Check this out.
Pardon my French, but the Obama campaign can kiss my lily-white gun-owning ass. Pucker up, Santa Cruz, because your Obamessiah is cracking down on free speech. Then again, it's just the free speech of a bunch of gun-toting racist rednecks, so who really cares?
You lefties are always rarin' to defend whatever neo-Marxist nonsense the International Solidarity Movement or By Any Means Necessary (a Communist Party-backed group, if you haven't been doing your homework) are spewing at their latest pity party for Palestine or terrorists or cop-killers like Mumia Abu-Jamal. When it comes to the free speech of other groups that the Left disagrees with, they are more or less loath to defend it. The Washington Post makes all sorts of ridiculous excuses for Barack Obama's stance against the 2nd Amendment, along with ludicrous accusations that his statements were "taken out of context" or whatever else they want to come up with.
There is something in the link posted above that I find very curious - it's on page 9 of the PDF document under the 12/5/07 entry:
He admits that the collective takes precedence over the individual, so individuals should be punished by having their ownership rights constrained due to the actions of one individual. His stance is that individual ownership is to be restricted by the whims of the community. If you happen to live in a county or state headed by Democratic politicians, you can bid your right to own a "scary black rifle" au revoir simply based upon what the brainwashed masses who guzzle the "peace and tolerance" Kool-Aid want from their leaders.
My personal experience has led me to understand that 99% of everyone who is opposed to firearms or supports firearms restrictions has experienced them on a secondary basis - through someone else they know, or through the media. Overwhelmingly, they are also the same people who bitch and moan about restrictions on "civil liberties" in a time of war, but fail to grasp the concept that governmental monopoly on firepower has always resulted in genocide and tyranny.
Not only does the Obama campaign consider any statements regarding his inability to uphold the very right to defend the other 26 Amendments to be "lies", there are actually people who will jump at the chance to bring charges against anyone criticising Barack Obama: [LINK]
I seriously want to see if anyone who supports the Obama campaign is going to defend this "Ministry of Truth". Pardon my French yet again, but the St. Louis Circuit Attorneys can kiss my lily-white free-speech-loving ass. Like ProtestWarrior's Kfir asked the head of the NYCLU in their 'Liberty Rising' video, "Are you for protecting all forms of free speech, or just the free speech that you agree with?" This statement was made after some NYCLU members found some ProtestWarrior signs outside somewhere and called the police to have them removed, finding them "offensive" and "distasteful", as if the "Fuck Bush" and all the signs equating Israel to the Third Reich are just fine and dandy.
I know John J. Ray is much more scholarly (with his doctorate degrees and all) in his take on this, but fascism is Leftist at the core: collectivism, legislation is passed and policy objectives are put forth "for the benefit of the nation", a cult of personality is formed, the arms of private citizens are registered and then confiscated under the guise of "public safety", the central figure becomes immune to criticism through jackbooted thugs (who really don't have to wear literal jackboots after all) who unflinchingly enforce all of this.
On a related note, I was reading a few more blogs (Fjordman, La Yihad en Eurabia, Gates of Vienna, among others) about how the international "anti-fascist" group Antifa was outright assaulting elderly Jews - calling them "Nazi scum" and all other sorts of epithets - all while police stood by. This took place in Germany, if you can believe that. German "anti-fascists" viciously beating Jews who happened to be protesting the creeping plague of Islamism into Europe. If it weren't so, the Islamic supremacists wouldn't be referring to the Iberian peninsula as "al-Andalus", which is the name given to the realm of the Almoravid dynasty, wherein Jews and Christians lived as dhimmis, and revolts were violently crushed.
Ordinarily, I am not too keen on European ethnic nationalism as it often appears concurrently with the neo-fascist movement that seeks to replace one form of socialist authoritarianism (Islam) with another (neo-fascism), but it is times like these where I will openly ally myself with the basic aims of the European New Right - Europe must remain European. It must not become another launching station for the global Caliphate that so many would like to see the fruition of. The ideological and media war against Islamic supremacism has made for some odd bedfellows, but until more Europeans start to realize that their heritage and very way of life is under real attack by foreign invaders, the ethnic nationalists are the best we have. It might take another bombing, like the ones in London and Madrid, to get more Europeans on the same page. I am thankful that there are people like Geert Wilders, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and the late Pim Fortuyn to resist Islamism while rejecting neo-fascism.
Coming back to Obama's attacks on the 2nd Amendment...
No leftist who believes in individual liberties can ever side with the Democratic party. The vast majority of legislation and policy pushed by the Democratic party is so virulently antithetical to the concept. Leftists are quick to crucify the Denver police even after it was made plain that the Code Pink member egged on the officer, but their stance on the individual rights of others who disagree with them are always conditional, or they even outright oppose them.
It's somewhat of a bitter pill for me to swallow, but a President Obama will only embolden the "progressives" to come down hard on their political enemies. They are the original backstabbers and the architects of moral equivalence.
22.9.08
"You will not find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy..."
I want each and everyone one of you who reads this to take a long and careful look at THIS chart. Go on, it won't harm you (unless you are allergic to the ugly truth) one bit.
That's right, the now-defunct mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac funneled thousands of dollars worth of contributions to Senator Barack Obama - more so than even veteran Senator John Kerry, and more than any Republican Senator.
You're probably thinking, "Okay Mr. Viking, so he got campaign contributions. What on earth does that prove about his connection to the shady practices leading to the massive taxpayer-funded bailout?"
HERE is a video segment from a CSPAN-2 newscast of Fannie Mae CEO Daniel Mudd speaking to the Congressional Black Caucus. Barack Obama is inducted into the Caucus in this presentation (the only present Senator in the CBC), after which Mudd gives a speech. How is this all connected? Though the Obama campaign staff features some of Fannie and Freddie's executive leadership, there's still one step missing to damn not only the Obama campaign in its own role in creating this mess, but the Democratic party at large.
I present to you the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, signed by President Carter, and then expanded by "the first black President" William J. Clinton. If you would like a better (albeit sanitized and PC) description of this Act, click HERE. You see, at the time, the GOP was accused of being discriminatory in its stance on loan policies. This was soon after the peak of the Civil Rights Era, and understandably lots of black people were really getting the shaft when they went to apply for home loans. The CRA was introduced to prevent discrimination in the lending practices of banks, but forced banks to lower their standards for loans. This, in turn, forced banks to lower their standards even more in order to stay competitive. People began taking on mortgages they ordinarily couldn't afford, at rates that would bankrupt them - and they did.
In regard to all this, the GOP can do no right: keeping strict lending standards is "discriminatory", but handing out loans left and right (to minorities and whites alike) is "predatory". This is a clear result of overregulation (there is such a thing, you leftist morons!) that allowed runaway loans, and now the Federal Reserve has to use OUR tax money to make up for the bad decisions of loan officers, bank executives, lawmakers, and the people who took on loans they knew they couldn't support but couldn't pass up the opportunity to have something NOW and decided they would worry about paying for it further down the road.
Instead of thinking what loosening the credit requirements for a home loan would do to the economy in the long run, the government talking heads decided to "go easy" on people who didn't have the qualifications that were once necessary for loans. They got infected with the politically-correct "everyone is special" virus that was a byproduct of the 1960s entitlement generation - the many wanting to reap the benefits of something supported on the backs of the few. So, in order to not appear racist (still today a vile epithet if you want to discredit someone completely), the standards come down, the money flows out of the banking system, and financial instability and decline are over the horizon. Nothing inevitable at this point, but the effects of such decisions are indeed being felt, and they will continue on.
The overregulation and support by the federal government gave banks the incentive to get sloppy and not pay attention. The possibility of real failure, the liquidation of the executives' personal assets to pay for bankruptcy, and even the shame of such an occurrence should be incentive enough to prevent such things, but not in today's era of nanny-state-ism and the government's societally-perceived role of savior. These bailouts say to banks "hey, you guys can pretty much do whatever you want, and the taxpayers will pick up the bill if you get in hot water".
How does the Congressional Black Caucus play into this whole matter? For starters, it is an openly discriminatory and racist organization - only blacks are eligible for membership. Missouri Representative William Clay, Jr. issued an official statement saying that "there has been an unofficial Congressional White Caucus for over 200 years, and now it's our turn to say who can join 'the club'." The CBC was instrumental in pushing forward the Community Reinvestment Act, both in 1977 and its revision in the 1990s. The CBC's problem is solely with 'White America', constantly accusing it of racism, while rationalizing, minimizing, and ignoring any failures that 'Black America' creates on its own (the long-running persecution complex, accusations of racism where none exists, the crisis of black fatherhood, among others).
Instead of helping their own communities to be more financially secure through financial education (outside of "white people hate you and don't want you to make any money"/"Jewish conspiracy"/etc.), entrepreneurship, investment instead of spending, and other things that actually help the financial situation of the average person, they forced 'White America' to set the bar lower. This still places the black community as subservient to Whitey's good graces, and proves to other blacks that throwing a tantrum is a good way to get the nanny state to cave to one's demands. If the CBC and other black organizations were really about empowerment, they would instead encourage blacks to succeed in the same way with the same standards that whites, Hispanics, and Asians are faced with. Unfortunately for their constituency, the CBC and others really don't care about seeing their members succeed. They just want to perpetuate a victim complex and get some free stuff from guilty white liberals. Black organizations should be encouraging responsible behavior and financial wisdom on the part of blacks, not blaming 'White America' every time a black person makes a mistake. They should be taking care of their own, not forcing others to do it.
Right now, blacks are suffering with loans they can't afford because of the policies supported by the very organizations that claim to have their interests in mind. Barack Obama is knee-deep in this mess. His party espouses the persecution complex and continually pushes for more handouts to blacks, his wife is allied with the 'blame Whitey' movement, his ex-pastor preaches black separatism and superiority, a Freddie executive is his campaign financial advisor, and he has been in Fannie and Freddie's pockets even before he was elected to the US Senate. For someone with a history like this to even think about accusing McCain and the GOP for creating this problem just demonstrates what kind of society we live in and the kind of media we have - their utter refusal to accept anything bad about someone of a minority status. They are truly immune to criticism in the mainstream media, much like Islam and organizations like CAIR and MPAC.
I now give you all a statement made by Senator John McCain in 2005, supporting legislation that would restructure the way Fannie and Freddie are tied to the Fed:
"For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac-known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs-and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.
I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.
I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation."
McCain does not support the bailing out of companies whose executives made bad decisions by way of our money, but the Obama campaign, and by extension the Democratic party, would want you to think otherwise. The scary part is, it's working. People are not doing their research into the causes of recent events, and just taking orders blindly from their Democratic taskmasters, who are given orders from the Obamessiah Himself, Peace Be Upon His Most Hopey and Changey Soul.
The more people start reading past the headlines, the sooner they will realize that not only is Obama nothing more than an empty suit with a good ad agency, but that his policies past and present will ruin the United States if they are allowed to come to fruition.
That's right, the now-defunct mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac funneled thousands of dollars worth of contributions to Senator Barack Obama - more so than even veteran Senator John Kerry, and more than any Republican Senator.
You're probably thinking, "Okay Mr. Viking, so he got campaign contributions. What on earth does that prove about his connection to the shady practices leading to the massive taxpayer-funded bailout?"
HERE is a video segment from a CSPAN-2 newscast of Fannie Mae CEO Daniel Mudd speaking to the Congressional Black Caucus. Barack Obama is inducted into the Caucus in this presentation (the only present Senator in the CBC), after which Mudd gives a speech. How is this all connected? Though the Obama campaign staff features some of Fannie and Freddie's executive leadership, there's still one step missing to damn not only the Obama campaign in its own role in creating this mess, but the Democratic party at large.
I present to you the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, signed by President Carter, and then expanded by "the first black President" William J. Clinton. If you would like a better (albeit sanitized and PC) description of this Act, click HERE. You see, at the time, the GOP was accused of being discriminatory in its stance on loan policies. This was soon after the peak of the Civil Rights Era, and understandably lots of black people were really getting the shaft when they went to apply for home loans. The CRA was introduced to prevent discrimination in the lending practices of banks, but forced banks to lower their standards for loans. This, in turn, forced banks to lower their standards even more in order to stay competitive. People began taking on mortgages they ordinarily couldn't afford, at rates that would bankrupt them - and they did.
In regard to all this, the GOP can do no right: keeping strict lending standards is "discriminatory", but handing out loans left and right (to minorities and whites alike) is "predatory". This is a clear result of overregulation (there is such a thing, you leftist morons!) that allowed runaway loans, and now the Federal Reserve has to use OUR tax money to make up for the bad decisions of loan officers, bank executives, lawmakers, and the people who took on loans they knew they couldn't support but couldn't pass up the opportunity to have something NOW and decided they would worry about paying for it further down the road.
Instead of thinking what loosening the credit requirements for a home loan would do to the economy in the long run, the government talking heads decided to "go easy" on people who didn't have the qualifications that were once necessary for loans. They got infected with the politically-correct "everyone is special" virus that was a byproduct of the 1960s entitlement generation - the many wanting to reap the benefits of something supported on the backs of the few. So, in order to not appear racist (still today a vile epithet if you want to discredit someone completely), the standards come down, the money flows out of the banking system, and financial instability and decline are over the horizon. Nothing inevitable at this point, but the effects of such decisions are indeed being felt, and they will continue on.
The overregulation and support by the federal government gave banks the incentive to get sloppy and not pay attention. The possibility of real failure, the liquidation of the executives' personal assets to pay for bankruptcy, and even the shame of such an occurrence should be incentive enough to prevent such things, but not in today's era of nanny-state-ism and the government's societally-perceived role of savior. These bailouts say to banks "hey, you guys can pretty much do whatever you want, and the taxpayers will pick up the bill if you get in hot water".
How does the Congressional Black Caucus play into this whole matter? For starters, it is an openly discriminatory and racist organization - only blacks are eligible for membership. Missouri Representative William Clay, Jr. issued an official statement saying that "there has been an unofficial Congressional White Caucus for over 200 years, and now it's our turn to say who can join 'the club'." The CBC was instrumental in pushing forward the Community Reinvestment Act, both in 1977 and its revision in the 1990s. The CBC's problem is solely with 'White America', constantly accusing it of racism, while rationalizing, minimizing, and ignoring any failures that 'Black America' creates on its own (the long-running persecution complex, accusations of racism where none exists, the crisis of black fatherhood, among others).
Instead of helping their own communities to be more financially secure through financial education (outside of "white people hate you and don't want you to make any money"/"Jewish conspiracy"/etc.), entrepreneurship, investment instead of spending, and other things that actually help the financial situation of the average person, they forced 'White America' to set the bar lower. This still places the black community as subservient to Whitey's good graces, and proves to other blacks that throwing a tantrum is a good way to get the nanny state to cave to one's demands. If the CBC and other black organizations were really about empowerment, they would instead encourage blacks to succeed in the same way with the same standards that whites, Hispanics, and Asians are faced with. Unfortunately for their constituency, the CBC and others really don't care about seeing their members succeed. They just want to perpetuate a victim complex and get some free stuff from guilty white liberals. Black organizations should be encouraging responsible behavior and financial wisdom on the part of blacks, not blaming 'White America' every time a black person makes a mistake. They should be taking care of their own, not forcing others to do it.
Right now, blacks are suffering with loans they can't afford because of the policies supported by the very organizations that claim to have their interests in mind. Barack Obama is knee-deep in this mess. His party espouses the persecution complex and continually pushes for more handouts to blacks, his wife is allied with the 'blame Whitey' movement, his ex-pastor preaches black separatism and superiority, a Freddie executive is his campaign financial advisor, and he has been in Fannie and Freddie's pockets even before he was elected to the US Senate. For someone with a history like this to even think about accusing McCain and the GOP for creating this problem just demonstrates what kind of society we live in and the kind of media we have - their utter refusal to accept anything bad about someone of a minority status. They are truly immune to criticism in the mainstream media, much like Islam and organizations like CAIR and MPAC.
I now give you all a statement made by Senator John McCain in 2005, supporting legislation that would restructure the way Fannie and Freddie are tied to the Fed:
"For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac-known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs-and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.
I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.
I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation."
McCain does not support the bailing out of companies whose executives made bad decisions by way of our money, but the Obama campaign, and by extension the Democratic party, would want you to think otherwise. The scary part is, it's working. People are not doing their research into the causes of recent events, and just taking orders blindly from their Democratic taskmasters, who are given orders from the Obamessiah Himself, Peace Be Upon His Most Hopey and Changey Soul.
The more people start reading past the headlines, the sooner they will realize that not only is Obama nothing more than an empty suit with a good ad agency, but that his policies past and present will ruin the United States if they are allowed to come to fruition.
9.9.08
Mr. Blue, 880 Rounds, and "three words".
Most customers I couldn't give two hoots about. Some I like, a few I can't stand. One in particular stands out to me: Mr. Blue. He's not a jerk, but it's just weird to deal with him. I've seen him in the store twice, but every time it's the same - he wants to know if we have the products he wants in some shade of blue. His latest purchase was the Dell Studio Series 17" laptop, with a dark blue case-top. His wireless mouse was also blue. His clothing is always blue, and my co-worker Paul has seen him at the local mall in that get-up as well. He says Mr. Blue's shoes were even blue.
Anyway, it's just weird. He has vision problems, as I had to set everything (fonts, icons, Start Menu) to extra-large sizes when I did the preliminary set-up for his computer. He later returned the machine, sending our laptop sales figures plummeting. Figures, huh? All that hard work and time I spent trying to sell him the damn thing with all the attachments and extended coverage (which really ARE worth it, by the way), all for naught.
My ammo came by post yesterday. I was very excited. It took me some time to figure out how the can opener works for each of the two spam cans, but I got one open. I can't wait to go waste some targets with Hungarian heavy ball. Plus, I can store cool stuff in the cans and the wooden crate when they're empty. By Loki's forked tongue, that crate was heavy! I feel sorry for whomever had to carry that up our stairs.
Okay, onto a truly creepy customer. What this guy was looking for has been lost in the fog of time, but what he said to me at the checkout was, frankly, disturbing. It went a little something like this:
Him: [in a soft, soothing voice, like he's an announcer for those corny smooth jazz radio stations] It seems like you're a pretty smart guy; you have a lot of spiritual, emotional, and mental strength, so I'm going to leave you with three words.
Me: Uh, thanks?
Him: The three words are "Oh", "Bah", "Mah" [as in 'Barack Obama']. I can't understand why people wouldn't vote for him. It's as if they're retarded or something. Will you vote for Obama?
Me: Um, I don't discuss politics with strangers.
Him: Well, do the right thing in November.
At this point I'm just about
and ready to reach over the counter, grab him by the collar and lecture this snobbish assclown about how taxing corporations is what pushes them to move overseas, how banning firearms doesn't actually decrease crime rates no matter how many Million Mom Waddles that Rosie O'Donnell hosts, or how not voting for a black man is nowhere near as racist than calling someone like Thomas Sowell a "sell-out" for not supporting reparations and generally not buying into the whole blacks-as-victims school of thought.
The guy was talking about Obama like he was the bloody Second Coming of Christ or something. That's the big thing that's pissing me off so much about the Obama campaign - he's some empty suit being lauded and worshipped like a demigod for the sole reason that he's BLACK.
Here we have a community organizer who lectured a few times in a Constitutional Law class, with a paltry four more years of Senate experience than your faithful narrator, who has more than a few connections to people who support racial separatism, hostile religious supremacism, or domestic terrorism. He's been involved in the Chicago political machine, which is tough to emerge from without some sort of unsavory dealings-with.
Excuse me while I yawn, and then look slightly disgusted.
I will bet you the Brooklyn Bridge that if this was a white guy named Barry O'Bannon, you'd hardly hear a peep out of the media, and possibly even the Internet as a whole. Maybe one of his buddies would write a blog entry with some photos of a Super Bowl party one of them had with Barry in it, but that's about all the media exposure he would get.
Throw black-ness into the equation, and you've got what we have now - a cult of personality, attracting the brainless, the superficial, and the easily-amused.
"He's black! And he's speaking about hope and change! Honey, come in here and watch this eloquent fellow with a totally inclusive and multi-cultural background talk down to some white people who own guns!"
Suddenly, people forget what a crappy politician he's been and just focus on the smoke and mirrors. He's black, so that must mean he's different. Sorry, folks. The Democratic Party don't work like that. They are all on the same channel: giving up in Iraq, taking away the ability of ordinary people to protect themselves and the Constitution all while claiming to be "rescuing" it from the clutches of the EEEEEEVIL REPUBLICANS AND THE NEO-CON ZIONISTS, stealing the money you worked hard to earn and giving it to people who don't necessarily work hard (after using a sizeable chunk of it for "administrative costs" and other things that involve overpaying the lazy and inept bureaucracy), and then blaming it all on someone else when the country goes to hell.
By playing the race card, the Democratic party can essentially excuse anything - by combining the creative use of language and people who have high-level degrees in bullshit post-Marxist fields: implement wasteful and economically-debilitating social welfare programs, create a class of victims through repetition of "you're a victim, and we're here to help", and then blame it on "latent racism in the American psyche" when it backfires and ends up giving the black community a larger teat to suckle, making it more dependent on other people and requiring ever-increasing amounts of budget allocation to keep the masses fat and happy with their government cheese. They don't care what the actual result is. Good intentions are all that matters. As long as their constituents (important) and they themselves (MOST important) feel good, they can go to sleep on a clean conscience.
In conclusion, those who live in the Ivory Tower of Leftist Thought that stretches into the heavens are not really in a proper position to dictate to the common people what they should and should not do. A fall from that height is sure to cause some brain damage, if the altitude sickness hasn't gotten to them already.
Anyway, it's just weird. He has vision problems, as I had to set everything (fonts, icons, Start Menu) to extra-large sizes when I did the preliminary set-up for his computer. He later returned the machine, sending our laptop sales figures plummeting. Figures, huh? All that hard work and time I spent trying to sell him the damn thing with all the attachments and extended coverage (which really ARE worth it, by the way), all for naught.
My ammo came by post yesterday. I was very excited. It took me some time to figure out how the can opener works for each of the two spam cans, but I got one open. I can't wait to go waste some targets with Hungarian heavy ball. Plus, I can store cool stuff in the cans and the wooden crate when they're empty. By Loki's forked tongue, that crate was heavy! I feel sorry for whomever had to carry that up our stairs.
Okay, onto a truly creepy customer. What this guy was looking for has been lost in the fog of time, but what he said to me at the checkout was, frankly, disturbing. It went a little something like this:
Him: [in a soft, soothing voice, like he's an announcer for those corny smooth jazz radio stations] It seems like you're a pretty smart guy; you have a lot of spiritual, emotional, and mental strength, so I'm going to leave you with three words.
Me: Uh, thanks?
Him: The three words are "Oh", "Bah", "Mah" [as in 'Barack Obama']. I can't understand why people wouldn't vote for him. It's as if they're retarded or something. Will you vote for Obama?
Me: Um, I don't discuss politics with strangers.
Him: Well, do the right thing in November.
At this point I'm just about
and ready to reach over the counter, grab him by the collar and lecture this snobbish assclown about how taxing corporations is what pushes them to move overseas, how banning firearms doesn't actually decrease crime rates no matter how many Million Mom Waddles that Rosie O'Donnell hosts, or how not voting for a black man is nowhere near as racist than calling someone like Thomas Sowell a "sell-out" for not supporting reparations and generally not buying into the whole blacks-as-victims school of thought.
The guy was talking about Obama like he was the bloody Second Coming of Christ or something. That's the big thing that's pissing me off so much about the Obama campaign - he's some empty suit being lauded and worshipped like a demigod for the sole reason that he's BLACK.
Here we have a community organizer who lectured a few times in a Constitutional Law class, with a paltry four more years of Senate experience than your faithful narrator, who has more than a few connections to people who support racial separatism, hostile religious supremacism, or domestic terrorism. He's been involved in the Chicago political machine, which is tough to emerge from without some sort of unsavory dealings-with.
Excuse me while I yawn, and then look slightly disgusted.
I will bet you the Brooklyn Bridge that if this was a white guy named Barry O'Bannon, you'd hardly hear a peep out of the media, and possibly even the Internet as a whole. Maybe one of his buddies would write a blog entry with some photos of a Super Bowl party one of them had with Barry in it, but that's about all the media exposure he would get.
Throw black-ness into the equation, and you've got what we have now - a cult of personality, attracting the brainless, the superficial, and the easily-amused.
"He's black! And he's speaking about hope and change! Honey, come in here and watch this eloquent fellow with a totally inclusive and multi-cultural background talk down to some white people who own guns!"
Suddenly, people forget what a crappy politician he's been and just focus on the smoke and mirrors. He's black, so that must mean he's different. Sorry, folks. The Democratic Party don't work like that. They are all on the same channel: giving up in Iraq, taking away the ability of ordinary people to protect themselves and the Constitution all while claiming to be "rescuing" it from the clutches of the EEEEEEVIL REPUBLICANS AND THE NEO-CON ZIONISTS, stealing the money you worked hard to earn and giving it to people who don't necessarily work hard (after using a sizeable chunk of it for "administrative costs" and other things that involve overpaying the lazy and inept bureaucracy), and then blaming it all on someone else when the country goes to hell.
By playing the race card, the Democratic party can essentially excuse anything - by combining the creative use of language and people who have high-level degrees in bullshit post-Marxist fields: implement wasteful and economically-debilitating social welfare programs, create a class of victims through repetition of "you're a victim, and we're here to help", and then blame it on "latent racism in the American psyche" when it backfires and ends up giving the black community a larger teat to suckle, making it more dependent on other people and requiring ever-increasing amounts of budget allocation to keep the masses fat and happy with their government cheese. They don't care what the actual result is. Good intentions are all that matters. As long as their constituents (important) and they themselves (MOST important) feel good, they can go to sleep on a clean conscience.
In conclusion, those who live in the Ivory Tower of Leftist Thought that stretches into the heavens are not really in a proper position to dictate to the common people what they should and should not do. A fall from that height is sure to cause some brain damage, if the altitude sickness hasn't gotten to them already.
22.8.08
That was easy.
Should I add a trademark after that? After all, it's the slogan of the company I work for.
Four guys from my store got fired in the space of a week, so we're out a manager, two guys from my department, and a manager-in-training. Now it looks like I'm going to be the new in-store PC technician. I never thought I'd say this, but I actually like what I do now - at least more than what I used to do.
At first, I figured it was just going to be nothing but trying in vain to fix the computers of the elderly and other people who don't know what the hell they're doing. I find my work to be actually quite rewarding, at least when I can get things fixed. Usually it's been doing the ol' System Restore, which just involves pushing a few buttons and getting everything back to normal. Unfortunately, not everyone has a recovery partition or restore discs.
The only thing that pisses me off is the added expectation that I'm going to still be on the sales floor as well as ringing up customers in addition to the tech workload. As of now, we only have three official electronics associates, including me. I also do not think highly of the lack of equipment that I am given. The computer I have at my station doesn't even let me have admin privileges, which I sometimes need to install certain things. I don't have a functional external enclosure for 3.5" and 2.5" hard drives, I have to open video cards that we have on the shelf just so I can use them to troubleshoot display errors, and I have to share a space with everyone who has to use the printer, register, and order kiosk at the customer service desk.
At least I'm doing okay in my present circumstances.
Four guys from my store got fired in the space of a week, so we're out a manager, two guys from my department, and a manager-in-training. Now it looks like I'm going to be the new in-store PC technician. I never thought I'd say this, but I actually like what I do now - at least more than what I used to do.
At first, I figured it was just going to be nothing but trying in vain to fix the computers of the elderly and other people who don't know what the hell they're doing. I find my work to be actually quite rewarding, at least when I can get things fixed. Usually it's been doing the ol' System Restore, which just involves pushing a few buttons and getting everything back to normal. Unfortunately, not everyone has a recovery partition or restore discs.
The only thing that pisses me off is the added expectation that I'm going to still be on the sales floor as well as ringing up customers in addition to the tech workload. As of now, we only have three official electronics associates, including me. I also do not think highly of the lack of equipment that I am given. The computer I have at my station doesn't even let me have admin privileges, which I sometimes need to install certain things. I don't have a functional external enclosure for 3.5" and 2.5" hard drives, I have to open video cards that we have on the shelf just so I can use them to troubleshoot display errors, and I have to share a space with everyone who has to use the printer, register, and order kiosk at the customer service desk.
At least I'm doing okay in my present circumstances.
30.7.08
"I completely agree."
If you want to know what the average student at UC Santa Cruz is thinking, it's exactly that. The so-called 'critical mind' is not the least bit critical. Perhaps critical of the "establishment", but as far as the student-professor relation is concerned, they are preaching to the choir. As John J. Ray states, "The naive scholar who searches for a consistent Leftist program will not find it. What there is consists only in the negation of the present."
It's almost as if I am back in community college, where the professor continues with her lecture in front of a silent class - half of them drank too much the previous night, didn't get enough sleep, or are busy thinking about other things. The other half are bored out of their minds.
Here, it's different. The students are not silent because they are bored. They are silent because they have no objection to what the professor is saying.
The university system and all of academia have this unhealthy fixation with diversity. What does it really mean? Sure, you can paint each robot in your robot army all different colors. You can change their shapes and sizes, but fundamentally they are all still robots. Academia loves to speak their volumes about how having lots of people who look different make higher education better, even if all those people are more or less ideologically homogeneous. If we're all thinking and doing the same things, does it really matter how we look?
Today the instructor (feminist studies graduate student, mind you) put on a DVD of a Noam Chomsky lecture, complete with a packed lecture hall of wide-eyed and attentive college students ready to greedily lap up everything that St. Noam speaks without hesitation or question.
The theme of the lecture was that the world's terrorists are the US and Israel. No mention of the centuries of terror and slaughter that Jews and Christians have faced as a result of their dhimmitude in the Middle East. No mention of the massive bombing campaigns carried out by Hezbollah against anyone associated with the US or Israel. No, the world's worst terrorists are the US and Israel, which have only become world and regional superpowers, respectively, in the last 30 years. Chomsky has a very limited view of history, and refuses to acknowledge his double standards.
His "thesis #1" was that we are all hypocrites in regard to our views on terrorism. Well, if that's true Mr. Chomsky, where do you fit into the subject of "we all"? Are you a hypocrite as well, or are you conveniently shielded from criticism because you're the one lecturing? Are you so focused on the speck in the eyes of others that you can't or won't see the log embedded in your own short-sighted vision of global politics?
Chomsky may be aware that is was CIA-backed Lebanese that detonated the car bomb that killed 80 worshippers as they left a Beiruit mosque instead of Sayyed Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah, an ex-leader of Hezbollah, yet frames the claim that the attempt was directly done by the CIA and in the context of total Lebanese innocence and not retaliation for attacks by Hezbollah.
Chomsky rationalizes, excuses, and downplays terrorism that is not committed by the US or Israel. It seems that one finds it easier to point the fingers at large things than at small things, no matter how minor or grievous the acts in question are. He is opposed to US "hegemony", yet sees no problem with UN hegemony. To Chomsky, the UN can do no wrong. He is still highly critical of US action in the former Yugoslavia, yet finds little to say about the same UN that essentially allowed the Srebrenica massacre (of Muslims, no doubt!) to occur under Dutch auspices.
Chomsky is the type who slams the US on its foreign policy in Iraq, but would join the legions of drones in condemning the US for not doing anything to free Iraq from the murderous Baathists had the US instead gone the diplomatic route, just as we are with the genocide in Darfur. US refusal to intervene in Iraq would probably have prompted hemp-wearing Community Studies majors across the US to add a "Free Iraq" bumper sticker to the back of the Prius their parents bought (so they could look hip and environmentally responsible, all while allowing Toyota to use massive amounts of toxins and heavy metals in the manufacture of the batteries) for them, alongside the Obama '08 and "Free Darfur" "Free Burma" and "Free Tibet" stickers.
That's what the aggregation of international law, "condemnation", and UN Resolutions have culminated in: bumper stickers. That's the only thing they have to show. It's a big boost for capitalism. I mean, who wouldn't delight in making the adage "a fool and his money are soon parted" a reality?
Chomsky's beloved international law and the UN are somehow institutions to be respected, yet no other nation or coalition of nations have ever been able to put pressure on the US or Israel. Condemnation and scorn are the only tools the UN has at its disposal, as if the multiple failed resolutions commanding Saddam Hussein to allow weapons inspectors free reign of all Iraqi facilities weren't enough evidence to showcase the toothlessness of the UN.
If Chomsky is so concerned about double standards, berates others for having them, and then refuses to acknowledge his own, why have standards in the first place? Leftism rejects all objectivity, and standards would imply some form of objectivity. If he is so concerned about US hegemony, wouldn't it have a better net result for the European Union, the African Union, the Arab League, and the Asian states to bring the US down on its knees either through economic or military force? Chomsky is opposed to violence, but that all depends on who is carrying out the violence and how well Chomsky is prepared to rationalize it.
Chomsky has been quick to declare that Israeli and US leadership should be detained, charged with war crimes, and then sentenced, but Keith Windschuttle says in a New Criterion article:
"No matter how great the crimes of the regimes he has favored, such as China, Vietnam, and Cambodia under the communists, Chomsky has never demanded their leaders be captured and tried for war crimes. Instead, he has defended these regimes for many years to the best of his ability through the use of evidence he must have realized was selective, deceptive, and in some cases invented."
He has downplayed the horrific acts of Slobodan Milosevič's regime, citing Western "aggression" as a catalyst for the subsequent attempts at ethnic cleansing. Chomsky is not averse to making up information that suits his views, no matter how fiercely he criticizes others for the same behaviour. His statements that the US attack on the al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory caused "tens of thousands of deaths" was strongly refuted by Human Rights Watch - who never made an official investigation to determine the number of dead as a direct result of the attack. Here, Chomsky is practically pulling figures out of thin air. The Tomahawk missile strike disrupted food distribution, not to mention the hostility against US aid groups working in the Sudan, so the "tens of thousands of deaths" still would have occured due to the Sudan's internal condition of civil war and famine.
Chomsky frequently uses the word "obvious" in describing unverified and uncited statements about events that he makes. Anyone who criticizes his description of those events would be identified as someone who cannot see the obvious; someone who is ignorant - that old word that the Left loves to throw at anyone they disagree with. Who's going to take you seriously if you're IGNORANT? It's just another way of shutting down criticism and establishing Chomsky-ites and other members of the Left as the omniscient ones. He uses the phrase "too obvious to talk about" as if to say "this is not open to discussion", yet such an assumption is in direct violation of his first thesis of "we are all hypocrites". I found, and continue to find to this present moment, his glaring hypocrisy and narcissism to be absolutely sickening.
Here is a man who is fabulously wealthy - in a First World nation, not an authoritarian Third World country like the ones he so zealously defends without little regard to their own behavior - who decries tax shelters and concentration of wealth, yet the Hoover Institute clearly shows that Chomsky himself has made use of trusts to guard his ill-gotten wealth (what else can you call a massive sum of money made in a capitalist nation by a mainstream critic of capitalism?). When confronted about his tax shelter, Chomsky rationalized his hypocrisy by stating that he is setting aside the money for his children and grandchildren, which I'm pretty sure those other rich people are doing, too. He went on to shift the attention away from himself in saying that he and his family shouldn't be criticized because they are "trying to help suffering people".
Does he think about the environmental destruction that comes as a result from the trees cut down to make the paper for his books? Does he even care? Like so many other authors and celebrities on the Left, it's not likely they really care as long as they can get their point across. It's a "necessary sacrifice" or "using the system against itself", much like Al Gore's 221,000 kWh-using mansion/office along with the private jets that he takes to and from colleges when giving commencement speeches.
Speaking of taxes and the "rich", the IRS data still adamantly refuses to corroborate the claims of the wealth redistributionists. New data points to the fact that while the top 1% of income earners receive 22% of all income, they end up paying 40% of income taxes. If that isn't enough, the entire top 50% pay 97% of all income taxes. Who's really isn't paying their "fair share"? The poor use the most social services, yet most of them are receiving aid that they did not and will not pay for.
On top of that, the US has a higher corporate tax rate than the "sustainable and progressive" EU! It's easy to stop businesses from moving jobs overseas: we lower the cost of doing business. The purpose of a business is to supply a product and to offer an attractive target for investors. Businesses should have no allegiance to a government, and they should be able to do business with whomever they want, at least within legal boundaries. Stop taxing profitability and the efficient use of resources at present levels, and we can at least slow down the rate of outsourcing. Just as labor will look for the best possible wages and operating conditions, business will do the same.
What is Chomsky's complaint with the wealthy, who would still be financing the overwhelming bulk (and even more so than now!) of an expanded welfare state under an Obama administration? Wouldn't this be his dream come true - the evil and exploitive capitalists getting their just desserts at the hands of a black socialist? Chomsky is in favor of the estate tax and income redistribution, but only on the condition that it's not his own estate or his own income. After all, he has to support his family and "suffering people", so making an exception for him is completely legitimate.
The sad reality that the rest of my class took Chomsky's words at face value and without objection points to a greater problem - the refusal to criticize their own views and the "revolutionary" views that are presented to them by instructors who are presenting it as the Gospel truth, and nothing less. Just as David Horowitz said, there are plenty of feminists who have written critiques on their own movements, yet the bulk of Feminist Studies (or Womens' Studies, as it's called at most universities) majors will only read texts extolling the virtues of feminism and doing nothing but tearing down any legitimacy of masculinity. Like Chomsky implies, it should just be "obvious". To go against the "revolutionary" doctrine is to admit that one is uneducated, ignorant, racist/sexist/classist/ageist/homophobic/Islamophobic/et cetera, ad infinitum, ad nauseam.
The Left pushes the doctrine of self-criticism and self-reflection, on the condition that they are exempt from the same activities.
It's almost as if I am back in community college, where the professor continues with her lecture in front of a silent class - half of them drank too much the previous night, didn't get enough sleep, or are busy thinking about other things. The other half are bored out of their minds.
Here, it's different. The students are not silent because they are bored. They are silent because they have no objection to what the professor is saying.
The university system and all of academia have this unhealthy fixation with diversity. What does it really mean? Sure, you can paint each robot in your robot army all different colors. You can change their shapes and sizes, but fundamentally they are all still robots. Academia loves to speak their volumes about how having lots of people who look different make higher education better, even if all those people are more or less ideologically homogeneous. If we're all thinking and doing the same things, does it really matter how we look?
Today the instructor (feminist studies graduate student, mind you) put on a DVD of a Noam Chomsky lecture, complete with a packed lecture hall of wide-eyed and attentive college students ready to greedily lap up everything that St. Noam speaks without hesitation or question.
The theme of the lecture was that the world's terrorists are the US and Israel. No mention of the centuries of terror and slaughter that Jews and Christians have faced as a result of their dhimmitude in the Middle East. No mention of the massive bombing campaigns carried out by Hezbollah against anyone associated with the US or Israel. No, the world's worst terrorists are the US and Israel, which have only become world and regional superpowers, respectively, in the last 30 years. Chomsky has a very limited view of history, and refuses to acknowledge his double standards.
His "thesis #1" was that we are all hypocrites in regard to our views on terrorism. Well, if that's true Mr. Chomsky, where do you fit into the subject of "we all"? Are you a hypocrite as well, or are you conveniently shielded from criticism because you're the one lecturing? Are you so focused on the speck in the eyes of others that you can't or won't see the log embedded in your own short-sighted vision of global politics?
Chomsky may be aware that is was CIA-backed Lebanese that detonated the car bomb that killed 80 worshippers as they left a Beiruit mosque instead of Sayyed Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah, an ex-leader of Hezbollah, yet frames the claim that the attempt was directly done by the CIA and in the context of total Lebanese innocence and not retaliation for attacks by Hezbollah.
Chomsky rationalizes, excuses, and downplays terrorism that is not committed by the US or Israel. It seems that one finds it easier to point the fingers at large things than at small things, no matter how minor or grievous the acts in question are. He is opposed to US "hegemony", yet sees no problem with UN hegemony. To Chomsky, the UN can do no wrong. He is still highly critical of US action in the former Yugoslavia, yet finds little to say about the same UN that essentially allowed the Srebrenica massacre (of Muslims, no doubt!) to occur under Dutch auspices.
Chomsky is the type who slams the US on its foreign policy in Iraq, but would join the legions of drones in condemning the US for not doing anything to free Iraq from the murderous Baathists had the US instead gone the diplomatic route, just as we are with the genocide in Darfur. US refusal to intervene in Iraq would probably have prompted hemp-wearing Community Studies majors across the US to add a "Free Iraq" bumper sticker to the back of the Prius their parents bought (so they could look hip and environmentally responsible, all while allowing Toyota to use massive amounts of toxins and heavy metals in the manufacture of the batteries) for them, alongside the Obama '08 and "Free Darfur" "Free Burma" and "Free Tibet" stickers.
That's what the aggregation of international law, "condemnation", and UN Resolutions have culminated in: bumper stickers. That's the only thing they have to show. It's a big boost for capitalism. I mean, who wouldn't delight in making the adage "a fool and his money are soon parted" a reality?
Chomsky's beloved international law and the UN are somehow institutions to be respected, yet no other nation or coalition of nations have ever been able to put pressure on the US or Israel. Condemnation and scorn are the only tools the UN has at its disposal, as if the multiple failed resolutions commanding Saddam Hussein to allow weapons inspectors free reign of all Iraqi facilities weren't enough evidence to showcase the toothlessness of the UN.
If Chomsky is so concerned about double standards, berates others for having them, and then refuses to acknowledge his own, why have standards in the first place? Leftism rejects all objectivity, and standards would imply some form of objectivity. If he is so concerned about US hegemony, wouldn't it have a better net result for the European Union, the African Union, the Arab League, and the Asian states to bring the US down on its knees either through economic or military force? Chomsky is opposed to violence, but that all depends on who is carrying out the violence and how well Chomsky is prepared to rationalize it.
Chomsky has been quick to declare that Israeli and US leadership should be detained, charged with war crimes, and then sentenced, but Keith Windschuttle says in a New Criterion article:
"No matter how great the crimes of the regimes he has favored, such as China, Vietnam, and Cambodia under the communists, Chomsky has never demanded their leaders be captured and tried for war crimes. Instead, he has defended these regimes for many years to the best of his ability through the use of evidence he must have realized was selective, deceptive, and in some cases invented."
He has downplayed the horrific acts of Slobodan Milosevič's regime, citing Western "aggression" as a catalyst for the subsequent attempts at ethnic cleansing. Chomsky is not averse to making up information that suits his views, no matter how fiercely he criticizes others for the same behaviour. His statements that the US attack on the al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory caused "tens of thousands of deaths" was strongly refuted by Human Rights Watch - who never made an official investigation to determine the number of dead as a direct result of the attack. Here, Chomsky is practically pulling figures out of thin air. The Tomahawk missile strike disrupted food distribution, not to mention the hostility against US aid groups working in the Sudan, so the "tens of thousands of deaths" still would have occured due to the Sudan's internal condition of civil war and famine.
Chomsky frequently uses the word "obvious" in describing unverified and uncited statements about events that he makes. Anyone who criticizes his description of those events would be identified as someone who cannot see the obvious; someone who is ignorant - that old word that the Left loves to throw at anyone they disagree with. Who's going to take you seriously if you're IGNORANT? It's just another way of shutting down criticism and establishing Chomsky-ites and other members of the Left as the omniscient ones. He uses the phrase "too obvious to talk about" as if to say "this is not open to discussion", yet such an assumption is in direct violation of his first thesis of "we are all hypocrites". I found, and continue to find to this present moment, his glaring hypocrisy and narcissism to be absolutely sickening.
Here is a man who is fabulously wealthy - in a First World nation, not an authoritarian Third World country like the ones he so zealously defends without little regard to their own behavior - who decries tax shelters and concentration of wealth, yet the Hoover Institute clearly shows that Chomsky himself has made use of trusts to guard his ill-gotten wealth (what else can you call a massive sum of money made in a capitalist nation by a mainstream critic of capitalism?). When confronted about his tax shelter, Chomsky rationalized his hypocrisy by stating that he is setting aside the money for his children and grandchildren, which I'm pretty sure those other rich people are doing, too. He went on to shift the attention away from himself in saying that he and his family shouldn't be criticized because they are "trying to help suffering people".
Does he think about the environmental destruction that comes as a result from the trees cut down to make the paper for his books? Does he even care? Like so many other authors and celebrities on the Left, it's not likely they really care as long as they can get their point across. It's a "necessary sacrifice" or "using the system against itself", much like Al Gore's 221,000 kWh-using mansion/office along with the private jets that he takes to and from colleges when giving commencement speeches.
Speaking of taxes and the "rich", the IRS data still adamantly refuses to corroborate the claims of the wealth redistributionists. New data points to the fact that while the top 1% of income earners receive 22% of all income, they end up paying 40% of income taxes. If that isn't enough, the entire top 50% pay 97% of all income taxes. Who's really isn't paying their "fair share"? The poor use the most social services, yet most of them are receiving aid that they did not and will not pay for.
On top of that, the US has a higher corporate tax rate than the "sustainable and progressive" EU! It's easy to stop businesses from moving jobs overseas: we lower the cost of doing business. The purpose of a business is to supply a product and to offer an attractive target for investors. Businesses should have no allegiance to a government, and they should be able to do business with whomever they want, at least within legal boundaries. Stop taxing profitability and the efficient use of resources at present levels, and we can at least slow down the rate of outsourcing. Just as labor will look for the best possible wages and operating conditions, business will do the same.
What is Chomsky's complaint with the wealthy, who would still be financing the overwhelming bulk (and even more so than now!) of an expanded welfare state under an Obama administration? Wouldn't this be his dream come true - the evil and exploitive capitalists getting their just desserts at the hands of a black socialist? Chomsky is in favor of the estate tax and income redistribution, but only on the condition that it's not his own estate or his own income. After all, he has to support his family and "suffering people", so making an exception for him is completely legitimate.
The sad reality that the rest of my class took Chomsky's words at face value and without objection points to a greater problem - the refusal to criticize their own views and the "revolutionary" views that are presented to them by instructors who are presenting it as the Gospel truth, and nothing less. Just as David Horowitz said, there are plenty of feminists who have written critiques on their own movements, yet the bulk of Feminist Studies (or Womens' Studies, as it's called at most universities) majors will only read texts extolling the virtues of feminism and doing nothing but tearing down any legitimacy of masculinity. Like Chomsky implies, it should just be "obvious". To go against the "revolutionary" doctrine is to admit that one is uneducated, ignorant, racist/sexist/classist/ageist/homophobic/Islamophobic/et cetera, ad infinitum, ad nauseam.
The Left pushes the doctrine of self-criticism and self-reflection, on the condition that they are exempt from the same activities.
14.7.08
The Oxymoronic Nature of Libertarian Socialism
Libertarianism is defined as the freedom "to do as you choose with your own life and property, as long as you don't harm the person and property of others." - libertarianism.com
The Cato Institute defines the three core principles of Libertarian thought:
Individualism: "Only individuals make choices and are responsible for their actions. Libertarian thought emphasizes the dignity of each individual, which entails both rights and responsibility."
Individual Rights: "Because individuals are moral agents, they have a right to be secure in their life, liberty, and property."
Spontaneous Order: "The great insight of libertarian social analysis is that order in society arises spontaneously, out of the actions of thousands or millions of individuals who coordinate their actions with those of others in order to achieve their purposes."
This is in direct opposition to socialism: the eventual abolition of private property, income redistribution, and emphasis on the collective good.
"Socialists complain that capitalism necessarily leads to unfair and exploitative concentrations of wealth and power in the hands of the relative few who emerge victorious from free-market competition—people who then use their wealth and power to reinforce their dominance in society. Because such people are rich, they may choose where and how to live, and their choices in turn limit the options of the poor." - Encyclopedia Britannica
Socialism also entails arbitrarily defining what is "fair", how much wealth is "too much", who is "poor", and why the "poor" "deserve" the now-shared wealth of the "rich".
Private property and individual ownership is a cornerstone of Libertarian philosophy, which socialism seeks to destroy. The abolition of individual ownership is a way of denying individuals their "right" to life, liberty, and property. The Objectivist strain of Libertarians (which I somewhat identify with) see the institutions of State and Law as guarantors of such privileges, and not as a burden to them.
Socialism also places restrictions on how productive one may be, with whom one contracts for business decisions, and the amount of wealth one may have. Socialism rejects the concept of individualism, assuming that decisions affecting the collective are automatically and equally beneficial to all individuals.
Libertarian Socialism:
"Libertarian Socialism is a term essentially synonymous with the word "Anarchism". Anarchy, strictly meaning "without rulers", leads one to wonder what sort of system would exist in place of one without state or capitalist masters... the answer being a radically democratic society while preserving the maximal amount of individual liberty and freedom possible."
"Libertarian Socialism recognizes that the concept of "property" (specifically, the means of production, factories, land used for profit, rented space) is theft and that in a truly libertarian society, the individual would be free of exploitation caused by the concentration of all means of wealth-making into the hands of an elite minority of capitalists." - flag.blackened.net
Does it not strike you as odd that the abolition of private property and "egalitarianism" must be enforced by a central authority? The concept that "everything belongs to everyone" is utter tripe. "You can't have this, it belongs to everyone" is a denial of my individual right to utilize property for beneficial purposes. Who is going to define how activities benefit only oneself or society? How does libertarian socialism plan to eliminate the "gap between rich and poor"? It will have to be done through laws (implying more state power) or through violence, two things that libertarian socialism rejects.
And what happens after the redistribution? I am better at a lot of things than other people, so it is likely that I would be more successful than many other people if we all started from the same place. Bill Gates never completed college, yet he has made more of an impact on the world as we know it than 99% of all college graduates. Ability is what divides people, not class, race, or gender. In most cases, people are where they are because of skill, not because of some conspiracy that seeks to keep a perpetual massive lower class. In a constitutional republican society, such a thing is political suicide. I want people to be successful, but tearing down society and remaking it in the image and likeness of messianic egalitarian egoists is not the way to do it. People should be successful in their endeavors because they are proficient, not because it gets handed to them because they are better at making a fuss about "inequality" more than others.
Have you ever watched the 100-meter dash at the Olympics? Everyone starts from the same place, but inevitably someone wins. That means the winner was a better runner, and thus more deserving of praise than the others. Should those who come in last place be equally praised? Noam Chomsky acknowledges the imbalance of ability, but rationalizes rewarding the less-able by stating those who cannot proficiently perform tasks are valuable just because they can "appreciate" the work of others. Huh, I'd like to get paid for complimenting others' achievements. Noam Chomsky also sells millions of books, gives speeches and presentations, and has a cushy university job, so I don't think he has any right or even the proper perspective to complain about what is "unfair" or what worth certain things in society have. I highly doubt a white male who has lived in the utopia of New England academia for most of his life knows anything about working, failure, or difficulty. He is a linguist who has become a saint among the left for his political ideas - though I'm not quite sure how a linguist can have more credibility than a political scientist or an economist in discussing political or economic matters.
Libertarian socialism desires egalitarianism, collective responsibility, and "non-coercive" institutions, but it will have to coerce people like me through either law or raw force in order to enter a world not unlike that which Harrison Bergeron lived in. It must first suspend individual liberty and the ability of self-determination in order to erect the framework. Libertarian socialism claims to uphold self-determination, but it only does so in a more limited scope that is both arbitrarily imposed and must come about from statist institutions.
The Cato Institute defines the three core principles of Libertarian thought:
Individualism: "Only individuals make choices and are responsible for their actions. Libertarian thought emphasizes the dignity of each individual, which entails both rights and responsibility."
Individual Rights: "Because individuals are moral agents, they have a right to be secure in their life, liberty, and property."
Spontaneous Order: "The great insight of libertarian social analysis is that order in society arises spontaneously, out of the actions of thousands or millions of individuals who coordinate their actions with those of others in order to achieve their purposes."
This is in direct opposition to socialism: the eventual abolition of private property, income redistribution, and emphasis on the collective good.
"Socialists complain that capitalism necessarily leads to unfair and exploitative concentrations of wealth and power in the hands of the relative few who emerge victorious from free-market competition—people who then use their wealth and power to reinforce their dominance in society. Because such people are rich, they may choose where and how to live, and their choices in turn limit the options of the poor." - Encyclopedia Britannica
Socialism also entails arbitrarily defining what is "fair", how much wealth is "too much", who is "poor", and why the "poor" "deserve" the now-shared wealth of the "rich".
Private property and individual ownership is a cornerstone of Libertarian philosophy, which socialism seeks to destroy. The abolition of individual ownership is a way of denying individuals their "right" to life, liberty, and property. The Objectivist strain of Libertarians (which I somewhat identify with) see the institutions of State and Law as guarantors of such privileges, and not as a burden to them.
Socialism also places restrictions on how productive one may be, with whom one contracts for business decisions, and the amount of wealth one may have. Socialism rejects the concept of individualism, assuming that decisions affecting the collective are automatically and equally beneficial to all individuals.
Libertarian Socialism:
"Libertarian Socialism is a term essentially synonymous with the word "Anarchism". Anarchy, strictly meaning "without rulers", leads one to wonder what sort of system would exist in place of one without state or capitalist masters... the answer being a radically democratic society while preserving the maximal amount of individual liberty and freedom possible."
"Libertarian Socialism recognizes that the concept of "property" (specifically, the means of production, factories, land used for profit, rented space) is theft and that in a truly libertarian society, the individual would be free of exploitation caused by the concentration of all means of wealth-making into the hands of an elite minority of capitalists." - flag.blackened.net
Does it not strike you as odd that the abolition of private property and "egalitarianism" must be enforced by a central authority? The concept that "everything belongs to everyone" is utter tripe. "You can't have this, it belongs to everyone" is a denial of my individual right to utilize property for beneficial purposes. Who is going to define how activities benefit only oneself or society? How does libertarian socialism plan to eliminate the "gap between rich and poor"? It will have to be done through laws (implying more state power) or through violence, two things that libertarian socialism rejects.
And what happens after the redistribution? I am better at a lot of things than other people, so it is likely that I would be more successful than many other people if we all started from the same place. Bill Gates never completed college, yet he has made more of an impact on the world as we know it than 99% of all college graduates. Ability is what divides people, not class, race, or gender. In most cases, people are where they are because of skill, not because of some conspiracy that seeks to keep a perpetual massive lower class. In a constitutional republican society, such a thing is political suicide. I want people to be successful, but tearing down society and remaking it in the image and likeness of messianic egalitarian egoists is not the way to do it. People should be successful in their endeavors because they are proficient, not because it gets handed to them because they are better at making a fuss about "inequality" more than others.
Have you ever watched the 100-meter dash at the Olympics? Everyone starts from the same place, but inevitably someone wins. That means the winner was a better runner, and thus more deserving of praise than the others. Should those who come in last place be equally praised? Noam Chomsky acknowledges the imbalance of ability, but rationalizes rewarding the less-able by stating those who cannot proficiently perform tasks are valuable just because they can "appreciate" the work of others. Huh, I'd like to get paid for complimenting others' achievements. Noam Chomsky also sells millions of books, gives speeches and presentations, and has a cushy university job, so I don't think he has any right or even the proper perspective to complain about what is "unfair" or what worth certain things in society have. I highly doubt a white male who has lived in the utopia of New England academia for most of his life knows anything about working, failure, or difficulty. He is a linguist who has become a saint among the left for his political ideas - though I'm not quite sure how a linguist can have more credibility than a political scientist or an economist in discussing political or economic matters.
Libertarian socialism desires egalitarianism, collective responsibility, and "non-coercive" institutions, but it will have to coerce people like me through either law or raw force in order to enter a world not unlike that which Harrison Bergeron lived in. It must first suspend individual liberty and the ability of self-determination in order to erect the framework. Libertarian socialism claims to uphold self-determination, but it only does so in a more limited scope that is both arbitrarily imposed and must come about from statist institutions.
25.6.08
Hail to the Hammer!
I stand poised on the edge, awaiting my return home.
It's going to be deathly hot where I'm going. I don't know how I'll survive. It's been almost a year since I left everything behind to come here where I am. I don't want to spend the 3 weeks moping about the house. Will people still want to spend time with me? Who knows.
At least I have the new TYR CD. 'Land' is fantastic. Maybe I'll try to order some Faroese learning materials.
It's going to be deathly hot where I'm going. I don't know how I'll survive. It's been almost a year since I left everything behind to come here where I am. I don't want to spend the 3 weeks moping about the house. Will people still want to spend time with me? Who knows.
At least I have the new TYR CD. 'Land' is fantastic. Maybe I'll try to order some Faroese learning materials.
23.6.08
Barack Obama vs. The 2nd Amendment
You don't need to be a politics major to understand that just about all politicians are out of touch with their constituencies, or even reality itself, in one way or another.
For all the messianic hubbub surrounding Barack Obama, his stance on the right of law-abiding US citizens to keep and bear arms demonstrates just such an instance of his lack of foundation in reality.
Sen. Obama has spent a great deal of time doing political work in the state of Illinois. Illinois is home to Chicago, one of the most violent cities in the US. Paradoxically so, it "boasts" heavy restrictions on firearms ownership relative to most other states. If Sen. Obama is elected this November, he will make the District of Columbia his new home. Like Chicago, Washington, D.C. experiences a violent crime rate that is significantly higher than average despite severe firearms control policies. In fact, many states and cities in the US with high rates of violent crime have heavy firearms restrictions, often imposed state-wide (Illinois, California, et al.). Senator Obama does not seem to understand that passing more laws only work against people who obey them in the first place.
Take our multifarious laws against murder - the people who break such laws generally do not spend weeks agonizing over their decision to commit murder. What, then, would stop a person with criminal intent from violating a firearms law? Restricting types of firearms only affects those who go through the legal channels. There are already laws on the books prohibiting convicted felons and those adjudicated to be mentally unfit from owning firearms. Sen. Obama acts like those laws do not already exist.
His stance, like so many other politicians and policymakers in his camp, is the following:
Law prohibits A --> A is still committed --> Pass more laws prohibiting A --> A is still committed --> repeat process until our legal system looks like a Manchester, UK river circa 1870
In essence, he is hinting at criminalizing the breaking of laws that already exist. It's not the law, stupid! It's the enforcement.
I now give you the following excerpt:
"(Cho) had a semiautomatic weapon with a clip that allowed him to take 19 shots in a row,” Obama said. “I don’t know any self-respecting hunter that needs 19 rounds of anything. The only reason you have 19 rounds is potentially to do physical harm to people. You don’t shoot 19 rounds at a deer. And if you do, you shouldn’t be hunting."
Sen. Obama, YOU may not know any "self-respecting" hunters (what, you can only be "self-respecting" if you use a breechloading or bolt-action rifle with a single-shot capacity?) but who are you to determine what people "need" and what they "don't need". That is moral busybodyism at its worst, not to mention a throwback to Clinton-era nanny-statism. Besides, he fails to note the primary purpose of the firearm in US society: self-defense, whether from our own government or from other citizens who wish to do us harm. I will be much better off with a 19-round magazine (NOT a clip) than the 6 shots that a revolver will allow me in a self-defense situation. In this case, I would certainly want to do as much physical harm to my attacker as I possibly can. As they say, it is better to be judged by twelve than to be carried by six.
"You don't shoot 19 rounds at a deer."
What about 1 round each at 19 deer? If I can bag an entire year's worth of venison for my familiy and everyone else on the block without having to change mags, that just means I'm acting with maximum efficiency. I might also practice with the same rifle at the shooting range, and a larger magazine means less reloading time. Nothing about my 19 round magazine in this context involves doing "physical harm to people".
Funny he brings up the Virginia Tech shootings, a school that already had a total ban on firearms possession by students.
Check out the statement by VT spokesman Larry Hincker, made three months prior to the rampage, in regard to the defeat of a bill that would have allowed university students in Virginia who had concealed-carry permits to utilize their right to self-defense on the campus:
http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/wb/xp-50658
Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was happy to hear the bill was defeated. "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."
The defeat of the bill only ensured that the students who were ordinarily able to carry a concealed handgun everywhere else in Virginia were disarmed and had to fend for themselves like everyone else and "wait for the cavalry to come charging over the hill" before it was too late.
Instead of pulling the 'police state' card and strip-searching every student at each entry point, perhaps Virginia would have been wise to let permitholders defend themselves and their classmates instead of forcing them to cower behind desks and pray they weren't going to die before police arrived. Instead, most of the victims were cleanly executed with shots to the head, signifying that Cho was not doing the ol' "spray and pray" - firing indiscriminately. He had the time to make clean kills. The Virginia legislature and the university faculty disarmed people who had already proven themselves to be law-abiding (look up the requirements for getting a concealed-carry permit if you don't want to take my word for it) outside of the campus and instead forced the student body to rely solely on the police. Their short-sightedness and disrespect for those who follow laws got 32 innocent people killed.
What if someone was able to fire back? Two people? Five people? If that had happened, 3 or 4 people might've died, maybe none at all. There wouldn't have been 32 families grieving, and trolls all across the Series Of Tubes We Know As The Internets wouldn't be posting about "beating Cho's high score".
It's only going to get worse with Sen. Obama as President. This is a man who does not believe that people who defend themselves with lethal force may rely on the legal nature of self-defense if they used said force in a zone that prohibits firearms (which could be your own home, depending on where you live). He has promoted the "one gun per month" policy, as if criminals operate on timetables or that they have never used anything but firearms to commit murder. People who pass the background checks should be able to buy as many firearms per month as they please. Firearms owners are not criminals, but the Democratic party has a bad habit of treating them as such. To people like Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Dianne Feinstein, gun owners are just "accidents waiting to happen". What is this, the Division of Precrime? Minority Report was an awesome movie, but it is at the same time a frighteningly real concept that has been playing out in various subtle shades for a long time.
This will all come under the guise of "reasonable restrictions". What does Mr. Ivory-Tower-Ivy-League-politician-who-has-never-fired-a-gun-in-his-life know about "reasonable restrictions"? Banning .50cal rifles because they could "potentially" shoot down an airliner, despite all evidence that claims otherwise? Banning civilian ownership of automatic weapons because they could be "potentially" used in a crime, never mind that there is only one recorded instance in the past decade of a murder being committed with such a weapon? They have no problem with "reasonable restrictions" as long as those restrictions don't affect the ability of their bodyguards to carry weapons against people who might try to attack the guarded in question.
I'm sorry, but the average American citizen cannot afford to hire a security guard or pay for an expensive alarm system. Most martial arts are only useful if your opponent is in the same weight class and gender as you are. The gun is the true equalizer: between man and woman, weak and strong, wheelchair-bound and ambulatory, old and young.
To tell a woman traveling on foot in a city at night that she should carry pepper spray (assuming her attacker is working alone), shout "HELP", hope someone notices, and then hope that someone calls the police is absolutely sexist. Shouting doesn't stop a rapist quite like putting some gaping holes in his chest cavity.
If legislators really want to go after guns, they'll start with ammunition. There is already a bill in the works in the CA legislature restricting ammunition sales to licensed in-state vendors. That's right - no online orders, and a perfect opportunity for a distribution and sales monopoly. I will be paying out the ass to put ammunition in my 65-year old rifle at approximately $1.05 PER ROUND of 7.62x54R, rather than the $80 I would spend for 880 rounds from an online vendor.
Sen. Obama also upholds the D.C. gun ban despite all evidence that the crime rate has done nothing but rise since the ban was implemented. He claims to believe in the individual's right of firearms ownership as per the 2nd Amendment, but by definition must also believe that D.C. is not included in the United States for some reason. As it gets closer to November, get prepared for the BS to be layered on in thicker layers. Fundamentally, Senator Obama supports disarming people who follow laws, even when it only results in those same people being preyed upon by those who didn't follow those laws, and then clamoring for more of the laws that will again be disobeyed.
Here is my message to each of you: during some point in your life, purchase a firearm and become proficient with it. Handgun, rifle, shotgun - it doesn't matter. Familiarize yourself to the noise and the recoil. Learn how they work. Learn the difference between "clip" and "magazine", "fully automatic" and "semi-automatic", "reasonable restrictions" and "disarmament and defenselessness".
What, are you going to rely on the police for the rest of your life? Take a stand for yourself. Don't let our lawmakers decide how, when, or why you need to protect yourself. This piece is not a McCain endorsement, but I could happily endure a small military base in Iraq for the next "100 years" (he was talking about a defensive agreement with Iraq, and the hyperbole of '100 years' is apparently lost on most people) rather than risk being stripped of the ability to afford ammunition for my rifle all while a self-righteous Democratic administration ham-handedly lectures us poor, dumb bastards who cling to our guns and religion about what we really need or don't need.
For all the messianic hubbub surrounding Barack Obama, his stance on the right of law-abiding US citizens to keep and bear arms demonstrates just such an instance of his lack of foundation in reality.
Sen. Obama has spent a great deal of time doing political work in the state of Illinois. Illinois is home to Chicago, one of the most violent cities in the US. Paradoxically so, it "boasts" heavy restrictions on firearms ownership relative to most other states. If Sen. Obama is elected this November, he will make the District of Columbia his new home. Like Chicago, Washington, D.C. experiences a violent crime rate that is significantly higher than average despite severe firearms control policies. In fact, many states and cities in the US with high rates of violent crime have heavy firearms restrictions, often imposed state-wide (Illinois, California, et al.). Senator Obama does not seem to understand that passing more laws only work against people who obey them in the first place.
Take our multifarious laws against murder - the people who break such laws generally do not spend weeks agonizing over their decision to commit murder. What, then, would stop a person with criminal intent from violating a firearms law? Restricting types of firearms only affects those who go through the legal channels. There are already laws on the books prohibiting convicted felons and those adjudicated to be mentally unfit from owning firearms. Sen. Obama acts like those laws do not already exist.
His stance, like so many other politicians and policymakers in his camp, is the following:
Law prohibits A --> A is still committed --> Pass more laws prohibiting A --> A is still committed --> repeat process until our legal system looks like a Manchester, UK river circa 1870
In essence, he is hinting at criminalizing the breaking of laws that already exist. It's not the law, stupid! It's the enforcement.
I now give you the following excerpt:
"(Cho) had a semiautomatic weapon with a clip that allowed him to take 19 shots in a row,” Obama said. “I don’t know any self-respecting hunter that needs 19 rounds of anything. The only reason you have 19 rounds is potentially to do physical harm to people. You don’t shoot 19 rounds at a deer. And if you do, you shouldn’t be hunting."
Sen. Obama, YOU may not know any "self-respecting" hunters (what, you can only be "self-respecting" if you use a breechloading or bolt-action rifle with a single-shot capacity?) but who are you to determine what people "need" and what they "don't need". That is moral busybodyism at its worst, not to mention a throwback to Clinton-era nanny-statism. Besides, he fails to note the primary purpose of the firearm in US society: self-defense, whether from our own government or from other citizens who wish to do us harm. I will be much better off with a 19-round magazine (NOT a clip) than the 6 shots that a revolver will allow me in a self-defense situation. In this case, I would certainly want to do as much physical harm to my attacker as I possibly can. As they say, it is better to be judged by twelve than to be carried by six.
"You don't shoot 19 rounds at a deer."
What about 1 round each at 19 deer? If I can bag an entire year's worth of venison for my familiy and everyone else on the block without having to change mags, that just means I'm acting with maximum efficiency. I might also practice with the same rifle at the shooting range, and a larger magazine means less reloading time. Nothing about my 19 round magazine in this context involves doing "physical harm to people".
Funny he brings up the Virginia Tech shootings, a school that already had a total ban on firearms possession by students.
Check out the statement by VT spokesman Larry Hincker, made three months prior to the rampage, in regard to the defeat of a bill that would have allowed university students in Virginia who had concealed-carry permits to utilize their right to self-defense on the campus:
http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/wb/xp-50658
Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was happy to hear the bill was defeated. "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."
The defeat of the bill only ensured that the students who were ordinarily able to carry a concealed handgun everywhere else in Virginia were disarmed and had to fend for themselves like everyone else and "wait for the cavalry to come charging over the hill" before it was too late.
Instead of pulling the 'police state' card and strip-searching every student at each entry point, perhaps Virginia would have been wise to let permitholders defend themselves and their classmates instead of forcing them to cower behind desks and pray they weren't going to die before police arrived. Instead, most of the victims were cleanly executed with shots to the head, signifying that Cho was not doing the ol' "spray and pray" - firing indiscriminately. He had the time to make clean kills. The Virginia legislature and the university faculty disarmed people who had already proven themselves to be law-abiding (look up the requirements for getting a concealed-carry permit if you don't want to take my word for it) outside of the campus and instead forced the student body to rely solely on the police. Their short-sightedness and disrespect for those who follow laws got 32 innocent people killed.
What if someone was able to fire back? Two people? Five people? If that had happened, 3 or 4 people might've died, maybe none at all. There wouldn't have been 32 families grieving, and trolls all across the Series Of Tubes We Know As The Internets wouldn't be posting about "beating Cho's high score".
It's only going to get worse with Sen. Obama as President. This is a man who does not believe that people who defend themselves with lethal force may rely on the legal nature of self-defense if they used said force in a zone that prohibits firearms (which could be your own home, depending on where you live). He has promoted the "one gun per month" policy, as if criminals operate on timetables or that they have never used anything but firearms to commit murder. People who pass the background checks should be able to buy as many firearms per month as they please. Firearms owners are not criminals, but the Democratic party has a bad habit of treating them as such. To people like Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Dianne Feinstein, gun owners are just "accidents waiting to happen". What is this, the Division of Precrime? Minority Report was an awesome movie, but it is at the same time a frighteningly real concept that has been playing out in various subtle shades for a long time.
This will all come under the guise of "reasonable restrictions". What does Mr. Ivory-Tower-Ivy-League-politician-who-has-never-fired-a-gun-in-his-life know about "reasonable restrictions"? Banning .50cal rifles because they could "potentially" shoot down an airliner, despite all evidence that claims otherwise? Banning civilian ownership of automatic weapons because they could be "potentially" used in a crime, never mind that there is only one recorded instance in the past decade of a murder being committed with such a weapon? They have no problem with "reasonable restrictions" as long as those restrictions don't affect the ability of their bodyguards to carry weapons against people who might try to attack the guarded in question.
I'm sorry, but the average American citizen cannot afford to hire a security guard or pay for an expensive alarm system. Most martial arts are only useful if your opponent is in the same weight class and gender as you are. The gun is the true equalizer: between man and woman, weak and strong, wheelchair-bound and ambulatory, old and young.
To tell a woman traveling on foot in a city at night that she should carry pepper spray (assuming her attacker is working alone), shout "HELP", hope someone notices, and then hope that someone calls the police is absolutely sexist. Shouting doesn't stop a rapist quite like putting some gaping holes in his chest cavity.
If legislators really want to go after guns, they'll start with ammunition. There is already a bill in the works in the CA legislature restricting ammunition sales to licensed in-state vendors. That's right - no online orders, and a perfect opportunity for a distribution and sales monopoly. I will be paying out the ass to put ammunition in my 65-year old rifle at approximately $1.05 PER ROUND of 7.62x54R, rather than the $80 I would spend for 880 rounds from an online vendor.
Sen. Obama also upholds the D.C. gun ban despite all evidence that the crime rate has done nothing but rise since the ban was implemented. He claims to believe in the individual's right of firearms ownership as per the 2nd Amendment, but by definition must also believe that D.C. is not included in the United States for some reason. As it gets closer to November, get prepared for the BS to be layered on in thicker layers. Fundamentally, Senator Obama supports disarming people who follow laws, even when it only results in those same people being preyed upon by those who didn't follow those laws, and then clamoring for more of the laws that will again be disobeyed.
Here is my message to each of you: during some point in your life, purchase a firearm and become proficient with it. Handgun, rifle, shotgun - it doesn't matter. Familiarize yourself to the noise and the recoil. Learn how they work. Learn the difference between "clip" and "magazine", "fully automatic" and "semi-automatic", "reasonable restrictions" and "disarmament and defenselessness".
What, are you going to rely on the police for the rest of your life? Take a stand for yourself. Don't let our lawmakers decide how, when, or why you need to protect yourself. This piece is not a McCain endorsement, but I could happily endure a small military base in Iraq for the next "100 years" (he was talking about a defensive agreement with Iraq, and the hyperbole of '100 years' is apparently lost on most people) rather than risk being stripped of the ability to afford ammunition for my rifle all while a self-righteous Democratic administration ham-handedly lectures us poor, dumb bastards who cling to our guns and religion about what we really need or don't need.
3.6.08
KSCO Santa Cruz's Noon Balloon!
I was a featured guest on a local radio station this afternoon.
After the David Horowitz lecture, I was approached by a man (we'll call him 'MZ') and he told me that he was a radio host at KSCO Santa Cruz. I gave him my name and phone number, and he called me this afternoon and asked if I'd like to come down to the station and be a guest on his show from 12-2.
I obliged, as I love speaking in public (I really do, even if I am a recluse/survivalist in the making). The show concerned political indoctrination of the general student body, as well as harassment of conservative students like myself and what it's like to be a political minority at the UC. An acquaintance of mine (we'll call him 'Hank') was also a caller on the show, and it was good to hear from him.
'Hank' said that what little funding we received from the school was only acquired with a couple weeks' worth of arm-twisting: asking around, filling out forms, and waiting. Most of the money came from the Young America Foundation, a conservative organization that spends a good deal of time and money supporting conservative organizations on university campuses across the US. Now on the other hand, we have "ethnic organizations" receiving all sorts of financial support from the University. I guess that's because the University figures "hey, those people are of different ethnicity and ancestry! Whoa, hold on! They must be WAY different!" Never mind 18-25-year olds as a whole tend to listen to the same types of music (whatever shitty indie bands they heard about on Youtube or Myspace), drive the same kind of cars (the Prius their parents paid for, or maybe the BMW their parents paid for), and display very similar trends in fashion and appearance (whatever they see in the Urban Outfitters or American Apparel display window, and I can't forget the iPhone - the one thing that differentiates the airheaded hipsters from the people with at least a cursory grasp of financial wisdom). Throw race or ethnicity into the mix, and *BOOM* - you get "diversity". Never mind that a vast majority of the students are Obama voters who consider restrictions on lawful firearms owners' rights/non-binding talks with openly belligerent and autocratic regimes/raising taxes on the people who already "contribute" 50% of this nation's tax revenue to be sound policy. Whose ox is being gored here, eh?
Speaking of Obama, is it really all that healthy for university students to have such a collective hard-on for him? I mean, they act like he's the Messiah in a secular context.
Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth. This was the moment - this was the time - when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves, and our highest ideals. [I don't know whether to laugh or cry.]
That is, if you unquestioningly vote for him and don't bother objecting to any of his policies. Dissent is only patriotic when Republicans are in power.
Now I know why college kids love the Obamessiah. He appeals to all that ingrained collectivist drivel they've been hearing in all of their classes - if you just vote for him, "all your wildest dreams will come true." Thank you, Pedro. I can sleep soundly at night knowing that you'll save us all from the evil oil companies, gun owners, white racists, Republicans, and business owners. That way we'll realize that Islamic terrorists are just good people at heart who have been misunderstood, and that they only videotape decapitations and blow up buses because of political grievances that the racist imperialist West have caused. We'll realize that taxing rich people really can bring benefits. After all, they have enough already as they'd otherwise just sit in their offices counting their gold and cackling with glee as they drink the blood of African children from wine glasses made of pure diamond.
The radio show was a lot of fun. We had a guy fax in some complaint about the station's hosts and callers. *cue lots of silly accusations about "hate speech", "conservatives", "bigots", etc.*
Hey, get this - whose fault is it if only conservatives call in on a non-partisan radio show, where the hosts encourage EVERYONE to call in and share their ideas on a topic? YOURS! If you high-and-mighty leftists are getting so butt-hurt about a radio station, call in and see if you can hack it in front of people like me! Quit your bitching and put your money where your mouth is. What's that quote you guys are always putting on your bumper stickers? "Be the change you want to see in the world" or something like that, right? You guys do an awful lot of complaining without action for a group of people who like to consider themselves "activists". Maybe you should look into putting an 'armchair' on the beginning of that. The caller tried to bring up how a privately-funded station with a majority of conservative callers is "intimidating", but I promptly asked him to think about how a conservative like me feels about expressing my own beliefs at a PUBLIC university that is dedicated (on paper) to "free speech and inquiry". I told him to switch "conservative" with "leftist" and "radio station" with "university".
Which is more damaging to society: a radio station that features a majority of conservative callers but in no way rejects leftist callers, OR a high-ranking public research university that makes it nigh-impossible for conservative groups to obtain funding and a location to host a speaker and a collective of leftist students and faculty that actively creates an intellectually and politically hostile environment for those opposed to their monopoly of thought?
After the David Horowitz lecture, I was approached by a man (we'll call him 'MZ') and he told me that he was a radio host at KSCO Santa Cruz. I gave him my name and phone number, and he called me this afternoon and asked if I'd like to come down to the station and be a guest on his show from 12-2.
I obliged, as I love speaking in public (I really do, even if I am a recluse/survivalist in the making). The show concerned political indoctrination of the general student body, as well as harassment of conservative students like myself and what it's like to be a political minority at the UC. An acquaintance of mine (we'll call him 'Hank') was also a caller on the show, and it was good to hear from him.
'Hank' said that what little funding we received from the school was only acquired with a couple weeks' worth of arm-twisting: asking around, filling out forms, and waiting. Most of the money came from the Young America Foundation, a conservative organization that spends a good deal of time and money supporting conservative organizations on university campuses across the US. Now on the other hand, we have "ethnic organizations" receiving all sorts of financial support from the University. I guess that's because the University figures "hey, those people are of different ethnicity and ancestry! Whoa, hold on! They must be WAY different!" Never mind 18-25-year olds as a whole tend to listen to the same types of music (whatever shitty indie bands they heard about on Youtube or Myspace), drive the same kind of cars (the Prius their parents paid for, or maybe the BMW their parents paid for), and display very similar trends in fashion and appearance (whatever they see in the Urban Outfitters or American Apparel display window, and I can't forget the iPhone - the one thing that differentiates the airheaded hipsters from the people with at least a cursory grasp of financial wisdom). Throw race or ethnicity into the mix, and *BOOM* - you get "diversity". Never mind that a vast majority of the students are Obama voters who consider restrictions on lawful firearms owners' rights/non-binding talks with openly belligerent and autocratic regimes/raising taxes on the people who already "contribute" 50% of this nation's tax revenue to be sound policy. Whose ox is being gored here, eh?
Speaking of Obama, is it really all that healthy for university students to have such a collective hard-on for him? I mean, they act like he's the Messiah in a secular context.
Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth. This was the moment - this was the time - when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves, and our highest ideals. [I don't know whether to laugh or cry.]
That is, if you unquestioningly vote for him and don't bother objecting to any of his policies. Dissent is only patriotic when Republicans are in power.
Now I know why college kids love the Obamessiah. He appeals to all that ingrained collectivist drivel they've been hearing in all of their classes - if you just vote for him, "all your wildest dreams will come true." Thank you, Pedro. I can sleep soundly at night knowing that you'll save us all from the evil oil companies, gun owners, white racists, Republicans, and business owners. That way we'll realize that Islamic terrorists are just good people at heart who have been misunderstood, and that they only videotape decapitations and blow up buses because of political grievances that the racist imperialist West have caused. We'll realize that taxing rich people really can bring benefits. After all, they have enough already as they'd otherwise just sit in their offices counting their gold and cackling with glee as they drink the blood of African children from wine glasses made of pure diamond.
The radio show was a lot of fun. We had a guy fax in some complaint about the station's hosts and callers. *cue lots of silly accusations about "hate speech", "conservatives", "bigots", etc.*
Hey, get this - whose fault is it if only conservatives call in on a non-partisan radio show, where the hosts encourage EVERYONE to call in and share their ideas on a topic? YOURS! If you high-and-mighty leftists are getting so butt-hurt about a radio station, call in and see if you can hack it in front of people like me! Quit your bitching and put your money where your mouth is. What's that quote you guys are always putting on your bumper stickers? "Be the change you want to see in the world" or something like that, right? You guys do an awful lot of complaining without action for a group of people who like to consider themselves "activists". Maybe you should look into putting an 'armchair' on the beginning of that. The caller tried to bring up how a privately-funded station with a majority of conservative callers is "intimidating", but I promptly asked him to think about how a conservative like me feels about expressing my own beliefs at a PUBLIC university that is dedicated (on paper) to "free speech and inquiry". I told him to switch "conservative" with "leftist" and "radio station" with "university".
Which is more damaging to society: a radio station that features a majority of conservative callers but in no way rejects leftist callers, OR a high-ranking public research university that makes it nigh-impossible for conservative groups to obtain funding and a location to host a speaker and a collective of leftist students and faculty that actively creates an intellectually and politically hostile environment for those opposed to their monopoly of thought?
1.6.08
Playing by the "rules" will get you nowhere.
[Yahoo! News link]
The emasculated West has reached a new low. They seek to go into prisoner exchanges with bloodthirsty thugs who would like nothing more than the destruction of Israel and all Jewry the world over - as these exchanges are just a stop on the way - and the the Western media for once lauds Israel as if to say they're somehow heroes when they swap live Lebanese prisoners for the mangled remains of their own soldiers.
"Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah said in a January 19 speech his group had the heads, hands and legs of soldiers left on the battlefields of the 34-day 2006 war."
Apparently, this sort of conduct is considered an act of good faith to the politically-correct and "culturally sensitive" Western media. A group of animals mutilates captured soldiers - legitimate combatants, unlike the non-state actors of Hezbollah - and demands that its opponent return its own imprisoned soldiers alive and well.
All the talk about the so-called "moral high ground" when it comes to the rules of engagement begin to wear thin after a while. Hezbollah does nothing honorable to its enemies. It wages propaganda campaigns [zombietime on the Qana ambulance attack], uses the bodies of children as props in photos, kills and mutilates legitimate POWs, then complains to the UN and all the other hand-wringing and "socially conscious" leftists about how terrible Israel is. Phrases like "unprovoked war", "illegal war", "Zionist war" come up a lot when the average college student talks about Israel's war with Lebanon in the spring of 2006. Why don't phrases like "not adhering to the Geneva convention", "desecration of soldiers' remains", or "Islamic supremacy" enter the vocabularies of these talking heads? For one, Israel can do no good.
Here's a little diagram for explaining the behaviour of leftists in regard to this situation:
-Islam/Arabs/"brown people" = oppressed, victimized, helpless (never mind the kind of victimizing and oppression that has occurred at the hands of Islamists the world over)
-anti-Israel/anti-Semitism = played off as "anti-Zionism"; as if to say "Oh, but we love Jews! We just don't love them enough to renounce our support for people who would rather see all of them burn in a lake of fire than share a national border with them."
-international law = something that only applies to developed/Western nations, because drawing attention to Saudi treatment of women and non-Muslims is "ethnocentric", "racist", or "culturally insensitive"
Such stalwart defenders of human rights have made a huge fuss over the possibility of a single-digit number of people getting waterboarded, but ask them what they think about the fact that the roads leading to Mecca re-direct non-Muslims to other places, and they'll either give you a confused look or just change the subject. Ask them how many Muslims have committed acts of terrorism in the last 10 years, and they'll stall, re-direct focus on how Muslims have been "marginalized" (gee, even when they blow themselves up in their own countries?), try to call you a "racist" (despite how Islam is a religion and not a race), or bring up the Tamil Tigers' use of suicide bombing.
Fun Fact about the Tamil Tigers: they have used a suicide bomber exactly nine times during this whole year. I guess they're going to have to step up their game if they want to give the soldiers of Muhammad a run for their money.
Anyway, enough about the glaring hypocrisies running rampant among the left, and back to the rules of war.
Are there rules for war? Should protocol be followed when you may be fighting for your own survival? As the old saying goes, "the only 'unfair' fights are the ones you lose". If one's enemy not only disregards the rules of engagement that most of the world's countries and organizations have subscribed to, but actively and flagrantly makes a point of disobeying them, all bets are off. Israel should be free to level cities and kill Hezbollah-affiliated POWs.
"Nissim Nisr, released after a six-year jail term, was greeted by Hezbollah officials in the southern village of Naqoura, where the group unexpectedly announced the release of the soldiers' remains."
Live prisoners with access to the best healthcare in any Middle Eastern prison, exchanged for body parts. Sounds like an even exchange, right? How about 'Beiruit turned to rubble and ash, along with anywhere else that Hezbollah has bases of support' for 'stop making raids into our territory and kidnapping soldiers' for a fair trade?
The Lebanese are complicit not only in their silence, but in their refusal to boot Hezbollah from their territory. For every Israeli POW killed, Israel drops a JDAM on a school, market, or hospital. Maybe that would wake up the Lebanese and get them to throw out Hezbollah (preferably with Hassan Nasrallah's head on a pike).
Rome did the same thing to Carthage: they would no longer suffer the slaughters and humiliation of their men at places like Cannae and at Lake Trasimenus. The Carthaginians had long disobeyed Rome by their refusal to recall Hannibal. They violated the armistice reached at the end of the First Punic War, and the destruction of Carthage ensured that Rome would survive. The Romans never did salt the fields of the Carthaginians, mostly because the Romans figured it would not be a good idea to destroy arable land that could be used by Rome itself. Another misconception is that the Romans slaughtered or enslaved every single civilian inside the city walls. Various sources state that Rome gave ample warning to the Carthaginians - get out, or face the wrath of Rome. Only about 10% of the city's original population remained to defend the city.
Hannibal's forces raided the Roman countryside for years, too weakened to lay siege to Rome or to attack it outright, but Hannibal was a competent enough strategist to keep the Romans on an almost constant lockdown.
Like Hannibal, Hezbollah has no "official support" from the de juris government of Lebanon, but Hezbollah is free to do as it pleases, at least when it's not hiding behind non-combatants from Israeli missiles and small arms fire. If they're willing to kill POWs and use human shields, what would make ANYONE consider them likely to follow any other rule of engagement? When one's enemy doesn't speak the language of diplomacy and instead refuses to learn it, the language of violence often suffices in that it uses no complicated jargon and there is little hidden meaning to decipher.
Long Live Israel.
The emasculated West has reached a new low. They seek to go into prisoner exchanges with bloodthirsty thugs who would like nothing more than the destruction of Israel and all Jewry the world over - as these exchanges are just a stop on the way - and the the Western media for once lauds Israel as if to say they're somehow heroes when they swap live Lebanese prisoners for the mangled remains of their own soldiers.
"Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah said in a January 19 speech his group had the heads, hands and legs of soldiers left on the battlefields of the 34-day 2006 war."
Apparently, this sort of conduct is considered an act of good faith to the politically-correct and "culturally sensitive" Western media. A group of animals mutilates captured soldiers - legitimate combatants, unlike the non-state actors of Hezbollah - and demands that its opponent return its own imprisoned soldiers alive and well.
All the talk about the so-called "moral high ground" when it comes to the rules of engagement begin to wear thin after a while. Hezbollah does nothing honorable to its enemies. It wages propaganda campaigns [zombietime on the Qana ambulance attack], uses the bodies of children as props in photos, kills and mutilates legitimate POWs, then complains to the UN and all the other hand-wringing and "socially conscious" leftists about how terrible Israel is. Phrases like "unprovoked war", "illegal war", "Zionist war" come up a lot when the average college student talks about Israel's war with Lebanon in the spring of 2006. Why don't phrases like "not adhering to the Geneva convention", "desecration of soldiers' remains", or "Islamic supremacy" enter the vocabularies of these talking heads? For one, Israel can do no good.
Here's a little diagram for explaining the behaviour of leftists in regard to this situation:
-Islam/Arabs/"brown people" = oppressed, victimized, helpless (never mind the kind of victimizing and oppression that has occurred at the hands of Islamists the world over)
-anti-Israel/anti-Semitism = played off as "anti-Zionism"; as if to say "Oh, but we love Jews! We just don't love them enough to renounce our support for people who would rather see all of them burn in a lake of fire than share a national border with them."
-international law = something that only applies to developed/Western nations, because drawing attention to Saudi treatment of women and non-Muslims is "ethnocentric", "racist", or "culturally insensitive"
Such stalwart defenders of human rights have made a huge fuss over the possibility of a single-digit number of people getting waterboarded, but ask them what they think about the fact that the roads leading to Mecca re-direct non-Muslims to other places, and they'll either give you a confused look or just change the subject. Ask them how many Muslims have committed acts of terrorism in the last 10 years, and they'll stall, re-direct focus on how Muslims have been "marginalized" (gee, even when they blow themselves up in their own countries?), try to call you a "racist" (despite how Islam is a religion and not a race), or bring up the Tamil Tigers' use of suicide bombing.
Fun Fact about the Tamil Tigers: they have used a suicide bomber exactly nine times during this whole year. I guess they're going to have to step up their game if they want to give the soldiers of Muhammad a run for their money.
Anyway, enough about the glaring hypocrisies running rampant among the left, and back to the rules of war.
Are there rules for war? Should protocol be followed when you may be fighting for your own survival? As the old saying goes, "the only 'unfair' fights are the ones you lose". If one's enemy not only disregards the rules of engagement that most of the world's countries and organizations have subscribed to, but actively and flagrantly makes a point of disobeying them, all bets are off. Israel should be free to level cities and kill Hezbollah-affiliated POWs.
"Nissim Nisr, released after a six-year jail term, was greeted by Hezbollah officials in the southern village of Naqoura, where the group unexpectedly announced the release of the soldiers' remains."
Live prisoners with access to the best healthcare in any Middle Eastern prison, exchanged for body parts. Sounds like an even exchange, right? How about 'Beiruit turned to rubble and ash, along with anywhere else that Hezbollah has bases of support' for 'stop making raids into our territory and kidnapping soldiers' for a fair trade?
The Lebanese are complicit not only in their silence, but in their refusal to boot Hezbollah from their territory. For every Israeli POW killed, Israel drops a JDAM on a school, market, or hospital. Maybe that would wake up the Lebanese and get them to throw out Hezbollah (preferably with Hassan Nasrallah's head on a pike).
Rome did the same thing to Carthage: they would no longer suffer the slaughters and humiliation of their men at places like Cannae and at Lake Trasimenus. The Carthaginians had long disobeyed Rome by their refusal to recall Hannibal. They violated the armistice reached at the end of the First Punic War, and the destruction of Carthage ensured that Rome would survive. The Romans never did salt the fields of the Carthaginians, mostly because the Romans figured it would not be a good idea to destroy arable land that could be used by Rome itself. Another misconception is that the Romans slaughtered or enslaved every single civilian inside the city walls. Various sources state that Rome gave ample warning to the Carthaginians - get out, or face the wrath of Rome. Only about 10% of the city's original population remained to defend the city.
Hannibal's forces raided the Roman countryside for years, too weakened to lay siege to Rome or to attack it outright, but Hannibal was a competent enough strategist to keep the Romans on an almost constant lockdown.
Like Hannibal, Hezbollah has no "official support" from the de juris government of Lebanon, but Hezbollah is free to do as it pleases, at least when it's not hiding behind non-combatants from Israeli missiles and small arms fire. If they're willing to kill POWs and use human shields, what would make ANYONE consider them likely to follow any other rule of engagement? When one's enemy doesn't speak the language of diplomacy and instead refuses to learn it, the language of violence often suffices in that it uses no complicated jargon and there is little hidden meaning to decipher.
Long Live Israel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)