Thursday, December 24, 2009

Democrats are the party that promotes blacks - NOT

There is an idiotic meme that needs to be combated, namely that Democrats are the party of civility and respect between the races while the Republicans are racist troglodites. We see this meshed with the even more idiotic "Nixon Southern-Strategy" (A meme is an idea that, analogous to a gene, replicates and evolves. So the idea that Republicans are racist spreads and spreads until it becomes an acknowledged truth.)

Let's look at a few facts.
  • The Republican Party formed as the Anti-Slavery Party
  • The first President of the United States to invite a black man (Booker T. Washington) for a state dinner was Theodore Roosevelt, a Republican.
  • The first President to appoint a black National Security Advisor was Ronald Reagan.
  • The first President to appoint a black Secretary of Defense was George Bush (41).
  • The first President to appoint a black Secretary of State was George W. Bush (43).
Of course the first black President was a Democrat, but I'm not arguing that Democrats are racist (even though most of the evil done in the south ... drumrole please ... was done by DEMOCRATS.) I'm only combating the divisive propaganda that Republicans are evil racists.

Those are rather little things. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed only because Republicans were on board. The Democrats had huge majorities in both the House and Senate and couldn't pass it. As a matter of fact the Democrats tried to kill the bill several times.

Let's look at the details. H.R.7152 passed the House on Feb. 10, 1964.  The Democrats had 246 Congressmen. Only 152 voted in favor of the bill. 96 Democrats voted against it. It took the Republican Party to pass the bill. 138 Republicans voted for and only 34 voted against it.

Let's look at the Senate. Democrats had 67 senators, way more than the currently held super majority, and still they couldn't pass the bill on their own. 46 Democrats voted for the bill and 21 against. Of the 33 Republicans 27 voted for the bill and 6 against it.

So, if 1964 Civil Rights Bill is an example of government fighting racism and intolerance then let the Republicans be praised for their efforts along with the Democrats.

In case you didn't know racist southern whites refused to vote Republican for generations as they were the party of Lincoln and integration. The South has become Republican, not because of appealing to racists, but because of two reasons: one the hard core racist, anti-Republican generation slowly died off and became demographically insignificant by the early 1990s; second immigrants to the south who went there for jobs and opportunity that they didn't find in the North brought anti-union, anti-progressive -- hence anti-Democratic Party --sentiment to the south.

And finally Richard Nixon's Southern Strategy had nothing to do with appealling to Southern Racists.

Why has this meme taken hold? Because the Republicans are fighting the Progressive agenda. And, as we all know, only dumb, evil, racist fools could be against Progressive nirvana. Therefore Republicans are racists.

Sunday, December 20, 2009

The Copenhagen Accord

Witness the following that came from the Copenhagen seers:

"We agree that deep cuts in global emissions are required...with a view to reduce global emissions by 50 percent in 2050 below 1990 levels"

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/chinas-delaying-tactics-threaten-climate-deal-1844661.html

These peoples are liars and frauds; and the people who believe in this shit are too ignorant for words. The key point is below:

The draft retained plans to limit a rise in world temperatures to 2.0 Celsius over pre-industrial times but added a review in 2016 that would also consider a tougher limit of 1.5 Celsius.

This assumes that the global temperature has held steady UNTIL humans began industrial activity. It conveniently forgets that there have been numerous (24 over the last 2.5 million years) ice ages and in between each of thes periods of global cooling there have been periods of global warming. DUH!!!

Copenhagen, Chavez



Start at 3:47

Thursday, December 17, 2009

What's Green on the outside and Red on the inside?

I know many environmentalists who aren't socialistic in the least. They have a hard time believing me when I insist that many of their compatriots are not just "liberal" but socialist.

Years ago the Black Power movement came up with the "Oreo" cookie (black on the outside and white on the inside). Some Asian groups have a similar term: banana (yellow on the outside and white on the inside.) I would love to use the term: watermelon (green on the outside and red on the inside) however the word watermelon is, in the United States, so over-laded with racial overtones that one would spend too much time dealing with a side issue (racism) and one would never be able to focus upon the issue at hand; and that is the hijacking of the environmental issues by socialists to pursue their end of government control over the economy.

To see watermelons in action view the video below:

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Coburn : The Senators Should Understand the Bill Being Brought Before Them




I ask the unanimous consent that that amendment be agreed to and accepted that’s exactly what the American people expect us to be doing. ... But we ought to — we ought to take and embrace this idea of transparency and responsibility that the American people can expect every one of us to have read this bill plus the amended bill and — and certify that we have an understanding for what we’re doing to health care in america with this bill. And I would ask unanimous consent that that be accepted.

Not surprisingly the motion was shot down. Don't you just love these guys?

Thursday, December 10, 2009

Obama the great conciliator

Once again we hear about Obama irritating and snubbing people abroad. We almost never hear it in the US media. But here's another one:

Barack Obama's trip to Oslo to pick up his Nobel peace award is in danger of being overshadowed by a row over the cancellation of a series of events normally attended by the prizewinner.

Norwegians are incensed over what they view as his shabby response to the prize by cutting short his visit.

The White House has cancelled many of the events peace prize laureates traditionally submit to, including a dinner with the Norwegian Nobel committee, a press conference, a television interview, appearances at a children's event promoting peace and a music concert, as well as a visit to an exhibition in his honour at the Nobel peace centre.

He has also turned down a lunch invitation from the King of Norway.

According to a poll published by the daily tabloid VG, 44% of Norwegians believe it was rude of Obama to cancel his scheduled lunch with King Harald, with only 34% saying they believe it was acceptable.

"Of all the things he is cancelling, I think the worst is cancelling the lunch with the king," said Siv Jensen, the leader of the largest party in opposition, the populist Progress party. "This is a central part of our government system. He should respect the monarchy," she told VG.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/09/obama-nobel-peace-prize-snub

I should start collecting his snubs in France; England; Germany and now Norway.

Tuesday, December 8, 2009

Fisting for Junior High: Hmm, Hmm Good

Think of all the jobs created or saved while producing these lesson plans and handouts.

http://biggovernment.com/2009/12/08/fistgate-ii-high-school-students-given-fisting-kits-at-kevin-jennings-2001-glsen-conference/

Saving on TARP, the return of Wilma Flintstone

All this talk about saving money on TARP from congresspeople and pundits that can now be spent on a jobs bill. They sound like Wilma Flintstone who crows that she didn't max out her credit card so now she has some "saved" money that can be spent elsewhere.

Saturday, December 5, 2009

Honduras

The Wall Street Journal has a good article on the Honduran election. For those that forgot. President Zelaya proposed a referendum that would have overturned the Honduran constitution's ban on re-election and scraped much of the existing constitution. A Chavez ally, Zelaya was locked in a growing confrontation with the Honduran Congress and Court.

The Honduran Supreme Court ruled the vote to be illegal because the Honuran Constitution banned Constitutional referendums within six months of elections. The military, backing the Supreme Court, refused to distribute ballots (a normal function of the Honduran military). President Zelaya fired the chief of the army and continued his course. The Supreme Court ordered him to stop his action and the military ousted Zelaya.

According to The Wall Street Journal in an article In Elections, Honduras Defeats Chávez authored by MARY ANASTASIA O'GRADY

... militants inside Honduras took to exploding small bombs around the country in the weeks leading to the vote. They hoped that terror might damp turnout and delegitimize the process. They failed. Yesterday's civic participation appeared to be at least as good as it was in the last presidential election. Some polling stations reportedly even ran short, for a time, of the indelible ink used to mark voter pinkies.

Latin socialists tried to discredit Honduran democracy as part of their effort to force the reinstatement of deposed President Manuel Zelaya. Both sides knew that if that happened the electoral process would be in jeopardy.

The rule of law and popular representation pushing back statism. Beautiful, simply beautiful.

Ms. O'Grady continues that the election was
If not Hugo Chávez's Waterloo ... [it] marks a major setback for the Venezuelan strongman's expansionist agenda.

The losers in this drama also include Brazil, Argentina, Chile and Spain, which all did their level best to block the election.

I would add that the Obama White House is among the "losers in this drama."

Later in the piece she writes that:

At least the Obama administration figured out, after four months, that it had blundered. It deserves credit for realizing that elections were the best way forward, and for promising to recognize the outcome despite enormous pressure from Brazil and Venezuela. President Obama came to office intent on a foreign policy of multilateralism. Perhaps this experience will teach him that freedom does indeed have enemies.

I wish I was as optimistic as she is. I think that Obama has a lot more in common with Chavez than most people think. I judge the man by his associations and his deeds, more than his rhetoric.

From America.gov: the US Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, Arturo Valenzuela, said the US was "disappointed" as it had hoped Honduran lawmakers would reinstate Mr Zelaya.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY VALENZUELA: Yes. Thanks very much. As you know, the Honduran congress voted yesterday not to reinstate President Manuel Zelaya to the Honduran presidency. We’re disappointed by this decision since the United States had hoped the Congress would have approved his return. And our policy since June 28 has been consistently principled, and we’ve condemned the coup d’état and have continued to accept President Zelaya as the democratically elected and legitimate leader of Honduras throughout this political crisis.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali on the Swiss Ban on Minarets

The key line is:

If those people who cry that Europe is intolerant are right, if there was, indeed, xenophobia and a rejection of Muslims, then we would have observed the reverse. There would have been an exodus of Muslims out of Europe.

What follows is an extensive quote from the article in which she argues that we must discern between the metaphysical aspects of the religion and the quest for political supremecy by Islamists.

In the battle of ideas, symbols are important.

What if the Swiss voters were asked in a referendum to ban the building of an equilateral cross with its arms bent at right angles as a symbol of the belief of a small minority? Or imagine a referendum on building towers topped with a hammer and sickle – another symbol dear to the hearts of a very small minority in Switzerland.

Political ideas have symbols: A swastika, a hammer and sickle, a minaret, a crescent with a star in the middle (usually on top of a minaret) all represent a collectivist political theory of supremacy by one group over all others.

On controversial issues, the Swiss listen to debate, read newspapers, and otherwise investigate when they make up their minds for a vote.

What Europeans are finding out about Islam as they investigate is that it is more than just a religion. Islam offers not only a spiritual framework for dealing with such human questions as birth, death, and what ought to come after this world; it prescribes a way of life.

Islam is an idea about how society should be organized: the individual's relationship to the state; that the relationship between men and women; rules for the interaction between believers and unbelievers; how to enforce such rules; and why a government under Islam is better than a government founded on other ideas. These political ideas of Islam have their symbols: the minaret, the crescent; the head scarf, and the sword.

The minaret is a symbol of Islamist supremacy, a token of domination that came to symbolize Islamic conquest. It was introduced decades after the founding of Islam.

In Europe, as in other places in the world where Muslims settle, the places of worship are simple at first. All that a Muslim needs to fulfill the obligation of prayer is a compass to indicate the direction of Mecca, water for ablution, a clean prayer mat, and a way of telling the time so as to pray five times a day in the allocated period.

The construction of large mosques with extremely tall towers that cost millions of dollars to erect are considered only after the demography of Muslims becomes significant.

The mosque evolves from a prayer house to a political center.

Imams can then preach a message of self-segregation and a bold rejection of the ways of the non-Muslims.

Men and women are separated; gays, apostates and Jews are openly condemned; and believers organize around political goals that call for the introduction of forms of sharia (Islamic) law, starting with family law.

Thursday, December 3, 2009

Article of the Day, Obama

Articles worth reading:

Noemie Emery: Barack Obama is so last season
By: Noemie Emery
Examiner Columnist
December 2, 2009

For Barack Obama, the magic is gone. He's here, but the glamour has vanished. He still talks, but few people appear to be listening. ...

The base remained loyal, but three other subgroups had become disenchanted. "The thrill is gone," said E.J. Dionne, who seemed at a loss as to where it had gone to. In the interests of clarity, and of diagnosis, let us attempt to explain.

There was one group that fell for Obama the Moderate, the man who kept his head (or appeared to) in the financial meltdown last autumn, the temperamental conservative who seemed incremental, the one David Brooks would call "Burkean." Unfortunately, the temperamental conservative turned out to be an ideological radical, intent on ramming through on a narrow majority (and against the wishes of most of the country) a massive redo of the health care delivery system, an immense stack of paper that no one has read.

There was a second that fell for Obama the Story, the half-African waif, whose rise to the leadership of a powerful, once-slave-holding nation was the matter of legend, and tears. He was Reaganesque, he was JFK Redux, a figure of glamour and eloquence.

But Reagan and Kennedy saw themselves as temporary custodians of a tradition older and bigger than they were, and thought they were lucky to serve it. Obama seems to think he is doing the country a favor by gracing it. ...

Then there's the third group, perhaps the most painful, which is the young voters, who fell for Obama the Fad. ...

Obama was sold less as a pol than a fashion accessory, which is how the young bought him. It didn't hurt that he looked like the models in catalogs. He was so young and so hip, and so trendy and slender. ...

Well, quite a lot. As any fashionista will tell you, the problem with being this year's "in" fashion is that sooner or later, you're out. ...

Everyone knows what happens to fashions that go out of style: They get shoved on a rack to the back of the closet, and slide in a heap to the floor.



Wednesday, December 2, 2009

The Media and Tiger Woods

An excellent article regarding the ineptness of the main-stream media and, though unstated, the rise of the new media.

Of course what makes the media look so stupid is that they kept asking the question, why wont Tiger talk to the police?

Why the news media couldnt figure this out earlier is important only as it pertains to subjects much more important to the country than Tiger Woods making a hole in one with a nightclub hostess. Its why you cant trust the media when it comes to their reporting on anything, from health care to Afghanistan. And why they should do everyone a favor and stay out of the speculation business because they are lousy at it. ...

The story of Woods' affair was broken by the National Enquirer. They may not deal in "news you can use" but unlike the New York Times, CNN,and Fox News, the Enquirer, believe it or not, has proved to be the most reliable of all major national news organizations. Their accuracy rate is the best of any national news organization. They almost never get it wrong. And they virtually never print anything unless they know its true ( remember Jennifer Flowers?) And its been proved once again. ...

It didnt take Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein to figure out what the Woods crash was really all about.. But as a professor of journalism once pointed out, a scandal isnt a scandal unless the news media wants to make it one. And in Tiger Woods case that is probably a decision being made right now by news directors behind closed doors.


I may not agree with this completely, especially the dig that the Enquirer "has proved to be the most reliable of all major national news organizations." But the point has been made. On major scoops it is not the MSM that breaks the story it is the alternative media such as the Enquirer, the Pajamas Media and Talk Radio.

ADDED ON 12/3/2009

Comedy Central Scoops Network News on Climate-Gate Scandal

ABC didn't cover it. CBS didn't either. And NBC apparently wouldn't go near it.

The network news broadcasts have ignored a growing scandal over evidence of a potential climate cover-up — and now they've even been scooped by the fake news at Comedy Central.

"The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" produced its "reporting" on Climate-gate Tuesday night, when Stewart quipped, “Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!”

Stewart described leaked e-mails from Britain's University of East Anglia, including one referring to a researcher's "trick" to "hide the decline" in some temperature readings in recent decades.

"It's just scientist-speak for using a standard statistical technique — recalibrating data -– in order to trick you," Stewart said sarcastically.

Nearly two weeks since news broke of the e-mail scandal, climate change skeptics have gloated; a leading climate scientist has resigned; at least one U.S. lawmaker has called for an investigation, and countless prominent news outlets have deemed the story worthy of major reporting.


To all of you who still consider the MSM - The New York Times, Time Magazine, Newsweek, etc... - to be the arbiter of worthy news I ask "why?"

Of course, if you're a blog reader you probably already know this.

Sunday, November 29, 2009

Private Sector Experience in the Obama Cabinet

Why am I not surprised that a pro-government anti-individual liberty person such as Obama would stack his cabinet with people with NO private sector experience.

This examination of Presidential cabinet members "includes secretaries of State, Commerce, Treasury, Agriculture, Interior, Labor, Transportation, Energy, and Housing & Urban Development, and excludes Postmaster General, Navy, War, Health, Education & Welfare, Veterans Affairs, and Homeland Security—432 cabinet members in all."



The Journal of the American Enterprise Institute

Unbelieveable, isn't it? In a time where the economy matters more than most; when the most important piece of legislation has tremendous private sector impact the man in charge of it all has no private sector experience and is surrounded by others with little to no private sector experience.

Is the Global Warming Hoax Finally Over?

This stupidity, building for close to two decades, might now be about dead with the leaked emails.

five frontbenchers from Australia’s opposition Liberal party have resigned their portfolios rather than follow their leader Malcolm Turnbull in voting with Kevin Rudd’s Government on a new Emissions Trading Scheme. ...

The ETS is Australia’s version of America’s proposed Cap and Trade and the EU’s various carbon reduction schemes...

Climategate: five Aussie MPs lead the way by resigning in disgust over carbon tax

Rifqa Bary needs your support.

Now, as an atheist, why should I care? Why would I bother spending my time promoting her cause? Because I believe in individual freedom. If one cannot express ones belief, especially in something as banal as professing a belief in Christ, then what is America? Where is the First Amendment?

To anyone who proclaims any love of individual liberty or even that bastardized concept "civil rights" (after all what rights do you have as being part of a group do you not have as an individual?) how could one not be outraged at the process and most disturbingly, the lack of media attention?

It is disturbing for the future of this country that this story is mainly found in the Christian media. It once again promotes the view that the Left can tolerate the intolerable from other religions but has nothing but disdain for Christianity. If ever there is to be a rise of a militant Christianity it will be exacerbated because of the disgusting behavior of the left, especially those fools in the media.

I promote this alternative story, that a girl from a fundamentalist Christian sect converted to Islam (or even better - denied the existence of God); that she left home because of fear of physical reprisal from her parents and people associated with her religion. Do you not think we would all know her name, the brave little girl who rejected an intolerant religion and just wanted to live in peace elsewhere? Do you not think that this story would be repeated over and over ad nauseum in the media?

If you haven't heard of this story before you can read about here

Muslim teen fears for life after changing religion

The Civilian Prosecution of KSM

We "all" agree that Miranda rights do not have to be followed by the US Army. So which others parts of the civilian protection established by the constitution will not have to be followed by the army?  Now that we have chosen to dispense with the Fifth Amendment which other parts of the Constitution will we dispense in our trial of KSM?

If an individual cannot be afforded all the rights and privileges of the US Constitution he should not be tried by a civilian court.

Friday, November 27, 2009

Black Girl Escorted to School: 1960 and 2009

This post circulated through the net so you may have seen it. I think it says a lot about race relations and how things have changed in barely one generation. I don't like President Obama's policies but I am very pleased with what his election means regarding America's Original Sin.

THEN: A Black girl escorted to school - 1960




On November 14, 1960, nearly 49 years ago, 6 year old Ruby Bridges faced hostile crowds, and had to be escorted by U.S. Marshalls , because she was the first black child to attend previously all-white William Frantz Elementary School in New Orleans , Louisiana . Ruby was 6 years old. (The Great Norman Rockwell created the painting above depicting that event.)

That morning, she had only been told by her mother that she was going to be attending a new school that day and 'had better behave.' Little did little Ruby know that she would be bombarded with jeers and even death threats; and that she would end up being the sole child in her first grade class because all the other children were kept home by their parents. All because Ruby was Black.

NOW:  A Black girl escorted to school - 2009



On January 5, 2009, nearly 49 years after Ruby attended her school, 7 year old Sasha Obama, faced cheering schoolmates as she is escorted by her Mother and U. S. Secret Service Agents to Sidwell Friends Elementary School in Washington , DC . Her Mother, the current First Lady of the United States of America , had Secret Service escort because Sasha's daddy is now the 44th President of the United States , Barack Obama

Sunday, November 22, 2009

The Knowledgeable Mr. Gore



What follows is an excerpt of the exchange between Tonight Show host Conan O’Brien and The Knowledgeable Al Gore:


“O'BRIEN: Now, what about ... you talk in the book about geothermal energy...

AL GORE, NOBEL LAUREATE: Yeah, yeah.

O'BRIEN: ...and that is, as I understand it, using the heat that's generated from the core of the earth ...

GORE: Yeah.

O'BRIEN: ...to create energy, and it sounds to me like an evil plan by Lex Luthor to defeat Superman. Can you, can you tell me, is this a viable solution, geothermal energy?

GORE: It definitely is, and it's a relatively new one. People think about geothermal energy - when they think about it at all - in terms of the hot water bubbling up in some places, but two kilometers or so down in most places there are these incredibly hot rocks, 'cause the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees, and the crust of the earth is hot …”

And people think that Palin and Bush are dumb?

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

The Ditch-Digger's Fallacy

A few generations ago, in order to help during a job shortage our government felt that we could help solve this problem by giving people jobs. If we made jobs for people, they would spend money and make jobs for other people. What sort of work would be made. Well, we couldn't have them building bridges or tunnels as this would take away work from unemployed union members. It was decided that these unemployed men (our society was still sexist at the time) would be sent to work digging ditches. Many brilliant people showed that this was a brilliant idea. And, as one can't have ditches all over the place, other people were given jobs filling them back in. As many people were unemployed, many ditches were dug and filled.

It was a great success. Thousands of diggers and fillers were hired. Shovels, backhoes and dumptrucks were bought, thus giving jobs to shovel, backhoe and truck manufacturers. Supervisors, pension fund administrators and payroll people were hired. Buildings were raised for the new workforce. It was agreed among the consultants, and lauded by progressive academics and congressmen, that this was the best way to put people back to work. Huge circular ditches, miles in diameter, were dug, re-filled and paved before being dug-up again. Economists, academics and news personnel reported on the success of the new plan. Everyone knew that as each new digger was hired and paid, he spent his money on clothes, food and paid taxes. Society benefited greatly from this new public works program.

A few callous, unkind people, probably lackeys of the rich, questioned the value in digging ditches, arguing that the money used to pay for the diggers, fillers and administrators came from the taxpayers. They emphasized that this government program did not create wealth, but instead did nothing more than redistribute it. "What did the taxpayers get for their taxes," they asked? " Nothing but thrice emptied and filled ditches." In response to the criticism the digger's union, academics, administrators and politicians angrily replied that it was "cruel and mean-spirited to give tax-breaks to the rich and throw these good people out of work." "We must think of people first, before profits, before taxes," they said.

Anytime one mentions that a government department ought to be cut or eliminated, the final argument used to combat the cut is that by doing so we would throw people out of work. We would then have to pay unemployment benefits for people who moments before were income earning, tax-paying citizens. Thus we not only would be hurting them, but ourselves as well. This is a faulty argument. Anytime one eliminates a non-productive job one is helping, not hurting society. To argue that eliminating patronage and make-work jobs exacerbates the jobless situation, and injures society, is to fall into "The Ditch-Diggers Fallacy."

As ridiculous as it sounds, many people hold strongly to the Ditch-Diggers Fallacy. In doing so they make it nearly impossible to alter the status quo. Programs and old job descriptions become entrenched, even when better ways are available. There are many examples to choose from. A simple example concerns highway and bridge toll booths. We could raise money for our bridges and roads solely from a gas tax and eliminate toll booths, thus saving motorists time and headaches; saving truckers and consumers money; as well as reducing air pollution by eliminating congestion. In addition we would save taxpayers hundred of millions of dollars a year by eliminating toll booth collection.

One of the key reasons that we don't eliminate toll booths is that many people believe that by doing so we would cost toll collectors, supervisors, accountants, and auditors their jobs. "What about all those people being thrown out of work?" "We wouldn't save any money," people would say. "All the savings would go towards paying them unemployment and welfare." "Not only that," others would say, "but it would be cruel to throw good people out of work to save a few dollars." These people have fallen for The Ditch-Digger's Fallacy. If it makes sense to keep toll booth collectors and their supervisors, doing an unnecessary, wasteful job then it makes sense to give people jobs to dig and fill ditches.

There are only two ways of creating wealth: producing something or increasing the efficiency of the economic system: distribution, administration, and finance. Labor is not the source of wealth. If it was then digging huge ditches and filling them back in would be the panacea so many are looking for. All over the world people would be digging and filling ditches, and we would all have everything we need

Mr. BrewMaster

Imagine that you invent a process similar to the Mr. Coffeemaker that allows people to brew beer at home for pennies a glass. Who would benefit? You certainly would. I would, and so too would millions of other beer drinkers. It would save beer drinkers money, and save the environment. Cans and bottles wouldn't have to be transported (saving gas). Cans and bottles wouldn't have to be made (smoke stack pollution); and the aluminum wouldn't have to be mined and smelted. On the surface it kappears to be a great invention, helping the poor and middle class and saving the environment. Unfortunately that is not the case. Budweiser would lose most of its business and people would be laid off. Union brewers would have to be let go, so too would the workers making the aluminum cans. Teamsters would lose their jobs. All these people would have to go on unemployment, at the taxpayer's expense.

What seemed to have been a delightful invention, has turned out instead to throw people out of work and increase the inequity in America. You, and your investors, would become wealthy and great numbers of workers, ordinary Americans, would become poorer. Once again we would see capitalism in action -- the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. America would have been better off if Mr. Brewmaster had not been invented.

The Mr. Brewmaster is a rhetorical device, but it is representative of the type of thinking common in America's universities and newsrooms. What should be realized is that society would be better off if a Mr. Brewmaster was invented. What was wrong with the objections presented against the Mr. Brewmaster? Why do so many people make those mistakes? The problem is that concrete bound minds focus upon the lost job, not realizing that new jobs have been created. The job to be is an abstraction. The job that exists in the here and now is concrete. New jobs would be created by the Mr. Brewmaster. Somebody would have to make these Brewmasters. While not every brewing, smelting, mining, and teamster job would be replaced by a job in the Brewmaster facility, the money saved by beer drinkers would be saved, thus lessening credit costs for everyone, or spent on clothes, car, travel, movies, buying a house. Thus creating new jobs and opportunities in those industries.

All inventions and processes aid some more than others, and rightly so. Should not those that invent a device, those that recognize its worth, benefit from their work and foresight? There are some who are offended by this proposition. It is this hostility to the products of the human mind and human effort, that has hamstrung mankind since the beginning of human society. They are the true conservatives. Keep things the same, is the unstated argument behind there ry slogans. Change brings problems.

Others fear that the new jobs are never as good as the previous. If this were correct then innovation, by and of itself, would be harmful to society. Society would be better off if it stayed the same, generation after generation after generation after generation after generation after generation after generation after generation after generation after generation after generation. However, many of these same people now consider education to be the key issue in America. It makes one wonder what they mean by education. Certainly it is not the absorption of empirical facts and concepts based upon these facts. If too many people become educated in such a manner who knows how many technological advances there will be. And technological advances leads to change, and that we can't have.

The unstated argument against change, against innovation, is that it leads away from the egalitarian ideal, where each person is materially, spiritually and politically equal. Education leads, by necessity, to innovation and change. The more highly educated the society the more new jobs will be created and old jobs be eliminated, the more innovative it will be, the more society will be unequal. This is considered evil, and the sign of a dysfunctional society. However we can easily picture the day that even the poorest among us will have a roof over his head, food in the cupboard, running water, electricity, and communication and entertainment opportunities unimaginable a generation ago. Egalitarians will not cheer and have inner happiness at the fact that all humans beings have achieved unprecedented prosperity. They will bemoan the fact that the gap between rich and poor has grown to historical levels.

I proclaim that an egalitarian society is not desirable. It is either a technologically stagnant society, or a repressive society. Live in an agriculturally based, pre-industrial commune if one wants. One may do so, quite easily, within the structure of a laissez-faire society. However, don't force egalitarian ideals upon those that don't subscribe to them. But egalitarians are not, for the most part, content in living a simple, egalitarian life, among people with a similar outlook on life. They want to ensure that all are equal. However, when one promotes a repressive, top-down society in which the government is used to enforce equality, not only is one making a lie of ones claim of ones love for freedom and education but it implies that one wants, or is deliberately ignoring, the only possible result of ones stated ideas -- dictatorship.

Thursday, November 12, 2009

Fort Hood Shooting

The question of the day seems to be: was this a political act or did this person snap. We can never know his true motivation, all we can do is to look at the evidence and make up our mind from that. Sometimes there is very little evidence and we really cannot formulate a strong opinion regarding a person's motivation; other times there is a fair deal of information. This time we have a fair deal of information.

First and foremost this was a political act. Shouting "Allah Akbar" and shooting military personnel is a political act. Communicating with radical imams (unless done undercover) certainly shows a particular mindset. In the same way if a white man lynches a black man and can be linked to a KKK recruiter it wouldn't be unreasonable to conclude that his actions were based out of racial hatred.

Secondly he did snap. It seems that he was conflicted about his role in the US military and his identity as a Muslim. This being the case, if he was a reasonable man, he should have resigned his commission. The fact that he did not -- and let's face it the military is not a place where one accrues riches -- shows that there is much more to the story.

Some people argue that there was no political component to this story that the poor man absorbed so many horror stories from his patients that when it was his turn to go abroad he simply couldn't take it. I don't buy this. He could have resigned his commission and taken a civilian job. Something compelled him to stay and I don't think it was duty to country and corps.

Tuesday, November 3, 2009

Obama is not pro Roe v Wade

Rush Limbaugh and many other political commentators are wrong. Obama is not pro-Roe v Wade. Roe v Wade clearly delimits the time in which a doctor may perform an abortion: that time limit is the first trimester. Partial birth abortions, which Obama supports, are far outside this time limit. Clearly then Obama is opposed to Roe v Wade. This is not a matter of semantics. I know that phrase Roe v Wade is often substituted for abortion but Roe v Wade has a definition. If you don’t like it, either because it allows limited abortion rights, or if you don’t like as it limits abortion rights then you are NOT pro-Roe v Wade.

Friday, October 30, 2009

What does the term "Far Right" mean?

The term "Far Right" evokes the fear of tyranny; of jackboots; of oppressive, cruel government; the elimination of individual freedoms, happiness; and of the crushing of the human spirit.

In short it evokes the image of Hitler and Nazi Germany. Why then are free-market, pro-individual rights thinkers considered “far-right?” Because right is no longer a term that has a meaning on its own; it simply means not-left. Whatever the etymological origins of the term left and right (French Revolution) it no longer stands on its own. Whatever philosophy is not left and opposes the left is now considered right. The more it opposes whatever currently stands for left the more it is called right.


Tuesday, October 27, 2009

What makes one Left-Wing or Right-Wing?

Are there points or positions that all left wing people share? Are there points which all right wing people share? What makes someone left or right wing?

If you are pro-choice are you left or right wing? If so, what about abortion is left or right wing? Can you be left-wing and not be pro-choice? Can you be right-wing and be pro-choice?

For years socialist countries were opposed to abortion in their attempt to keep population levels high? Does that mean that being pro-choice is really "right wing?" No, the contrary decision by the Chinese to lower their population and increase abortion shows that there is nothing intrinsically "left" or "right" about abortion.

What about gay marriage? Can you be left-wing and be against it or be right-wing and be for it? If gay rights, culminating in gay marriage, was a left-wing issue then gay marriage, or at least greater rights for gays, would have been achieved in the former Soviet Union, China, Eastern Europe, Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia and other places in the world which have embraced Marxist-Leninist philosophy.

Instead we saw homosexual men and women imprisoned and executed simply for being gay excuse me, for being a counter-revolutionary. The Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, China, and revolutionaries such as Che Guevara, considered homosexuality to be part-and-parcel of the bourgeois, decadent west.

What makes someone Left or Right? It's simple: do you want to live in a state which respects individual liberty or a state where experts/bureaucrats/those-who-know-better/dictators make virtually all decisions for you.

Is it more complicated than that? Yes. But not much - as it all boils down to the nature of individual liberty.

Thursday, October 15, 2009

Soldiers Sent Unprepared to Combat Zones

Here's a disgusting story from France24.

The ten lightly-armed French soldiers who were on patrol with other members of their parachutist regiment were killed on August 18, 2008 after being ambushed by an estimated 170 Taliban fighters, only weeks after taking over from Italian troops in what seemed a comparatively peaceful district 65 kilometres east of Kabul. The Italian forces they had replaced in July had suffered only one combat death in the previous year.

“The Times is alleging that the Italian secret service has been involved in paying off the local Taliban to allow Italian civil reconstruction workers to get into that area and do projects… The problem seems to be that the Italians didn’t inform the French of this”, said Jon Boone, the Guardian correspondent for FRANCE 24.

The ambushed French patrol was trapped overnight by heavy insurgent fire, until airstrikes called in by US Special Forces forced the Taliban to withdraw.

“They had no heavy weapons, no pre-arranged air support, no artillery support and not enough radios (…) The French were carrying just two medium machine guns and 100 rounds of ammunition per man”, said a senior NATO official quoted by The Times.

A mix of Taliban and insurgent Hezb-i-Islami fighters claimed responsibility for the attacks, which shocked France after it emerged that many of the bodies of the dead soldiers had been mutilated after they had died.

Looks like Sarkozy is not the Guilliani of France. The point is not that Italy may or may not have bribed local Afghanis. The point is that soldiers were sent unprepared into a combat zone.

Thursday, October 8, 2009

Reform of Islam

An excellent article by Abolhassan Bani-Sadr focusing on Islam and Afghanistan but really about the fight for the Muslim soul.
Afghanistan is a deeply religious society, but the dominant interpretations of Islam, as in most Islamic countries, is one that fosters submission to force. More specifically, under existing sharia law, which is completely detached from the message of the Koran, human beings are understood to be at the service of religion and not vice-versa. Because this belief is entrenched deeply in the popular psyche, the struggle for social and political dominance expresses itself through religious discourse.

Religion has become about power. The most abhorrent form of this violence, suicide bombing, is the direct result of the dominance of a religious interpretation that sanctifies violence. Unless this changes, religion in Afghanistan will continue to serve the fundamentalist powers and those who are nourished by the politics of fear.

What is required instead is a revival of the repressed traditions of Islamic thought and practice, such as the concept of "Tawhid." This is a worldview that regards the whole of existence as a single form. There is no separation between everything existing. The whole of existence is a single living and conscious organism, possessing will, intelligence, feeling, and purpose. This encompassing existence is damaged by conflict and by separation from others.

Through this lens, the exercise of submission to power is regarded as anti-Islamic rather than as intrinsic to the faith. The expansion of freedom and development is understood as the pathway to the divine. From this perspective, human beings are created with the talents, rights, and responsibilities of initiative and self-determination.

All forms of censorship within "self" and "society" have to be removed because they are obstacles on the path to realization. This means that no individual or group can legitimately dominate another, and that challenging all forms of domination in oneself and others is an ethical responsibility. This Islam is a religion of freedom.

What does this mean in practical terms? The task of revolutionizing Islam in Afghanistan should begin with attention to the plight of women. Presently, half the population is absent from the public domain, veiled from head to toe, branded as inferior to men and treated as sexual objects to be kept at home

Wednesday, October 7, 2009

Sweating with the Socialists

This is old but I've just found it.

Monday, October 5, 2009

Facebook: The Obama and Bush Story

A Facebook poll on killing President Obama has created an uproar, as it should have. We do not want to go down the road of killing political opponents.

And yet where is outrage regarding killing President Bush? Five minutes searching Facebook came up with numerous "Kill Bush," "BushHitler" responses.

The graphic with George Bush Hanging was cropped and altered to fit the width constraints of the blog. The complete photos and descriptions are up at The Classical Liberal.com



Obama Socialism

Remember the morons who said that the Obama Socialism image was racist and offensive. Which is more offensive?




At Zombietimes as well. (Yes I did think of it before I saw it at Zombie, that's why it's posted here.)

Strange Fruit, Obama and Bush Hatred


Imagine if Obama was hung in effigy as Bush is here. What would the outcry be?

R A C I S T!

hmmm. A double-fucking standard.

Bush Hatred

There is a blindness in people, especially partisans, where they think the best of those they are temporarily aligned with and the worse of their politican enemies. I'm not saying anything new here but it comes to mind as I have discussions with otherwise intelligent people regarding the "current political discourse." They seem to think that the animosity towards Obama is frighting and unparallelled since the Kennedy assassination, or the Rabin assassination in Israel. And yet they forget the animosity towards Bush.

I'm told that the animosity towards Bush was over policy. Well can't the same be said about those opposing Obama? In addition Obama polls considerably higher than do his policy objectives. This was true 6 months ago when his approval was in the 60s and even before he was elected. Obama is a likeable guy.

To those who say the left was nowhere as despicable, nowhere as disrespectful, nowhere as hateful as the right is today I have a few photos for you. I pulled most of them from zombietime.com










Friday, October 2, 2009

Another Obama Pledge



Tell me this isn't fu*king creepy.

Obama Nation Billboard


How do you like your change now???
OBAMA-NATION
They are coming for you! The Taxpayer.
1st & 2nd amendments are in jeopardy.
LIVE FREE OR DIE

I would have worded it differently. I don't think there will be a play on the Second Amendment in the near future. Loved the Hammer and Sickle. All I can say is Thank You to the people who created and paid for this billboard.

Thursday, October 1, 2009

Land of the Free and Home of the Brave

Welcome to liberaltopia. Apparantly in some school districts it is against the law to ride a bicycle or walk to school. Ah, the joys of a paternalistic government. Welcome to our future if we continue down the present road. The article below refers to the Saratoga Springs school district in the great state of Florida.

While the school district does not allow elementary school or Maple Avenue students to ride bikes to school, that could change in the coming weeks, Superintendent Janice White said. The Board of Education could vote to amend the policy on Oct. 13, when it is scheduled to discuss a recommendation from a district-formed committee.

"Supervised, parent/guardian bike riding may be permitted at specific sites in the future," White said in an interview Friday. The school has no legal responsibility over what occurs on Route 9, she added.

The biking debate started last spring, when school district officials told Kaddo Marino that Adam was violating school rules by biking to class. Walking to the school also is not permitted.

Kaddo Marino challenged the policy and asked the school board to change it. The district charged a committee to review the rule, which was instituted in 1994.

At the start of school in September, Kaddo Marino thought that she had a nonverbal agreement with school officials to allow her son to ride his bike until a new policy was resolved. But on the night before classes started, school authorities called parents to say that walking and biking to school would not be tolerated.

When the pair stuck with their plan, they were met by school administrators and a state trooper, who emphasized that biking was prohibited, Kaddo Marino said.


Read more: http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=847190#ixzz0ShqdYZVP

Euroscepticism, A great article

I despise the way the European Union is going. It's a tyranny waiting to happen.

From The Independent:
It is natural for anyone who cherishes the democratic process to lament that their chances of having any contact with their MEP – or even knowing who he or she is – is about as great as winning the National Lottery. And it says little for the incorruptibility of this great European institution that its reaction to having the whistle blown on its own finances was to sack the brave woman – its own chief accountant – who exposed the malpractice. Neither would a true democrat rely on that tired old line that Euroenthusiasts still trot out: that we had a referendum on Europe, and we voted "yes". That vote was in 1975, which means that no one under the age of 52 had the chance to participate; and it was, in any case, on membership of the European Economic Community, whose name alone should be sufficient to suggest that we are talking about a very different body to that European Union whose advances we seem powerless to resist.

But above all, it is the EU's attitude towards democracy itself that we should question. Why is Ireland having a second referendum? The answer is that like the Danes before them, at the time of Maastricht, they voted on a treaty: and they gave the wrong answer.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/sholto-byrnes-its-not-just-the-right-thats-eurosceptic-1795604.html

I especially like the part Labour liking the problem. That's politicians for you. There is no care about the issue at hand, only that it causes problems to their adversary.

Is it just like the Republicans and Medicare? No. Not quite.

It's a solution without a problem

The Senate Finance Committee Democrats rejected a proposal which required that immigrants prove their identity with photo identification when signing up for federal healthcare programs. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said that current law and the healthcare bill under consideration are too lax and leave the door open to illegal immigrants defrauding the government using false or stolen identities to obtain benefits.

Democratic Sen. Jeff Bingaman, New Mexico, disagrees. He thinks that the type of fraud Grassley said he wants to prevent is highly uncommon. "The way I see the amendment, it's a solution without a problem," Bingaman said.

If it's highly uncommon then why not agree to it? You calm a fear and perhaps get more votes for the total bill, all in exchange for agreeing to something that isn't a problem in the first place.

Infant Mortality

Bad United States Bad. We have higher rates of infant mortality than in the EU. Why is that? Can it be explained by something aside from the fact that the US does not have socialized medicine?

The US tabulates every birth, illegal-immigrant and citzen, even in poor and remote areas. Is France including the infant deaths in the banlieus? I think not.

France is a wonderfully advanced country, especially in comparison to fat, ignorant Americans. France, as it is said, has a larger percentage of its population going to higher education. Of course the US counts the entire population and France ignores those that are not on college track.

So, as with the infant mortality issue, it is a fradulent comparison. To those devotes of the NYTs how do you explain this. Is it deception on the part of the media or ignorance?

Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Crime and Civil War

One person takes up arms against the state, it's a crime. Thousands of people who take up arms against the state is a civil war. We don't want either.

Sunday, September 27, 2009

Fatally confident of his powers of persuasion

Fatally confident of his powers of persuasion, he's bewildered that he hasn't been able to convince the Iranians (or the Palestinians, Russians, Venezuelans, Chinese, etc.) to do what he wants them to do.
Ralph Peters in the NYP

Ralph, I think you're being nice. For America's sake I hope you're correct. That means he might learn that talk goes only so far and may yet turn into a competent president.

Friday, September 25, 2009

Comments on a Comment

The following comes from a comment following a Wall Street Journal article.

The Republicans are dead meat.

They reject government involvement in the private market place but accept religous involvement in government.

They reject govt. monopolies, but endorse, accept, and defend private monopolies that strip consumers of their wealth, and impose massive taxes and efficiency losses on this nation.

They impose massive costs on the electorate in terms of a war on terror yet defend the ownership of nearly automatic weapons.

They impose massive costs on taxpayers for their war on drugs, and yet they allow doctors the freedom to write fraudulent scrip for addictive drugs.

They talk about the evil nature of government, but not one of them will give up their job, reduce their benefits, or cut their retirement, in order to shrink the size of government.

The Republican Party is a walking, talking, contradiction.

Wow! I suppose this makes sense to some people.

Dear Leader

Patriotism is the love of one's country, not the person sitting in the Oval Office. I know a lot of people who are creeped out by patriotism; even had issue with people putting up American flags after 9/11.

Well I'm creeped out by this: a school teacher taking a children's religious song (Jesus Loves the Little Children" and substituting Barack Obama for Jesus.

“He said red, yellow, black or white/All are equal in his sight. Barack Hussein Obama.”




SONG 1:
Mm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said that all must lend a hand
To make this country strong again
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said we must be fair today
Equal work means equal pay
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said that we must take a stand
To make sure everyone gets a chance
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said red, yellow, black or white
All are equal in his sight
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

Yes!
Mmm, mmm, mm
Barack Hussein Obama

SONG 2:
Hello, Mr. President we honor you today!
For all your great accomplishments, we all doth say "hooray!"

Hooray, Mr. President! You're number one!
The first black American to lead this great nation!

Hooray, Mr. President we honor your great plans
To make this country's economy number one again!

Hooray Mr. President, we're really proud of you!
And we stand for all Americans under the great Red, White, and Blue!

So continue ---- Mr. President we know you'll do the trick
So here's a hearty hip-hooray ----

Hip, hip hooray!
Hip, hip hooray!
Hip, hip hooray!

School children singing praises to "Dear Leader" is something we've never seen in this country before and, frankly, it's a little spooky. Imagine this was a video of children, a captive audience of the school teacher, singing praises to Bush. Wouldn't you be upset then? I sure know I would.

One Term Barry

Why do I say One Term Barry? Because if this keeps up Obama will keep the core Democratic voters and be trounced by the rest of the country. The only way I think that Obama can have a second term is if the Republicans win back the House in 2010 and in 2012 it look as if they will expand on it and take over the Senate as well.

Of course 3 years is an eternity in politics. We can't even be sure who's going to win the Virginia and New Jersey Gubernatorial elections six weeks from now.

Can't Wait For Our First Five Year Plan

The problem I have with Obama is more than his agenda it’s also the imagery which surrounds him.

The artwork during the election which reminds us of Stalinist Propaganda was disturbing but ... whatever; let's not make a federal case out of it. Replacing the seal of the US President with his own seal was bad enough; but hymns being sung to him; addressing school children and asking them to help him with his agenda; the devotionals and pledges made by celebrities -- I'm sorry people but this is very disturbing. Personal loyalty to a political leader is disturbing.

It truly -- no hyperbole here -- reminds me of the Maoist Youth Brigade. I can't wait for our first Five Year Plan.

Thursday, September 24, 2009

Favors extended become defined as rights - Saul Alinsky

The Democratic Party playbook, the old patron-client game.

But you know, that incident was interesting, because it was actually my first experience as an organizer -- I learned something else from it, too; after the cafeterias had outflanked us, a bunch of the kids I'd organized came up to me and said, "OK, Saul, what do we do next?" And when I told them I didn't have the slightest idea, they were really pissed off at me. It was then I learned the meaning of the old adage about how 'favors extended become defined as rights.'
If this little blurb interests you the rest is in Playboy's 1972 interview with Alinsky.

Civil Rights and Individual Rights

Have any of you wondered why the left only talks in terms of civil rights and liberties and refuses to talk about individual rights? So, to my liberal friends what is the difference between civil rights and individual rights? What rights do we have as belonging to a group that we do not possess as individuals?

Medical Malpractice, tort reform

Isn't interesting that one of the areas of the European Health Care model that is rarely talked about is their cap on medical malpractice lawsuits?

If you want less "wasteful" proceedures to be ordered by doctors then eliminate failure to order the proceedure as a cause of legal action.

Progressives are Statists

Progressives / modern liberals / leftists have done much good in the social sphere, namely women and minority rights. However it is the progressive love affair with statism that is its biggest problem and why it is becoming indestiguishable from Socialism.

Obama is actually on record saying "the Constitution is fundamentally flawed"  It is fundamentally flawed for progressives because the founding fathers understood that too much government power, especially federal power, corrupts everyone and everything it touches. We see that very clearly today.

Obama, and other progressives, have no problem subverting the constitution at every turn while furthering their agenda of centralizing power in their hands.  The way to fight back is to stress the constitution - notice how little of it is actually taught in schools today; notice how rarely it is quoted in the esteemed main-stream media. 

A lot of people who align themselves with the statist left; who are truly opposed to an overreaching government -- especially in foreign affairs -- can be reached by pushing the cause of local government over that up-high federal solutions; what we who love the constitution call "States Rights." I don't think we should push the phrase states rights too strongly because it was the rallying cry of Southern Racists for too many years. Reclaiming that phrase is another battle that can be fought concurrently with devolving Federal Power under the cause of strengthening local government.

Water on the Moon

An Indian probe discovers water on the moon!

Dreams of establishing a manned Moon base could become reality within two decades after India’s first lunar mission found evidence of large quantities of water on its surface.

Data from Chandrayaan-1 also suggests that water is still being formed on the Moon. Scientists said the breakthrough — to be announced by Nasa at a press conference today — would change the face of lunar exploration.

Scientists have long hoped that astronauts could be based on the Moon and use water found there to drink, extract oxygen to breathe and use hydrogen as fuel.

Several studies havesuggested that there could be ice in the craters around the Moon’s poles, but scientists have been unable to confirm the suspicions.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/space/article6846639.ece

Friday, September 18, 2009

Fight ObamaCare: Dissent is the Highest Form of Patriotism

Why does anybody think that opposition to ObamaCare is racist?

Do advocates of government run health care really think that individuals who promote free markets over top-down government run bureaucracies would be in favor of the current health care proposals if Obama was white? If I remember correctly there was more than a little vitriol surrounding HillaryCare in the mid-1990s. Let’s rephrase things, if Hillary Clinton was president and the same health care bills were coming through Congress do you think that it too would not be attacked by the opposition? Isn’t it strange that just a few short months ago you could find Dissent is the Highest form of Patriotism bumper stickers all over town? Where’s this love of dissent now?

Are you saying that protestors are going over the top comparing Obama to Hitler? Yes, they are. But did YOU say anything when people were comparing Bush to Hitler?

Thursday, September 17, 2009

Examples of Confusing Liberalism with Liberty

The following comes from a post following a TNR article on Ayn Rand and the Republican Party. [Wealthcare] September 14,2009
...Reardon wouldn’t waste time with political concerns when there is clearly no threat to his well-being – we don’t live in an authoritarian communist state, and liberals don’t aspire to create one (hence the term liberal, or free). ...

Sorry Charlie but the modern liberal is more socialist than he is a classical liberal. When was the last time you heard a liberal argue for deregulation? A regulation is a shackle, some good, many bad and most simply irrelevant except for the annoyance involved in acceeding to them. Liberals may not want to live in an authoritarian state but by their actions they are surely pushing us there.

An example is the push for "Fat Taxes." How does government regulation and punishment for being fat conform with the concept of "liberal, or free"

Sunday, September 13, 2009

2010 Elections. Will it be a win for individual liberty?

I would love to know the answer to that question. One thing we know for sure both the Republican nor the Democratic party are pro-power and neither are pro-individual liberty. That being said the next best thing is to decrease the power of both parties and the best way to do that is to have divided government: a Democratic President and Republican congress is, in my opinion, the best combination. I wonder if it would be just as good to have both parties at near parity in Congress with each of them taking over control every other year. I fear that might lead to banana republic mentality where each group takes as much as it can while it can.

There's a good chance that Republicans can recapture the House in 2010.

With Obama not on the ticket, with a lot of people just going straight down party tickets, some of these Democratic Congressmen will lose a few percentage points. Add to the fact that this election cycle it is the Republicans who are motivated to vote; compared to the last two cycles when many wanted to punish the Republican Party for excessive spending.

Saturday, September 12, 2009

NICE - British Death Panels

And you say that death panels are right-wing bullshit. Read the following few paragraphs from the New York Times


The New York Times
The Evidence GapBritish Balance Benefit vs. Cost of Latest Drugs
By GARDINER HARRIS
December 3, 2008

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/health/03nice.html

RUISLIP, England — When Bruce Hardy’s kidney cancer spread to his lung, his doctor recommended an expensive new pill from Pfizer. But Mr. Hardy is British, and the British health authorities refused to buy the medicine. His wife has been distraught.

“Everybody should be allowed to have as much life as they can,” Joy Hardy said in the couple’s modest home outside London.

If the Hardys lived in the United States or just about any European country other than Britain, Mr. Hardy would most likely get the drug, although he might have to pay part of the cost. A clinical trial showed that the pill, called Sutent, delays cancer progression for six months at an estimated treatment cost of $54,000.

But at that price, Mr. Hardy’s life is not worth prolonging, according to a British government agency, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. The institute, known as NICE, has decided that Britain, except in rare cases, can afford only £15,000, or about $22,750, to save six months of a citizen’s life.

If this is not a F**KING death panel I don't know what is.

UPDATE: September 13, 2009

In an article in The New York Times, Politics and the Age Gap, ADAM NAGOURNEY writes "(the infamous but nonexistent “death panels”)." These people are priceless.

EDIT: 12/9/2010
See 1:15



Robert Reich

"And by the way we're going to have to if you're very old we're not going to give you all that technology ...
It's too expensive so we're going to let you die."

Obama v Wilson: Who was more insulting?

Rep Wilson was not the only one that showed incivility with his "You Lie" comment.

Only moments before, Obama - in a prepared speech, not a spur of the moment outburst - said that his opponents were liars. He didn't say that his opponents were exaggerating or inaccurate of their claims were hyperbole he called them liars.

Some of people's concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim, made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Such a charge would be laughable if it weren't so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple.

It may be hyperbole to call panels that withhold care on groups of people death panels. However it is true that there would be panels that would withhold care based on cost; life expectancy and benefit to society. Perhaps Obama would prefer to use the Orwelian acronym NICE.

There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false – the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally. And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up – under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.

It was at this point that Congressman Wilson called Obama a liar. The fault with Wilson's statement was not the content -- Obama was disingenuous -- the fault was in his timing. Illegals were not be exculded from health care and abortions were covered. If you find Representative Wilson's comments to be abhorrent then how can you not find fault with Obama who just moments before called his critics liars? I find Obama's worse, as it was planned in advance, and was directed at more than the politicians who opposed him but American citizens as well.

Friday, September 11, 2009

Che Guevara

Then we have these pseudo-intellectual posers with Che Guevara t-shirts proclaiming revolution while drinking Starbucks coffee and cursing out Republicans for being homophobic. Hey you F**KING assholes Guevara considered homosexuality to be a decadent capitalist disease and wanted them dead. If you're gay you're a counter-revolutionary. If you're a counter-revolutionary you're to be executed. So much for the peace, loving, multi-culturalist Che Guevara.

Friday, August 14, 2009

Obama and the Birthers

What's up with these people (Birthers)? I'm as opposed to Obama and his Socialist Progressive policies as any other free-market capitalist; nonetheless Barack Hussein Obama is a US citizen even if he was born in Kenya as the Birthers proclaim. Folks, his MOTHER was a U.S. citizen. Therefore Obama is a U.S. citizen. Case closed.

The only way Obama is not a US citizen is if one: neither of his parents were American and two: he wasn't born in the US.

If there is any consolation to his becoming president it is that people are waking up to the fact that Progressive = Socialist.

Thursday, June 11, 2009

Maxine Waters will Socialize .. um Nationalize the Oil Industry

So, what again is the difference between liberals and socialists? Here it is plain and simple. If Maxine Waters is a liberal then there is no difference between liberals and socialists except perhaps the means to accomplish their goals. The end is the same: a top-down government control of industry; a country which is not limited by the archaic declarations set forth by death 18th C slaveholders who had no knowledge or appreciation of the problems faced by 21st C people.



Maxine Waters 1:10

And guess what this liberal would be all about?
This liberal will be about socialising

uh uh

Will be about basically taking over and the government running all of your companies.
If you are a liberal and do not consider yourself to be a socialist; if you consider nationalizing an industry to be immoral, unconstitutional, foolish, counter-productive and an example of socialist thinking how can you in a clear conscience not recoil at the fact that Maxine Waters calls herself a liberal?

A good counter-argument to the above is the question "Does promoting the nationalizing of an industry mean that its propenents are socialists?" No, of course not. It makes one a collectivist and not necesarily a socialist. I think it is clear, however, that Maxine Waters is on the International Socialist end of things, not a National Socialist, nor a theocrat.

And if you think people on the left think she's a nutcase go to
Democratic Underground

Friday, June 5, 2009

The Dangers of Dihydrogen Monoxide

I'm a little behind the times but I just found a great site promoting the dangers of Dihydrogen Monoxide. What a brilliant idea, what a brilliantly demented idea.

Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO) is a colorless and odorless chemical compound, also referred to by some as Dihydrogen Oxide, Hydrogen Hydroxide, Hydronium Hydroxide, or simply Hydric acid. Its basis is the highly reactive hydroxyl radical, a species shown to mutate DNA, denature proteins, disrupt cell membranes, and chemically alter critical neurotransmitters. The atomic components of DHMO are found in a number of caustic, explosive and poisonous compounds such as Sulfuric Acid, Nitroglycerine and Ethyl Alcohol.

What are some of the dangers of Dihydrogen Monoxide?

Each year, Dihydrogen Monoxide is a known causative component in many thousands of deaths and is a major contributor to millions upon millions of dollars in damage to property and the environment. Some of the known perils of Dihydrogen Monoxide are:

  • Death due to accidental inhalation of DHMO, even in small quantities.
  • Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO causes severe tissue damage.
  • Excessive ingestion produces a number of unpleasant though not typically life-threatening side-effects.
  • DHMO is a major component of acid rain.
  • Gaseous DHMO can cause severe burns.
  • Contributes to soil erosion.

UPDATE [4/21/2010]: HERE'S A VIDEO FROM PENN & TELLER

Wednesday, June 3, 2009

Is it wrong to ask if Obama is a closet Marxist?

Is it wrong to ask or suspect that Obama may be a closet Marxist or Communist? Absolutely not. He has too many close associates who are avowed Marxists. This does not make him a Marxist but it naturally brings up the question and the suspicion.

And, so you ask, who cares if they’re communists? Well, would you say the same thing if they were Nazis? To me they are the same thing. Yes there are differences, but the similarity to someone who believes in individual liberty is minimal.

Communists intern and kill the bourgeois. Nazis killed the Jews. The Nazis just took the abstraction of the bourgeois and associated it with “The Jew”. Both communists and Nazis abhor the concept of individual liberty and individual rights; both treat any form of dissent as traitorous and deserving of death or imprisonment. In short if you believe in individual liberty, in individual rights then you have nothing but contempt for both Nazis and Communists.

Of course there is a difference: Nazis believe in the union of the race; that the individual is but a cell in the body politic of the race. Communists believe in the union of the class; that the individual is but a cell in the body politic of the class. It is a major difference and we should celebrate said difference; but as an individualist; as someone who believes in individual freedom; as someone who feels the purpose of government is to uphold and safeguard individual rights and contracts I may understand and relish the intellectual arguments that separate Nazis and Communists. Nonetheless I have nothing but contempt and disdain for both philosophies and will not live peacefully under either.

Did I oversimplify the argument in the above paragraph? Of course I did. But I leave it to you, the supporters of either the Nazis or Communists to explain to me how “you” or your ideal government would treat an individual who disagrees with the norms being enforced by your ideal government.

You don’t like Republicans because they hate gays you say? Then why do you wear a Che t-shirt?



Tuesday, May 5, 2009

Climate Change and Ignorance

As much as I respect science too often it is the science media that makes scientists look like idiots and scientific research silly. Look at the following from sciencedaily.com.

The third sentence of the article states: ”To contain global warming, and its risks and consequences, warming compared to pre-industrial times (pre 1900) should not exceed two degrees Celsius.”

For this sentence to make any sense whatsoever three unstated assumptions would have to be true. First the temperature of the globe was constant until the industrial revolution; second the industrial revolution started in 1900; and third that there are no other factors to be considered.

All three assumptions are false.

The full quote from the article is below:
If CO2 emissions are halved by 2050 compared to 1990, global warming can be stabilised below two degrees. This is shown by two studies by a co-operation of German, Swiss and British researchers in the journal Nature.

To contain global warming, and its risks and consequences, warming compared to pre-industrial times (pre 1900) should not exceed two degrees Celsius. Although, according to the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), there is no specific temperature threshold for dangerous climate changes, and the negative effects are gradually increasing, over one hundred countries have adopted this “2°C target”. Scientists have used a new probability model to calculate how much CO2 our atmosphere tolerates under these target specifications. This and another study2, recently published in Nature, produced similar results: From 2000 to 2050, a maximum of 1000 billion tonnes of CO2 may be emitted into the atmosphere. Roughly speaking, today, around one third of this wad has already been shot.

Climate Change: Halving Carbon Dioxide Emissions By 2050 Could Stabilize Global Warming

Hmmm. I guess these researchers, writers, and editors convenietly forgot that the earth has been around for a while and that life -- including mammalian life and primate life -- has thrived with CO2 levels far higher than what exists today.



Thursday, January 1, 2009

Aphorisms

ALL UPDATES WILL BE AT
Classical Liberal Aphorisms

“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of ‘liberalism’, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.” - Norman Thomas, U.S. Socialist Party presidential candidate 1940, 1944 and 1948

Man is not free unless government is limited.
- many, but often attributed to Ronald Reagan

We the people tell the government what to do; It doesn't tell us.
- many, but often attributed to Ronald Reagan

If you want something done, assign one person to the task. If you don't care if something gets done, assign two people to the job. If you absolutely do not want something to be done, assign it to a commitee.

Reclaim The Name

Half the harm that is done in this world
Is due to people who want to feel important
They don’t mean to do harm
But the harm does not interest them.
Or they do not see it, or they justify it
Because they are absorbed in the endless struggle
To think well of themselves.
T. S. Eliot

coming soon - sorry folks, but I do have a job :-)