More Hypocrisy from the Phony Left

Why is it that so many from the "progressive" crowd express their (just) outrage at the human rights crimes of Augusto Pinochet (the former military dictator of Chile), but see absolutely nothing wrong with the greater numbers killed, tortured, and imprisoned by Fidel Castro and his radical socialist regime? To the contrary, Castro is virtually worshiped by such people as a symbol of fulfilling the socialist dream (there are a host of journalists, intellectuals, and Hollywood pseudo-thinkers whose quotes attest to this).

The typical "progressive's" world view has nothing to do with justice, opposition to human rights abuse, or opposition to war. The only thing they are truly consistent on is their opposition to the capitalist free-market system and the success of individuals acting unconstrained by a heavy-handed apparatus of state. Their attempts to depict themselves as somehow being "champions" of human rights and justice is the most transparent aspect of their phony nature as con-artists of self-delusion and authoritarian sympathy.

Kwanzaa; Another Reason for White Intellectuals to be Thankful this Holiday Season

I remember the big deal that was made in public schools over Kwanzaa during the holiday season (when I was in the public school system). I always found it to be a bit patronizing and phony that so much was being made of a holiday, supposedly for black Americans to celebrate, when the typical classroom in Boulder, Colorado was 99.9% white. A further annoyance was that I knew a little about Kwanzaa's origins -- the invention of a 60's radical who is now a -- surprise -- college professor.

Many people may hate Ann Coulter as they seek to depict her as a mere vessel of "hate speech" but people who actually read her know she always comes to the plate with plenty of facts.

Ann Coulter's latest column provides plenty to amuse and inform one regarding the holiday period's toast to left-wing contrivance and phony posturing.

...by the way, one of Kwanzaa's fest days is, "The day of corn." Corn isn't indigenous to Africa, it's from the America's.

The left is sooo hoo hoo full of it.

The "Bi-partisan" Choice to Surrender in Iraq -- A Harsher View

Nothing has changed. Saddam Hussein is still the guy who defied innumerable UN resolutions. In spite of the continuing "Bush Lied" myth, virtually everyone on both sides of the political divide believed Hussein still had WMD's, (and there are numerous, seldom shown, videos of them saying it) and he made no attempt to prove that he no longer had them. He was given several ultimatums over a year's time (by several nations and the U.N. -- of all places) and refused to cooperate beyond caravan rides for the Hans Blix mobile. He was a ruthless, cruel dictator and was a continuing threat to The U.S., Britain, and several countries in his "neighborhood," not to mention his own citizens, through direct malice or potential. The suggestion that he somehow had changed his ways and was becoming docile, unthreatening, and a peaceful "leader" is absurd – and this is the image that many seek to conjure when they imply that he was no longer a threat. One could have scoured great expanses of Germany before World War II and "found no weapons." Reading Mein Kampf would have ultimately afforded greater insight into the West's predicament at the time. Some common sense regarding human behavior and the nature of dictatorship would have also gone a long way in preventing later casualties in the millions. In the contemporary Iraq circumstance, the likelihood that such weapons were hauled away to Syria is certainly not an issue that the Main-stream Media has critically pursued – though, "Bush Lied" has certainly got its share of press exposure.

The fact that several equally authoritarian, cruel, and ruthless factions are hoping to seize power in Iraq now does not in any way imply that the civilized democratic world's only and best option is to surrender, back down, or cooperate with them. Our strategy should be to intensify intelligence gathering where possible, increase our resolve, increase our overt attack, and loosen the rules we've foolishly been constraining ourselves to during our over-arching goal of eliminating terror associated groups and individuals. I might add that none of this involves the "need for more troops."

Some of the more active clerics and terror scum in Iraq who have been deliberately seeking to subvert any attempts to establish a modern free society should have been eliminated (killed) immediately. Guess what? It's a war. Do the dirty stuff and apologize to wine-sipping New York journalists later – or just leave, surrender. A ruthless approach in our confrontation with totalitarian fascists should have been our strategy from the beginning, but the fourth estate has, from day-one, sought to subvert any attempt at quick and decisive completion of the mission. One of the most serious flaws in the administration's strategy was being too concerned about world opinion and allowing the media to influence the course of a military operation under the mantra, "world opinion." Now the latest whine of concern is that the U.S. after 9/11 abducted known terrorist figures in Europe and took them to other countries for interrogation. Our response to such things should be, "So!" It sounds too simplistic to the sophisticated crowds of journal-land who seldom get more than an ink stain on their sponge-soft souls, but a free country must either engage an enemy or surrender. There's no such thing as a moderate half-war.

Iraq and the Islamic terror network in general, is not a skirmish on a battle field with another country's soldiers. It's a confrontation with assorted groups of Islamo-fascists who pose a serious risk to their fellow citizens as well as citizens of our own country. Their resolve on the issues is quite clear – they're not going to quit or "compromise," short of the imposition of Islamic law (Taliban style) under their own totalitarian rule. Our strategy should be what Donald Rumsfeld answered long ago when asked what our ultimate goal was in Afghanistan. It should be, "To kill the enemy" -- period. Cocktail party appraisals that such views "make us just as bad as them" are total – typical – leftwing philosophy-chat ungrounded in reality.

We are technologically, politically, and morally better than our enemies and at least worthy of defending our civilization from Medieval thugs. In spite of our moral strengths we are increasingly depicted as the weak, pathetic culture Bin Laden described us as (mostly thanks to some U.S. coastal elites and Euro Neo-Comms). This "lets be nice, scared, and 'cooperative' " is hardly a "strategy." If spoiled government paid parasites and a pampered elite of opinion makers can't see the obvious or acknowledge it, they should convert to Islam now and move to the authoritarian regime of their choice (join the "Jihad" in earnest instead of standing by the sidelines pretending not to be cheerleaders for anyone who opposes our open, advanced, free, and – dare I say – "progressive" societies).

Democrats and many Republicans are hardly all that "bi-partisan" when making stupid appraisals and decisions. Being "against war" in the middle of a war is a conclusion any fool can reach who knows little of history or cares little about the rare circumstance of living in a dynamic, prosperous, and open society.

Defeat the enemy; in Iraq, in the Philippines, in Thailand, in Iran, in Afghanistan, and the suburbs of Paris etc. The enemy is fundamentalist, Islamic Fascism. Their facilitators are the usual motley crowd of intellectuals, artistes, and bureaucrats whose only allegiance is to their own grossly inflated egos. This perennial ideology (totalitarian) and those who support and spread it through terror are the enemies in a global war. Defeat them -- with unapologetic force -- period. That doesn't "make us just like them," it makes us as objective as other more sober generations when they also confronted clear and obvious evils.

Hatred for Free Society -- The Usual Suspects

Isn't it odd that one finds so many in free society (journalists, academics, and artists et al.) who direct their scorn to the very institution of liberty and its fruits (diverse creativity and prosperity) while one never finds those in bondage critical of freedom?

Power

There are two kinds of power; Power that is earned when a product or service is exchanged through mutual consent. This is ultimately an exchange of power but if one or a few people exchange with many, the one or few can accumulate great power (yes, "money is power"). The other method of gaining power is by seizing it or having it bestowed (bestowed power is ultimately seized in one way or another – i.e. taxes – and given to the lackeys of choice). If any exchange takes place at all in power by fiat, it is on the terms of one side and does not necessarily involve consent (more often than not, it doesn't). Of course, one or a few can seize power and gain control over many, not because the many have chosen to engage in a transaction but because they have fallen prey to trickery, force, or oppression.

To be envious or resentful of another's power is common in human nature but one would hope others would discern the difference between power fairly attained through joint transaction and that gained through ruthless and deliberate force – the power attained and bestowed by the political class.

Power attained though mutual private transaction is natural, just, efficient, and good. Power by state decree and political coercion is a great evil used to impose the will of tyrants upon the "self-evident" natural liberty of individuals.

Dichotomies of Right, Left and All Things Between

When you get down to symbolic basics, the differences between leftists and conservatives are that some conservatives believe other people should be outlawed from using drugs, viewing pornography, or making light of their country's flag. Many leftists, on the other hand, believe others should be outlawed from eating Big Macs, viewing Fox News, and making money beyond subsistence.

Okay, differences of opinion…but; what about the folks who want to smoke pot, view someone else's idea of porn, laugh at a flag, eat big Macs, watch Fox News, and make plenty of cash to indulge themselves in all of the above and beyond?

The ultimate enemies of sound political philosophy and truly moral governance are those who wish to legislate and circumscribe other's lifestyles and choices.

Lawyers and politicians are the true "ruling class" and the ultimate enemies of diversity, freedom, and political morality. The blessings of individual freedom are beyond any political spectrum – or at least occupy a rare portion of the middle that is less concerned with the affairs of others and how they might be controlled.

Conflict, Projection, and Hypocricy in the Head of a Leftist

I've never liked the word "liberal" to describe leftists. The word has different definitions depending on what country you're from or what time in history the observer is in. I also don't like using it to describe Leftism because it just sounds too soft -- it sounds "reasonable," adaptable, and tolerant (attributes one will seldom find in a leftist).

Anyway, Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr, MD uses the word liberal in his new book on "The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness." Of course, the left has attempted in the past to use psychology to state its claim that a desire for limited, decentralized government is somehow characteristic of an "authoritarian personality" (talk about projection).

Aside from using a different label for leftwing control freaks, I couldn't agree more with Rossiter's very insightful appraisals of the way leftists ("liberals") think:

What the liberal mind is passionate about is a world filled with pity, sorrow, neediness, misfortune, poverty, suspicion, mistrust, anger, exploitation, discrimination, victimization, alienation and injustice. Those who occupy this world are “workers,” “minorities,” “the little guy,” “women,” and the “unemployed.” They are poor, weak, sick, wronged, cheated, oppressed, disenfranchised, exploited and victimized. They bear no responsibility for their problems. None of their agonies are attributable to faults or failings of their own: not to poor choices, bad habits, faulty judgment, wishful thinking, lack of ambition, low frustration tolerance, mental illness or defects in character. None of the victims’ plight is caused by failure to plan for the future or learn from experience. Instead, the “root causes” of all this pain lie in faulty social conditions: poverty, disease, war, ignorance, unemployment, racial prejudice, ethnic and gender discrimination, modern technology, capitalism, globalization and imperialism. In the radical liberal mind, this suffering is inflicted on the innocent by various predators and persecutors: “Big Business,” “Big Corporations,” “greedy capitalists,” U.S. Imperialists,” “the oppressors,” “the rich,” “the wealthy,” “the powerful” and “the selfish.”

The liberal cure for this endless malaise is a very large authoritarian government that regulates and manages society through a cradle to grave agenda of redistributive caretaking. It is a government everywhere doing everything for everyone. The liberal motto is “In Government We Trust.” To rescue the people from their troubled lives, the agenda recommends denial of personal responsibility, encourages self-pity and other-pity, fosters government dependency, promotes sexual indulgence, rationalizes violence, excuses financial obligation, justifies theft, ignores rudeness, prescribes complaining and blaming, denigrates marriage and the family, legalizes all abortion, defies religious and social tradition, declares inequality unjust, and rebels against the duties of citizenship. Through multiple entitlements to unearned goods, services and social status, the liberal politician promises to ensure everyone’s material welfare, provide for everyone’s healthcare, protect everyone’s self-esteem, correct everyone’s social and political disadvantage, educate every citizen, and eliminate all class distinctions. With liberal intellectuals sharing the glory, the liberal politician is the hero in this melodrama. He takes credit for providing his constituents with whatever they want or need even though he has not produced by his own effort any of the goods, services or status transferred to them but has instead taken them from others by force.


...Yep! That about covers it I think.

Six Years and Beyond – Venezuela's Cliché Road to Self-destruction

Although the very biased Associated Press paints the recent election victory in Venezuela in rather positive terms, most of what has come out of that country since Hugo Chavez has taken power has been quite negative for most in the long term.

I was unable to find in link to a recent (December 03) article on Associated Press's web site but my printed copy has the following ridiculous statement; "…giving the firebrand leftist six more years to redistribute Venezuela's vast oil wealth to the poor and press his campaign to counter U.S. influence in Latin America and beyond…" One can be certain that George Bush will never receive the same lack of skepticism given to dictators and tyrants.

It's rather well known even among Chavez's supporters that the poor have not benefited at all from his "revolution." Poverty, like crime, has increased outside of some Potemkin photo shoots and token rhetoric of support for, "the poor." Chavez's stolen oil money has been pumped into keeping the Cuban gulag afloat while building up the Venezuelan military for his hoped for confrontation with the "great imperialist aggressor" up north.

How clueless do talking heads and Chomskyite papered elitists need to be before they can see the writing on the wall?

Chavez is an ego-maniac with a firmly stated friendship with some of the most undemocratic governments in the world, Iran and North Korea standing out among them. He's fully supportive of Islamo-fascism, Communism, and any other ism that will gratify his own self-image as a heroic enemy of free and successful capitalist society.

Chavez has clearly been handed the baton of the "Socialist Revolution [T.M.]" that has inevitably always led to bloodbaths, political prisons, and "equally distributed" poverty.

Oil will of course float this latest incarnation of Robespierre, Stalin, and Mao…for awhile, and some people will remain impressed with the "compassion" of a demagogue who tosses stolen crumbs to "the poor." (At this point he's only begun the usual course of events that inevitably play out in the name of "socialist revolution," the comparisons to Stalin et al. is an exaggeration for the time being but the affinities in plan and purpose will no doubt play themselves out in time).

The U.S. has officially begun to make some bland and bureaucratic statements about concerns regarding "instability in the region" – clearly the American State Department is as clueless as an unemployed peasant looking for freebies. The U.S. will, of course, have to respond eventually with something more than rhetoric, and when it does it will be accused by a world press of being a "bully" for trying to keep a Latin Armageddon from occurring or an American city and its population from disappearing (it's quite clear by now that Chavez is an all too willing facilitator in assisting the cause of Islamo-fascist terrorism).

For now, Chavez is happy with solidifying his friendship with assorted fellow dictators (yes, I know, dictators can get and maintain power through the electoral process) and buying up supplies of small arms, some jets, and helicopters. I'm fairly certain it won't be long before we'll be hearing of a Venezuelan "need" for a nuclear program and a sale by Iran of long range missiles (to "defend" against "an American invasion"). The world's "anti-war" left will, of course, be thrilled at such news and any sober American response will be seen as "war-mongering." Get a clue folks. "Socialist Revolution [T.M.]" has never been so cliché.

Venezuela's best and brightest (yes, that often means wealthiest) will be soon scurrying away to safer havens as the "Revolution [T.M.]" begins to eat itself and Chavez continues his hyperbolic paranoid rants regarding assassination plots and U.S. imperialism. This is about the time where the "Revolution" decides to pass laws making it illegal to leave the country – remember; to the left, not loving Big Brother is an act of betrayal against "The People [T.M.]".

The face of dogmatism and dictatorship should be clear to anyone with even the scantest notions of history and human psychology, but we live a time when nothing is clear to most.

…"The best lack all conviction and the worst are full of passionate intensity…"

"Losing the Enlightenment"

From Victor Davis Hanson:

"...We can praise the architect for our necessary bridge, but demonize the franchise that sold fast and safe food to the harried workers who built it. We hear about a necessary hearing aid, but despise the art of the glossy advertisement that gives the information to purchase it. And we think the soldier funny in his desert camouflage and Kevlar, a loser who drew poorly in the American lottery and so ended up in Iraq--our most privileged never acknowledging that such men with guns are the only bulwark between us and the present day forces of the Dark Ages with their Kalashnikovs and suicide belts..."

Terminology, and Pushing the Party Line in Media-land

The conflict in Iraq (most of it taking place within a hundred miles of Baghdad) will now be referred to as the Iraqi "civil war" by NBC News. Of course, terrorists will still be referred to as insurgents, gunmen, or "those opposing the occupation."

Ya gotta love these arrogant socialist snobs so dedicated to returning the Iraqi people to dictatorship and enhancing the position of the fascist ideology that opposes us.

If the talking -- but not thinking -- heads of journal-land have chosen to call Iraq a "civil war" maybe it's time we refer to them as what they truly are; dishonest partisan mouthpieces for America's enemies and pampered control freaks who seek the failure, demise, and destruction of their own fellow citizens.

Thomas Sowell and Theodore Dalrymple; Right Again...

"...Having overwhelming military force on your side, and letting your enemies know that you have the guts to use it, is being genuinely anti-war. Chamberlain's appeasement brought on World War II and Reagan's military buildup ended the Cold War..."

An excellent essay. No nonsense insight from a genuine scholar.

And; equally insightful, Theodore Dalrymple offers this great quote in a recent essay:

"...the European Union is the creation of bureaucrats, by bureaucrats, for bureaucrats..."

"Fascists" Who Believe In Individual Self-Government

It's may be accurate to say that the left despises libertarians more than conservatives.

With conservatives, the left can at least try to "argue" that their opponents are "Nazis" and "Fascists." Regardless of how contrary to fact such accusations are, there are some strains of conservatism that are very religious, "flag-waving," or hyper-traditional, so caricatures can be falsely extrapolated to extremes in such cases.

It's considerably more difficult to claim one's opponents are "Nazis" or "Fascists" when the opponent's essential premise is that government should be limited considerably and that individual freedom is the hallmark of a decent and successful society.

Leftists can pretend that conservatives are Fascists but with libertarians they can't even muster a lie effectively. Add to this the fact that leftists actually do favor considerable government "intervention" (control and coercion), and they lose their case immediately.

A socialist of any stripe is more kindred in spirit to fascism and Nazism than anyone even moderately libertarian in outlook. Add to this the fact that many conservatives (those who aren't religious, flag-waving, or hyper-traditional) are rather libertarian, and the leftist finds him or herself looking in that ugly mirror again where their own desire to feed authority to an all-powerful state is seen in everyone who opposes their own excessive statist sympathies.

Stupid Decisions Earn Quick Results

With groups like Rock the Vote and other assorted institutions (like the neighborhood public school or university), many young people were convinced to vote for Democrats in the recent elections. Okay; good and bad reasons may abound for such a decision, but there are always repercussions for any decision and, increasingly, a political decision can have serious consequences to one's private affairs, particularly in view of the increased authority of government beyond its constitutional mandate.

Enter, a typical Democrat wet dream…bring back the military draft – classic.

The same Democrats who say we should pull out of Iraq completely – or at least "set a timetable for 'redeployment' " – are now saying we need to reinstitute the military draft to provide more troops in Iraq. Give me a break…

Get a clue folks. The left is not "revolutionary," the left is not about increasing civil rights and personal liberties. There's nothing a leftist loves or wants more than government authority, even if it means forcing unwilling citizens to sacrifice a few years of their life to the state – all part of that "community" euphemism they so often use to justify the their alterations to America's constitution.

Are you young? Did you vote for Democrats in the last election? Great! Now deal with the repercussions.

Only the "anti-war" left would take so brilliant a stand – priceless.

"Torture" and Surrender – options in "The Cycle of Violence"

Some clownish socialist legal clique in Germany has determined – not the first time – that Donald Rumsfeld is "guilty of crimes against humanity." Then again, so were Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt I suppose (considering they were not being nice to a good guy like Adolph Hitler and the stupid willing drones who supported him).

The idiots who regularly come up with nonsense like this are the people who think that sleep deprivation, long periods of standing, cold temperatures, "humiliation," and scaring one into THINKING they're drowning ("waterboarding") are torture, but think Saddam having people's tongues cut off or eyes gauged out, or terrorist cutting people's heads off are "more preferable" and simply expressions of "frustration at having been oppressed" (no international socialist organizations calling for war crime trials against Bin-Laden or Al Zawahiri, etc -- why is that do you suppose?).

I recently read of a journalist who allowed the "waterboarding" "torture" to be applied to him to demonstrate the technique and response for the network's audience (I think it was the Fox News Network). Regardless of how much discomfort or fear this "torture" produced I think the nature of "torture" will be clearer when journalists allow themselves to be put into shredding machines, to be tossed off of four story buildings, or submit to beheading -- it appears that no journalists seem ready to demonstrate real torture yet.

I think a few people keep forgetting that "Secretary of Defense" – unlike other departments of government -- requires a military orientation. That's why the department of State and the Department of Wildlife Management don't direct armies in battle. I suppose choosing a florist to head the Department of Defense would be a nice flourish for the more squeamish and less historically conscious among us but a Secretary of Defense in a time of war actually directs…the military [!] One can debate the issue of "war crimes" and philosophically argue that all acts of violence against another are "crimes" but, let's get real here. We're in a war with a very brutal enemy who follows no rules of any kind – other than the Koran (which tells them that, in war -- Jihad -- one can do virtually anything to impose "the faith").

If the average leftist would put their glass of wine down long enough to become sober and see that there is an enemy who has breached the gate, they may realize that a certain serious and undiplomatic act of retaliation needs to be applied to those who harbor the Islamo-fascist ideology. If information on future attacks is gleaned as well then, definitely, start applying the pressure. The phrase "cycle of violence" means nothing. World War II was a "cycle of violence" that democratic civilization won. Ironically, if this "cycle of violence" results in our defeat, the wine sipping pampered elitists from leftland will be among the first to go – and it won't mean an air-conditioned room with a Koran and three meals a day.

(From Germany of all places…don't make me laugh).

The Unnatural Contrivance of "Equality"

In the grand scheme of things, nature and natural processes are self-regulating. This does not mean that all land is equally flat or mountainous, that all animals are fast, slow, wild, or docile, or that mountains should be leveled and fast animals slowed down.

Inequality (an obsession to some) is a natural condition and will always exist in the realms of economic status, beauty, stamina, and even -- dare I note -- luck.

Where most of us hope for "justice" as a context for all, to expect, demand, or legislate, "equality" as a constant end or outcome is absurd and destructive to the flow of all events in the big picture.

Call it "The Tao," the natural order, or simply, the way things are; "justice" is not served by imposed dreams of enforced stasis, and contrived notions of equality are no cause for the donning of halos by those who merely think the world should be frozen into their own boring vision of imagined goodness.

Swinging Pendulums…and, America Joins the E.U.

Before anyone falls for the mainstream news hype and thinks that what happened in the recent election was some groundbreaking, revolutionary, historical turn of events, they should read Charles Krauthammer's recent interesting and insightful observations regarding past elections.

Like most Libertarians and Conservatives, I'm not thrilled about characters like Nancy Pelosi holding considerable legislative power that will ultimately further constrain the private lives of individuals and punish the actions of society's most productive forces. I doubt if it will benefit the country much that every word and action of the President will now be scrutinized with costly hearings or attempts to impeach. Of course, in this "making nice" warm-up period everyone in the new power center is saying that no such legislative animosity is on the agenda. Anyone who believes that, after years of non-stop hate Bush hyper-mania is seriously deluded about the nature of Leftism.

Beyond my disgust over the inevitable agenda of Democrats, I have to say that my response to the election results is ultimately, "oh well." I can't really get all that excited about the issue. I agree with Neal Boortz who, on several occasions, said the Republican Party got what it deserved. Indeed, they have not been a party of limited, decentralized government – at all. But now the voters have empowered an alternative; a European socialist model of mega bureau-social schemes that seeks to punish success and achievement and reward an endless list of conjured "victims" -- and that's just their domestic program.

To be sure, the power of congressional committees that will now be headed by the left is unsettling to those of us who favor limited government, respect property rights, and admire individual initiative, but let's face it; the country is beyond the point of return on these issues. Too many people "love big brother," or at least get enough in government checks that it keeps them from complaining about a little thing like loss of liberty.

We should be able to guess the result of a Democrat empowered foreign policy by whom, overseas, expressed pleasure in the party's success – communists, socialists, and terrorist organization "spokespersons." Basically anyone who hates the U.S. and would like to see it weakened, harmed or eliminated was happy to see Democrats gain political power – no surprises there. This doesn't mean that Democrats are terrorists or communist, but they come suspiciously close in their acceptance and sympathies toward some of the most unsavory political systems, and they certainly haven't been noted to take strong stands or call for the use of strong measures against any of America's sworn enemies. That's right; Islamo-fascist and communist dictatorships are our enemies. They're not "people with a different view who we can talk to, compromise with, trust, and join with in peace."

My ultimate hope – and it's a real possibility – is that the radical neo-Comm wing of the new Democrat party will wear out their welcome rather quickly. Bill O' Reilly is right when he speaks of a conflict between "San Francisco values" and common citizen's values. A few too many honest proclamations from Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, or Al Gore and the Democrats will be toast in the next election.

If this election had gone the other way we'd see massive street protests no doubt contesting the election's results, complete with cries of how it was "stolen." Screams of "Nazism" would be heard and placards of Bush with a Hitler mustache would be seen in rallies everywhere. It's to conservatives' credit that, when they lose, no such nonsense occurs. There'll be plenty of whining on blogsites and talk-radio but for the most part, when conservatives (or, in this case the often not so conservative, Republicans) lose, they typically accept that they slipped up and continue to address the individual issue that have always been there anyway. It's not as if the government before this election was modeled on libertarianism – or even the constitution for that matter. The American government has been a top-heavy monolith of growing socialist encroachment upon individual liberty for quite some time now under both dominant political parties. The only difference between the parties that really counts now is their attitudes toward foreign enemies and the clear and present war we are in, not just with Islamo-fascism but its many friends in authoritarian governments and socialist dictatorship wannabes (i.e. Hugo Chavez) across the world.

For all intents and purposes, America has now symbolically joined the E.U. which is why Euro-leftist's have publicly praised the election's results (just as many of them have praised Yasir Afafat and Fidel Castro).

The course of action now should be for libertarians to keep telling Bureaucrats, Democrats, and Republicans to mind their own business. Republicans themselves should get their act in gear and get back to some serious philosophical roots that favor limited decentralized government. They may also want to address some serious issues in the wings, like illegal immigration.

The left in general should just keep on doing what they've always done; hate the U.S. for it's free enterprise system while sucking as much blood from said system as they can – remember, they are superior human beings – kind of like a master race. Now we have an even greater opportunity to obey their philosophy of…obedience to the state.

We've been able to hear the left's acerbic rhetoric from the media, entertainment, and academia for some time now. The new (i.e. Soros, Moore, Dean) Democrats are now going to have an opportunity to put some of their "ideas" into action. In the end, the same public that just gave them power is likely to be very disappointed in what they've done.

…oh well.

The New and Bizarre World of the Anti-patriot

I've addressed the issue of patriotism before. It's a somewhat dicey issue for a libertarian to confront, considerably less so for a conservative. This writer is a little of both (depending on the issue) and I think even a libertarian can see the flaws of an anti-patriot view that is so at odds with the preservation and support of a country which is essentially free and diverse. Of course being free means one can believe and express whatever one wishes. Just the same, those of us who differ with the views of the anti-patriot can express our disdain for them and their offensive values as well.

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

For all practical purposes, American leftists have generally become anti-patriots (they've always been more inclined to that stance but now it has become a predictable standard among them).

All the emotional passions seen in degrees of patriotism can be seen in patriotism's opposite. Just as a patriot may love his or her country, a typical leftist now feels compelled to despise his or her country with the same emotional charge (so long as that country does not honor the political demands of Leftism against a free market in products and ideas). All PR lip-service aside, just as a patriot will speak or act passionately in a country's defense, a leftist -- anti-patriot -- will deliberately act fervently against the interests of their home country. Biting the hand that feeds them would be an understatement. They would openly acquiesce in the destruction of that which has provided them their very platform of free expression.

The anti-patriot is definitely not "oppressed." More often than not the left's spokespersons are beyond a condition of mere material comfort. They are often well to do, have been educated, have traveled and indulged in all the luxuries and pastimes of the "materialistic" lifestyle they claim to hate and would seek to deprive others of. They are often actors, musicians, artists, writers, journalists, and college professors – hardly among the deprived, or "victims" of a free and open system of expression and commercial exchange.

How would one respond to an individual if they were to be so ungrateful and malicious toward his or her own family? Disdain for such types should be expected from anyone who sees through such transparent weaknesses in human character.

In America, the left's espoused purpose is no longer simply "creating a better world" through attacks on free enterprise (that was pretty much just a scam anyway). Their main motivation has now become the desire to destroy the very institution of America itself and punish its people for not bowing down to the elitist's unanswered demands for total power. They sympathize with and support ruthless authoritarian tyranny and now also a radical religion whose main strategy is deliberate violence against civilians (including the numerous groups the left has always claimed to champion). They will let their families, friends, and nation perish so that a clear and present enemy triumphs, often facilitating an enemy's goals to those ends.

They critique a thousand perceived sins amongst their fellow countrymen and women while fancying themselves saints of superior judgment and moral standing. They are patriotism in reverse, reliability in retreat, degeneracy, decline, and the opposite of all that is courageous and upstanding amongst fellow citizens.

They possess all the fervor of a patriot, but are a patriot's very opposite. While they typically raise their fists in rage they are more than suited to hang their heads in shame.

Shame on the anti-patriots and the weakness of character that motivates them.

A Sublime Quotation by an "Evil Capitalist"

I don't agree with all the sentiments and ideals expressed in the following quotation but find it an example of superb writing none the less

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

“I believe in the supreme worth of the individual and in his right to
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I believe that every right
implies a responsibility, every opportunity, an obligation; every
possession a duty."

"I believe that the law was made for man and not man for the law; that
government is the servant of the people and not their master."

"I believe in the dignity of labor, whether with head or hand; that the
world owes no man a living but it owes every man an opportunity to
make a living."

"I believe that thrift is essential to well-ordered living and that
economy is a prime request of a sound financial structure, whether in
government, business or personal affairs."

"I believe in the sacredness of a promise, that a man's word should be
as good as his bond; that character-not wealth or power or position-
is of supreme worth."

"I believe that the rendering of useful service is the common duty of
mankind and that only in the purifying fire of sacrifice is the dross
(waste matter) of selfishness consumed and the greatness of the human
soul set free."

"I believe in an all-wise-and all-loving God, named by whatever name, and
that the individuals highest fulfillment, greatest happiness, and
widest usefulness are to be found in living in harmony with His will."

"I believe that love is the greatest thing in the world; that it alone
can overcome hate; that right can and will triumph over might.”

-- John D. Rockefeller, Jr., quotation inscribed at Rockefeller Center in New York City.

Vote As If The Nation's Security Depended Upon It

Don't vote for the Republicans…vote against the Democrats.

Vote!...and keep Nancy Pelosi away from that gavel

The midterm elections are less than a month away and the media and their opinion polls are telling us that the Republicans are about to have their power wrested from them by America's new party of socialist statism (the neo-Comm. Democrat Party). Some say it would serve their right. Even many conservatives are disappointed, to say the least, in the Republican Party. Libertarians – many who opposed the action in Iraq – are equally dissatisfied with a party that has historically been more free market than their redistribute the wealth collectivist opposition. In some ways I'd have to agree with many of these points of concern. The Republican Party has hardly lived up to prior values espoused. Many in the Republican Party can still talk the talk (the Reagan / Goldwater legacy) but definitely can't walk the walk.

Republicans, including their party's head – the current president – have spent recklessly, are hardly a party of small decentralized government, and they seem to care little that a massive portion of the country is actively being overtaken by illegal immigrants whose contributions are little in comparison to their demand for "rights" they are clearly not entitled to as illegals. (This issue has nothing to do with legal immigrants who have always, ultimately, contributed to America's progress).

The Republicans, as a party (there are rare exceptions within the party of course), are indeed due to be tossed out of office. A couple of decades ago this would have meant a few years of a more "liberal" public policy. 'Definitely not the case this time. The Democrats have been heisted by a dominant wing of socialist fanatics. They are now the party of George Soros, Michael Moore, Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Maxine Waters, et al. Some of the Democrats' most prominent figureheads are 9/11 conspiracy theorists and admirers of Fidel Castro (hardly -- John F. -- "Kennedy Democrats"). It is not completely fanciful to say that they want America to lose in Iraq if not the general confrontation with Islamo-fascism itself. To many of these socialists, America is a bad country, its citizens undeserving of the prosperity they themselves have produced and ripe for reigning in by a bureaucratic authority that impels allegiance to "the common good" (their favorite meaningless euphemism of late).

Be assured, a Republican victory in the coming election would mean virtually nothing in the way of change or rolling back the authority of centralized intrusive government. But, be equally assured that the Democrats gaining control would be a new era of Euro-style socialism and anti-free market dogma made into law, with accompanying lower levels of prosperity and individual freedom, not to mention prostrating the country before the forces of Islamic terrorism and states run by ideologies of radical authoritarianism.

The national security issue is a problem that shouldn't be taken lightly. For all their clownishness, there is no question that the Republican Party has a clearer view of how to confront an axis of evil (firstly, by acknowledging that there is indeed such a thing). We – the civilized world as a whole – are at war again with a totalitarian mindset. Islamo-fascism and its allies in various strains of radical socialism are determined to bring down the American "hegemon" that has sought to spread the concept of open, free, constitutional society. Hugo Chavez (and assorted Latin American friends), North Korea, Iran, and Al Queda (to name a few) are clear and vocal about their desire to finish off the fortunate historical circumstance of a society that is both free and powerful. The rabble of fascist / socialist sentiment has active facilitators in media, "education," and entertainment, and in one of America's prominent political parties – the Democrats.

Anyone with genuine libertarian views regarding the values of diverse open society and freedom will not look favorably upon the Republican Party, but the other choice is definitely far worse; appeasement with dictators, active pursuit of a more intrusive bureaucratic monolith, and war against the values of individualism and free commerce.

The mainstream media will continue to paint a dire image of the Republicans' chances of retaining power in congress and to hype insignificant "scandals" like the Foley e-mails to pages comedy (a similar "scandal" by Democrats would be spun as an issue of "persecuting" a gay congressman). Of late, a clear scandal involving Harry Reid's financial transactions has been all but swept under the rug by the mainstream media.

The media's response to a potentially looming switch in power between parties is the opposite of what they had done when it was the Republicans who stood to unseat a 40 year long Democrat majority congress. It was then that the media concocted the idea of the "angry white male" voter. In the current instance, a supposedly insightful public rebels against corrupt Republican legislators, in the mid 90's it was the public itself that was depicted as flawed, choosing to end Democrat power merely (supposedly) because passionate voters were "angry," "white," and "male."

Current opinion polls may not be entirely accurate (the same polls constantly saw a serious challenge from John Kerry in the last presidential election). The media is actively facilitating the cause of the Democrat party (as it always has) in the hopes of at least discouraging Republican voters from bothering to vote.

A Democrat victory would ensure that congressional committees would be headed by some very left wing fools and idealistic control freaks. The majority leader of the House of Representatives would be Nancy Pelosi ("rhymes with witch") – a millionaire socialist (not a new concept). It's no secret that one of the first lines of business in a Democrat dominated legislature would be to clog the apparatus of government with a frivolous attempt to impeach George Bush, Vice President Cheney, and of course to remove the left's much hated secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld. These critics are the very people who also earlier uttered the same words of concern regarding Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction as the Bush administration did. They voted to hold the Hussein regime accountable to numerous U.N. resolutions, and twice voted to not remove forces from Iraq! These are the same people who call interception of suspected terrorist communications, "spying on Americans" and daily show greater concern for the terrorists of Guantanamo Bay than the citizens of America.

However one may view George Bush, the constructed reputation he's been given by intellectuals, media snobs, and elitists socialists in education and entertainment is hardly an accurate appraisal of the guy who clearly acknowledges who our enemies are and how they must be confronted.

The economy is doing very well, though one would never know it from press accounts. The war with fundamentalist fascist Islam is being fought with at least awareness that they're the enemy.

If you want higher taxes, punitive laws against the production of new, cheaper, and more efficient products, and active appeasement and sympathy for totalitarian ideologies, by all means vote for Democrats, they'll definitely give you all that and then some.

If you realize at this important juncture in history that you must support the "lesser of two evils," then hold your breath and vote for the Republican candidates, at least then you'll be demonstrating a resistance to an elite clique of social planners who already dominate too much of our society and our lives – leftland's "philosophers, "aritistes," and academics who seek to once more build a new world, with them in charge, all a far cry from the more banal and infinitely less harmful epitaph, "pro-business."

Helping The Poor By Complaining About Others Who Won't "Help The Poor"

It's the nature of Robin Hood that he never robs himself.

Expressing "outrage" regarding the circumstance of the poor is quite easy. Demanding that others continually pay for the poor (or be punished for not being poor themselves) is equally easy to do.

Finding a leftist who actually directs their own energy, time, and money to help anyone is rare – finding one who's genuine efforts match their dogmatic demands on others; nearly nonexistent.

Why Europe Will Lose The War With Islamo-fascism

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 totalitarianism.

The North Korean Punk…with the big chip on its shoulder

The threats continue. As the U.S. keeps insisting it has no plans to invade North Korea (a statement that I'm gonna say has appeared pretty realistic over the last fifty years or so), the mere threat of more sanctions has been enough to elicit further threats of war to both the U.S. and Japan, with hints of attack against their pathetically naïve "brothers" to the south (many younger people in South Korea actually believe the U.S. is their greatest enemy – score another point for public "education" and left wing news media). If the North Korean "socialist experiment" (one of many dismal failures) is so grand why is it in constant need of subsidies from everyone else? Sanctions should mean nothing to a country that is successful and "has a superior system."

I realize that North Korea is the an embodiment of the left wing world view manifest to it's most maximum state of lunacy, but in more mundane terms, it's soooo typical – they've destroyed any possibility of producing an effective economy (i.e. they've outlawed capitalism – human nature) and, like their friends in Cuba, they're now destitute and poverty stricken and their only response can be; "give us money! Give us food! Give us stuff! Do what we demand, NOW, or we'll threaten war!" It's kind of difficult to argue the relativists' positions when one side is so overwhelmingly juvenile and aggressive yet, the international clown parade of leftist fog dwellers continues to pound out the view that the U.S. is equally, or more, at fault for things as they now stand. Any aggressive statement or action by North Korea is portrayed as just another example of how the United States or its current president have offended its "dear" absolute dictator.

So, just how long are we going to have to play along with this kind of nonsense? The North Koreans have, or are actively refining their capacity to produce, a devastating weapon, and the milquetoast-left can only whine about the need to talk more. Will such fools ever get a clue?

China and Russia, though in the end coming around to a sober stance, were initially against the use of effective sanctions against their totalitarian pal. Sympathy to a ruthless dictator to be expected from two countries both worthy of sanctions themselves. Anyone with decent capacity to appraise the character of North Korea and its "leader" could see the risk posed to any country in proximity to their weapons. As history shows again and again, Communists have a great capacity to turn on each other with more passion than that directed against their capitalist targets of venom.

I personally think the capitalist world should pull the plug on any assistance of any kind to countries who have declared war upon free open society. If you hate the free market than wallow in your own socialist excrement as North Korea and Cuba have been doing since their "revolutions." This should be done on a micro scale as well as there are plenty of entertainers, journalists, and academics living well off the capitalist gland while they continually seek to undermine the very source of their power and wealth.

As with the Islamo-fascist regime in Iran, the civilized world now has to deal with institutions and ideologies that will potentially devastate populations in the hundreds of thousands if not millions, and for what? The glorious success of imposing ruthless one-party police states – and perhaps getting rid of all those pesky Starbucks franchises.

At the same time we have clowns like Ted Turner uttering their usual nonsense about their struggle to decide which side they're gonna be on in the issues of the day – Islamo-fascism and the "Dear Leader" or prosperous multi-value free society. 'Hard choice to make indeed.

Regarding North Korea, remember, it's all Bush's fault. He called them part of an axis of evil, when they're obviously not?

Socialism sucks. Radical Socialism; beyond words.

What's it gonna take for some to see the writing on the wall?

Periods, Composers, and Recommended Pieces of Classical Music:

I don't suppose there's any law that says I have to only write about political and cultural issues on this site. In any event, I'm too busy to deal with the usual blog rant. I'm just posting here what I have on my Promethean Visions site -- a list of recommended classical music tunes that I had recently sent to a friend.

The following is definitely not an exhaustive list of excellent music. The pieces listed are just a quick overview of works I have personally found quite satisfying. I could easily add many more and have probably forgotten a few that are better than some of those listed.

note: some of the more obscure composers (i.e. Stenhammar, Berwald etc.) can be found on the Naxos label -- a recording company that has recorded some excellent music that was difficult to find in earlier days.

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


Baroque :

Bach – Concerto for two keyboards in C minor (harpsichord or piano versions both sound good even though there were no pianos when Bach wrote the piece). The best recording I know of this piece can be found on the soundtrack to Stanley Kubrick's aesthetically pristine film; "Barry Lyndon" (the other music on the soundtrack is good also, particularly a piano trio by Schubert).

Bach – Cantata # 21. Only the one directed by Karl Richter – Deutsche Gramophone Archive label -- is worthy, in my opinion. Other recordings, in the interest of sounding authentic to the time the piece was written, lack the drive of Richter's interpretation.

Bach -- Magnificat (again, I think that Karl Richter conducting is best)

Classical:

Franz Berwald – All four of his Symphonies (wrote in the Romanic Period, but in the Classical style). This guy is grossly underrated! Because he continued to write in the Classical style, he was no doubt seen as not being "innovative" and had been less appreciated for the beauty and form of his compositions then his works actually merit.

Beethoven – His grandiose works are well known and definitely masterpieces of Romantic profundity but Symphony # 8 is a gem of absolute perfection -- a rather "retro" piece in the style of his teacher, Haydn.

Romantic:

Brahms -- A German Requiem.

Wagner – The overtures to, Die Meistersinger, Tannhauser, and Parsifal

Anton Bruckner – Symphonies # 4 – 6 – 8 – 9. Symphonies number five and seven have some rather majestic moments as well. These are very difficult pieces that require several listening but are absolutely awesome once you "get" them. Bruckner will probably always be an acquired taste.

Nationalist:

Sibelius – Violin Concerto, and Symphony # 5 (the finale is superb).

Stenhammar – Symphony # 2. Way underrated! This is a first class masterpiece of technical and aesthetic brilliance.

Glazunov – Symphony # 2 and virtually all of his other works. His many suites are akin to small symphonies in beauty and perfection. It should be noted that he was Shostakovich's teacher.

Modern:

Stravinsky – The Firebird and The Rite of Spring (of course).

Vaughn Williams – Symphony # 5

William Walton – Symphony # 1 (the introduction is among the most spectacular in the symphonic literature).

Ravel – Piano concerto in G (especially note the nostalgic melancholy beauty of the middle movement).

Hindemith – Symphony in E-flat.

Shostakovich – Symphonies # 4 – 5 – 7 – and 11 (the finale to the 7th is magnificent). The 4th is extremely modern, abstract, and difficult, and it wasn't performed till decades after it was written because communist governments will lock you away for writing music they don't like - it wasn't accessible to "the people" (typical of what we know of "political correctness" – i.e. leftwing political extremism).

Copeland – Symphony # 3.

Howard Hanson – Symphony # 3 (A beautiful work of neo-Romanticism).

Gorecki – Symphony # 3 can easily be listed as among the most beautiful pieces of music ever written (in my opinion). His other two symphonies are completely different and aren't very impressive. His Keyboard concerto is quite interesting.

Sakamoto – Almost all this guy's film score music is fabulous particularly the themes written for the film, "The Last Emperor." -- best to find a compilation of his music.

Ligeti – "Atmospheres" and "Requiem" (both can be found on the soundtrack to the film, "2001: A Space Odyssey"). Don't be fooled into initially thinking these pieces are just gimmicks with ambient sound. They have all the structural integrity of a Beethoven symphony and are brilliant in using washes of Harmony rather than traditional melodic lines. The flux between harmony and dissonance in these works is fascinating.

John Corigliano – Symphony # 1. On first hearing, don't be deceived into thinking this is just noise – it's actually a beautiful masterpiece skillfully structured and awash in complex harmonies. Also, the film score to, "The Red Violin" by this same composer is a quite beautiful (and accompanies a movie of equal beauty and drama).

Minimalism :

Phillip Glass – Film Scores to, "Koyannisquatsi" and "The Fog of War."

Steve Reich – The Four Sections and Music for large ensemble. Hypnotic minimalism that's never mechanical (as some may think of minimalism in general). Repetition in these pieces is a mere illusion, as they both grow in an organic way akin to fractal patterns in nature.

Birds of a Feather Losing the Battle of Ideas

Others have certainly made note of the following but it bears repeating:

Have you noticed that the "talking points" of Al Zawahiri, Bin Laden, Castro, Hugo Chavez, and Kim Jong Il et al. regarding George Bush, and America in general, are virtually identical to those of the Democratic Party leadership and garden variety leftists throughout the world?

Mere Coincidence? I think not.

It should be further noted that such "perspectives" involving America specifically were certainly afloat long before the current Iraq conflict, 9/11, or even the fall of the Berlin Wall. The left and its new friend in fervent authoritarian Islam consistently oppose the values of individual freedom for their more favored glories of an omnipotent state. To the left, the spread of democratic free society is "Hitler" and any style of authoritarian government is preferable to one where George Bush merely finishes out his term or another Starbucks franchise opens its doors.

The good news – to people like me at least – is that by focusing virtually all of their passions and excess against a simple guy from Texas, "progressives" will be completely without a platform when Bush is gone in two years. A dumb move on their part to be sure but they never really had a valid point to make in the first place. While a President's program of pre-emption or civil conflict in a middle-eastern country may be a worthy topic of debate it hardly merits the venom that our latest batch of Jacobins has been able to muster.

Again, when your talking points sound more like those of an Islamic Fascist terrorist or Communist dictators don't be surprised when you crash and burn in the public forum of ideas. In the grand scheme of things, the much awaited resurgence of the Democratic Party may turn out to be somewhat disappointing. They're neither the party of "the little guy" (George Soros and Michael Moore?) or a party of sane debate directed in America's interests. They may score points with Kofi Annan and a few authoritarian kings of sound-bite, but they turned the little guy off long ago.

Still Immersed in Mundane Distraction

Post holiday errands, chores, and confusion have still left me in non-blogging mode.

I'll likely be away from postings for at least another week. Please check out the links to my "Big Rants" or the other site links I've recommended -- or just continue random web surfing and find the sites and expressions that elevate you to higher understanding or pull you down into the depths of chaos and despair.

...I have to get some brief comment in regarding "current events;" Wasn't that nonsense at the U.N. last week pathetic? A budding communist apprentice dictator trying to sell fellow authoritarian anti-Americans on the glories of Noam Chomsky.

-- Classic

...'Will be away from blog-land for about a week.

For homework. Find something absurd in the daily news (very easy to do) and laugh yourself silly.

-- Promethean Dude

The Socialists' "Vision"

The road to "utopia" is, and always has been, paved with blood.

"I'm not violent and coercive, and if you say I am…I'll cut your head off!"

Isn't it kind of weird that when someone – like the Pope recently – "offends" the religion of nonsense, violence, and coercion (by noting their nonsense, violence, and coercion), the response "across the globe" from Muslims is to deny their nonsense, violence, and coercion…and then act nonsensical, violent, and coercive?

One can complain about medieval witch burnings and present day red-necked country preachers all they want but, for a downright pathetic and dangerous ideology; nothing seems to beat the fools of Islamo-fascist Jihad.

A religion with Islam's record is "offended?" Give me a break.

Word Crimes; Another Fanciful Illusion From Leftland

I'm not the Governor of California so unlike Arnold Schwarzenegger I'm not going to apologize for confirming what he said. As a matter of personal preference, indeed, Cubans and Puerto-Ricans are "very hot."

"Political Correctness" is definitely one of the lamest expressions of the left-wing worldview. It exemplifies its overall phony, insincere, and contrived nature and is just another manifestation of the leftist's need to control all aspects of life down to the very language used in casual conversation.

Anyone who has attended an American School or college has certainly been amused by this trite and pathetic expression of political grandstanding.

The world and humanity is full of diversity, and honest people see and acknowledge the differences that ultimately "spice up" the human condition. If we were to have the "equality" and "proper speech" that left-land would demand of us, we'd all be goose-stepping in blind obedience to the banal insincerities of the shallow demagogue's mind.

For once I'd love to see a politician NOT apologize for expressing the kind of things that are thought and said everyday by normal average people.

The Path to Unsolved Mysteries

I realize its been some time now but, given the controversy over abc's mini-series, "The Path to 9/11," I'm still curious as to why we haven't heard reasons, excuses, or even attempted fabrications as to why high-level Clinton administration official Sandy Berger had walked off with classified documents from the National Archives before testifying at the 9/11 commission (and later claiming he "lost them").

Surely Dan Rather could have found some "official" word processed documents to explain it all to us.

The Politics of Stupid

Free, open, adaptable, and diverse; Western society has produced the most dynamic, prosperous, and advanced conditions of any time or place in human history.

It is realistic and proper to ask how we might help others join in this progress…but, it's stupid to merely ask how we might "redistribute" the products of successful choices and behavior. It's stupider still to demand that those who have produced such bounty be punished for their achievement so that we may all be equally destitute.

Stupid Pet Tricks...and Recruiting Techniques

By now most have read of the American idiot actively involved in Al Queda's new hopes of actually "converting" Americans to Islam -- the religion of piec-es.

Apparently, for some people, simply wearing a Che Guevara T-shirt isn't enough to demonstrate loyalty to authoritarian collectivist ideology. They need that little extra something that a fourteen century old slave-trading warrior "religion" offers.

"We'll cut your head off, fly planes into your buildings, kill random friends, neighbors, and loved ones. Hell, we'll even 'sacrifice' our own followers [!]…, but we really think you may want to convert to our religion."

"We'll send you a brochure, or you can watch a beheading on one of our web sites. Is the little woman acting a bit disrespectful? Perhaps a good stoning is in order. That gay guy singing a few too many show tunes? Clearly, a death sentence is the way to go."

…Backwardness, savagery, force, and violence are something we've become used to from this brigade of maniacs, but now with these latest videos, we must add the trait of simple stupidity.

And bourgeois leftists with trust funds think our worst nightmare is a family of devout Christians going to church every week.

The clown show continues.

Econ -- and human nature -- 101

I wonder why capitalist countries are rich and why ones that become capitalist become rich?

I wonder why socialist countries are relatively (or blatantly) poor or why ones that become socialist become poor?

I wonder why things like telephones, airplanes, I-pods, and DVD's weren't invented in Soviet Russia, Cuba, or North Korea?

…duh…

The "Hitler" Who Would Oppose Hitler...

"...As veterans, you have seen this kind of enemy before. They are successors to fascists, to Nazis, to communists and other totalitarians of the 20th century. And history shows what the outcome will be. This war will be difficult, this war will be long, and this war will end in the defeat of the terrorists and totalitarians and a victory for the cause of freedom and liberty,..."

Maybe I'm missing something, but this typical statement by President Bush (made recently at the American Legion national convention) just doesn't sound like Hitler to me. As a matter of fact, I'm going to guess that had Bush been president in 1939 he would have opposed Hitler just as he's opposing Islamo-fascism now -- while many intellectuals and "artists" would remind us of totalitarianism's "good points" and our own moral shortcomings (indeed, that actually happend in the 1930's, as it is happening now).

Some things never change.

Peas in a Pod

"…We have the same political vision and will resist together the American imperialist aggressor…"

-- Hugo Chavez, speaking in Syria

Indeed, Syria's national socialist Baath Party and its Islamo-fascist "religion" does essentially hold the same vision as that of Chavez and his Castroite socialist worldview.

Whether Islamic or "regular," Fascism and Communism are two peas in a pod for the glory of an all-powerful state, submission of the individual to cults of personality, and employment venues for men of ruthless ambition and cruelty.

-- Styles of tyranny that only some intellectuals and artists could love.

Symbolic CBS

Hardly big or important news, but the new CBS anchor, Katie Couric, was apparently "touched up" a bit in photos to offer a leaner image.

A harmless and rather trite exercise in the new journalism but more than symbolic regarding the way the mainstream media depicts "facts," and clearly symbolic of what we can expect more of from an institution that's at least as dishonest as the political class.

It might be added that the New York liberal princess is on par with Dan Rather in her beliefs -- and desire to embed them in her reporting.

"Mainstream" media journalists - all the nonsense of academia but with higher pay.

Just Listen To What They Say

Just listen to (or read, as the case may be) what they say.

Listen to what Lenin said.
Listen to what Stalin said.
Listen to what Mussolini said.
Listen to what Hitler said.
Listen to what Castro has said.
Listen to what Pol Pot said.
Listen to what Kim Jong Il has said.
Listen to what Bin Laden has said.
Listen to what Hugo Chavez says.
Listen to what Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says.

Listen to what many American college professors, media pundits, and "artists" and performers say regularly.

Are you paying attention?

Just listen to what they say. Assume they really mean it.

...Any questions?

"Mr." -- Not President -- Bush

Okay, maybe I'm nit-picking but when I was younger it seemed that the current president, as well as past living presidents, were referred to as, "President _____."

I can't claim to have conducted a scientific analysis of the issue, but it seems to me that, "Mr. Bush" has become a rather common title for our current President from some media sources (this linked -- and very biased -- Washington Times article is actually by Ian James of Associated Press. As an aside, I should note that characters like Hugo Chavez -- a subject in the linked article -- are often described as, "left-leaning," though that's not the case in this particular article. While some Republicans are often referred to as "extreme" or "far right" wing, the major news agencies haven't yet figured out that Chavez is a full-blown communist like his idol, Fidel Castro. Maybe he's just, communist "leaning").

Back to my original point regarding skewed titles for our current president, I think it would be quite typical of contemporary journalists in "main-stream" media land to deliberately seek to diminish the stature and authority of the current commander and chief with some linguistic acrobatics. I could be wrong, but I really don't remember references to "Mr. Carter" when he was the acting President. I often see references to, "Mr. Bush."

A Google search for "Mr. Bush" -- the current President -- finds 9,460,000 entries. A search for "Mr. (former president) Clinton" finds only 975,000 entries with the title "Mr." and millions (twice as many as Bush) with the title "president."

What's up with that?

'Media clowns just doing what they do best; lying, distorting, and concocting news to promote the view of the pampered spoiled brat brigade.

...I dare say; so typical.

(p.s. I realize that living former presidents are properly referred to by their executive title or at least "former president _____.")

Real-time Dangers

"What do ya get for pretending the danger's not real?"

-- From "Sheep" in Pink Floyd's album, "Animals."

...an appropriate question to those who find the thoughts, plans, and actions of Islamic National Socialists to be harmless or non-existent.

A Cup Half Empty of the Obvious

It's become the standard party line in the repertoire of "news" writers everywhere; many journalists from the New York Times, Reuters, Associated Press, Spiegel, or Le Monde etc. hold an obsessive fascination for focusing personal political resentments upon micro problems in U.S. society – or any other Western democracy of choice. Any writers so disposed can surely find areas of poverty, suffering or injustice in daily life as easily as one can find "collateral damage" in the middle of a war. Oddly, for some, it's still impossible however to see the great strides and successes that are the hallmark of contemporary free society, or the balance sheet that repeatedly proves that a free dynamic society is a cup more than half full. Of course, while all the bad stuff in the human condition continues to be highlighted in Journalism's Left-land; normal daily life goes on with less drama and greater comfort. Pointing out normal days at school, average days at work, and bourgeois indulgence in modern creature comforts just doesn't promote "the cause" as well as reports on crisis or misfortune. So it is now that the faux-rebel with the coolest collection of pirated music and leisure time in coffee shops can whine the most about the "injustice and oppression" of our current historical circumstance.

It all eventually comes down to perceptions I suppose. For some the cup is half full and for others it's half empty – regardless of how full their bank account or CD collection may be. Some just see the worst and demand the adoption of their imposed "solutions" (always a more enhanced and centralized state and greater regulation of individual lives). This same cast of characters has showed up throughout history as Nazis, Fascists, Religious fanatics, and lukewarm pseudo-socialists who hate capitalism, while daily savoring every manifestation of it that they can lay their hands on (don't remind them that those pirated tunes and movies in their materialist collection weren't produced by a state ministry of fun and games).

While the Chomsky types (this would effectively describe most intellectual leftists) intuitively guess at the motivation and plots of media conglomerate's wealthy owners, these same "geniuses" manage to completely miss or overlook the obvious left-wing sympathies of kindred spirit editorial staffs and journalist's daily preachings (often reported as objective "news").

While the type of deluded bohemian I write of makes much of the "high literacy rate" in their favorite gulag – Cuba – the point is somehow missed on them that a literacy rate is of little value in a society that highly restricts what can be read, or even accessed, in modern media channels. But hey, their hearts – and prison stockades – are in the right place.

To the left of our time (actually, nothing has changed, this has always been the case with them) the continuing advance and achievement of free society is a cup half empty and will always be seen as such (until they and their philosophies can turn the clock back to -- the stone age -- when we were all supposedly "equal").

With all their attempts to appear logical, wise, and peaceful, they fail to hide their half cup of bitterness and rage. They're mad and, I dare say -- to use one of their phrases -- "full of hate." While some hold signs calling for an end to war (always, only certain wars and certain sides) their other hands are typically raised into a fist; a more than revealing symbol of socialists' sentiment and character everywhere.

These are the people and the mindset that now justifies, distorts, or sympathizes with the actions of Muslim national socialists just as they had once before for Stalin's and Mao's communist gulags -- the pampered class of spoiled, overeducated and under worked depressives; angry at their parents, angry at their failure and lack of significance in a world bustling with dynamism and progress, and angry at a cup who's contents they seem to never truly see. Their cup is full of the bitterness and poison of "philosopher kings" who will never hold court.

Their cup is half full of nonsense, and the other half, empty.

Hollywood Fantasies...

'Still no time to play effectively in blog-land but wanted to comment briefly on, "The Manchurian Candidate," which I just viewed (although it has been available on DVD for some time now)...

What a crock of nonsense!

Amazing how the original film's villains -- authoritarian communist dictators -- have morphed into contemporary Hollywood's idea of who we should really fear most. Although a few scenes showed the evil capitalists smoking cigars in secret boardrooms, they missed the fashion detail of stovepipe hats and twirling mustaches.

We're currently in a real war with a National Socialist Islamic "philosophy" and all Hollywood can keep regurgitating is some mythical capitalist shadow monster that wants some kind of amorphous world domination.

The typical Jacobin swine is at least partially aware when they see business persons as being "in it for the money," but this almost Sci-Fi image of big corporations wishing to enslave us seems to miss the point that there really are other groups of people who would like to do just that (while eliminating capitalism in the process). They also miss the point that capitalism is what has brought humanity out of slavery to both natural elements and autocrats. (And, as a "materialist" dare I say, we get lot of cool toys to play with as well).

Like,...I soooo fear Starbucks, and McD's. To tell the truth, I really don't care that Halliburton type companies are examples of the many big corporations in the world that seek greater and greater profit either. Sell a product, people pay you, get rich -- so f___ing what?

Meanwhile, the spawn of Mohammad continue to plan a world of burka clad slaves, dead homosexuals, and obedient cave dwelling societies...with the usual sympathy and aid of Leftist control freaks with foil firmly wrapped around their mock rebel heads.

-- Pathetic.

Time Out...

'Certainly much to comment upon but currently overwhelmed in mundane chores.

More to come sometime in the next few weeks or so...

Be free and do as you choose. If you want to be "a part of" grand utopian schemes and efforts in noble coercion, do that too -- but learn to leave others alone and realize that not everyone has the time or clouded perceptions that lead to a desire to control others.

Just a thought...

Castro and The Coming Death of Tyranny in Cuba

I've linked to this essay before. I had written it some time ago but always relished the fact that the time would eventually come when its relevance would be more poignant.

As stated in the essay, a host of socialist authoritarian scum across the globe will garishly morn the passing of their favorite dictator. Even though he had turned Cuba into an economic basket case, enslaved his fellow citizens to the prison of Marxist authoritarian anti-paradise, some just can't shake their love for the idea of forcing the socialist "ideal" down innocent people's throats.

Of course we now have a virtual clone in Venezuela. I know the U.S. has adopted some politically correct decorum since the end of the cold war but couldn't we do just one more hit job down south and get rid of the new Marxist ego-maniac on the block? Chavez's list of friends is enough to warrant such a plan (every dictatorship on the planet).

Back to Castro; his coming demise appears to be looming soon. What's going to trouble me in the whole thing is the incredible pass that the leftist dominated media, entertainment, and "education" system is going to give this tyrant. I've heard it again and again, "his people love him." Using the possessive pronoun ("his") with any country's citizens should be looked on with suspicion. "Holding office" for over 40 years -- with no opposition permitted -- should make circumstances clear to any third-grader, but not our Ivy League intellectual crowd and their adoring followers in anti-capitalist chic.

Castro will soon be dead. Another dictator down, several more to go, unfortunately.

I think my old essay on the topic conveys my sentiment further:

When Castro's Gone

The world is becoming dangerous for authoritarian philosophy and the “leaders” who enforce it (no thanks to the pampered elite in the intelligentsia, of course). Even natural causes can sometimes help to crack the ugly walls erected by tyrants

It doesn’t take great insight to suggest the possibility that Cuba’s one-man authority show will soon be over. The island nation’s dictator, Fidel Castro, has certainly reached an age where death will soon remove him from the power he has held for a good portion of his life. As one of the few remaining autocrats of Marxist –Leninist rule in the world, he’s become to many, an acceptable, if not admirable, figurehead of the Left’s hopes and dreams for a police state with equally distributed poverty and “free” health care.

The Cuban gulag under Castro’s Communism is a variation on a consistent theme of brutality, oppression, and distributed destitution. What can we expect when this icon of the Socialist vision is gone? First of all, I predict that his death will be looked upon with great sympathy and admiration by a score of world leaders as well as many of the world’s artists, intellectuals, and performers. Oliver Stone, in classic self-righteous self-promotion, will remind us that he had said good things about Cuba’s “leader” all along. The media will be peppered with some trite acknowledgment of some of the less than savory actions of the absolute dictator but, for the most part, we will be lead to believe that this guy was okay and maybe even saintly. A balance sheet will be perversely drawn up admitting “some mistakes” (the complete repression of human liberty) while lauding the “great things” he accomplished and “we fail to do.”

After subsidies from the former Soviet Union dissipated, Cuba could only do what all socialist enterprises do when there is no outside host to feed off of – suck its own blood dry. Socialism makes it a crime to produce new wealth (profit). It can only seize from one group, distribute some to another group, and squander the rest for heroic monuments and bloated payoffs to bureaucrats and toadies.

Cuba under Castro’s Marxist philosophy is a prime example of socialism’s failure yet, after Castro’s death, it will be pointed to as a model for continuing the horrible legacy of famine, torture, conformity, and despair -- all because some intellectuals and idealists don’t like wealth, success, and individuality (their ultimate enemy is human nature itself).

There will likely be a transition after Castro’s death, where some stale bureaucrat true believers will attempt to keep the poison flame burning. They’ll realize their treasury and industry are mere phantoms and the common citizens will realize that they “don’t have to live this way.”

Communism in Cuba will eventually fall, because its economy was a lie. The lie exposed will result in factory shut downs, unemployment, and degrees of chaos – which will all be blamed on the “horrors” of being set free (“Capitalism”). As an honest economy asserts itself and makes for the difficult adjustments to a the real world, the Left and their mouth pieces in the media, academia, and show business will contrast images of happy proletarian slaves vs. homeless beggars -- passing over the fact that it is Communism’s fraudulent nature that ultimately catches up with a society after its socialist stage set has fallen.

When Castro dies the puppet masters of authoritarian sympathy will prod us to morn -- and many will. But some of us will be cheering, as we do whenever there is one less dictator amongst humanity.

We often read that America’s free market “distributes” more money to business people than teachers (I’m a teacher and I think my pay is rather good). What we don’t hear is that, in a socialist economy like Cuba, cab drivers and prostitutes make more money than doctors (another benefit of “free” health care).

When Castro’s gone we won’t be teaching our kids about the horrors of collectivist political ideology or the oppression of one-party rule. We won’t be hearing “never again” or “how could it happen” or “how could we have stood by doing nothing.” No, we’ll hear the same that we hear now about the former Soviet Union and its Eastern European Empire, or about China under Mao, or everywhere else Communism has ruled. We’ll hear that they tried a noble experiment and failed, and if we try again, maybe we can create an egalitarian utopia, with “free” health care -- and prostitutes who are paid more than doctors.

Just a Poem...

'Plenty of stuff to write about but, ultimately, too much to write about. Same old shiiii....., stuff so here's a stupid poem already written and ready to post:

"Equality" and the Lie of Conforming Goodness

I'm smarter than some and more foolish than others.

I'm faster, cleaner, neater, and energized more than many I've met -- and slower, dirtier, messier, and lazier than many others.

I probably look okay but next to others I'm probably downright ugly.

I'm richer than many and show it with finer clothing, more "toys," and occasional trips to nice restaurants; but I'm poor as well and will never own a mansion, plane or yacht.

I'm witty, precise, and entertaining and often in the company of others to whom I am dull, vague, and boring…

Like everyone else, I'm an equal to no one. Like every simple rock, my angles and those of other's vary, and like every simple plant my design and growth is unique.

No one is equal -- or should be -- in a world that prizes the majesty of genuine diversity and the progress of differences in play.

"Equality" is the perennial call made by those who merely seek submission to a template of equal bondage. To "live amongst equals" is to be a servile robot – and an insincere one at that.

I am me and you are "we" and never the twain shall meet. To those who demand "equality," do it – with yourself and those equally as foolish – and live in barren waste as others live among the dynamic color and progress bestowed amongst those who retain individual identity and a human soul.

Some Scholarly Insights Into the Current Jihad and Those of Days Past

I was fortunate enough to have had a very insightful professor in college. Dr. Robert Pois at the University of Colorado in Boulder was (I only recently found out that this great teacher had passed away) brilliant. Although he described himself as "liberal" and was most definitely anti-war, he wasn't "politically correct" and never used his classroom as a soapbox for preaching idealistic notions regarding human history.

Dr. Pois, who studied under George Mosse at the University of Wisconsin, was an expert on Nazi Germany and the Weimar period. He had written a -- now out of print -- book called; "National Socialism and the Religion of Nature." It was a rare and insightful look into the psychology of Nazism and it's preoccupation with romantic ideals and "nature." Greens and other assorted socialists would not have liked the observations made in Dr. Pois's book.

Nazism, as most strains of socialism, was driven by intellectual, romantic idealism. It was certainly no coincidence that Jews, and their association with urban culture, modernity, and capitalism, were the target of bitter hatred by the Nazis -- as they are today by a host of assorted leftist totalitarians.

I am reminded of Dr. Pois's appraisals and style whenever I read works by Ian Buruma, particularly in his overview of, "The Origins of Occidentalism."

"...Calculation -- the accounting of money, interests, scientific evidence, and so on -- is regarded as soulless. Authenticity lies in poetry, intuition, and blind faith. The Occidentalist view of the West is of a bourgeois society, addicted to creature comforts, animal lusts, self-interest, and security. It is by definition a society of cowards, who prize life above death. As a Taliban fighter once put it during the war in Afghanistan, the Americans would never win, because they love Pepsi-Cola, whereas the holy warriors love death. This was also the language of Spanish fascists during the civil war, and of Nazi ideologues, and Japanese kamikaze pilots..."

"...The worship of false gods is the worst religious sin in Islam as well as in ancient Judaism. The West, as conceived by Islamists, worships the false gods of money, sex, and other animal lusts. In this barbarous world the thoughts and laws and desires of Man have replaced the kingdom of God. The word for this state of affairs is jahiliyya, which can mean idolatry, religious ignorance, or barbarism. Applied to the pre-Islamic Arabs, it means ignorance: People worshiped other gods because they did not know better. But the new jahiliyya, in the sense of barbarism, is everywhere, from Las Vegas and Wall Street to the palaces of Riyadh. To an Islamist, anything that is not pure, that does not belong to the kingdom of God, is by definition barbarous and must be destroyed.

Just as the main enemies of Russian Slavophiles were Russian Westernizers, the most immediate targets of Islamists are the liberals, reformists, and secular rulers in their own societies. They are the savage stains that have to be cleansed with blood. But the source of the barbarism that has seduced Saudi princes and Algerian intellectuals as much as the whores and pimps of New York (and in a sense all infidels are whores and pimps) is the West. And that is why holy war has been declared against the West..."

As with National socialism, communism, and a host of other radical isms, the contemporary Islamic Jihad is just another branch of Romantic Idealism. A dreaming child -- with a gun. Their gripe is ultimately not with sin, excess, or imperialism, it is with modernity itself.

Anyone who truly understands the mind of the romantic idealist can appreciate their "work" on canvas, in prose, or in music -- but shudder in fear at their purpose and actions in the practical world of politics.

The "cowboy fool" from Texas has more insight than most when he compares the current "war on terror" (which we should now admit is a war with radical Islam) with previous conflicts with other strains of totalitarianism.

Modernity, capitalism, and a diverse world of free people are what bugs the romantic totalitarian. If you haven't yet "taken a side" in the current conflict you'll no doubt soon have to. Many already have, as in past conflicts, taken the side of authoritarian statism, which in itself is just another fervent religion. If they can't see where that path ultimately leads they're utter fools -- but dangerous fools none the less.

Israel vs. Islamo-fascists

While media coverage has been a mixed bag regarding current events, the left's moonbats appear to be rather stumped as to how to deal with the issues taking place. Do they really want to show their genuine sympathy for Hezbollah and Hamas in the eyes of the world as they have done for Saddam Hussein, Al Queda, and a host of other authoritarian entities and personalities?

The most they can muster at this point is the usual lip service regarding civilian causalities and a "humanitarian crisis." History clearly demonstrates they could care less about civilian casualties when it's for the "cause" of imposing "revolutionary socialism" or Islamic theocracy (i.e. Iraq).

It's a poorly guarded secret that the left in general has a default position of hatred for the Jews that is typically circumvented by a narrower hatred for the state of Israel - one of the few civilized states in the Middle East. Like Hitler, Stalin, or any other authoritarian mind, the idea of a people noteworthy for worldly success and overcoming great odds through individual effort is too much to tolerate. Yes, I'm aware that there are and have been several Jews themselves who have been at the forefront of leftist causes (and mock self-loathing -- Karl Marx and Noam Chomsky being significant examples).

I might note that this writer is half Lebanese but knows the difference between an open democratic society and ruthless authoritarian sludge. Israel has my vote.

The current issue is well summed up by Dennis Prager in his current essay:

"...Think about Israel for one moment: Israel is one of the most advanced countries on earth in terms of culture (most books published, translated from other languages and read per capita; most orchestras per capita, etc.); major advances in medicine; technological breakthroughs; and decency as a society, as exemplified by its treatment of its women, gays and even its large Arab minority (particularly remarkable in light of the widespread Arab and Muslim anti-Semitism and desire to annihilate Israel). This is hardly a picture of some bloodthirsty, land-grabbing society. And Jews, whatever their flaws, have never been known to be a violent people. If anything, the stereotypical Jew has been depicted as particularly docile...."

Bread and Circuses

More "bread and circuses" for people too inept to buy their own bread or too incapable of deciding on their own if they want to go to a circus or not.

Prisoners of War vs. Prisoners of Jihad

Guantanamo Bay prisoners must now be treated in accord with the Geneva conventions used in past wars to mutually safeguard the rights and health of soldiers on the battlefield when nations are at war.

Of course this long demanded legal etiquette now means that the passionate Jihadists fighting for the fascist cause of violent and coercive Islamic power will also be treating prisoners with equal restraint…

…doesn't it?

Don't count on the ACLU, Euro-socialist dreamland, or any other leftist institution to be pushing for Bin Laden or any other "commander" in the Jihad to abide by any rules or standards of decency.

Remember, with the left, the U.S. and associated free societies are always the bad guys. A political clique' can slaughter whole nations of civilians (even their own nation's citizens) and barely get a minor comment from leftland but when the "evil hegemon" actively defends itself against authoritarian scum, every Jacobin lawyer, teacher, entertainer, and journalist will be on hand to point their phony fingers.

My view of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay is the same as my view of (recently executed) Tookie Williams and (convicted beyond a reasonable doubt) cop killer, "Mumia;" pull the plug on their excess comfort and take them off the battlefield -- permanently.

By the way; why has tax money been wasted buying the thugs of Guantanamo Korans – the book that councils to kill all those who dare resist the imposition of totalitarian Islam?

Mundane Crimes in Mundane Times

(I don't usually post poems here -- kind of cheesy -- but this one expresses my view well. For what it's worth, only a tiny fraction of poetry I've written relates to politics).

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.