Wednesday, May 31, 2006


Rendering to Nonsense

Render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar,...and have the common sense to realize that nothing "belongs" to "Caesar." (from The Promethean Observer)

Tuesday, May 30, 2006


Freedom of Association and Non-submission

Free choice in one's social engagements is a hallmark of freedom. Real rebellion is an individual thing and comes down to knowing which clubs you don't want to belong to -- and not joining them.


The Mirror Some Seldom See

Whenever someone makes a point regarding how "open-minded" and "non-judgmental" they are, you can be certain they'll view differing values and beliefs from their own as "close-minded and judgmental." Such a common polemic method has little to do with open-mindedness or judgment and everything to do with delusional self appraisal.

Saturday, May 27, 2006


Smelly, Dirty, Messy, and Inconsiderate Disorganized Pigs..."Care about 'the environment'"

Did you ever notice that those who complain about “the Earth's environment” the most, tend to be the sloppiest and dirtiest in the smaller environment around them.

...What's up with that?

Wednesday, May 24, 2006


The Media's Last Ditch Effort to Save Moussaoui

"Bin Laden: Moussaoui Wasn't Sept. 11 Conspirator" [just passing on some important information from a reliable source?]

Adolph Hitler: "Who's this Joseph Goebbels guy you keep talking about?"


Search Engines and that Old Time Religion

Many have probably already read about this latest from the pampered class. I have to stress, as I have before, that such nonsense is not "conspiratorial," its the mere expected outcome when you send a bunch of middle class ungrateful and spoiled kids to college and they eventually "grow up" enough to have influence in public schools, universities, journalism, entertainment, and media in general. Leftism and all its dogmatic coercion is the lazy man's way to self-respect. Stupid kids with power now running our free society and hoping desperately to drive it into the dust heap of history. For what? So they can say they're "rebels." -- Pleeeease...


On a similar note. I recently came across another one of those "reasons" for buying a book by Noam Chomsky. Something to the effect that the reader wanted to be aware of a "wide range of different views." It's not like I haven't heard that one before.

Few people randomly pick up a book of boring rants by Noam Chomsky who merely want to widen their understanding of the world. Most of Chomsky's transcribed interviews or speeches (which is what most of his "books" really are) provide absolutely nothing that one isn't exposed to regularly by school systems, colleges, and the media. The intellectual wannabes of AP, Reuters, CNN, the BBC, CBS, ABC, The New York Times, most of Hollywood, etc., etc. pretty much promote the same views as Chomsky. "Reading Chomsky" (buying his books) is the intellectual equivalent of wearing a Che Guevara T-shirt. It's a paddle in the "I hate America" table tennis game.

The old excuse of buying Noam's Tomes because one wants to be exposed to a wide range of views is a total crock, first and foremost because those who do read Chomsky notably don't read views contrary to the cultist sage of anti-Americanism.

I wish I would, at least once, hear an honest reply as to why people buy this popular polemic in intellectual elitism:

A. They had to because it was required reading in a college course in 15th century literature...and "feminist studies."

B. They hate the United States and the free market and want to appear intelligent for supporting the (leftist) statist position of characters like Fidel Castro and Noam Chomsky.

People who seek out a "wide range of viewpoints" do just that. People who don't want a wide range of viewpoints merely read Chomsky, Michael Moore, and Howard Zinn (to name a few) and then continue their fantasy that they are somehow rebels -- before stocking up on some new CD's for their music collection (courtesy of Capitalism and free society).

Wanna be a real rebel, start with The Anti Chomsky Reader.

Tuesday, May 23, 2006



Just a Thought...

A conspiracy theorist is someone so adept at "seeing through" complex layers of contrived intrigue that they are completely blind to the simple and obvious.


The BBC; Mock Objectivity Paid For by Extorted Funds

I've never quite understood the excitement of some when coming to the defense of the BBC. The argument always comes down to how "great their programming is" to which my response is, "So what?"

People can get a variety of news from a variety of perspectives along with nature documentaries, The Arts, and everything under the sun -- without the BBC, PBS, or NHK (in Japan)!

I like Bruckner Symphonies. I think they're great, but not so great that they should be force financed by people who may or may not like Bruckner Symphonies. "But the public needs an objective source of news...(and a state sanctioned mega-budget playground for pseudo-intellectuals is just the way to get it)."

"...'…Robin Aitken, who spent his entire career as a BBC journalist, has written a book accusing the BBC of institutionalized Leftism. For 25 years he chalked up solid experience across the board as a BBC reporter. In other words, he is a BBC man through and through. So when someone like this lifts the lid on newsroom culture, it carries weight. And his message is that BBC journalism is as bent as a corkscrew. This picture of a corrupted BBC culture that is ideologically skewed towards the left is blindingly obvious to anyone who does not share those assumptions. With a few honorable exceptions, the BBC views every issue through the prism of left-wing, secular, anti-western thinking. It is The Guardian of the air. It has a knee-jerk antipathy to America, the free market, big business, religion, British institutions, the Conservative party and Israel; it supports the human rights culture, the Palestinians, Irish republicanism, European integration, multiculturalism and a liberal attitude towards drugs and a host of social issues. Every day, its relentless bias rolls across the airwaves to shape the assumptions of our society. Who can be surprised at Britain's current anti-Americanism when the BBC starts from the premise that President Bush is a dangerous extremist? On issue after issue, the BBC throws impartiality to the winds...' "

An excellent analysis of the biased BBC.

(I still ask, biased or not, "great programming" or not, why should any country's citizens be forced to finance a specific product which they may not have asked for or even want -- especially "news?")


What Could Their True Motive Possibly Be?

"The terrorists are not "un-Islamic" bandits who have "hijacked a great religion"; they are consistent and serious followers of their religion." more...


Review of "The DaVinci Code"


Thursday, May 18, 2006


Post-Modern Leftism, and How Blatant Lies Became Common Truths in the Twenty-First Century

...They could push infinite combinations of keys on a computer but could no longer be sure that one plus one equaled two.

They could no longer call a mass murderer a terrorist, and wanton acts of murder and destruction would often be considered for their "valid points."

To state the obvious was no longer considered polite. In many venues (i.e. college campuses) it could in fact be grounds for stern accusation and punishment for perceived acts of criminal negligence or hate "crime."

Access to common honesty was our greatest loss, along with manners and acceptance of hard work, an end scheme that charlatans of pop philosophy had fostered upon fellow citizens. The greater their lies or renouncing of a truth that stood clearly before them, the greater their self-perception as "rebels" – philosopher kings – justly due (or so they thought) considerable power over the thoughts and actions of others as payment for their mastery of mind games and simple stupidity.

Tuesday, May 16, 2006


Another Glitch in The Matrix

Morpheus sets Ahmadinejad strait on reality and the Muslim -- 7th century -- Matrix.

(A thousand hat tips to The People's Cube.)

Wednesday, May 10, 2006


Letters from Docile and Loving Authoritarian Clowns

Here we go again...

A leader of an authoritarian country is now making overtures to indicate to the world press that he is "open to dialog and cooperation." The nutcase leader of Iran is now following the same story line of Saddam Hussein and his story may indeed have a similar ending (one can only hope).

What's classic about his little propaganda spiel is his insistence that liberal "Western Style" (as if there's another kind) Democracy has, "not been able to help realize the ideals of humanity." -- Oh really. And what exactly would those "ideals" be?

The great majority of humankind through most of its existence has lived in conditions of cruel harsh destitution. What today is called "poverty" was the common lot of most people through most of human history. It has been individual freedom and initiative in the context of open pluralistic government and free economic activity that has caused humankind to emerge from its caves and swamps.

The current Iranian leader's take on the world is no different than his kindred spirits among the numerous varieties of socialism (statism) that have existed through history. Fascists, Nazis, Communists, and I dare say more than a few "progressives," despise any society that allows its citizen a maximum degree of autonomy and free expression.

The sad thing about Ahmadinejad's letter to President Bush is that many will see it as a legitimate peaceful gesture (from a guy who has said that Israel should be "wiped off the map"). Soon the international communication venues will be clogged with comments on how evil Bush was for not addressing the great points made in the Iranian "leader's" comments.

Ahmadinejad ultimately doesn't have anything to say that hasn't already been said before by; Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il, Castro, Hugo Chavez, or many American College professors.

Who are Iran's friends; China, Russia, North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela.

Who are America's friends; Australia, England, Japan,... to name a few.

Does anyone still abide by the idea that one can judge another by the friends they keep (or at least get along well with)?

Ahmadinejad is correct on one of his observations regarding "an ever-increasing global hatred of the American government." Indeed, many (notably including citizens of democratic countries) today have little problem with nuke developing tyrannies and one-party dictatorships, and continually developing hatred for a country most noted for fast food franchises and movies.

This will unfortunately continue to be so as long as public opinion is molded by the spoiled brat mentality of many college campuses, public school classrooms, entertainment, and "journalism."

There is now a fully emerged contest between authoritarian collectivist statism and open and free society and, as usual, the intellectuals and pseudo-intellectuals are siding with the dictators.

-- Pathetic.

Tuesday, May 09, 2006


Progressive Fundamentalist Jihad and Multi-Cultural "Tolerance"

It's become a rather comical -- though tragic -- reality that the left in general is so sympathetic and even supportive to the causes of Islam in general and anti-Western Jihad specifically -- you know, "multi-culturalism" and all.

The People's Cube has an excellent (hilarious!) answer for the needs of today's cutting edge progressive Islamists -- Burqa Barn, for that critical studies feminist in your neighborhood.

...get 'em while they last!



Before going on vacation in Kyoto for Japan's "Golden Week" holiday, I had read an excellent and concise post on Nealz Nuze. It addressed the issues of social security and Medicare in such a concise and revealing way that I have to post it below in its entirety:

"The irresponsibility of the American people, their true heartfelt fear of freedom, and the exploitation of this fear by elected officials is bringing us closer to true financial disaster. You're complaining about gas prices today? In the not-to-distant future you'll have a lot more to complain about than gas prices."

"Most Americans believe that there is something out there called a Social Security trust fund. They believe that when the government collects its Social Security taxes every year, it takes the money left over after paying all benefits and puts that money aside for future retirees. Americans actually believe this --- but they're wrong. The Social Security trust fund exists in name only. There is no money there. Not one single dollar. It's all gone. Decades ago, when Democrats were running the congressional show, someone came up with the bright idea of taking all of the Social Security taxes that were left over after benefits were paid and use that money to fund some other federal vote-buying social programs. The idea was simple. The free-spending congress would just give an IOU to the Social Security administration for the money that was pilfered and spent. Those IOUs now sit in a grey filing cabinet in some federal office in West Virginia. There's your precious Social Security trust fund. Paper. IOUs from a government that doesn't have the money to pay them."

So how is it that Grandma gets her check every month? Social Security is what they call a Ponzi Scheme. If you or I set one of these up, we would be carted off to jail...which happens from time to time, by the way. In a Ponzi Scheme, earlier investors are paid off with later ones, but there's no actual money being invested. Sort of like paying your Visa with your Mastercard....for 40 years.

"So right now, some schlub is working at your local burger joint to pay for some retiree's check. What is going to happen over time, is the amount paid out will be greater than the amount coming in...and the payout scheme will collapse, since there won't be enough to pay."

"In just about 11 years, in 2017, we won't be collecting enough in Social Security taxes to pay the benefits that will be due to baby boom retirees. In other words, It will be time to head to that filing cabinet in West Virginia, take some of the IOUs out, and present them to the U.S. Treasury for redemption. But how do you pay off those IOUs when you're already spending every single penny you make? Well ... there's only a few possibilities. You borrow the money and go deeper in debt; you raise taxes on the already tax-oppressed Americans to get the needed funds, or you simply default on the IOU. You could, of course, cut spending in other areas to come up with the money --- but remember who we're talking about here. Even for a congress that has doubled federal spending over the past decade or so, cutting spending even by one single dollar is simply not an option."

"Privatization? Yeah ... that would have been a partial solution. It would have delayed the financial collapse of Social Security, but private retirement accounts don't serve the purposes of politicians --- especially Democrats. How, after all, can Democrats threaten you with the loss of a retirement account that you own in order to frighten you into voting for Democrats? In every single congressional election since 1960 Democrats have warned voters that if they vote for Republicans the evil Republicans will either reduce or take away their Social Security benefits. And in every single congressional election since 1960 that argument has worked as thousands of frightened and uninformed wizened citizens rush to the polls to reelect their Democrat protectors."

"Another problem with the idea of privatization is that Americans only have a very superficial love of freedom. The less freedom demands personal responsibility the more people love it. The more freedom demands self-discipline the less freedom is revered. Personal accounts -- private accounts -- would mean that people would actually have to be responsible for investing their funds and, to some extent, managing those investments. That's just a bit too much freedom for many."

"So -- the crisis looms. Politics rule."

"By the way ... and this has to be said. One way to forestall -- not prevent, but forestall --- the crisis in funding Social Security and Medicare is to enact the FairTax. Right now people who no longer pay income taxes because they no longer have taxable income don't contribute to the Social Security pool. Enact the FairTax and these people are suddenly funding Social Security with every purchase they make ... past the poverty level, that is. Ditto for foreign visitors, legal and illegal, to our country. Just a thought."

The same mentality that brought us this pathetic and ineffective "retirement" scheme is still at work today with even greater fervor seeking to create even more impressive boondogles for future generations. The mantra is always the same; put your faith in the state to protect you and guide you. The state isn't motivated by "greed" and profit so it will truly care about you" -- god, ain't it all so touching.

How can citizens continually fall for this nonsense?

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

Monday, May 08, 2006


More Important News from Associated Press

Here's an example of a classic yellow stream media "news" report regarding the much maligned George Bush. Though posted at Fox News, like many on-line reports there, it is in fact from Associated Press -- a not so Bush friendly "news" outlet. As usual the president is made to look like a complete fool for the kind of casual off-hand remark that many past presidents have made (and common people make every day). At the end of the article the mood, context, and complete insignificance of his remark is a little clearer but reading the headline and opening "information," AP gets their usual appraisal across making an innocent and casual statement look like just another example of how "stupid" George Bush is. Remember, to the left (and that would include much of the main - yellow - stream media), Bush is completely stupid yet simultaneously an evil genius carefully orchestrating an authoritarian power grab so he can increase the wealth of "his rich oil buddies." On the other hand, the media and other assorted intellectual clowns see mere "mavericks" and "agrarian land reformers" in the likes of Hugo Chavez and his mentor Fidel Castro.

The international "news" media -- all the lies, distortion, and Jacobin party lines all the time.

Tuesday, May 02, 2006


Pre-Casto Cuba and the Lies of the Left

One topic that absolutely infuriates me is the perpetual sympathy given by intellectuals, artists, entertainment personalities, and journalists for the ruthless dictator of Cuba. The guy has been -- forcefully -- in charge for almost fifty years and there are people stupid enough to think Cuban citizens are actually voting him in during his decades of rule. These are the same clowns that shriek in horror that Bush has been elected to an eight year term.

The actor, Andy Garcia, recently directed a movie showing the other side of the Cuban "revolution," and more than a few intellectual neo-Comms didn't like it one bit that he accurately showed pre-Castro Cuba to be a relatively middle-class society -- which it was -- and not a cauldron of poverty in need of Marxist authoritarian oppression.

"Here's a UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) report on Cuba circa 1957 that dispels the fantasies of pre-Castro Cuba still cherished by America's most prestigious academics and its most learned film critics: 'One feature of the Cuban social structure is a large middle class,' it starts. 'Cuban workers are more unionized (proportional to the population) than U.S. workers. The average wage for an 8 hour day in Cuba in 1957 is higher than for workers in Belgium, Denmark, France and Germany. Cuban labor receives 66.6 per cent of gross national income. In the U.S. the figure is 70 per cent, in Switzerland 64 per cent. 44 per cent of Cubans are covered by Social legislation, a higher percentage then in the U.S.'''

"In 1958 Cuba had a higher per-capita income than Austria and Japan. Cuban industrial workers had the 8th highest wages in the world. In the 1950's Cuban stevedores earned more per hour than their counterparts in New Orleans and San Francisco. Cuba had established an 8 hour work-day in 1933 -- five years before FDR's New Dealers got around to it. Add to this: one month paid vacation. The much-lauded (by liberals) Social-Democracies of Western Europe didn't manage this until 30 years later."

One of the greatest flaws in the left's worldview is their continued sympathy and support for totalitarian government. No system is too cruel as long as it opposes a free economic systems and the individual initiative that causes such systems to thrive.

Unfortunately, few average citizens -- let alone students -- have exposure to the actual state of Cuban society before Castro seized power. Just as they do when they depict America today, the left wants people to believe that everyone in pre-Castro Cuba was absolutely destitute and craving a Communist police state.

The article linked above is an excellent brief overview of Cuban history and how limousine leftists continue to shower sympathy upon cruel, inhumane, and destitute socialist gulags. Particularly interesting in the article is the all too common act of movie reviewers to make a movie's political stand a greater issue than its quality as a work of filmmaking. Remember, Fahrenheit 9/11 was "the greatest documentary ever made."

-- so pathetic


This is just too funny. I live in the town in Japan where Admiral Yamamoto was born and raised. Yamamoto not only attended Harvard University but also directed the raid on Pearl Harbor that led to Japan's war with America during World War II. True, he was only "following orders" (or, at least that's how the Germans covered such awkward misteps).

Someone thought it would be cool to create a curry sauce named after the local famed admiral (hero).

When you're wanting to plan a secret attack on a Navel fleet in Hawaii, there's nothing quite like a piping hot servin of Yamamoto-san's own special curry sauce -- UMMMM good! Next week, some General George Patton jerk spice chicken wings?

Monday, May 01, 2006


The Bogus Context and Semantics...

I can't believe people are still trying to frame the current debate regarding illegal "immigrants" in phony rants regarding what great things real -- legal -- immigrants have done for America. Few people dispute the positive impact of those who have come to America to better their circumstance while also contributing to their new adopted home. The current issue at hand is quite altogether different -- DUH! -- people who have illegally come to America to use it for their temporary gain while espousing the greatness and virtues of the land they left. As an aside, they leech off of the country's resources and tax funded social programs. There's also more than a good chance that a few of the millions who have weaseled their way into the country are actually Muslim terrorists who plan considerable destruction and mass-murder. Of course we can't "know" that precisely because such "immigrants" are "undocumented" and in the U.S. illegally.

Not to be too melodramatic, but there is currently a possibility that a small nuclear weapon has already been actually smuggled into the U.S. across the Mexican boarder merely waiting to be detonated (this is not such a far-fetched idea as it may sound). Millions of people would be killed in such a scenario and the economy of the entire world will be put into a tail spin (though leftists the world over would be dancing over their old "chickens coming home to roost" theory). Meanwhile, the phony clowns of socialism inc. talk about "the contributions of immigrants" as if it has anything to do with the problem of a literal invasion across the U.S. border.

Reinforce the border and make it impossible for these continuing waves of invaders to work in the U.S. (unless they follow the accepted channels that legal migrants have followed).

Some folks have suggested a witty solution. Make, publicize, and enforce America's immigration laws -- and make them exact duplicates of Mexico's. What are they going to do, protest and talk about "the contributions immigrants have made to America?"


Hypocrites From Leftland

Several posts back I noted that I had listened to Peter Schweitzer's entertaining and informative book on CD, "Do As I Say (Not As I Do) Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy". After the facts exposed in this book have come out I really don't know how people like Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky, or Teddy Kennedy (to name a few) can even show their faces in public.

Anyway, has a brief speech given by the author which sums up some of the main points made in his book. Well worth reading.

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