I was having lunch recently with a collegue of mine and the topic of the health care bill came up. Now this friend of is in his middle 50's and is in favor of the health care bill . His logic was that since health care would be paid for by people making over 1 million or more and since he didn't make that much then it was OK since some one else would have to pay for it.
There's at least a few problems with this line of reasoning:
First it perpetuates the states war on private property since the health care will be paid for by monies taken from private citizens in the form of taxes.
Second this continues to give more credence to the ever expanding notion that mob rule is an acceptable form of governance. Under the logic that since there are more of us who want something than those who have it, we have the right to just take it. Given that there are fewer people that make over over a million a year than there are who need health insurance it's only fair that those rich people should pay for it. When the government voluntarily offers itself as a proxy to impose coercion and tyranny this can only lead to greater and greater despotism.
While I'm sure that there are other more minute details and practical issues concerning the implementation of the recent government health care bill. The most important concern is that it continues to propagate the belief that whatever the mob wants the mob gets. History has shown us that once mob rule gains acceptance there is usually an ugly ending coming soon.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
The Problem with Democracy
In America many of us have been ingrained with a communal belief that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Even those of us who have not seen Star Trek II will be familiar with this fundamental statement. In point of fact this maxim was actually postulated by a school of English philosophy know as Utilitarianism. Chiefly among these philosophers is John Stuart Mill, and Jeremy Bentham. While the quote is generally associated with Mills, it may more likely have been Bentham. Regardless, this fundamental belief is a cornerstone to the principals of democracy. Here's why:
Since the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few then it would only follow that the rule of the majority would best be qualified to decide which courses of actions would be best for the group as a whole since they are the many and their desire would be best served through the fulfillment of their needs.
So far everything sounds pretty good right? Wrong. Here's the problem, just because a majority of people want something that doesn't give them the right to impose those wants and desires on those people in the minority. Mills referred to this as the Tyranny of the Majority.
As an example we can take a long and embarrassing look at our own history of slavery here in the United States. Can you imagine that for almost 300 years white people imported black people from the continent of Africa to be used as slaves. How was this even possible? Simple, it was the rule of the white majority. That didn't make it right, but that doesn't matter if you're in the majority. Further even after the slaves were set free African Americans were still denied equal liberties for almost another hundred years, again because of the rule of the majority.
However, even as horrendous as that was it pales in comparison to what the Free and democratic society of Germany did to the Jews simple because of religious beliefs in the years of the second world war. There is no way that would have happened if the Jews had been in the majority. And again we see that just because a society is democratic doesn't mean that there is Justice and Freedom. It just means that majority is in charge.
After reading some of the works of Jefferson and Franklin it becomes quite obvious that they recognized all too clearly that a pure democracy was nothing more mob rule. They realized this in the late 1700's even though this was not stated overtly for almost another 100 year by Alexis de Tocqueville in his book Democracy in America. Which just goes to show how smart Jefferson and Franklin were. And as a consequence they went to great lengths to make sure that the constitution of the United States was designed around the basic premise of the preservation of liberty and not just the will of the angry mob.
The point that I'm trying to get across in this little blog is that just because you have democratic society that does not necessarily mean that you have a free society where the rights and liberties of everyone are protected. It just means that you have little more than a mob rule. Which is why all of us living in America should just be thankful that Jefferson realized that when he penned the Constitution so that these United States should be a constitutional republic and not just a pure democracy.
"A democracy is nothing more than two wolves and a sheep trying to decide what's for dinner." "liberty is well armed sheep contesting the menu" -Benjamin Franklin
Since the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few then it would only follow that the rule of the majority would best be qualified to decide which courses of actions would be best for the group as a whole since they are the many and their desire would be best served through the fulfillment of their needs.
So far everything sounds pretty good right? Wrong. Here's the problem, just because a majority of people want something that doesn't give them the right to impose those wants and desires on those people in the minority. Mills referred to this as the Tyranny of the Majority.
As an example we can take a long and embarrassing look at our own history of slavery here in the United States. Can you imagine that for almost 300 years white people imported black people from the continent of Africa to be used as slaves. How was this even possible? Simple, it was the rule of the white majority. That didn't make it right, but that doesn't matter if you're in the majority. Further even after the slaves were set free African Americans were still denied equal liberties for almost another hundred years, again because of the rule of the majority.
However, even as horrendous as that was it pales in comparison to what the Free and democratic society of Germany did to the Jews simple because of religious beliefs in the years of the second world war. There is no way that would have happened if the Jews had been in the majority. And again we see that just because a society is democratic doesn't mean that there is Justice and Freedom. It just means that majority is in charge.
After reading some of the works of Jefferson and Franklin it becomes quite obvious that they recognized all too clearly that a pure democracy was nothing more mob rule. They realized this in the late 1700's even though this was not stated overtly for almost another 100 year by Alexis de Tocqueville in his book Democracy in America. Which just goes to show how smart Jefferson and Franklin were. And as a consequence they went to great lengths to make sure that the constitution of the United States was designed around the basic premise of the preservation of liberty and not just the will of the angry mob.
The point that I'm trying to get across in this little blog is that just because you have democratic society that does not necessarily mean that you have a free society where the rights and liberties of everyone are protected. It just means that you have little more than a mob rule. Which is why all of us living in America should just be thankful that Jefferson realized that when he penned the Constitution so that these United States should be a constitutional republic and not just a pure democracy.
"A democracy is nothing more than two wolves and a sheep trying to decide what's for dinner." "liberty is well armed sheep contesting the menu" -Benjamin Franklin
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Diseconomies of socialism
A few weeks ago I was having lunch with the some of the Tampa Libertarian folks, and the topic came up of the USPS as a prime example of the diseconomies of socialism. Now I've got to tell you that I've had several bad experiences with the USPS and I make it a point to never use them for anything important, so I do have a clear bias against them.
Now that we've got that out of the way here's the facts. To begin with lets get a definition of what exactly the usps is, from wikipedia we find that the USPS is is "an independent agency of the States government (see 39 U.S.C. § 201) responsible for providing postal service in the United States".
Now here's where it gets ugly, as of March 31 the USPS had lost 1.9 billion in the first quarter of 2009. And this was not unique according to Thomas L. Gallagher at the Journal of commerce http://www.joc.com/node/411196 this is the 10 of 11 straight quarters of increasing losses. In fact while the six month period ending March 31 2009 showed a loss of 2.3 billion the sixth month period of the same time for 2008 was only a loss of 35 million. Only 35 million? Only 35 million???
.......And here's the Kafkaesque rub of it all.
I don't even know anybody that even uses the USPS. We all pay our bills on line. If something is really urgent we pick up a phone. For casual communication we send emails or use internet messaging. If we need to send an important package we use UPS or Fedex. So what do we get from the USPS?
......Hmmmmmmmm ........Oh yes now I remember, about four times a week I find all that junk mail that I immediately throw in the garbage.
So let me get this straight. The U.S. government is taking my hard earned money in the form of various taxes to run a remarkably inefficient business who's primary effect is that they jam my mailbox with stuff not only that I don't want, but also that I now need to take the time to remove from my mailbox so they can refill it with more junk that I still won't want to read. And they are doing it all at a cost of about 400 million a month.
Yeah, I feel much better now, and this thing with G.M. is sure to work out just fine.
I think Mr. Friedman sums this up best.
"Many people want the government to protect the consumer.
A much more urgent problem is to protect the consumer from the government. "
-Milton Friedman
Now that we've got that out of the way here's the facts. To begin with lets get a definition of what exactly the usps is, from wikipedia we find that the USPS is is "an independent agency of the States government (see 39 U.S.C. § 201) responsible for providing postal service in the United States".
Now here's where it gets ugly, as of March 31 the USPS had lost 1.9 billion in the first quarter of 2009. And this was not unique according to Thomas L. Gallagher at the Journal of commerce http://www.joc.com/node/411196 this is the 10 of 11 straight quarters of increasing losses. In fact while the six month period ending March 31 2009 showed a loss of 2.3 billion the sixth month period of the same time for 2008 was only a loss of 35 million. Only 35 million? Only 35 million???
.......And here's the Kafkaesque rub of it all.
I don't even know anybody that even uses the USPS. We all pay our bills on line. If something is really urgent we pick up a phone. For casual communication we send emails or use internet messaging. If we need to send an important package we use UPS or Fedex. So what do we get from the USPS?
......Hmmmmmmmm ........Oh yes now I remember, about four times a week I find all that junk mail that I immediately throw in the garbage.
So let me get this straight. The U.S. government is taking my hard earned money in the form of various taxes to run a remarkably inefficient business who's primary effect is that they jam my mailbox with stuff not only that I don't want, but also that I now need to take the time to remove from my mailbox so they can refill it with more junk that I still won't want to read. And they are doing it all at a cost of about 400 million a month.
Yeah, I feel much better now, and this thing with G.M. is sure to work out just fine.
I think Mr. Friedman sums this up best.
"Many people want the government to protect the consumer.
A much more urgent problem is to protect the consumer from the government. "
-Milton Friedman
Presidential election spending in 2008
I was speaking with a friend recently regarding how much typically gets spent on presidential elections and decided to do a little research. Here's what I found
Courtesy of opensecrets.org:
Barrack Obama .....raised 745,000,000 and spent 730,000,000
John McCain .....raised 368,000,000 and spent 333,000,000
Ralph Nader .....raised 4,000,000 and spent 4,000,000
Bob Barr .....raised 1,000,000 and spent 1,000,000
Chuck Baldwin .....raised 258,000 and spent 208,000
Cynthia McKinney .....raised 199,000 and spent 145,000
While I was digging into this info out I started to wonder what the final vote tallies were. Here's what I found regarding that, Courtesy of cnn.com
Barrack Obama .....got 69,492,376 votes
John McCain .....got 59,946,378 votes
Ralph Nader .....got 729,733 votes
Bob Barr .....got 523,439 votes
Chuck Baldwin .....got 184,502 votes
Cynthia McKinney .....got 160,015 votes
So this left me with some questions, specifically I was wondering which of the candidates got the most votes relative to dollars spent, ie: who got the most votes per dollars spent. Here's what we get for that one.
Barrack Obama .....spent $10.50 for each vote
John McCain .....spent $ 6.13 for each vote
Ralph Nader .....spent $ 5.46 for each vote
Bob Barr .....spent $ 1.91 for each vote
Chuck Baldwin .....spent $ 1.39 for each vote
Cynthia McKinney .....spent $ .62 for each vote
You can all make your own decision regarding this info, I just thought it was some interesting info.
"Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for" -Will Rogers
Courtesy of opensecrets.org:
Barrack Obama .....raised 745,000,000 and spent 730,000,000
John McCain .....raised 368,000,000 and spent 333,000,000
Ralph Nader .....raised 4,000,000 and spent 4,000,000
Bob Barr .....raised 1,000,000 and spent 1,000,000
Chuck Baldwin .....raised 258,000 and spent 208,000
Cynthia McKinney .....raised 199,000 and spent 145,000
While I was digging into this info out I started to wonder what the final vote tallies were. Here's what I found regarding that, Courtesy of cnn.com
Barrack Obama .....got 69,492,376 votes
John McCain .....got 59,946,378 votes
Ralph Nader .....got 729,733 votes
Bob Barr .....got 523,439 votes
Chuck Baldwin .....got 184,502 votes
Cynthia McKinney .....got 160,015 votes
So this left me with some questions, specifically I was wondering which of the candidates got the most votes relative to dollars spent, ie: who got the most votes per dollars spent. Here's what we get for that one.
Barrack Obama .....spent $10.50 for each vote
John McCain .....spent $ 6.13 for each vote
Ralph Nader .....spent $ 5.46 for each vote
Bob Barr .....spent $ 1.91 for each vote
Chuck Baldwin .....spent $ 1.39 for each vote
Cynthia McKinney .....spent $ .62 for each vote
You can all make your own decision regarding this info, I just thought it was some interesting info.
"Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for" -Will Rogers
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
A little rebellion now and then.......
I had the opportunity last weekend to have a most enjoyable lunch with the Tampa Area Libertarians. Before I go any further it's important to point that this group is in no way associated with the Libertarian party of Hillsborough county where they meet. Rather this group is a loose collection of genuinely open minded free thinkers with a strong bent regarding issues of personal liberties, small government, and laissez faire economics.
Several interesting topics were discussed during this lunch, but one in particular stuck with me and I just couldn't get it out of my head. This group is organized by a gentlemen whom I'll refer to as B.G. in a pale attempt to preserve his anonymity in case the boys from Langley come looking for him. At some point B.G. made the statement that "the constitution is really crap". Now this was quite an attention getter coming from someone who is clearly committed to libertarian values. His point was a socio-political statement that he then clarified by stating that if the founding fathers had the right to create their own constitution for themselves why did they presume that they then had the right to impose their constitution on their progeny? From a purely philosophical approach this is an entirely valid question.
I thought about this for a few days and I came up with at least one possible answer.
As I've grown older I've acquired a small collection of very nice guitars, and more and more I wonder what will happen to those guitars after I've passed away. My plan of course is to give those guitars to people whom I believe will take good care of these instruments and treat them as I have. However, I have to wonder how many generations removed will those guitars go and still be cared for as I have cared for them. Then I came to the realization that the reason I scrimped and saved and worked to buy those guitars were purely for my own selfish reasons. I wanted them for myself so that I could play them and enjoy them. The best that I can hope for is that whomever I give them to after I'm gone will cherish them as I have and they might last a few generations down.
Given my recent revelations I have to believe that our founding fathers acted with similar motivations and I suspect that altruism regarding their progeny 20 generations removed was probably a somewhat distant concern. The reason the founding fathers risked THEIR lives, THEIR families, and THEIR fortunes in a war with the greatest world power of the time, Great Britain was to secure THEIR freedom. The reason Jefferson wrote the constitution was to lay out a plan for THEIR OWN self governance. Certainly they were also concerned with their children and maybe even their grand children. But as with my guitars these guys must have recognized that there is a limit to how far down the road any person or persons can reasonably expect those things that they cherish to be cared for and taken care of.
Ultimately the founding fathers, acting like a collection of characters from an Ayn Rand book fought overwhelming and seemingly unsurmountable odds and risked everything to gain their freedom from an oppressive tyrannical government. The fact that we in modern America are the distant beneficiaries of their actions is just our dumb good luck. If we aren't happy with the hands we've been dealt then it would be a disservice to them to act with any less zeal than they did regarding their freedoms.
"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical." Thomas Jefferson Jan 30 1787.
Several interesting topics were discussed during this lunch, but one in particular stuck with me and I just couldn't get it out of my head. This group is organized by a gentlemen whom I'll refer to as B.G. in a pale attempt to preserve his anonymity in case the boys from Langley come looking for him. At some point B.G. made the statement that "the constitution is really crap". Now this was quite an attention getter coming from someone who is clearly committed to libertarian values. His point was a socio-political statement that he then clarified by stating that if the founding fathers had the right to create their own constitution for themselves why did they presume that they then had the right to impose their constitution on their progeny? From a purely philosophical approach this is an entirely valid question.
I thought about this for a few days and I came up with at least one possible answer.
As I've grown older I've acquired a small collection of very nice guitars, and more and more I wonder what will happen to those guitars after I've passed away. My plan of course is to give those guitars to people whom I believe will take good care of these instruments and treat them as I have. However, I have to wonder how many generations removed will those guitars go and still be cared for as I have cared for them. Then I came to the realization that the reason I scrimped and saved and worked to buy those guitars were purely for my own selfish reasons. I wanted them for myself so that I could play them and enjoy them. The best that I can hope for is that whomever I give them to after I'm gone will cherish them as I have and they might last a few generations down.
Given my recent revelations I have to believe that our founding fathers acted with similar motivations and I suspect that altruism regarding their progeny 20 generations removed was probably a somewhat distant concern. The reason the founding fathers risked THEIR lives, THEIR families, and THEIR fortunes in a war with the greatest world power of the time, Great Britain was to secure THEIR freedom. The reason Jefferson wrote the constitution was to lay out a plan for THEIR OWN self governance. Certainly they were also concerned with their children and maybe even their grand children. But as with my guitars these guys must have recognized that there is a limit to how far down the road any person or persons can reasonably expect those things that they cherish to be cared for and taken care of.
Ultimately the founding fathers, acting like a collection of characters from an Ayn Rand book fought overwhelming and seemingly unsurmountable odds and risked everything to gain their freedom from an oppressive tyrannical government. The fact that we in modern America are the distant beneficiaries of their actions is just our dumb good luck. If we aren't happy with the hands we've been dealt then it would be a disservice to them to act with any less zeal than they did regarding their freedoms.
"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical." Thomas Jefferson Jan 30 1787.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Liberal Fascism in America today
As someone who's an admitted politics junkie I am constantly trying to keep up with everything that's going on in the media today. In fact one of the things that has drawn me into this fight is what I've come to see a tendency toward outright fascism in the liberal media. While critics of my opinion would ask the question "Isn't that contradictory, given the strength of the conservative media, and the nature of liberal concerns ?". Let me assure you that it is not. Other critics might argue " The conservatives are just as bad!!!". Again I would say that is demonstrably false.
First, let me start by stating that the only truly honest and impartial news media in the United states is CNN. Cambell Brown, Lou Dobbs, John King, and Fareed Zakharia are the only genuinely unbiased folks out there. I hope this fact would be obvious to everyone. Then on the right we have Fox, and on the far far left we have MSNBC. I would hope this would be equally obvious to everyone.
Now we all realize that journalist are supposed to be honest and report the truth. Yet clearly that's not what's happening at all. What we are seeing here is not unlike what another group of socialist did in Germany in the late 1930's and 1940's. Through the clever use of propaganda, lies, and scapegoating the liberals on the left are trying to create the view that certain groups are evil and that the views which the hold should not be permitted. Further, just like the those German socialists of the 1930's and 1940's these current liberals are using the same techniques of slandering demonization.
So basically under the current administration you are free to exercise your right to free speech and express your views, provided of course that those views are the same as the administration now in control. If however, you should question the policies that could destroy us all, then you must be an evil vile miscreant, or a greedy elitist. All of which is very ironic, because the whole ideas surrounding the liberal left is that they are supposed to these educated, open minded, egalitarian types who are predisposed towards open minded debate. Yet what we see could not be further from the truth.
During the 2008 presidential campaign we witnessed a propaganda machine the likes of which I could not imagine. And as proof of the gullibility of the American people we fell for it. Well some of us did. Then candidate Obama was painted as some sort of savior like character who would solve all of the worlds problems, while anyone who asked even a question regarding his positions was instantly destroyed using whatever collection of lies they could come up with.
The classic example was Joe the plumber who asked a simple question. That being; "Isn't the redistribution of wealth just socialism ?". As soon as he asked that question rumors were spread that he was being investigated for non payment of child support and alimony. And as soon as that happened people did no further digging into the rumors, they just accepted the fact that if you questioned Obama and his policies then there must be something wrong with you and here was the proof. There was of course no basis in fact for these lies since Joe the plumber was a happily married man who had never been divorced. But it just goes to show the level that the liberal fascist on the left are willing to go.
So if there is anybody out there who actually reads this blog what I ask of you is this. Try not to be so damn gullible. When you hear something that sounds like it might be a little far fetched look into it. Don't just take the half truths and twisted lies that you are being fed from the internet, the radio, and the cable news. The truth is that there are factions on both sides of the political fence who are perfectly willing to tell you whatever they think you will want to hear, just so they can get in power and stay in power. And once they are in power the damage is very difficult to roll back.
This weeks quote is another from Adolf Hitler:
"The great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one. "
First, let me start by stating that the only truly honest and impartial news media in the United states is CNN. Cambell Brown, Lou Dobbs, John King, and Fareed Zakharia are the only genuinely unbiased folks out there. I hope this fact would be obvious to everyone. Then on the right we have Fox, and on the far far left we have MSNBC. I would hope this would be equally obvious to everyone.
Now we all realize that journalist are supposed to be honest and report the truth. Yet clearly that's not what's happening at all. What we are seeing here is not unlike what another group of socialist did in Germany in the late 1930's and 1940's. Through the clever use of propaganda, lies, and scapegoating the liberals on the left are trying to create the view that certain groups are evil and that the views which the hold should not be permitted. Further, just like the those German socialists of the 1930's and 1940's these current liberals are using the same techniques of slandering demonization.
So basically under the current administration you are free to exercise your right to free speech and express your views, provided of course that those views are the same as the administration now in control. If however, you should question the policies that could destroy us all, then you must be an evil vile miscreant, or a greedy elitist. All of which is very ironic, because the whole ideas surrounding the liberal left is that they are supposed to these educated, open minded, egalitarian types who are predisposed towards open minded debate. Yet what we see could not be further from the truth.
During the 2008 presidential campaign we witnessed a propaganda machine the likes of which I could not imagine. And as proof of the gullibility of the American people we fell for it. Well some of us did. Then candidate Obama was painted as some sort of savior like character who would solve all of the worlds problems, while anyone who asked even a question regarding his positions was instantly destroyed using whatever collection of lies they could come up with.
The classic example was Joe the plumber who asked a simple question. That being; "Isn't the redistribution of wealth just socialism ?". As soon as he asked that question rumors were spread that he was being investigated for non payment of child support and alimony. And as soon as that happened people did no further digging into the rumors, they just accepted the fact that if you questioned Obama and his policies then there must be something wrong with you and here was the proof. There was of course no basis in fact for these lies since Joe the plumber was a happily married man who had never been divorced. But it just goes to show the level that the liberal fascist on the left are willing to go.
So if there is anybody out there who actually reads this blog what I ask of you is this. Try not to be so damn gullible. When you hear something that sounds like it might be a little far fetched look into it. Don't just take the half truths and twisted lies that you are being fed from the internet, the radio, and the cable news. The truth is that there are factions on both sides of the political fence who are perfectly willing to tell you whatever they think you will want to hear, just so they can get in power and stay in power. And once they are in power the damage is very difficult to roll back.
This weeks quote is another from Adolf Hitler:
"The great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one. "
Monday, March 9, 2009
Lies from the left #1 and #2
Recently a number of democratic propagandist have been throwing out two truly ridiculous lies. I would call them mistakes, or errors, but given the gravity and the collection of perpetrators they can only be called lies and propaganda.
The first is that Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the republican party. Now it is a matter of fact Mr. Limbaugh has not been elected to any positions in the republican party. I know this as a fact because I pay attention to what's going on, and if he had been elected or even if had run I probably would have gotten wind of it. And while I am not a republican I do try and keep abreast of what those guys are doing, just so I know who's truly to blame for the latest mess. The fact is that Mr. Limbaugh is a radio personality who has a great many conservative followers. He is also a republican with a lot sway in the public view. It is also true that his view are probably mirroring the views of a great many other conservative republicans. However, that is the extent of his power in this area.
The second fabrication is that Rush Limbaugh, and guilty by association the rest of the republicans, now are hoping and even waiting for Barrack Obama to fail. To that end I am reprinting here the whole quote that was twisted around, from Sean Hannity's show Hannity on January 21, 2009
"So I shamelessly say, no, I want him to fail, if his agenda is a far- left collectivism, some people say socialism, as a conservative heartfelt, deeply, why would I want socialism to succeed?"
Given the full quote who would not want a move towards socialism to fail. Anybody who want otherwise can only be an idiot or a sad pathetic wretch of a human or both. What we have seen is that whenever socialism is put in place it fails, and eventually turns to fascism.
The problem is that there are a lot of far left crazy people who think that socialism is good, and the redistribution of wealth is good. I do however, find it quite interesting that those are frequently the people who have no wealth to redistribute from. They might feel a little different if they were the ones who's work were being redistributed from instead of being the ones on the receiving end of the redistributions.
And here's a great quote from another of the great propagandists of our time,
Joseph Goebbels:
" It is the absolute right of the state to supervise the formation of public opinion"
The first is that Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the republican party. Now it is a matter of fact Mr. Limbaugh has not been elected to any positions in the republican party. I know this as a fact because I pay attention to what's going on, and if he had been elected or even if had run I probably would have gotten wind of it. And while I am not a republican I do try and keep abreast of what those guys are doing, just so I know who's truly to blame for the latest mess. The fact is that Mr. Limbaugh is a radio personality who has a great many conservative followers. He is also a republican with a lot sway in the public view. It is also true that his view are probably mirroring the views of a great many other conservative republicans. However, that is the extent of his power in this area.
The second fabrication is that Rush Limbaugh, and guilty by association the rest of the republicans, now are hoping and even waiting for Barrack Obama to fail. To that end I am reprinting here the whole quote that was twisted around, from Sean Hannity's show Hannity on January 21, 2009
"So I shamelessly say, no, I want him to fail, if his agenda is a far- left collectivism, some people say socialism, as a conservative heartfelt, deeply, why would I want socialism to succeed?"
Given the full quote who would not want a move towards socialism to fail. Anybody who want otherwise can only be an idiot or a sad pathetic wretch of a human or both. What we have seen is that whenever socialism is put in place it fails, and eventually turns to fascism.
The problem is that there are a lot of far left crazy people who think that socialism is good, and the redistribution of wealth is good. I do however, find it quite interesting that those are frequently the people who have no wealth to redistribute from. They might feel a little different if they were the ones who's work were being redistributed from instead of being the ones on the receiving end of the redistributions.
And here's a great quote from another of the great propagandists of our time,
Joseph Goebbels:
" It is the absolute right of the state to supervise the formation of public opinion"
Why the republicans really lost in 2008
As soon as the DNC picked Barrack Obama as their candidate for the president it was painfully obvious that John McCain didn't stand a chance. Why is that you may ask? Because of two reasons.
The first reason is that Barrack Obama is younger, hipper, better looking and infinitely more cool than John McCain. Let's face it Fergie likes Barrack, so does Hayden Panattiere, and Madonna. And lets face it there's no way we can argue with that that level of political astuteness. And although I am a fan of John McCain's he really did seem to be a quite daft on more than one occasions. It was like he some kind of grandpa telling stories about when he was a kid. He was quite out of touch with reality.
The second reason that the democrats won is that the democrats play dirty pool, which is on a level that John McCain and his people would not stoop. Mind you the republicans play dirty pool also, it's just that McCain's folks aren't nearly as adept at it. Nor were they as adept at controlling the media. If Karl Rove had been running the McCain campaign he would have had a field day with it. There would have been images and innuendo about every possible aspect of Barrack Obama's life. His name, his lineage, his upbringing, his voting record or lack there of. Karl Rove would have slaughtered Barrack and we'd never have heard of him again, accept as an also ran.
So now we get the at least four years of the democratic propaganda machine to deal with. I'm not sure which is worst, only that at least when the republicans try to pull a fast one it's a little harder to catch them in the lies. However when the Democrats tell their lies it's difficult not to feel as though they are insulting our intelligence because their lies are so preposterous. And yet there are a good amount of the American people who are totally willing to believe them.
My plan is to keep track of these lies and miss truths, and keep a running tally of them as they come out.
And now a quote from one of my favorite fascist, Adolf Hitler:
"If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed. "
The first reason is that Barrack Obama is younger, hipper, better looking and infinitely more cool than John McCain. Let's face it Fergie likes Barrack, so does Hayden Panattiere, and Madonna. And lets face it there's no way we can argue with that that level of political astuteness. And although I am a fan of John McCain's he really did seem to be a quite daft on more than one occasions. It was like he some kind of grandpa telling stories about when he was a kid. He was quite out of touch with reality.
The second reason that the democrats won is that the democrats play dirty pool, which is on a level that John McCain and his people would not stoop. Mind you the republicans play dirty pool also, it's just that McCain's folks aren't nearly as adept at it. Nor were they as adept at controlling the media. If Karl Rove had been running the McCain campaign he would have had a field day with it. There would have been images and innuendo about every possible aspect of Barrack Obama's life. His name, his lineage, his upbringing, his voting record or lack there of. Karl Rove would have slaughtered Barrack and we'd never have heard of him again, accept as an also ran.
So now we get the at least four years of the democratic propaganda machine to deal with. I'm not sure which is worst, only that at least when the republicans try to pull a fast one it's a little harder to catch them in the lies. However when the Democrats tell their lies it's difficult not to feel as though they are insulting our intelligence because their lies are so preposterous. And yet there are a good amount of the American people who are totally willing to believe them.
My plan is to keep track of these lies and miss truths, and keep a running tally of them as they come out.
And now a quote from one of my favorite fascist, Adolf Hitler:
"If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed. "
Not even a shadow of the founders...
The problem with politics in America today is that the people living in America today are not even a thin shadow of the people that founded this country. Where the founding fathers were brave, and courageous we are meek and timid. Where the founder fathers were well read and intelligent, we are shallow and short sighted. Where the founding fathers were independent and self reliant we have been coddled, and grave attention thinking only of ourselves, and to hell with everyone else.
We as a people have forgotten the sacrifices made for our freedoms. We fail to recognize the importance of those freedoms and the cost of those freedoms. The fact is that we are stupid lazy children, spoiled brats, who are squandering that which was given to us at such a great cost.
We are gullible to the extreme, we want instant gratification and we aren't really willing to work for it. And anybody who says that they can give it to us is our new best friend.
And like many spoiled children I suspect things will not go well for us when we grow up and don't just get what we want by crying for it.
I'd like to close with a small quote from Benjamin Franklin:
"those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve niether"
We as a people have forgotten the sacrifices made for our freedoms. We fail to recognize the importance of those freedoms and the cost of those freedoms. The fact is that we are stupid lazy children, spoiled brats, who are squandering that which was given to us at such a great cost.
We are gullible to the extreme, we want instant gratification and we aren't really willing to work for it. And anybody who says that they can give it to us is our new best friend.
And like many spoiled children I suspect things will not go well for us when we grow up and don't just get what we want by crying for it.
I'd like to close with a small quote from Benjamin Franklin:
"those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve niether"
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Of the government, by the government, and for the government.
Or was it supposed to be of the people, by the people, and for the people?
For those not familiar with this phrase it is the ending line of President Lincolns Gettysburg. An address which starts with an even more often quoted phrase "Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal". I think of these two phrases now more than ever before as I wonder what has happened to America. Lincolns war, the civil war was a war to provide freedom and equality to every one in the United States. I have to wonder if I'm still in the same America. Cause it sure seems there's some folks at the top who are being treated as a little more equal than others.
Indeed I more and more often feel like this is not the America that I was brought up in. I'm speaking specifically of the blatant hubris, greed, and corruption at every level of big business and government in this country. Each and every day I turn on the news and am amazed by some new story of a CEO, or board of directors who has run their company into the ground, begged, ..........and then gotten money from the government. And then turned around and just as irresponsibly as before gone on some self indulgent spending spree as if it was just business as usual.
These folks are no better than heroine addicts, except that your typical heroine addict at least has the common courtesy to remove the needle and rubber band from his arm before going out into public so that the rest of don't have to be offended by his vulgar habit. This differs from the corrupt corporate execs who, are asking for yet more money with the shame of their most recent failures still fresh on the days news. Also in defense of the heroine addict the hubris which they commit doesn't really harm anyone but themselves. Oh sure there's the occasional failed attempt at a liquor store robbery to get his fix, but that pales in comparison to the damage that is being done by these incompetent, unethical, immoral white collar bastards who are destroying our country purely for the sake of their own gluttony. And make no mistake it is gluttony. There are very real people in this country who are every day losing their jobs, their homes indeed everything they have. All the while our government is subsidizing the lifestyles of the evil corporate execs, and doing so at our expense.
Of course there are other differences between a corporate exec and a heroine addict. Specifically, if you or I see a heroine addict on the street begging for money with a needle still dangling from his arm we would almost certainly walk away disgusted by him. Our government it seems doesn't operate on any sort of similar principals.
In fact it seems our government has no problem at all funding these white collar addicts, and they are doing so at our expense, and at the expense of our children. Because when our government is paying for something that really means it's us the taxpayer who is paying for things. And we are paying for it on credit, and sooner or later the interest will be coming due.
The original idea of America, and the reason this country that was so appealing to the rest of the world was because of the belief that in America anyone can come here and the only limitation they had was their own intelligence, drive, and ambition. If you build a better product or service you will succeed because people will want to have the better product to the inferior one. Oh yes I recall now, that's what they call capitalism and free markets. However, it seems as though we have recently moved away from that idea.
These people are utterly without shame. It used to be that if you were caught committing acts of such an egregious nature that you were at the very least ashamed of your self. Not these bastards. No sir. They don't even seem to feel as though they've done anything the least bit wrong. And our the response of our government is to continue to supply them with a fresh set of needles. How is this ever going to get any better? Until we have a government that is willing to do the hard thing things are just going to get worse, and I will continue to ask what happened to America?
I started this out with a quote from one of my favorite president, and I'm going to close it out with a quote from one of my favorite four fathers Benjamin Franklin:
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
For those not familiar with this phrase it is the ending line of President Lincolns Gettysburg. An address which starts with an even more often quoted phrase "Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal". I think of these two phrases now more than ever before as I wonder what has happened to America. Lincolns war, the civil war was a war to provide freedom and equality to every one in the United States. I have to wonder if I'm still in the same America. Cause it sure seems there's some folks at the top who are being treated as a little more equal than others.
Indeed I more and more often feel like this is not the America that I was brought up in. I'm speaking specifically of the blatant hubris, greed, and corruption at every level of big business and government in this country. Each and every day I turn on the news and am amazed by some new story of a CEO, or board of directors who has run their company into the ground, begged, ..........and then gotten money from the government. And then turned around and just as irresponsibly as before gone on some self indulgent spending spree as if it was just business as usual.
These folks are no better than heroine addicts, except that your typical heroine addict at least has the common courtesy to remove the needle and rubber band from his arm before going out into public so that the rest of don't have to be offended by his vulgar habit. This differs from the corrupt corporate execs who, are asking for yet more money with the shame of their most recent failures still fresh on the days news. Also in defense of the heroine addict the hubris which they commit doesn't really harm anyone but themselves. Oh sure there's the occasional failed attempt at a liquor store robbery to get his fix, but that pales in comparison to the damage that is being done by these incompetent, unethical, immoral white collar bastards who are destroying our country purely for the sake of their own gluttony. And make no mistake it is gluttony. There are very real people in this country who are every day losing their jobs, their homes indeed everything they have. All the while our government is subsidizing the lifestyles of the evil corporate execs, and doing so at our expense.
Of course there are other differences between a corporate exec and a heroine addict. Specifically, if you or I see a heroine addict on the street begging for money with a needle still dangling from his arm we would almost certainly walk away disgusted by him. Our government it seems doesn't operate on any sort of similar principals.
In fact it seems our government has no problem at all funding these white collar addicts, and they are doing so at our expense, and at the expense of our children. Because when our government is paying for something that really means it's us the taxpayer who is paying for things. And we are paying for it on credit, and sooner or later the interest will be coming due.
The original idea of America, and the reason this country that was so appealing to the rest of the world was because of the belief that in America anyone can come here and the only limitation they had was their own intelligence, drive, and ambition. If you build a better product or service you will succeed because people will want to have the better product to the inferior one. Oh yes I recall now, that's what they call capitalism and free markets. However, it seems as though we have recently moved away from that idea.
These people are utterly without shame. It used to be that if you were caught committing acts of such an egregious nature that you were at the very least ashamed of your self. Not these bastards. No sir. They don't even seem to feel as though they've done anything the least bit wrong. And our the response of our government is to continue to supply them with a fresh set of needles. How is this ever going to get any better? Until we have a government that is willing to do the hard thing things are just going to get worse, and I will continue to ask what happened to America?
I started this out with a quote from one of my favorite president, and I'm going to close it out with a quote from one of my favorite four fathers Benjamin Franklin:
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Liberals, Libertarians and sea kittens
I was watching an interview with the comedian Bill Maher recently during which he described himself as a libertarian. Being a staunch libertarian myself, I found this notion quite disconcerting. From the many shows of his that I have watched I had pegged him as liberal, and I'm not generally wrong about these things.
Which put me thinking recently how interesting it is that these two groups have the same root word and yet are radically different in the very core of what each believe. The root word that I'm talking about here is of course the Latin word liber, meaning free. While the libertarians have taken this name because it reflects the core tenet of their belief in the personal freedom, and the rights of the individual, it seems that those folks on the far left must have a different interpretation. I suspect that the reason liberals have chosen this moniker or perhaps had it placed upon them is the notion that they are free thinkers. The intention of being a free thinker is of course a noble aspiration. Would that we could all be free of the notions and emotions which cloud all of our decisions and judgments. However, when I hear so much of the nonsense spewed out by the far left it seems the opposite must be true. It seems as though their goal is not so much freedom, but rather the exact opposite. Their goal it seems is not to strengthen the rights of the individual, but rather to use whatever means possible to limit those freedoms, and impose their own beliefs regardless of how absurd on everyone else.
A poignant, albeit harmless example of this is the far left group PETA, and their sea kitten campaign. While I'm sure the good folks at PETA have only the noblest of intentions and the greatest assurance in their own beliefs, this a classic example of folks on the left trying to do anything they can to foist their narrow little views on the rest of us regardless of the costs or the impact to the freedom to anyone who does not share their views. However, speaking in the voice of libertarians across our country I'd like to say if you folks want to call fish sea kittens, then more power to you, and I will wholeheartedly defend your right to do so. However, I'm wondering if between the wringing of and hands, and the printing of signs, and the planning of protest marches could you please take a few seconds out and pass over a pair of chop sticks, because I for my part prefer my sea kitten served raw and with a healthy dose of wasabi.
I'd like to close this week off with a quote from another of my favorite authors, Ayn Rand
"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights can not claim to be defenders of minorities"
he smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defen
Which put me thinking recently how interesting it is that these two groups have the same root word and yet are radically different in the very core of what each believe. The root word that I'm talking about here is of course the Latin word liber, meaning free. While the libertarians have taken this name because it reflects the core tenet of their belief in the personal freedom, and the rights of the individual, it seems that those folks on the far left must have a different interpretation. I suspect that the reason liberals have chosen this moniker or perhaps had it placed upon them is the notion that they are free thinkers. The intention of being a free thinker is of course a noble aspiration. Would that we could all be free of the notions and emotions which cloud all of our decisions and judgments. However, when I hear so much of the nonsense spewed out by the far left it seems the opposite must be true. It seems as though their goal is not so much freedom, but rather the exact opposite. Their goal it seems is not to strengthen the rights of the individual, but rather to use whatever means possible to limit those freedoms, and impose their own beliefs regardless of how absurd on everyone else.
A poignant, albeit harmless example of this is the far left group PETA, and their sea kitten campaign. While I'm sure the good folks at PETA have only the noblest of intentions and the greatest assurance in their own beliefs, this a classic example of folks on the left trying to do anything they can to foist their narrow little views on the rest of us regardless of the costs or the impact to the freedom to anyone who does not share their views. However, speaking in the voice of libertarians across our country I'd like to say if you folks want to call fish sea kittens, then more power to you, and I will wholeheartedly defend your right to do so. However, I'm wondering if between the wringing of and hands, and the printing of signs, and the planning of protest marches could you please take a few seconds out and pass over a pair of chop sticks, because I for my part prefer my sea kitten served raw and with a healthy dose of wasabi.
I'd like to close this week off with a quote from another of my favorite authors, Ayn Rand
"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights can not claim to be defenders of minorities"
he smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defen
Friday, January 9, 2009
Then there's those other guys........
They're abrasive. They're obnoxious. They're annoying. And they all have that same sense of self righteous fascistic smugness that you can only be imbued when you know without a shadow of doubt that God is on your side.
Who are they you ask? Why they can only be the republicans.
In truth however that caricature is not entirely fair. I like to think that I've taken a pretty objective look at the various components that comprise the substrata of each of the two major parties in the United States, and here is what I have found.
The Democrats seem to be comprised of a vast and almost incalculable collective of tiny minorities each with their own highly specialized agenda (which by the way is the most important issue facing the human race at this time). Save the whales. Save the planet. Save the jack Russel Terriers. Gay and lesbian rights. Hippie rights. Minority rights. Gay and lesbian Jack Russel Terrier rights. And the list goes on and on and on and on....... It's toooooo confusing for me to keep track of.
The republicans aren't nearly as complicated. They keep it simple. If you take a hard look at the republicans there's really only three groups of people there. You got your crazy far right wing Christian religious zealots. You've got your cold hearted ultra capitalist pigs. And you've got all those dangerous gun nuts. Although recently I've noticed more and more of trend toward a new group slipping in, the nationalistic rednecks. But so far they've still got to be lumped in with the far right wing religious zealots and the dangerous gun nuts. If they're still around after Bush leaves office maybe they can have they're own group.
The republicans are a very binary party, everything is either black or white, yes or no. You're with us or our against us. There's no lengthy logical syllogisms to determine what the meaning of the word is is. No sir, there will be none of that. You're either a terrorist or your not. You've either got WMD or you don't, well maybe you're hiding them, or you could've moved them when we weren't looking, but we know you're up to something.
All that being said the republicans ain't what they used to be when old Dutch was running the party. Then there was a clarity of purpose. There was an unbridled sense of optimism for the future of the country. America was carrying on the legacy of greatness from it's past and moving it into the future. The government was there to do only what needed to be done and get out of the way, so the people could build for themselves. The republican party today is a mess. Allegations of corruption, and racism, coupled with incompetence and cronyism. Sealing off the deal we have Hank Paulson writing open ended checks to his corrupt fat cat buddies to live the good life while millions of tax payers and stock holders get screwed. I seem to recall from my macro economics class that is was John Maynard Keynes who talked about priming the pump to stimulate the economy, but Paulson's actions sure seems a lot more like robbing the till after shooting the clerk on the way out the door.
I'd like to close this off with a quote from one of my favorite authors, the incredibly perceptive P.J. O'Rourke: "The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it. "
Who are they you ask? Why they can only be the republicans.
In truth however that caricature is not entirely fair. I like to think that I've taken a pretty objective look at the various components that comprise the substrata of each of the two major parties in the United States, and here is what I have found.
The Democrats seem to be comprised of a vast and almost incalculable collective of tiny minorities each with their own highly specialized agenda (which by the way is the most important issue facing the human race at this time). Save the whales. Save the planet. Save the jack Russel Terriers. Gay and lesbian rights. Hippie rights. Minority rights. Gay and lesbian Jack Russel Terrier rights. And the list goes on and on and on and on....... It's toooooo confusing for me to keep track of.
The republicans aren't nearly as complicated. They keep it simple. If you take a hard look at the republicans there's really only three groups of people there. You got your crazy far right wing Christian religious zealots. You've got your cold hearted ultra capitalist pigs. And you've got all those dangerous gun nuts. Although recently I've noticed more and more of trend toward a new group slipping in, the nationalistic rednecks. But so far they've still got to be lumped in with the far right wing religious zealots and the dangerous gun nuts. If they're still around after Bush leaves office maybe they can have they're own group.
The republicans are a very binary party, everything is either black or white, yes or no. You're with us or our against us. There's no lengthy logical syllogisms to determine what the meaning of the word is is. No sir, there will be none of that. You're either a terrorist or your not. You've either got WMD or you don't, well maybe you're hiding them, or you could've moved them when we weren't looking, but we know you're up to something.
All that being said the republicans ain't what they used to be when old Dutch was running the party. Then there was a clarity of purpose. There was an unbridled sense of optimism for the future of the country. America was carrying on the legacy of greatness from it's past and moving it into the future. The government was there to do only what needed to be done and get out of the way, so the people could build for themselves. The republican party today is a mess. Allegations of corruption, and racism, coupled with incompetence and cronyism. Sealing off the deal we have Hank Paulson writing open ended checks to his corrupt fat cat buddies to live the good life while millions of tax payers and stock holders get screwed. I seem to recall from my macro economics class that is was John Maynard Keynes who talked about priming the pump to stimulate the economy, but Paulson's actions sure seems a lot more like robbing the till after shooting the clerk on the way out the door.
I'd like to close this off with a quote from one of my favorite authors, the incredibly perceptive P.J. O'Rourke: "The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it. "
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Why I am not a democrat
First let me begin by stating that I have a good many close friends and family that are democrats. Many of whom are near and dear to my heart, and all of whom I think very highly of for their intelligence and passions. I suppose that these many friends look on me as a decent enough fellow who has just been misled on some key issues. Or perhaps they feel that even though I have some good arguments I'm missing some crucial point they are aware of and that I am just not capable of perceiving. Or perhaps they think I'm just a bit of a dullard and they tolerate my antiquated purile views entirely out some sense of their own superiority. Much like a contemporary man trying to explain Wittgenstien's Tractus Logico to a cave man, they take pity me on because I'm just not able to grasp the complicated abstract concepts of what they are talking about.
For all of these folks and for any others who might stumble upon this little essay I'd like to give a brief explanation of why I am not a democrat. My biggest issues of disagreement with my democrat friends are the notions of self reliance and fairness. This is because when I speak with my many democrat friends their biggest concern is what the government is doing enough for the people. Which I often find ironic considering that it was a JFK who is noted for saying "Ask not what your country can do for you, but ask rather what you can do for your country". However, the pressing concern of all the democrats that I speak seems to be "What can the federal government do for me". There seems to be a firmly held belief that the Federal government should be responsible for fixing all of their problems. And on that note I must agree with Gerald Ford in his quote: "Any government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take it away".
It all comes down to the notion of personal freedom and responsibility. My belief is that people should be responsible for their own actions, our destinies should be ones of their own creation. With every action we take we roll the dice, and we alone should bear the consequences of those actions. And yes sometimes life can deal out some pretty rough hands to us, and some pretty cushy hands to others. And yes sometimes we can make some pretty rough mistakes. That is how we learn. However, if we constantly look to the federal government to provide for us and bail us out of every hardship we will eventually be handing over every freedom which our forefathers risked their very lives for. It doesn't really matter that we can't take care of ourselves. Not to worry big brother will take care of us.
In closing I think the best way to some up my point of view is a quote from one of my favorite founding fathers, Benjamin Franklin:
"The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. "
For all of these folks and for any others who might stumble upon this little essay I'd like to give a brief explanation of why I am not a democrat. My biggest issues of disagreement with my democrat friends are the notions of self reliance and fairness. This is because when I speak with my many democrat friends their biggest concern is what the government is doing enough for the people. Which I often find ironic considering that it was a JFK who is noted for saying "Ask not what your country can do for you, but ask rather what you can do for your country". However, the pressing concern of all the democrats that I speak seems to be "What can the federal government do for me". There seems to be a firmly held belief that the Federal government should be responsible for fixing all of their problems. And on that note I must agree with Gerald Ford in his quote: "Any government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take it away".
It all comes down to the notion of personal freedom and responsibility. My belief is that people should be responsible for their own actions, our destinies should be ones of their own creation. With every action we take we roll the dice, and we alone should bear the consequences of those actions. And yes sometimes life can deal out some pretty rough hands to us, and some pretty cushy hands to others. And yes sometimes we can make some pretty rough mistakes. That is how we learn. However, if we constantly look to the federal government to provide for us and bail us out of every hardship we will eventually be handing over every freedom which our forefathers risked their very lives for. It doesn't really matter that we can't take care of ourselves. Not to worry big brother will take care of us.
In closing I think the best way to some up my point of view is a quote from one of my favorite founding fathers, Benjamin Franklin:
"The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. "
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
