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.
22.8.08
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.
28.5.08
You'll never learn to argue well if all that you hear are things you agree with.
David Horowitz came to speak at UC Santa Cruz, a school he considers the "worst school in America". His aim was to direct the attention of the unwitting student body to the fact that opinion is being presented as fact in a majority (if not all) of the liberal arts and social "sciences" classes. No criticism of such teaching is offered. The university is now the religion-less version of seminary school, where you are certainly going to Hell if you don't believe all the world's problems are caused by rich people, capitalism, white people, men, Republicans, or the REAL troublemakers in the world - rich white male pro-capitalist Republicans. No ands, ifs, or buts.
Many of the classes center around political activism through creating a victim mentality: "you're black, so it's only natural for you to be oppressed by white people, and that means you need to do something about it because white people hate you", regardless of whether such a thing is actually occurring or not. If you don't believe me, pick up the course catalogue, or audit a class. I have run into the "whites/males/Republicans are to blame for all this country's problems" dogma in more than one of my classes here at UCSC. Criticism of such theories is truly slaughtering sacred cows. The idea that Robert Mugabe's seizure of land from white farmers and redistributing it to black Africans who have no knowledge of farming is the cause of Zimbabwe's (I still prefer to call it Rhodesia) problems of hunger and violence would be considered "racist" - a label leftists love to toss at people and ideas that threaten their comfortable political monoculture.
The university's student body has insulated itself from criticism with that jargon. A white person criticizing a black person's behaviour or policy? Racism, and you're a racist too if you don't agree with that assessment. What's that? Someone's critiquing leftism? Obviously a right-wing bigot, if you ask me.
Speaking of "racism" and other such ad hominem devices, the anti-Horowitz protesters chanted a familiar song:
"Racist, sexist, anti-gay
Right-wing bigots, go away!"
It's cute, really. If you're 12 years old and "Bushisms" still make you laugh.
Who are they calling racist? Don't they realize that their precious affirmative action programs only serve to treat minorities like children who need lower standards instead of expecting them to rise to meet the same standards as everyone else, or that they have no problem calling whites who criticize a black Presidential candidate "bigots" and black conservatives are "Uncle Toms" or "race traitors" because they don't tow the line of victimization at the hands of whites, or that the enslavement of blacks from 150 years ago doesn't necessarily mean that they themselves are disadvantaged?
Sexism. How is Horowitz a sexist? By declaring that the Feminist Studies has no internal mechanism of self-critique, ignoring the works of prominent feminists who have critiqued their own movements? Ohhh, the horror! How dare you tell us that our ways are wrong!
Hint: if you're an 'enlightened progressive', there's no need for self-examination, because your enlightened nature just means that everyone else is wrong. See, if everyone adopts the mindset of the 'enlightened progressive', there would be no argument about things. We could all get along peacefully, without any of those filthy ass-backwards right-wing bigots to ruin our beautiful ideological homogeneity!
They cannot claim he is "anti-gay", either. It's a common slur used against anyone even remotely identified with the right, whether or not they have any stance on homosexuality at all. Horowitz is outspoken among conservatives in his support of gay marriage.
As I've noted earlier, "right-wing bigot" identifies everyone who threatens the monoculture. More importantly, the ending to that verse "go away" demonstrates just how open and tolerant the leftist community is to opposition. They have a monopoly on dissent, and nobody is allowed to challenge it. It is their self-proclaimed sacred right. Just watch some ProtestWarrior vids, showing how the early pro-war demonstration groups were harassed and attacked by "peace" groups, for no other reason other than their presence at the big anti-war rally in 2004. "Go away" is another way of saying "get out" or "we don't want you here", as if to say "as a speaker paid for by public funding, you should not be allowed to speak at a public university because your statements and ideas shock and offend our delicate sensibilities".
Something that amused me in a manner most hearty was a leaflet that anti-Horowitz organizers passed out to students and guests. I'll see if I can scan it and post it here, because it's really a hoot.
The main thing I noted was the lack of quotes around a statment the activists claim that Horowitz said - something along the lines of Slavery was self-inflicted by Blacks [why is 'Blacks' capitalized? Did they mean the All Blacks?] and that reparations should be stopped. Instead, Blacks should be greatful [sic] for having been brought to America through the slave trade.
They quote no actual sources - just baseless opining and conjecture. Holding an "anti-racist day of action" after accusing someone based on what may be fabricated quotes only further damages the reputation of the academic left.
The flyer then quotes Horowitz, correctly identifying the nationwide Muslim Student Associations as part of the Muslim Brotherhood, a group affiliated with Hamas (with whom Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama are hunky-dory having non-binding talks and agreements). Pointing out this accurate connection is "racist" because Islam is a race (however that works) and associating any part of Islam with terrorism (however accurate and true it may be) is also "racism"/"bigotry"/any of the other overused leftist buzzwords.
The presentation itself was fairly civil once Mr. Horowitz got started. There were some goons banging on the windows from outside, but it was only occasionally that they did this, along with posting signs - "Kill Whitey", "Free Speech =/= Hate Speech" (the left has a nasty habit of labeling all criticism as 'hate speech'), among others. Horowitz looked quite disheveled and I could tell he was definitely not on top of his game. I'm not sure what was causing this, as numerous of his previous speeches have been much more rowdy and chaotic than this one. Maybe it was because he was deep in "enemy territory", I don't know. He verbally stumbled on occasion, and I felt his lack of anecdotal evidence (for instance, speaking with only 4 or 5 students instead of 40 or 50) and lack of ability to put forth a clear, concise and persuasive argument weakened his thesis regarding the consequences of political homogeneity in higher education.
The 'Indoctrinate-U' film by independent filmmaker Evan Coyne was much more persuasive and its "on-the-ground" approach would have made a more significant impact on the audience.
His conduct towards the hooligans outside was derisive - for instance, calling security instead of ignoring them. The left thrives on attention and martyrdom - give them an inch, and they take a mile. Another disruptor attempted to walk down towards the front of the room, holding a large sheet of paper on which was written 'Liberal Bias' with the rest of the sheet blank, as if to suggest Horowitz's claims were baseless by virtue of writing two words on paper and that blank space. If I had been the one speaking, I would have stared him down, asked him politely to explain his arguments in a civil and reasonable fashion. I would have made an example of him to the left, that shouting and theatrics do not take the place of rational discourse, but I suppose common sense is lost on too many these days. I would have told the audience "See how they react when I say things they don't like? That's what happens when you spend so much time in an environment that is only critical of everyone else. You don't learn to debate, but instead priority is placed on shouting, disrupting, and stamping out all views contrary to your own. Welcome to college, where everyone else but you is wrong." Talk about your tax dollars at work.
One girl in particular stood up during the Q&A period at the end, ranting about free speech, as if to suggest shouting matches in a crowded lecture hall where a paid speaker was trying to conduct affairs in a orderly manner was appropriate free speech. Horowitz made the point that allowing everyone in the room to stand up and start shouting just as she did would eliminate actual speech and replace it with a cacophony of unintelligible voices. I wonder if she stands up in class whenever she pleases and shouts out questions and comments when her professors are lecturing. Maybe it's different because it's "ol' racist Mr. Horowitz, who said mean things about our school in a non-mainstream news source". I think that deserves an epic 'BAWWWWW'.
Another question during the Q&A session concerned conservative favoritism at universities, but all the examples everyone came up with (including Mr. Horowitz) were private colleges, such as Pepperdine, Hillsdale, and Brigham Young. Horowitz has no problem with the existence of a private "Marx & Engels School of Revolutionary Thought", however oxymoronic such a thing would be, but when public universities not only favor leftist groups on campus, but also make it more difficult for rightist groups to obtain funding/secure a location for a lecture or meeting/etc., that is not what taxpayers should be funding. If a public institution was heavily subsidizing Christian campus groups, all the while only giving the bare minimum to other religious groups, or only giving them meeting times early in the morning or late at night, the uproar over such a thing happening at the taxpayers' expense would be enormous.
This is called a double standard. Favoritism. Hypocrisy.
Then again, did you expect any less from people who are quick to label critics of Barack Obama as "racists" yet do not consider people like Ward Connerly, Condoleezza Rice, or Thomas Sowell to be "real blacks" because they don't subscribe to the typical agenda of the black community?
After the question period had ended, most of us applauded for Horowitz (it's nice to know there are at least a few UCSC students who can be civil towards people they oppose), after which he just about bolted from the room. I made my way down the stairs to see if I could have a word with him, but he was long gone before I even got to the front of the room.
It was a fairly productive night, and the leftists who are roosted comfortably in the rafters of academia consistently fulfill my expectations of them.
Many of the classes center around political activism through creating a victim mentality: "you're black, so it's only natural for you to be oppressed by white people, and that means you need to do something about it because white people hate you", regardless of whether such a thing is actually occurring or not. If you don't believe me, pick up the course catalogue, or audit a class. I have run into the "whites/males/Republicans are to blame for all this country's problems" dogma in more than one of my classes here at UCSC. Criticism of such theories is truly slaughtering sacred cows. The idea that Robert Mugabe's seizure of land from white farmers and redistributing it to black Africans who have no knowledge of farming is the cause of Zimbabwe's (I still prefer to call it Rhodesia) problems of hunger and violence would be considered "racist" - a label leftists love to toss at people and ideas that threaten their comfortable political monoculture.
The university's student body has insulated itself from criticism with that jargon. A white person criticizing a black person's behaviour or policy? Racism, and you're a racist too if you don't agree with that assessment. What's that? Someone's critiquing leftism? Obviously a right-wing bigot, if you ask me.
Speaking of "racism" and other such ad hominem devices, the anti-Horowitz protesters chanted a familiar song:
"Racist, sexist, anti-gay
Right-wing bigots, go away!"
It's cute, really. If you're 12 years old and "Bushisms" still make you laugh.
Who are they calling racist? Don't they realize that their precious affirmative action programs only serve to treat minorities like children who need lower standards instead of expecting them to rise to meet the same standards as everyone else, or that they have no problem calling whites who criticize a black Presidential candidate "bigots" and black conservatives are "Uncle Toms" or "race traitors" because they don't tow the line of victimization at the hands of whites, or that the enslavement of blacks from 150 years ago doesn't necessarily mean that they themselves are disadvantaged?
Sexism. How is Horowitz a sexist? By declaring that the Feminist Studies has no internal mechanism of self-critique, ignoring the works of prominent feminists who have critiqued their own movements? Ohhh, the horror! How dare you tell us that our ways are wrong!
Hint: if you're an 'enlightened progressive', there's no need for self-examination, because your enlightened nature just means that everyone else is wrong. See, if everyone adopts the mindset of the 'enlightened progressive', there would be no argument about things. We could all get along peacefully, without any of those filthy ass-backwards right-wing bigots to ruin our beautiful ideological homogeneity!
They cannot claim he is "anti-gay", either. It's a common slur used against anyone even remotely identified with the right, whether or not they have any stance on homosexuality at all. Horowitz is outspoken among conservatives in his support of gay marriage.
As I've noted earlier, "right-wing bigot" identifies everyone who threatens the monoculture. More importantly, the ending to that verse "go away" demonstrates just how open and tolerant the leftist community is to opposition. They have a monopoly on dissent, and nobody is allowed to challenge it. It is their self-proclaimed sacred right. Just watch some ProtestWarrior vids, showing how the early pro-war demonstration groups were harassed and attacked by "peace" groups, for no other reason other than their presence at the big anti-war rally in 2004. "Go away" is another way of saying "get out" or "we don't want you here", as if to say "as a speaker paid for by public funding, you should not be allowed to speak at a public university because your statements and ideas shock and offend our delicate sensibilities".
Something that amused me in a manner most hearty was a leaflet that anti-Horowitz organizers passed out to students and guests. I'll see if I can scan it and post it here, because it's really a hoot.
The main thing I noted was the lack of quotes around a statment the activists claim that Horowitz said - something along the lines of Slavery was self-inflicted by Blacks [why is 'Blacks' capitalized? Did they mean the All Blacks?] and that reparations should be stopped. Instead, Blacks should be greatful [sic] for having been brought to America through the slave trade.
They quote no actual sources - just baseless opining and conjecture. Holding an "anti-racist day of action" after accusing someone based on what may be fabricated quotes only further damages the reputation of the academic left.
The flyer then quotes Horowitz, correctly identifying the nationwide Muslim Student Associations as part of the Muslim Brotherhood, a group affiliated with Hamas (with whom Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama are hunky-dory having non-binding talks and agreements). Pointing out this accurate connection is "racist" because Islam is a race (however that works) and associating any part of Islam with terrorism (however accurate and true it may be) is also "racism"/"bigotry"/any of the other overused leftist buzzwords.
The presentation itself was fairly civil once Mr. Horowitz got started. There were some goons banging on the windows from outside, but it was only occasionally that they did this, along with posting signs - "Kill Whitey", "Free Speech =/= Hate Speech" (the left has a nasty habit of labeling all criticism as 'hate speech'), among others. Horowitz looked quite disheveled and I could tell he was definitely not on top of his game. I'm not sure what was causing this, as numerous of his previous speeches have been much more rowdy and chaotic than this one. Maybe it was because he was deep in "enemy territory", I don't know. He verbally stumbled on occasion, and I felt his lack of anecdotal evidence (for instance, speaking with only 4 or 5 students instead of 40 or 50) and lack of ability to put forth a clear, concise and persuasive argument weakened his thesis regarding the consequences of political homogeneity in higher education.
The 'Indoctrinate-U' film by independent filmmaker Evan Coyne was much more persuasive and its "on-the-ground" approach would have made a more significant impact on the audience.
His conduct towards the hooligans outside was derisive - for instance, calling security instead of ignoring them. The left thrives on attention and martyrdom - give them an inch, and they take a mile. Another disruptor attempted to walk down towards the front of the room, holding a large sheet of paper on which was written 'Liberal Bias' with the rest of the sheet blank, as if to suggest Horowitz's claims were baseless by virtue of writing two words on paper and that blank space. If I had been the one speaking, I would have stared him down, asked him politely to explain his arguments in a civil and reasonable fashion. I would have made an example of him to the left, that shouting and theatrics do not take the place of rational discourse, but I suppose common sense is lost on too many these days. I would have told the audience "See how they react when I say things they don't like? That's what happens when you spend so much time in an environment that is only critical of everyone else. You don't learn to debate, but instead priority is placed on shouting, disrupting, and stamping out all views contrary to your own. Welcome to college, where everyone else but you is wrong." Talk about your tax dollars at work.
One girl in particular stood up during the Q&A period at the end, ranting about free speech, as if to suggest shouting matches in a crowded lecture hall where a paid speaker was trying to conduct affairs in a orderly manner was appropriate free speech. Horowitz made the point that allowing everyone in the room to stand up and start shouting just as she did would eliminate actual speech and replace it with a cacophony of unintelligible voices. I wonder if she stands up in class whenever she pleases and shouts out questions and comments when her professors are lecturing. Maybe it's different because it's "ol' racist Mr. Horowitz, who said mean things about our school in a non-mainstream news source". I think that deserves an epic 'BAWWWWW'.
Another question during the Q&A session concerned conservative favoritism at universities, but all the examples everyone came up with (including Mr. Horowitz) were private colleges, such as Pepperdine, Hillsdale, and Brigham Young. Horowitz has no problem with the existence of a private "Marx & Engels School of Revolutionary Thought", however oxymoronic such a thing would be, but when public universities not only favor leftist groups on campus, but also make it more difficult for rightist groups to obtain funding/secure a location for a lecture or meeting/etc., that is not what taxpayers should be funding. If a public institution was heavily subsidizing Christian campus groups, all the while only giving the bare minimum to other religious groups, or only giving them meeting times early in the morning or late at night, the uproar over such a thing happening at the taxpayers' expense would be enormous.
This is called a double standard. Favoritism. Hypocrisy.
Then again, did you expect any less from people who are quick to label critics of Barack Obama as "racists" yet do not consider people like Ward Connerly, Condoleezza Rice, or Thomas Sowell to be "real blacks" because they don't subscribe to the typical agenda of the black community?
After the question period had ended, most of us applauded for Horowitz (it's nice to know there are at least a few UCSC students who can be civil towards people they oppose), after which he just about bolted from the room. I made my way down the stairs to see if I could have a word with him, but he was long gone before I even got to the front of the room.
It was a fairly productive night, and the leftists who are roosted comfortably in the rafters of academia consistently fulfill my expectations of them.
18.5.08
Some silly survey.
THE BASICS
Name - If you know, great. If you don't, it's actually not all that relevant anyway.
Gender - Male.
Age - I am only a few days away from buying booze and handguns.
Screen Name - No.
Birthday - May 27th.
Race - Genetically-modified human.
School/Grade - Junior at UC Santa Cruz
Job - Retail.
Status - Solitary, but not in confinement.
Hometown - None.
Current Town - Santa Cruz.
Parents Still Together? - Yes.
Siblings - One brother.
Pets - Cats!
Smoker - No way in the Nine Hells.
Drinker - Very rarely, and hardly any when I do.
Virgin - Absolutely.
Orientation - Straight.
Drugs - I need not chemicals to be enlightened.
APPEARANCE
Hair Color - Brown.
Is It Dyed? - No.
Eye Color - Grey-blue, like rolling fog.
Height - 3.95 Roman cubits
Style - I have it.
Glasses/Contacts/None? - Glasses.
Freckles - A few.
Body Type - Athletic.
Shoe Size - Small.
Piercings - None.
Want More? - No.
Tattoos? - Hopefully a Valknut this summer.
Want More? - Not after that.
Braces? - Used to.
Overall Best Feature - Everything.
Overall Worst Feature - None.
Do you get most of your traits from mom or dad? - Neither/both.
LIKES/DISLIKES
Favorite Color - Black.
Worst Color - Every colour is fine by itself, but there are some particularly horrid combinations that people enjoy wearing for some reason.
Favorite Animal - Cats.
Least Favorite Animal - None.
Favorite Flower - Orchid.
Favorite Food - MEAT.
Worst Food - Asparagus, only because it's stringy and makes my pee smell.
Favorite Junk Food - I really like Girl Scout cookies - Samoas.
Worst Junk Food - That "deep fried Pepsi" that Kaylah was talking about yesterday.
Favorite Restaraunt - Caffe Allegro back where I used to live, La Fornaretta (RIP), and anywhere that has decent food for a reasonable amount and a good view of the outdoors.
Favorite Ice Cream Flavor - Chocolate, caramel, and almond.
Favorite Candy - Ice cream.
Favorite Alcoholic Drink - George Hornsby's Hard Cider.
Favorite NON Alcoholic Drink - Water.
Worst Alcoholic Drink - Anything that smells like a solvent. I don't drink paint thinner, do you?
Worst NON Alcoholic Drink - Cold V8.
Favorite Genre of Music - A merging of 20th-century atonal/arrhythmic classical and extreme metal.
Worst Genre - I'm not familiar with bad music, because I only know good music.
Favorite Band/Artist - TÝR, !T.O.O.H.!, Duobetic Homunkulus, Turisas, Cannibal Corpse, Spastic Ink, Blotted Science, Koenjihyakkel, Arnold Schönberg, Giovanni Palestrina, Mats/Morgan Band, Fredrik Thordendal's Special Defects, Echo of Dalriada
Worst Band/Artist - There are far more than I care to write down.
Favorite Song - Many.
Worst Song - Also, many.
Favorite Radio Station - KZSC.
Favorite Book - The Art of War - Machiavelli
Worst Book - I don't read poor-quality books.
Favorite Type of Movie - Bond movies, foreign films about war, film noir
Worst Type of Movie - Adam Sandler.
Favorite Movie - Many.
Worst Movie Ever - Many.
Favorite TV Show - Mail Call.
Worst TV Show - Many.
Favorite Season of the Year - Winter
Worst Season - Summer.
Best Friend - Heather, Karen, Rose, Wayne, Aaron, Austin, Kateri, Rachel.
Worst Enemy - People are generally friendly towards me.
Favorite Day of the Week - Wodensdag.
Least Favorite Day of the Week - Saturday.
Favorite Sport - Fencing, polo, cricket, rugby, weightlifting, futbol, cycling.
Sport You Hate - American football.
One thing you cant get enough of - Trust.
One thing you hate more than anything - Having to excrete bodily waste.
LOVE LIFE
Are You Single? - Absolutely.
If not, who is your bf/gf? - N/A
How Long Have You Been Together? - N/A
If You're Single, Do you Like It? - I can honestly say that I completely distrust 99.9% of all women.
Do You Have a Crush On Anyone Right Now? - No, but I do love her dearly and await her return.
First Kiss - Best friend.
Ever Kiss in the Rain? - See above.
In a Movie Theater? - No.
Underwater? - And get water up my nose? You're out of your mind.
First Love - Reading.
Have you ever Cheated on Anyone? - No.
Been Cheated on? - No.
Used Someone? - No.
Lied to your bf/gf? - N/A
Ever Made out With Just a Friend? - Not "just a friend". That's a little dismissive.
Ever Had Sex With Just a Friend? - No.
Are You a Tease? - No.
Do you Flirt a Lot? - I am incapable of doing so.
Longest Relationship - No idea.
Shortest - Hah, two weeks.
Have you Ever Gotten a Poem? - I keep it close to my heart - quite literally.
Ever Get Flowers? - Watercolour.
Sweetest Thing You've Ever Gotten - The card is beautiful, not sweet. Children's valentines are sweet.
Do you Believe in Love at First Sight? - No.
Do you Believe in "The One"? - Neo? That's just a movie.
Do you Fall in Love Fast? - I don't actually fall.
Are you a Player? - Of video games.
Would you ever Hook Up With Someone of the Same sex? - No.
Have You ever Kissed 2 People in One Day? - No.
Kissed 2 People At One Time? - No.
Had Sex with 2 People in One day? - No.
Had sex with 2+ People at One Time? - No.
Ever cried over someone of the opposite sex? - No.
Ever Been Dumped? - Not really. We're like brother and sister now.
Ever dumped someone? - No.
Ever been rejected? - Oh, yes.
Do you have a lot of ex's? - No.
Are you a slut? - No.
Ever been called one? - No.
Ever dated someone more than once? - No.
Do you ever make the first move? - No. The patient hunter gets the prey.
Double dates or single? - Single, unless it's at a restaurant or the beach or something like that.
Do you want to get married? - Sure. I think it would be a lot of fun, especially because I'd have a gym spotter who lives with me.
OPPOSITE SEX (what you're attracted to)
Hair Color - RED HOLY CRAP RED HAIR. Also, I like dark/brown hair, too.
Short or long? - Any works for me. Even shaved.
Eye color? - Any.
Style - Non-trashy, preferably sticking to the "form follows function" adage. Military gear is awesome.
Age - I choose maturity over biological age.
Height - Doesn't matter.
Weight - Athletic, preferably someone who can keep up with me at the gym.
Muscular or skinny? - Muscular is preferred.
Boxers or Briefs? - She can wear my boxers, as long they fit okay.
Do you care about looks? - Of course. We are aesthetic beings. Though, it gets back-burner'd in lieu of more redeemable qualities.
OTHER QUESTIONS
Can you drive? - Yes. Do I like to? Absolutely not.
Do you have a car?- Yes.
Do you have a cell phone? - Yes.
Are you online a lot? - Yes.
Do you like gay/bi people? - I don't choose the company I keep by sexual orientation. It's irrelevant.
Can you speak another language? - Español. A veces yo hablo español en casa, o con un jefe cuando estamos trabajando.
Do you do well in school? - Yes.
Do you collect anything? - Books, CDs, knowledge.
Have an obsession? - Yes.
Do you hate yourself? - Why should I?
Ever smile for no reason? - No.
Talk to yourself? - Of course.
Do you have any regrets? - No.
Believe in magick? - No.
Do you support gay marriage? - As I am neither gay nor married, I care not.
Sex before marriage? - I don't care.
Do you trust people easily? - No.
Forgive easily? - A moment of laxity spawns a lifetime of heresy.
Do you have a secret no one knows? - Yes.
Do you get along with your parents? - Sometimes.
What about other people? - No.
How do you vent your anger? - .
Do you like George Bush? - I wouldn't want to work in his cabinet, but I'm sure he's a pretty cool guy. He seems like the kind of guy you'd want to go skeet shooting with.
Goal Before you die? - Own and become proficient with several firearms, survive the impending apocalypse and repopulate the planet, own that damnable Canon 40D!
Biggest Fear - None, for I am fear incarnate!
Biggest Weakness - None.
Do you play an instrument? - Guitar, bass guitar, vocal cords.
What do you want to be when you grow up? - A good husband and a good father.
PERSONALITY TRAITS
Are you... A bitch? No. I am a man.
Shy? No. Standoffish? Yes.
Talkative? In the right company.
Energetic? I can be.
Happy? Not always.
Depressed? No.
Funny? I can be.
Slutty? No.
Boring? No.
Mean? It happens.
Nice? No.
Caring? No.
Trustworthy? Yes.
Confident? Normal.
Friendly? No.
Smart? Intelligent and wise.
Sarcastic? A veces.
Dependable? Yes.
Quiet? Yes. That way, you'll never hear me until it's too late.
Weird? According to the general consensus.
Adaptable? Yes.
Strong (emotionally)? More like dead.
Strong (physically)? Yes.
Mature? I am serious.
Logical? Yes.
Religious? Yes, but privately.
Modest? Yes, but I won't try to cover up what I'm proud of when it comes to my accomplishments.
Indecisive? No.
Sympathetic? No.
Polite? And dismissive.
Creative? I try.
Fun to be around? According to those close to me.
Loveable? I don't know.
Easily Amused? No.
Outgoing? Yes.
Daring? Yes.
Clumsy? Not as much as I once was.
Lazy? It happens.
Scary? Yes.
Optimistic? Yes.
Persuasive? Yes.
A good listener? Yes.
Curious? Yes.
Determined? Yes.
Artistic? Yes.
Honest? Yes.
Respectful? Yes.
Conceited? No.
Cocky? No.
Controlling? No.
Playful? Not really.
Easygoing? I give off that appearance.
Carefree? No.
Hot Headed? No.
Serious? Yes.
Thoughtful? I can be.
Considerate? Yes.
Stubborn? Yes.
Romantic? I'd love to learn how to be that way.
Ambitious? Yes.
Jealous? No.
Insecure? No.
Obsessive? A veces.
Attentive? Yes.
Helpful? When it's deserved.
Punctual? Yes.
Rational? Learn all the rules so you can break them in better ways.
Sincere? Yes.
Tolerant? "Tolerance is the virtue of the man without conviction." - G.K. Chesterton
Name - If you know, great. If you don't, it's actually not all that relevant anyway.
Gender - Male.
Age - I am only a few days away from buying booze and handguns.
Screen Name - No.
Birthday - May 27th.
Race - Genetically-modified human.
School/Grade - Junior at UC Santa Cruz
Job - Retail.
Status - Solitary, but not in confinement.
Hometown - None.
Current Town - Santa Cruz.
Parents Still Together? - Yes.
Siblings - One brother.
Pets - Cats!
Smoker - No way in the Nine Hells.
Drinker - Very rarely, and hardly any when I do.
Virgin - Absolutely.
Orientation - Straight.
Drugs - I need not chemicals to be enlightened.
APPEARANCE
Hair Color - Brown.
Is It Dyed? - No.
Eye Color - Grey-blue, like rolling fog.
Height - 3.95 Roman cubits
Style - I have it.
Glasses/Contacts/None? - Glasses.
Freckles - A few.
Body Type - Athletic.
Shoe Size - Small.
Piercings - None.
Want More? - No.
Tattoos? - Hopefully a Valknut this summer.
Want More? - Not after that.
Braces? - Used to.
Overall Best Feature - Everything.
Overall Worst Feature - None.
Do you get most of your traits from mom or dad? - Neither/both.
LIKES/DISLIKES
Favorite Color - Black.
Worst Color - Every colour is fine by itself, but there are some particularly horrid combinations that people enjoy wearing for some reason.
Favorite Animal - Cats.
Least Favorite Animal - None.
Favorite Flower - Orchid.
Favorite Food - MEAT.
Worst Food - Asparagus, only because it's stringy and makes my pee smell.
Favorite Junk Food - I really like Girl Scout cookies - Samoas.
Worst Junk Food - That "deep fried Pepsi" that Kaylah was talking about yesterday.
Favorite Restaraunt - Caffe Allegro back where I used to live, La Fornaretta (RIP), and anywhere that has decent food for a reasonable amount and a good view of the outdoors.
Favorite Ice Cream Flavor - Chocolate, caramel, and almond.
Favorite Candy - Ice cream.
Favorite Alcoholic Drink - George Hornsby's Hard Cider.
Favorite NON Alcoholic Drink - Water.
Worst Alcoholic Drink - Anything that smells like a solvent. I don't drink paint thinner, do you?
Worst NON Alcoholic Drink - Cold V8.
Favorite Genre of Music - A merging of 20th-century atonal/arrhythmic classical and extreme metal.
Worst Genre - I'm not familiar with bad music, because I only know good music.
Favorite Band/Artist - TÝR, !T.O.O.H.!, Duobetic Homunkulus, Turisas, Cannibal Corpse, Spastic Ink, Blotted Science, Koenjihyakkel, Arnold Schönberg, Giovanni Palestrina, Mats/Morgan Band, Fredrik Thordendal's Special Defects, Echo of Dalriada
Worst Band/Artist - There are far more than I care to write down.
Favorite Song - Many.
Worst Song - Also, many.
Favorite Radio Station - KZSC.
Favorite Book - The Art of War - Machiavelli
Worst Book - I don't read poor-quality books.
Favorite Type of Movie - Bond movies, foreign films about war, film noir
Worst Type of Movie - Adam Sandler.
Favorite Movie - Many.
Worst Movie Ever - Many.
Favorite TV Show - Mail Call.
Worst TV Show - Many.
Favorite Season of the Year - Winter
Worst Season - Summer.
Best Friend - Heather, Karen, Rose, Wayne, Aaron, Austin, Kateri, Rachel.
Worst Enemy - People are generally friendly towards me.
Favorite Day of the Week - Wodensdag.
Least Favorite Day of the Week - Saturday.
Favorite Sport - Fencing, polo, cricket, rugby, weightlifting, futbol, cycling.
Sport You Hate - American football.
One thing you cant get enough of - Trust.
One thing you hate more than anything - Having to excrete bodily waste.
LOVE LIFE
Are You Single? - Absolutely.
If not, who is your bf/gf? - N/A
How Long Have You Been Together? - N/A
If You're Single, Do you Like It? - I can honestly say that I completely distrust 99.9% of all women.
Do You Have a Crush On Anyone Right Now? - No, but I do love her dearly and await her return.
First Kiss - Best friend.
Ever Kiss in the Rain? - See above.
In a Movie Theater? - No.
Underwater? - And get water up my nose? You're out of your mind.
First Love - Reading.
Have you ever Cheated on Anyone? - No.
Been Cheated on? - No.
Used Someone? - No.
Lied to your bf/gf? - N/A
Ever Made out With Just a Friend? - Not "just a friend". That's a little dismissive.
Ever Had Sex With Just a Friend? - No.
Are You a Tease? - No.
Do you Flirt a Lot? - I am incapable of doing so.
Longest Relationship - No idea.
Shortest - Hah, two weeks.
Have you Ever Gotten a Poem? - I keep it close to my heart - quite literally.
Ever Get Flowers? - Watercolour.
Sweetest Thing You've Ever Gotten - The card is beautiful, not sweet. Children's valentines are sweet.
Do you Believe in Love at First Sight? - No.
Do you Believe in "The One"? - Neo? That's just a movie.
Do you Fall in Love Fast? - I don't actually fall.
Are you a Player? - Of video games.
Would you ever Hook Up With Someone of the Same sex? - No.
Have You ever Kissed 2 People in One Day? - No.
Kissed 2 People At One Time? - No.
Had Sex with 2 People in One day? - No.
Had sex with 2+ People at One Time? - No.
Ever cried over someone of the opposite sex? - No.
Ever Been Dumped? - Not really. We're like brother and sister now.
Ever dumped someone? - No.
Ever been rejected? - Oh, yes.
Do you have a lot of ex's? - No.
Are you a slut? - No.
Ever been called one? - No.
Ever dated someone more than once? - No.
Do you ever make the first move? - No. The patient hunter gets the prey.
Double dates or single? - Single, unless it's at a restaurant or the beach or something like that.
Do you want to get married? - Sure. I think it would be a lot of fun, especially because I'd have a gym spotter who lives with me.
OPPOSITE SEX (what you're attracted to)
Hair Color - RED HOLY CRAP RED HAIR. Also, I like dark/brown hair, too.
Short or long? - Any works for me. Even shaved.
Eye color? - Any.
Style - Non-trashy, preferably sticking to the "form follows function" adage. Military gear is awesome.
Age - I choose maturity over biological age.
Height - Doesn't matter.
Weight - Athletic, preferably someone who can keep up with me at the gym.
Muscular or skinny? - Muscular is preferred.
Boxers or Briefs? - She can wear my boxers, as long they fit okay.
Do you care about looks? - Of course. We are aesthetic beings. Though, it gets back-burner'd in lieu of more redeemable qualities.
OTHER QUESTIONS
Can you drive? - Yes. Do I like to? Absolutely not.
Do you have a car?- Yes.
Do you have a cell phone? - Yes.
Are you online a lot? - Yes.
Do you like gay/bi people? - I don't choose the company I keep by sexual orientation. It's irrelevant.
Can you speak another language? - Español. A veces yo hablo español en casa, o con un jefe cuando estamos trabajando.
Do you do well in school? - Yes.
Do you collect anything? - Books, CDs, knowledge.
Have an obsession? - Yes.
Do you hate yourself? - Why should I?
Ever smile for no reason? - No.
Talk to yourself? - Of course.
Do you have any regrets? - No.
Believe in magick? - No.
Do you support gay marriage? - As I am neither gay nor married, I care not.
Sex before marriage? - I don't care.
Do you trust people easily? - No.
Forgive easily? - A moment of laxity spawns a lifetime of heresy.
Do you have a secret no one knows? - Yes.
Do you get along with your parents? - Sometimes.
What about other people? - No.
How do you vent your anger? - .
Do you like George Bush? - I wouldn't want to work in his cabinet, but I'm sure he's a pretty cool guy. He seems like the kind of guy you'd want to go skeet shooting with.
Goal Before you die? - Own and become proficient with several firearms, survive the impending apocalypse and repopulate the planet, own that damnable Canon 40D!
Biggest Fear - None, for I am fear incarnate!
Biggest Weakness - None.
Do you play an instrument? - Guitar, bass guitar, vocal cords.
What do you want to be when you grow up? - A good husband and a good father.
PERSONALITY TRAITS
Are you... A bitch? No. I am a man.
Shy? No. Standoffish? Yes.
Talkative? In the right company.
Energetic? I can be.
Happy? Not always.
Depressed? No.
Funny? I can be.
Slutty? No.
Boring? No.
Mean? It happens.
Nice? No.
Caring? No.
Trustworthy? Yes.
Confident? Normal.
Friendly? No.
Smart? Intelligent and wise.
Sarcastic? A veces.
Dependable? Yes.
Quiet? Yes. That way, you'll never hear me until it's too late.
Weird? According to the general consensus.
Adaptable? Yes.
Strong (emotionally)? More like dead.
Strong (physically)? Yes.
Mature? I am serious.
Logical? Yes.
Religious? Yes, but privately.
Modest? Yes, but I won't try to cover up what I'm proud of when it comes to my accomplishments.
Indecisive? No.
Sympathetic? No.
Polite? And dismissive.
Creative? I try.
Fun to be around? According to those close to me.
Loveable? I don't know.
Easily Amused? No.
Outgoing? Yes.
Daring? Yes.
Clumsy? Not as much as I once was.
Lazy? It happens.
Scary? Yes.
Optimistic? Yes.
Persuasive? Yes.
A good listener? Yes.
Curious? Yes.
Determined? Yes.
Artistic? Yes.
Honest? Yes.
Respectful? Yes.
Conceited? No.
Cocky? No.
Controlling? No.
Playful? Not really.
Easygoing? I give off that appearance.
Carefree? No.
Hot Headed? No.
Serious? Yes.
Thoughtful? I can be.
Considerate? Yes.
Stubborn? Yes.
Romantic? I'd love to learn how to be that way.
Ambitious? Yes.
Jealous? No.
Insecure? No.
Obsessive? A veces.
Attentive? Yes.
Helpful? When it's deserved.
Punctual? Yes.
Rational? Learn all the rules so you can break them in better ways.
Sincere? Yes.
Tolerant? "Tolerance is the virtue of the man without conviction." - G.K. Chesterton
The Failure of Capitalism in Russia
After the fall of the Berlin Wall, soon followed by the Soviet regime itself, Russians were clearly sick and tired of Communism. Under perestroika, Western influence was allowed into Russia. This influence came in the form of pop culture - fashion, music, cinema, and food, among others. This was all fine and dandy in and of itself, but the commodities did not bring with them the Western concepts and values that allowed aviator glasses, Converse sneakers, Levi jeans, and Paramount films to be created the way that they are in the West.
The national mindset of Russia may forever be locked in a binary. Iu Lotman and Boris Uspenskii wrote an excellent article explaining the origins of the Russian binary model. It is largely based in the heaven/hell dichotomy of the Eastern Orthodox church, which has no concept of purgatory that the Catholic church adopted. The opposite of heaven is hell, and vice versa, so when Russian society seems to be in "hell", its opposite - "heaven" - will be implemented by force. The October revolution was a "revolution from above" - party elites implemented the mechanisms of communism and kept them in place. The same was done for "capitalism". It was shoddily implemented by people who are still caught in a binary, elite as they are.
In the West, the rise of capitalism and industrialism did not come from government mandates and elites governing the situation. It was a direct result of the endeavors of common people, engaging the in the free flow of goods and services. A lack of state ownership preceding the concretization of the concept of free market principles was the framework (or lack thereof) that allowed capitalism to flourish and benefit Western societies. Like democracy in the majority of the Middle East, capitalism cannot expect itself to change anything in Russia unless the mentality of the Russian people changes. Only binaries exist: leading and following, complaining and making jokes (which is manifested in the differences between women and men in Nancy Ries' Russian Talk), among others. There is no concept of the 'individual' undivorced from some sort of collective, and thus Russian individuals are more subject to a herd mentality. That mentality is absolutely incompatible with real capitalism, which requires individual effort and sacrifice, the decision to take risks and accept the consequences, and to go out on a limb and make something different and unique.
Alien concepts, no matter how much they have benefitted others, cannot be forced upon a population by mandate. Give democracy to the Palestinians, and they'll elect Hamas again. Give copies of An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations to Russia, and they will commission all sorts of committees and ask party officials to implement the ideas that sound good, defeating the whole purpose. The 'invisible hand' becomes visible, and continues to manifest itself in incompatible ways as long as the state and the fundamentals of a free market are intertwined.
Now playing: Duobetic Homunkulus - 'Části a mechanismy strojů'
The national mindset of Russia may forever be locked in a binary. Iu Lotman and Boris Uspenskii wrote an excellent article explaining the origins of the Russian binary model. It is largely based in the heaven/hell dichotomy of the Eastern Orthodox church, which has no concept of purgatory that the Catholic church adopted. The opposite of heaven is hell, and vice versa, so when Russian society seems to be in "hell", its opposite - "heaven" - will be implemented by force. The October revolution was a "revolution from above" - party elites implemented the mechanisms of communism and kept them in place. The same was done for "capitalism". It was shoddily implemented by people who are still caught in a binary, elite as they are.
In the West, the rise of capitalism and industrialism did not come from government mandates and elites governing the situation. It was a direct result of the endeavors of common people, engaging the in the free flow of goods and services. A lack of state ownership preceding the concretization of the concept of free market principles was the framework (or lack thereof) that allowed capitalism to flourish and benefit Western societies. Like democracy in the majority of the Middle East, capitalism cannot expect itself to change anything in Russia unless the mentality of the Russian people changes. Only binaries exist: leading and following, complaining and making jokes (which is manifested in the differences between women and men in Nancy Ries' Russian Talk), among others. There is no concept of the 'individual' undivorced from some sort of collective, and thus Russian individuals are more subject to a herd mentality. That mentality is absolutely incompatible with real capitalism, which requires individual effort and sacrifice, the decision to take risks and accept the consequences, and to go out on a limb and make something different and unique.
Alien concepts, no matter how much they have benefitted others, cannot be forced upon a population by mandate. Give democracy to the Palestinians, and they'll elect Hamas again. Give copies of An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations to Russia, and they will commission all sorts of committees and ask party officials to implement the ideas that sound good, defeating the whole purpose. The 'invisible hand' becomes visible, and continues to manifest itself in incompatible ways as long as the state and the fundamentals of a free market are intertwined.
Now playing: Duobetic Homunkulus - 'Části a mechanismy strojů'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)