Thursday, September 27, 2012
The Joy of Mocking Those Who Deserve it Most
Saturday, September 22, 2012
Religion of Peace 101
The author gets in his obligatory dislike for Romney (that's required, of course, from anyone brandishing credentials as an intellectual). But, aside from the unneccesary side show of those comments, this is a great article. I wish more people would point out to the world and the practicianers of the Arabian warrior cult, the blatent absurdity of their cruel inflexible fervor. Not everyone is into your fanatical delusion. And, no, the flag of sharia will not fly over the U.S. capital - though it may pop up with increasing prominence in the capitols of Europe (that's called a self-inflicted wound).
As I've stated in regards to numerous other fanatical ideologies. 'Very simple, leave us the f...ck alone!
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Hilarious.. And, oh so true.
Sunday, September 16, 2012
Everything is Beautiful...
...Except what isn't.
My friend Scott sent a link to this excellent essay. The author's appraisals of modernism are remarkably insightful and reflect my own views regarding some of the continued attempts to fill our world with garbage under the delusion that creative inspiration is somehow being advanced.
It's easy to turn one's nose up to those who favor a more traditionalist aesthetic, imagining that they somehow lack the rarified insight of academia's pseudo-rebel snob network.
In spite of all the posing and haughty appraisal, sometimes the emperor just doesn't have clothes...and somtimes the artist doesn't have genuine creative talent.
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Putting Things in Perspective...
Why do those Christians, Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, and Taoists always respond so violently when "offended?" Of course, it's not all Christians, Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, and Taoists who cut heads off, kill homosexuals, and stone women to death. It's only those very few extremists.
Cartoons, movies, music, and questionable looks are, of course, just cause for some Christians, Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, and Taoists to be violently "sensitive." It is the West's tolerance of skepticism, name-calling, and criticism that has justly earned the constant violence from a small extremist minority of Christians, Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, and Taoists that respond so violently when "offended."
Remember. Not all Christians, Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, and Taoists decapitate critics or demand the world's submission to their intolerance at the threat of death.
....many Christians, Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, and Taoists simply practice their religion and tolerate the beliefs of others.
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
The west is in a war but doesn't seem to notice it yet. How many more times are diplomats, international organizations, and heads of state going to pretend that mere rare "ultra-conservative" factions of extremists seek the complete and total destruction of advanced civilized democracy?
A bit over "sensitive" about one's belief system?
Religion of peace. Yeah, right...
Saturday, September 08, 2012
Chaos on the Mountain
"The Mountain" was the label used during the French Revolution to describe the screaming rabble of radicals in the high seats of the assembly chamber at the time. It consisted primarily of the Jacobin faction - radical leftists in the mold of what would later in history be called communists. This unruly mob would later be responsible for the infamous, "reign of terror" that engulfed a once civilized country into rigid authoritarian paranoia and paradoxically, chaos. The recent Batman movie by Christopher Nolan made a notable attempt to mimmic the archetypal nature of this time and place. When any mob of screaming leftists get together one can see the phenomena of social chaos literally crying out for authority and control.
I know it's hyperbole, but this is the introduction to my comments on the Democratic convention this week. Most who attended were probably not communists (though former "green jobs czar" Van Jones was there and he proudly proclaims his credentials as a communist).
When one accuses another of being a communist or sympathetic to the creed it's important to note or remind one that being communist is actually a bad thing. Some people often seem less confused if one notes that fascism and Nazism were/are bad things, but communism has joined the relativity-cauldron as just another "point of view." Lots of death, suffering, and crushing of freedom are not really an issue to some who have been raised in the "Democrat/media complex." If the meme is for "equality and social justice" that's all some need to know to give the left face of fascism a pass.
Some playful trouble makers from right-wing blogs went around the Democrats' convention and asked people questions about their feelings regarding government, capitalism, and profit. It was certainly no surprise to me that they all answered through the lens of a far left would-view. I remember one lady dressed up in revolutionary garb ala' Che Guevara - big surprise there.
So..."there [they] go again," replaying 1972. Making clear their dislike for religion, Israel, capitalism, and in some cases, the country itself (while paradoxically honoring their love for the authority of the state).
These were people of passionate conviction born of zero practical knowledge and an equally impractical suicidal impulse (political suicide).
They got to shake their fists...but I don't think they'll be winning any elections.
I'm not going to critique each speech made but just generally laugh and mock the concept of people seriously making speeches before audiences of millions regarding the need for the taxpayer to pay for birth control or the sky is falling fear that Romney and Ryan will usher in a new police state where women and minorities will be unable to vote. All this nonsense while, in the real world, the economy is toast and people are dropping out of the workforce like peasants dying during a "five year plan."
I was working on another essay (below) regarding just how far these folks have strayed from center. Since it fits in so well with the events of the past week in Charlotte, I'll just tack on the end here.
....'What the hell are these people thinking?
p.s. Obama and all those who sought to apologize for him just looked plain pathetic. Clint Eastwood pegged it perfectly during his skit at the Republican convention...sometimes, when someone can't do the job, you just have to "let 'em go."
In years past, America had two clearly defined politial parties. Republicans and Democrats would sway back and fourth on the political spectrum to varying degrees, often converging on a varity of issues, most notably their sense of America's exceptional place in the world as a beacon of individualism and liberty. Of course they diverged often as well, generally leaving Republicans as America's de facto conservative party, favoring a strong defense and pro-active posture on international affairs and pro free-market capitalism domestically (which often merely defaulted to a pseudo-capitalist corporatism).
The Democrats were more idealistic internationally, often trusting that if we take the first step in rolling back our posture of strength, our adversaries would follow (did I write, "idealistic?" I'm sorry, I meant, stupid). Their weaker stance on defense did not, however, stop them from taking a patriotic stand for their country and rallying its strength when confronted with forces opposed to liberty. Domestically, Democrats favored more government involvement in the economy and more centralized agencies to direct what they saw as noble social goals - they didn't deride capitalism, individual initiative, or prosperity and growth. Corporations were sometimes demonized when compared to the Democrats' pro-union bias, but wealth or business in general was not held in contempt and the country and its history was not held in contempt.
Democrats in the past really didn't speak much for or about "the middle class," they just accepted that the middle class (which used to be"the working class") was on their side to begin with ( and it often was). Their rants would often focus on "the poor" hoping to pull at the heartstrings of all classes to promote the "need to help the less fortunate." Of course now Democrats must actively state their allegiance with "the middle class" (of which many are now clerical types who live lifestyles far above what used to be called middle class). I grew up "middle class / working class." My dad worked on an automobile assembly line and we bought clothes at tacky discount places in bad neighborhoods - my own neighborhood wasn't all that great at the time.
A few decades ago Democrats and Republicans viewed each other as the loyal opposition. Name-calling was mostly a tongue in cheek affair not meant to be taken too seriously and certainly didn't interfere with an ability on both sides to eat lunch together or comment on the mundane affairs of the day that are unrelated to politics. Today's leftists clearly view everything - everything! - as being related to politics. So it is that they have tried to permeate so much of life with a political spin. In decades past, dating, marriage, religious belief, and much of art and entertainment were not seen in political terms by most people - the classic college neo-Marxist approach to things. Of course among Marxists and their associates, merely observing life as it was, was found to be a political conspiracy to "maintain the status quo," thus opening up a whole new industry in philosophy and academic sophistry.
Many can now barely recognize the transformed party that America's Democrats have become, let alone what it is they stand for. The Neocomms (the "progressive" socialist-communists) are back, and they will accept nothing short of "socialist revolution." There is barely a Republican who can make it through a nightly news report without being painted in some way as extreme, heartless, cruel, and authoritarian. In reality- the place common people inhabit - Republicans are simply conservative and continue to favour the founding traditions of our system - in short, they have changed little in what they believe or promote. yet, their image has been transformed by the intellectual class into perceived proto-fascists. Why the transformation in public image so contrary to reality? The answer lies in the changes that have occured in America's other political party. The Democrats have changed radically, at least since 1972 when the "progressive" neo-comm cast got it's foot in the door and took a moderately left of center party and transformed it over time into a truly extreme (by American standards) force for the authority of the socialist vision.
The passion and poison one regularly senses in the Democrat/progressive's rage is not because they fear losing the grip they've gained over a formally capitalist America. Their anger is born of the fact that they are so close to their objectives - "so near but yet so far." It has taken the better part of a hundred years for the progressives of old to permeate American society to the point where they can barely be turned back from their "mission." Their values dominate schools, colleges, the arts, entertainment, and no matter how much they are kept at bay, their philosophy leaks through the system like poisoned water that's the only thing around to drink.
This last week the latest version of the Democrats put a show on for all to see and they weren't the least bit embarrassed that their former position as America's center-left party had morphed into something your daddy wouldn't recognize...unless he was a history professor with expertise on the French Revolution....
Thursday, September 06, 2012
'Just No Way Around It, Democrats Love Big Brother
Saturday, September 01, 2012
The Horrors of Free Thought in an Open Society : The Republican Convention 2012
'Brief comments on what went down in Tampa this week
Some fine principled speeches and some mediocre ones. Chris Christie's was disappointing. I suppose that was because I was expecting a formal speech by him to have the same quality as his impromptu responses to questions when they're thrown at him. I'm still quite the fan of his blunt sarcasm but he seems to have thought too carefully when he wrote his speech so it came across as contrived and banal.
Rand Paul; Great! Maybe a little too much of the "You built that" thing though . 'Don't want to overplay a soundbite that was handed to us on a silver platter by his highness, sir Obama.
Dr. Rice....Excellent! The mix of passionate emotion used to convey pragmatism and logic (paradoxically) produced a profound tension that likely transfixed even diehard skeptics of just how serious the issues in this election are.
Mitt Romney, the nominee himself, was okay. 'Restrained but presidential. He conveys a look of reasoned calm but he always appears to me as a genuinely sincere guy who feels an unnecessary need to prove he's sincere. In the end, a contrived manner that impersonators are going to have a field day with. He's had to make so many speeches recently that this couldn't help but come across as just another one.
I was most impressed with Marco Rubio's speech and Paul Ryan's. Both of them are damn good speakers able to convey depth, passion, and insight, minus our eloquent president's "soaring oratory." ..."Soaring oratory" gets a bit stale after almost four years of non-stop failure. Ryan is an absolute rock star in my view. His amazing blend of "Mr. Common dude you knew from school" and "the guy you gotta go to when no one else knows what to do" only comes around every few decades, if that.
Of course there were other moderate to grand speeches (Arter Davis stands out - very cool guy). Clint Eastwood's skit was fun just because it was Clint Eastwood. The fuss being made afterward is a concocted controversy.
The media's take on the convention was appalling. It seems that the more that "liberal" media bias is acknowledged by the public, the more these superficial snobs go for it. They've become so blatantly transparent in their hatred for conservatism that they've become caricatures of themselves.
(Bias side-note: Has anyone seen that youtube clip from "The Newsroom" cable drama, "The Tea Party is the American Taliban." Talk about a cartoon of the laughably transparent. Is this really the way the left seeks to sway the hearts and minds of the nonaligned? I found myself wincing with embarrassment for them. Some subtlety and nuance would have surely been more effective in making the screen writers' point - stupid as their point was. Isn't that show supposed be be somewhat entertaining? The echo-chamber loves sending links to this stuff around, imagining that it purveys profound insight or something. This is the kind of stuff a sane person doesn't waste time "debating" - you can only roll your eyes up and be happy that this ideology has a suicidal branch).
Back to the Republican convention. One point I'm sick of hearing about is the constant comments about a "lack of diversity" within the Republican party. No matter how the issue is stated, the implication is that somehow Republicans are discriminating against minorities when in fact they surly welcome every new member who changes sides. The real issue behind this is that many individuals who are members of diverse minority groups have chosen to align themselves with Democrats. That can be merely attributed to an effective PR campaign that has permeated education, entertainment, and media. Some people really believe that the party that "cares" about you most is the one that promises to give your group money from the state trough. 'Hardly an impressive point of significance. It will be great when the day comes, as it surly will, when a wider spectrum of citizens realize that the Democrats' party is not working in the interest of anyone who favors a free, open, prosperous, and dynamic society. Amazingly, when minorities do join conservative ranks, they're written off as somehow lacking authenticity. After all, aren't real model minorities supposed to love the state? Is it any wonder more than a few black commentators have referred to the lefts' patronizing attitude toward minorities as an attribute of their "plantation."
The members of minorities and women who spoke and attended the Republican convention were clearly met with enthusiastic support but, unlike the Democrats, the support was because of their views and how they expressed them, not because they were P.C. Trophies.
Next week I'll be paying attention to what the Demo-comms put out and how media outlets handle that show. (I may or may not comment here depending on time constrains). Thus far it appears that the only speaker scheduled that could sway anyone's mind or heart is former president Clinton. Having people like Sandra Fluke whining about the phony "War on women" (the need for subsidized birth control) has got to be one of the dumbest moves a political party could ever make. My general feeling going into this thing is that it will be a close replay of the Democrats' 1972 convention - a festival for a deluded far left that thinks it has an actual following among the population. The only "bounce" they'll likely receive from it is the added bounce out of Washington that Obama and his "progressive " minions will get.
Fun, fun, fun...