Weird Template...and Time's "Person of the Year"

First, apologies for the weird "bare bones" gray format of my blogs now (absent a blogroll, archive, and other links). I have no idea what's up with that. I assume it's some Blogger issue that will eventually be corrected. I could look into it more but just don't have the time. At the bottom of this page is a barely noticeable link to the normal web page format.

Now; 'a brief comment on Time Magazine's brilliant choice for "Person of the Year" (asshole alert):

Obama has been chosen as Time Magazine's "Person of the Year"...again

What utter nonsense. I particularly like the flourish of a rare "silver boarder." I mean, after all, he is god, isn't he?

I realize that a million reasons can be conjured as to why this is a good or acceptable choice but fortunately, not everyone is drinking the koolaid.

It could be decades or even centuries, but someday our time will be laughed at for being so gullible in following a Pied Piper who can barely play a scale. In fact, dissonance is the order of the day with this clown.

The "Obama is my lord and savior" crowd should hide their heads in embarrassment at this point.

Absolutely pathetic.

Rambling Observations on Modern Art

(I found this snippet of thought I had written when responding to a friend regarding an essay on Modernist art. Since it's "the holidays" ...and Christmas season, I've been rather slack on posting anything so this may fill in some space).

Have a Happy Whatever!

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

...Superbly written and damn insightful (I think). Positions such as his are often refuted with the implicit suggestion that any condemnation of modernist expression can only be a position taken by philistines who lack "open-mindedness.". I've always taken the stand that things of substance are not relative, that genuine quality and depth can be quite real - and, more often than not - obvious.

I certainly wouldn't write off some of the great contemporary works. A lot of modern architecture in particular is amazing (often due as much to technological advancement). But...the guy who wrote the essay covered things in ways I could never effectively argue but instinctually know to be obvious. So much of the modernist mindset seems more inspired by self adulation over its contempt for substance than any real attempt to depict new levels of beauty, tragedy, or anything in between. It's as if they're simply flipping the world off and think they've made a profound comment on existence. Framing the Virgin Mary in excrement as one artist did (usually referred politely as "dung" as if that makes it less shitty) really isn't all that impressive I think. If the artist desired certain colors and textures, certainly mud would have sufficed. And, it can't be one of those phony "truth to power" gimmicks considering that self-censorship is the rule of the day when critiquing more volatile and aggressive belief systems ("truth to power that also keeps you safe" perhaps)...

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

p.s. re: the recent shooting tragedy. 'Absolutely horrible. Nothing can be said beyond that.

The Importance of Believing Our Own Message

This brief speech by Bill Whittle is absolutely excellent. It gets better and better as it goes along.

'Hat tip to my friend Steve.

What's so "Anonymous" about Anonymous?

Okay, so we don't know the names -- the individuals responsible. But the ambience is hardly anonymous. You can find it all over the bloodier pages of history. I'm not saying that the clowns calling themselves, "Anonymous" will actually achieve any degree of authority over citizens of any country. I'm just saying that, like so many (faux - [Guy] Fawkes) "rebels," these people are scary far above and beyond the mere ambience created by a robotic voice on YouTube videos..."we do not forgive, we do not forget. " Apparently they do forget, because no sane rebel with a memory would deliberately seek to be seen as a caricature of all the horrors that radical collectivist ideology brings to civilization. Like most, "anarchists," they're clearly garden variety communist "leaning" control freaks who happen to know how to play with computers successfully.

'Don't misunderstand. I'm no fan of "The Man" as a generalized caricature of authority, but we're all "The Man" (or, to be fair, "The Woman") to some degree. Having degrees of power, authority, or wealth is not in and of itself a bad thing. I can see it going bad however when it states it's case like a baritone robot with rabies and a radical college education.

The "Occupy Movement," "Anonymous," and Barack Obama in the White House. Indeed, the great themes and psychopathologies in history repeat themselves.

Guess what's next? (If you know anything about human nature and history, that's a rhetorical question).

p.s. I realize that these clowns occasionally - perhaps often - score a cyber attack on some group or government office that I disdain. None the less, they are what they are and, like Occupy Wall Street, it's not a pretty picture. Anyone who thinks Anonymous is a force for freedom and individual self-government has a very weak understanding of the psychology of radical movements and their characteristic end-points.

Voluntary Spontaneous Cooperation Trumps All

"I Pencil" is a classic on free-market common sense.

This brief animated version is excellent even if viewed from a non-political/economic perspective (i.e. fractal geometry).

The Republican Party is in Serious Need of Good Advice

There's no excuse for the sober policies of limited government and sane economics to be defeated by charlatans, weasels, and smiling autocrats. Some very sound and insightful advice from The Razor.

'Gotta Admit It...

Talk about a stupid misreading of events. I was wrong.

And now...the repercussions. I don't have time right now for a full rant but suffice it to say that now would be a good time to consider some issues associated with the following bullet points:

Supreme court nominees.

The permanent entrenchment of Obamacare and all its ramifications to the economy and the quality of innovation in medicine.

Vindictive attacks upon talk radio and the dreaded Fox News channel.

Another four year period in which most media sources will act as de-facto organs of state allegiance - "news" by lie and omission.

Massive direct and indirect taxation upon all classes.

Aggressive discouragement of business activity and commerce.

The destruction of traditional energy sources as a means to the energy needs of a strong economy.

The promotion of massive dependency upon the state.

Crony movement of billions of dollars to political connections.

Unions in full coercion mode.

An already arrogant President in full delusional power mode

U.N. treaties that distribute America's wealth to dictators and hamstring our actions as a sovereign nation.

An EPA and other bureau-monstrosities that rule over major aspects of society by unconstrained fiat.

Eight percent unemployment the new "normal."

A powerful state full of authoritarian ideologues who admire the likes of Che Guevara and Mao Zedong.

And, of course, being "more flexible" with Vladamir Putin and his likes (how nice).

We can pretty much forget that stuff about preserving, protecting, and defending the constitution of the United States."

...okay, that's the short list.

I won't go into the Lefty hissy fit that would have no doubt transpired if Romney had won but the previous list should leave one with some valid concerns.

After him..."the deluge."

You'll be seeing a lot more bureaucrats on your future. Enjoy the ride through one of histories recurring nightmares.

Give Them Money!...Just Because....

I've seen some pretty good documentaries, entertainment, and educational media. Some of them were done by PBS (after they improved their product to "compete" with numerous private venues).

So, why is it exactly that, of all the media and creative organizations out there, PBS requires subsidies from the state (taxpayers)?

Tears shed for Big Bird are no more than another garden variety drama session in support of the useless state in it's quest to run its tentacles into any social crevasse it can find.

Sesame Street and its like are multi-billion dollar operations of mugs, T-shirts, and calendars. They'll get by fine without crony dollars from D.C.

The war on Big Bird....pleeease.

Testing the Tepid Waters

The best way to get rid of a socialist "leader" is to elect them for one term so people can see exactly what it is that socialist "leaders" do.

'Done Deal...

Yes it is.

Baring any last minute surprises or shenanigans (I threw that word in for Joe-malarky-Biden's benefit), Romney will win by a substantial margin. It seems that in modern times, the Republican always scores more in the actual election then most opinion polls and talking heads want us to believe beforehand.

For several months many "news" sources were trying to pull off a con suggesting that the god-man Obama would possibly win by a "landslide." As a crashing down reality will finally show, the only "slide" he's gonna be doing is a quick slide back into the bogus field of community agitation.

That last debate was so transparently bogus, biased, and rigged it was pathetic. I'll wager that Romney picks up a few extra points from some people that were simply disgusted with how unfairly he was treated - "How are you different from George Bush? (!)" - Give me a fuckin break. How is Obama different from Hugo Chavez?

"The war on women" - more typical utter nonsense from the progresso-comms. Don't the femi-lefties realize how phony and chauvinist it is to to assume that the economy and international affairs are secondary "women's" issues and that "women's issues" ultimately revolve primarily around a small area in the lower abdomen - talk about chauvinists. You do know that the average woman in the Obama administration is paid less than the average man, don't you?

During a deliberate attempt to "downsize" the U.S. standard of living these idiots really believe that sane women are concerned about the government covering the cost of condoms...on a borrowed dime.

The Democomms are gonna lose big-time and then they'll fall back on their usual post-losing strategy; a temper tantrum, threats, and accusations that the citizens are racists fools.

For now, nothing can be more entertaining than watching a hard-core capitalist call a Marxist phony on his blatantly failed statist policies.

The next African-American president will prove that skin color need not equal a love for European collectivist ideologies.

Funny...

...because it's such an accurate depiction of the situation.

Coming Soon...

The new improved Obama.

Everyone is providing their professional or knee-jerk analysis of what went down between his holiness, Obama and that new upstart, Mitt Romney.

Honest people on both sides of the aisle have called it for what it so blatently was.

No doubt the next performance will have a revived Obama, looking up and smiling, noting positive things for the future. His hanldlers will see this as an adequet restart - it won't be.

What many are missing is that no matter how well scripted, assertive, or smooth with "facts" that Obama becomes, he's still selling the same product. He's still an anti-free market globalist with unbridled admiration for leveling achievement and success through the authority of an all-powerful centralized state. Pretending that he's an old-school liberal democrat that merely wants to present some social programs to congress will come across like Stalin proposing a tax cut.

Obama and the Democrats are who they are and no amount of bogus rhetoric about "investing in green jobs and more teachers" is going to impress anyone with any insight... Except of course that lady with the free "Obama Phone."

The Joy of Mocking Those Who Deserve it Most

Religion of Peace 101

'Telling it like it is.

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!

Hilarious.. And, oh so true.

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.

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.

In Denial

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...

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."

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

Not Your Daddy's Democrats...('Just a reminder)

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....

'Just No Way Around It, Democrats Love Big Brother

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...

Absolutely Brilliant!

From Bad to Worse

Obama has always been a caricature of leftist populism. Now he's just a pathetic caricature of leftist populism.

Just Listen to Them

(I posted this several years ago. I just dug it up and thought it worthy of re-posting)

Just listen to (or read, as the case may be) what they say.

Listen to what Lenin said. Listen to what Stalin said. Listen to what Mussolini said. Listen to what Hitler said. Listen to what Castro has said. Listen to what Pol Pot said. Listen to what Kim Jong Il [had] said. Listen to what Bin Laden [had] said. Listen to what Hugo Chavez says. Listen to what Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says.

Listen to what many American college professors, media pundits, and "artists" and performers say regularly.

Are you paying attention?

Just listen to what they say. Assume they really mean it.

...Any questions?

Heckling, for Socialist Revolution...or Just to be Annoying

Okay, I get it.  Scream questions or provocative statements at an elected official...for a minute or two. But, I see no reason why a speaker of any position in any venue should tolerate being shouted down, silenced, or attacked by rabid clowns whose only real position on any issue is to eliminate other views from being heard.

In the age of the internet, anyone can find or conjure a forum to express their viewpoint. What exactly is the rational justification for the verbal assaults - and more - that have become a staple of Jacobin "disagreement?"

People boycotting Dixie Chicks' music  (as had been the case during the Bush administration) is not "censoring freedom of speech."  Preventing a planned speech, lecture, or rally from taking place most assuredly is censorship...not to mention laying out one's credentials as a bona fide idiot.   Such intrusion on the free play of ideas is regular fare on college campuses for speakers like Ann Coulter. Generally speaking, conservatives appear to be better behaved when it comes audience etiquette.  There are plenty of radical popular leftists that get regular hearings in venues across America and I've never heard of a contingent of young republicans or like-minded people shouting them down. I can't imagine trying to shout them down while they're speaking.  I definitely wouldn't throw a pie at them or climb on the stage to shout in their face - not because I'm particularly noble but because...who wants to publicly display them self as a blatant asshole?

As stated before, I reluctantly understand the idea of a word or sentence of disagreement being shouted out to an elected official in an informal setting (an official who is clearly in a position of power and is perceived to be intruding on one's life in some  way).  It's rude to be sure but I suppose most politicians understand that it goes with the territory.   

What I don't get is aggressive or provocative attempts to disrupt a candidate before an election.  This man or woman is not yet acting with the authority they seek (through legitimate election). They're not imposing anything on you beyond the possibility that ideas you do not favor may win out in the public forum. They're stating their beliefs so that others may choose to vote for them.  The way to protest against them is to vote for the other guy or, if you really want to be aggressive, give his or her opponent money and volunteer to help defeat the things you claim to despise.   If you really think that the candidate wants to push old ladies in wheelchairs off of cliffs, great!   Hold up a sign stating your opposition to throwing ladies off of cliffs (in that instance, you should consider the possibility that you may be exaggerating things a bit).

In the current election, the Jacobins are out in force, and their shrill attacks will no doubt increase in number and aggressiveness.  What exactly is the point of shouting down Paul Ryan when he's addressing a crowd of mostly interested followers?  Do you really find it to be a preamble to a dark night of fascism that someone wants to address the issue of the country's excessive  debt?  But then again...didn't Romney give some woman cancer, or eat babies or something like that?

I wouldn't begin to claim that the left's darlings haven't also been heckled (equally stupid and annoying) but when it comes to strategic Alinsky-style  disruption, the left has the genuine professional side-show for nonsense. Remember, they want their "revolution" (leftist authoritarian bureau-state) and they want it now!

'You don't like Romney or Paul Ryan?...fine, don't vote for them.  Knock yourself out and knock on doors for "hope and change" again but,  sit down and shut up when someone is offering another view.

"Occupy"...your head, with something other than obsessions to muzzle opponents.

Greed Defined:

(I may have posted this before - long ago)

Greed is; when one's lust for material gain or power surpasses a point where their intentions, actions, and interactions are peaceful, honest, and responsible.

By this definition, the mere -- normal -- desire to succeed, excel, and acquire is not "greed" no matter how wealthy or accomplished one may be. Conversely, one can be "poor" and actually exhibit the traits noted above.

Most business people are not "greedy," but most politicians surly are. In the end, the pathological and morally corrupt attributes defined above as greed are standard behavior amongst those who seek to impose their will through compulsion thus increasing their power and authority over the lives of others.

By reasonable and common sense definition a wealthy person is not by default, greedy. An authoritarian anti-capitalist control freak is.

Excellent!

The guy speaks for himself. Nothing else can be said...except, "Biden...Ha! Ha! Ha!"

Jacobins in the Age of Telepromters

Held in rapture to tiny visions, they sway like leaves drained of color and swoon like maidens unadorned with either wisdom or common sense. 

In awe of shiny lights and words born on ideas made of mist. The tragedy of captivated mobs submerged into destinies all too common on the cracking pages of history's  dead potentials.

Everyone chooses a side but some with fervor more bizarre than reasoned.

Once more a mere man is draped by illusion with things of heaven and the divine, when in truth he simply brushes his teeth and burps when he's eaten too much.

No longer enamored with the guitar strains and flashing lights that transfix many a child, those who follow find new obsessions to cultivate their sense of purpose.  

They chant, they cry, they claw at the air.  When true believers find their idol to be made of dust, they believe with added passion.

"Hope." "Change." Fun and  games. Destroying a civilization is no big deal if it's on someone else's tab.

Like they've done through the millennia, they march in the hope that those of more practical intent will be bound to silence. They yearn for their dream to get enough foot in the door to storm the palace and lay waste to the suburban backyard garden.

So far  "Forward" they tread,  they once more reach the back again in that repeated passion to reverse the course of human progress.

Their voluntary return to cave and swamp born of high ideals and a mundane inability to simply pay attention.

Random Observations...

...Meaning I don't have time to post anything that actually takes time to write

Anything can be sold if it's in the right package (and there continues to be people who are easily swayed by such packaging). “Anything” unfortunately include ideas, religions, and the products of a mere will to conquest.

The leftist view of economics is, and always has been, that of a child. You want something and think you should have it and some paternalistic figure is supposed to hand it over to you. The how or why of the issue is never part of the equation.

The road to “paradise” is paved with the victims of self-righteous control freaks.

Fascism is merely socialism minus seizure of private property.

Consensus: One group's submission to another's more powerful position (also a definition to "cooperation" as commonly used in political discourse).

The one thing in politics and legislation that should be considered most, and is often never considered at all is human nature...

There's no way around it; America's constitution as an obstacle to political "action" is more detrimental the the cause of Democrats than Republicans. (e.g. Republican ideals are more in line with the constitution). For Democrats to impose what they want would require virtually eliminating the document in spirit and discarding most of it in specifics.

The Chinese are natural born capitalists living under communism and the Japanese are natural born communists living under capitalism

One can be almost certain that when someone rants of others as being, "full of hate," that the accuser is likely, themselves, consumed with it. The only difference being the object of the hatred and a flight from reality regarding one's own motivations.

The laws of history and nature will surely do any country in over time. Why speed the process along.

The most pernicious aspect of the Jacobin mind is it's pervasive ability to simply nullify all opposition as invalid. What's to debate when there is no other side worthy of acknowledgment?

One reasonable level-headed guy is worth a thousand community agitator idologues...

...then there's the life experience thing too.

News and Information is Only Supposed to Go One Way...I Thought

Why the left hates FOX NEWS.

Cut Your Energy Consumption...and fire up those speakers...

It's so nice when rational thought is part of the discussion.

Carnage...

I suppose that anyone with a blog should comment on the horrible shooting in Colorado -- but really, what can one say? Tragic, horrible... Sympathies to those affected of course.

Soon the barrage of media "speculation" will begin. ABC began it immediately, one journalist taking the time to check local Tea Party memberships to see if the murderer's name came up -- it did, but it wasn't the same guy. In every recent shooting pundits and garden variety jerks have sought to tie the horrible event to talk radio (Clinton famously did that immediately after the Oklahoma bombing) or any other cause that they didn't personally approve of. If the killer is found to have had a trace of leftism in their worldview, their perspective quickly becomes a non-issue. Of course, in the current shooting, talking heads wouldn't have thought to speculate that it may have been one of the Occupy Wall Street crowd - not that that would have been appropriate either.

Can't they give it a rest and not use every tragedy as a talking point to their perpetual cause to defeat half the political spectrum.

Crazy people can be anywhere on the spectrum of political thought, including being apolitical. Some people are just nuts and it has nothing to do with where they stand on reducing federal power or eliminating capitalism.

Of course, the "gun issue" will be once again brought front and center in all of this. 'Can't say that's a surprise or unwarranted. My libertarian instincts default to a respect for the second amendment but, like abortion, it's not an issue I personally get fired up about. I take it as a given that more and more regulation will occur and eventually, if not sooner, it will be against the law for a citizen to own a firearm - with all the expected repercussions.

In Japan, when a nutcase releases aggression, knives are the weapon of choice. Sometimes cars. Even swords. Guns certainly increase the number of victims in a given act of violence but if a crazy person kills or injures you with a knife your loved ones probably aren't going to care much about the gun control issue. For those who tie crimes to our "sick contemporary world," I'd suggest that anytime and place in history, out of thousands or millions of people, one of them occasionally goes crazy and commits horrible acts of violence. Random murder of innocents is not a new thing but it's certainly always terrible.

For now, sorrow and empathy. What else can one really do?

'Gotta Love IT

The pathetic truth behind wealth envy.

American Exceptionalism

The following is a generalization.  I like generalizations.  I think they often provide more insight into an issue than micro-analysis.  For the sake of polemic rigor and symbolic revelation, generalization "gets the job done."

For most Americans living overseas in most countries, one initially comes to notice the comparative flaws in our homeland and its culture.  The new home is often seen as superior in numerous ways. Eventually, if paying attention, one eventually begins to see the stifling top-down weight of cultures fixed rigidly in a thousand daily events from emptying the garbage to driving. One begins to notice that America's flaws of misdeed, error, or excess are dwarfed by the nonsensical malaise of obedience found in the life spirit of many countries where rules both written and unwritten dictate stasis and compromise with the value systems of sheep.

For innovation, diversity, perpetual change, adaptability, and, above all else, the "pursuit of happiness," "American exceptionalism" is no mere nationalistic stance, it's true in every way.  Gifted with a dynamism and vigor born of free thought and volition, it runs rings around pedantic lists of "government services" or sophisticated polemics on why one must "sacrifice" on the many altars of statism.

"The American dream" is a dream come true - rare among the nations of the world.

U.N. Me

Hugo Chavez, the authoritarian theocrats of Iran, Russia, China,...and some others, won't like this...You can judge people by their friends.

The Complaining Cardigan Still Fades

I thought I'd repost this for fun and entertainment.

Occasionally someone finds something I had written several years ago, I reread it and think it still expresses my views well enough to "say it again."

Perhaps it will soon be timely.

Same Old Nonsense

The democrats' contempt for Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney's wealth would hold more weight if they were also renouncing the administrations of Roosevelt and Kennedy (do we have to call them by their pet names, "FDR and "JFK"?).

Of course the same sympathies can be found in the left's hatred for the Koch Brothers' wealth while giving a pass to George Soros. Even Karl Marx surly adored the son of a wealthy industrialist; Freidrich Engels (at least he enjoyed leeching off the guy). In leftland nothing changes but the names.

Cultural Marxism, the Deadly Joke of our Time

A somewhat long but concise overview of cultural Marxism, the Frankfurt School, and political correctness.

like anyone who attended (or is attending) an American university, I dealt with these clowns many times in all their guises. Sometimes they were genuine intellectuals, more often than not, phony wannabes on the train to paradise with their perpetual detour in totalitarian hell.

A million symptoms and expressions, but always the same underneath it all. Call it Marxism, socialism, or deconstructionism. It's always the mere perennial desire of disenchanted egotists to impose their will on a world that knows that the Marxist's feelings of inferiority are more than warranted and their ultimate goals dubious in the extreme.

Random Nonsensical Observations (of a mostly non-political nature)

Life is basically a series of interruptions that intrude upon sleeping.

When you die, all that trails behind you is a story. Your objective should be that it's a good story.

Everything is an extrapolation of something else.

If there's a god, he or she or it is probably laughing and crying...but prefers laughing.

The movie had enough eye candy to rot the teeth in the Cheshire Cat's grin.

What you observe is a symptom of what is.

Some things should be as they are so they can express what is.

Every memory is a vision of things to come.‏

It was like night and day...but more like day.

Lots To Say And No Time To Say It

'Would love to ramble endlessly - particularly about the absolute nonsense that the left is coming up with in response to Scott Walker's significant election win in Wisconsin. 'No time...and other's are covering the issue quite well. As the pendulum clearly swings to the right I find it a pity that it can't settle there or at least hover somewhere in the middle (as it often did). When (I know, if) Romney wins the presidency, we will hear no end of the lunatics' cries of fascism. What total idiots. You had your chance...now, go away.

Random comments:

Everyone has a different opinion...That of course doesn't mean that stupid, or even popular, ideas are miraculously wise.

When a dynamic flourishing culture finds itself in decline or rapid death, it's a tragedy. When it deliberately makes the choices and follow the actions that make such an outcome inevitable, it's merely pathetic.

Europe's “revolutions” seem to always be mere attempts to determine who their next monarch will be -- hardly hallmarks of revolution. People can whine all they want about the American president at any given time but at least citizens of the U.S. actually have an opportunity to vote for their preferred candidate.

Disobey the 40% ! (My rough estimate of the percentage of the American population – it's surely much more in many other countries – that wishes to dictate values, lifestyles, and standards of living to the rest of society). This figure usually includes “educators,” academics, intellectuals, journalists, bureaucrats, the professional political class, and garden variety control freaks. And yes, it also includes a small contingent of religious fundamentalists and retrograde nationalists).

Great leaders may not be great speakers, but they know what to say. If they actually do what they speak of successfully then they get extra points.

A Sublime Quotation by an "Evil Capitalist"

I'm not sure if I had posted this great quotation here before. If so, it's always worth a read. If not, I hope the reader is one who appreciates depth over teleprompters and styrofoam columns. I can't say that I agree with everything stated completely, especially in our day and age when such lofty ideals are interpreted to mean things very different than what was clearly the intended meaning.

It's a perfect symbolic coincidence that the original quote is literally "carved in stone."

************************ “I believe in the supreme worth of the individual and in his right to Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I believe that every right implies a responsibility, every opportunity, an obligation; every possession a duty."

"I believe that the law was made for man and not man for the law; that government is the servant of the people and not their master."

"I believe in the dignity of labor, whether with head or hand; that the world owes no man a living but it owes every man an opportunity to make a living."

"I believe that thrift is essential to well-ordered living and that economy is a prime request of a sound financial structure, whether in government, business or personal affairs."

"I believe in the sacredness of a promise, that a man's word should be as good as his bond; that character-not wealth or power or position- is of supreme worth."

"I believe that the rendering of useful service is the common duty of mankind and that only in the purifying fire of sacrifice is the dross (waste matter) of selfishness consumed and the greatness of the human soul set free."

"I believe in an all-wise-and all-loving God, named by whatever name, and that the individuals highest fulfillment, greatest happiness, and widest usefulness are to be found in living in harmony with His will."

"I believe that love is the greatest thing in the world; that it alone can overcome hate; that right can and will triumph over might.”

-- John D. Rockefeller, Jr., quotation inscribed at Rockefeller Center in New York City.

Feel the Love

The left I've come to know. They're not about "peace," "love," "compassion," or "justice." They're just plain arrogant, rude, self-righteous, and mean.

Just Don't Call Them Hypocrites - Not When They're Obviously So Cool

'One of the best essays I've seen in a long time that gives example (many examples) to why people like me so resent the hypocricies of the left.

This stuff is strait forward, in your face, and brutally obvious, not to mention irrefutable. Any Jacobin clown who doesn't "get" this is really holding hard to their illusions regarding what they represent, and what conservatives and Libertarians represent.

A very good, and somewhat entertaining read.

The Open-minded, Flexible, and Tolerant Saints of Leftland

There seems to be a resurgence of an old trick (or self-delusion) utilized by the left to confirm for itself that it's values are not only superior but not pathological. That's to say, the left's belief that those who disagree with them are pathological.

"The authoritarian personality," we've been told, just happens to coincide with being on the wrong side of the political spectrum or favoring the Republican party - ah...yeah.

The non-aligned probably used to believe this stuff but the left has become so over the top in their desperation to demonize those who fail to worship at their altar, their "arguments" have become less and less convincing no matter how much "science" they claim to drape their analysis in.

The Weekly Standard has an excellent article that addresses the new fad in psychology of carefully documenting how "close-minded and resistant to change" those of us are for wanting lower taxes, limited government, and leaders that can actually do more than read from a teleprompter.

The Champions of Bias Still in Denial

This, from The Razor, is a great overview of the nonsense, still believed by some, that media outlets are remotely objective. I found the part about Fox News to be similar to my own experiences with people who write off some very legitimate information (coming from FOX) because it came from the source they are told so often to avoid or despise. Indeed, as was noted in the linked essay, virtually every time someone posts a link to FOX NEWS on my Facebook page, someone "comments" back that the entire article is meaningless because it was originally a product of FOX. One has to remember that these are the same clowns who think conservatives stand for pushing old ladies down staircases.

The Oil For Food scandal by the United Nations was arguably the greatest expression - in monetary value - of corruption in World History and we probably wouldn't even know about it had it not been for FOX NEWS. It seems that almost every week a revelation is made by FOX of something of serious importance to America that other sources try to keep off the radar until the absurdity of their non-objectivity become too obvious.

To some, it is simply unacceptable that a major source of news has emerged that doesn't echo the "Progressive" party line. Nonsense.

Obama the Creator of Fine Fiction

I realize that Glenn Beck's style can be a bit much - overly emotional and conspiratorial - but this is interesting and rather convincing.

"Society," the Individual, Allergies, Doing the Dishes, and Trying to Throw Things Away in Japan

(...a long and very random reverie complete with typos and grammatical errors).

It was at least a couple of decades ago that I first heard of "fractals." Upon first hearing of the concept and seeing images of their wonderful wedding of math and beauty,  I was hooked, and like many who like to view the patterns around us I've come to see the concept of fractal geometry as a perfect template in which to view all processes around us, be they artistic, social or linguistic.  

The idea of simple patterns overlapping on different scales to produce paradoxical complexity was fascinating to me. When I speculate on social movements or trends in history I can't help but consider the fractal template. Even before my discovery of fractals, I tended to view things and express myself through the symbolism of patterns and analogies.

The micro nit-pickers of the world tend not to like this way of viewing things. For them, things must be analyzed and filed away under categories of "trees" void of any "forests" or landscapes.

It appears that everything is "like" something else and if you follow the nature and proclivities of one concept or entity it will assuredly afford some insight into other concepts or entities, in spite of any superficial lack of relationship.

I'm one of those sufferers of horrid seasonal allergies.  A miserable condition to anyone so afflicted.  Certainly not life threatening, but annoying to an excessive degree.  What makes allergy symptoms even more annoying to me is the realization as to why they are occurring.  If I understand the basics correctly, the body, in the guise of  protecting itself from an external threat (pollen), overreacts by producing the widely known symptoms of itchy eyes, runny nose, and sneezing - symptoms far worse than the simple enduring of pollen's mild irritations.

Being a person both very annoyed by bureaucrats and pollen (this is the obvious analogy part of my essay),  I noticed quite awhile back that they both operate under a simple principle - overreact/make the situation worse.  Thus, like a teary eyed sneezing allergy sufferer, the citizens of the world endure endless annoyance and suffering all because some clowns on a micromanage mission have decided to overreact to a variety of concocted crises...'confusing the importance of procedure in relation to result. In spite of the lack of quality in an end product,  the bureau-minded fool is obsessed with the correct format being followed, "it's to be folded this way"..."do this part last..." etc.  Yeah, they "have their reasons" and a statist will be first to chime in the necessity of following the dictates of "the experts." But, the "experts" who oversee mundane matters like recycling have a track record for blatant stupidity.  Things that don't matter and make no difference are magnified in their eyes as things of life or death importance.  Things that truly are important are neglected, botched, and twisted to make more tedious work for everyone else.  'Dare mention a word like " efficiency" and they'll sermonize you with some bogus nonsense implying that efficiency is the polar opposite of love, peace, and compassion. One could accurately argue that when seeking to manifest love, peace, and compassion (i.e. charity), efficiency would go a long way in helping to "make it happen." But, as with everything in leftland, words and theories always trump any benefits to be gained in real life.

Another analogy occurred to me lately; mundane but revealing (I think).  Before recently getting a dishwasher (they're not widely used in Japan, where I live), I often found myself being the one doing the dishes after dinner.  I didn't mind the minor chore so much as the process under which it occurred.  My extended family (again, Japanese style) would just pile up their plates, bowls, and  glasses after eating and the poor sucker who got stuck with the chore had to spend at least a half hour wading through the disarray of grease and grime.

I would often find myself the unfortunate person performing my responsibilities to "society" (our little dining room table micro-society).  It occurred to me that if each individual took their few items to the sink and washed them themselves they would take about two minutes, toss in an individual cooking pan or utensil and maybe they'd suffer for three minutes.  No big deal for anyone.  But no, the accepted method was to toss a collective- ist responsibility upon the hapless victim who would then toil in the mess of others, merely as an act of "responsibility." It was somehow justified because everyone would have a turn suffering (go figure).

It occurred to me that this was the perfect symbol of our debate between collectivism and individualism (personal autonomy and responsibility).  It would no doubt be seen by some as selfish to expect people to fend for themselves and carry the burden of washing their own dishes and that each should "contribute to the collective interest." I realize that the minor chore of doing dishes is not the same as the big issues of health care and social welfare in contemporary society but often there are indeed minor chores, responsibilities and actions we could perform with relative ease that we instead place upon "society" (other people), the net result being an inefficient annoyance to all under the illusion of all "doing their fair share."

Such nonsense occurs with remarkable intensity in the matter of recycling and garbage disposal. You basically can't throw things away in Japan (an issue that I've written about before).   

At your home you must use specially purchased bags for common garbage.  Some company creates these stupid things at the behest of the local government and thus people pay to throw things away - brilliant.  Each city has their own  unique bag covered with gobs of wasted ink, packaged (in plastic bags) and delivered by truck to grocery stores and convenient stores everywhere (this is supposedly "helping the environment by not wasting").  We used to put garbage in the bags we got from shopping at the grocery store - actually not wasting.

I'm quite certain that some bureauclown was convinced that this inconvenience would force people to throw less away (that's probably their excuse).  No doubt the politician / bureaucrat who ordains these things gets a cut or hefty contribution from the bag company who now has a large captive "market" (not the thing we call a "market" in a true capitalist system).

When you're outside of your home and have a tissue, a candy wrapper, ..anything, you've got to lug it home with you to throw out in your own special bags.  One time while at a convenience store I noted three different people tossing good sized bags - the non-purchased variety- into the convenience stores waste bin.  Now there are stern signs on the trash bins at convenient stores warning you not to throw your personal trash away there. No doubt some asshole thinks that this whole cluster-fk of a system is somehow helping the environment, I mean, if you throw the tissue away at your house instead of say, a local store you've...what exactly?  Damned if I know.  

Every house has an elaborate chart and pages devoted to how specific items are to be disposed of.  The whole thing has the aura of a religious rite.   The other day I saw a relatively bucolic environment tarnished by four or five random fire extinguishers laying amongst the plants and weeds.  Those fire extinguishers will never be disposed of. They'll sit there in all their environmental splendor as a testament to the economic principal of unintended consequences.  There are areas in the mountainsall over Japan where people have dumped tires, TVs, washing machines, you name it.  Anything to avoid the ordeal of simply trying to throw something away.  Walking through the downtown area of the city I live in, between buildings and homes one can see refuse of all varieties left to rot like carcasses abandoned in war; pieces of sinks, small appliances, wires, and shards of unidentifiable metal.

Japan is literally covered in garbage and discarded appliances because the system won't let one easily throw garbage out or discard appliances and, god forbid a private company offer to deal with the issue for a competitive fee.

Like many people, I've left broken umbrellas in alleys or at the entryway to stores because I don't have a clue how to get rid of them - no one knows, or at least no one feels like taking the time to wade through pages of recycling regulations and paying a special superfluous fee.  I'm sure it's written somewhere, and the guy who wrote it probably got paid plenty for his great wisdom.   (Since beginning this post I've found that, in our local Japanese town, to discard an umbrella one most go to a convenient store and purchase a special sticker; ¥300 - currently about $2.40 - and place the broken item in a special bag (of course).  What could be the possible practical purpose of such nonsense, to discourage people from having their umbrellas break?  No, the answer is that this society, like many in the world is  a corporatist bureau-state where the " ruling class " is an elite clique of "socially minded " overlords  who toss crumbs to squadrons of bureau-mice who feed on the blood of fellow citizens. Thirty years or so ago in The States, if I had a broken umbrella and asked someone what I should do with it, they'd say, "throw it out"...duh.  I don't know what they're doing back home now but no doubt they're catching up with stifled declining societies like Japan -- "Hope and Change." ...clearly the way "forward."

In the People's Republic of Boulder, Colorado, before I left to come to Japan, we recycled of course ( the concept of recycling itself makes total practical sense).  Recycling there was pretty strait forward and one felt kind of like a customer - the waste disposal folks were working for you.  In Japan, everything must be prepped and cleansed appropriately so the noble garbage dude doesn't soil his gloves. The living room / kitchen area of our house is spotted with varieties of recyclables.  There are tissue boxes (plastic removed and folded neatly). 'Milk cartons; cleaned, cut, and bound for their special day and time.  'Beverage bottles; labels removed, cleansed, crushed and bagged appropriately.  My father-in-law has a storage shed where half the contents are discarded small appliances and chunks of random who-knows-what.  

When writing once before on this issue I had noted a Toshiba laptop that I had bought in the states and couldn't throw away here.  The electronic store couldn't dispose of a Japanese appliance that wasn't purchased here.  If it had been purchased in Japan I would only have to pay about $30.00 for the privilege of letting Toshiba salvage some rare metals from it.  So, like any reasonably intelligent person confronted decrees from the assholes of government, I slowly - over a couple of months - dismantled the laptop onto unrecognizable pieces and put them in the "unburnable" bag purchased for more mundane waste.

So, what exactly is the point of all this. Am I - and people like me - "saving the Earth" by not throwing things away.

Another fun and stupid "allergic reaction to a contrived "problem" is water.  Japan has more than its share of water.  In addition to being surrounded by water (which evaporates and rains down minus salt), it has incredible amounts of yearly rainfall.  Yet, go to a public faucet anywhere and struggle to wash your hands with a teaspoon portion of sensor produced illusion of water. I'm particularly annoyed by the ones that lightly sprinkle water like a storybook fairy urinating. One time I was at a place that actually had soap and I had to put each hand under the two side by side sinks to trick the damn thing into letting me rinse the soap off -- it was poring rain outside as if nature itself was mocking the blatant stupidity of bureaumind.

This generally just sounds like mundane complaining, which it is on one level but, is there any reasonable, practical, or beneficial purpose to the countless things we do wasting minutes or hours of our lives obeying the state and its minions? Really.  

Does it really make sense for a body to make its occupant miserable with histamines, or for a country to trash its environment...in the name of improving the environment?  

I can only wish that, in the great fractal of life, one could use the equivalent of allergy medicine to alleviate the unnecessary symptoms of contrived "responsibility to society" and following the micro-dictates of fools.

More than half the French electorate just took a dying patient and put a gun to its head - my condolences.

Local Boy Makes Good by Following Orders and Bombing Hawaii

With the popularity of a recent movie in Japan about Admiral Yamamoto (who planed the attack on Pearl Harbor) and with a special festival this weekend honoring Nagaoka's local hero, I feel compelled to post a link to this earlier posting on the famous military leader. I totally get how horrible the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were...I get that. I understand the horror of so many civilians killed in the fire bombings of Tokyo. What I don't get is the Japanese disconnect between their formal apologies about their own actions during World War II (and initiating the conflict in the Pacific) and the noticeable lack of sincere remorse over their actions. I'm reminded again and again that Yamamoto was personally opposed to the attack on Hawaii but,...please, the guy is no hero. To my knowledge, Germans don't celebrate and idolize Erwin Rommel (who by all accounts was a great military leader and involved in a plot to assassinate Adolf Hitler). What is it about an honest appraisal of history - and sensible manners -- that the Japanese public just can't seem to grasp?

"Competition" and "Cooperation" in the Era of Clowns on Parade

An overplayed and deceptive issue concocted by the left for some time now has been the "competition vs. Cooperation" meme.  The implication of the concept being that there are dubious forces of greedy selfish cruelty ("competition") up against the noble goodness of "sharing and cooperation."

  One person's selfish "competition" is another's vitality and striving for excellence. One person's "cooperation" is another's phony imposed obedience.

Voluntary cooperation and personal striving are both natural qualities that emerge in free, diverse, and dynamic societies. They are both positive attributes and to imagine they are somehow polarized or at war with each other is a fantasy that only a leftist could love. Strive, cooperate, and prosper...and let the Jacobins stew in their bile-laced dogma.

A Great Man...

His landmark work on the dangers of unbridled commercial excess won him several prestigious awards in Canada, Europe, and America. He has been nominated for a Nobel Prize several times, once for the coveted Peace Prize.

He has warned us of the threats posed by greed and unnecessary consumption.  

Academics across the globe have praised him for his blunt honesty and selfless concern for the downtrodden and less fortunate.

In spite of his scientifically proven conclusions he is mocked by some for his warnings that humankind's days may be numbered.

He knows that we all must unite as one, that no one should d be elevated socially or materially above others. He's got a plan, and since he's a genius we'd be fools to not listen to him. 

We all know this man for we read of him and his beliefs everyday in books, classrooms, and television news.  This man is everywhere...yet, nowhere.

Because, ...this man doesn't exist.  He's a composite fabrication of the fantasies held by many who create and dispense the information and values that many of us buy into.

Unlike Dos Equis' famous "most interesting man in the world," The Great Man is not funny. He's not even interesting. But we're supposed to take him seriously.  

He's idolized as the most profound man in the world but when his type shows up as a real human being, we find out that his books are boring and wouldn't even be sold if they weren't amongst required reading at high schools and Universities. For all the descriptions of his humanity and humility he usually lives the high life, mingling with fawning celebrities, traveling the globe, and retiring in a couple of expensive homes. He virtually never practices what he preaches.

Occasionally clowns like "the Great Man" actually obtain power over nations, ...and then lots of people die.  But he keeps coming back and people keep believing him...and then more people die. If you're lucky, you'll merely be inconvenienced and not live life as fully as if he were not the "great" man some think he is.

He's a "great man" to a small clique of elitist snobs and ideologues and that's not a problem really. The problem occurs when many of our fellow citizens believe the "great man" and the people who sell him. The problem is when supposed greatness moves side by side with stupidity in numbers.

Does anyone find it the least bit odd that one of the most famous and, arguably, most powerful men in the world consistently complains about people who have a lot of money?

The "Noble [Subservient] Savage" Delusion

It's taught in schools and colleges. It's depicted in blockbuster films (i.e. Avatar and Pocahontas). And, it's yearned for daily in discussions, blog posts, and internet commentary... The noble delusion that we can all return to Eden, where everyone shares (and presumably no one leeches), everyone cooperates (and presumably no one's a slacker), and no one is crushed into submission by the desire to make the noted dream Real.

On my Facebook site recently an acquaintance had a link to an article about a tribe of people in Africa who are noted for their collectivist values and lifestyles (1000 points already, right?). In the article, "researchers" (who we know, of course, never have a personal agenda or propaganda point to make) simply presented a game to tribal children in which they could run to a tree where a basket of fruit was placed. The first child to reach the basket would "win" the desired treat. Of course these were non-westerners and appropriately non-capitalist pure spirits, so they all - supposedly - ran together hand in hand because of their pronounced sense of communal fairness. Out of curiosity, I later found that the "Xhosa" people are named for the local language's word for "fierce," or "angry" (subdued laughter now appropriate).

I don't call into question the "researches" conclusions (really). Maybe their appraisals were accurate. I don't doubt the possibility that this tiny group of children have been raised with an extra dose of good manners and even selflessness.

Some people don't like it when one is skeptical regarding such stories. After all, what socialist wants it to rain on their perpetual parade of the fanciful. Some of my skepticism arises from the recurrence of this meme among some academics. Margaret Meade famously told us of the pure souls of Samoa, leading to the disappointment of later research that found Samoans to have, among other human flaws, one of the highest incidences of rape in the world. That's right, they were flawed like all of us lowly products of western science, technology, and individualism.

I touched on some of these same issues before in a post regarding James Cameron's movie, "Avatar."

I don't think it would be a bad thing if people were generally more kind and voluntarily shared and cooperated (as many already do, in spite of what Hollywood tells us). Contrary to caricatures of conservatives, designed by the delusional clowns of leftdom, conservative philosophy has no gripe with people striving for social improvement and moral goodness. It's the restrictions or abolition of the voluntary part of the equation that gets a most of us concerned. Any society or political apparatus can order one to be "selfless" - not really all that impressive. Pretending that the lifestyle of a tiny tribe of people can be mimicked by modern techno-industrial societies of millions is far-fetched. Worse still to imagine that a return to cave or jungle would be a desirable path. A modern financial consultant may be stressed and notably competitive but I can't see the world being a better place if he or she had elephantiasis or a knowledge of science that was summed up in a few folk tales.

Rousseau was probably the first modern intellectual to begin this recurring nonsense that primitive people are better people and that our moral failures somehow emerge from our unwillingness to be pulled into some "natural " state of obedience to collective hierarchies.

I took a primate behavior class in college (highly recommended) and was amazed at how Chimpanzees and gorillas etc. had - in nascent form - so many of the things that leftists attribute to social conditioning or capitalism. I particularly loved one experiment in which a chimp was made privy to the location of some bananas and how he waited until the others were ferried away before he accessed them - for himself (I guess he didn't get the memo).

There will no doubt always be people who yearn for the imaginary times of the past or see some acts of communal behavior amongst more primitive peoples and think we could, or should, do the same because it would be "what's best for us. "

The children noted at the beginning of this essay are the equivalent of Bambi; cute, nice, ideal, but definitely not us. In the long stretch of human history and the variety of ways we can live, there is no evidence that "sharing" on a mass scale is possible let alone desirable.

If it's selfishness that some are so put off by, they may want to consider the possibility that their perpetual demand that others "sacrifice" and "share" on command may be one of the most selfish acts humans have contrived - and there's a body count to backup my argument.

"The noble savage" is a delusion. All humans have a bit of nobility and savagery within them and some choose one side with greater allegiance, but the most truly noble among us are those that freely choose to be so. Those who idealize some isolated examples of altruism as a template worthy of imposing on the rest of us are bound to disappoint (they always have).

Subservience is hardly noble but it most assuredly is savage.

The Nice People

It's an unfortunate fact of social/political history that;

(Some) nice people supported Hitler.  Average, often middle-class, decent people who would never think of deliberately harming another human being... Supported Adolf Hitler (!)

(Some) nice people supported Mao.

(Some) nice People supported (and continue to support) Fidel Castro.

(Some) nice people support the power and growth of arbitrary state political authority.

Some people are nice...

But that doesn't mean that some people aren't stupid.

Imagination inspires beauty...but...

Imagination inspires beauty...but...

Practical reasoning and common sense gets the paint on the canvass.

Imagination and feeling embarks on new paths...
Practical reasoning and common sense keeps the car on the road.

Imagination and feeling can see a new and better world...
Practical reasoning and common sense can see the danger of excess and prevent the destruction of what is good in the world.

Imagination strives to solve every problem...
Practical reasoning and common sense pays the bills.

Imagination and feeling falls in love...
Practical reasoning and common sense keeps a marriage sound and stable.

Imagination and feeling "moves mountains"...
Practical reasoning and common sense applies itself to those things that can really be done.

When we are without imagination and feeling we are without art, music, and dreams...
When we are without practical reasoning and common sense the real world drowns in false notions and withers upon its own foolishness.

When practical reasoning and common sense pretends to act from the heart, we get shitty art, and soulless creation...
When imagination and feeling pretends to act for practical purpose we get chaos, sloth, and the rise of tyranny.

Feeling inspires imagination and practical reasoning inspires common sense.

Some are for some things and some for another. The real world would cease to function without either.

...Now, pay you bills, save your money, assist those in need, and listen to a good piece of music...preferably at an art museum and, by all means, don't pretend that half of reality is invalid because you've locked yourself into illusions or self-deprivation.

The Nonsensical Truth Squads of Social Media - Speech Codes Beyond the Campus.

I've got a Facebook account. Fun, fun, fun - not really. I initially got on the thing so I'd have a place to post photos of my family and some of my drawings and "art" photos for other family members and friends. I also, like many, came to enjoy brief updates on the lives of friends and people I've known. It works quite well to those ends. To other ends it often becomes just another laughable template for "progressives" to remind others that they hold the secret to all knowledge in general and that any one who dares to differ is... racist, fascist, stupid, selfish, etc. (yawn).

The first year or so, while posting links to science articles or writing a sentence or two on mundane personal matters, I deliberately steered away from any reference to politics. Just as when I'm at a social gathering and meet someone new or don't know an acquaintance's worldview, I think it would be damn rude to burst out with comments insulting random perspectives and idols - I don't bring up politics with people I don't know (assuming the possibility that they're views are different from my own or in the far reaches of the trendy-land left). The reasonable sense of decorum I try to adopt is often not reciprocated. I can't count the number of times that complete strangers or those I barely knew started spouting out cliche' hatreds for Bush, Palin, conservatives, business people, even America in general. There's often an occasional obligatory rant about Israel as well ('never quite understood the lefts' lockstep hatred of the only true democracy in the Middle East).

Like a good conservative, I guess I'm supposed to just nod in compliance, take the personal insults and cower in the fear that a label may be cast my way for disagreeing - "fascist, racist, privileged, capitalist, selfish, stupid, religious (my favorite since I'm an agnostic) etc. etc."

Enter, my last year or so of Facebook. Some friend's would post links to topical issues of the day and even comment or ask for responses - 'reasonable . But, More and more I began noticing the lefties amongst my "friends," and more often mere acquaintances, posting clearly controversial and partisan links bashing conservatives. The style was of course what those of us on the right have become used to amongst this crowd; clearly picking a fight, anything to prove to themselves that they had the one true monopoly on goodness. They were begging for responses but heaven forbid it be a " wrong" response.

On one occasion a third party commenter totally lost it, misinterpreting things that had no political relevance at all and really getting quite vicious while expressing their angst over other material criticising Obama - the god-man (never go there).

There's a "feminist" I know from years back who had always been a fervent femi-leftist (is there any other kind?). She recently has taken to posting extremely aggressive and insulting statements clearly hoping for a response from those like myself. But, I'm going to pass on that one. I've observed the psychology of the Jacobins long enough to know when an expression of reasoned disagreement is futile (this is one of those people who, if she actually had political power would be a raging dictator for the cause - complete with thought police and death camps). I wanted to respond to her last post with a question regarding why she she and other feminists had generally given a pass to Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Anthony Wiener, Bill Maher, et al., but not to Margaret Thatcher, Ayn Rand, Sarah Palin, or Michelle Backman, Michelle Malkin, et al. Of course, the answer is obvious; "feminism" has nothing to do with "empowerment of women" or responding to male chauvinism of various types. No, it's good old-fashioned leftism, packaged in the same dishonest garb as so much of civil rights, environmentalism, and "social justice."

A common issue that pops up on Facebook posts and comments among these people is to tie anything they don't approve of with the tea parties. Sometimes it's a mere side-note "...evil, racist extremists...like the tea parties..."). For my part I always point out - I think quite reasonably- that belief in limited government and lower taxation are valid viewpoints completely unrelated to "racism," "greed, " or "privilege" and, having a different viewpoint is actually an acceptable thing amongst civilized people who aren't on a mission to cram their custom made distopias down everyone's throat.

There is no doubt a civil war of sorts occurring in America today. I can't help but view it all in the way Andrew Breitbart described it in his recent book, "Righteous Indignation..." These people really are bullies, they refuse to accept the fact that half the political spectrum has a right to exist at all. While the product of a dynamic and diverse society, I have to wonder if some of these people, if given a chance, would be totally fine with mass-arrests and persecution of anyone holding views similar to the country's founders. These clowns are the heirs to Rousseau and Marx and like past kindred spirits of the same...they will hurt you if you dare defy them (and if the fates of history afford them the power). After all, they're on a mission..."to make a better world."

Offering me confirmation of what I've seen in these types so often before, a particularly troubling exchange was with a very intelligent ('last I heard he was an assistant attorney general for a state government) former friend from a couple of decades back. I remember meeting him again for a brief reunion a few years back and the first thing he said upon being introduced to my new wife was, "so, are you still one of those...(?)...Republicans?" (For what it's worth, I've never been registered as a Republican). When I "friended" this guy on Facebook, he accepted without comment. After numerous posts of my very cute daughter and some artsy photos, he finally found reason to acknowledge my existence upon reading one of my comments to another's post (again, I dared play defense for conservative/limited government values). This guy couldn't so much as note, "your daughter is cute" but was ready to roll when a fight could be picked regarding my defense of decency during the lefts' prime offensive on our country and its values.

I realize that much of this - being rather personal in nature - sounds like mere bitching but, I dare suggest that more than a few readers have encountered this same style of nonsense. It exemplifies the subtle underbelly of a phenomena in social media, but more so it reinforces the truth regarding the temperament of people who have become entirely unreasonable and intolerant of other people or viewpoints.

Andrew Breitbart's recent book keeps reminding me that we no longer have to take this shit; the lies, the coordinated overbearing tentacles in all aspects of the culture, the smug style of confrontation. Like many, I'm ecstatic that fewer of us on the right are now taking this nonsense sitting down. In spite of what our opponents think of us,they're dishonest, they fight dirty, and their goals have little to do with love of country or freedom. For them the bottom line is an old one, a contrived "equality" of outcome and a political structure lorded over by intellectuals and those who see themselves as intellectuals. Time to stop bending over and time to go on the offensive...

Like Andrew Breitbart said....." war..."

“What's the deal with all the dumb-asses?”

Scholars have debated the “dumb-ass” equation for millenia. I believe it was Marcus Aurelius in the 4th Century, who first confronted this vexing issue with the grand statement, “...what a dumb-ass...is everyone a dumb-ass or something? ...what's the deal with all of these dumb-asses?”

Later in the 17th century, Descartes was known to ponder the dumb-ass issue with the now seminal philosophical statement, “I think, therefore most others don't think, therefore they are probably dumb-asses.” Later, the 19th century philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche noted profoundly that, "that which does not destroy me has the serious potential of making me a dumb-ass" thus leaving us all with an existential choice of either being destroyed or joining the ranks of dumb-asses. Dumb-asses have indeed been a pivotal part of each and every society, contributing their lack of purpose to humanity with that sense of overwhelming meaninglessness we have all come to appreciate as light entertainment or occasional horror (as in the idea of people voting for someone based on a hypnotic mantra, “Yes we can”).

Dumb-asses are a particularly relevant segment of the populations at K-mart and government offices. Many achieve high office and contribute to a sort of noble malaise so prevalent in the perennial dumb-ass paradigm.

Attempts have been made to confront the dumb-ass societal affliction with such statements as “don't be such a dumb-ass”.

Dumb-asses seem to manifest eternally. They in fact often serve a great purpose to society's well being by allowing us non dumb-asses to feign sympathy for their unique form of victim-hood. The huge sums of money spent by governments to lift people out of dumb-ass inspired inertia is the finest example of how dumb-asses can help one another (though screwing their societies thoroughly).

Remember, dumb-asses are just like you and me...except they're dumb-asses.

(For those on the left who may be reading this. It's light humor - don't be offended...again. Also, don't be a dumb-ass). Should "dumb-ass" be used with a hyphen?

"Fascists" Who Believe In Individual Self-Government

(Sorry. 'Another lazy re-post. I go through many periods like this where posting new things comes to a virtual (no pun intended) standstill. 'The usual computer problems and a real life beyond cyber-land makes for a mediocre blogger -- Oh well, for now, some old observations).

It's may be accurate to say that the left despises libertarians more than conservatives.

With conservatives, the left can at least try to "argue" that their opponents are "Nazis" and "Fascists." Regardless of how contrary to fact such accusations are, there are some strains of conservatism that are very religious, "flag-waving," or hyper-traditional, so caricatures can be falsely extrapolated to extremes in such cases.

It's considerably more difficult to claim one's opponents are "Nazis" or "Fascists" when the opponent's essential premise is that government should be limited considerably and that individual freedom is the hallmark of a decent and successful society.

Leftists can pretend that conservatives are Fascists but with libertarians they can't even muster a lie effectively. Add to this the fact that leftists actually do favor considerable government "intervention" (control and coercion), and they lose their case immediately.

A socialist of any stripe is more kindred in spirit to fascism and Nazism than anyone even moderately libertarian in outlook. Add to this the fact that many conservatives (those who aren't religious, flag-waving, or hyper-traditional) are rather libertarian, and the leftist finds him or herself looking in that ugly mirror again where their own desire to feed authority to an all-powerful state is imagined instead to be in everyone who opposes their own excessive statist sympathies.

The Boogeyman Near the Center

For all their references to "Fascists" "Nazis," and "right-wing extremists," did you ever notice that the neocomm left never really gets too worked up over real Fascists, Nazis, or right wing extremists? Their ultimate boogeyman (or women) are the likes of George Bush, Rush Limbaugh, or Sarah Palin et.al. People who believe in the founders establishment of limited constitutional government are "like the Nazis." I sometimes think that real Nazis aren't or weren't of much concern to the Jacobin left. After all, during the rise of Mussolini and Hitler, sympathetic voices could be found among many intellectuals on the far left (prior to WWII). To them, fascism and Nazism were just other philosophies that, although flawed, saw the evils of unbridled bourgeois thinking.Their main concern -- fear -- has always been free markets and free ideas. Looking at party platforms and anti-capitalist rhetoric of the time, one would be hard pressed to discern real differences between National Socialists, Black Shirts, and garden variety Marxian "worker" parties. Oh, they all disagreed on the fine points; nationalism vs. internationalism, racism vs. classism...red vs. brown. But, nothing heats up a statist's hatred more than run-of-the-mill centrists who believe in such antiquated institutions like family and a quaint abode beyond the reach of the local party official. It was the consevative "war-mongers" that looked with the greatest suspicion at communism's kindered spirits in statism.

So it is today; the Chomskys, Howard Zinns, and Michael Moores reserve their most fervent vitriol for...Republicans (the horror). You'd think Bill O'Reilly was Heinrich Himmler. No doubt, the left today doesn't really like Nazis (real ones) or fascists (unless they're Chinese or soft-sell corporatist like the current far left/right...who knows what, statist in chief). But, again, you'll seldom hear real concern about any state or group that really is Nazi or fascist in temperament. Cut people's heads off to scare acceptance of a theological police state - one free pass. Rig elections, seize private property, turn schools into indoctrination centers - nothing to see here. Demand that the state and regulation be confined to reasonable constitutional limits and, "what, are you some kind of Nazi or something!?"

It's not the Nazis they hate, it's only if you're, "like a Nazi." - go figure.

Sluts... And Less Favorable Types

An excellent, thought provoking appraisal from The Razor. (I realize this is "old news" by now but this is just one of many scams that have been, and will continue to be, pulled on us by what Breitbart called, "The Democrat - media complex). Sometimes merely calling one a slut is being too kind.

On the Glories of Kitsch

People have different tastes. But that doesn't mean that bad taste is good.

Down With the Up

You can't say, "down with the system...but give me more system."

Well actually, you can say that, but you can also say, "I'm thirsty.  Give me a glass of sand."

The Age of Independence

I realize that not everyone takes astrology seriously but it's a hobby of mine that I find offers some occasional insights into the archetypal expressions of personality amongst humanity. (More information on astrology and its relation to political concepts and personalities can be found here).

Sun sign generalization isn't always the most accurate or revealing but sometimes I'm struck by such generalizations. Aquarius is the "sign" of independence and free-spirited rebellion. "It" likes to shock and upset expectations. It's the ultimate non-conformist. Of course there are many people born under the sign with a variety of beliefs. But, I think it's noteworthy that among the sign's luminaries are, Ayn Rand, Ronald Reagan, Sarah Palin, and Andrew Breitbart....'just sayin...

The generalization reminds me of something I've observed again and again in my encounters with those who take interest in politics. By far, the most independent-minded and nonconformist in spirit are inevitably conservative. I should first note that, when discussing politics, the generic meaning of "conservative" often does not describe a belief in limited government and a free market. Conservative=traditional is the way most media outlets would like the public to view conservatism and, of course, that perception can be accurate in specific contexts. The mainstream media has often described the Mullahs in Iran as "the conservatives" as they did the party leadership in the former Soviet Union. By their pick and choose definition, a common reader would simply conclude that "conservatism" is, by it's very nature, "the bad guys" - the authoritarian and oppressive. But conservatism, particularly in its libertarian expression, defies the image the left would have us believe. It is often the polar opposite of authoritarian or oppressive. Consevatives don't "love Big Brother."

Again, I can't count the number of stereotypical encounters I've had with people who fancy themselves "rebels" of sorts. These useless idiots really do believe that Che Guevara - a guy who hated rock music, gays, and people of African decent - was a "revolutionary."

What stands out most to me in all my encounters with leftdom is its incredibly blind conformity and stoic pack animal instinct.

Semantics can do wonders in flipping honest appraisal on its head. A true "dawning of the age of Aquarius" will be a period when the individual will rein supreme over his or her own life and genuine diversity of values and lifestyle will flourish, expressed unbridled by the state and lock-step clowns of leftist anti-rebellion.

Again; Rand, Reagan, Palin, and Breitbart. Real rebels for a new age.

Inspired by Breitbart

I had never really paid much attention to the work of, recently deceased, Andrew Breitbart. I looked at his websites occasionally or arrived at them from links from other sites. I really hadn't a clue who he was. Then, coincidentally, only a couple of weeks ago I saw a clip of him speaking at a CPAC conference and even more recently, the non-censored version of the trailer from the not yet released documentary "Hating Breitbart." Near the end if the trailer he expresses the utter contempt many of us conservatives feel toward the stacked deck of dishonesty, insult, and hate the left regularly throws our way.

Breitbart's focus on the "Democrat/media complex" and all its cultural tentacles in entertainment and academia really hit home. What most struck me was Breitbart's brusk lack of decorum, forfeiting the usual apologies expressed by so many of us on the right who try to be civil dealing with people who are basically condescending authoritarian savages. In the movie trailer, after his expression of indignation over tea party protestors being endlessly called racists and potential Timothy McVeighs, he stops, focuses, and says in sharp distinct words..."Fuck You!". I was hooked. Why didn't I ever say that to these people? It was a revelation. Really. Why couldn't conservatives finally just say, "Fuck You!" to all the cliche' lies and all the power around us that dares perpetually paint itself as some victim, font of goodness, or champion of the underdog when in fact modern leftism is the very heir to history's most vile "experiments" in cruelty and oppression? Like most of us who live decently and believe in responsible and limited government, why couldn't I just respond to the never-ending barrage of taunts and condescension with something equally direct that may lack proper recitation of facts or debate form but...got to the point.

Breitbart was a guy who had that special earthy honesty so lacking in leftism -- he wasn't...full of shit (like so many of them, from Hollywood stars and news journalists to the charlatans of post modern academia). This was a guy I felt I could have a drink with, unlike so many uptight "sensitive" intellectuals who constrain every conversation to fit their neatly tethered P.C. guidelines.


The day before he died I posted a "like" entry to his Facebook page (no doubt pissing off more than a few true believers I know). A few days before that I had downloaded and begun listening to the audiobook of his recent book, "Righteous Indignation."

His disgust with Clarence Thomas's treatment before the Democrat-Jacobin wolves was moving. I found his book to be, in parts, a sort of grunge era, college age "Catcher in the Rye" – quite entertaining in spite of the serious issues it addressed. He just sounded cool so honestly describing his own early weaknesses and his ability to shift in his life to sounder awareness, seeing the entire left wing edifice for what it is and has always been; pure rot, insincerity, arrogance, and an establishment of self-righteous bullying.
I couldn't believe that this new hero I was just now coming to be familiar with died as I was still listening to his story in his own words.

We on the right tend not to get caught up in idol worship the way the leftist mob does. Occasionally we come close with figures like Ronald Reagan (but then we don't decide he should be called R.W.R. To conjure some fake intimacy).

Like Breitbart, I've had it -- 'sick of simply stating my case and defending my position before people who insult my existence and describe my stance in ways nowhere resembling who I am or what I believe (so they can simply feel superior and have more control over others' lives).

Breitbart was right when he said - in so many words - "I'm sick of apologizing for who I am..." This guy's work is an inspiration to all of us who know the values of honor and dignity embellished with sound awareness of economic principles and the need to keep the coercive bureau state well bound. What do those on the left have on their side? Pompous self-righteous elitism with weakness of character and - stated simply - a lack of honor.

Rest in peace Andrew Breitbart. You revealed all the "debate" in mainstream culture for what it truly is - bullshit. We're being bullshited into tyranny, but we no longer have to play along. We won't.