Monthly Archives: October 2010

Government and Great Ideas

Joe Biden stated today that “Every single great idea that has marked the 21st century, the 20th century and the 19th century has required government vision and government incentive.”

And I think that this sums up the liberal view of existence, that nothing can exist, can be created, can be done without an all-controlling overreaching government.

There is just one problem with this idea. It is wrong. Let me give you a few examples:

James Watt had no government incentive to create the steam engine.
Which in turn had no government incentive to create the train.

Edison had no government incentive to invent the light bulb or direct current.
Tesla had no government incentive to invent alternating current or what would become the basis for radio and TV (and God alone knows what else he invented).

The first semiconductor was patented by a German scientist in 1949, and yes, the moon race helped turn those semiconductors into an early modern microchip, it was Steve Jobs who first truly created the idea of a personal computer that non-geeks could use (no government assistance). And Bill Gates didn’t have government incentive to create Windows as a PC answer to Mac, he had profit motive.

Honore Blanc who first tried using interchangeable parts (before Whitney tried the same thing) in 1778 had no government incentive I know of.

Ford didn’t come up with the assembly line for the government he did it for his pocket book.
Nothing in the history of the internal combustion engine suggests government incentive did much to create it.

I don’t think the Wright Brothers were motivated by government incentive.

Hollywood, for all of its greatness and flaws, does not exist because of government incentive, it exists because of a profit motive, people’s desire to entertain, the artist’s desire to create.

Rock’n’roll is not the creation of government.

I could go on but the basis for the great ideas that have advanced humanity is a beautiful mixture of the human desire to create and strive and the profit motive. Government is, if anything opposed to those ideas. But don’t expect a liberal to understand that it is the free market, not the government that allows humans to create and push themselves to be better. They can’t understand a world without their all powerful government. But with any luck Tuesday will begin the start of a world with that government, whether they understand it or not.

In fact, the only two aspects I can think of that the government has had any influence on the creation of new ideas is military advancements and the space race. Obama is openly hostile to the military and remind me again what happened to NASA’s budget?

Leave a comment

Filed under Evils of Liberalism, Free Will

Obama’s Intellectual Ancestor

Dim Jimmy Carter apparently is taking his information on history from the same reliable sources where he gets advice on nuclear proliferation policy (although I doubt most 6 year olds say anything as dumb as what comes out of this idiots mouth).

This isn’t even close to a major issue but I will never forgo a chance to kick this Anti-Semite when he’s down.

So his latest act of incompetence is saying that he only lost the presidential election in 1980 because of a third party candidate. This is a fascinating revision of history as Jimmy got 41% and the third party candidate (Anderson) got 6.6% …and Reagan got 50.7 %. Someone should tell Jimmy that 41+6.6 (47.6) is not more than 50.7…but all you have to do is look at how Democrats think they can spend what they don’t have to understand that Democrats all failed math. (And you could argue that some states were close calls, and the third party destroyed Jimmy in the electoral college, but if you want to even try that I would suggest you look at the fact that Reagan had nearly a 20 point lead in California and would have won California even if there wasn’t a third party candidate. And as anyone who looks at politics knows, a Democrat can’t win without California and its massive number of electoral votes–45 in 1980). Even if you assume every vote for the third party candidate would have gone to the 2nd worst president in the history of the Union (three guesses as to who I think is the worst), which is a big assumption, Jimmy still would have lost the electoral college by a wide margin (340-198). Jimmy is just a moron’s moron and like his compatriots who do not live in the real world (Obama, Krugman) should just shut up before he further embarrasses this country.

This just shows what a petty excuse Jimmy is. He is still so sore that the entire nation voted his little excuse of a presidency out that he has to live in a dream world rather than admit he was beaten by a better man.

But is it any shock that he would want to make up a fantasy world. After all, what did his Presidency give us? He let the Soviets destroy the early stages of democracy and capitalism in Afghanistan. He let Iran fall to a religious tyranny. He passed the Community Reinvestment Act which would later be used to force banks to give home loans to people who couldn’t afford them in the 90’s and early 2000’s…gee I hope none of those things ever came back to bite us in the ass.

And shame on Matthews for not calling him on his incredibly bad math. I know Chris gets chills up his legs whenever liberals spew lies and hot air, but this is basic math.

For those who might doubt my statements on the numbers of Reagan’s win:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1980

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=1980

http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/presidential/presidential_election_1980.html

http://www.presidentelect.org/e1980.html#map

I also verified these numbers in a few politics books.

Leave a comment

Filed under Carter, Obama

It’s nice to know you’re not alone….

Oh thank God someone else believes this man is too stupid to be allowed out among the public…

Leave a comment

Filed under Paul Krugman is an idiot

Liberals and the Constitution

Liberals have some odd ideas about the Constitution. There’s that wacky Congressman who said that the “Constitution is wrong” (Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA)) last week…not that the Supreme Court is misinterpreting it, not that the letter of the Constitution is being used to violate the spirit of the Constitution, not even that the Constitution needs to be amended–no just that it is wrong. Then you have the liberal bloggers who seem to think that Congress and the White House should pass laws they believe are unconstitutional (which is particularly hilarious since I thought the oath of office required public officials to protect and defend the Constitution). Then there is a liberal friend of mine who I remember went off about the Constitution about how it’s ridiculous that a document 200 years old with out of date ideas should hinder us from doing what we want to.

Liberals have some odd ideas about the Constitution.

Before I really set into liberals for these beliefs, let me just say that I do not consider the Constitution perfect. There are a dozen or so amendments I would love to see happen to the Constitution today. But as systems of government, you’re not going to get any closer to perfection than our current Constitution in the history of world. But this reverence for the most stable and just form of government in the world (yes Western Europe has some nice pieces here or there that I think we should adopt, but when you consider that not a single country in the West has our die hard stance toward the freedom of speech, that alone puts us ahead of the rest).

But, back to liberals. They clearly don’t understand that the Constitution is the clearest point that the law is supreme in this society. That it is the final authority and that no one is higher than it. (This is of course in spite of Obama’s attitude that there is no law higher than his whim.)

It is this attitude of looseness toward the Constitution that has brought us to our current situation, and from the above quotes it seems that liberals either consciously (Obama) or inadvertently (probably most liberals who feel they are doing the right thing…but what road does good intentions pave?)

It is this attitude that has allowed Congress to radically reinterpret the commerce and necessary and proper clauses to mean that Congress can do just about anything. It has allowed them to say we must be forced to buy things under penalty of fine if we do not buy the good they say we have to–thus violating your natural right to property and the liberty to decide how to use and or dispose of that property.

Under a proper interpretation of those clauses, most of the insanity of the last 80 years would never have happened and this country would be in a far stronger position than if we had not begun our slow descent into socialism.

But as above some claim, it’s a living document that must adjust with the times. First, this ignores what its purpose was, to set rules, and rules should not change over time just because people wish it. After all the Constitution was not etched in stone, it came with a process for change, amendment. But rather than debate change, liberals seem bent on passing anything they can, and like an irresponsible child see what they can get away with. And that includes appointing unqualified judges to the Supreme Court to rubber stamp their unconstitutional laws. Because if nothing else they understand the power that ignoring the Constitution gives them. Just as 1984 warned us that he who controls the past controls the future, we should also be wary of the fact that he who controls the Constitution controls the fate of this nation. Now who do you trust more, modern politicians arguing over what they think it kind of sorta says…or arguing over what the Founders intended in those articles. I trust the Founders, as it is much harder to make up things about what they intended (although it can be done as in reality, contrary to modern belief, they were not all deists).

So I hope the Republicans keep their promise to enact only Constitutional laws (and maybe go as far as disbanding the unconstitutional ones…like welfare, but that may be too much to ask for at present).

Leave a comment

Filed under Constitution

A prayer for America

Michelle appears to very happy that there are prayer circles for her and her dimwitted America hating husband. I’m a big believer in prayer so I would suggest we all make the following prayer for all of us:
Dear God,
Please protect this nation and this world from the Obamas. Grant them the sanity and intelligence to realize they are destroying this country. Bestow upon them the honor to resign and take all cronies with them. Grant Americans the serenity to put up with their incompetence, the courage to vote out career politicians who think government is the solution, and the wisdom to know a good civil servant from someone who will only cave to media pressure. Dear God please protect this country from falling apart, we don’t need this protection for long just until January 2013.
Amen

Leave a comment

Filed under Faith, Obama Ceasar, Prayer

"Do you have any evidence that it’s not?" and the inevitable fall of Obama

“Do you have any evidence that it’s not?”

That’s the White House’s response, via David Axelrod, to asking if they had evidence to back up the President’s baseless accusation that foreign backers are funding the Republican campaign efforts through the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. This is a gutsy accusation from a party which has been under the shadow of these accusations since; at least, Al Gore took Chinese money and then claimed he didn’t know where it came from. (Similar accusations have been made against Bill and Hillary, as well as Obama…but these at least had inciting incidents to give the claim at least some justification for questioning). But “Do you have any evidence that they didn’t” is a new low for argument.

Now a stupid person would try to make fun of this statement by bringing up birther comments, but there is a birth certificate from Hawaii which qualifies as evidence against. So instead I’ll go two (or ten) steps beyond stupid accusations and go to pure insanity and farce in making fun of this great moment in the Obama White House’s unrivaled skill in logical argument.

(Given that Democrats were really uncreative in picking a charge usually used against Democrats, I’m going to be equally uncreative in my accusations by just looking at what’s on TV and what’s at the theaters)

Barrack Obama is really a giant lizard from space bent on eating humans. Do you have any evidence that he isn’t?

Barrack Obama is a horse that won the Triple Crown. Do you have any evidence that he isn’t?

Barrack Obama is a nebulous cloud that keeps people trapped on an island. Do you have any evidence that he isn’t?

Barrack Obama is a vampire hell-bent on seducing young girls. Do you have any evidence that he isn’t?

Barrack Obama is in league with the evil teacher unions that are hell-bent on destroying the American school system. Do you have…oh wait I actually have a mountain of evidence in support of that one.

But I think I’ve made my point. The mere fact that people’s heads aren’t rolling in the White House over this incredibly stupid justification isn’t sad. It would be sad if it was an isolated incident. However what this really is are the acts of a narcissist and his sycophants who believe that if he says it, it must be true. This bodes very well for the Republicans. Because they will spend the next two years in control of both Houses voting one major budget cut after another and Obama will veto each and every one of them. And in 2012 it will be very clear that it is Obama who is from the party of “no.” The reason for this is simple. If Obama doesn’t fire people over BS arguments like “Do you have any evidence it’s not” it can only be because he accepts that line of thought–because that line of thought justifies the logic of Obamaland, a mystical magical place where anything Obama says is true because he says it (facts be damned).

In Obamaland we have gained jobs even though the number of jobs is less. In Obamaland raising taxes doesn’t take money out of the economy. In Obamaland the budget hasn’t grown (see Krugman’s latest delusional article). Apparently also in Obamaland the economy is run by magical pink unicorns, because in Obama’s mind it certainly isn’t run by free enterprise.

So, unlike a pragmatic human being (Clinton) there will be no diving for the center with Obama. He will go against the Republicans and the public at every chance over the next two years. Each time ruining what he has left of his reputation and each time putting another nail in his political coffin… not that he’ll notice, he’ll be too busy being on vacation on the taxpayer’s dime. Another two years of this putz and the Republicans are going to come out looking like a bunch of choir boys (so long as they don’t characteristically blow it).

So either the Republicans come off on top 2012 (hell even if we put O’Donnell up next to him, Obama will still come off a nut after two more years of this) or between then and now the Democrats will realize what a liability they have on their hands and they’ll start impeachment proceedings.

Leave a comment

Filed under Obama

Pragmatics on Healthcare reform: It won’t work

So, I got some questions about whether healthcare reform will work or not. What systems of government control should be kept and what should not? So forth and so on, questions dealing with how to pragmatically deal with healthcare reform.

Let me remind you of the last blog to deal with healthcare. You don’t have a right to healthcare! Anything the government does in this area is thus a violation of your rights. The kind of violation that makes the redcoats look like the good guys. Who cares about the pragmatics after that?

But, for the sake of argument, let’s look at why this won’t ever work pragmatically either. Basic rules of reality is that capitalism works. The more competition and the less rules that exist the better service and lower prices you get in any field.

All Obamacare did was add rules and bureaucracy to a system that was already overly controlled. Did it remove the rules that prevented insurance companies from crossing state lines which would have increased competition thus forcing costs down? No. It said you have to cover people who are already sick. That would be like telling a home insurance company that they had to insure a house that had a crumbling foundation, termite damage, and a gas leak at the exact same price that they would insure a home that was built to code. I’m going to guess if that’s their only choice then they’re going to get out of the insurance business entirely….which is what some companies are doing.

Instead of Tort Reform which would drastically decrease costs across the board, we get forcing insurers to pay for children who are legal adults. Can we say paternalistic society? That’s right the government doesn’t expect you to do anything for yourself until your mid-20’s you poor, poor incompetent baby (that’s what this says, that you are not able to take care of yourself). This leads to some insurers no longer offering any coverage for children on plans (yes, I’m sure that’s better for everyone) just so they can stay afloat financially. Further offering coverage means more people in their 20’s will go to the doctor because, hey, they don’t have to pay for it…which will lead to longer lines in doctor’s offices and ERs. This will mean shorter visits, less quality in your visit, and longer wait time. So if you really do need see a doctor, expect on dying before you get there because some 22 year old with a cough had no incentive to just wait it out. Think that’s an exaggeration? Look at the wait lines in Britain and Canada, look at the rates of amputation for diabetes patients, look at the fact that people go for years with symptoms of gout without being able to get it treated….then look at the fact that those are things unheard of in this country. Could it be that because the free market has more control in this country is the reason we have better care.

Instead of relaxing the rules that would allow Medical Insurance companies to invest in medical research (yes, we bar the people with the most incentive to invest in research to reduce costs from investing in research) which would bring down costs and time. We have government boards already declaring some drugs are just too expensive (made expensive by terrible patent laws and an insane trial process) for cancer patients so they just have to suffer and die.

Instead of cutting costs in Medicaid and Medicare from which we get most of the increases in patient care, we get more people on the dole. This will only lead to more abuse, more fraud, more wasted money and less access to doctors.

Oh and there will be fewer doctors as many have said they’re just going to retire rather than live under the hellhole of restrictions presented by Obamacare. Think it’s hard to get an appointment now. Just wait until you have to wait 10 months for the cancer screening to find out what could have once just been cut out has now metastasized to your brain. Lets here it for Obamacare! There won’t be death panels; you’ll just wish there were.

In short, pragmatically, Obamacare will lead to increased prices, reduced service, longer waits, higher fatality rates, and a lower quality of living.

Leave a comment

Filed under Government is useless, Health Care

I will defend your right to say it to the death….unless…

We all know that old quote falsely attributed to Voltaire, “I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it to the death.” However the Netherlands seems to have added a new caveat to that statement “…unless you’re stating the truth, but we think some very psychotic people might blow up parts of our country, because they showed so much stability in dealing with cartoons and filmmakers, that our cowardice and fear of having momentary safety is more important than any principle of a just, free and democratic society.” That’s what happens when you compare a philosophy named “Submit” (that means submit to a rather violent God, without question, without comment, without using reason, just submit) to the philosophy of fascism (submit to the guy with the big gun, without…)–I can’t imagine finding any parallels between those two philosophies. Of course that particular religion would be Islam (the Arabic word for Submit). Which is exactly what political leader Geert Wilder has had the guts to say. And that is a brave thing to do in a country where another film maker was killed when he made legitimate criticisms about the worst aspect of Islam.

But the Netherlands seems to think that the freedom of speech is a limited right. Keep in mind that Geert has said nothing factually incorrect, merely politically incorrect. The Netherlands feels it can legislate such speech. This is an affront to the very nature of the basic right to speak one’s conscience. This is about as anti-democratic as you can get. And this is actually being carried out by a Western nation. This is a dark day for history and a darker one for human rights if Geert is actually convicted.

Whether you agree with his stance on Islam or not, the fact of the matter is that Western Civilization is nowadays based on the on concepts of liberal democracy. One of the most important corner stones to that system of government is the freedom of expression. And while theoretically that right is still upheld in the U.S. (the worst that can happen here is people will call you Hitler if they don’t like what you say, or maybe the FBI will tell you it might be time to go into hiding if you drew a picture of Mohammed …because again Muslims are known for taking things in stride), the rest of the world seems to hold the freedom of speech as less of an absolute right and more of a cute idea we tolerate when it suits us. God help us if our government begins to take such a stance toward the freedom of speech. “Say something against Obama, go to jail” is the precedent for the Western world that the Netherlands seem to be setting us up for. Of course this at the same time we seem to be inventing rights like Healthcare.

So now what you say has to be approved by the prevailing powers-that-be as being politically correct or you can go to jail. I’m sure democracy and freedom will thrive in conditions where people no longer have the freedom to say what they want.

All in the name of defending an ideology which demands no thought and mass murder from being insulted.

But here’s the really funny part. Wilders is technically charged with inciting hatred against Muslims. Because the 9/11 attacks, the Mohammed cartoon riots, the constant degradation of women, the demand for Sharia law in western countries, the endless spewing of anti-Semitic remarks, the suicide bombings, the endless stream of terror alerts, Iran, the Taliban….none that made people dislike Muslims. No, it was this evil man named Geert Wilder. If it weren’t for him Muslims and Infidels would be living side by side in peace and harmony in the Netherlands…yeah, right.

It gets even better when you consider that absolutely nothing this man has said is factually inaccurate.

This would like charging Jay Leno and David Letterman with inciting hatred of O.J. Simpson for all the jokes they’ve told over the last 16 years about him being a murderer. To hell with that one, tiny, little fact.

Now the real question is, will Wilder be released on the lack of evidence and common sense or will he be convicted over the fear that a just acquittal will lead to another round of riots in Europe?

Leave a comment

Filed under Civil Liberties, Equality, Evils of Liberalism, Faith, First Amendment, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Individualism, Multiculturalism is Dead, Religion, Unjust legislation

Movies for New Agers: Shyamalan Part II–The Meaning In Everything and Fear

The next two movies of M. Night I will be dealing with are Signs and The Village. Both did spectacularly poor given how good they are. This is probably because both were advertised as horror and suspense films. They really aren’t horror and suspense films in any way shape or form.

But what deeper meanings were lost while people looked for aliens in cornfields and monsters among the trees?

“So you have to ask yourself, are you someone who believes in signs, in miracles?”

Really it was kind of hard to miss the central theme of Signs, or so I thought. But when I talked to most people about it they didn’t seem to have picked it up. So just to make sure that we’re all on the same page here, the central theme of Signs was that the universe is full of small little things, signs, coincidences, luck that isn’t just random but all for a very specific purpose. This builds on themes of the previous two Shyamalan movies. It’s not just that people have a purpose and a role, it’s that everything has a purpose and a role. Even the most meaningless of things is really a part in the large Rube Goldberg machine that is life. Why is life such a complex system with little signs and signals? Why doesn’t God just come out and say things bluntly? If you hadn’t noticed he does that too, people don’t listen to the bluntly and they only pay attention to the signs when they have no other option.

But a more subtle theme of Signs is the concept called the dark night of the soul. Broadly speaking here, (understand I’m taking something you can discuss for volumes into a few sentences), the dark night is that point in your spiritual journey where you have reached a moment where nothing means anything. You’ve lost your faith and doubt everything you may have once believed in and you are lost in a dark night of doubt. Nowadays we might refer to it as an existential crisis, but that phrase doesn’t imply the spiritual nature of this journey. The dark night of the soul is actually an important step in spiritual growth because it is only through it that we can move from believing in our faith to actually acting on it. The name derives from the poem “The Dark Night of the Soul” written by St. John of the Cross, but the most famous example of it in literature is probably the spiritual despondency of Ajurna in the Bhagavad Gita. In the Gita, Ajurna wonders what’s the point of slaying his ego based desires, he is at a point where the sense pleasures don’t give him happiness but he is still too far from God and Enlightenment to find joy there either. So what’s the point in any of it. The dark night of the soul. But through communing with his higher self, represented in the Gita by the god Krishna, Ajurna (a metaphor for each of us) goes onto slay the manifestation of the ego and metaphorically reaches a higher state. This is a natural stage in our spiritual progression and the trick is not to get bogged down it. I have a friend who seems to have one of these crises every six months or so and she always seems to come out of it much wiser…so I figure in about 15 years I’ll be kneeling at her feet asking the great spiritual teacher to show me the way.
In the movie it is seen through Mel Gibson’s character’s loss of faith caused by the death of his wife. However when the signs come clicking into place, he not only acts on his faith, but in a very underplayed scene at the end it is suggested that he not only returns to being a priest, but assuredly one whose faith is now rock solid. (One could only hope a similar personal revelation would come upon the disgusting excuse of a human being known as Mel Gibson).

On the flip side The Village shows us what happens when you get lost in that dark night and give into the fear. You retreat from the world. Okay so maybe you don’t set up a community that makes the Amish look like they’re on the cutting edge of technology, but giving into fear is a cowardly retreat from the world. And that is what we see in the village; a retreat from the world where only the characters of Joaquin Phoenix and Bryce Dallas Howard are willing to face fear and act out of love and compassion. The Village does not contain the higher purpose message of other films, but it does focus on something that is extremely New Age: That the only two opposing forces in the world are fear and love. Everything else is merely the battle between these two forces. And while this theme subtly appears through the whole story it most clear, sadly, displayed in a scene that can only be found in the deleted scene content on the DVD (and I would argue it was a mistake to cut this scene even if it did screw up the pacing of the last act).

Thinking that she has stumbled upon the monster in the forest (really just wind and sound producing pipes) Howard’s character overcomes her fear of being killed and calls out “It is for love that I am here. I beg you to let me pass. It is for love.” While it probably doesn’t help the suspense it is the clearest expression of conflict between love and fear.

This film is also the most negative of Shyamalan’s good movies as it depicts only two (maybe three if you count the security guard) people who are able to overcome the fear that society encourages and forces on them. Otherwise fear is a paralyzing force that literally destroys the people it touches forcing them to try and hide in a made up world…and even there the evils they attempted to escape follow them. The movie quite clearly condemns their cowardice, but few viewers got that their inability to live their own lives without fear made them just as sad as the characters in the movie.

Leave a comment

Filed under Movies, New Age, New Age Movies, Shyamalan

The Secret and Pseudoscience

So I recently came across an article in the New York Times critiquing the popular New Age book The Secret and its new sequel The Power. And as expected it laid out the usual skeptical tripe against New Age belief. This partly annoys me, but it also amuses me. New Agers as we tend to believe in a little of everything get hit the hardest when skeptics try to critique belief systems.

(Although you ever notice how elitists will critique Jewish and Christian prayer, Buddhist meditation, Hindu Yoga and all the accompanying beliefs that come with it…but there is one system of belief they never seem to critique. That would be the system with the most anti-Semitic, most misogynist, most bitter, most violent and most hate filled religions, both in terms of what is laughably referred to as a holy book and certainly in practice. I’d name that religion but I have no immediate desire to have a fatwa issued against me…but you probably can figure out which religion founded by a genocidal lunatic I’m talking about. But back to my original point for this cat-walk, isn’t it utterly hypocritical of skeptics to critique beliefs that work for the good and make people feel better, but don’t’ like to critique on the same grounds butchers. But it’s worse that these are often the same people who tell you you’re a racist if you criticize this particular religion. But it might just be because if you insult Jews and Christian and Buddhists and Hindus and New Agers they’ll feel sorry for you for your limited view of the world and not, you know, cut your head off.) But enough of my side comments…is The Secret Pseudoscience?

Well here’s the thing, they can list quite well the psychological points on why people are willing to believe in the Law of Attraction which states that our thoughts create reality. You think about something long enough, good or bad, and you’ll get it. But while you can point to the psychological reason why a person might be drawn to this, even without scientific data to back up that belief, the authors offer absolutely no evidence against the idea that the Law of Attraction is true. They claim that what evidence is given on quantum mechanics is wrong, but the day I simply trust a psychologist on quantum mechanics is the day I trust a linguist on politics. Quantum mechanics is a field that even the people who study it don’t have an idea what it’s really all about. But thought does seem to have some part to play in it. Is it really a terrible jump in logic to believe that thought might create reality instead of the other way around? It isn’t illogical in light of the utterly bizarre things we learn from quantum mechanics. But just because it’s a possibility isn’t scientific proof. At this point I am merely saying that just because you can’t prove scientifically doesn’t mean it isn’t true, nor does it mean it’s true. This is realm of faith. And science should have the common decency to stay out of the realm of faith. Conversely faith should have the tact to stay out of science (i.e. evolution is real, intelligent design for the start of life is still up in the air though).

Further one has to ask the pragmatics of such a critique. If it makes people feel more empowered, focused and goal driven…what exactly is the harm. So you’re out 23 dollars for the new book. If the you bought the first book and the DVD too you’re out about $75. I’ve spent more on a single dinner. Possible positive psychological effect for a relatively cheap price. I fail to see why among all the evils in the world, this is one these author’s choose to attack.

But my favorite part of the criticism is where they reveal that they never really read the book. They’re just making complaints without knowing what the hell they’re talking about (it’s a classic skeptic move). As proof that the logic of the Law of Attraction doesn’t work they offer this very stupid thought experiment, “What if a thousand people started sincerely visualizing winning the entire $200 million prize in this week’s Lotto? How would the universe sort out that mess?” Well, maybe if you read the book you’d have read you’re supposed to focus on what you actually want and not worry about the means. People don’t want to win the Lottery, they just want the money, how is mildly irrelevant. And because your brain would keep going through a thousand different ways you could get the money, you’d never win the lottery that way.

So why attack this area of faith when it really hurts no one? After all if works for you personally use it. If it doesn’t, then skip it. It’s not like we’ll ever have any kind of scientific test that can prove thoughts affect reality….

…oh wait. We do have those tests. We have a large body of research studying prayer. Now not all of the evidence is conclusive and some studies show a greater effect than others, but the general conclusion is that prayer actually does cause a measurable difference in the recovery of patients (even when they don’t know they’re being prayed for). Now, if these studies are correct then there are only two possibilities for how prayer affects the recovery of hospital patients. Either God is up there in heaven with a big clip board and saying “Oh, he only got 99 prayers, he dies–he’s got 2,000 prayers, he lives.”….an illogical way of looking at things. Or option 2, God doesn’t really get involved in this world directly and it’s the thoughts of the prayers that affect reality. Oh that’s the law of attraction. I wonder what would happen if those prayers studies used the principles of The Secret and The Power (i.e. focus only on what you want and don’t think about what you don’t want….I’m sure some of the people praying were praying that the person didn’t get sick, which according to the law of attraction means you’re focusing on getting sick…the universe doesn’t really understand negating adjectives). If they did that I’d be willing to bet a year’s salary that the recovery rates would go even higher.

So. Law of Attraction 1. Bitter psychologists 0.

I hope the two psychologists who wrote this found some happiness in trying to tear down other people’s harmless beliefs…but I doubt they have a concept of what happiness is.

2 Comments

Filed under Books for New Agers, Faith, New Age, Prayer, The Secret

It took time to free the Slaves

“It took time to free the slaves” says Obama.

This is a fun quote on numerous levels.
1. He’s suggesting enslaving people under a socialist regime is a good thing, like freeing the slaves. Fascinating how in the mind of a liberal the very things that enslave people (i.e. big government) are what they see as salvation.
2. He’s implicitly comparing himself to Lincoln…yeah no ego issues there.
3. He’s implying that Republicans and Capitalists are like slave holders…and not, you know, the party that freed the slaves. Never say that Obama isn’t willing to stoop to vicious and childish name calling. (Before you call me a hypocrite on that point, I admit that I engage in name calling…the difference being the Jackass-in-chief has it coming).
4. Yes, yes it will take time for things to change for the better. He is right on that point. In fact I think I have to wait for January 2013 for thing to change for the better.

You’ve got to love how disconnected from reality this twit is. Years from now we will look over his presidency and laugh at his ineptitude. But for now we must suffer.

Leave a comment

Filed under Capitalism, Evils of Liberalism, GOP, Health Care, Obama