Sunday, December 31, 2006
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.
Friday, December 29, 2006
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.
Monday, December 25, 2006
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.
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
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?
Saturday, December 16, 2006
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.
Monday, December 11, 2006
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.
Saturday, December 09, 2006
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.
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
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…"
Saturday, December 02, 2006
"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..."