Should Faking a Name on Facebook Be a Felony?
This new expansion and re-interpretation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act would make felons of us all. This is the point.
Laws don't write themselves. Politicians don't draft legislation because they are bored. Every bill has a purpose behind it, even if that purpose is not obvious.
When everyone is a criminal because it is impossible to live without violating the law, enforcement becomes a political exercise. This law, and other laws that criminalize the trivial, allows agents of the state to selectively target people they or their masters don't like.
A free society is one in which it is safe to be unpopular. This is never more true than when it is the government that dislikes you. When the government has the power to arbitrarily charge virtually anyone with a felony, that society is not free. A nation in which citizens cower silently before the state and its agents, keep their heads down and walk briskly, hoping they will not be noticed - is not free.
Any government that is the enemy of the people and the usurper of their rights is a criminal enterprise.
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Bachman listens to a lunatic and makes a fool of herself in the process
Bachmann: Gardasil causes “mental retardation”
Bachman:
Here we go again with the neo-luddite vaccination made my kid a weirdo nonsense. This is what happens when superstition masquerades as reason.
I suspect the woman making the initial claim to Bachman was being dishonest in the first place. There is a contingent of people who fear these vaccines because the disease they protect against is sexually transmitted. Rather than rationally fearing the disease itself, they fear that which inoculates against it. Why? Because even more than cancer and death, they fear that their daughters will have sex. Something that protects against cancer and death transmitted through sex, is irrationally seen as something that promotes sex, which is anathema to them.
But they cannot make that argument because normal people are not persuaded by it. No normal person sees something that protects a 12 year old girl from contagious cervical cancer as an incitement for her to go party like a co-ed on girls gone wild.
So instead they latch on to anything they can come up with, no matter how ridiculous. They freak out and get emotional, at which point they get stupid. Those who listen to them end up looking stupid as well.
Bachman:
There’s a woman who came up crying to me tonight after the debate. She said her daughter was given that vaccine. She told me her daughter suffered mental retardation as a result of that vaccine.
Here we go again with the neo-luddite vaccination made my kid a weirdo nonsense. This is what happens when superstition masquerades as reason.
I suspect the woman making the initial claim to Bachman was being dishonest in the first place. There is a contingent of people who fear these vaccines because the disease they protect against is sexually transmitted. Rather than rationally fearing the disease itself, they fear that which inoculates against it. Why? Because even more than cancer and death, they fear that their daughters will have sex. Something that protects against cancer and death transmitted through sex, is irrationally seen as something that promotes sex, which is anathema to them.
But they cannot make that argument because normal people are not persuaded by it. No normal person sees something that protects a 12 year old girl from contagious cervical cancer as an incitement for her to go party like a co-ed on girls gone wild.
So instead they latch on to anything they can come up with, no matter how ridiculous. They freak out and get emotional, at which point they get stupid. Those who listen to them end up looking stupid as well.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Something to think about on the anniversary of evil
A passage from Lee Harris’s Civilization And Its Enemies.
Forgetfulness occurs when those who have been long inured to civilized order can no longer remember a time in which they had to wonder whether their crops would grow to maturity without being stolen or their children sold into slavery by a victorious foe.
…
They forget that in time of danger, in the face of the Enemy, they must trust and confide in each other, or perish.
They forget, in short, that there has ever been a category of human experience called the Enemy. And that, before 9/11, was what had happened to us. The very concept of the Enemy had been banished from our moral and political vocabulary. An enemy was just a friend we hadn’t done enough for — yet. Or perhaps there had been a misunderstanding, or an oversight on our part — something that we could correct. And this means that that our first task is that we must try to grasp what the concept of the Enemy really means.
The Enemy is someone who is willing to die in order to kill you. And while it is true that the Enemy always hates us for a reason — it is his reason, and not ours.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Government
The legitimate role of government is to regulate interactions between individuals and legal entities where the nature of the interaction is not already agreed upon by the entities in question, and to enforce valid contractual agreements between individuals that were freely entered into.
Everything else is extraneous.
Everything else is extraneous.
Sunday, September 4, 2011
Tea Partiers are racists, and other lies from the credentialed left
Academics dub tea partyers devout, racist
Consider the source
95% of Political Science faculty are self proclaimed liberal Democrats.
The problem isn't that they are wrong. The problem is that they are LYING.
It is extremely easy to create push polls to generate the responses that you want to hear. It isn't necessary to lie about the answer when you are asking a dishonest question. Normally reviewers would call you out for this, but not when those reviewers are religiously motivated to agree with your findings. These are also conference papers, which means that they have either not been reviewed, or were rejected by the journals they were submitted to. If the research was truly sound, they'd be published in a respected journal.
This is a case of credentialed sophists getting together and agreeing on a set of lies and misrepresentations that are then presented to the public as valid findings. It is also an example of why the humanities are considered a joke. Few people go into political science for legitimate reasons anymore. Those who do virtually never go on to pursue an academic career in the field. The discipline is today almost entirely made up of far left ideologues. Some academics in the humanities are more honest than others, but virtually none of them are conservatives.
But that's ok because the only people who believe them are others such as themselves. The Daily Kos echo chamber eats this stuff up, but mainstream Americans are unimpressed. When the ideas and principles that the tea parties believe in are presented to the public honestly, the vast majority of Americans agree with them. On election day the voters are going to pull the lever for the Tea Party because they agree with what we believe in even when they don't know it.
Leftists are in trouble because their ideas are bad. The Tea Party represents the rejection of these bad ideas in favor of better ones. I should know because I am the Tea Party. They accuse us of racism because they have no valid arguments to make. If they did, we would be hearing them. They can't argue against the things we actually stand for, the things we actually believe, because our ideas are unassailable. To attack us based on what we actually believe would only succeed in promoting our ideas. So instead they lie about us and call us names.
They hate us because we are right, because we are the living embodiment of their own failure to know and live with the truth.
http://www.tempeteaparty.org
Consider the source
95% of Political Science faculty are self proclaimed liberal Democrats.
The problem isn't that they are wrong. The problem is that they are LYING.
It is extremely easy to create push polls to generate the responses that you want to hear. It isn't necessary to lie about the answer when you are asking a dishonest question. Normally reviewers would call you out for this, but not when those reviewers are religiously motivated to agree with your findings. These are also conference papers, which means that they have either not been reviewed, or were rejected by the journals they were submitted to. If the research was truly sound, they'd be published in a respected journal.
This is a case of credentialed sophists getting together and agreeing on a set of lies and misrepresentations that are then presented to the public as valid findings. It is also an example of why the humanities are considered a joke. Few people go into political science for legitimate reasons anymore. Those who do virtually never go on to pursue an academic career in the field. The discipline is today almost entirely made up of far left ideologues. Some academics in the humanities are more honest than others, but virtually none of them are conservatives.
But that's ok because the only people who believe them are others such as themselves. The Daily Kos echo chamber eats this stuff up, but mainstream Americans are unimpressed. When the ideas and principles that the tea parties believe in are presented to the public honestly, the vast majority of Americans agree with them. On election day the voters are going to pull the lever for the Tea Party because they agree with what we believe in even when they don't know it.
Leftists are in trouble because their ideas are bad. The Tea Party represents the rejection of these bad ideas in favor of better ones. I should know because I am the Tea Party. They accuse us of racism because they have no valid arguments to make. If they did, we would be hearing them. They can't argue against the things we actually stand for, the things we actually believe, because our ideas are unassailable. To attack us based on what we actually believe would only succeed in promoting our ideas. So instead they lie about us and call us names.
They hate us because we are right, because we are the living embodiment of their own failure to know and live with the truth.
http://www.tempeteaparty.org
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Quote for the day
"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency.
It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president.
The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America . Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince.
The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president."
-Author Unknown
It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president.
The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America . Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince.
The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president."
-Author Unknown
Return of the Ghost Dancers
Wolffe: Opposition To Obama Speech Possibly Based On Skin Color
The gratuitous use of the race card has exceeded the bounds of mere cliche and entered the realm of self-parody.
Do they actually think anyone is listening anymore, let alone taking them seriously?
This kind of nonsense used to make me angry because of how insulting it was, not only to conservatives and libertarians, but to the intelligence of anyone unlucky enough to hear it.
But now it's gone so far beyond pale that they aren't insulting people like me anymore, but making fools of themselves instead.
I almost miss the days when leftists actually pretended to have valid arguments to make. I miss their intricate sophistries because at least those arguments had a patina of legitimacy to them. This crap is such obvious nonsense it isn't even worth taking the time to debunk as only a total fool would listen to it.
I'm reminded of the Ghost Dancer movement among American Indians in the late 19th century. Defeated and broken, some groups devolved into a cult based on circle dancing whose adherents believed would bring back the buffalo and end the expansion of the United States. I don't know what kind of things the Indians chanted, but the chant from the left seems to be "Racism Racism Racism!"
It isn't going to work for them any better than it did for the Indians.
The gratuitous use of the race card has exceeded the bounds of mere cliche and entered the realm of self-parody.
Do they actually think anyone is listening anymore, let alone taking them seriously?
This kind of nonsense used to make me angry because of how insulting it was, not only to conservatives and libertarians, but to the intelligence of anyone unlucky enough to hear it.
But now it's gone so far beyond pale that they aren't insulting people like me anymore, but making fools of themselves instead.
I almost miss the days when leftists actually pretended to have valid arguments to make. I miss their intricate sophistries because at least those arguments had a patina of legitimacy to them. This crap is such obvious nonsense it isn't even worth taking the time to debunk as only a total fool would listen to it.
I'm reminded of the Ghost Dancer movement among American Indians in the late 19th century. Defeated and broken, some groups devolved into a cult based on circle dancing whose adherents believed would bring back the buffalo and end the expansion of the United States. I don't know what kind of things the Indians chanted, but the chant from the left seems to be "Racism Racism Racism!"
It isn't going to work for them any better than it did for the Indians.
Monday, August 29, 2011
A union flunky speaks
This was originally a response to a reader comment that can be found here:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/27/census-data-shows-people-are-moving-from-blue-to-red-states.html#comments
The comment itself, from Bob Dobolina:
My response:
There is so much wrong with what you've written that I don't even know where to begin. So I'll begin in the middle, then probably shower and go to work.
The decline in manufacturing does mirror the decline in union membership, but not because the latter caused the former.
Correlation does not mean causation.
Besides which, only fools choose to be serfs. That is what union workers generally are. They're unable to make a living on their own because they lack the skills and talents necessary to be independently employable. So they bind themselves together into a group and try to extract as much money as they can for their menial, but necessary, work. I don't hold them in contempt for this as such a development is inevitable. The capital investment most manufacturing requires means that firms can't easily chase the labor market. They set up shop somewhere, and once established cannot instantly move elsewhere just because the people there will work for less.
But even so this does eventually happen, just not as quickly. Instead of moving existing plants, they expand into these other labor markets and then close the previous plant as it becomes less profitable instead of refurbishing or retooling it when manufacturing processes change. Unions are created to prevent workers from having to compete with each other, but eventually they do, in this case with people in other nations who are willing to work for what would be less here in America, but is actually a good wage over there due to the difference in cost of living.
There are several consequences of this.
First, the unit cost of production goes down, making that company more profitable and therefore more competitive. Such companies generally lower the prices offered to consumers. Other firms must then follow suit and find ways to lower their own production costs, or risk failure. So they relocate as well, or go out of business.
Second these lowered consumer prices means that our money goes further. We can afford to buy more with less money (adjusted for inflation).
Third, the wages that are being paid to the workers overseas makes those workers more able to purchase goods and services from us, improving the economies of both nations.
The only people who lose are those whose reluctance or inability to compete in the labor market is what led them into union work in the first place. When you can't get a good paying job based on your own competence and merit, jobs that require neither are your only escape.
The lesson is to stay in school and to sharpen and hone your skills and abilities so that you are able to support yourself in a field based on individual accomplishment. Doctors, lawyers and engineers belong to professional associations, not unions. There is a reason for this.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/27/census-data-shows-people-are-moving-from-blue-to-red-states.html#comments
The comment itself, from Bob Dobolina:
if the red states are so awesome then why are their "free market" systems not just blown up their economies? I mean if their lower taxes, pro business and family values then they should be just crushing it right? Last I checked that's not the case. The only one that wins out in those states is the companies that are there. Sure as hell isn't the people that work there. it is a fact that red states are welfare states. The are subsidized by the blue states. If their awesome systems really work and are so good then why are welfare states just that?
Republican foundations of lower taxes, pro business and family values are a good idea but in reality they are failed policies. Like supply side economics. Never worked no matter how many times the right pushes it. It's like a broken record. Cut taxes and regulations and the country will be awesome. Well, it's been going on for 30 years and look what we've got. It's no coincidence that the decline of manufacturing mirrors the decline in unions? Our country was made great on the backs of labor. But conservatives hate labor. The major things we now take for granted were originally created by the sweat and blood of labor. 5 day work week, vacations, sick time, etc.....
Over the last 30 years we've seen republicans main foundations front and center. And if they are so good then our country should be the crown jewel of the world and the stock market should be over 20k. Kill unions, ease regulations and massively low taxes. But check it out, during that time the rich and companies have seen triple digit increases in profits and pay. The regular folks that make those companies run have see what for gains over that time?
Zero gains for the working man. Didn't even follow inflation.
If these basic foundations they say are their core beliefs should be just blowing up our economy. Should be unparalleled prosperity. they've had their way for 30 years and if it works then we should be in a better place now. But no. They're like snake oil salesman. peddling these ideals that sound great but in practice the only benefits they have are for the rich. Record profits and oceans of cash but are those making their way to the regular folks? Nope. Businesses have employees over a barrel. They can pay them anything they want and show them the door if they don't like it. High unemployment is the best time for companies because they can pretty much do whatever they want and people are just happy to have a job.
Welfare states are red states. Pro business isn't pro worker. there is a difference. But hey, screw the regular people right? If job creators are happy then republicans are happy. Just sad that blue collar workers carry water for people that care zero about them and their families. My blue state dollars are paying for these people that scream self reliance. What a joke. Talk about how the poor are a bunch of slackers with their hands out. Maybe they should put their and in their own pockets when it comes to red state handouts.
My response:
There is so much wrong with what you've written that I don't even know where to begin. So I'll begin in the middle, then probably shower and go to work.
The decline in manufacturing does mirror the decline in union membership, but not because the latter caused the former.
Correlation does not mean causation.
Besides which, only fools choose to be serfs. That is what union workers generally are. They're unable to make a living on their own because they lack the skills and talents necessary to be independently employable. So they bind themselves together into a group and try to extract as much money as they can for their menial, but necessary, work. I don't hold them in contempt for this as such a development is inevitable. The capital investment most manufacturing requires means that firms can't easily chase the labor market. They set up shop somewhere, and once established cannot instantly move elsewhere just because the people there will work for less.
But even so this does eventually happen, just not as quickly. Instead of moving existing plants, they expand into these other labor markets and then close the previous plant as it becomes less profitable instead of refurbishing or retooling it when manufacturing processes change. Unions are created to prevent workers from having to compete with each other, but eventually they do, in this case with people in other nations who are willing to work for what would be less here in America, but is actually a good wage over there due to the difference in cost of living.
There are several consequences of this.
First, the unit cost of production goes down, making that company more profitable and therefore more competitive. Such companies generally lower the prices offered to consumers. Other firms must then follow suit and find ways to lower their own production costs, or risk failure. So they relocate as well, or go out of business.
Second these lowered consumer prices means that our money goes further. We can afford to buy more with less money (adjusted for inflation).
Third, the wages that are being paid to the workers overseas makes those workers more able to purchase goods and services from us, improving the economies of both nations.
The only people who lose are those whose reluctance or inability to compete in the labor market is what led them into union work in the first place. When you can't get a good paying job based on your own competence and merit, jobs that require neither are your only escape.
The lesson is to stay in school and to sharpen and hone your skills and abilities so that you are able to support yourself in a field based on individual accomplishment. Doctors, lawyers and engineers belong to professional associations, not unions. There is a reason for this.
Obama can't do the right thing
Why Obama Can't Support A Real Jobs Program
Obama can't do the right thing because it runs counter to what he and other leftists in the Democratic party see as their core mission: do destroy America while pretending to save it and blaming others for the obvious damage they are doing.
Obama can't do the right thing because it runs counter to what he and other leftists in the Democratic party see as their core mission: do destroy America while pretending to save it and blaming others for the obvious damage they are doing.
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
A leftist tells us what he really thinks
I recently bought a copy of The Secret Knowledge by David Mamet. I've not read very much of this book yet, but I like what I'm reading so far. Mamet's prose is terse and could use the help of a good editor in places, but the content of what he says is profound. But this post isn't a review of this book, but a comment on something a reviewer calling himself Ben Bochner wrote on Amazon. Bochner's post was in response to another poster's critique of Bochner's negative review of the book itself, which can be found here.
Here is what Bochner had to say to the other poster:
When I first read this I didn't really know how to respond to it. Even now I find myself wondering whether Bochner actually realized what he was saying.
There is so much wrong with what he wrote that I don't even know where to begin. Bochner seems to believe that a person's political philosophy is not a function of the ideas they believe in, but their skin color. Stop and think about that for a moment. Is that not the most absurd and insulting thing he could possibly say?
He seems to believe, in all seriousness, that racial distinctions are not merely skin deep, but signify profound differences in the way human beings think, feel, and experience the world around them. In other words, the composition of their soul.
He seems to think that "white" people possess certain emotional and intellectual traits that make the Republican party attractive to them. Meanwhile other people who are not white, possess other traits that make this party unattractive to them.
The man is a fucking nut.
I'd call him a racist except to do so would drag out a very old and tired cliche that has been used to tell far too many lies and obscure far too many truths.
So I'll just say that he's crazy and ignorant and bigoted and leave it at that.
Here is what Bochner had to say to the other poster:
Be careful, Mr. Wolf - you're not on Fox News now, your nonsense will not go unchallenged. The majority of Americans are buying into what Mamet is saying? The whole reason the Republican Party is in such trouble is because it only appeals to white people. A political party cannot muster a majority anymore in this country by only appealing to white people. The Republican Party is going the way of The Whigs - and Fox News ain't far behind.
When I first read this I didn't really know how to respond to it. Even now I find myself wondering whether Bochner actually realized what he was saying.
There is so much wrong with what he wrote that I don't even know where to begin. Bochner seems to believe that a person's political philosophy is not a function of the ideas they believe in, but their skin color. Stop and think about that for a moment. Is that not the most absurd and insulting thing he could possibly say?
He seems to believe, in all seriousness, that racial distinctions are not merely skin deep, but signify profound differences in the way human beings think, feel, and experience the world around them. In other words, the composition of their soul.
He seems to think that "white" people possess certain emotional and intellectual traits that make the Republican party attractive to them. Meanwhile other people who are not white, possess other traits that make this party unattractive to them.
The man is a fucking nut.
I'd call him a racist except to do so would drag out a very old and tired cliche that has been used to tell far too many lies and obscure far too many truths.
So I'll just say that he's crazy and ignorant and bigoted and leave it at that.
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Huntman pisses off the dingbats while trying to pander to the leftards
Jon Huntsman: Call me crazy but I believe in evolution and global warming
I find it pathetically sad that someone even has to say that they believe in evolution. It's like saying that you believe in electrons, or hydrogen. No one should have to come out and proclaim to the world that they believe in any of these things because the existence of each has been proven not just beyond a reasonable doubt, but beyond the shadow of a doubt. Either these things exist, or everything we know is wrong.
Despite what some people want so desperately to believe because their sense of self hinges upon it, the world was not created in 6 days roughly 6,000 years ago. The universe is billions of years old and the timeline for life on earth goes back almost 4 billion years. This isn't what it says in the bible because the bible is the collected and codified writings of Jews and Christians living in antiquity. Genesis is the Hebrew creation myth put into writing. Any relationship it has with physical reality or cosmological history is purely coincidental. The parts of the bible that deal with people and human nature are where the good stuff is to be found.
Does this mean that there is no God? Anyone who makes that argument is lying since the question of the existence of the Judeo-Christian God or any God or Gods cannot be falsified based on the flaws found in a creation myth. But of course that won't stop some Christian-hating pseudo-atheists from trying. As an irreligious person with no axe to grind nor converts proselytize to, I have no animosity towards people who are religious, but I do find people who pretend to be non-believers when they are actually motivated by malice and bigotry towards Christians to be odious in the extreme. Unable to come out and just say that they hate Christians, they instead pretend to find fault with the tenets of that faith, a faith that they would be disinterested in if they were truly not religious. A faith that they would judge by the effect it has on its believers. The value of religion is not in its empirical validity, but in its efficacy. A particular religion's mythologies may have no basis in fact, but if they inspire otherwise wretched human beings to become better people, I don't have a problem with that.
An atheist isn't someone who doesn't believe in god, but someone who hates it that you do. They're emotionally immature losers who cannot see beyond their own arrogance.
As for Global warming, it appears to be a leftist scam, a manufactured imaginary crisis cooked up to justify policies that they once tried to use other arguments to support. Arguments that failed. Arguments that were bald faced lies and evil agendas wrapped up in sophistry. These arguments went by many names and euphemisms, but the most clear and definite name for them was Communism.
Global Warming is nothing but Marxism through other means.
I find it pathetically sad that someone even has to say that they believe in evolution. It's like saying that you believe in electrons, or hydrogen. No one should have to come out and proclaim to the world that they believe in any of these things because the existence of each has been proven not just beyond a reasonable doubt, but beyond the shadow of a doubt. Either these things exist, or everything we know is wrong.
Despite what some people want so desperately to believe because their sense of self hinges upon it, the world was not created in 6 days roughly 6,000 years ago. The universe is billions of years old and the timeline for life on earth goes back almost 4 billion years. This isn't what it says in the bible because the bible is the collected and codified writings of Jews and Christians living in antiquity. Genesis is the Hebrew creation myth put into writing. Any relationship it has with physical reality or cosmological history is purely coincidental. The parts of the bible that deal with people and human nature are where the good stuff is to be found.
Does this mean that there is no God? Anyone who makes that argument is lying since the question of the existence of the Judeo-Christian God or any God or Gods cannot be falsified based on the flaws found in a creation myth. But of course that won't stop some Christian-hating pseudo-atheists from trying. As an irreligious person with no axe to grind nor converts proselytize to, I have no animosity towards people who are religious, but I do find people who pretend to be non-believers when they are actually motivated by malice and bigotry towards Christians to be odious in the extreme. Unable to come out and just say that they hate Christians, they instead pretend to find fault with the tenets of that faith, a faith that they would be disinterested in if they were truly not religious. A faith that they would judge by the effect it has on its believers. The value of religion is not in its empirical validity, but in its efficacy. A particular religion's mythologies may have no basis in fact, but if they inspire otherwise wretched human beings to become better people, I don't have a problem with that.
An atheist isn't someone who doesn't believe in god, but someone who hates it that you do. They're emotionally immature losers who cannot see beyond their own arrogance.
As for Global warming, it appears to be a leftist scam, a manufactured imaginary crisis cooked up to justify policies that they once tried to use other arguments to support. Arguments that failed. Arguments that were bald faced lies and evil agendas wrapped up in sophistry. These arguments went by many names and euphemisms, but the most clear and definite name for them was Communism.
Global Warming is nothing but Marxism through other means.
Saturday, August 20, 2011
A quote from Robert Heinlein
"Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort."
I think he was absolutely right. One of the core criteria for being a leftist is the desire to control other people, ostensibly for their own good or for the good of the many, but in reality for the good of the few - those who exercise control. Such it was with the Nomenklatura of the Soviet Union and so it is with the Friends Of Obama. This of course is tyranny. There are non-leftists who are also motivated to control others. They subscribe to other ideologies, some of which are seemingly opposed to Marxism and its analogues. Devout muslims come to mind. But while the end goals of their tyranny may differ, their desire to lord themselves over others does not.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
HIV, Smallpox and the incurable epidemic of human stupidity
Pathogens May Change, but the Fear Is the Same
The problem with a disease like HIV is not that it is fatal, but that it takes so long to kill its victims. HIV is extraordinarily difficult to contract. It is not airborne. You can't get it from drinking bad water. You can't get it from casual contact. To be infected requires the exchange of bodily fluids, blood and sexual fluids in particular.
This is why, of all diseases, AIDS is the one most closely linked to pathological behavior.
I submit that the primary reason these men were infected in the first place was because they were having unprotected anal sex with casual partners. If they had pursued a monogamous relationship with another man who was also monogamous, then they would be no more likely to contract HIV than anyone else. Promiscuity, not homosexuality is the problem.
If the symptoms of AIDS appeared in a week, and the disease was fatal in three, then this would not matter. The epidemic would literally burn itself out. But because it takes so damned long to kill the idiots who go out and get infected with it, they are free to go out and infect countless others, achieving a geometric progression that is limited only by the fact that male homosexuals make up less than 3% of the population, and they don't all know one another. IV drug users are the other group who spread this disease around, but they too are also a small population, and not all of them are going around trading needles like baseball cards.
Sexual promiscuity is self-destructive, even without fatal diseases like HIV going around. People who go out and stick their dick into every Tom and Harry are mentally ill.
The reason why normal, monogamous, drug-free (but I repeat myself) heterosexuals are almost never infected with HIV is precisely because we are monogamous and drug free. There are promiscuous heterosexuals in this world, but they are the exception rather than the rule, just as IV drug users are the exception. Gay men, on the other hand, are almost rabidly promiscuous as a general rule.
Normal people don't catch diseases whose vectors depend upon abnormal and self-destructive behaviors.
This is a big part of why I'm so unimpressed with whining gay activists who complain incessantly about how they are discriminated against. Of course they are. Junkies get the same treatment and for the same reason, they do things that are damaging to themselves and put others at risk, and most people take exception to that.
The left has succeeded in fooling so many into seeing discrimination as a bad thing, when it is not. Discrimination is not a bad thing at all. It is a fundamental expression of moral judgment. People discriminate against those who choose to do things that are wrong. This is valid discrimination. Of course there is also invalid discrimination, such as refusing to give a qualified candidate a job because of what that person looks like, or what they have between their legs, or any other number of qualities and characteristics that have no moral significance, have nothing to do with the job at hand, and which they have no control over anyway. The thing is, the left would have you believe that all discrimination, all discernment, is of the invalid kind. Once again, they lie.
As long as male homosexuals continue to be the most promiscuous group on the face of the earth, then people like me will continue to shun them. I don't care that they are sexually attracted to members of their own sex. It is of no concern to me. I don't understand it, but then I don't need to understand it. Freedom means freedom, it doesn't mean the right to do only those things that other people understand. Provided a choice or a pattern of behavior causes no harm to me or to the world, I don't have a reason to care what someone does. Unfortunately for gay men, spreading diseases like AIDS does cause harm to the world I live in and I take particular exception to the patterns of behavior that cause that harm.
Gay men need to embrace monogamy. Until they do, I will forever ostracize them. As the article above mentions, "gay men should stop defining their struggle for equal rights chiefly as the right to have promiscuous sex."
The problem with a disease like HIV is not that it is fatal, but that it takes so long to kill its victims. HIV is extraordinarily difficult to contract. It is not airborne. You can't get it from drinking bad water. You can't get it from casual contact. To be infected requires the exchange of bodily fluids, blood and sexual fluids in particular.
This is why, of all diseases, AIDS is the one most closely linked to pathological behavior.
A 2007 study by Columbia University scientists found that almost 60 percent of gay American men who knew they were infected and were still having unprotected anal sex did not mention it to all their casual partners.
I submit that the primary reason these men were infected in the first place was because they were having unprotected anal sex with casual partners. If they had pursued a monogamous relationship with another man who was also monogamous, then they would be no more likely to contract HIV than anyone else. Promiscuity, not homosexuality is the problem.
If the symptoms of AIDS appeared in a week, and the disease was fatal in three, then this would not matter. The epidemic would literally burn itself out. But because it takes so damned long to kill the idiots who go out and get infected with it, they are free to go out and infect countless others, achieving a geometric progression that is limited only by the fact that male homosexuals make up less than 3% of the population, and they don't all know one another. IV drug users are the other group who spread this disease around, but they too are also a small population, and not all of them are going around trading needles like baseball cards.
Sexual promiscuity is self-destructive, even without fatal diseases like HIV going around. People who go out and stick their dick into every Tom and Harry are mentally ill.
The reason why normal, monogamous, drug-free (but I repeat myself) heterosexuals are almost never infected with HIV is precisely because we are monogamous and drug free. There are promiscuous heterosexuals in this world, but they are the exception rather than the rule, just as IV drug users are the exception. Gay men, on the other hand, are almost rabidly promiscuous as a general rule.
Normal people don't catch diseases whose vectors depend upon abnormal and self-destructive behaviors.
This is a big part of why I'm so unimpressed with whining gay activists who complain incessantly about how they are discriminated against. Of course they are. Junkies get the same treatment and for the same reason, they do things that are damaging to themselves and put others at risk, and most people take exception to that.
The left has succeeded in fooling so many into seeing discrimination as a bad thing, when it is not. Discrimination is not a bad thing at all. It is a fundamental expression of moral judgment. People discriminate against those who choose to do things that are wrong. This is valid discrimination. Of course there is also invalid discrimination, such as refusing to give a qualified candidate a job because of what that person looks like, or what they have between their legs, or any other number of qualities and characteristics that have no moral significance, have nothing to do with the job at hand, and which they have no control over anyway. The thing is, the left would have you believe that all discrimination, all discernment, is of the invalid kind. Once again, they lie.
As long as male homosexuals continue to be the most promiscuous group on the face of the earth, then people like me will continue to shun them. I don't care that they are sexually attracted to members of their own sex. It is of no concern to me. I don't understand it, but then I don't need to understand it. Freedom means freedom, it doesn't mean the right to do only those things that other people understand. Provided a choice or a pattern of behavior causes no harm to me or to the world, I don't have a reason to care what someone does. Unfortunately for gay men, spreading diseases like AIDS does cause harm to the world I live in and I take particular exception to the patterns of behavior that cause that harm.
Gay men need to embrace monogamy. Until they do, I will forever ostracize them. As the article above mentions, "gay men should stop defining their struggle for equal rights chiefly as the right to have promiscuous sex."
Monday, August 8, 2011
A quote from Rush Limbaugh
"We've had a AAA credit rating since 1917. The Great Depression, we had a AAA credit rating. World War II, we had a AAA credit rating, and we lose it now, and for what? For what great purpose did we lose it? Except an ideological hatred of American capitalism and a love of class warfare, what did we lose our AAA rating for? A naked effort to get still more and more money to buy votes. A never-ending quest for power, that's why we lost our AAA credit rating."
Obama
You could say that Obama is a bad president, but the truth is that he isn't even a president at all. He's an empty suit. Even a bad leader actually LEADS. He, as another commenter noted elsewhere, operates in one of two modes: arrogance or petulance. The American people were fooled by the Marxist Socialist Media into voting for someone whose presence in the office of president is worse than having no president at all.
With the election of Obama, the left thought that they had the American people fooled into subscribing to political and economic ideas that have been proven demonstrably false by the history of the 20th century. 50 million dead, and countless millions more living in pain and misery. Those are the wages of Obama's ideas. Those ideas are incompatible with freedom. Those ideas are incompatible with the truth.
Nothing will change unless we make it change.
With the election of Obama, the left thought that they had the American people fooled into subscribing to political and economic ideas that have been proven demonstrably false by the history of the 20th century. 50 million dead, and countless millions more living in pain and misery. Those are the wages of Obama's ideas. Those ideas are incompatible with freedom. Those ideas are incompatible with the truth.
Nothing will change unless we make it change.
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Canada!
(This was originally posted as a comment here)
Canada, unlike other nations of the world, is defined not by what it is, but by what it is desperately trying not to be: The United States.
Canadians generally resent us. We meanwhile, generally don't think about Canadians or their country at all. We don't hate them, we just don't notice them. How can we when they don't really do much to make themselves known?
Other than the Mackenzie brothers and the Red Green Show, definitively Canadian cultural content never seems to make its way down here. I don't know why because lots of Americans love British TV shows. Why are there no Canadian shows of note? Lots of Canadian actors show up in American films and TV shows, with Elisha Cuthbert being my personal favorite, but when they do they're playing American characters, not Canadians. Why?
The Shipping News, set in Canada and supposedly about Canadians, used an American, two Brits, and an Australian as actors to portray the main characters.
For all these reasons and more, Canada is one of those places that you don't really think about unless and until something comes up that gives you a reason to, and then its like "Oh yeah, there's this whole country up there isn't there?"
Canada, unlike other nations of the world, is defined not by what it is, but by what it is desperately trying not to be: The United States.
Canadians generally resent us. We meanwhile, generally don't think about Canadians or their country at all. We don't hate them, we just don't notice them. How can we when they don't really do much to make themselves known?
Other than the Mackenzie brothers and the Red Green Show, definitively Canadian cultural content never seems to make its way down here. I don't know why because lots of Americans love British TV shows. Why are there no Canadian shows of note? Lots of Canadian actors show up in American films and TV shows, with Elisha Cuthbert being my personal favorite, but when they do they're playing American characters, not Canadians. Why?
The Shipping News, set in Canada and supposedly about Canadians, used an American, two Brits, and an Australian as actors to portray the main characters.
For all these reasons and more, Canada is one of those places that you don't really think about unless and until something comes up that gives you a reason to, and then its like "Oh yeah, there's this whole country up there isn't there?"
Monday, August 1, 2011
Thought for today
Marxism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be prosperous.
(With apologies to H. L. Mencken)
(With apologies to H. L. Mencken)
Monday, July 11, 2011
Drugs...again
Yet another call to legalize drugs
To me the problem with the drug war is not the drugs themselves or their effect on users. The problem is that our efforts to prevent losers from losing by consuming drugs empowers petit fascists to send death squads into homes with no warning under the guise of a "no knock" warrant. No drug is as great a danger to society as our police forces let off their leash.
Luckily there is a long term solution to this problem: selective breeding.
Legalize everything. Sell everything in state-run stores. But to each and every drug add a substance that, if consumed over a period of time, causes permanent and irreversible sterility in both men and women.
The real problem with drugs is not that they ruin lives and often kill their users, but that they don't work quickly enough to remove the trash from our gene pool before they reproduce.
Civilization trumps natural selection, especially in places like the US where losers aren't just likely to survive, but even more likely to breed than winners in many cases.
Allow drugs, as a self-selecting process, to remove the idiots and losers from our gene pool so that, even if they don't die with a needle in their arm, they won't be making any little losers and idiots to cause us grief in the future and expand the welfare roles as vassals for the Democrats.
Let the drugs themselves eliminate the types of people who are likely to use them. Let drugs become the synthetic alternative to natural selection that our gene pool and society so desperately need.
To me the problem with the drug war is not the drugs themselves or their effect on users. The problem is that our efforts to prevent losers from losing by consuming drugs empowers petit fascists to send death squads into homes with no warning under the guise of a "no knock" warrant. No drug is as great a danger to society as our police forces let off their leash.
Luckily there is a long term solution to this problem: selective breeding.
Legalize everything. Sell everything in state-run stores. But to each and every drug add a substance that, if consumed over a period of time, causes permanent and irreversible sterility in both men and women.
The real problem with drugs is not that they ruin lives and often kill their users, but that they don't work quickly enough to remove the trash from our gene pool before they reproduce.
Civilization trumps natural selection, especially in places like the US where losers aren't just likely to survive, but even more likely to breed than winners in many cases.
Allow drugs, as a self-selecting process, to remove the idiots and losers from our gene pool so that, even if they don't die with a needle in their arm, they won't be making any little losers and idiots to cause us grief in the future and expand the welfare roles as vassals for the Democrats.
Let the drugs themselves eliminate the types of people who are likely to use them. Let drugs become the synthetic alternative to natural selection that our gene pool and society so desperately need.
Saturday, July 9, 2011
Behold the crazy
When Women Confuse Being Asked Out With Being Raped At Knifepoint In An Elevator
This is what happens when mental illness is rationalized as a political philosophy. Anyone who has read the Unabomber manifesto knows what I'm talking about. Intelligence and sanity are not mutually inclusive.
Women are not victims. Women are not oppressed. The equality that pseudo-feminists claim to want has existed in the US for decades now, and men couldn't be happier. The world presented in shows like Mad Men seems like such a bizarre anachronism because it is. The only thing stopping a woman from achieving anything she desires is herself. No man is standing in her way. No men want to stand in her way. Why would we? We're too busy doing our own thing, pursuing our own happiness, and living our own lives. Lives that don't revolve around women.
I'm especially disgusted at her suggestion that self-proclaimed feminists have worked so hard to free women living under islamofascist rule in Muslim nations. They threw those women under the bus long ago. Why? Because they are Gramscian marxists pretending to be advocates for women. They threw American women under the bus to protect Bill Clinton in the 90's and Muslim women under the bus to demonize George W. Bush soon after that. They've lost all credibility with anyone who is paying the least bit of attention. It is one thing to be honest, but wrong. These people are despicable liars.
I'm sick and tired of encountering people who are my equals and having them tell me how oppressed they are when they enjoy all the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities that I do, only they fail to take advantage of them. I have no sympathy.
I do my very best to avoid such people. Crazy people make me very uncomfortable, in no small part because it is difficult to communicate with them. You say one thing and they hear another (or maliciously misinterpret your words to that effect) and you spend all your time just trying to find a way to get a message across without it being garbled by their own delusions and dishonesty. So I just avoid them as there is no point.
Update:
One of the posters to the blog above had this to say:
I couldn't agree more.
This is what happens when mental illness is rationalized as a political philosophy. Anyone who has read the Unabomber manifesto knows what I'm talking about. Intelligence and sanity are not mutually inclusive.
Women are not victims. Women are not oppressed. The equality that pseudo-feminists claim to want has existed in the US for decades now, and men couldn't be happier. The world presented in shows like Mad Men seems like such a bizarre anachronism because it is. The only thing stopping a woman from achieving anything she desires is herself. No man is standing in her way. No men want to stand in her way. Why would we? We're too busy doing our own thing, pursuing our own happiness, and living our own lives. Lives that don't revolve around women.
I'm especially disgusted at her suggestion that self-proclaimed feminists have worked so hard to free women living under islamofascist rule in Muslim nations. They threw those women under the bus long ago. Why? Because they are Gramscian marxists pretending to be advocates for women. They threw American women under the bus to protect Bill Clinton in the 90's and Muslim women under the bus to demonize George W. Bush soon after that. They've lost all credibility with anyone who is paying the least bit of attention. It is one thing to be honest, but wrong. These people are despicable liars.
I'm sick and tired of encountering people who are my equals and having them tell me how oppressed they are when they enjoy all the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities that I do, only they fail to take advantage of them. I have no sympathy.
I do my very best to avoid such people. Crazy people make me very uncomfortable, in no small part because it is difficult to communicate with them. You say one thing and they hear another (or maliciously misinterpret your words to that effect) and you spend all your time just trying to find a way to get a message across without it being garbled by their own delusions and dishonesty. So I just avoid them as there is no point.
Update:
One of the posters to the blog above had this to say:
Be more understanding people. This is the closest SkepChick has come to being a victim of anything or anyone in her entire life, a life predicated around her sense of victimhood.
I couldn't agree more.
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Yet another reason to get rid of the Department of Education.
Notre Dame to Clarify Sexual-Harassment Policies in Settlement With Education Department
Reading this article, I was struck by the absurdity of a rape victim complaining to a university that she had been assaulted by one of its students. Call the police. File a report with the people whose job it is to do something about it. Don't call the school board when an armed robber steals your cash register. Call the police.
It is easy to assume incompetence here. That someone called the university instead of the police because they were emotionally distraught and didn't know any better, or that the university felt compelled to assume responsibility for this case because its employees were incompetent or deluded. But perhaps that is not what happened here. If the girl claiming to have been assaulted did not have a case, that is to say she only had her own word to offer up as evidence, then I would not be a bit surprised if she knew this. The laws that define sexual assault as a crime specifically state that the word of the accuser alone is insufficient evidence to secure a conviction. Additional evidence is required. Why? Because justice is about the pursuit of truth. When one person has the ability to see another convicted of a heinous crime by merely accusing them of it, the result is a criminal justice system corrupted into a tool for private tyranny, the very thing it was created to prevent.
So I'm not surprised that other entities who are not so constrained are being hooked in to the issue and forced to assume responsibility for determining the truth of accusations under a compromised standard of evidence.
This is insanity acting in the service of evil, and there is no reason why the American taxpayers should be subsidizing it.
Reading this article, I was struck by the absurdity of a rape victim complaining to a university that she had been assaulted by one of its students. Call the police. File a report with the people whose job it is to do something about it. Don't call the school board when an armed robber steals your cash register. Call the police.
It is easy to assume incompetence here. That someone called the university instead of the police because they were emotionally distraught and didn't know any better, or that the university felt compelled to assume responsibility for this case because its employees were incompetent or deluded. But perhaps that is not what happened here. If the girl claiming to have been assaulted did not have a case, that is to say she only had her own word to offer up as evidence, then I would not be a bit surprised if she knew this. The laws that define sexual assault as a crime specifically state that the word of the accuser alone is insufficient evidence to secure a conviction. Additional evidence is required. Why? Because justice is about the pursuit of truth. When one person has the ability to see another convicted of a heinous crime by merely accusing them of it, the result is a criminal justice system corrupted into a tool for private tyranny, the very thing it was created to prevent.
So I'm not surprised that other entities who are not so constrained are being hooked in to the issue and forced to assume responsibility for determining the truth of accusations under a compromised standard of evidence.
This is insanity acting in the service of evil, and there is no reason why the American taxpayers should be subsidizing it.
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Lies, damned lies, and liberalism
Here is a great video that debunks some of the economic lies that the left tries to peddle.
The truth about the economy, the critique
The truth about the economy, the critique
Friday, June 3, 2011
Federal Court Lifts Ban on Public Prayer at Texas High School Graduation
The parents of a graduating student attempted to argue that for him to encounter others expressing their religious beliefs would cause him "irreparable harm."
Their argument is wholly without merit. It cannot even be called specious for it lacks even the appearance of being plausible. Even THEY know that their argument is nonsense.
So why are they filing this suit?
Because they hail from the faction of the left who want the expression of religious belief to be seen as a form of obscenity.
They want to destroy religious faith in America by making it seem shameful.
These people are evil.
The parents of a graduating student attempted to argue that for him to encounter others expressing their religious beliefs would cause him "irreparable harm."
Their argument is wholly without merit. It cannot even be called specious for it lacks even the appearance of being plausible. Even THEY know that their argument is nonsense.
So why are they filing this suit?
Because they hail from the faction of the left who want the expression of religious belief to be seen as a form of obscenity.
They want to destroy religious faith in America by making it seem shameful.
These people are evil.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Death by Government
Marine veteran murdered by SWAT team in Tucson
I have no words for this. I only have anger and hatred and the desire to see those responsible for this massacre put to death in the most brutal and bloodiest fashion. I don't just want them dead, I want them to suffer unimaginably, and to beg and pray for an end to their suffering long before the mercy of death is delivered. I want them to know what hell is like before they get there.
Cases like this one prove the wisdom of our founders when they crafted the 2nd Amendment. Resistance of tyranny is a lot more effective when that resistance is armed.
I have no words for this. I only have anger and hatred and the desire to see those responsible for this massacre put to death in the most brutal and bloodiest fashion. I don't just want them dead, I want them to suffer unimaginably, and to beg and pray for an end to their suffering long before the mercy of death is delivered. I want them to know what hell is like before they get there.
Cases like this one prove the wisdom of our founders when they crafted the 2nd Amendment. Resistance of tyranny is a lot more effective when that resistance is armed.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Welcome to Indiana, where all your rights are belong to us
Indiana Attorney General seeks reconsideration of fourth amendment ruling
Didn't we fight a war over this sort of thing a couple hundred years ago?
Agents of the state do NOT have the authority to violate the law, and that is especially true of those agents whose jobs involve the use of deadly force. A home invasion by police officers acting in violation of the law is morally and factually indistinguishable from an invasion by a gang of armed criminals - and should be responded to in like terms: the overwhelming use of deadly force.
This is perhaps the best case for why the 2nd amendment exists. You cannot rely on government to protect your rights. Government is the largest single threat to our rights. Only armed citizens, ready and able to stand in defense of our own liberty, can safely secure it.
Didn't we fight a war over this sort of thing a couple hundred years ago?
Agents of the state do NOT have the authority to violate the law, and that is especially true of those agents whose jobs involve the use of deadly force. A home invasion by police officers acting in violation of the law is morally and factually indistinguishable from an invasion by a gang of armed criminals - and should be responded to in like terms: the overwhelming use of deadly force.
This is perhaps the best case for why the 2nd amendment exists. You cannot rely on government to protect your rights. Government is the largest single threat to our rights. Only armed citizens, ready and able to stand in defense of our own liberty, can safely secure it.
Saturday, May 14, 2011
The maw of Maher spews again
Bill Maher: If You Celebrated Bin Laden’s Death, You’re Not Really A Christian
Maher is, in typical modern communist fashion, using Alinsky:
Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules.
Of course Maher, as a communist atheist of Jewish descent, is about as much of an authority on Christianity as I am on Buddhism. But that doesn't matter because rule 4 isn't about holding your opponents accountable to their own standards, but about continuously twisting and maliciously misinterpreting those standards so as to make them impossible to live up to.
Christianity is not a suicide cult. Nowhere in the bible does it say that the followers of Christ should prostrate themselves before their mortal enemies and pray for a quick death. But that doesn't matter because people like Maher will pretend that it does, and if that doesn't work they'll pretend something else about Christianity, continually looking to move the goal posts around. Why? Because they're evil lying bastards.
Everything you need to know about Maher can be summed up by this event. Osama, a profoundly evil man, has been removed from circulation. A man who was not just the enemy of the United States, but of the entire world, including those who foolishly supported him. His death is a cause for celebration because the world is truly a better place without him in it.
But what does Maher do? He utilizes this wonderful occasion to take pot shots at people he doesn't like for reasons that he cannot honestly state.
Maher is possessed of wit and humor, but all that means is that he's a talented hack instead of a talentless one. He uses his talent to tell lies and attack people who are far more worthy of praise, proving once again that evil is not merely the absence of good.
Maher is, in typical modern communist fashion, using Alinsky:
Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules.
Of course Maher, as a communist atheist of Jewish descent, is about as much of an authority on Christianity as I am on Buddhism. But that doesn't matter because rule 4 isn't about holding your opponents accountable to their own standards, but about continuously twisting and maliciously misinterpreting those standards so as to make them impossible to live up to.
Christianity is not a suicide cult. Nowhere in the bible does it say that the followers of Christ should prostrate themselves before their mortal enemies and pray for a quick death. But that doesn't matter because people like Maher will pretend that it does, and if that doesn't work they'll pretend something else about Christianity, continually looking to move the goal posts around. Why? Because they're evil lying bastards.
Everything you need to know about Maher can be summed up by this event. Osama, a profoundly evil man, has been removed from circulation. A man who was not just the enemy of the United States, but of the entire world, including those who foolishly supported him. His death is a cause for celebration because the world is truly a better place without him in it.
But what does Maher do? He utilizes this wonderful occasion to take pot shots at people he doesn't like for reasons that he cannot honestly state.
Maher is possessed of wit and humor, but all that means is that he's a talented hack instead of a talentless one. He uses his talent to tell lies and attack people who are far more worthy of praise, proving once again that evil is not merely the absence of good.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
The "debate" over waterboarding continues even now...
"Waterboarding Was Effective in Tracking Down Bin Laden Narrative" Pressed by Don Rumsfeld and One Other Guy
The left isn't opposed to torture, they just don't like seeing their friends on the receiving end of the stick. Islamofascists hate America. Leftists also hate America. So naturally leftists tend to like Islamofascists. Hatred makes strange bedfellows.
Make no mistake, if it were a conservative or libertarian American (or especially an Israeli) being subjected to actual torture, complete with blow torches and eye spoons, as opposed to the faux torture of waterboarding, the leftists would literally jizz in their pants over it.
If leftists were genuinely concerned about torture then you'd see them screaming loudest when Islamofascists cut people's heads off, but they are strangely silent about that, except of course when they use such events as an excuse to (once again) blame America.
The greatest threat we face is not Islamofascist terrorism. Terrorists are like stubbing your toe, painful and annoying, but not life threatening. Our greatest threat is that the left will succeed in destroying us from within.
I say this not as a partisan libertarian, but as someone who looks at their ideas and is appalled by what I see. Socialism/Communism/Whatever-euphemism-they-use-today, is evil, full stop, for reasons that should require no explanation. Post-modernism is an attempt to deny the existence of truth itself by people who are on the wrong side of it. Does this mean that they are always wrong about absolutely everything? No, but it does mean that when they find the truth it is either an accident, or a small truth used to promote a much larger lie.
Conservatives and libertarians are not perfect. No one has a monopoly on the truth. But the ideas behind these two philosophies are so much closer to the truth, and are the result of an honest pursuit of truth. Someone who is seeking the truth for virtuous reasons will always come out ahead of someone who is looking to subvert the truth because they are motivated by evil.
The left isn't opposed to torture, they just don't like seeing their friends on the receiving end of the stick. Islamofascists hate America. Leftists also hate America. So naturally leftists tend to like Islamofascists. Hatred makes strange bedfellows.
Make no mistake, if it were a conservative or libertarian American (or especially an Israeli) being subjected to actual torture, complete with blow torches and eye spoons, as opposed to the faux torture of waterboarding, the leftists would literally jizz in their pants over it.
If leftists were genuinely concerned about torture then you'd see them screaming loudest when Islamofascists cut people's heads off, but they are strangely silent about that, except of course when they use such events as an excuse to (once again) blame America.
The greatest threat we face is not Islamofascist terrorism. Terrorists are like stubbing your toe, painful and annoying, but not life threatening. Our greatest threat is that the left will succeed in destroying us from within.
I say this not as a partisan libertarian, but as someone who looks at their ideas and is appalled by what I see. Socialism/Communism/Whatever-euphemism-they-use-today, is evil, full stop, for reasons that should require no explanation. Post-modernism is an attempt to deny the existence of truth itself by people who are on the wrong side of it. Does this mean that they are always wrong about absolutely everything? No, but it does mean that when they find the truth it is either an accident, or a small truth used to promote a much larger lie.
Conservatives and libertarians are not perfect. No one has a monopoly on the truth. But the ideas behind these two philosophies are so much closer to the truth, and are the result of an honest pursuit of truth. Someone who is seeking the truth for virtuous reasons will always come out ahead of someone who is looking to subvert the truth because they are motivated by evil.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
The Science of Why We Don't Believe Science
This article is very interesting, not least of all for the way that the author's own biases and motivated-reasoning shine through. What is most obvious after reading it is that he's a typical leftist, but one who doesn't fall for the nonsense about vaccines causing autism.
He affixes the label of "science" to those ideas that he subscribes to. In some cases this is accurate, but in many others it is wishful thinking on his part. It is, as he himself says in the article, a case of science being "whatever (he) wanted it to be."
There are some truths in this world that can be discovered. Water freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit. The speed of light is a constant independent of viewpoint. But then there are other things that aren't so easy to figure out, and not all of our (honest) attempts at doing so can be called science.
The reason is that science is not just a bunch of people with degrees getting together and agreeing on something they think sounds nifty. Science is a process, whereby possible explanations for observed phenomena, known as hypotheses, are mercilessly and repeatedly tested with an eye towards proving them false. Ideas that repeatedly withstand our efforts to falsify them, eventually become scientific theories, especially if they correctly predict future phenomena before those phenomena are observed. But these theories, far from being the final word on something, are merely a best guess, a provisional answer, always subject to amendment and potential falsification.
The reason this is important is that ideas that cannot be tested and potentially falsified have no place in science. These ideas may be interesting, and they may even be true. But without a way to test them in such a way that they can be falsified, they have no value as scientific explanations. Science isn't based on verifying ideas as true, but on finding ideas that resist all our efforts to prove them false.
Much of what the author casually refers to as science isn't science. If it can't be tested and falsified, it isn't science. But then this isn't surprising since much of what many people call science isn't science. Entire fields get called sciences that really don't deserve that distinction precisely because their research findings cannot be falsified. This is especially troubling for fields that tend to be ideologically partisan in one way or another. Peer review breaks down when everyone in the peerage is motivated for the answers to come out in a certain way. This effect is limited in the hard sciences. No matter what you do, you can't make water at sea level boil at 50 celsius. But for fields like sociology, groupthink can consistently produce extremely questionable results.
But even so, there is something of value to be learned from this article. Once you put aside the obvious biases of the author, the fundamental truth remains that we do not truly see the world as it is, we see the world as we are.
This article is very interesting, not least of all for the way that the author's own biases and motivated-reasoning shine through. What is most obvious after reading it is that he's a typical leftist, but one who doesn't fall for the nonsense about vaccines causing autism.
He affixes the label of "science" to those ideas that he subscribes to. In some cases this is accurate, but in many others it is wishful thinking on his part. It is, as he himself says in the article, a case of science being "whatever (he) wanted it to be."
There are some truths in this world that can be discovered. Water freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit. The speed of light is a constant independent of viewpoint. But then there are other things that aren't so easy to figure out, and not all of our (honest) attempts at doing so can be called science.
The reason is that science is not just a bunch of people with degrees getting together and agreeing on something they think sounds nifty. Science is a process, whereby possible explanations for observed phenomena, known as hypotheses, are mercilessly and repeatedly tested with an eye towards proving them false. Ideas that repeatedly withstand our efforts to falsify them, eventually become scientific theories, especially if they correctly predict future phenomena before those phenomena are observed. But these theories, far from being the final word on something, are merely a best guess, a provisional answer, always subject to amendment and potential falsification.
The reason this is important is that ideas that cannot be tested and potentially falsified have no place in science. These ideas may be interesting, and they may even be true. But without a way to test them in such a way that they can be falsified, they have no value as scientific explanations. Science isn't based on verifying ideas as true, but on finding ideas that resist all our efforts to prove them false.
Much of what the author casually refers to as science isn't science. If it can't be tested and falsified, it isn't science. But then this isn't surprising since much of what many people call science isn't science. Entire fields get called sciences that really don't deserve that distinction precisely because their research findings cannot be falsified. This is especially troubling for fields that tend to be ideologically partisan in one way or another. Peer review breaks down when everyone in the peerage is motivated for the answers to come out in a certain way. This effect is limited in the hard sciences. No matter what you do, you can't make water at sea level boil at 50 celsius. But for fields like sociology, groupthink can consistently produce extremely questionable results.
But even so, there is something of value to be learned from this article. Once you put aside the obvious biases of the author, the fundamental truth remains that we do not truly see the world as it is, we see the world as we are.
Obama, the misunderstood genius?
Is Obama too smart for his own good?
Even the smartest person in the world will be hobbled when the information and ideas they are attempting to work with are false. Obama isn't stupid, but he is a leftist. He believes in things that aren't true. These false beliefs inspire him to make decisions that, like virtually all other leftism derived choices, lead to poor outcomes.
These three academics, almost certainly leftists themselves, display one of the most common traits found among leftists: the desire to force reality to conform to what they want to believe instead of the other way around. They have these ideas you see, and they think these ideas are just SO wonderful that there MUST be SOME way to make them come true. Reality says otherwise, but they're not listening. Most of them will go to their graves wishing and hoping and believing that their wonderful notions could somehow be made real if the "right" people were in charge, or if people weren't so stupid, or any number of other excuses and justifications for why the world isn't how they think it should be. The whole "Obama is just too smart" idea is just another rationalization, and from people who should, if their training in psychology and behavior means anything at all, know better.
Even the smartest person in the world will be hobbled when the information and ideas they are attempting to work with are false. Obama isn't stupid, but he is a leftist. He believes in things that aren't true. These false beliefs inspire him to make decisions that, like virtually all other leftism derived choices, lead to poor outcomes.
These three academics, almost certainly leftists themselves, display one of the most common traits found among leftists: the desire to force reality to conform to what they want to believe instead of the other way around. They have these ideas you see, and they think these ideas are just SO wonderful that there MUST be SOME way to make them come true. Reality says otherwise, but they're not listening. Most of them will go to their graves wishing and hoping and believing that their wonderful notions could somehow be made real if the "right" people were in charge, or if people weren't so stupid, or any number of other excuses and justifications for why the world isn't how they think it should be. The whole "Obama is just too smart" idea is just another rationalization, and from people who should, if their training in psychology and behavior means anything at all, know better.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Who needs moonies when you've got birthers?
CNN investigation: Obama 'birther' claims have no merit
He was born in Hawaii people, get over it. Birthers are the political equivalent of creationists. Conspiracy theory nutters whose incessant wishcasting is a harmful distraction that gives ammo to those who want to portray conservatives and libertarians as ignorant and superstitious buffoons. Instead of pretending he is from Gondwanaland, how about focusing on his ideological beliefs and the destructive policies they inspire?
I'm getting a bit sick and tired of having to make excuses on this issue for people who are old enough and smart enough to know better.
In fact, I have a new policy that I intend to follow: NO MORE CRAZY.
No more crazy bullshit. No more making nice with people whose nonsense is making me look bad because I get associated with them. No more giving people the benefit of the doubt when they say something ridiculous. No more attempting to reason with people who are seemingly incapable of logical thought and every bit as emotionally attached to ridiculous ideas and conclusions as any incurable leftist.
There are some conservatives whose conservative nature didn't come from careful contemplation, but because someone spoon fed them (mostly right) answers when they were little. And while they are able to regurgitate those mostly right answers on a regular basis, they remain as incapable of finding the truth for themselves today as they were back then, leaving them vulnerable to manipulation by cranks and nutters.
It is a dark sign that this kind of nonsense has gotten this much traction. What use is a conservative/libertarian resurgence when irrational fantasies of Obama being born in some faraway land are the what it gets spent to promote?
Hawaii says he was born there. That means, short of real evidence that there has been some sort of fraud, that HE WAS FUCKING BORN THERE.
He was born in Hawaii people, get over it. Birthers are the political equivalent of creationists. Conspiracy theory nutters whose incessant wishcasting is a harmful distraction that gives ammo to those who want to portray conservatives and libertarians as ignorant and superstitious buffoons. Instead of pretending he is from Gondwanaland, how about focusing on his ideological beliefs and the destructive policies they inspire?
I'm getting a bit sick and tired of having to make excuses on this issue for people who are old enough and smart enough to know better.
In fact, I have a new policy that I intend to follow: NO MORE CRAZY.
No more crazy bullshit. No more making nice with people whose nonsense is making me look bad because I get associated with them. No more giving people the benefit of the doubt when they say something ridiculous. No more attempting to reason with people who are seemingly incapable of logical thought and every bit as emotionally attached to ridiculous ideas and conclusions as any incurable leftist.
There are some conservatives whose conservative nature didn't come from careful contemplation, but because someone spoon fed them (mostly right) answers when they were little. And while they are able to regurgitate those mostly right answers on a regular basis, they remain as incapable of finding the truth for themselves today as they were back then, leaving them vulnerable to manipulation by cranks and nutters.
It is a dark sign that this kind of nonsense has gotten this much traction. What use is a conservative/libertarian resurgence when irrational fantasies of Obama being born in some faraway land are the what it gets spent to promote?
Hawaii says he was born there. That means, short of real evidence that there has been some sort of fraud, that HE WAS FUCKING BORN THERE.
Friday, April 22, 2011
The language police are at it again.
Obama Asks High Court to Let Regulators Crack Down on F-Bombs
Obama is pandering to the plurality of people in this country who suffer from the neurotic fear of arbitrary words. He does this because he is a politician. A Republican in his shoes would do the very same thing. If he does not make at least a nominal effort to chase after those who utter "dirty words" on TV, his challengers in the next election will call him to task for it and pretend that he is "anti-family" or some other such nonsense intended to manipulate the nitwits who live in fear of the Anglo Saxon root of the English language.
To illustrate the arbitrary nature of obscenity, in Paris the term "tabernac" is used as an expletive. What does tabernac mean in French? It refers to a tabernacle. Yes, that's right, as in church. And there, just as here, there are nitwits who will get their panties in a twist if they hear the word, especially if kids are in earshot.
I guess it really is true that hell is other people.
Obama is pandering to the plurality of people in this country who suffer from the neurotic fear of arbitrary words. He does this because he is a politician. A Republican in his shoes would do the very same thing. If he does not make at least a nominal effort to chase after those who utter "dirty words" on TV, his challengers in the next election will call him to task for it and pretend that he is "anti-family" or some other such nonsense intended to manipulate the nitwits who live in fear of the Anglo Saxon root of the English language.
To illustrate the arbitrary nature of obscenity, in Paris the term "tabernac" is used as an expletive. What does tabernac mean in French? It refers to a tabernacle. Yes, that's right, as in church. And there, just as here, there are nitwits who will get their panties in a twist if they hear the word, especially if kids are in earshot.
I guess it really is true that hell is other people.
A follow up....
This is a follow up to my last post, also posted as a response to this article:
What made you a conservative?
I mentioned in a previous posting that I self-identified as a "liberal" when I was a teenager, in large part because I had no idea that the term itself had been corrupted by Marxists and their fellow travellers. I thought a liberal, no joke, was someone like Thomas Jefferson. In truth someone like him IS what the term originally referred to. It wasn't until I was in my early 20's that I started to realize that the people who called themselves "liberals" had nothing to do with my understanding of the term, and could in fact be more accurately described as ANTI liberal.
Something else that I was confused about as a youngster was the political philosophy behind people like hippies. I was born in 1972, and lived in a socially conservative upper middle class suburb of Nashville and in an equally well to do area in northern Virginia, so actual hippies were not something I ever saw, at least not in their 60's regalia. But I did get to hear near-historical descriptions of the cover stories and propaganda that they created to describe their ideas. Based on this, and without knowing anything, I assumed that their philosophy was libertarian in nature. I know that sounds absurd today, but that is because we are wise not only to their lies, but the way that they twist language to promote those lies.
This goes back to something I mentioned before but didn't fully explain. There are many people who think they are leftists, but really aren't. They are "leftists" by default because that is what they have been spoon fed. The euphemistic language that the left uses to promote its nonsense can, when you don't know what they are REALLY saying, be interpreted in a completely innocuous way. The left uses terms to refer to the antonym of what that term actually means, with "liberal" being the most obvious example. This is a key part of their deception and why their lies are so insidious. Someone, particularly a young person, who is unfamiliar with the twisted meanings the left dishonestly imbues into words, can parrot their nonsense and think that they are saying something VERY different from what cognizant leftists actually mean when they says those things. The left hides its lies by lying about the meanings of the words it uses. This allows them to say one thing and really mean another. Of course people do get wise to their deception, at which point they choose NEW words to lie about, and attempt to re-invent themselves as something else. A perpetually emerging "New Left" will claim to believe in different ideas than their predecessors, when in fact Marxism is what ALL of them have always believed in and always will, they just abuse different parts of the dictionary to hide that fact.
This is why so many young people seem to be leftists. It isn't that they're actually leftists in terms of their character, but that they haven't lived and experienced enough to realize the way that leftists abuse language itself to tell their lies.
It isn't that people tend to become more "conservative" as they grow older, but that they realize that the things they have always known and understood in their heart are more accurately described as conservative or libertarian."
What made you a conservative?
I mentioned in a previous posting that I self-identified as a "liberal" when I was a teenager, in large part because I had no idea that the term itself had been corrupted by Marxists and their fellow travellers. I thought a liberal, no joke, was someone like Thomas Jefferson. In truth someone like him IS what the term originally referred to. It wasn't until I was in my early 20's that I started to realize that the people who called themselves "liberals" had nothing to do with my understanding of the term, and could in fact be more accurately described as ANTI liberal.
Something else that I was confused about as a youngster was the political philosophy behind people like hippies. I was born in 1972, and lived in a socially conservative upper middle class suburb of Nashville and in an equally well to do area in northern Virginia, so actual hippies were not something I ever saw, at least not in their 60's regalia. But I did get to hear near-historical descriptions of the cover stories and propaganda that they created to describe their ideas. Based on this, and without knowing anything, I assumed that their philosophy was libertarian in nature. I know that sounds absurd today, but that is because we are wise not only to their lies, but the way that they twist language to promote those lies.
This goes back to something I mentioned before but didn't fully explain. There are many people who think they are leftists, but really aren't. They are "leftists" by default because that is what they have been spoon fed. The euphemistic language that the left uses to promote its nonsense can, when you don't know what they are REALLY saying, be interpreted in a completely innocuous way. The left uses terms to refer to the antonym of what that term actually means, with "liberal" being the most obvious example. This is a key part of their deception and why their lies are so insidious. Someone, particularly a young person, who is unfamiliar with the twisted meanings the left dishonestly imbues into words, can parrot their nonsense and think that they are saying something VERY different from what cognizant leftists actually mean when they says those things. The left hides its lies by lying about the meanings of the words it uses. This allows them to say one thing and really mean another. Of course people do get wise to their deception, at which point they choose NEW words to lie about, and attempt to re-invent themselves as something else. A perpetually emerging "New Left" will claim to believe in different ideas than their predecessors, when in fact Marxism is what ALL of them have always believed in and always will, they just abuse different parts of the dictionary to hide that fact.
This is why so many young people seem to be leftists. It isn't that they're actually leftists in terms of their character, but that they haven't lived and experienced enough to realize the way that leftists abuse language itself to tell their lies.
It isn't that people tend to become more "conservative" as they grow older, but that they realize that the things they have always known and understood in their heart are more accurately described as conservative or libertarian."
A response to a question on Ace of Spaces
What made you a conservative?
I've never been a leftist, at least not really. Oh, when I was a teenager and didn't know ANYTHING about politics I used to call myself a liberal. Why? Because at that time I thought the word referred to someone like Thomas Jefferson, not Karl Marx. Like I said, I didn't know anything about politics, or at least not contemporary politics, only historical politics.
I was exposed to quite a bit of MTV which had an awful lot of leftist nonsense baked right into it. But rather than swallow the nonsense whole and be corrupted by it, I worked to try and fit it into what I understood to be reality, not realizing that the people on TV weren't just wrong, but were deliberately lying. When we are young we don't see the world as it is, but as WE are, and what I perceived in the leftist nonsense on MTV and from other sources was not the message they were trying to trick me into believing, but a reflection of myself and my own innate values, which are not those of the left.
I think that there are a lot of people who are leftists by default simply because they live in a microcosm where leftist nonsense is so pervasive that it is all they know. Since these people are not leftists by nature, I suspect that the leftist nonsense they have been steeped in is something they're trying to make sense of in much the same way I did. A lot of them go around using the preferred terminology of the left, but meaning something quite different when they do.
The reason is that the left works to corrupt language. They don't just use words to lie, they lie about the words they use to lie. Lies within lies using terms that are themselves dishonestly re-defined in order to sow confusion. They do this in order to cover up their evil intentions and to trick people into agreeing to things without understanding what it is they're signing off on.
The term "liberal" itself is the perfect example of this. Once upon a time that term referred to someone who might now be called a libertarian. But the left began using it to refer to their Marxist nonsense to the point that its true original meaning was all but lost. Only when we use the word in a compound term like Liberal Democracy is its original sense still used.
Another example is the word "equality." The left loves to toss this one around, almost as much as they do "justice." A normal person would interpret this words as a reference to a person's civil and political rights: freedom of speech, the 5th amendment, etc, etc, all of which are fundamental rights that can be guaranteed to all. But that isn't what a leftist means. When a leftist talks about "equality," they're imagining a world where failure is to be somehow magically prevented, and success punished, despite the fact that success and failure are almost always a manifestation of the character and abilities of the person in question. People who make wise choices get what they want from life to make them happy. People who make foolish choices don't. Rinse and repeat over hundreds of thousands of individual choices by millions of individuals and you soon wind up with a normal distribution. This outcome is inevitable because people are different from each other and some people make better choices than others. Nothing can be done about this. To try is foolish and ultimately destructive.
But leftists want to pretend that this is the result of systematic oppression or a conspiracy theory of some kind, which is pure insanity.
This is just one example of course, there are countless more that can be made.
My conclusion about the true-believing leftists, the Noam Chomsky set, is that they are either evil or crazy. They're smart enough to know that what they are promoting is both untrue and inherently harmful, but they do it anyway. Only someone who is malicious or insane would do that.
Does that mean that "conservatives" are angels? Certainly not. But the flaws and faults to be found in conservative ideas are of the sort that are normal when people of limited wisdom attempt to make sense of things. We have imperfect ideas because we are imperfect beings. But unlike the vile totalitarian notions that the left subscribes to, our ideas are an honest attempt to know and live with the truth.
But to answer the original question, if you want to understand the left from the standpoint of someone who got off the crazy train, read Radical Son by David Horowitz, a recovered red diaper baby whose parents were low-level Soviet operatives and committed Marxists. He grew up and became a somewhat well known member of the "New Left" Marxists back in the 60's. But as time went by, his own experiences in life eventually overwhelmed his indoctrination and he the scales fell from his eyes. Today he's a well-known conservative pundit.
He grew up with the crazy in its purest form, tried to make sense of it, tried to make it work and to conform with reality, and eventually gave up because it just doesn't. 2+2 does not equal 5 and never will. A less honest person might not have done so well.
I've never been a leftist, at least not really. Oh, when I was a teenager and didn't know ANYTHING about politics I used to call myself a liberal. Why? Because at that time I thought the word referred to someone like Thomas Jefferson, not Karl Marx. Like I said, I didn't know anything about politics, or at least not contemporary politics, only historical politics.
I was exposed to quite a bit of MTV which had an awful lot of leftist nonsense baked right into it. But rather than swallow the nonsense whole and be corrupted by it, I worked to try and fit it into what I understood to be reality, not realizing that the people on TV weren't just wrong, but were deliberately lying. When we are young we don't see the world as it is, but as WE are, and what I perceived in the leftist nonsense on MTV and from other sources was not the message they were trying to trick me into believing, but a reflection of myself and my own innate values, which are not those of the left.
I think that there are a lot of people who are leftists by default simply because they live in a microcosm where leftist nonsense is so pervasive that it is all they know. Since these people are not leftists by nature, I suspect that the leftist nonsense they have been steeped in is something they're trying to make sense of in much the same way I did. A lot of them go around using the preferred terminology of the left, but meaning something quite different when they do.
The reason is that the left works to corrupt language. They don't just use words to lie, they lie about the words they use to lie. Lies within lies using terms that are themselves dishonestly re-defined in order to sow confusion. They do this in order to cover up their evil intentions and to trick people into agreeing to things without understanding what it is they're signing off on.
The term "liberal" itself is the perfect example of this. Once upon a time that term referred to someone who might now be called a libertarian. But the left began using it to refer to their Marxist nonsense to the point that its true original meaning was all but lost. Only when we use the word in a compound term like Liberal Democracy is its original sense still used.
Another example is the word "equality." The left loves to toss this one around, almost as much as they do "justice." A normal person would interpret this words as a reference to a person's civil and political rights: freedom of speech, the 5th amendment, etc, etc, all of which are fundamental rights that can be guaranteed to all. But that isn't what a leftist means. When a leftist talks about "equality," they're imagining a world where failure is to be somehow magically prevented, and success punished, despite the fact that success and failure are almost always a manifestation of the character and abilities of the person in question. People who make wise choices get what they want from life to make them happy. People who make foolish choices don't. Rinse and repeat over hundreds of thousands of individual choices by millions of individuals and you soon wind up with a normal distribution. This outcome is inevitable because people are different from each other and some people make better choices than others. Nothing can be done about this. To try is foolish and ultimately destructive.
But leftists want to pretend that this is the result of systematic oppression or a conspiracy theory of some kind, which is pure insanity.
This is just one example of course, there are countless more that can be made.
My conclusion about the true-believing leftists, the Noam Chomsky set, is that they are either evil or crazy. They're smart enough to know that what they are promoting is both untrue and inherently harmful, but they do it anyway. Only someone who is malicious or insane would do that.
Does that mean that "conservatives" are angels? Certainly not. But the flaws and faults to be found in conservative ideas are of the sort that are normal when people of limited wisdom attempt to make sense of things. We have imperfect ideas because we are imperfect beings. But unlike the vile totalitarian notions that the left subscribes to, our ideas are an honest attempt to know and live with the truth.
But to answer the original question, if you want to understand the left from the standpoint of someone who got off the crazy train, read Radical Son by David Horowitz, a recovered red diaper baby whose parents were low-level Soviet operatives and committed Marxists. He grew up and became a somewhat well known member of the "New Left" Marxists back in the 60's. But as time went by, his own experiences in life eventually overwhelmed his indoctrination and he the scales fell from his eyes. Today he's a well-known conservative pundit.
He grew up with the crazy in its purest form, tried to make sense of it, tried to make it work and to conform with reality, and eventually gave up because it just doesn't. 2+2 does not equal 5 and never will. A less honest person might not have done so well.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Richard Epstein knocks another one out of the park
http://www.hoover.org/publications/defining-ideas/article/75711
There is absolutely nothing I could possibly add to this article that would improve or clarify its content.
Richard Epstein is the Peter and Kirsten Bedford Senior Fellow at Hoover. He is also the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law at New York University. His areas of expertise include constitutional law, intellectual property, and property rights. His most recent books are The Case Against the Employee Free Choice Act (Hoover Press, 2009) and Supreme Neglect: How to Revive the Constitutional Protection for Private Property (Oxford Press, 2008).
There is absolutely nothing I could possibly add to this article that would improve or clarify its content.
Richard Epstein is the Peter and Kirsten Bedford Senior Fellow at Hoover. He is also the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law at New York University. His areas of expertise include constitutional law, intellectual property, and property rights. His most recent books are The Case Against the Employee Free Choice Act (Hoover Press, 2009) and Supreme Neglect: How to Revive the Constitutional Protection for Private Property (Oxford Press, 2008).
Monday, April 18, 2011
Stuck on stupid
Another post from a Marxist who just doesn't get it.
An enlightened ruling class?
Ruling class....
That term right there is where his entire argument falls to pieces. The ruling class in America is and always has been the middle class, and even then only in the sense that it is we who define the morality of our nation, we who have the most say in the nature of the LAWS that govern our nation.
From there his argument goes even further afield from reality. He talks about prosperity broadly shared. Well I think that is a great idea. To achieve this, how about we set up a free market economy with low barriers to entry in the context of a politically stable nation? What...? We already have that, and it's working?
Yet again we have someone who believes the concept of human rights in terms of freedom from something. Freedom from poverty, from hunger, from cold, etc, etc, etc. Such human rights are a fallacy because they cannot be achieved for those who will not achieve them for themselves without violating the rights of others. The only rights that can be freely given to any person are those rights which do not compromise the rights of others. When a right has a price tag attached to it, a resource requirement, then someone has to pay that bill, and forcing someone else to bear that burden is a violation of their rights. Socialism is involuntary servitude, slavery, and is morally reprehensible in addition to being a direct violation of the 13th amendment.
This guy is just another indoctrinated Marxist whose ideas about sociology and economics have about as much validity as phrenology does for the fields of psychology and criminology.
Marxism is a pass/fail IQ test and this guy is stuck on stupid.
An enlightened ruling class?
Ruling class....
That term right there is where his entire argument falls to pieces. The ruling class in America is and always has been the middle class, and even then only in the sense that it is we who define the morality of our nation, we who have the most say in the nature of the LAWS that govern our nation.
From there his argument goes even further afield from reality. He talks about prosperity broadly shared. Well I think that is a great idea. To achieve this, how about we set up a free market economy with low barriers to entry in the context of a politically stable nation? What...? We already have that, and it's working?
Yet again we have someone who believes the concept of human rights in terms of freedom from something. Freedom from poverty, from hunger, from cold, etc, etc, etc. Such human rights are a fallacy because they cannot be achieved for those who will not achieve them for themselves without violating the rights of others. The only rights that can be freely given to any person are those rights which do not compromise the rights of others. When a right has a price tag attached to it, a resource requirement, then someone has to pay that bill, and forcing someone else to bear that burden is a violation of their rights. Socialism is involuntary servitude, slavery, and is morally reprehensible in addition to being a direct violation of the 13th amendment.
This guy is just another indoctrinated Marxist whose ideas about sociology and economics have about as much validity as phrenology does for the fields of psychology and criminology.
Marxism is a pass/fail IQ test and this guy is stuck on stupid.
Friday, April 15, 2011
Obama isn't the disease, but the symptom
Let's Get Alinsky on Obama With Respect to Third World
It isn't just Obama.
It isn't just Reid or Pelosi or any of the other poster-leftists.
It is the millions of Americans who have been fooled into believing the deceptions of the left, or who are part and parcel of that deception themselves. In other words, the people who voted for him and others of his ilk and who agree with their policies.
Our nation is afflicted not merely with a bad president or some bad politicians, but with millions of men and women who are consumed by EVIL.
There is a book by M. Scott Peck called People of the Lie that describes this quite well. He doesn't talk about leftists in the book per-se, or politics for that matter, but his description of human evil fits them so well it is spooky:
1. The evil hide their motives with lies.
Bad people with bad ideas hiding behind screens of continuous deception are precisely what the left is.
2. Evil people want to appear to be good.
I don't even have to comment on that one....
3. When confronted by evil, the wisest and most secure adult will usually experience confusion.
This is why leftists are so hard to figure out. Trying to deal with them is an exercise in frustration and futility. Offer them something that is objectively good, that helps to achieve their STATED aims, and they'll reject it. Offer it enough and point out all the reasons it is good and they'll attack you and call you names. Only when you realize that their stated aims are the opposite of their actual agenda do their actions begin to make sense.
4. Evil seeks to discourage others to think for themselves (fosters dependency).
This is the one that I think is most telling. It is possible to believe that other things the left does are good, or at least intended to be good. A non-leftist could look at the left and assume that they are trying to do good, could be fooled by them. But what they work to do that cannot be construed as positive or well intentioned are their efforts to trap people in poverty and make them dependent upon the state. Next comes their creation of imaginary thought-crimes and speech-crimes in the form of Political Correctness. The truth isn't afraid of dissent, only people who peddle lies.
So instead of looking to Obama as the problem, look at him and understand that he's merely the symptom and that the real culprits are other Americans who work each day to destroy our nation and darken our futures.
5. To oppose evil we must have an ongoing dedication to reality at all cost.
Not all leftists are bad on an individual level. Many are merely hoodwinked. They believe they are good people doing good things, not understanding that their entire worldview is essentially a destructive lie. They can be helped. They can be persuaded. They can be rescued. Other people, your Noam Chomsky types, the people who craft the lies of the left themselves, cannot be helped but must be fought and resisted at every turn.
It isn't just Obama.
It isn't just Reid or Pelosi or any of the other poster-leftists.
It is the millions of Americans who have been fooled into believing the deceptions of the left, or who are part and parcel of that deception themselves. In other words, the people who voted for him and others of his ilk and who agree with their policies.
Our nation is afflicted not merely with a bad president or some bad politicians, but with millions of men and women who are consumed by EVIL.
There is a book by M. Scott Peck called People of the Lie that describes this quite well. He doesn't talk about leftists in the book per-se, or politics for that matter, but his description of human evil fits them so well it is spooky:
1. The evil hide their motives with lies.
Bad people with bad ideas hiding behind screens of continuous deception are precisely what the left is.
2. Evil people want to appear to be good.
I don't even have to comment on that one....
3. When confronted by evil, the wisest and most secure adult will usually experience confusion.
This is why leftists are so hard to figure out. Trying to deal with them is an exercise in frustration and futility. Offer them something that is objectively good, that helps to achieve their STATED aims, and they'll reject it. Offer it enough and point out all the reasons it is good and they'll attack you and call you names. Only when you realize that their stated aims are the opposite of their actual agenda do their actions begin to make sense.
4. Evil seeks to discourage others to think for themselves (fosters dependency).
This is the one that I think is most telling. It is possible to believe that other things the left does are good, or at least intended to be good. A non-leftist could look at the left and assume that they are trying to do good, could be fooled by them. But what they work to do that cannot be construed as positive or well intentioned are their efforts to trap people in poverty and make them dependent upon the state. Next comes their creation of imaginary thought-crimes and speech-crimes in the form of Political Correctness. The truth isn't afraid of dissent, only people who peddle lies.
So instead of looking to Obama as the problem, look at him and understand that he's merely the symptom and that the real culprits are other Americans who work each day to destroy our nation and darken our futures.
5. To oppose evil we must have an ongoing dedication to reality at all cost.
Not all leftists are bad on an individual level. Many are merely hoodwinked. They believe they are good people doing good things, not understanding that their entire worldview is essentially a destructive lie. They can be helped. They can be persuaded. They can be rescued. Other people, your Noam Chomsky types, the people who craft the lies of the left themselves, cannot be helped but must be fought and resisted at every turn.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Heinlein quote for today
I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do. -- Robert A Heinlein
A thought for today
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." - John Stuart Mill
The blame game - round 9,533,783
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/04/028815.php
The only thing worse than a Republican is a Democrat. Neither can be solely blamed for the mess we are in because BOTH parties engaged in breakneck deficit spending over multiple decades. In terms of fiscal issues, the only thing that really distinguishes them is a relatively small difference in the RATE they spent at. That each party sought to spend on different things for different reasons is kind of irrelevant because neither had any workable idea about how their schemes would ultimately be paid for.
The truth is that BOTH political parties, as they currently exist, are the enemies not only of the young, but of the nation as a whole. The current Republican party TALKS a better game than the Dems (whose feverish notions can best be described as Mansonesque), but when push came to shove they failed to reduce spending.
Without a constitutional requirement for a balanced budget this will simply continue. Our political parties are not comprised of aliens from another world, but are representative slices of factions within our own nation. They are us. We are the ones who created this mess by refusing to hold our elected officials accountable for the money they were spending.
When the government spends more money than the public has paid in taxes, everyone loses. Borrowing against the future guarantees a future of POVERTY as the wealth of the nation is confiscated to pay off debts created in the past.
The only thing worse than a Republican is a Democrat. Neither can be solely blamed for the mess we are in because BOTH parties engaged in breakneck deficit spending over multiple decades. In terms of fiscal issues, the only thing that really distinguishes them is a relatively small difference in the RATE they spent at. That each party sought to spend on different things for different reasons is kind of irrelevant because neither had any workable idea about how their schemes would ultimately be paid for.
The truth is that BOTH political parties, as they currently exist, are the enemies not only of the young, but of the nation as a whole. The current Republican party TALKS a better game than the Dems (whose feverish notions can best be described as Mansonesque), but when push came to shove they failed to reduce spending.
Without a constitutional requirement for a balanced budget this will simply continue. Our political parties are not comprised of aliens from another world, but are representative slices of factions within our own nation. They are us. We are the ones who created this mess by refusing to hold our elected officials accountable for the money they were spending.
When the government spends more money than the public has paid in taxes, everyone loses. Borrowing against the future guarantees a future of POVERTY as the wealth of the nation is confiscated to pay off debts created in the past.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Ninth circuit rules against the rule of law itself
Ninth Circuit upholds invalidation of Arizona's SB1070
So in other words the ninth circuit has ruled to overturn RULE OF LAW itself.
Welcome to the 21st century, where laws, as the stated policies of the state, no longer define the actual policies of the state. Rule of law has been replaced by rule of men.
When a government does not even follow its own rules, then why should I? The legitimacy of law comes from its nature as a law, a written standard that applies to everyone equally, including those in positions of power. Sentator so and so doesn't get to ignore the law. Officer so and so doesn't get to ignore it. Neither do their friends, relatives, or political cronies.
In all seriousness, this is what illegitimacy in government looks like. People vote for one thing, or vote to elect legislators who pass a law that requires one thing, and individuals within the government implement policies that contradict it. Now they've dropped all pretence by attempting to coerce the governments at the state level into accepting their illegal and contradictory policies in preference over that written law.
To say that this is unconstitutional doesn't even come close to describing how heinous it is. Unconstitutional laws passed by congress are still laws passed by congress. There is still some weight of law behind them, even if they are ultimately found to be constitutionally invalid. In this new paradigm there is no weight of law, nothing more than the whims of bureaucrats and apparatchiks. Written law ceases to have any meaning except perhaps as a vehicle for grandstanding and pandering by politicians.
When the will of the people is thwarted by the will of government agents, that is tyranny.
So in other words the ninth circuit has ruled to overturn RULE OF LAW itself.
Welcome to the 21st century, where laws, as the stated policies of the state, no longer define the actual policies of the state. Rule of law has been replaced by rule of men.
When a government does not even follow its own rules, then why should I? The legitimacy of law comes from its nature as a law, a written standard that applies to everyone equally, including those in positions of power. Sentator so and so doesn't get to ignore the law. Officer so and so doesn't get to ignore it. Neither do their friends, relatives, or political cronies.
In all seriousness, this is what illegitimacy in government looks like. People vote for one thing, or vote to elect legislators who pass a law that requires one thing, and individuals within the government implement policies that contradict it. Now they've dropped all pretence by attempting to coerce the governments at the state level into accepting their illegal and contradictory policies in preference over that written law.
To say that this is unconstitutional doesn't even come close to describing how heinous it is. Unconstitutional laws passed by congress are still laws passed by congress. There is still some weight of law behind them, even if they are ultimately found to be constitutionally invalid. In this new paradigm there is no weight of law, nothing more than the whims of bureaucrats and apparatchiks. Written law ceases to have any meaning except perhaps as a vehicle for grandstanding and pandering by politicians.
When the will of the people is thwarted by the will of government agents, that is tyranny.
Saturday, January 8, 2011
The left now blaming "vitriolic" public discourse for the actions of a madman.
Political assassinations have no place in a free society. Political and social revolutions, if they come at all, come from the soap box and the ballot box, not the ammo box. An attack on a duly elected member of congress is an attack on us all because it is an attack on the constitution and the free society that it makes possible. This man will be held accountable. Here in Arizona we have the death penalty, and he will surely receive it. It is unfortunate that he can only be executed once.
No one instructed this man to murder. To blame Fox News or other conservative outlets for his actions makes about as much sense as blaming Quake and D&D for the actions of the Columbine shooters, or Ramparts and The Nation for the actions of Kathy Soliah and others of her ilk.
Even if we were to momentarily entertain the ludicrous assertion that political speech causes violence, it must be noted that 300 million Americans are continually exposed to conservative arguments, ideas and sentiments, and yet only only man has acted to murder an elected official from the Democratic party. Making a cause and effect argument on that basis is not merely weak, it is dishonest.
Using a crisis to dishonestly demonize (and thereby silence) those with whom you disagree is a tactic that smacks of desperation and impotence. Those with strong and valid arguments to make don't need to resort to such measures. Those who seek to know and live with the truth do not fear ideas with which they disagree or seek to silence their expression. The truth is not found by obscuring disagreeable ideas or by twisting those ideas into misshapen caricatures in the hope they will be disregarded. The truth is born in the crucible of open debate where all ideas are honestly represented. When someone has to lie in order to "win" an argument, they are wrong. Worse than that, they have forsaken the honest pursuit of truth, which is man's fundamental task upon this earth.
Strong ideas stand on their own. They do not need to be shielded from competition, but are in fact strengthened by it. Neither are strong ideas undermined when those who champion them are slandered. So go ahead and blame Fox News and other conservative voices for the actions of this murderer. Doing so may score you points with those who share your political sentiments, but it will do nothing to convince anyone who does not. If you want to convince median voters to support your ideas, you will have to come up with persuasive arguments.
Attempting to connect this tragedy to Sarah Palin is especially peculiar. Why is the left so fixated on her? What makes her so special? Yeah, I'd like to do naughty things with her, but beyond that she's nothing to write home about. Her political career ended when she resigned as the governor of Alaska. She is unlikely to be elected to any other comparable office, let alone the presidency. Her value is as a political commentator, and she is only as successful in this as her words and deeds resonate with the public. In other words, she succeeds or fails in this role on the strength of her arguments. Attacking her for her NON-association with a political assassin and terrorist isn't going to convince anyone of anything except that you dislike her enough to paint her with any brush that is convenient regardless of how absurd it is.
No one instructed this man to murder. To blame Fox News or other conservative outlets for his actions makes about as much sense as blaming Quake and D&D for the actions of the Columbine shooters, or Ramparts and The Nation for the actions of Kathy Soliah and others of her ilk.
Even if we were to momentarily entertain the ludicrous assertion that political speech causes violence, it must be noted that 300 million Americans are continually exposed to conservative arguments, ideas and sentiments, and yet only only man has acted to murder an elected official from the Democratic party. Making a cause and effect argument on that basis is not merely weak, it is dishonest.
Using a crisis to dishonestly demonize (and thereby silence) those with whom you disagree is a tactic that smacks of desperation and impotence. Those with strong and valid arguments to make don't need to resort to such measures. Those who seek to know and live with the truth do not fear ideas with which they disagree or seek to silence their expression. The truth is not found by obscuring disagreeable ideas or by twisting those ideas into misshapen caricatures in the hope they will be disregarded. The truth is born in the crucible of open debate where all ideas are honestly represented. When someone has to lie in order to "win" an argument, they are wrong. Worse than that, they have forsaken the honest pursuit of truth, which is man's fundamental task upon this earth.
Strong ideas stand on their own. They do not need to be shielded from competition, but are in fact strengthened by it. Neither are strong ideas undermined when those who champion them are slandered. So go ahead and blame Fox News and other conservative voices for the actions of this murderer. Doing so may score you points with those who share your political sentiments, but it will do nothing to convince anyone who does not. If you want to convince median voters to support your ideas, you will have to come up with persuasive arguments.
Attempting to connect this tragedy to Sarah Palin is especially peculiar. Why is the left so fixated on her? What makes her so special? Yeah, I'd like to do naughty things with her, but beyond that she's nothing to write home about. Her political career ended when she resigned as the governor of Alaska. She is unlikely to be elected to any other comparable office, let alone the presidency. Her value is as a political commentator, and she is only as successful in this as her words and deeds resonate with the public. In other words, she succeeds or fails in this role on the strength of her arguments. Attacking her for her NON-association with a political assassin and terrorist isn't going to convince anyone of anything except that you dislike her enough to paint her with any brush that is convenient regardless of how absurd it is.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
The original Moonbat strikes again
http://davidthompson.typepad.com/davidthompson/2011/01/new-crisis-detected.html
This man is evil. It does not surprise me that he exists, fools and scoundrels are not hard to find. What I do find shocking is that anyone, let alone a major newspaper, would actually PAY him to pontificate to the masses.
This is what the Guardian thinks is journalism?
There is one common impulse among leftists that most clearly defines them. They believe that human beings are created equal.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
We are, in any just society, provided equal rights and equal protection under the law. But that does not mean that we are endowed by our creator with the same capacities or the same character. Some people are smarter than others. Some people are stronger than others. Some are better looking. Some are inherently wiser for their age, and some are just plain lucky. The inevitable result of these differences is that some people have greater success in life than others. This is not a tragedy. It is not a moral failing in need of intervention. It is precisely as things should be. In fact, no other outcome is possible. You can muck about with the rules of society to artificially favor the dysfunctional all you please. The more capable will still find a way to win, and the less a way to lose. Meanwhile the freedom and equal rights that define a just society will be sacrificed, with misery and tyranny the inevitable result.
There are a few of course who, through inherited wealth, have had an easier time in some ways than others who have had to struggle. But such advantages are principally financial. Having money is great, but it will only get you those things that money can buy. True achievement comes from within and earns for the achiever the true riches that life has to offer. It must also be remembered that one person receiving a windfall through an inheritance does nothing to prevent others from achieving their own goals. The Kennedy family has millions, but whether they have that money, or don't, does nothing to change anyone else's situation. No one is made to fail because someone else was handed free money.
In England, as in any society that is even reasonably free and just, successful people are able to purchase more spacious homes if they choose. George Monbiot would have you believe that this is somehow wrong. It all goes back to this leftist's belief that human beings deserve an equal LIFE, as opposed to equal rights. This is impossible. Fortune favors the competent. It favors the virtuous. It favors the industrious.
This is why the left is evil. They wish to sacrifice our rights and freedoms to ensure that no one has it any better than anyone else. There is only one place where all are equal, and that is the grave. Till then some people are going to be better at the game of life than others.
This man is evil. It does not surprise me that he exists, fools and scoundrels are not hard to find. What I do find shocking is that anyone, let alone a major newspaper, would actually PAY him to pontificate to the masses.
This is what the Guardian thinks is journalism?
There is one common impulse among leftists that most clearly defines them. They believe that human beings are created equal.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
We are, in any just society, provided equal rights and equal protection under the law. But that does not mean that we are endowed by our creator with the same capacities or the same character. Some people are smarter than others. Some people are stronger than others. Some are better looking. Some are inherently wiser for their age, and some are just plain lucky. The inevitable result of these differences is that some people have greater success in life than others. This is not a tragedy. It is not a moral failing in need of intervention. It is precisely as things should be. In fact, no other outcome is possible. You can muck about with the rules of society to artificially favor the dysfunctional all you please. The more capable will still find a way to win, and the less a way to lose. Meanwhile the freedom and equal rights that define a just society will be sacrificed, with misery and tyranny the inevitable result.
There are a few of course who, through inherited wealth, have had an easier time in some ways than others who have had to struggle. But such advantages are principally financial. Having money is great, but it will only get you those things that money can buy. True achievement comes from within and earns for the achiever the true riches that life has to offer. It must also be remembered that one person receiving a windfall through an inheritance does nothing to prevent others from achieving their own goals. The Kennedy family has millions, but whether they have that money, or don't, does nothing to change anyone else's situation. No one is made to fail because someone else was handed free money.
In England, as in any society that is even reasonably free and just, successful people are able to purchase more spacious homes if they choose. George Monbiot would have you believe that this is somehow wrong. It all goes back to this leftist's belief that human beings deserve an equal LIFE, as opposed to equal rights. This is impossible. Fortune favors the competent. It favors the virtuous. It favors the industrious.
This is why the left is evil. They wish to sacrifice our rights and freedoms to ensure that no one has it any better than anyone else. There is only one place where all are equal, and that is the grave. Till then some people are going to be better at the game of life than others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
