Merry Christmas, Happy Whatever (too lazy to look up the spelling of the Jewish holiday -- no offense meant),...

...and, other contrived holidays both real and imagined -- go for it.

Sparse posting for awhile while I celebrate anything that affords fun times.

-- A bloggin Promethean guy

Inconvenience

Great Video of how the climate debate is dealth with by the great socialist bureau-class.

Why would someone think they are on the right side of history when they've chosen to be on no side of history?

Radical Islam is Really a "Happy Spot"

Scrap the "Nuance"

Regarding the authoritarian enterprises we are -- in one way or another -- at war with (i.e. The Taliban, Al Qaeda, numerous Islamo-fascist factions, and, of course, garden variety totalitarian ideologues), I think the Obam-aologies and self-effacing (in Obama's case it's always country-effacing, not personal humility) are getting a little old.

Although it's not "nuanced" or intellectually appealing, I think something on the order of, "No more Mr. Nice Guy" would be a more honest and effective strategy when dealing with the world's dictatorship scum.

Eduring the Nonsense...again

I've had to endure it again. I'd say a week doesn't go by in which I hear someone express sympathy, apologies, or outright support for the values of communist "revolution." It's enough to make an informed person truly ill, particularly in view of the fact that those who make such blatantly stupid comments are usually at least middle class and well endowed with the play toys of capitalist abundance.

I still can't fathom the hypocrisy of millionaire film directors and entertainers who worship at the shrine of authoritarian collectivist philosophy. Micheal Moore, Oliver Stone, and George Clooney (to name just a few) would all be serving time if their faux-rebel stance against “the system” was attempted in Cuba. If they were critical of the state (“the people”) in Cuba at the start of Castro's coup de' etat, they would have likely been executed by their hero, Che Guevara.

There is plenty of information available regarding what really happened in Cuba a half a century ago. Of course, when one states the case for freedom and notes the facts regarding Castro's grasp for power, the usual response is something like, "you can't believe everything you see on the internet" or "how do you know what really happened, were you there?" Ah, ...yeah, okay, good argument. I give up, communism and imposed poverty stricken dictatorship really is a good thing (pleeease).

Anyway, this is just one really good site that critiques some of the old leftist cliche's regarding what a paradise Cuba now is since it's been driven into the ground by a typical leftist autocrat.

On an unrelated note (maybe not so unrelated), this ongoing thing about what a hero Obama is and how unfair his detractors are is getting a little old. No coincidence that the people who thought George Bush was Hitler also think B. Hussein Obama is Mother Theresa.

What idiots...

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.

The Horrors of Gitmo...

(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.

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 things...to 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 off...no. “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.

...lemmings...

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.

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

“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.

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.

Left Wing Media Bias?

Impossible!

Another Excellent Essay by Oleg Atbashian

This guy at the People's Cube is brilliant, and not only for his very funny website.

I've pasted some excerpts below from his recent essay:

"...To summarize, state-enforced redistribution of wealth in the name of economic equality will always split society into two unequal classes: the corrupt autocratic elite and the powerless majority, impoverished by economic stagnation. Its utopian goals notwithstanding, the main characteristic of such a society is forced inequality. In order to function, the state must stifle dissent and subordinate previously independent institutions that helped to erect the collectivist edifice, such as the media, trade unions, trial lawyers, and other special interest groups. All special interests are superseded by the interests of the state, represented by an authoritarian leader.

The only real choice before us, therefore, is not between economic inequality and economic equality, but between two types of economic inequality.

One is the transparent, volunteer economic inequality of laissez-faire capitalism, where people are free to choose opportunities that they like — but that also lead to predictably different compensation. Whether it’s the intense life of a CEO taking risky decisions, or the safe but uneventful existence of a government clerk, or the relaxed bohemian lifestyle of an artist — these are free choices based on what best suits people’s character and makes them happy, taken with full knowledge of the potential risks and rewards. The CEO, the clerk, and the artist receive different compensation for their work, yet they are all equal before the law, which protects their contracts with society and with each other.

These are not rigid classes; people can change their lives if they want to, and their children do not have to follow in their footsteps if a certain lifestyle or profession does not match their idea of happiness. Their material rewards are just because they are determined by the free market, and the differences motivate everyone to be more creative and productive. This system has brought prosperity, opportunity, and happiness to most people, making them equal beneficiaries of liberty and human dignity, as long as they don’t succumb to crime, drugs, or class envy...."

"Obamanoia"

That's how Victor Davis Hanson appaises circumstances in his recent -- excellent -- essay.

Some excerpts:

"Obama’s agenda polls less than 50% on almost every element. What keeps him viable is that the public still likes him and his family personally, and takes him at his unity/no blue state-no red state/can’t we all get along? 2008 rhetoric."

"Don’t they get the obvious: In reaction to that Olympian, above-the-fray brand, what does Obama do? He sends out two of the most unlikable, mean-spirited attack hounds to go after a news organization in Nixonian fashion, which only erodes the precious image of a kinder, gentler Obama—right now the administration’s only asset."

"One almost gets the feeling that Time, Newsweek, the NY Times, the LA Times, Washington Post, NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, NPR, MSNBC, CNN, the Huffington Post, etc. are all not quite enough to balance right-wing talk radio and Fox News."

"The problem is that (1) it is always harder to defend a president than criticize him (as the liberals can attest from their 8 years of demonizing Bush); (2) those in the right-wing media are more populist and grass-roots than those in the staid left-wing elite media establishment. So Rush Limbaugh or Glen Beck can caricature Obama far more effectively than can a Rachel Madow or Brian Williams bow to him; (3) the traditional left’s homage to dissent, protest, free-wheeling media outbursts, demonstrations, and over-the-top commentary is now, to use a Nixon term, “inoperative.”"

"Somehow we went from revolutionary fervor to the boring Ministry of Truth in nine months."

Personally I found the left far more interesting when they were suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome than Obamophilia."

Democrats

John Murtha in the age of Obama.

Change you can believe in.

The Left's View of "Democracy"...again

The Chavez of the north rolls on with his socialist revolution.

I have to add that the mainstream media outlets -- whom I generally despise for their blatant bias -- deserve considerable praise for recognizing this serious attempt on the part of a president to declare war on a news organization.

'Like FOX or not, it's a member of the press...and, we still have a free press (lets hope we continue to when this neo-comm president if through "fundamentally transforming America").

This Is Becomming Downright Creepy...

The Chavez of the north rolls on with his socialist revolution.

I have to add that the mainstream media outlets -- whom I generally despise for their blatant bias -- deserve considerable praise for recognizing this serious attempt on the part of a presisdent to declare war on a news organization.

'Like FOX or not, it's a member of the press...and, we still have a free press (let hope we continue to when this neo-comm president if through "fundementally transforming America."

Telling It Like It Is

Great!

I have to qualify this link a bit. Lord Christopher Monckton (speaking in this video), is quite informed regarding the great global warming scam T.M. and articulates his position well. I'm a bit skeptical regarding most conspiracy theories though. I don't think there's an "international communist conspiracy" to create a world government. Having said that, I must add that I don't think there needs to be one because the very people Lord Monckton speaks of certainly would hope that such a world system emerged and though they probably wouldn't call it "communism," what they're hoping for is just that for all practical purposes. Calling one's self "progressive," "socialist," or "champion of the working class" doesn't change the fact that one wants a powerful bureaucratic and highly regulated system that is collectivist in nature -- call it what you want, it's a dictatorship.

"The environment" has become the latest and obviously most effective issue for the left to impose it's will -- again -- on a gullible audience.

"Yes We Can" keeps getting weirder and weirder...

Wow!

...'just don't suggest that any of these clowns are communists or sympathetic to the totalitarian ideology that killed over 100,000,000 people in the last century. Doing so would make you a "McCarthyite."

Judge your president by the friends -- and advisors -- he keeps.

Lansingburgh Central School District Superintendent George J. Goodwin and America's Public Education System -- Clowns in Paradise

If you can't read this, thank government educated and "certified" public school "teachers," college Ed schools, teacher unions and, of course, politicians and their ruling thought templates in bureau-mind.

Here's a photo of a total complete idiot.

As someone who navigated the bizarre and meaningless terrain of America's public school machine I can testify personally that what you read of in the news article linked above is something one could expect amongst the less than mediocre fools who guide policy and curriculum in today's schools.

I can't say it enough; what a total complete idiot!...fool!...Asshole!

When Your Own President Becomes Pals With Tyrants

...and wanna be tyrants.

This makes me sick.

The Honduras issue more than any recent foreign affairs issue shows where our current president really stands. It was bad enough that he barely showed even fleeting concern for the thousands of protestors in the Iranian dictatorship's recent bogus election ("we are very concerned" is about as much substance that we got from the administration). Snubbing the Dali Lama, well, to be expected (from the recipiant of a "peace prize" determined by fellow socialists).

The media, of course, has been, compliant in depicting events in Honduras as a "Coup." In fact, it could accurately be said that the legal government of Honduras prevented a coup by another Chavista Neo-comm in waiting.

Amazingly, Obama takes a clear side in the issue and sides with a defacto communist insurgent. What a surprise.

'Just trying to manifest another "dream" of his father's no doubt.

I'm Robin Hood...Give Me Your Stuff Now!...(for the People)

Here's an old classic.

Hugo Chavez has noted on more than one occasion that he is a "Maoist." That's just great. If there's a "worst brand" of communism, Maoism would be it.

Can you say "Killing Fields?"

Praise Be Unto Obama

(He just might be Jesus).

Che Sucks

...and, if you think he's a hero, maybe you suck.

Hate rock music?
Hate homosexuals?
Hate freedom?

You then have good cause to love Che.

Not For Everyone...

Insightful and intelligent; "A MYSTERY IN WHICH EVERYONE IS GUILTY".

This is Great! (In my opinion)

Conservatives definitely need to get more of this stuff out there. The premise of the sarcasm is indisputable and anyone with a bone of honesty in them will acknowledge it.

Hilarious...and tragic.

Deliberately Dying "for a Cause"… and Other Stupid Pet Tricks

...'little time but I wanted to put something up. This is an old post from the period of "the Iraq War" (remember that?) but the issue addressed is one that recently came up in conversation; the idea that anyone "willing" (stupid enough) to kill themselves (along with others don't forget!) must be motivated by something we should at least "try to understand." I've got a better idea, lets just call them assholes, condemn them -- completely, not half-heartedly -- and oppose their plans and actions. See, that wasn't so hard now, was it?

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

(from an earlier post)

I recently heard a common sentiment among the traitor crowd, a sympathy I've heard in so many words before; someone’s "cause" must indeed be "just" if they're willing to kill themselves for it. To this ridiculous defense of Islamic homicide/suicide bombings was added the idea that "they've lost everything... we’ve bombed their homes and killed their families...I’d be mad too..." This is of course a variation on the theme that radicals of any stripe are ultimately victims of poverty, oppression, and injustice. Islamo-fascists are poor and mistreated so they kill themselves and take bunch of random innocents with them – it’s really our fault.

Reality check, idiot:

The homicide/suicide bombers of Iraq and elsewhere are fanatic true believer's. If any of them happen to be poor, their economic status is an incidental factor to the fact that they are fanatical followers of a violent and oppressive cause -- their most basic motivation. The Kamikaze bombers of World War II dedicated themselves with equal fervor and it was hardly because of a sense of being poor or victims of imperialism. The Hitler Youth of Germany’s Nazi middle class possessed an allegiance to violence and “sacrifice” in service of their collectivist ideology as well. I think that it can be argued quit accurately that any self-esteem issues entering this picture are ones of too much self-esteem; Islamo-fascists think their philosophy and their role in it is so grand that, to some, their own self-induced death is a sort of dramatic fireworks display in honor of themselves. The fact that they believe they will arrive in heaven to a thankful god’s sex-fest reward system hardly causes them to ponder the absurdity of their actions. The average suicide bomber is not someone "retaliating for our having bombed their houses and killed their families.” In Iraq, it's pretty common knowledge that most attacks and suicide bombings are by foreign forces (i.e. from Syria and Saudi Arabia, etc.). "Jihad" began years before the Iraq war, before the Taliban in Afghanistan was removed from power, and before 9/11. The “brains” behind the Islamo-fascist's tactics, contrary to being poor are, like most radicals, pampered control-freaks from the middle and upper classes.

It is indeed a tragic fact that innocents have been killed in Iraq by carelessness or imprecision during specific strikes by the coalition but, as much as the left tries to paint circumstances otherwise, the coalition’s actions have never been deliberate attacks upon civilians or innocents. To the contrary, never before in the history of warfare has technology been so deliberately used to avoid civilian casualties. Most People's homes in Iraq have not been bombed and most families there have not been killed by coalition forces. One of the more bizarre quirks that regularly occur in this conflict is that, when a crazed homicide bomber kills numerous innocent bystanders; the response by some is to immediately blame George Bush for their deaths -- as if the bombers themselves literally played no part in the violence. Another issue seldom if ever raised by international media and critics is that, in spite of escalating casualties, the current deaths come no where near those from war and oppression in Saddam Hussein's Baathist police state.

At this point in the conflict in Iraq, violence is occurring as a result of Islamic fascist Jihad (as well as some former Baathists), an ideal that has nothing to do with poverty or injustice (the left’s catch-all alibi for any act of violence against free and open society). The homicide/suicide bombers of Islamo-Jihad are fanatics, plain and simple. Their ultimate objective is not to merely repel American troops and destroy the current government so as to "gain their freedom," it’s to establish an oppressive theological tyranny and extinguish all hope of freedom. The fact that this pathetic ideology can convince a few stupid fools to kill themselves in the process doesn't demonstrate justice in their “cause,” it merely shows that any stupid pet can be taught any stupid trick. The fact that some in the west express sympathy and support for them puts them on the same level (stupid left tricks?).

Deliberately blowing oneself up for the purpose of killing others is not an impressive act made out of desperation by “oppressed victims." It's the act of a fool, a fanatical one to be sure, but a fool nonetheless. Those who sympathize with their actions or see them as worthy of “understanding” are certainly no wiser – same stupidity, only without the suicidal drama gesture.

It can be argued by some that there are "things worth dying for," but aiding the imposition of statist or theocratic tyranny is not among them.

Dumb and Dumber

Russia, China, Ahmadinejad, Chavez, Cuba, Obama, Pelosi, et al vs...."the right."

Just why is it that the left is so blatantly clueless about political ideals, human nature, and history?

Celebrities Shall Overcome

Andrew Klavan, funny and insightful as usual.

The Look of Genuine and Sincere Compassion...for a Monolithic State...

This is funny...and, I believe reveals some body language insight into the "compassion" of most stiff, impersonal, and phony politicians who merely seek the implementation of ideologies and concentration of power.

Nice smile...so what.

“Community Organizer” for President

China, Russia, Iran, and Venezuela are happier...

How nice.

(Many citizens of Iran and Eastern Europe, maybe not so happy).

Greedy Bastards...

You can always tell when you're in an “evil, greedy, and selfish capitalist country"...You can drink the water.

A Rarity; A Common Sense Politician

A friend sent a link to me from this site and video clip.

It occurred to me that those of us on the libertarian right tend to be more sober in our praise or appreciation of the politicians we like. I've constantly encountered leftists who are totally enamored by some politician whose views they agree with. Obama is probably the best example in recent times of this childish and gullible behavior. All politicians, whether we agree with them or not, are just ...politicians (duh!). The left more often then not seems to treat our public servants (that's what they're supposed to be) as saviors of some kind. The religious tone and fervor directed at them becomes comical at times.

There are probably a few conservatives who get fired up over some speeches and some personalities but I think we've got a better grip on what a public personality is and what a politician's purpose is.

That all aside. The link above is a great example of a public servant who seems to be someone I can certainly respect -- some damn good sober arguments that appear to be quite sincere; no nonsense implying that he's on some spiritual mission to save the world. Some great well-stated points...

...but, I'm not going to wet my pants over it.

Politicians can and should be respected and admired when they act in accordance with our values. They should never be idolized, worshiped, or seen as super-human. If you do that,...you're an idiot, and there are clearly plenty of idiots for Obama and the leftist rabble who surround him and his policies.

Superb Informative Writing

This is most assuredly long reading but it offers some incredible insight into our current circumstance and the historical background that has brought us to where we are.

The People's Cube is primarily satire on par with the popular "Onion" newspaper and on-line site but occasionally the guy who runs it addresses things from a more serious angle. I'll include a few sections of the essay here to let you in on what I'm writing in this regard:

"...It would be absurd to presume that people of the world go to bed every night loving dictators and hating the United States. Obviously, the first conscious thing on the mind of a European, an African, or an Asian as they wake up in the morning is not how to survive another day of "America's economic and cultural imperialism." And since anti-Americanism is incompatible with common sense that guides our daily lives, people must be reminded of it every day to keep it alive. That is the burden that radical intellectuals have taken upon themselves, dispensing daily quotas of leftist clichés to the "unwashed masses" down below..."

Any society, even the freest democracy, has likely autocrats willing to take advantage of others, latent victims willing to give up freedom in exchange for entitlements, and budding free people willing to resist tyranny and defend their liberties. The ratio of these groups in each country may be different, but no nation is ever unanimous - despite all assurances to the contrary by dictators who claim to speak for all people..."

"...Statist regimes need unanimity to justify their existence. If a government's survival depends on unanimity, it will inevitably end up repressing free speech. That alone makes statism an unacceptable form of government. Any government's claim to speak for all people automatically makes it a suspect, just as unanimous voting is a symptom of tyranny..."

"...'I hope the Russians love their children too,' crooned Sting, as if there was any connection between what the Russians loved and what the Soviet government did. Further showing a lack of any sense, Sting claimed in the same song that he didn't believe Reagan, that 'there is no monopoly in common sense,' that 'we share the same biology regardless of ideology,' and "there's no such thing as a winnable war." In other words, all things being relative and all people being mindless biological units anyway, the free world might as well give in to the tyrants ruling over a gigantic gulag, whose voiceless inmates, Sting hoped, loved their children..."

[Quoting a Latin American expert, J. Michael Waller] "...interestingly, the CIA covertly funded the center-left, including socialists, to keep them from falling into the Soviet camp. The CIA almost never covertly supported right-wing forces; those forces were perfectly capable of operating on their own, and many were clumsy and even unnecessarily brutal in crushing the extreme left.

When the Marxists took power in Nicaragua in 1979, with the help of Jimmy Carter, it was the poor rural peasants who led the counter-revolutionary revolt. Campesinos from the countryside took up arms to fight the socialist revolution, because the Sandinistas began taking away their land, forcing them to work on collective farms, and conscripted them into a gigantic revolutionary army with Soviet weapons and Soviet-bloc trainers. The peasant resistance was supported by elements of the old Somoza regime who were the only ones at the time with military leadership experience, but the rank-and-file combatants were overwhelmingly poor peasants. Many of the fighters were former Sandinistas who had grown disillusioned with the socialist ideal...[end quote]..."

"...Today the CIA operates more tightly than ever under strict laws and bureaucratic guidelines, and the oversight committees in Congress are informed of every significant covert operation. Every such operation requires a presidential "finding." The CIA cannot operate on its own. So if the CIA was involved in ousting former Honduran President Zelaya, as Hugo Chavez is claiming, then it was with the personal authorization of President Barack Obama and with the knowledge of the Democrat leadership in both houses of Congress..."

Love, Peace, and Socialism

 

One Speech Down

After my last post it would be rude to not note that Obama's speech to America's children on their first day of school was a good speech (yes, my eyes still rolled up). After some noteworthy changes, particularly in regard to supplemental material that had asked kids to write a letter to themselves regarding what they could do to help Obama accomplish his goals, the end result was a simple well-crafted encouragement to stay in school and do well -- no problem with that.

I do have to note Michelle Malkin's rather funny note that the personal pronoun "I" greatly outnumbered, "you," "America," "Nation," etc., but that's just him being him. 'Nit-picking, but funny none the less.

Okay, no change, he still a great speech maker and has great speech writers. Now, if we could get him to ease back on socialist revolution we'd be fine.

...and, oh yeah, "It's the economy stupid."

Game Over – Faust Loses his Bargain

(I had typed this at the end of last week and have since read Charles Krauthammer's excellent appraisal of the same issue – he does a better job of course so I recommend reading his comments on the issue of Obama's early fall from heaven).

Anyway, here's what I have to say – for what it's worth:

The entire Obama event has been like something out of fiction; a guy with no experience running anything and a mere couple of years in the Senate (most of that time spent running for the presidency). His other noteworthy “accomplishments” have been to carefully cover a paper trail filled with radical belief, associations, and activity. Obama is a Marxist. Oh, he may differ a bit on specifics, but when fragments of his world view slip through the curtain they're familiar to anyone who understands political philosophy.

Okay,...he's a damn good speaker, he's relatively young, and he's “cool.” Now that his house of cards is collapsing (most media outlets are sill pretending that unemployment is not increasing), his strategy is, as it has always been when he's encountered opposition or his failings become too obvious; “I'll just make a speech” (something Mussolini – another Marxist/Fascist* -- used to say when things got dicey).

But...in power politics, a one-trick strategy can only be maintained for so long before citizens start asking for something with more substance.

Obama got in way over his head from the beginning. He has no business being in the position he's in. (As it's become customary now to cry “racism” when any criticism is made to his holiness I might add that I can think of at least five African-American's I'd love to see occupying the oval office – Obama is not one of them). Thinking he could cram his well-guarded Marxist/community organizer strategies into America's unique free wheeling and diverse system was a really dumb move.

So now; a speech to kids on the first day of the school year and a speech to a joint session of congress (something usually seen during major wars or crisis events). Of course the economy is still a crisis event but Obama's joint session speech is basically to counter the effective campaign of talk radio, the blogosphere, and common citizens who don't want stealth – designed to creep in slowly – government managed health care. No doubt he'll repeat that bogus “50 million uninsured American's” line of bullshit that has been effectively dissected by new media. As for the real crisis, a recession/depression, ...well, that's just a crisis he's "not going to let go to waste" as he uses it to justify a socialist wish list on transforming the most productive, innovative, and dynamic society in history into a weak, subsistence bureau-dictatorship (not an exaggeration. If the Demo-comms and Obama get what they want, American can no longer be an even remotely free country and it's economic system certainly won't be one that motivates growth and progress).

Barry's in a bind, so...“[He'll] just make a speech” -- but his time all but the most fervent worshipers will be rolling their eyes. We've all seen the speeches (it's basically the same speech with a few specifics juxtaposed).

Yes your majesty, you make good speeches,...now leave, and take Pelosi with you.

* Mussolini was a Marxist to his dying day and made it clear often. Like Hitler, he despised capitalism. The fact that he added a extreme nationalism to his belief and named his style of socialism, fascism doesn't change that fact – look it up

Michael Moore says, "Capitalism is Evil."

Only something a millionare could say with a strait face...

Ayn Rand's Short and Simple -- But Poetic -- Homage to the Individual

This is a great read.

Ironies in Appraisals of War and Peace

I like Japan. I live here. Like anyone staying here “for the duration,” I can't help but view Japan now with a more critical eye. None of my criticisms overrides my overall appreciation for the country and its people though.

Most of my criticisms are directed at tolerable weaknesses – most of which occur in abundance in other countries (including my own home country – the U.S.). Japan is bureau top-heavy. Bureaucrats and their procedures clog everything from the country's economic arteries to rules on waste disposal ('talk about making a simple concept like recycling into a labyrinth of inefficient and stupid red tape).

Actions by Japan in World War II don't spark my passions much. It's history. It's other people from another time and another government altogether, but...

The city of Nagaoka, like many cities in WWII, was fire-bombed. Thousands of innocents were killed and/or injured in the horrible tragedy of war. Like the circumstances in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, thousands of arguments regarding America's actions could be debated but... Some context please (!).

Bombing Nagaoka had as much strategic value as bombing Dresden, Germany (another senseless tragedy in the deck of Mars' cruel hand). Nagaoka was bombed as a primarily symbolic act in the final week of the war (of course, no one knew it would be the final week of the war as the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had not yet taken place and the military government of Japan was yet unwilling to surrender). It's the home of Admiral Yamamoto who led the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor thus ushering in American involvement in the world-wide conflict. Again, context is important here. Yamamoto actually was against the idea of picking a fight with the U.S. After all, he had gone to Harvard University and knew that Americans wouldn't likely take the attack on Hawaii well. But, again, its (would be) just history – if it weren't for the fact that people so love to bend and warp history and remove any context that may clarify why tragedies erupt.

Nagaoka annually mourns the horror of the city's bombing in an elaborate fireworks display. Brief references of respect to civilian lives lost are made -- all reasonable expressions of sympathy for the innocent.

Currently there are some photos prominently displayed on the city's main street showing the horrors of the fateful evening when Nagaoka was firebombed. I wouldn't blame a young person if they came to hate the U.S. upon seeing such depictions of violence. After all, how many of them know about “The Rape of Nanking” or the Bataan Death March. No – Japan was just minding its own business and carrying on the mundane affairs of its authoritarian government when the big mean United States just rolled in and started a random bombing raid. Of course, all the atrocities committed by Japan in WWII don't justify killing the innocent civilians of Japan “in retaliation.” War is often quite senseless or at least prods it's participants into overly impulsive action. Nagaoka's citizens, like all places that have endured the violence of war, have every reason to morn the tragedy in their past. My skepticism regarding the issue involves why a few streets away from this image, and this museum, there is a large sculpture/memorial to Admiral Yamamoto. Why is his birthplace enshrined and occasional special exhibits, like this held? There's even a Yamamoto curry sauce marketed in the city (a vast difference from colonel Sander's eleven herbs and spices or General Tao's Chicken). To my knowledge (I may be wrong) there is no proud display honoring the military official who oversaw the German attack on Poland in 1939.

The only reason this issue has caught my attention is that we live in an era when hypocrisy is now the order of the day when people express anti-war sentiments. The U.S., its history, and its actions are continually critiqued and its darker actions elevated as testament to its character (presumed to be downright evil). Such critiques are seldom presented with any degree of context, balance, or honesty.

So it is that citizens in a city in Japan now mourn the tragedy of innocents killed in a bombing raid in WWII...while simultaneously celebrating the heroism of an instigator of the very same war.

“Stop war!...but try this delicious Yamamoto brand curry sauce.”

Crazy crazy world...

Media Games:

If someone joins a trendy alliance of mllions opposed to the values and actions of free society, they're called brave free-thinkers. If one questions the motives of totalitarian sympathizers and statists, they're simply called “right wing nutcase extremists.”

"Americans Love Freedom"...

...well, that's not entirely true anymore. Several opinion polls would indicate that a good 30% or so of America's public support values that could be called “progressive.” Like a “progressive” once told me, “we need more laws!”.

I'd say about 70% of American's love freedom. About 30% want to control the lives of the that other 70%, and with their new pseudo-president “community organizer” and move-on “dot” congress they might just have their way.

That 30% is a powerful group. With the organs of media, entertainment, “education,” and government offices at the disposal of their bidding they can do a lot of damage to the love of freedom and the concept of freedom itself. The fact that more and more individuals and institutions are drinking the kool-aid from the government teat does not work into the favor of the cause of freedom either (it's certainly no coincidence that Obama and company are doing all they can to get more people hooked on the states own special brew).

'Not a pretty picture.

p.s. My reference to our pseudo-president does not mean to imply that he is not indeed the lawfully chosen / actual president of the United States. It's just that real presidents usually have some experience running something -- this guy doesn't.

More on the "evil right-wing extremist" CEO of Whole Foods (from Michelle Malkin).

"Do You Know Who You Are Boycotting?
posted at 8/21/2009 7:05 AM CDT

* Mackey lectures at Universities about the horrors of factory farming
* He says “Right now, Americans have to pretend factory farms don’t exist. They turn their eyes away, because there’s no alternative, there’s no choice. Once there is a choice, we will allow ourselves to be outraged.”
* He makes $1 a year and donates his stock portfolio to charity.
* He set up a $100,00 fund to help his employees with personal problems.
* He’s a vegetarian and his company will not buy from producers that treat their animals unethically.
* He flies commercial, rents the smallest cars, and stays in the cheapest hotel rooms - not because he’s cheap, but because he has no need for largesse
* He and his wife participate in yoga
* He gives over $1 million a year to animal welfare groups, education, relief work, and spiritual movements.
* Employees have full say in who they work with - a new employee must receive a 2/3 vote in order to make it past probation.
* Employees also vote on all company-wide initiatives
* There’s a salary book in every store - “no secrets” management believes everyone should know how much everyone else is making
* Executive salaries are capped at 14 times the lowest workers salary - If they want more money, everyone else has to get more money first
* Non-executive employees hold 94% of company stock options
* Pay is linked to team performance - profit sharing
* At least 5% of annual profits go to local charities
* Full-timers get 100% of their health care costs paid for - under plans the employees have selected
* “They just have a lot more respect for you as a person here” says an employee

And because he had a different idea about how the United States can fix it health care situation, none of this matters? He’s a caring person and many of you want to treat him like a monster. Why? Not because he opposes reform, but because he’s bringing more ideas to the table.

You people are despicable. If the country had more CEO’s like Mackey, this country would be a greater place"

And, last but not least -- don't forget -- he dared to disagree with his royal holiness the grand duke of slipped-in-behind-the-curtain-socialism; Barack "Barry" Hussein Obama (and the move on "dot" Democrat party).

Intellectuals, Eric Hoffer, and Common Sense Appraisals of "the worker's" Relationship to Management...

I've noticed that a lot of searches that end up on my site arrive at this post from several years back.

In rereading it I felt I should repost the quote by Eric Hoffer regarding workers' relationship to management. Since, like so many circumstances in life, the left can only see hardship or difficulty as a product of "capitalism" (free people making free choices as to what to produce, sell, and buy), I think Hoffer really notes something most people seldom if ever consider:

”To the eternal workingman management is substantially the same whether it is made up of profit seekers, idealists, technicians, or bureaucrats. The allegiance of the manager is to the task and the results. However noble his motives, he cannot help [but view] the workers as a means to an end. He will always try to get the utmost out of them; and it matters not whether he does it for the sake of profit, for a holy cause, or for the sheer principle of efficiency….

…Any doctrine that preaches the oneness of management and labor – whether it stresses their unity in a party, class, race, nation, or even religion – can be used to turn the worker into a compliant instrument in the hands of management. Both Communism and Fascism postulate the oneness of management and labor, and both are devices for the extraction of maximum performance from an underpaid labor force…

…Seen from this point of view, the nationalization of the means of production is more a threat than a promise. For we shall be bossed and managed by someone, no matter who owns the means of production – and we can have no defenses against those who can tell us in all truth that we, the workers, own everything in sight and they, our taskmasters, are driving us for our own good. The battle between Socialism and Capitalism is to a large extent a battle between bosses, and it is legitimate to size up the dedicated Socialist as a potential boss.

One needs not call to mind the example of Communist Russia to realize that the idealist has the making of a most formidable taskmaster.” (The Ordeal of Change, Pgs. 64-65)

Hoffer's most noted book is "The True Believer," which is an excellent insightful appraisal of mass-movements. The lessor known, "Ordeal of Change" is a brilliant appraisal of intellectuals...and how they "got there" (their motives and products).

If you're a libertarian or classical liberal (conservative by genuine definition -- not the left's definition), Hoffer is a must-read author.

If you're a leftist...just keep worshiping the state and your own contrived compassions for people you've never met.

Random Observations

It would serve the world a great deal of good if people were to know (or remember) that “utopia” means nowhere.

When someone says that you need to be “more open-minded,” what they typically mean is that you should agree with them.

I have yet to meet anyone uttering the word “greed” who lacked noted degrees of avarice themselves.

Following a radical populist is the ultimate act of conformity.

Societies (like individuals) who have everything tend to get bored. The statist mantra of “change,” regardless of how irrelevant it may be to actual circumstance, is always seductive to those who are simply bored. Be careful of the things you wish for.

It's an old axiom in psychology that neurotics build castles in the sky and psychotics live in them. To this I would add that leftists demand that other people live in them as well.

The ultimate gripe held by most socialists is that they don't want to see private people have private lives.

Leftists basically believe that the Emperor has clothes...and that we should pay for them.

"Progressively" More Pathetic

Sometimes they're just assholes...really. I know that's "name-calling" and not an effective way of responding to opinions but the response by some leftist clowns to John Mackey's recent opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal is downright pathetic.

Macky is the CEO of Whole Foods and expressed his views on the health-care issue (remember, no one is allowed to express their views on this issue unless they worship at the alter of his highness, lord Obama).

Macky's opinion piece was a sober, and realistic appraisal of current debate over health-care legislation. Anyone can agree, disagree, or take varying views on specific ideas expressed. But...in lefty land, Mackey's article is a new excuse to rally the forces to boycott Whole Foods stores. Some people have expressed their disgust and didn't know he had such "extreme right-wing views." In fact, Mackey's views can be described (like my own) as libertarian -- a belief in limited constitutional government and free economic exchange (hardly a radical idea). This view is now commonly chastised as "Nazi," "Fascist," or "extreme right-wing."

Some people claim to not like the idea of a CEO even expressing their political beliefs -- unless of course we're talking about Ben and Jerry, Ted Turner, or countless movie dirctors and producers.

Here's an example of what Mackey had to say (the horror!):

"...At Whole Foods we allow our team members to vote on what benefits they most want the company to fund. Our Canadian and British employees express their benefit preferences very clearly—they want supplemental health-care dollars that they can control and spend themselves without permission from their governments. Why would they want such additional health-care benefit dollars if they already have an "intrinsic right to health care"? The answer is clear—no such right truly exists in either Canada or the U.K.—or in any other country..."

By all means read the entire piece...then read what some on the left have to say about it, then decide who is sane.

It's grand to see the left implode upon themselves. Their nonsense is starting to wear on many common folks.

What exactly is so hard about the idea of "Leave us the F...ck alone." But, remember, they've got other peoples lives to run.

...idiots.

Great Observation

“...people in America and around the world aren't dying from malnutrition because places like [Burger King] have made food fresh, cheap, and simple to prepare. Seriously, where ever you find a fast food restaurant, you'll find fat kids, but not starving ones. But in this easy age of value-free moralism, experts are more inclined to demonize Ronald McDonald than Robert Mugabe.”
-- Greg Guttfield

Go Flag Yourself

Definitely send a message to the White House's new "flagging" system and let them know that you may be a bit "fishy" in you lack of support for his royal highness, Barack Hussein Obama. Remember, these folks are the one's who were always so excited about "dissent" (Marxist groups breaking bank windows).

Send your guilty thoughts to:

flag@whitehouse.gov

Here's what I sent them:

You should definitely flag this....

I've been having delusions of personal autonomy and will require a complete flagging by the state to bring me in line with the proper thought required of an obedient citizen. Unlike those wholesome folks from International A.N.S.W.E.R and other assorted Marxist groups I've been kind of agreeing with those old folks from Pa. and elsewhere who want his Excellency Obama and court to shove it. How about leaving us all the hell alone.

Do excuse my disobedience. I haven't joined the angry mob yet but it's only a matter of time no doubt.

Cheers,

A counter-revolutionary enemy of the people

p.s. I'm sooo looking forward to seeing America's new move-on-dot-socialist party drown in the next election.

(they surely can't knock on my door here in Japan...can they?)

"The Rich Aren't Paying Their Fair Share"

Neal Boortz lays out the stats regarding the oft repeated -- and believed -- myth that "the rich" (those bastards!) aren't being soaked enough to pay for Democrats' and other socialists' planning projects.

'Always been nonsense...'still nonsense.

What better way to trash an economy and drive your civilization into the ground than old fashioned class envy.

Presidential Crap

Adrew Klavan is so excellent!...again. (Scroll down to "Talking Crap").

Dismemberment vs. Fear of Drowning; A "Progressive"ly Stupid Comparison

A trendy fad for moral relativism has produced some bizarre debate of late.

In a world where everyone was moderate and reasonable I guess one could just persuade violent fanatical extremists to give up Jihad and “give peace a chance.” That probably works for coffee shop poets and some college professors.

Certainly no one wishes to read of (real) torture being used by any government but I find it odd that in a world where gruesome maiming and bloodletting is regularly used against people who want no more than to live freely, some critics' moral passions continually focus on three incidents of waterboarding by the U.S. After 9/11. Then there are the additional “tortures” by the U.S. that spark outrage; sleep deprivation, loud annoying music, insult, and exposure to harmless but scary looking insects (yes, that really was one of the "tortures"). I think the CIA and military may have even actually roughed up a few Jihadists. In spite of the “tortures” committed by U.S. personal against the saints who store ammunition in hospitals and schools and strap explosives to young women or retarded persons, I find it amazing that some can even see America's treatment of Jihadists as moral equivalents to dismemberment, eye gouging, breaking bones, and beheadings – common practice in many countries.

The moral relativists' stance is the same mentality that, upon hearing of a brutal slaying, jump to defend the “rights” of...the murderer! OK, it's good that there are advocates for the rights of all varieties of villains, but if me, my family, or friends are the potential victims of criminal or terrorist violence, I think I know who I'd want on my side and arm-chair philosophers are low on the list (I lied, they're not even on the list). The left in general has a bad track record for demonstrating any allegiance to the interests of free societies and their citizens. It's always the “rights” of dictators and authoritarian extremists that elicit “concern” from the spoiled brats of left-land. Case in point; where exactly are all the Hollywood actors, entertainers, and “artists” regarding the human rights of the citizens of North Korea's gulag? There are enough consistent stories coming out of there to turn anyone's stomach, but the left's passion is with some extra-national religious fanatics that seek to kill and enslave millions with their new and improved fascist Caliphate.

The transparent bias of the “terrorist rights” lobby reveals more about their hatred for America than their ability to arrive at superior moral judgments. It is more than appropriate to note the deafening silence of those perennially outraged by America's perceived misdeeds when confronted with daily horrors in North Korea, Iran et. al.

The moral relativists seem to be paraphrasing Joseph Stalin; “One [act of temporary discomfort and induced fear] is a tragedy, a million [actual cases of permanent physical injury] are a mere statistic.

Moral people do have to “take a side” -- not taking the side of free and open society under attack from totalitarian thugs is defaulting to the cause of authoritarian coercion, regardless of how well one minces words with relativistic detachment. Pretending that one stands outside and above such moral opposites is transparent to anyone who hasn't been force fed a mandatory college diet of Howard Zinnn or Noam Chomsky et. al.

Trendy sympathies for the comfort of terrorists and recurring passionate disdain for the actions of free societies that seek to prevent plots of mass violence is hardly a high horse of moral insight. It's just business as usual from the folks who brought us communism, socialism, fascism, and Nazism.

“Progressives”...yeah, right.

"The self-promotion stimulus"

Stuff like this makes me sick...It's the principal.

Can You Say, "Full of Sh_t?"

I have yet to hear someone argue that "you need to be more 'open-minded'" (they're typically someone that is losing a debated issue) who is genuinely an "open-minded" person themselves.

When debating issues like America defending itself against authoritarian thugs or how much freedom I should be allowed to maintain, I dare say that others claiming to be "open-minded" for opposing such things are expressing a transparent con at best.

When someone says that you need to be “more open-minded,” what they typically mean is that you should agree with them.

So full of...themsleves.

Obama is America's Very Own Hugo Chavez

Dick Morris on the many con-schemes that Obama will use to further entrench his Chavista style "revolution" in America.

Facts...and Valid Questions Based On Facts

If one argues that Earth's overall average climate is getting warmer or cooler, one has a 50% chance of being right.

The chance that Earth's climate will change (“climate change”) with or without humans, SUV's, or air conditioning, is almost 100% -- the Earth's climate has never stayed the same [!]

If we could “take steps” to raise or lower average temperature, what would be the correct temperature to strive for (given that changes of temperature of many degrees up and down have occurred throughout Earth's history).

Is it better for Holland and New Orleans to remain above water (they're actually already below sea level), or for vast areas of Siberia and Greenland etc. to become open to farming?

How could attempts to moderate average Earth temperature be coordinated with the natural events that have a proven correlation with climate change (i.e. Solar activity).

Why are the ice caps on Mars melting and can politicians pass legislation to stop such melting?

Why would any sane person seek to destroy the most dynamic economy in human history (the U.S.'s) in the hopes of altering Earth's temperature a fraction of a degree over the next several decades, all based on bogus theories, “computer models,” and self interested socialist demagogues' hopes to finally steal what is not theirs – the fruits of a free economy?

Why is virtually every outspoken “climate change” alarmist considerably wealthy (i.e. Al Gore's income has risen dramatically since he began milking the “Global Warming” cash cow). And why the excessive use of air travel by such hypocrites -- often private jets?

Why are climate change bureaucrats always flying to distant meetings and often staying in luxury hotels (i.e. Bali / $500.00 per night rooms)?

Lastly, how can people be so stupid to be so easily sucked into another socialist con scheme?

For those who may have not yet seen this good overview of the nonsense, please watch “The Great Global Warming Swindle.” It's among many sources that take issue with the nonsense regularly pushed off upon the public as a “science” of doom “unless we act now” to increase government authority over the economy.

Free Lunch and Healthcare

'Still brutally constrained by time and out of the blogging loop indefinitely.

I'd love to write endlessly on the big events of our time, notably the current actions in North Korea, Iran, and our own branches of government as they slouch toward enhanced authority.

After bouncing back and forth as to just how radical or moderate Obama would ultimately manifest I'll just sum up my appraisal in a sound bite (write bite?)... He sucks. What the hell could the American population possibly be thinking?

I'd love to list the many reasons why this guy's act is wearing thin on me but I have no time and others are effectively doing so in better ways than I could. If only a good portion of the population would catch on as to just how seriously this pseudo-Marxist clown is altering the founders' experiment in individual liberty, not to mention his deliberate attempts to considerably weaken the U.S. at a time when authoritarians are emboldened. The vultures are circling and Obama thinks they now like us because he's made some speeches (whoopde-doo). The “good speaker” argument is looking less and less appealing at a time when seasoned and sober leadership is needed on all fronts.

On that note, I'd like to simply leave you with the much quoted words of P.J. O'Rourke:
"If you think that health care is expensive now, just wait until it is free."

Greed and Envy

(This is not a return to posting -- 'still overwhelmed with unrepaired computer ailments...but, I had to get this -- timely -- comment in).

The common attack word "greed" uttered so often today has become the pejorative of choice among those overwhelmed by envy. Envy is greed (!) In fact, it is often worse because greed often motivates people to pursue a goal or produce something of value to others. Envy seldom motivates anything beyond a baseless lust for unearned wealth or power. Thus it is that the "greedy" capitalist produces advanced civilization as we know it (comparing the present to imaginary "better times" of the past is just ignorant).

The envious socialist produces nothing but resentment, violence, and coercion for the glory of the state and self-absorbed…greedy autocrats.

Liberty vs. Nonsense...

Andrew Klavan Rocks.

I'm still pretty much off-line for awhile (still hoping to alleviate a thousand computer ills), but I had to get this link in.

'Loads of computer difficulties and errands. 'Will be away for awhile.

(Occasionally, my links appear far down the page. If you don't see them, simply scroll down to find them).

A jolly and festive month to all.

Tea Parties and Left Wing Windbags

Those evil dangerous right wing extremist nutcases actually think that government spending has become too high and Government growth and authority has breached the legal limits outlined in the constitution -- like, who do they think they are!? The nerve. It's a good thing that most media outlets pretended the protests (and point of view) didn't exist and finally, when they did report on the issue, they practiced confrontational and dishonest editorializing.

Why couldn't the protesters have been like all those kind and peaceful protesters against Bush and capitalism and just denigrated the United States and expressed their love for authoritarian thugs (i.e. Che, Mao, et al.)? Then they could have been refered to as "a cross-section of society."

It's good to know that we're now at least safe from the dangers of tax protests because, as most know by now, the Department of Homeland security (under new management) now defines belief in limited government and more localized government to be signs of potential domestic terrorism. It's good to know that Mohammad's franchise is no longer a concern and that the real danger actually lies in those who still honor the ideals of America's founding documents.

"Yes we can!"

"Shut Up!"

This is so great! (Scroll down a bit to the the video clip of Andrew Klavan).

Obama Is "The Only Thing Standing Between [civilized constitutional society] and The Pitchforks"

The People's Cube is always a treat of hilarity and disarming wit.

Occasionally their commentary takes on a more serious tone. This is a downright scholarly piece loaded with interesting information for those who appreciate the history of the former Soviet Union and Socialist "revolution" in general. I've pasted a few segments from this very informative and insightful essay below:

"In a balanced society, an angry mob is never a part of the equation. But if the goal is to throw a capitalist society off balance in order to change it, an angry mob is the ticket. Anger is known to be the easiest and the most effective tool of crowd manipulation. Angry mobs cancel out the rule of law. Infusing anger into a community and turning it into an angry mob, canceling out the rule of law, and changing the balance in a society - this is what community organizers do for a living."...

..."In the absence of economic incentives, the stagnant and unproductive industries could only be run by threats and intimidation. Those who think that the Soviet system was an aberration of socialism, please consider that it had been consistent with the principles of equality and the common good. Stalin's reign of terror was merely an inevitable end result of a collectivist Utopian theory that contradicted human nature, vilifying people for "greed" and "selfishness," which were mere manifestations of their individuality, and punishing the desire to be free from state-run slavery."...

'Definitely couldn't have said it better myself.

"A Short Economics Lesson"

From Dissecting Leftism.
An excellent example of how socialism "works" (doesn't work):

"A Short Economics Lesson"

"An economics professor at Texas Tech said he had never failed a single student before but had, once, failed an entire class. That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said ok, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism.

All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A. After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. But, as the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too; so they studied little. The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around the average was an F.

The scores never increased as bickering, blame, name calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great; but when government takes all the reward away; no one will try or want to succeed.

Could not be any simpler than that...."

Why do people still fall for the great imposed equality scam?

Death, Taxes, and Nonsense

Excellent Video Clip summarizing the current wealth envy / tax issue.

Redistribute the Guilt

You may be Guilty!

...now, stop it!

Bureaucracy Is Not A "Necessary Evil" It's Just Evil...

There are often tip-offs that one gets regarding where others position themselves on the important events of the day. When people introduce themselves and within minutes recite some cliché diatribe against George Bush or the Iraq war, I can usually predict with a fair degree of accuracy where they stand on school vouchers, limited government, or the decisions of Barack Obama. If a person says they’re a feminist who backpacked in Latin America and “[they] don’t eat meat,” I’m gonna guess they weren’t for the removal of Saddam Hussein by force (as if there could have been another way to have done so). Gauging such associations is of course no magic trick or profound sense of observation on my part, it’s simple common sense. ‘Not always 100% accurate, but reasonably so. Likewise, I may also say things that clearly tip off others as to where I stand and what “kind of person” I am philosophically. If I say I favor limited government and low taxes, most would probably – accurately – guess that I’m not a fan of B. Hussein Obama or the latest "global warming" crusade. Again, hardly a profound calculation.

I’ve discovered one tip-off that isn’t so obvious but seems to inform others regarding political values none the less. More than a few times I’ve expressed frustration with or disdain for the common ordeal of dealing with bureaucrats. One would expect (hope?) that no one would really like bureaucracy. I’d figure it would be like asking anyone if they like high gas prices. Bureaucracy is inconvenient and annoying at best and, all too often, downright oppressive. Yet, to express one’s frustration with or dislike of bureaucracy has often seemed to strike a nerve with some I’ve spoken to. It’s as if they know that hatred for bureaucrats equals the non-“progressive” world view. Indeed, their observation is probably accurate. Conservatives and libertarians are no fans of big government and what could be a better symbol of big government then the unnecessary parasites of state with their paper work, commands, and unelected authority over the minutiae of citizen’s lives. All too often I’ve found a casual statement regarding the annoyance of bureaucracy to be met with passionate defense of the concept and on a few occasions bitter attacks on me for daring to chastise the left’s holy caste of secular priests.

Who hasn't, at one time or another, been confronted with a smug, and unhelpful bureaucrat. Not to say that all are unfriendly or unhelpful, but the system they operate in hardly motivates anything akin to quality "customer service." To the state, you are a number in both theory and practice. The fact that leftist politicians even have the nerve to associate their plans with "compassion" or "caring" is laughable. Individuals in voluntary contexts show compassion. Bureaucrats tell you to take a number and fill out a complex form.

I think it’s more than reasonable to resent the ordeal of dealing with bureaucracy but many on the left, though they themselves probably don’t like the labyrinths of bureauland any more than the next person, become incredibly defensive when one attacks the domain of “public servants” (that would be one of their terms, not mine).

I personally hate bureaucrats. I hate bureaucracy. I hate the bureaucratic state (i.e. socialism in all its guises). Is that now “hate speech” – to despise the authority of mindless unelected fools who hold sway over all aspects of one’s life? If so, I may be guilty of “hate speech” in this regard (or at least hate writing), but who doesn’t hate something (if we assume that hate means passionate dislike)? Those who most make an issue of hate speech are certainly likely to hate George Bush, Republicans, conventional – non-Islamic – religions, and sometimes the entire American enterprise. But...

Back to bureaucracy specifically. Yes, I know, "we need someone to look after the roads.” But let's be realistic. Bureaucrats and bureaucracy suck (regardless of the roads’ condition)! We all know that. Even the left will sometimes reluctantly acknowledge a certain discomfort with the twisted and inefficient labyrinths of government offices (while simultaneously supporting their expansion and authority).

Ultimately, bureaucracy is nurtured by a state of mind, something I simply call bureaumind. Bureaumind is not confined to agencies of government, though that is where it tends to flourish most. Government is a nutrient bath for bureaumind. Government is the venue where attempts to extinguish bureaumind and its follies are minimized if not whole-heartily stifled.

We’ve all met bureaumind at school, at work, and even in leisure pursuits. In essence, it’s the desire to wallow in unnecessary complexity and the inevitable confusion and inefficiency that follow. It usually demands that others be compelled to support its vision both materially and spiritually. Bureaumind's worldly representative – the bureaucrat -- is the true cleric of the left’s secular religion of statism. Only in the vapid brains of bureaumind would an elementary school boy be suspended for "sexual harassment" after kissing a girl on the cheek or a student be expelled for accidentally bringing her mother's lunch bag to school which included a small paring knife (these events actually happened – and the list of such examples is endless).

So, why do some people actually like bureaumind and encourage its sustenance and growth? The truth is, many people’s thoughts, plans, and actions are insignificant, useless, and even stupid, but few would want to acknowledge that, so they try to institutionalize their ideas, codify them, and make them policy – “I’m the guy that came up with the new counter-hierarchical paradox obedience…project forms. I think it will really help us all do a better job…don’t you?”

There’s a psychological test based on Carl Jung’s personality typology. One axis of the test observes those who prefer open-endedness. On the other side are those who like to tackle a chore in sequence – “crossing each item off a list” when completed. Bureaumind doesn’t like crossing things off lists. They like making lists, adding to them, and rearranging the list for maximum confusion to all parties. This doesn't make them "open-ended," just useless. An agency of state doesn’t like to actually complete a project or solve a problem and then close up shop. That’s why “ending poverty” has become a multi-trillion dollar government project that fosters dependency and literally perpetuates poverty. If they actually ended poverty or even greatly reduced it, bureaumind's insignificant, useless, and stupid ideas would go un-institutionalized and those who support and implement such schemes as “anti-poverty” programs wouldn’t be honored -- and paid -- for their stupid wastes of other people’s money and increasing regulation of other people's lives.

Bureaumind admittedly functions in the private sphere as well (as anyone knows who’s been given a menu of choices to push when calling many large companies (“your call is important to us…”), but bureaumind reaches its greatest levels of incompetence and stupidity when instituted by the drones of state for the unwilling people they “serve.” At least among private entities one can always opt-out or shop for a more convenient venue, but the public guardian -- purveyor of bureaumind -- is a sort of accountant /politician hybrid, a nerd with the power to dispense revenge on all who fail to honor their self-perceived greatness and the "necessity" of their mission. Their "service standard" is to elicit submission and obedience and the more stupid the rule or "guideline" the more rigidly it will be enforced.

When debating politics and the “need” for a new government project, I’ve inevitably come across those who see bureaucracy as not only a “necessary evil” but something they actually crave to see fostered on fellow citizens. They know that leftism is the bureau-state. To not see bureaucracy in an absolutely favorable light would require abandonment of their entire world view. Like a Soviet peasant poster from the 1930’s, some will always see fellow citizens as potential smiley faces marching in unison for the greater glory of a plan, a system, or an idea “that will make the world better for all of us” (as long as it is their plan, system, or idea).

After spending trillions of dollars since the 1960’s to ultimately attempt an improvised repair of human nature, the clowns of leftland continue to beat the drum of a million and one final solutions to all that ails us. Just give them more money, shinier offices, and a stack of triplicate forms to lord over. Give them your home, your children, a percentage of your sweat, and a large portion of your very soul. The foul attributes of the modern bureaustate have become more than typical. The current president and his legislative supporters are redirecting history's most dynamic experiment in personal liberty to the ends of submission to the bureaustate and the demagogues who love it.

Like most thoughts that come from “the right” (conservatives and libertarians), the views I’ve expressed here stem from a sincere self-interest (we don’t pretend to be sacrificial angels or feign moral purity). I don’t like the concept of total strangers having sovereignty over aspects of my personal life and choices and I suppose on some level that’s selfish. But, seeking to force others to join communal schemes is rather selfish too. What could be more selfish than the death or virtual enslavement of millions for communism’s – supposedly noble – goals of a stale world of bureaucratically enforced “equality.”? While socialism-lite and bland bureau schemes are not always communism or fascism, their family likeness is more than apparent. Bureaucracies seldom ask for less power, less funding, and a narrower focus. They seldom ask for anything since it's their nature to command and demand.

“Hate speech” (or just plain, “hate” as many leftists describe it), is an appropriate exercise in political incorrectness when directed at the most timeless of horrid schemes by collectivists – the bureau-state and its minions.

To express one’s disgust – or even hatred – for bureau mind and the bureau-state is most certainly a “tip-off” that one is no fan of the thousand and one permutations of leftism that would have us all answer to a bland caste of parasites…who do more than simply “maintain the roads” and, in a free society, do less than anyone ever really needs or wants.

John Stossel's Latest

Few contemporary libertarians have done more to inform the public of just how pathetic and undeserving adoration of the state is than John Stossel.

His first book reveals, among other things, how his fellow friends in the media came to shun him for daring to take an anti-government stand on the affairs of the day. These are the same clowns who regularly fancy themselves cutting edge rebels in the fight against authority. The reality is that, like all leftists (of varying stripes), most journalists love the power of the state -- anything but the free market and free individuals choosing their own course in life.

In John Stossel's latest report, the recent bailouts and pork circus is made all too obvious for it's grasp for power in the guise of a "stimulus."

A link to part one is here. Be sure to see all six short segments.

How dare he critique the lies of statists and the dupes who cheer them on.

I've seen all of John Stossel's special reports and there's something in them for everybody who truly holds arbitrary authority in suspicion. Although those on the left often see themselves as holding such a view, their beliefs are far from it. They think the emperor has clothes and think we should all pay for them.

Those who believe in individual liberty and the right to simply be left alone owe Stossel several rounds of applause.

Spot-on Again...

Steven Crowder continues to expand and perfect his awesome comedy critiques of the left and their blatant stupidity.

His latest is a fun poke at the pathetic concern "liberals" (leftist neo-comms) show towards terrorists' comforts in captivity.

By the way. Russia is talking of putting bomber aircraft in Cuba, Kim Jong Il is going to fly a rocket over Japan, and China is telling the U.S. to stay out of international waters near their musty authoritarian shores.

...Obama. Teleprompter-O. Celebrity God-man. Change we can believe in. When he's finished the U.S. will be a mere phantom of its former self and tyrants will dance with glee. The U.S. electorate really blew it this time.

Small Hopes and Change...

It's rather typical of the "mainstream" (old) media to cherry pick quotes from prominent conservatives. This occurred recently when Rush Limbaugh made a very clear statement regarding Teleprompter-O's attempts to "remake" America into a socialist state. Limbaugh clearly stated that, if in fact, Obama was seeking to radically transform America into the socialist model that he so often affiliated with, he (Limbaugh) hopes he fails. Pretty clear. Disagree or not, it was a fair expression and not particularly malice driven (as was so common with those tirades made by leftists against Bush).

Ann Coulter gets similar treatment by most in the mainstream media. She's definitely aggressive, sarcastic, and witty but to read the quotes usually given regarding what she says one would think she merely whines and complains with no basis or factual appraisal. This is far from the truth.

Coulter's latest observations are more than appropriate appraisals of the hypocrisy among the neo-comm Democrats and their god-leader. Some interesting facts to ponder -- along withe usual wit and sarcasm.

Well-stated.

Random Thoughts

The basic philosophy of communism (and this would include today's trendy neo-comms) is that the rich have everything and the poor have nothing...and, it would be a better world if the circumstance were the opposite.

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

No matter how socially intrusive a leftist may be, they will always draw a line at the boundaries of their own liberty and independence.

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

The most sincere observer of oppression usually gauges status on a case by case basis.

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

When an intellectual uses the term, "The Masses," he or she basically means "Those who are not me."

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

It is the nature of government to not act in accordance with human nature but instead to compel something akin to the opposite of human nature. It is in this obvious folly that government intrusion is almost always a recipe for failure or the exacerbation of worldly problems. It is no wonder that those so enamored with the authority of government hate the free market in economics where human nature is afforded its widest expression.

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

A cult of personality in politics has never been a good thing – ramping such emotions up, on steroids so to speak, can only be worse.

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

The difference between patriotism and nationalism is akin to the difference between wanting your high school debate team to do well vs. wanting you school's soccer team to crack the skulls of the other team.

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

Socialism's solution to societal "weeds" it to simply outlaw flowers.

"Greed"

A good friend of mine sent me a link to this. Of course it's a mere fragment of in iterview with Milton Friedman and only begins to extrapolate upon a timely topic but his arguments are concise, to the point, and spot-on in their insight.

"Myths"

The "myth" of tax and spend "liberals" ("progressives," leftists, neo-comms) can now be put to rest...(for anyone not keeping up on the latest Obama wealth envy crusade, that's meant to be a joke).

Conservatives Are Funnier Than Leftists (who are seldom funny at all actually)

This guy's really growing on me.

Perhaps His Royal Holiness, B. Hussein Obama, Isn't So "Moderate"

You can often effectively judge people by "the friends they keep." In politics, I think it's fair to say you can make some reasonable judgments regarding who they appoint as advisers as well.

This link is scary: Frontpagemag.com

On another not so unrelated topic, a great humorous mocking of Socialized Medicine, Canadian style.

Objective Cheer Leading

Like most college schools of education, journalism schools have been infected for quite some time now with the state-worshiping postmodern virus.

Students are told that since genuine objectivity can never really be attained anyway (a hat tip to Nietzsche, Foucault, Derrida, etc), one should direct instruction or news reporting to the higher goals of unadulterated partisanship (i.e. Push left wing political values and deride conservative ones).

The faceless writers of common wire services like Reuters and Associated Press have become absurd in recent years -- initially motivated by a pandemic of Bush Derangement Syndrome.

One can find blatant editorializing and downright distortion in the most mundane "news" articles on any given day.

Here's a mild one I found yesterday from AP:

(Headline):

Republicans Poised to Leap on Spending Abuses

(Subheading):

Party prepares to pounce on wasteful spending in the $787 billion stimulus package as they refocus their criticisms of a measure whose success could hurt their 2010 election prospects (emphasis mine).

I realize that this is a very subtle and barely noticeable example of bias – but that's the point. It would no doubt be seen as biased by anyone left of center if the sub-heading had stated; "...whose failure could help their 2010 election prospects [!]."

An attempt at objective reporting could easily report the issue minus a sub-heading that clearly depicts the so-called "stimulus" in a positive or negative light or those who oppose it in a postive or negative light.

This is admittedly a minor example of AP's non-stop pathetic proselytizing for the Democrat party and leftist politics in general.

I once wrote that, even though the executive and legislative branches of government were run by Republicans; that news media, education, and entertainment were dominated by the left. Now that's changed and the executive and legislative branches of government are in lockstep with their left-wing comrades of state adoration – they've even got a cult of personality going (Obama as savior).

We're screwed...'should make a lot of spoiled socialist brats happy.

Stimulating Marx's Grave

-- Approved of (voted on) and read by no one including the president who pushed it (unless he can read 1500 pages in a night's sitting -- I keep forgetting, he is "The One" after all).

-- Written by no one voted for or known to the public (staff bureaucrats), and costing future generations trillions of dollars in the end.

This is a "stimulus" fostered upon a desperate public by a con-artist with no executive experience or knowledge of economics (and apparently little common sense).

The little we do know so far, in some of the bills larger print, is that Democrats will get some of their wish list to begin nationalizing American society on the model that has failed miserably everywhere it's been tried.

...not looking good

What Happend To All The Cartoons?

I'm referring to newspaper cartoons. To be sure I haven't gleaned all newspapers and there may indeed be a few newspaper cartoonists who still critically appraise a current president but...I don't see a lot (actually, I've seen none!) of cartoons mocking or critiquing our new god-man president, his highness B. Hussein Obama.

On the flip side, it seems that just weeks ago and for the past eight years all critical faculties in news cartoons were directed at the infamous "W."

To add further icing to this pathetic journalists' cake I've seen a few cartoons recently that actually take a valid issue regarding Obama's competence and honesty and twist it into a mocking critique of his opponents position.

All presidents, even ones sent from heaven like Obama, have something to analyze critically. Why is this clown off the hook?

Are there any sane people left in mainstream communication channels?

On a side note, a thousand cheers to the kids of Boulder High School where I substituted and taught for a couple of years, for standing up to the ridiculous idea of changing their school's name in honor of our current (it's been only three weeks folks) president. This Obama worship cult is becoming downright sickening