Saturday, November 28, 2009


When the Whole is Not the Sum of its Parts

When a group is noted as being a victim of oppression, the implication is – regardless of intentions – that those who are not members of the noted group are somehow overly fortunate, well-off, or vicariously oppressors.

It's like saying, “All wealthy white male paraplegic divorced unemployed war veterans dying of cancer...'have all the power' .”

The perpetual overstatement of victimhood in a free society ultimately invalidates the individual misfortunes that, to some degree or at some time, affect all members of humanity.

As with all things Leftwing, the group standard is the reference template. Whether accurate in specific instances or not, such a template skews reality...and screws the people really living in it.

Tuesday, November 17, 2009


The Horrors of Gitmo...

Monday, November 16, 2009


(Not) Seeing the Lies at the End of the Tunnel

It was nice to read of Obama's comments to the Chinese regarding internet and communication access. The unfortunate irony is that he failed to see that his very philosophy of government inevitably leads to a type of system that must restrict free access to information if it is to stay in power. I won't even begin to review the statements and policy suggestions in his own administration geared to stifling opposition (i.e. reinstituting the so-called "fairness" doctrine, aggressive attempts to eliminate FOX NEWS from the national conversation, etc. have been written of extensively). The more relevant point is that any political institution that hopes to “make a better world” by molding (changing) human character will become disappointed and be compelled to impose it's ideals in an endless hope of achieving them. Such a system can't just allow people to keep expressing their diverse points of view, especially if support for a high level of individual freedom is part of the debate.

If Obama practiced what he (occasionally) preached, he would have at least been more aggressive in his statements in support of protesters in Iran after their bogus election.

Obama isn't about genuine ideals or consistency. He's about words, well polished and meaningless.

Saturday, November 14, 2009


Mincing Words and Meaning...“for socialism.”

In periods of socialist advance one finds the paradox of non-advance in virtually all matters of daily existence. The poor remain poor, the poorest rise to subsistence with an illusion of further advance that never comes. The rest of society (except a leftist party/political clique') are dragged down to subsistence. Thus begins a celebration of stasis, pats on the back for losses of freedom, and profusions of propaganda telling all that everything would come to an end if individual volition would be permitted to once more flourish.

During the cold war, capitalists and socialists argued the superiority of their respective systems based on technical and material advances. The USSR laid claim to the invention of every concept it could lie about or steal from the free world's markets and free innovators.

After socialism's dramatic fall almost twenty years ago, the communists/“progressives” realized they could maintain the great debate for enslavement by merely changing the argument. Their perpetually recurring empty store shelves and rationed food supplies could now be seen as good strive for!

So it is now that the smoothest polemic vehicle of socialists into minds and economies is environmentalism. “Sustainable development” is the sophisticated catch phrase of the day as a means to drag us all back several decades (if not to the stone age – as North Korea seems to be directing itself toward).

This of course doesn't mean that environmentalism is, in itself, a bad thing or that producing more environmentally friendly products are somehow insidious. The point is that the essential goodness of maintaining a clean environment has been hijacked by an ideology that ultimately could care less about civil rights, equality, the environment, or any of the other issues that have been used as gimmicks to vent rage against “the system” so as to create a more powerful, centralized, and authoritarian system.

If one views recurring themes by AP, Reuters, The New York Times, et al., we can read that we make less money than our parents and things are infinitely worse for all of us (this, aside from the current recession) yet, mom and dad didn't have computers, laptops, cell phones, sci-fi style gadgetry in their cars, and dolby sound at the latest mega-flick. Of course, to whining socialists, all these new developments don't mean we're better “We're all really miserable” (and just don't know it) because capitalism unhindered by the loving hand of the state, keeps raising the standard of living. That's the new argument for socialism! If you don't share the angst, anger, and depression over our leisure and wealth that the average artsy looser obsesses upon, than you just “can't see behind the veil.”

The former Soviet Union and its spawn claimed to make great progress and advance in technology and material benefit. Now that most commune-states have fallen from their imposed illusionary greatness, progress and advance themselves are seen as the new enemy of “socialist man (sic).”

...Cell phones, wide screen TV, and a laptop...or, an environmentally friendly North Korean style prison state? Those are your supposed choices. Oh, maybe they'll allow you to get by with a few pop entertainments, but the market driven diversity and creativity has got to go if we're “going to save the planet” and keeping one's wealth, well, that would be out of the question. Amazingly, great portions of humanity will continue to strive for the dream of “heaven on earth” that never manifests, and trash a dream that takes us as close as we could ever hope in a real world.


Wednesday, November 11, 2009


Consistency in Moral Goodness

A basic rule of thumb for leftists is that the more passionate they are regarding global issues; the more careless, irresponsible, selfish, and inconsiderate they will be in their personal dealings.

Saturday, November 07, 2009


The Complex and Nuanced Reasons Why The Democrats' Ideals and God-like Figurehead are Falling in the Perceptions of Public Opinion like Lead Clouds

They're openly expressing and attempting to implement their philosophy

Thursday, November 05, 2009


“Red Scares” and the Valid Fear of Authoritarian Government

(edited and reworked since origional posting yesterday)

School text books are full of horror stories of “Red Scare's” in American history. Along with fanciful descriptions of “McCarthyism” such instruction has become something in itself to be scared of.

Aside from my comments on this blog, I usually find it awkward to openly chastise anyone for the possibility that they may be communist in their sympathies. It's now politically correct to be terrified of a million things (i.e. Global Warming, improper food labeling, anti-tax protestors, etc.) but how could anyone possibly be afraid of or opposed to the implementation of a top-heavy centralized state that seizes personal assets and seeks to control all aspects of one's life?

The fact that, historically, communism has been responsible for deaths in the millions (actually outnumbering even those killed by the National Socialists -- the Nazis) should be enough to validate fearful statements about communism and its goals.

Of course, communism doesn't always go by the name “communism” as there have been a variety of “isms” throughout history that share communism's collectivist authoritarian characteristics. And even within communism itself there have been a variety of contending interests, often violently opposed to each other (i.e. Stalinists hated Trotskyites and Maoists hated Khrushchev's “revisionism”).

So, exactly what is wrong with calling something what it is, alluding to all the scary historical baggage that goes with it?

The truth is, the American constitution (admittedly not always adhered to as written) is by default an anti-communist document. To defend individual rights, and the freedom to buy, produce, and trade as one sees fit inevitably puts a system at odds with any system that seeks to impose state control over the lives and livelihoods of families and individuals.

Imagine that the Nazi's had won WWII and controlled all of Europe and Russia. That it developed nuclear weapons and had become the powerful polar opposition to the U.S., making clear a goal of global imposed dictatorship. Imagine that a few intellectuals or prominent personalities supported this system and hoped to see it triumph over our free and open society. It's reasonable that under such circumstances, some people would be “black-listed,” or called before senate committees to judge the validity of their having security clearances at the state department or the Army (that's what the “McCarthy hearings” did). Imagine that committees in the House of Representatives questioned influential Hollywood writers regarding their allegiances to Nazi plans to eliminate our system. Imagine a few of them (I believe the “red-scare” number of these Hollywood “artists” in the 50's was less than 20) were humiliated and choose to later live their prosperous lives as popular heroes in Europe away from the “horrors of McCarthyism.”

Under such circumstances would one be a fool to fearfully label someone a Nazi (who was a Nazi) and to do so as if it were a very negative thing (which it indeed would be)?

I think conservatives, or anyone who favors free society, should get over the awkwardness they are often made to feel when labeling those who seek to eliminate our system of government. There's nothing wrong with wanting to retain liberty and opposing those who wish to deny us the rights outlined in our country's founding documents. Of course, the closet tyrant has “rights” to. They certainly have a right to their belief and a right to speech that allows them to worship the totalitarian enterprise, but we as free people have a right to defend ourselves against those who would seek to enslave us, or at least retain the right to call such people what they are without mocking smirks tossed our way.

If someone expressed the desire to break into our homes, steal our property, and force us into slavery we'd certainly be justified in “labeling them” as threats, and doing so out of reasonable fear.
It's time to get over the fear of calling a communist a communist – as if it's “just a point of view.”

“Red Scares” and “McCarthyism” have certainly put fear into the hearts of many a textbook writer, but their families weren't marched off to some prison for “reeducation” on a perceived road to utopia.

Communism sucks. Communists suck. Opposing them and their goals is more than appropriate, and “labeling them” is letting them off easy. Having the honesty and insight to express fear or disdain for something worthy of fear and contempt should be worn as a badge of honor.

Sunday, November 01, 2009


The Constitution vs. Dictatorship

"The Constitution is a document formulated by land/slave-owning class interests to oppress 'the people'."

...The alternative to the values in the Constitution is dictatorship.

"The Constitution is the product of `dead white males'."

...The alternative to the values in the Constitution is dictatorship.

“The Constitution was created over 200 years ago and is no
longer relevant to the social problems of modem times."

...The alternative to the values in the Constitution is dictatorship.

Some dead white males (is that a comment on the content of their character?) lived 200 years ago and sought to create a governing structure in which human beings could express their unique views and potentials freely. Although the individuals who wrote the Constitution were exceptionally intelligent, they were human and, like everyone, flawed.

The Constitution doesn't promise that everyone will have the nicest car. The Constitution doesn't promise that human suffering will magically dissipate. The Constitution doesn't promise that, if you're poor, the government will hit a rich person over the head, take their wallet, and give the products of their efforts to someone else. It doesn't promise to bring God to earth and put him or her in your face (or your bedroom). It doesn't promise that the state or a particular leader will become God and thus bestow infallible wisdom upon all decisions concerning the lives of others.

Since its inception, the values in the Constitution have been the object of derision from elements of extremism. Some utilize elaborate mental gymnastics or intellectual labyrinths and abstractions. Some use the passion and power of emotion and appeals to morality or spiritual imperative. They all demand that the individual submit to a contrived and imposed version of "truth" -- their truth, with no provision for opting out.

The Constitution has hardly fulfilled all that it promises. It will likely never give us utopia. The Constitution only seeks to manifest individual freedom, and

... The alternative to the values in the Constitution is dictatorship.

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