Very Insightful Take on the "Bush Hatred / Obama Love" Issue...

Excerpts:

"... They face (at least) two options:"

"Barack Obama is a sellout, “just Bush with a tan,” subservient to the same malevolent political and economic forces that Bush was.

OR the Bush administration was actually pretty reasonable to adopt these policies in the first place, and the Obama administration has been reasonable enough to recognize the fact.

Both options require the liberal to admit a mistake: either he was wrong about Obama, or he was wrong about Bush. But the first option requires the liberal to sacrifice his love for Obama, while the second option requires him to sacrifice his hatred of Bush. Either Obama was dishonest in the campaign or overwhelmed by baleful influences once he came to the Oval Office — or Obama, once he came to the White House and had the same information and responsibility that Bush had, came to more or less the same conclusions as Bush had."

"Unsurprisingly, Option #1 comes out the huge winner here. So powerful is the partisan mindset that I haven’t seen a single prominent liberal writer take Option #2. They puzzle through the “mystery” of “George W. Obama” and conclude that the contradictions between Obama’s ideals and actions compose “a subtle disaster for all those whose hopes once rested with him.” They would rather abandon their love of Obama than their hatred of Bush. To put it more sharply: they are so deeply committed to the nefariousness and malfeasance of the Bush administration that they would rather believe Barack Obama a failure, a liar or a dupe than believe that George W. Bush took reasonable actions in light of the circumstances...."

The Conservative Worldview...in 4-D

This speech by Mark Steyn is not only an excellent synopsis of his current book, "After America: Get Ready for Armageddon" but is also the best current testament of conservative values and views in our unique era of encroaching socialist, world authority, fanatic appeasing...nonsense.

Very witty, insightful and cogent.

OWS Sucks!

...in my humble opinion...

Two Excellent Articles

What Does It Mean to Be an ‘Intellectual,’ Anyway?

"...Yes, there are non-leftists who are sometimes described, perhaps grudgingly, as intellectuals. But when that label’s affixed to them, the people doing the affixing almost invariably feel a need to prefix “intellectual” with some word like “conservative” or “right-wing” – even if the person in question is somebody you or I might consider pretty middle-of-the-road. Meanwhile a left-wing intellectual is typically prefix-free: a left-wing intellectual is just an intellectual, period."

"To be sure, many people on the left dismiss the idea that anyone not on the left could be legitimately described as an intellectual. For them, intellectualism consists essentially of reiterating and fiercely defending their own lockstep ideology. Google “right-wing intellectual” and the very first hit you’ll get is a snarky post at the Democratic Underground website asking “Is there such a thing as a right-wing intellectual?” Google “conservative intellectual” and the top hits include items about “conservative intellectual collapse” and “conservative intellectual bankruptcy.”"

"The difference between the U.S. and continental Europe (Britain leans more our way) is that America has a vibrant network of non-left intellectual institutions – think tanks, magazines, websites like this one – and electronic media that are receptive to their ideas. In Europe non-left intellectuals are more on their own. And they are almost never, ever referred to by anybody as intellectuals."

"And why is this? Because being an “intellectual,” at least in the European sense, isn’t about being intelligent. It’s about belonging to a class of high priests whose role is to preserve and pass on its own sacred dogma. It’s not about contributing to a free exchange of ideas in the expectation that the best ideas will rise to the top, but about trying to demonize and intimidate opponents and stifle dissent. It’s about “speaking truth to power” – and the “power” is always democratic capitalism, and the “truth” always comes in various shades of red."

and...

Inequality: The Eternal Wellspring of Collective Power


"So, to repeat the question defenders of economic liberty have been asking socialists for over a century: what percentage of tax paid by the Evil Rich would be “fair?” It’s obviously not a tax burden equivalent to their share of income, because they’re paying two or three times that much now. Why don’t we isolate that number, according to some logical formula, and put it on the table for consideration?"


"The answer, of course, is that “inequality” is the eternal wellspring of collectivist power. It is the dragon that can never be slain, the Grail that can never be seized. It will always dance just out of reach… and there will always be socialists leaning over our shoulders and whispering that we must hand over more control of our lives, so they can get us just a little bit closer. They’ll never tell us exactly what “fairness” would be, because then we would know if we had achieved it. Blindness is an important tool of control."

Amnesty International and What's Left of It

I can't believe that I used to give money to these clowns. They were actually a bit more sincere in their mission back than. The treatment described in the linked article is often dished out to former defense secretary Rumsfeld as well. To folks like me, this stuff is just plain weird, but not entirely unexpected. The left in general has been feeling quite confident in the last decade or two, evermore “empowered” in feeling they can push the most bizarre schemes and knowing that many will back them completely.

It's a world where acceptance of the totalitarian worldview is in resurgence everywhere – whether two bit pseudo-dictators in Latin America, Muslim extremists spouting anti-Semitic rants at the U.N., or just garden variety classrooms with teachers inculcating their students with their own hatred for the democratic hand that's been feeding them.

Amnesty International, like a host of other NGOs, is obsessed with America and Israel. I don't think it's too far-fetched to imagine them existing in the early 40's and devoting most of their passions to the “crimes” of the allies while turning a virtual blind eye to Hitler and Japanese militarists.

Soooo typical leftism, 'sad to see Saddam Hussein gone and Starbucks so widespread.

Mark Steyn covers nonsense like this with superb precision and wit in, "After America..." – a book I'll, again, strongly recommend.

We've actually reached a point in our pathetic non-development where beheadings and mass genocide are either brushed aside or seen as mere equivalents to the non-lethal interrogation (water-boarding causes no physical harm of any kind) of the man who planned 9/11.

Another typical expression of the Jacobin spirit of our time; ...despicable. They have no honor.

(I realize that some will note that the linked article was posted by Fox News and will therefore see it as somehow irrelevant but...too bad).

Never Send a Theoretician to do a Pragmatist's Job

When considering all the negative attributes of the current Obama-nation (and his administration), they all boil down to a fervent allegiance to the theoretical as a standard for making policy.

In addressing the economy, social issues (i.e. healthcare), and even foreign relations, Obama and his staff of social planners view the U.S. as one large laboratory for the conducting of societal experiments and the imposition of theories.

To address genuine problems in a practical fashion using known solutions is beyond him / them. The economy is in a tailspin? Now would be a good time to go shopping for every item on the Democrat's wish list. Millions unemployed? What could be a better time to try to implement a massive healthcare grab.

Unemployment, economic growth, energy production, international tensions? -- throw the taxpayer's money at solar panels and tilt at windmills. Drill known oil reserves? -- not a chance ( a case in point).

Classic leftism. While not the gulag, citizens are none the less to become laboratory animals to test the dreams of eggheads who have produced nothing of value and have never participated in anything with practical or successful ends.

"Hope and change" doesn't pay the bills.

Mundane Crimes in Mundane Times

('Just wanted something to fill the space, at a time when there's plenty to comment on but little time to do so. The following may have been posted before -- long ago. This blog is usually not for posting poetry but...oh well...)

I passed a wealthy man on my left and a poor one on my right and realized that neither of them was of harm or help to me.

I passed a country club of leisure success stories and later a shanty town of broken sidewalks and destitution and realized that I had created neither (except within the fantasies of mock rebels who would blame the very weather on innocent bystanders).

I and my kind were accused of both crimes and lapses in morality for failing to obey the edicts of imposed guilt – but were later found guiltier still…for not feeling guilty (by those with less innocence than my own).

The world spun out its charms…and its fouler images, never reaching equilibrium ("equality") or the satisfaction that imposed order affords planners with mundane gripes against the hands that feed them.

The world remained quite normal and I collaborated with its non-existent scheme to side with no one while some well-paid philosopher kings demanded I hang my head in shame so they could pretend to occupy a moral throne above and beyond the simple things that have always been.

Excellent Insight and Prosaic Sarcasm by Mark Steyn

(sorry, the link hadn't effectively posted earlier)

[“]They're anarchists for statism, wild free-spirited youth demanding more and more total government control of every aspect of life – just so long as it respects the fundamental human right to sloth. What's happening in Oakland is a logical exercise in class solidarity: the government class enthusiastically backing the breakdown of civil order is making common cause with the leisured varsity class, the thuggish union class and the criminal class in order to stick it to what's left of the beleaguered productive class. It's a grand alliance of all those societal interests that wish to enjoy in perpetuity a lifestyle they are not willing to earn[“...]

[...“]It's the voice of youth, yet everything about it is cobwebbed. It's more like an open-mike karaoke night of a revolution than the real thing. I don't mean just the placards with the same old portable quotes by Lenin et al, but also, say, the photograph in Forbes of Rachel, a 20-year-old "unemployed cosmetologist" with remarkably uncosmetological complexion, dressed in pink hair and nose ring as if it's London, 1977, and she's killing time at Camden Lock before the Pistols gig. Except that that's three-and-a-half decades ago, so it would be like the Sex Pistols dressing like the Andrews Sisters. Are America's revolting youth so totally pathetically moribund they can't even invent their own hideous fashion statements? [...“]

The “99%”

Don't make me laugh. The whining spoiled brats of America's Occupy Wall Street crowd actually think that their hodge-podge of leftist stew represents 99% of what American's believe – pleeeeaze.

As usual, this crowd is demanding XY and Z with no regard for what actual fellow citizens want. While fellow citizens may have gripes with Wall Street, most are probably okay with our capitalist system (even though it's actually become a mixed system with increasing government control and collaboration). We can, of course find out what people really think on election day. I doubt if the Communist party or it's many socialist variations are going to be getting 99% of the vote (as they often do in Communist countries – where no one else is allowed to run).

My advice to these clowns; they can vote – even for communists if they choose. Then again, it may just be possible that they're really not the “99%” but just another extremist clique' seeking to impose their deluded will upon everyone else – that certainly wouldn't be a new thing.

(p.s. I'm well aware the exception. Not everyone at these demonstrations is without good cause to protest. Ironically, the Tea Parties were the first to protest the Obama – Democrats' collaborations with Wall Street and were merely mocked by the press for it. Exceptions aside, it's clear what mentality is dominating these groups; it's the pathological crowd we've seen whenever the closet authoritarian thinks his time has come)

Pampered Spoiled Brats Protesting Against – Only Some – Other Pampered Spoiled Brats and Supported by Other Pampered Spoiled Brats

I'm not going to take the time to gather the many links out there in netland that exemplify the character, motives, and goals of the “Occupy Wall Street” crowd (but I think this and this article offer a good insight that you won't see on CNN, NBC, CBS, and The New York Times et.al.). It's safe to say that, in the American case, these people represent not the “99%,” but a mere sliver of our society (a few percent demographic that never changes – the disgruntled, pampered, faux radical chic crowd). The mob's significance is only occasionally swelled by organized unions, and assorted fellow travelers from America's new socialist Democratic Party.

It appears that the demands of this Jacobin rabble generally revolve around the fact that they want more free stuff and that it be paid for by the “rich” (who already carry most of the country's federal tax burden – in spite of “loop holes”). Nonsense as this is, it's fair enough to whine that you want stuff and are mad that others have obtained it – 'certainly not a new idea; “I want stuff because I don't have it” and “it's not fair that someone else is rich and I'm [a loser].” It's funny to see posters stating things to the effect that, “[We're] paying, the rich aren't” held high by people who obviously aren't “paying” for anything – or, at least are yearly getting a full refund and extended “credits.”

Those of us who have taken interest in history and particularly the “revolutionary” movements like the great one in 18th century France recognize the psychology and themes that run throughout this clown show of reckless hopes for totalitarian government (that is what they're ultimately steering for). It's the pathetic early successes of a typical left-wing mob's ability to rouse the tendency of a society to eventually eat itself.

I know these people. I worked with them in restaurants, I sometimes saw the same “type” on the streets begging for money, and, of course, I went to college with them. They tend to have the moral character, backbone, and dynamic striving of a one-celled pond germ – when a guy looks Swedish but has dreadlocks, I'm skeptical about the whole show.

The mainstream media is, as can be expected, willing facilitators to the nonsense; the same media that sought to veil the Tea Party crowds (favoring limited government) as an ominous image of danger and “fascism” (When, in fact, they looked more like big Kiwanis club meetings). OWS is no “Tea Party” they're certainly not protesting against the size and scope of state authority or the current mega-state facilitator-in-chief.

The good part of the current clown show is that our, increasingly clueless, president (he really seems to think that a class rant will sway the election) has thrown his – guarded – support in with the rabble. The longer average folks see images of these clowns, particularly on alternate media, the greater margin the Republicans will win the next election – guaranteed.

In the long scheme, this is the style of joke in history that brings down decent societies and replaces it with pathological chaos and eventual tyranny. Unfortunately, some of the posters I've seen are true, “This is only the beginning.”

The Jacobin Anti-civilization Rabble At It Again

Something I've always considered...it's going to get ugly.

"The most ridiculous (and, if you’re sympathetic to them, tragic) thing about OWS is that they’re trying to mobilize the left against “the system” at the very moment the left is mobilizing to re-elect the guy who’s in charge of the system. In an alternate reality, state senator Obama would be giving a speech today at Occupy Chicago about how greed is the cancer of America or whatever; in this reality, President Obama needs to watch his mouth and stay on the good side of those Wall Street one-percenters who helped bankroll his campaign last time. The whole dynamic is a cosmic joke, amplified by the reality that millions of liberals have eschewed protests over the last few years out of allegiance to the current ruling Democrat and/or the perpetual fear of the imminent wingnut apocalypse that’ll surely unfold if their own party leadership is weakened. That’s why the anti-war movement has faded into nothing; that’s why there’s apprehension but no outrageously outrageous outrage over The One ignoring his own lawyers to wage war in Libya or relying on a secret national-security panel that can place Americans on a “kill list.” Those sins, committed by a Republican, would signal the end of the republic per standard left-wing blather. Committed by a Democrat, they’re merely … “troubling.” Or maybe not even that.

All of this changes, obviously, if Obama is ousted in favor of Perry or, heaven forbid, Mitt Romney, whose patrician air and banking pedigree would give the left the cartoon villain that thoughtful sophisticates like them require."

Jacobins true to form every time.

...I know, nothing new here in awhile. It's just a low priority. There are plenty of things to appraise and enrage but it'll have to wait. I may (or may not) get something up here eventually but for now, have a nice week!

Snippets

Socialism; the economic pie that eats itself.

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

Widespread lack of interest in politics is often a healthy sign in a balanced and free society. Conversely, when a passion for politics grows it is often a symptom of emerging chaos and eventual tyranny.

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

To paraphrase Lincoln Steffen's famous statement regarding the Soviet Union (“I have seen the future and it works”); “I have seen the future and [it's just another fucking dictatorship].”

Wiki-leftism

I kind of knew this. I mean, why shouldn't an online encyclopedia just be another font of the left's talking points.

I have to reiterate what I've said several times about such things. There's no "conspiracy" going on here. It's merely a matter of like-minded people (people less likely to go to church, bowling, or the local shopping mall) reinforcing their dogmatic view of life. God forbid anyone stray from their pervasive "consensus."

No doubt this hyper-clique' will be very disappointed next year in November.

The Media...not learning any lessons from previous exercises in non-objectivity

I have to say, the more I read the left's (most of the dominant media sources) "appraisals" of Rick Perry, the more I like him. If for any other reason, out of sheer spite. The media made themselves look like fools during the last presidential election. It appears they're about to out do themselves. I'd say Perry stands to gain an extra 3 to 5 points -- if he's the nominee -- just from independents' disgust with Obama coddling and Republican caricature fabrication.

Being On The Level...Playing Field

The economic truth of our time is that we live in a world where those in developed countries, who own smart phones and flat screen TV’s, think they're living the life of Spartacus or a 1930's coal miner just because some college professor, journalist, or rock musician told them it is so – it's not.

To despise and punish the very people who's risks and choices have extricated us from the swamp of collectivist obedience will just return us to a new dark age feudalism where we'll all be equally miserable. A “level playing field” is meaningless when its against the law to play.

Communism, Anti-communism, and Anti- Anti-communism

I'm currently listening to an audiobook of Whitaker Chamber's classic insight into the communist (and ex-communist) mind; Witness. I sought it out after reading of so many conservatives who sited it as, not only a required reading of conservative philosophy, but a book that “Changed [their] life,” Before beginning the unabridged version of the audio book (my circumstance makes audio books a convenient format if I'm to cover half of what I wish to in “reading” material) I had read a Chambers biography and several articles to refresh my understanding of related topics covered in a most interesting period of American (and the world's) history.

It's no doubt difficult for many today to understand the concepts of communism, “fellow travelers,” and Soviet espionage after movies and public education have served up a weak copy of events condensed into some lame soundbite/script like, “McCarthyism.” (For what it's worth, Whitaker Chambers came to see McCarthy's legacy as doing little for – actually damaging – the anti-communist cause). The “artists” and professional intellectuals of the 30's, 40's and 50's were often similar to today's limp stock of the same – enamored with any philosophy that places their imagined inferiors into a planned and controlled condition.

The psychology of communism and opposition to it (my own stance) has always held a certain fascination for me. The whole dynamic is a bit Star Warsish. On a base level there is the individual and the collective, each pulling at the rope of earthly existence and hoping (or demanding) that others will rally to their respective sides. On one side of the divide, an existence where imposed “equality” will supposedly eliminate the messy embarrassments of human moral flaw. On the other side, the cynical awareness that such flaws go with the territory of worldly existence, and a desire to be free of the “planners'” dictates.

It has always amazed/shocked me (no, pissed me off) that so many who are not communists and not sympathizers to mass slaughter and bondage are none the less apologetic, sympathetic, and sometimes in agreement with much in a political ideology that -- to me -- is clearly wrong, bad, and evil . Communism in theory and practice speaks for itself. Anyone who truly understands the theory should have no difficulty expecting the outcomes of communism in practice. If one despises the desire of an individual to be basically left alone and prefers that, instead, individuals be compelled to “join” into some greater collective unity swallowed by an all-powerful central authority, then communism is definitely the way to go – “and long live comrade Lenin!” No doubt those philosophically inclined to recoil against such a world view are seen as mere polar opposites by many and therefore part of the same tension dynamic – equally flawed or worse. I can understand that. I realize that not everyone is enamored with trials to weed out spies in the state department or inquires and blacklists regarding screen writers who supported a totalitarian enemy. Some people don't want to be part of any passion filled polarity – again, very understandable. The truly independent should be of bother to no one. What freaks me out are the “fellow travelers” and anti anti-communists (this would include many in today's Democrat(ic) party – the “progressives,” or what I like to call neo-comms since their goals, illusions, and temperament are remarkably similar to the communists of most of the 20th century). Am I accusing “progressives” of being communists? ...Well, yeah. That may not be their conscious intent but they are definitely kindred spirits and their hatred of wealth and free-markets is certainly on par with each other.

The modern day fellow traveler/true believer literally has a problem with people who are opposed to communism! Some of today's fellow travelers are among the increasing “moderates” who play up a concocted hyper-objectivity that “takes no sides” as an expression of a pervasive relativist view and phony radical skepticism (they often possess a skewed view of what is relative). Although some from this niche of “independents,” “take no side,” they definitely don't defend the side that opposes the Marxist state. It seems that – for them -- playing the “Devil's advocate” can indeed be played for the Devil only. There are few Devil's advocates that advocate the position of the United States or modern capitalism. I suppose many of these people would be now called “liberals” in mainstream jargon. Further out on the fringe, “progressives” (though the labels are now often used interchangeably). They know Stalin was bad and they know that Pol Pot didn’t exactly improve the circumstance of Cambodians but, to them, capitalism, commercialism, and “materialism” are no better. The gulag or a Big Mac? The secret police knocking on your door or a grande latte? – they're really all the same you know.

What is the anti anti-communist for exactly? 'Hard to say. Usually they spout some random cliche' about “social justice” but, again, they can't get too worked up over labor camps and mass famines (all end results of prior crusades for “social justice”). Of course social justice itself isn't a bad thing if one considers a strict dictionary definition just as “democracy” isn't a bad thing...until one realizes that generic uses and actual meaning are worlds apart. It's a pity that those who utter the cry for social justice seem so opposed to individual justice and seem incapable of even noticing that the social realm is ultimately composed of individuals.

When reading (or listening to) Whitaker Chamber's “Witness” or other overviews of events in the Cold War period, one can't help but notice that the communists who had often attained high positions in America's government at that time, are no different than many like characters we find today, continuing their worldly crusade to establish Marx and Lenin's bloody distopia – highly educated and pampered intellectual elitists demanding that the world we all come to live in is the one modeled in their heads. ...Who with an ounce of decency really wants to live there?

"Democratic" Socialism As Usual

Barely known but very important information regarding the continued injustice of socialism's grip on the future.

Hobbies and Laziness...

Hi! It should be clear to anyone who views this site that it's usually pretty static. It's ultimately just a hobby of sorts and I don't like spending the time I used to on it. I still appreciate that some people find it worthy of looking at for agreement, amusement, or to anger themselves (knowing that there are people who dare disagree with the holier than thou view of the Jacobin class of intellectuals, artists, and armchair neo-comms). I think nothing infuriates a left-wing intellectual more than to find someone who completely disagrees with their worldview but also, appreciates Beethoven symphonies, Gothic architecture, and T.S. Eliot's poetry. They really would like to believe that the only way one could possibly support capitalism and a free society (especially the United States) is to be a raving Jesus freak, high school dropout, or "greedy" corporate caricature of "selfishness." Sorry to disappoint.

After having recently explored more deeply the issues that engulfed America n the 30's through the 50's regarding Soviet espionage and "fellow travelers" in the U.S., I'll soon post a brief essay regarding my thoughts on Communism, Anti-communism, and Anti-anti Communism. 'Nothing special, but I do like expressing my views on such things -- just another "guy in pajamas."

As usual, please look at my other stuff here if you're so inclined.

Now, back to mundane living and leisure....

Promethean Dude

"Anti-war"...Except When One is Kind of Okay with It

Move along...no cultural bias here.

Idealists Full of Hate

We on the right often cut a tiny fragment of slack – too much in my view – to leftists when we attribute their motivations to naivete' or idealism. we often assume they simply want to create utopias and that their idealism gets out of hand when the reeducation camps spring up and the blood starts flowing. This assumes that the violence and horror of “ revolution” is an unplanned by-product of the road to a hoped-for noble end. The more I talk to, watch, and read the thoughts of “progressives” / leftists, the clearer it becomes that the “full of hate” moniker so often directed at conservatives or libertarians (i.e. the “tea party”) is much more accurately applied to leftists themselves. "Full of hate" is ultimately an impassioned statement stemming from mere projection. (I'm assuming that those knowledgeable and honest recognize that National Socialism and fascism are not strains of laissez - faire limited and decentralized republican government – “right wing.” Fascist beliefs were certainly “full of hate” but capitalism –tolerated to a degree – was hated as much as other enemies of the national socialist belief template).

I've come to believe that a rabid leftist knows and expects that purges and blood-letting, or at least some brand of punishment, will flourish if they get to have their “revolution.” Historical examples and rage on paper – not to mention mundane debate – are wrought with an incredible bitterness, jealousy, and sense of inadequacy on the part of “progressives.” I just read of a German Communist Party song that used to be sung in the streets of Weimar, Germany with the lyrics; “Grease the guillotine with the blood of tyrants, blood must flow, blood, blood, blood!” These lyrics are characteristic of the underlying sympathies of many on the left, and by far, most on the far left. Lyrics like, “Raise the standard of living amongst the poor to that of middle class or better” just doesn't have the rhythm that any respectable “revolutionary” strives for when venting their passion. For all the lip-service they conjure to the contrary, they are ultimately motivated by a strong will for violence and destruction. Though they may imagine an idyllic world of cooperation and equality in the end, they crave the first phase of their plans – wanton release of raw Id energy upon the perceived source of their jealousy. I believe the average leftist relishes the thought of inevitable executions, settling imaginary scores in their pampered but resentful minds. Can one imagine a trio like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Barrack Obama if they had complete and total power to do as they wish. Can one really imagine they'd merely raise taxes and regulations, and increase spending? There are too many scores to settle for them against all the imaginary right wing extremists out there who have dared question their heavy-handedness (and such heavy-handedness has been under constitutional restraint thus far).

Every far left “experiment” brought to fruition has resulted in incredible destruction and death and, for what? They'd tell us it's all for, “a better world.” Deep in their transparent hearts it's clear that unbridled vengeance is the true “utopia” they ultimately strive for – and we conservatives ...we're supposedly “full of hate” because we want to be left alone and think that's best achieved through limited constitutional government. Go figure...

Andrew Klavan Excellent As Usual

Jacobin Consistency

Is there any reason why Obama’s actions in Libya (and Afghanistan and Pakistan) are not example of “blood for oil,” or why he's not “guilty of 'war crimes',” or why the Patriot act and Guantanamo under him are not “unprecedented breeches of civil liberties?”

Where are the mass marches? – 'Just wondered.

The answer is that the lefts' international propaganda machine in schools, entertainment, and journalism haven't called out their stupid mobs against Obama because somewhere “in their heart they know he's [left]."

The way George Bush was treated compared to this inept Marxist clown was and continues to be pathetic.

Some basic facts can be very upsetting to some people. I mean, if you're a Marxist or other garden variety socialist -- say, a Democrat for instance, how can you possibly stand the thought that more economic freedom means a better life for most citizens?

On a similar note. I'm not going to do a review or anything but Ann Coulter's new book, "Demonic: How the Liberal Mob Is Endangering America" is absolutely excellent. Of particular note is the superb overview of the French Revolution and the radicals from America's 60's. Take away the sarcasm and wit (which I happen to like actually) and it's scholarly. Her basic premise is spot on. The left is "the mob." The mentality and actions are always that of mob psychology. And so it is we must perennially go through upheaval, chaos, and violence so they can appease the god of slogans, chants, and clenched fists.

Oh yeah, I also loved her comparisons between the mythological violence and danger of Tea Party people and the real history of violence that has always been part of the left's legacy.

Excellent book.

Another Means to Self-adulation

I'd like to coin a new word; “Wiki-genius” – someone who knows a lot about something [wants people to think he or she knows a lot about something] because he or she just read a Wikipedia article about it.

Random Observations...

The following is just a collection of aphorisms, gripes, and general expressions I've made and accumulated over time for my Promethean Observer website. I don't have time to organize them as I'd like to so I've simply posted them below -- mostly to fill space. As usual; agree, be sparked to thought or be enraged by the fact that there is a conservative view of things and it's valid before the eyes and ears of many:


Those who blindly waddle into the socialist snare do so expecting a miracle...ultimately they find a bland government office with teeth...and a line at a rationing trough.

For people who bandy about the "F word" (fascist") so frequently, the left harbors an odd sympathy for the authority of a centralized state.

(A socialist's creed). My golf game trumps your trips to the bowling ally. My alternative music collection isn't materialism! Your country music collection is. Your stuff is an expression of materialism. My stuff is a symbol of my superior intellect and moral values .

It is a fact that if humans are free to live by their own standards, choices, and goals, some will fail . But, does one man's errant judgment or stupidity justify another's bondage? The leftist says, "yes." The left always chooses stupidity as noble and brands achievement a crime against humanity. Is it no wonder that the stupid are among the left's greatest constituencies?

"The greatest good for the greatest number" sounds great until you realize that you may not be among the chosen "number."

Hope breeds action. Complete oppression does not lead to revolution. It is when people can actually see the promised land that they demand access to the promised land. (This is exemplified in numerous historical circumstances).

The "progressives'" hopes of establishing varying levels of socialism and “sacrifice” for various schemes is no more than an attempt to reestablish feudalism and -- in more than a few examples - monarchy.

The only true revolutions to have occurred in modern times are those which have freed the individual from external oppression and constraint. The freedom to voluntarily interact as one chooses is revolutionary in he grand scheme of history. The desire to compel obedience to an all powerful state and its bureaus from a conjured “society” is no more than a transparent power-grab by an elite clique'.

The difference between a socialist and a communist is that a socialist is a communist that doesn't realize it until they've achieved adequate power to impose their demands.

A political party chastising another for “being partisan” is like red accusing blue of being a different color.

I'm going to wait until the end of the world before I panic about the end of the world.

When rich people complain about people who are rich...I'm not impressed.

A parasite is an oppressor that works from the ground up.

Anyone who uses the words “workers” and “party” in the same phrase probably favors a dictatorship.

The whole nature of bureaucracy is to afford considerable power and authority to people who – in optimal circumstances – would have NO power and authority.”

At the heart of every leftist scheme lies an inability to acknowledge human nature. In their eyes, all imperfections can be rectified by planning, molding, and coercing human behavior. And, when that fails to accomplish it's ends, sufficient deprivation or punishment is always the next step in their compulsive drive to gain compliance.

Compassion has absolutely nothing to do with what you're “willing” to force someone else to do.

P.C. Is B.S.

When someone makes the idiotic comment that “we are too free,” they can either truthfully mean, “I'm too free,” which is a blatantly stupid thing to say, or, “other people are too free,” which means the person making such a claim wishes he or she could merely control the lives of others.

Contemporary “capitalism” can be considered “capitalist” in the same way that an ice cream parlor can be considered “cold.”

The difference between a communist and socialist/progressive is that the latter hasn't worked up the honesty to say they want to have people who disagree with them imprisoned or executed.

At probably no other time in history have so many people – living freely and in abundance -- chosen to be enemies of their own society.

No one ultimately “wins” a war. All a nation can do, if it immerses itself in the chaos of Mars, is their best effort and hope that things in the end settle in their favor.

The Selfishness of the Selfless / The Independence of the “Inter-dependent”

While the concept of the group, the collective, or “society” has a valid essence it is equally true that individuals exist in their own right. One inevitably chooses where one's allegiances are more closely allied and it is from there that one's stance on a million and one issues and perspectives can be extrapolated. Ironically, those who value group orientations tend to – themselves – be typically individualists, but not in the conservative sense.

The socialist/collectivist tends to have all the elements of selfishness, ego, and delusional arrogance that they often imagine and project on to those who honestly acknowledge their preference for individualism. Yet, for all their self-absorbsion, the collectivists' lip service is always for “the people, “the oppressed,” and “society” (or at least those parts of society they haven't selected for punishment). While such “individuals” often see themselves as a just and unique force for good to be unleashed, they typically see most others as philistines to be subdued. The dichotomy of right and left is more one of hypocrisy and lack of self-honesty on the part of collectivists then any real identification with favored levels of group affinity.

The Horrors of “Big Oil”

It's become a recent strategy of the Democratic Party (America's de facto mainstream socialist party) to publicly use the label “big oil” often to rouse the class envy crowd with Orwellian mind-prints.

Of course, when directing rage against the producers of energy, one should not note the 40-50 % tax applied to gasoline or the stupid subsidies given to produces of corn ethanol. And, definitely don't even suggest that oil is used for anything other than gasoline (when in fact it's used for practically everything in addition to gasoline – not to mention transporting virtually everything).

But...

Don't ya just hate “big oil?” I so much prefer little oil. You know, the little mom and pop oil companies with the little refineries, little exploration and drilling equipment, and little tankers to transport all that little oil. We need to supply our little desire for gasoline, clothing, cars and transportation uses operating ambulances, buses, trains, planes, and delivering food to local supermarkets with a virtuous little oil. Fueling our needs, demands, and lifestyles only requires – cute – little oil. Why let big oil cater to our needs when windmills and solar panels ...and, little oil will do the job just as well. Sure, being a cave-dweller has its drawbacks but “sustainable” retrograde lifestyles is the wave of the future. Under the virtuous guidance of socialism inc. we will no longer need to sweat over the horrid principle of actually paying for a product that must be extracted from the ground, refined, and delivered to a million and one locations to power our leisure lives. And, think of all the “green jobs” available when big oil is chased out of town. Or, perhaps it could be nationalized. Big oil under big government will bring cost down and increase efficiency...I think?...maybe?

With 87% or so of the world's oil companies being owned by governments isn't it time we reined in those greedy 13% that are actually making a profit off of the product they produce?

Remember, “big oil” is evil...and, big government is caring, loving, and downright okay.

The Problem With Japan...

I don't wish to be a "typical foreigner living in Japan," by hurling non-stop verbal abuse upon a country that's been rather good to me and my circumstance. I love Japan, It's my home -- or at least my second home. Of course it must also be noted, considering the time proximity, that they've endured some horrid circumstance, this year in particular.

Like all countries, Japan has flaws and weaknesses. I've often speculated on the basic reasons for the many defects that appear to me in daily life in Japan and I believe I've narrowed them to a specific issue.

The people of Japan are willing to tolerate inconvenience and inefficiency. That's it, in a nutshell. The economy, the bureau cluster-f...s found everywhere from garbage disposal to getting a driver's license; they all stem from a very compliant population that is more than willing to accept inconvenience and inefficiency. It's no wonder that the translation for a common response to negative circumstance here is, "it can't be helped." America, with all it's flaws, has a noteworthy and contrasting manner that sees the attainment of convenience, efficiency, and personal pleasure as a guiding principal of existence. "It can't be helped" American style is, "what's the problem and why isn't anyone working on a solution...and if they do, that's where my money is going."

Japan is just too damn nice for them to continue to allow a downward spiral because they've been lead to believe that individuals barely exist before a contrived allegiance to bureau-decrees and inept drones. May they overcome this fatal weakness.

Sleeping for a month or two...

Too many annoying computer ailments. 'Off line for awhile. Everyone have a jolly spring...

Promethean dude...

Tragedy on All Levels

Some may have noted that this blog origionates in Japan and therefore may wonder if I have any information or comments in reference to events that have taken place -- and continue to take place -- here. No...What can be said. I and my family are in a safe part of Japan that has not been directly affected by events. What other have experienced, and continue to experience, is absolutely tragic (it goes without saying).

I certainly can't speak for the people of Japan but I know that they are greatful for the support and concern shown by many.

I hope many more will contribute what they can to assist and that problems are resolved as quickley as possible.

May others be spared such tragedy...

...out of the blogging scenario for at least a couple of weeks...

Have a fun month in these very interesting times...

A dude

Generalized Defenses of America and Freedom vs. The Prosecuting Attorneys of the Left

(This is another reposting of an earlier rant. 'Just plain out of time for new stuff)

(The following post elaborates upon the issues addressed in an earlier post. Admittedly, it's more emotionally motivated tirade than a practical analysis – in other words, “just bitching.”)

I've always sought to avoid becoming ensnared in one of the many on-line arguments which occur regularly on many web sites, not because I'm particularly docile or well mannered but, more simply, because I’d find it a waste of time.

I'm one of those guys who will occasionally tell the writer of an impressive blog post that they've stated their case well, or in some instances, I’ll write a few general comments of agreement or vent a few of my own passions on a given topic. I’d never consider wasting hours dredging up facts and citations to prove to another individual or a few onlookers that, "I'm right and you’re wrong." Recently, on one blog site, I came close to being pulled into just such a time-consuming and wasteful enterprise.

The leftist I sparred with comments often, in incredibly lengthily diatribes, clearly frazzled that the blog's writer and some other commentators, like me, have dared take a view different from his own. In terms of political views and style, this character's comments are a cliché version of all I've come to know and despise from the Jacobin crowd. In this sense, my on-line encounters with him are perfect examples of what conservatives and libertarians regularly encounter from most "progressives." His approach (when I refer to "him" I stress his significance as a symbol more than a personal polemic nemesis), is classic left in all ways; constant citing of Chomsky, obsessive criticism of anything American, and constant defense of any totalitarian enterprise, so long as it is anti-capitalist. Because his arguments often run pages and pages, it literally indicates that he has massive amounts of free time on his hands or can research, contemplate, and type, at miraculous speeds. At times, the obsessiveness of a stalker has come to mind when scrolling over his comments, which are often longer than the original blog post. His greatest gripe with me, and others of like persuasion, is that we won't specifically respond to his meticulous points. I've made it clear in my own blog on more than a few occasions, that I consider it to be futile arguing fine points with such characters – where does such an investment get either side really? I can surely loose sleep and leisure time over more worthy and productive endeavors. I realize that not responding with my own lengthily lists of scholarly retort implies defeat – oh well. To tell the truth, I can write all I want on my own blogsite and readers can agree or disagree all they want. The real world contains many contending viewpoints and most have some merit in some contexts with some people, so why should any of us go in to court-case mode in the fanciful hope of swaying a true believer (in this case the irony of a true believer in skepticism). I’m not going to surrender my belief in the virtues of free and open society, and the opposition will surly not relinquish allegiance to the socialist worldview – again, oh well.

So…I don’t like the left’s take on things. None the less, I’m more than willing to acknowledge that many spokespersons for their cause are quite bright, often well read and, may on occasion genuinely be motivated by a noble purpose (at least in their own eyes). No such dignity is afforded the libertarian right. Even in the most civil debates with the left, they always manage to imply -- or directly state -- that we conservative / libertarians are intellectual inferiors, unschooled in historical fact, and usually morally corrupt enough to earn the pervasive label, “fascist.” The particular polemic opponent I had dealt with skirts that issue by merely calling, “[my] ideas” fascist – thanks.

Jacobins love a straw man. Somehow appreciation for my countries character, history, and system, or my defense of it from the likes of Michael Moore or Noam Chomsky, is morphed into flag-waving nationalism in the mind of such opposition. This is the only way the left can view anyone who actually likes America, when comparing conservative views to their own excessive dislike for everything the U.S. represents (particularly its free market economic system). To dare like the U.S. (historical warts and all), and to desire limited government and a free economic system can only be judged by them as examples of rabid patriotism, intellectual ignorance, and, of course, “fascism.” Such critics are the same people who will respond to comments regarding the domination of academia by the left with the usual statement that this is because conservatives simply aren’t smart enough to make it into academe -– and they’re completely serious when they say this. They actually believe that intelligence correlates with a specific political philosophy -- theirs (too bad about Winston Churchill and Edmund Burke).

Most of us who are conservative or libertarians are well aware of the tragedies, misdeeds, and acts of horror done by the American government though its history. None the less, we still favor our relatively adaptable and open system, especially when comparing it to the one party dictatorships that the left all too often defends (often denying that they are in fact dictatorships).

The left's obsession with matters of patriotism (the topic of a future post) now regularly produces an increasingly heard retort that they are the "real patriots," that their "criticisms" (i.e. Michael Moore's, "Americans are the dumbest people on the planet”) are made because they care so much about the US. Who could possibly read the average leftist appraisals of America and miss their true sentiments regarding the country? They clearly do despise the US in general (not just its government or selected personalities in power at a given time).

In the left’s fantasy scheme there are conservative flag-waving fools who see no wrong in anything their country has done, and on the other side, themselves, the wise intellectuals, all knowing and unswayed by any doctrine. Such noble self appraisal would hold more credibility if it weren't for these character’s constant defense of communist dictatorships (i.e. China, Cuba, Vietnam). This attribute is so consistent amongst the left that I think it can be accurately said that, to them, the worst is always assumed of the U.S. and the benefit of a doubt always laid at the feet of any authoritarian institution so long as it is left of center.

Another conflict which inevitably colors my own encounters with the socialist crowd involves the different way people appraise ideas and circumstances in general. I don't know if it's a conservative trait specifically, but I personally prefer to deal in "generalities" and the more basic motivating factors that drive particular worldviews. People can debate minutia endlessly regarding the Enron scandal, McDonald’s marketing, or unfair labor practices but, in the end, one’s reasons to side with capitalism or socialism are beyond any such details they may wish to bring to the argument. All too often I find that the left wants to ramble to no end on fine points (and it seems, endlessly increasing points), often completely unrelated to another's simple call for less laws and government regulation. I don't think this particular quirk of character is necessarily a coincidence; in fact I find the leftist concern for detail to be a characteristic trait of what I call bureau-mind and the desire to micro-manage in general. Instead of recognizing that some people prefer to see things in “the big picture” the left often just discounts the value of an entire worldview if one chooses to not respond to their specific prosecution style “questions.” There’s certainly nothing wrong with citing examples to make one’s case but in confronting the left, all too often I find that my mere desire to live under limited constitutional government or favor individualism is deemed invalid unless I can specifically cite scholarly evidence and facts that prove that the Sandinistas were authoritarian, or that the numbers killed by Mao Zedong are completely accurate. To the left, responding to their specifics and details are critical to debate, to me…I couldn’t care less, and I don’t think my preference to view things in generalities somehow disproves my right to be free of the imposed collectivist schemes so cherished by the left. I think it's bad that Communist governments regularly control, coerce, and kill people to establish their vision. Arguing that the actual numbers harmed or persecuted may be exaggerated may make a valid micro-point but hardly contradicts the value of the initial sentiment.

One of the more typical accusations that continually emerges in debates with left-land is their pervasive implication that one is somehow a fascist (nationalist/statist/collectivist/authoritarian) for holding classical liberal views (a definite contradiction to say the least), and that somehow one's intellect and moral character are found weakened by their stance in support of limited government. I don’t believe that those of us who side with individuality, liberty, and self-government as value systems need apologize for our chosen position. We needn't "prove" our values are worthy amongst contending ideas, and we are under no obligation to justify ourselves before the specific micro-interrogations of Chomskyites, Trotskyites, or garden variety socialists. Also, our intellect, morality, or value systems are not somehow weakened by not having read the specific tracts a leftist would demand we read (I really wouldn't expect or demand that they read "our" stuff).

It's amazing how often the demagogues of the left-wing intelligentsia insult America, religion, traditional values, and anyone who fails to follow their demanding drummer. Is this the way they hope to expand their following?

This is admittedly a rather long winded whine motivated more by emotion than the much prided intellectual detachment of our Jacobin betters. I think I can speak for many of us on the libertarian right however, in stating that our beliefs are valid, and worthy of sober consideration. We needn’t feel compelled to respond to polemic micro-points and demands of left-land’s court of bogus accusation ("admit your crimes!"). There are certainly many libertarian / conservative writers who do address fine points and statistics if a leftist is so desperately in need of such.

The leftist polemic defines open-mindedness and inquiry as, consulting their sources and adopting their viewpoint. Is it any wonder that on many college campuses today the very concept of, “diversity and tolerance” is defined, in effect, as eliminating the conservative view altogether.

Of course, it can be said that I’m being general and subjective and that I'm offering no "facts, proof, or citations" as would be demanded from the holier-than-thou high priests of the left -- so...

I'm a free individual who believes in open and free society and limited government -- a fairly simple concept. If someone wishes to counter this value system with lengthily lists “proving” that America is selfish, greedy, and evil and that communist dictatorships are really crusaders for “the poor,” then…go for it. Just don’t assume that everyone who fails to bow down before your secular inquisition is lacking in intelligence, character, or morality…and, oh yeah, get over this “fascist” labeling thing. Fascists believe in one party centralized tyranny, the complete opposite of free-market classical liberalism, and in fact more closely akin to the socialist bureau-state that most on the left favor.

The prosecuting attorneys of the left will continue to state their smug demands that evidence be presented to "prove" -- to their satisfaction -- that a free constitutional republic (The U.S.) is preferable to their own favored systems of bureau-imposed collectivism. But, what exactly have they proved? -- beyond their own capacity to present themselves as arrogant elitists.

We don't want the product you're selling. Now, go back to your commune and leave the rest of us alone.

High Hopes for Tyrants

A reposting from, "The Big Rants"

I’m amazed at the number of times I’ve heard educated people express their trust in absolute political authority. For such people, the only criterion for good government is that it eliminates free market transactions and that it promises to magically produce, “equality.”

Mao, Castro, Ho Chi Minh, even Stalin are often afforded the benefit of a doubt by idealists on the left -- the local businessman is not.

When references are made regarding the famines (resulting from collectivization schemes), the summary trials, purges, executions, and “reeducation” programs in communist states, the left’s response is always…”well, what about…[the flaws in open free societies]?” They just will not concede that communist governments or their ideologies are bad.

Statistics can be sited back and forth between the right and left regarding, “wars of aggression,” poverty, and oppression etc., but why are statistics even required to prove that absolute power corrupts absolutely? Shouldn’t common sense insight be enough to tell anyone that a group or individual with absolute power can be expected to do terrible things?

On more than one occasion I’ve been asked to “prove” that Mao Zedong and the Chinese Communist Party were really all that bad. Widely accepted statistics estimate deaths in China from the “Great Leap Forward” of the late fifties to have been somewhere in the 30 million range. Okay, let’s say the “capitalist – imperialist – revisionists” are lying to “discredit the achievements of socialism.” Lets say only 10 million died from famine (a regular feature of communist “planning”). Lets say only 100,000 were killed or imprisoned for not obeying “the Party” -- maybe Mao wasn’t so bad after all.

There are some people who actually believe a communist dictator – like Mao or Castro - wouldn’t hurt anyone that didn’t actually deserve to be punished or killed.

Think! A person or party holds total power over a society, has eliminated and outlawed all opposition, and makes it a crime to question any aspect of imposed dogma, and… the resulting society will be no different – perhaps better -- than our lives under liberal democracy?

I hold a simpler take on this issue. Dictatorships are…dictatorships [!]. Saying they’re taking complete control over society “for the good of the people” just doesn’t convince me. Somehow the left’s love for political planners and their high ideals overrides any common sense appraisal as to what happens when absolute power is focused in one viewpoint.

Any political authority that refers to an outlawed opposition as, “enemies of the people,” or “counter-revolutionaries,” is probably not going to be very open and tolerant towards different viewpoints in general. It’s not so far fetched to assume such political authority could be deadly for many. By coincidence, “debatable” statistics seem to bear this to be true. What a surprise! – lets debate the numbers some more.

Of course, the usual response from the intellectual egotists in left-land will be, “you only think you are free [in capitalist society].” These “geniuses” know we’d all be much freer if we obeyed the party loved “the leader,” or confessed our crimes in self-criticism sessions. These are the same people who will repeat the cliché (and untrue) mantra that Bush “stole” his eight year term of office, yet really believe that Fidel Castro actually -- fairly -- gets 99% of the vote, several decades strait. When I pointed out this last bit of obvious nonsense to one leftist, their response was, “His people love him.” Of course, what’s not to love about a decaying socialist enterprise that no one is allowed to change or disagree with? As an aside, beware when citizens of any country are referred to with a possessive pronoun (“his” people).

The average leftist can often be rather “smart,” but such intelligence rarely appears to include the common insight required to call a dictatorship a dictatorship, proving that a person can be a genius with facts, data, and polemic…yet, not have a lick of common sense.

The Basics...

...Antecedent perspectives which determine viewpoints on a variety of issues large and small.

At the heart of every leftist scheme lies an inability to acknowledge human nature. In their eyes, all imperfections can be rectified by planning, molding, and coercing human behavior. And, when that fails to accomplish it's ends, sufficient deprivation or punishment is always the next step in their compulsive drive to gain compliance.

Be Careful What You Say

A Random "Something to Say"

I realize that it's a bit lame to simply cut and paste one's other ramblings as a blog post. I don't have time to play much in blogland but I hate to have nothing posted for so long. So...what follows is a slightly edited response I sent to a friend on topical matters. Nothing grand or exceptional but just something to say:

Fox occasionally has some lefties among their commentators as other networks will occasionally toss in a token conservative. The difference is that the conservative will be labeled "a conservative" and the lefties are typically labeled, "former adviser [with no partisan political alignment presumably], member of [non-aligned] think tank, lawyer, observer, etc. etc."

Regarding members of congress, there are partisan organizations that rate degrees of conservatism or liberalism based on legislators' voting records, which adds some element of objective criteria. For example, several conservative organizations gauged Obama to be the most left-wing ("liberal") member of congress when he was a senator. Likewise, liberal organizations (equally respected for such things), found Obama to be the most "liberal" (seen as a plus from their viewpoint). If both sides are saying the person in question is very left (or right), they probably are. Communists don't think Obama even begins to go “far enough,” but on the the whole they feel his heart is in the right place (though he's increasingly a disappointment to them when he moderates for political expediency).

The fun sites are the ones that tell you the members of Hollywood who are conservative or "liberal" (often, dare I say - in "McCarthy fashion," socialists/communists). I don't remember the exact names of the sites and organizations noted but they can all be found easily in searches. One has to make their own judgments regarding how "legitimate" or professional they are in their appraisals. The conservative entertainment personalities tend to be lower key (often silent) in their political comments (Jon Voight and a few country singers being a recent rare exception). The leftist ones (many can hardly be called mere “liberals”) are typically front and center and I dare say “full of hate” in appraising America and the free enterprise system – the hand that feeds them.

Regarding the Palin thing. It's almost amusing that the clowns of leftland attacked her after the shooting with no legitimate criteria and now that she defended herself (on her personal facebook page), they're attacking her for doing that. (When a conservative defends themselves or their values it's because they're “full of hate,” of course). To me this is all great because it means that they're so obsessed with her that they think she can win. This will help facilitate a genuine win by someone like Guilliani or Romney etc.

The left almost always overstretches and acts on rapid impulse. When they feel that their “revolution” is in site, they run with it. The public – who overwhelmingly do not support Palin – isn't swayed by their hyperbole because the truth is, most of them aren't very moved by the values and lifestyles of metropolitan intellectual cafe' “rebels” who have issues with their parents but enough money to complain to the apprehensions they see in the mirror.

They can't pull off talk radio, they can't pull off successful polemic movies (Fahrenheit 9/11 being a rare exception), and they're seldom able to keep momentum up when they're in office, which is why they have to tear down the opposition. It's a cliché argument on the right but I believe it's true that most leftists/”progressive” values just don't stand up to reasoned debate (“liberal” values, in the old sense of the word, can). So why state one's case if you can simply write your opponent off as “full of hate, dangerous, violent, racist, a war-monger, and fascist.” ”The tea parties have no legitimate issue, the government isn't too big, taxes are not hurting economic recovery and Obama is god...so why debate conservatives or libertarians on the issues, they're obviously racist homophobes who eat babies (and make insane people wound congresswomen – and kill nine year old girls and Republican judges).”

American's on the whole aren't socialists (in spite of Newsweek's stupid cover story to that effect). That's why it's a critical part of the leftist strategy to make as many people as possible dependent on the state – it's a constituency building effort (“if they aren't socialist, we'll make them socialists by necessity”). Then the Jacobin progressives get what they've always wanted, a society that is “well-planned” by the “experts” who know better how we should all be directed to live “for the common good”...or, “the Volksgemeinschaft” (folk community) as a German socialist once called it.