a Break." Good book, an excellent well reasoned argument for the libertarian perspective. What I found particularly interesting was Stossel's comments regarding his being shunned by so many in his field after he came to realize that government itself was the ultimate cause of so many problems. Support for the free market doesn't get one many friends in the "News" industry. Those who have seen Stossel's television specials will recognize some of the interesting, funny, and bizarre circumstances he's confronted while exposing the absolutely ridiculous things done in the name of government "help" and social "fairness."


Fairly consistently you will notice that those who hate capitalism will hate the United States and those who hate the United States will hate capitalism...either way, the thing they hate most is a society of free individuals.


Sunday, January 30, 2005


Dichotomy classics – Addressing the Underlying Differences In The Worldviews Of The Right And Left

One can debate a variety of issues from opposite poles of the political spectrum. No matter how specific or complex an issue may be, the motivations for a worldview can be traced back to more fundamental beliefs. Many points of contention between the Right and the Left ultimately reflect more basic chasms in philosophical temperament. The subjective natures of such motivations make some values ultimately meaningless as issues for debate. It’s impossible to prove that what’s “fair” to me is fair in the general scheme of things.

Unfair Definitions Of “Fairness”

In appraising daily events among people, one need not even consider politics to hold impressions as to what is, “fair” or “unfair.” When such values are extrapolated into the political sphere they are often embellished with common cries like, “It’s not fair…!” or, “It wouldn’t be fair if…!”

Anyone who has ever made a work schedule (I used to manage restaurants) realizes the power they hold to reward, punish, or acknowledge an employee by the shifts and hours they assign to them. When such employees take issue with their scheduling fate they inevitably argue the “fairness” of satisfying their personal interest in the matter. “I have more seniority than…” “I should get the good shifts and best hours…” “Why does X have off Saturday, I’ve worked here longer?” Of course seniority is a worthy consideration between employees of similar ability and application, but should a hard working, responsible, or superior worker be given a worse schedule at the expense of a less effective or committed employee who “has seniority?” Is there even such a thing as a “superior” employee, who deserves superior consideration? Similar mundane predicaments arise daily everywhere. Such issues can be extrapolated into the most complex social/political circumstance. Some economic systems clearly reward intelligence or initiative or even tolerate “luck” more than others. Some actually reward or tolerate apathy, sloth, and failure. In my college Teacher Education School, one fellow student once protested that in her classroom all students will get “A’s” because they all have equal potential, and any shortcoming on the part of a student must be the teacher’s fault. (By saying this she was of course also suggesting that she was an “A” producing teacher in general). If everyone is “special” doesn’t that ultimately mean that no one is? (This insightful question was asked by a character in the recent movie, “The Incredibles”).

Is it fair when one sacrifices a dollar to buy a lottery ticket and wins two dollars…or thousands? Is it unfair when they “win” nothing and are a dollar poorer? Should one person be punished for winning or another rewarded for losing? Of course the typical left-minded political idealist would compel such people to “share” the win or the loss. If they didn’t “share” (relinquish) they’d be seen as “selfish” (e.g. “unfair”) and, in the ideal leftist system, probably publicly chastised and punished.

It’s ironic that some who see possession of wealth as unfair also see theft of wealth as…fair!

The entire socialist perspective is ultimately based on the idea of redistribution of wealth as a means of establishing “equality” and by default, “fairness.” To achieve such a “fair and equal” system always necessitates conformity and submission to an arbitrary authority (e.g. The state). Is being forced into such submission fair? Those of us on the right -- classical liberals -- don’t think so.

In the rarified realms of ideal philosophy and religion one can of course speak of everyone as being equal “in the end,” or equal “before the law” or “before God” etc. These ideal values hold little practical significance when genuine standards are applied in appraising the differences among us. In honest contexts, some people are "better" than others (though many people hate hearing that). Certainly some are more honest, thrifty, original, ambitious, or prone to take risks. None are “equal.” There isn’t a molecule in existence that is truly “equal” to another considering factors of time, location, or other contextual status. One can claim it to be unfair to lose a loved one to a natural disaster. Would it be fairer for it to be someone else?

Definitions of fairness always assume that one’s self or groups favored by one’s self should be on the receiving end of such fairness. Then there’s the argument that, “I want a system that is fair to everyone…so give me your money” (a paradox, indeed).

The same obsessions that some have regarding fairness toward individuals or groups are often applied to differences among nations as well.

In the United Nations, random members each get a turn leading its “Human Rights Commission.” This includes unelected dictatorships known for their serious lack of basic human rights – another bizarre manifestation of left-wing “fairness.”

It is often said that America’s wealth and success is unfair in a world where some nations are seen as unfairly poor. Zimbabwe is poor. North Korea is poor. Is this fair? I think it would be more honest and accurate to ask if it’s fair that the citizens of such countries live under authority that deprives them the freedom to pursue wealth and good fortune, but this is never much an issue of concern to those who sympathize with collectivism and the tyranny required to implement it. Robert Mugabe – in classic Marxist style – seized land from white farmers who he decided had owned it unfairly, and gave it to the blacks of Zimbabwe to farm. The result has been that the socialist definition of fairness has once again turned a “bread basket” into a region wrought with famine. Now some would claim that it’s not fair that some countries have so much food and Zimbabwe doesn’t. The socialist solution would no doubt be, to let them continue their stupid Marxist “agrarian reform” and give them food -- or seize it -- from the free market countries that produce surpluses.

In the left’s pathetically simple view; the US is wealthy, North Korea and Zimbabwe are poor, therefore citizens of the US should give their wealth to North Korea, – “We should all learn to share.” Usually the demand is made in a more roundabout way, “We need to do the things required to create a more just and equal order among nations.” How about supporting the concept of giving all citizens the freedom to create, buy, and sell freely, and allowing them to keep the wealth they obtain from such interactions? – Well, no, that’s not quite what they have in mind when calling for socialist "fairness."

One’s sympathy or support for capitalism or communism ultimately arises from the stance one takes in considering what is “fair” in a natural world that takes no sides. To classical liberals, communism -- the seizing of personal property, wealth, and values -- is unfair; to the left and its varieties of socialism, capitalism is unfair because free agents and actions will skew society considerably from a cherished “equality.” To them, it’s simply not fair that life isn’t fair (e.g. doesn’t give them automatic access to conditions as they want them to be).

Self-interest of course enters the picture when considering the motivations that draw one to a side of the political spectrum. First one must acknowledge the existence of self-interest in the first place. The Left prefers the word, “selfish” and thinks the concept is “socially constructed,” but that’s a whole other issue in the dichotomies that separate right from left.

Operating a large company for profit is no more an act of self-interest than imposing state authority over such an industry to placate one’s philosophical yearnings. Is it not an act of self-interest to want one’s own philosophy to be the standard upon which society operates?

Related to the issue of “what is fair” is the often-arbitrary appraisal of what one “deserves.” If someone works hard, is ambitious, makes sacrifices, bides their time, and achieves their goals, I would say they “deserve” the rewards of their actions – monetary or otherwise. To many on the left, however, a person’s mere possession of wealth is in itself cause to claim they “don’t deserve it” and it should be given to people who “deserve it more” (another one of the lefts’ more common and groundless assertions).

Those of us who value our individuality and have faith in our capacity to achieve our goals when unhindered will always see it as unfair when others seek to restrain our free thought and action or deprive us of what we seek or what we have gained. There will also be those who feel their own lower status can only be the result of victim hood at the hands of unfairness. One side of the issue will always favor individuality and freedom, the other, “equality” (of outcome) and coerced “redistribution.” Both sides will be arguing from a standpoint of self-interest. While a belief in self-interest and individual freedom certainly drives the philosophy of the right, the left is no less motivated by self-interest.

When the Right seeks to make the case for what it sees as fair to its own self-interest and values, it need only say, “Leave me alone.” The Left’s case is always stated as a variation on, “Give me your stuff” and, “Do what I tell you to do.” What could be a more unfair definition of fairness?

Sunday, January 23, 2005


Pop Hegemony And The Democratization Of Food, Entertainment, And Technology

If you ask a socialist (hard core or, “lite”) if they think it would have been better if the Soviet Socialist police state had won the cold War, they’ll pause. They may not answer you. If they do, they’ll qualify any reluctant support they may have for freedom with, “But…”

Many on the left are disappointed that the socialist “experiment” in Russia failed, that a free economy (e.g. capitalism) won its battle with collectivist tyranny. Such authoritarians make no secret of their disdain for Coke, McDonald’s, Starbucks, or Microsoft. One could speculate that, if they could, they’d close down a kid’s lemonade stand to honor their hatred for free commerce. Remember, their ultimate hatred is for self-striving and human nature itself. Hatred of a free-market is virtually indistinguishable from a hatred of freedom in general (as economist Milton Friedman so insightfully observed).

The left’s polemic crusade against capitalism and America of course defaults to a bitter hatred for globalization – seen by them as nothing more than ‘cultural imperialism.”

America does, indeed, play a dominant role in spreading the attributes of open society – a widening diversity and availability of products, services, ideas, and cultural / artistic expression.

Decrying the supposed horrors of, “cultural hegemony” and “McWorld,” is an attempt to conjure a fictional crisis that isn’t there. While screeching the standard socialist whine that bland uniformity is engulfing the world, quite the opposite is actually taking place. (Remember, such criticisms are coming from the same clowns who actually believe “diversity” is something fostered from the imposed edicts of government clerks).

Go to any major world-city today and you will find a surging dynamism unseen in human history. The lights, colors, shapes, and sounds being mere symbols of the underlying energy of human creativity unleashed; beautiful architecture, products, ideas, and aesthetics from around the world, low cost food, transportation, and entertainment. While some note the signs that say McDonald’s, they seem to miss the one’s that say Toshiba or Renault. While some see, The Gap, they miss the fact that everyone around them is wearing a variety of garb in a variety of styles from different times and places. Look around you – poor, rich, and middle class, all alive in a way unseen before our time. As you watch people walking about with cell phones, digital cameras, and I-pods, you may realize that those old comic book sci-fi images of an imaginary future have actually fully materialized, cars looking more like space ships, gliding on delicate ribbons of modern engineering design. Did this all come about from some unseen vibrancy in the plans of socialist bureaucrats? – Hardly. The US and the system which honors the creativity of free society has been the prime catalyst to this new world. If all this is “hegemony” then hegemony is hardly a just target for complaint.



One of the big news items last week was The President’s inauguration. While it would be an accurate observation to note the higher level of security, there was nothing particularly noteworthy about the ceremony itself. There’s usually plenty of festive events and pomp at these things (Clinton's inaugurations were hardly mere dinner parties). Bush’s big day was little different in style or substance except…he was George Bush, the dreaded spokesperson for freedom.

The ridiculous rants thrown at him regarding the cost or extravagance of the ceremony are put in perspective by Ann Coulter and The Washington Times’Joseph Curl.

As in inaugurations past, there were various communist, socialist, and "anarchist" (socialists who pretend to be opposed to government authority) forces out demanding that they and their ideals be put in charge (of course they never present the issue in such terms).

And, what of the President’s speech itself? (Which should be read in its entirety).

Only in our unique times, when the left-wing worldview has come to dominate the ideals of many citizens, could the concept of freedom be held up as an object of criticism and, in some cases, scorn. Of course, Bush mentioned “God” a few too many times for the tastes of some (people who perhaps haven’t read most of the important speeches of by US presidents through history). The sneering snobs of the Left’s intelligentsia no doubt were appalled by this speech and the values articulated in it.

Bush is, of course, known for being rather inept when putting word and phrase together. We can, however, recognize his approval and articulation of the words and noble ideals he expressed – can’t we?

Excerpts in many newspapers, and other news sources, have directed their attention – out of context, of course – to Bush’s reference to our mission being directed from “beyond the stars,” a statement bordering on the cheesy, and one of the more awkward parts of what is otherwise an excellent speech with a topic few should take issue with – the spread of human liberty. Like similar speeches made last year, the very issue of freedom has been met by many with mocking disdain. The other way to get a jab at Bush is to just claim, “he really doesn’t mean that stuff” (impressive argument).

Some excerpts:

“…This is not primarily the task of arms, though we will defend ourselves and our friends by force of arms when necessary. Freedom, by its nature, must be chosen, and defended by citizens, and sustained by the rule of law and the protection of minorities. And when the soul of a nation finally speaks, the institutions that arise may reflect customs and traditions very different from our own. America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling. Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom, and make their own way.
The great objective of ending tyranny is the concentrated work of generations. The difficulty of the task is no excuse for avoiding it. America's influence is not unlimited, but fortunately for the oppressed, America's influence is considerable, and we will use it confidently in freedom's cause.
My most solemn duty is to protect this nation and its people from further attacks and emerging threats. Some have unwisely chosen to test America's resolve, and have found it firm.
We will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and every nation: The moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right. America will not pretend that jailed dissidents prefer their chains, or that women welcome humiliation and servitude, or that any human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies…
…That edifice of character is built in families, supported by communities with standards, and sustained in our national life by the truths of Sinai, the Sermon on the Mount, the words of the Koran, and the varied faiths of our people. Americans move forward in every generation by reaffirming all that is good and true that came before ideals of justice and conduct that are the same yesterday, today, and forever…
…We go forward with complete confidence in the eventual triumph of freedom. Not because history runs on the wheels of inevitability; it is human choices that move events. Not because we consider ourselves a chosen nation; God moves and chooses as He wills. We have confidence because freedom is the permanent hope of mankind, the hunger in dark places, the longing of the soul. When our Founders declared a new order of the ages; when soldiers died in wave upon wave for a union based on liberty; when citizens marched in peaceful outrage under the banner ``Freedom Now'' they were acting on an ancient hope that is meant to be fulfilled. History has an ebb and flow of justice, but history also has a visible direction, set by liberty and the author of Liberty…”

Clearly there is plenty here to piss off a leftist.


Memory Lane; Throwing stones in glass houses
Where does a inept criminal like Ted Kennedy get off directing criticisms of any kind to anyone? The senior senator from Massachusetts once drove off a bridge while drunk. He left his secretary in the car to drown and didn’t report it till the next day – no jail time. This is the type of crime that Democrats call “issues regarding one’s personal sex life.” I beg to differ. If I were Ted, I’d be in a permanent state of shamed withdrawal from public life.


There are no media in Germany that could be even vaguely called “pro-American.” So, where does a Euro-Ubermensch get a fair and balanced exposure to issues (“both sides”)? Aside from the internet, nowhere. Examples of this nonsense can always be found at Davids Medienkritik.


More from the leftist academy
This should piss you off. Another example of leftist concern for issues of “injustice?”


Talk about media bias…
“After perusing the year-end (Dec. 27/Jan. 3) issue of Newsweek, I defy any editor there to deny this magazine is a mouthpiece for the political left. Their cover boy was Senator-Elect Barack Obama of Illinois, the "rising star," as the Democrats and so many admirers in the press have dubbed him.”
…“Start with the headlines. Obama’s profile was headlined "The Audacity of Hope." Santorum’s was "Mister Right." One represented hope, while the other typified firm ideology. While Obama would "help his party relocate its moral core," Santorum was "hard at work spreading the GOP gospel," and his "crusades" might make him a White House contender. The divergent themes were already obvious: Obama would bring moderation and yet "spirituality" to the Democrats, while Santorum threatened the GOP and the country with religiously fervent right-wing dogma.”…

The Plot Thickens... See you next week perhaps...

Monday, January 17, 2005


Tsunamis, Human Tragedy, And Political Grandstanding

No one could fail to acknowledge the scale of tragedy that Mother Nature left upon victims of the recent Tsunami in Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and elsewhere. Private citizens, governments, and corporations the world-over have donated money, equipment, supplies, and physical labor to assist in an obvious time of need.

To some, such a calamity is the perfect opportunity to scale up their attacks on capitalism, corporations, the United States, and free people in general who may not fork over the demanded quota determined by the would be planners of our world.

In other scenes of political grandstanding, Kofi Annan plus entourage, were on the scene to show the world that the UN is needed to officially report that the devastation was really bad. We couldn’t have gauged that on our own from televised news images. Obviously Annan and friends care more because they flew out to observe first hand – what courage! Call me cynical, but I’d guess that the cost of jet fuel alone used to fury UN PR bureaucrats -- and "public officials" from around the world -- to the scene could have bought a few extra bags of rice.

I don’t know how much aid various pundits, editors, and bureaucrats have personally contributed to the victims of the disaster but it’s clear that some are convinced that others haven’t given enough.

The critics of this latest non-scandal are the same people who tell us that, “We don’t give enough to help the victims of AIDS” but would never acknowledge more conventional human maladies like childhood birth defects (a worthy charity that isn’t funded anywhere near the vast sums devoted to victims of AIDS). Perhaps everyone has his or her own favorite disease or noble cause. To the left, their cause must be our cause.

The whine between the lines is always the same, “I’m socially conscious and compassionate and an overall superior human being, so overwhelmingly wise, noble, and ‘spiritual’ that no one comes close to me in overall goodness. The selfish cruel materialists must be forced to do as I say….‘for a better world’…” -- god, its enough to make ya sick.

The US, like most countries, responded to the Tsunami tragedy immediately, in funds and manpower, as did its private citizens, businesses, and school students. Ironically, within a couple of weeks America had its own natural calamities, as it does every year. I didn’t hear about massive amounts of funds or sympathy being directed to those victims. Of course America is rich, so individual families who lose their homes or loved ones can go to hell I guess – leftist "compassion."

It's been clear in the Tsunami disaster that America and its citizen’s response was as well meaning and helpful as anyone else’s if not more so. Of course the predictable response from the drones of contrived and compelled altruism was to get their calculators out and analyze figures of GDP, budget allotments, and comparative tax rates. Now,Americans seeking to defend their record of generosity have to drag out their calculators – a battle of numbers that ultimately means nothing. Why should anyone have to defend him or herself after contributing millions of dollars to a far off land? Isn’t the act in itself admirable and praiseworthy?

I think that Victor Davis Hanson has covered this entire issue best:

"China, flush with billions in trade surplus, first offers a few million to its immediate Asian neighbors before increasing its contributions in the wake of massive gifts from Japan and the United States. Peking’s gesture was what the usually harsh New York Times magnanimously called "slightly belated." In this weird sort of global high-stakes charity poker, no one asks why tiny Taiwan out-gives one billion mainlanders or why Japan proves about the most generous of all — worried the answer might suggest that postwar democratic republics, resurrected and nourished by the United States and now deeply entrenched in the Western liberal tradition of democracy, capitalism, and humanitarianism, are more civil societies than the Islamic theocracies, socialist republics, and authoritarian autocracies of the once-romanticized third world.

In the first days of the disaster, a Norwegian U.N. bureaucrat snidely implied that the United States was "stingy" even though private companies in the United States, well apart from American individuals, foundations, and the government, each year alone gives more aggregate foreign aid than does his entire tiny country. Apparently the crime against America is not that it gives too little to those who need it, but that it gives too little to those who wish to administer it all. When the terrible wave hit, Kofi Annan was escaping the conundrum of the Oil-for-Food scandal by skiing at Jackson Hole, so naturally George Bush down in 'ole Crawford Texas was the global media's obvious insensitive leader —'on vacation' as it were, while millions perished."

I don’t know about you, but if I were seeking “compassion” or genuine support for a noble cause, the last place I’d look is the “heart” of a political demagogue. They can certainly rally the firing squads, institute reeducation programs and squash individual initiative, but for genuine assistance in time of need, they’re useless, and they’re certainly not one to point fingers at the donors of millions.


Just a thought:
The latest mini-scandal in the British Royal Family brings a thought to mind. Prince Harry, as you likely know, went to a costume party dressed in Nazi regalia -- complete with swastika armband. Really bad judgment, know doubt. What an idiot. I wonder if the international media would have taken as much note if he had instead dressed as a concentration camp guard from Soviet Russia with a hammer and sickle on his shirt, or why not the, now chic, Che Guevara image that adorns so many t-shirts these days? What's a little PR for the forces of authoritarian bloodshed? I've said it before but it bears repeating; the swastika and hammer and sickle both symbolize the identical horror of statist philosophy gone nuts. Why so many make exception for the violent histories of some tyrannies is bizarre but predictable in the mass-delusions of Left-land.


The nonsense regarding social security is something that should get informed people really fuming. It was a scam from the start and yet there are still people who see it as some sacred institution that must be "saved." Any sober attempt to correct the flaws in it -- or discard it completely as should be done -- is met with the usual phony victim hood whine from the socialist clique'. The evil Bush is at it again, he wants to privatize a portion of social security! Wouldn't that be horrible if people then got to keep their own money and have it available to invest as they choose or leave to their loved one’s?

Neal Boortz covers the important concepts involved (scroll down to "Why aren't people more interested in this?")

Another, more concise but less witty overview of the issue can be found at


If you haven't noticed, most of the issues I address here are not just references to specific events but ultimately regard some very basic philosophical concepts. Do you believe in your own freedom to think, act, and progress as you choose or do you believe everyone should obey the bland drones of state (bureaucrats and politicians)? Yes, it is that simple. You don't like other's freedom? Start a commune where everyone can boss everyone else around while bragging of their "compassion"...and, leave the rest of us alone.

*next post around Jan. 24th

Monday, January 10, 2005


Post Holiday Revival And Promethean Flights Of Fancy

A thousand apologies for my extended holiday delinquency -- and delinquencies to come. I'm still somewhat buried in time-consuming post holiday chores, errands, and reveries but felt compelled to blurt out a brief posting in blogland.

As I had stated before the holiday, postings here will now be less frequent (weekly). I'll get a post up next week (by the 17th).

I'm way backlogged on general information gathering and have added to my already excessive stack of unread books, so reading will presently outweigh writing as a leisure folly.

There is much to comment on and link to but I'm whipping this up in hurried frenzy knowing that most readers probably realize that we are still fighting a pathetic Fascist religious ideology, there are still fellow citizens sympathizing with the enemies of open and free society, and the UN and Euro-land are still using daily world events as excuses to continue their tirades against the US and free-market capitalism. If I had more time, the issues I'd like to cover and the style I'd cover them in, would be like those found at Sometimes he's a little "blunt" but I think he states the Libertarian/Conservative/Classical Liberal position as well as anyone.

For now, before I dash off to personal pursuits, I'll leave you with my observations regarding Martin Scorsese's new film, “The Aviator."



I've just returned from a distant journey across the ocean. Like most people, I'm no one special. I’m definitely not rich. In prior eras I would have likely been dead by now, or crouched over in a field in service to some lord, king, or state “representative.” I certainly wouldn't be writing of varied topics to a distant audience. While traveling across the Pacific I took note, as I always do, of the miracle of modern existence for lowly plebs like myself. Common drones with no noteworthy occupation or income can! Watching a few movies and dining on hot food while in transit are mere icing on the technological / democratic cake. What was I doing at 38,000 feet and twelve hours between Japan and Colorado? I dare suggest that it was the much-maligned free market (Capitalism!) that not only catapulted me across the sea, but also afforded me a general lifestyle superior to that of kings in past eras.

Amidst my holiday frolic in Boulder, Colorado I coincidently saw Martin Scorsese's new film, "The Aviator," a grand testament to Promethean will, inventiveness -- and occasional insanity. Howard Hughes (whose story the film depicts) was the epitome of the Promethean vision. I don't know what Scorsese’s personal politics are (he's certainly no Oliver Stone type Hollywood communist), but I was thrilled to be watching a conversation -- rare in a Hollywood movie -- where the sympathetic main character insightfully critiques the phony hypocrisies of socialism. Another grand scene of Promethean polemic in the film is where Howard Hughes is being grilled before a congressional committee. How many times have brilliant, principled and productive, souls been attacked by the useless swine of the state's bureaucracy?

I don't mean to elaborate this writing into a review of the movie. Suffice it to say that I highly recommend "The Aviator" as both historical epic and psychological drama.

To break the bonds of conforming smug pretension, and even gravity itself, requires the productive and truly revolutionary insight that one will never find amongst the stale adherents of socialist dogma and inertia.

The condition of an average person flying across an ocean for the holidays is not something that comes about by the “efforts” of government agencies or rants on the virtues of, "sharing."

The Promethean vision, like flying, is a symbol of revolutionary progress -- something "revolutionaries" and "progressives" can never even begin to fathom.


Back to a more substantial posting routine next week...

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?