Monthly Archives: November 2010

Law the GOP should pass #3: Privatize the TSA

Since this is the only thing in the news I can’t avoid putting my 2 cents in…and of course I mean the discussion about those over intrusive perverts at the TSA.
1. I would like to begin with asking everyone to pray that this story disappears after Thanksgiving.
2. What law should Congress pass about this little array of insanity? Hmmm. Let’s see. We are currently in a system where any idiot with a GED gets to either look at what are essentially naked pictures of us or fondle us. And this include nuns, 90 year old grandmas, toddlers, frequent business filers, and just about anyone else no security person would even consider a threat…and I bet you we will still have people get through. With their current beliefs of looking for what people are carrying, the sadly logical conclusion to the TSA is that by next year we’ll all be undergoing full body cavity searches. You know how pedophiles used to gravitate to the clergy because it offered them cover…I wonder what’s going to happen among the ranks of the TSA.

Let’s be honest here all a terrorist would have to do is… [I got about five sentences into that thought before I decided it was best not to give them ideas…that seems to be Tom Clancy’s job]…suffice to say that we should be very grateful that the kind of person who volunteers for a suicide job is probably also not also enrolled in MENSA–but then again neither is anyone employed by the TSA. In the end we are relying more on luck than a system that works.

What does work? Well, that’s easy to answer, look at El Al. They go through everybody’s luggage; they interview everyone with more than basic banal list of questions you get at the check in counter. Good stringent methods. But beyond that what makes El Al efficient? They’re privatized. That’s right, while the federal government should be setting standards, they should also get rid of the TSA and let private companies bid for this right. It would cost less and be more efficient.

But more than that, what should they change in the standards? First I would suggest dogs. Apparently a good bomb sniffing dog is far more efficient than any x-ray and they can smell through most kinds of wrapping or subterfuge. But training that many dogs will take time, so in the mean time I suggest profiling.

Yes I said profiling.

I recently said that we should use profiling around a coworker and by her reaction you would have assumed I said we should douse babies in gasoline and light them. Then she said something about “so you want to pull out anyone who looks Middle Eastern.” I choose not to insult her complete lack of knowledge of modern terrorism but, we can look at how stupid this statement is. Modern terrorism is a battle with radical Islam (which is actually almost indistinguishable from mainstream Islam in most of the world). Muslims come in all shades and ethnic backgrounds, white, black, yellow, brown and all shades in between–so looking at skin color would be highly ineffective profiling. So what do I mean by profiling. Are you a male 16-45? Then you’re in the profile. (You know if you have all the other red flags despite age and gender maybe we should look at you, but otherwise I don’t think you’re going to be a major threat). Buy a one way ticket? Buy your ticket with cash? Don’t have life insurance? Make frequent trips to Islamic nations. Have unusual banks transfers? Do the FBI, CIA or other intelligence agency have active files on you? Receiving phone calls from known terrorist associates? Has the state department been warned about you? (This one could have saved us last Christmas from problems). Did you check any luggage? (Although I’ll admit with the cheap airlines charging you for this one it may be less and less of a reliable indicator). Are you in the country on an expired VISA? (This one could have saved us 9/11). You know a real profile, based on real variables. Not a stupid “uh, he looks Muslim” kind of profile. Although I’ll be honest, I’m with Juan William, if you come onto a plane with traditional Muslim garb in this climate, then really you’re trying to piss people off, and at least running you through the full body scan is more than called for.

2 Comments

Filed under Government is useless, Laws the GOP should pass, War on Terrorism

New Age Review of "Hereafter"

Most of the reviews of this movie are very negative. This is sad because this was actually a very good movie, certainly better than most of the movies that come out of Hollywood. Now it certainly isn’t as good as Inception or The Town, but you can’t always be the best movie of the year. Also the movie suffers from being a Clint Eastwood movie. Why is this a problem? Well if this was almost any other director’s work it would be praised for its skill–but when you by nature get compared to Million Dollar Baby, Gran Torino and The Outlaw Josie Wales it becomes very hard to match up to that.

But, still, Hereafter is well done and points out some very important things.

Now I could go over all the artistic qualities of the film, but every other review I’ve seen has already done that. However, almost all those reviews seem to complain about one very important aspect of the film. They complain that they wanted to see something “more metaphysical”, that the film “didn’t give any answers”, that it just left you with questions. These complaints missed the point of the movie.

Hereafter deals with a medium who can channel the messages of those who have crossed over. He is unhappy with his life because (1) this gift has separated him to a large degree from those around him and (2) he feels he isn’t able to give people what they are looking for. The first point while true has been dealt with in just about every other avenue of media (Medium, Ghost Whisperer, a slew of movies and books) that has dealt with speaking to the dead. But the second point is probably more relevant.

The main character of the film, played by Matt Damon, is caused great pain partly because he cannot give people what they want. In the first scenes he does a reading for man and keeps telling him that he keeps hearing about a date in June and the man he does the reading for says he does not know what that means (but later that man admits to someone else he knew exactly what it meant, but couldn’t bring himself to say it at the moment) which leaves Damon’s character feeling like he failed to help the man. Damon’s character is plagued by the fact that he can’t give specific answers, that he doesn’t know where the souls go, that he can’t always get clear messages, and that it separates him from other people. But this is a completely accurate problem for real mediums. After all you’re dealing with souls that have had a whole life time to get used to using their voice to communicate while their thoughts are wandering all over the place. Think about it, how many random thoughts have you had in the last five minutes. Yes, you’ve gotten used to having a block between your brain and your mouth (at least I hope), but you mind is still a jumble of random ideas. If you grant that reincarnation exists, then you have to admit it took you years to relearn how to use vocal communication, it would take as long to learn to control your thoughts and communicate through just thought (and that’s not admitting that maybe not all mediums are perfect receivers). I’d like to think that the frustration that many audiences feel by not getting much detail out of the movie is meant to parallel the frustration a psychic feels trying to get information from the other side (but I can’t be sure that Eastwood was going for that).

One of the really nice points about the movie Hereafter is that it’s honest. While it very clearly states that there is an afterlife and that there are people who have the ability to communicate with it, there are also a whole slew of fakes. One of the characters, a young boy looking to talk to his dead twin brother goes through a short montage of fakes, scams, and crooks while looking for a real psychic.

However for all the frustration and chicanery, the central point of the movie is one that is very true: That while it may be comforting to know something from the other side and hear our lost loved ones, life isn’t that. It’s moving forward (in the first reading that Damon gives, in the life of the young boy who is wishing to talk to his brother, and in several other story lines in the movie). To not move forward and just focus on the past and our loss leads to great pain and a sense of being lost.

On the whole I would say you should see it, but you might want to get it from Netflix.

2 Comments

Filed under Death, Faith, Movies, New Age, New Age Movies

Laws the GOP should pass #2: End Rendition (and some comments about water-boarding)

I have decided that every week in my recommendations I’ll be hitting a different cabinet department for a law until I make a full circuit around the cabinet (and maybe add in one of the non-cabinet offices per cycle). This week, my favorite department, the Department of Defense.

So for this week I’m going to go with ending rendition. For those who don’t know, rendition is where we capture a terrorist but because we don’t torture people, we just send them to a country that does torture people to get information out of them. It’s about as close as you can get to the definition of hypocrisy and ethical cowardice. It was immoral when Bush did it, it’s immoral now that Obama does it (and if anyone before them was using it was pretty slimy then too). This doesn’t require much argument, because this just about the scummiest thing we do right now. This is a no brainer of a law. You want to overturn a law that actually hurts of in the eyes of the world, this would be one of those laws. Now if a country that uses torture has an actual warrant out on this person and wants them extradited, that’s a very different matter, and an extradition judge will take that into account when making their decision.

However this does leave that little question about getting good intel (not that torture was actually providing us with good intel). But this is really a very irrelevant point because we do have something that gets good intel and isn’t torture. But Liberals love bringing up irrelevant things (probably because they don’t have a lot of relevant issues to bring up. Earmarks, yeah they’re irrelevant, but they’re also a symbolic first step.) And then there’s the non-issue of waterboarding that’s being brought up again.

I bring this up partly for the very reason that W. is out on the talk show circuit trying to sell his book. And in amongst making really dumb statements like “I hope people don’t lose confidence in the government” (someone should remind him that conservatives by definition don’t have confidence in the government and that this nation was founded because people didn’t have confidence in a government….but as W. isn’t really a conservative I can’t hope for much) W. has had several questions about the issue of waterboarding. Now per usual this twit is only giving answers like “because the lawyers said it was legal” which is about as weak a defense as I can think of. So in an attempt to further tarnish the image of invading Iraq and Afghanistan (which was the right thing to do, albeit not carried out in the right way) a British journalist agreed to be waterboarded to give a firsthand description of it. His conclusion was all too predictable that this is torture and that we shouldn’t do it.

However, while his statement that this is torture, his actions betray a lie.

Torture: “the action or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment or to force them to do or say something, or for the pleasure of the person inflicting the pain.” Waterboarding it painful, temporarily, but pain isn’t the purpose, fear in the most basic part of the brain is. And fear isn’t the real purpose, shutting down the part of the brain that lies and resists is. Further notice that part about pleasure, US soldiers and intelligence personnel aren’t doing this for the pleasure of it (or if they are once we find them we have a very good track record of putting them in prison, unlike other countries which tend to promote such sick excuses for humans). We do it for intel to save lives.

Now I don’t have to defend waterboarding in a pragmatic sense. Pragmatically its uses are self-evident: a system of cutting through willpower to where fear in the brain is so heightened that a person doesn’t have time to think up the lies that a person who is being tortured would usually come up with. For the few terrorists with lots of information. But is it torture? No. You know how I know it’s not torture? The reporter volunteered to undergo it. Lots of reporters have volunteered to undergo waterboarding for a story. But would they have volunteered to be beaten within an inch of their life? No. Volunteered to have electrodes tied to them? No. Volunteered to be repeatedly cut with a knife? No. Volunteered to be left in a below freezing cold cell without clothes? No. Volunteered to have bamboo pieces shoved under their fingernails? No. Whipped, burned, actually drowned, or any other kind of torture the Nazi, communists, Tojo’s imperial army, or Al Qaida have come up with over the last hundred years? No! What’s the difference? No one in their right mind volunteers for torture! But he volunteered for waterboarding? And I’m not claiming that this reporter is either crazy or has something for S&M. He volunteered because, yes it’s something that will cause immeasurable fear in someone, but it’s not torture. If you actually read his article this so called journalist doesn’t describe a lot of pain, he describes a lot of fear.

We do waterboarding because it isn’t torture. While pain is scary, there are more efficient and humane ways to get to that fear, and that fear is what is needed to get the information. And it certainly is better than outsourcing intel to other countries.

I need this T-shirt.

Leave a comment

Filed under Laws the GOP should pass, War on Terrorism

Does THE ONE hate America?

Does Obama hate America?

A friend recently complained about my use of the phrase “America hating” to describe Obama. First, I find odd that in amongst my statement that man is a textbook narcissist and is possibly suffering mentally delusions, that insulting his patriotism is what riles people a little odd–but we’ll leave that aside for the time being.

Second while I cannot claim to know the true feelings of any person, I can make logical deductions. And as far as I see it Obama is opposed to just about every core value that America stands for. Unlike many countries in history, America is not a country defined by its borders or ethnic makeup, America is defined by its ideas and ideals. From what I see, Obama is opposed to those ideas. And if I am correct in this then, I can only deduce that he either hates those principals, and by extension America, or is so stupid he doesn’t know what he is doing (or both).
F
It is logically impossible to say a man loves something that he is philosophically opposed to. Thus the only question that remains is “Does Obama oppose the ideals of America?”

To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world:

Separation of Powers
Our government is based on the idea of separation of powers. That no branch of government is more powerful than another and that each branch has certain responsibilities. Specifically these branches are supposed to be adversarial, but Obama’s recent statement that the Republicans must learn to work with him if they win both Houses of Congress suggest that he believes that Congress is supposed to be just a rubber stamp for his beliefs. Further, he clearly is opposed to the idea of the Separation of Powers by his immensely stupid and tactless statement that the Supreme Court was wrong in defending the First Amendment. Few Presidents have ever been so hostile to the Supreme Court and those who have been have done terrible things with their power (FDR bringing this country much closer to socialism and Jackson who ignored the Supreme Court so he could commit acts of genocide against the Cherokee).
Also this man’s love of executive orders, czars and expansion of bureaucracy clearly demonstrate that he thinks his is the only branch that matters. I can only hope the Supreme Court and a Republican Congress team up to remind him that he is supposed to be the weakest of the three branches over the next two years.

And who can forget his belief that the soon to be Republican Congress has to learn to work with him. Actually, Barrack, if you had ever read the Constitution or Federalist Papers you might learn that we have what’s called an adversarial government and the point of multiple branches is so they actually don’t work with each other and oppose each other at every turn. But I guess it’s too much to ask that the President of the United States has read the Constitution he’s sworn to uphold (after all it’s not like he ever intended to uphold that oath).

Freedom of Speech and the Press

While we’re on this issue of his hostility toward the First Amendment Obama’s stance is clear: you have no right to express your free speech via contribution to the Republican party or its allies (about contributions he seems to have no problem with when they’re going to Democrats). But let’s also bring up his hostility to Fox News. This is not him disagreeing with statements a media group has made, the President and his administration have actually stated they are against Fox News as an organization. They have singled out this one media outlet, stating they should not be allowed to say the things they say. Every President may not like what is said about them, but he is the first President who has actually singled out a single media organization over everything they say. Usually you will see behavior like this from banana-republic dictators or Vladimir Putin as they try to solidify their power, but this is hardly the kind of behavior you expect from a man who has sworn to defend the Constitution of the United States which has an absolute freedom of the press guaranteed.

Supremacy of and Respect for the Law
Again, his treatment of the Supreme Court stands out here. But there are other things.

The recent Arizona immigration law stands out. Now you may disagree with that law and its provisions, but it would be foolish to deny that one of the driving forces for that law being passed was the Federal government not doing its job in defending the borders. It’s not just Obama who has not been defending the borders, it’s a long line of presidents, so the blame for this debacle is in no way only attributable to Obama. But there is how he chooses to respond. Not to tighten the border and then argue the law is unnecessary, not reform federal immigration law and policies which is the responsibility of the federal government, not do anything to improve the situation or seek a solution to the problem of illegal immigration. No, he just sues Arizona. He doesn’t want to enforce immigration law and he’s going to stop anyone else from enforcing immigration law….(there is also a beautiful hypocrisy here when you consider he has also said that he has to challenge the court decision that overturned “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” because it’s his job as President to enforce federal law even when he doesn’t agree with it….I’m confused if he in truth really likes illegal immigrants or really hates gays, but he is certainly picking and choosing which federal laws he doesn’t like to enforce).

Then there was the situation when Bond holders for Ford and Chrysler were told to go screw themselves during the bailout which not only violates U.S. contract law but a law respected for nearly 500 years of English Common and Contract Law. Yeah this is a man who believes that he isn’t above the law. (To be fair the other two branches of government were also to blame for this violation of law, common sense, and good taste).

Due Process
As I posted a while back he signed an executive order which gave Interpol the freedom to do anything it wants within U.S. borders without fear of retribution or legal prosecution, which given my natural distrust of government organizations has me very worried. But that’s not the only time this man showed no respect for due process of law or those who enforce it. Remember when he called the cop who arrested a very rude, belligerent and asshole-like college professor and our commander-in-chief in a very racist knee-jerk reaction called the cop “stupid” for doing his job perfectly and without flaw. Hmmm. Makes you wonder how he feels about cops in general. Or prosecuting those who have violated laws (…like immigration laws.) So apparently he’s more into feeling his way through situations than allowing the due process of the police and court system to determine justice of our public officials and just punishment of those who break the law. To hell with due process, let’s just say whatever we feel like at the moment (or more accurately whatever the teleprompter feels like telling him to say at the moment).

On the flip side Obama believes in due process where none has ever existed in the history of this country. Yes, let’s put terrorists on trial in public courts….like we’ve never done before and no one in the history of government would ever conceive of until now. When talking about terrorists, please keep in mind, that the Founding Fathers, the back bone of our nation and its core beliefs and the guys who put the amendment about due process in there in the first place, would likely have just shot everybody in Guantanamo and called it a day. And with the occasional show trial, that would have been policy up to and through FDR and Truman. So, where Obama gets his beliefs in due process, I’m not sure, but it’s not the American conception of it.

Equality under the law
This is another one he and his administration don’t seem to be big on. If you want to get involved in trafficking 13-year-old El Salvadorian girls for prostitution, it’s okay if you contributed to the President’s campaign coffers like ACORN did. And if you want to intimidate voters trying to cast a ballot it’s perfectly fine to intimidate those voters if you’re only intimidating white people…yes that’s the actual stance of the Justice Department under Secretary Eric Holder. Now Obama hasn’t specifically commented on this situation, but as the only legal and ethical action would be to fire Eric Holder and charge him with a civil rights violation, Obama’s lack of action suggest he feels laws apply to people of different ethnicities in different ways. So much for equality under the law.

American Exceptionalism
“I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism, and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.”
Now you can only believe we are special because of what we have accomplished in history, or you can believe we have some destiny as a nation guided by higher power, but to deny that exceptionalism of America is just rational silly. No nation in only 234 years has accomplished what we have. In economics, art, science and technology, liberty and the advancement of democracy no nation has had such a spectacular run (although Great Britain might come close). Even when you detract the flaws of our history, we are still ahead (America has done some terrible things, but most of the world has managed to do much worse). But Barrack Obama has specifically spoken out against American exceptionalism, he may have said he believed in it, but an actual statement meant that a belief in American Exceptionalism is nothing more than an opinion without any facts behind it, stating that we must consider ourselves equals of the rest of the world, as if we are and have always been on equal intellectual and moral footing with them. Now I might entertain the argument that we are in danger of losing our status as the greatest nation on earth, but denying our exceptionalism which is a core and central belief of America as any, is certainly not helping us keep our #1 status. (Nor is it particularly patriotic, as patriotism does demand that you find your country special in at least some way…but that would also require you to believe that patriotism is a conditional virtue dependent upon your country actually standing for something worth believing in).

Capitalism and the American Dream
Well, that he is opposed to the very economic system that this country was based on is kind of a no-brainer. If you have any doubts that Obama believes in something other than capitalism then just take a look at his statement “I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money”…(that is unless you’re donating to the his campaign…I’m also sure enough is always going to be somewhere short of his book royalty checks). Yeah, he’s not a socialist, no, not at all.

Government control of banks, healthcare, automotive industries, firing CEOs, higher taxes, more regulations (less actual enforcement of the laws as well), more welfare payments, more control of people’s lives. Yeah I can say without a moment of hesitation that he is opposed to capitalism.

Liberty
This goes hand in hand with the last point.
Well I am not being forced to buy health insurance whether I want it or not. And as Milton Friedman would be happy to tell you the less capitalism you have the less freedom you have…but really Barrack Obama doesn’t want to have freedom, he wants you to follow him.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck…I don’t care how politically incorrect it is, I’m going to be blunt. This man clearly hates just about every ideal that this country is based on. Logically I must conclude that he must hate this country….or if he loves this country he loves some version of it that was never intended nor has ever existed or meant to exist. Yeah, he hates this country.

Leave a comment

Filed under American Exceptionalism, Civil Liberties, Economics, Equality, Evils of Liberalism, First Amendment, Government is corrupt, liberal arrogance, Obama, Obama Ceasar

Jim DeMint, please stop talking

http://www.breitbart.tv/demint-you-cant-be-a-fiscal-conservative-and-not-be-a-social-conservative/
Jim DeMint is beyond the shadow of a doubt a moron. Which breaks my heart to say because I’m not big on attacking Tea Party members without reason. However stating that “you can’t be a fiscal conservative and not be a social conservative” proves that you’re not exactly firing on all cylinders. Hmm…fiscal conservative someone who doesn’t believe in government spending to control the economy. Social conservative: believing in that the government should pass laws, spend money, and enforce morality. Yes people can be conservative in your personal life (as I am) but that doesn’t mean you want the government to enforce that morality as DeMint meant.

Not only does this King of the Morons misunderstand that a true conservative doesn’t believe in using the government to enforce anything but protection of natural rights. Abortion, gay rights, school prayer you may have a very strong opinion on these. But it is not the point of the government (and especially not the federal government) to enforce these issues. Yeah, DeMint has a point that the fabric of society is falling apart–maybe because people are looking to government and not themselves to enforce morality on their lives.

A true conservative wants the government in our lives as little as possible. A rational conservative realizes that our economic problems take precedence over everything else right now. DeMint seems to understand neither point.

But on a far more pragmatic issue, let’s look at what happens when you push the social issues as going hand in hand with the economic ones. Can we say Christine O’Donnell. Now if you actually watched the interviews and debate, O’Donnell handled herself far better than her reputation would have you believe. But guess what, while I wholeheartedly agree with her stance on government spending, and admire her for having morality that is actually in line with her faith (unlike so many Democrats who say they’re Christians and never come close to living up to those beliefs), but there is a difference between (A) having those beliefs and living up to them and (B) trying to enforce them on other people (i.e. evil) and (C) announcing them on public television (i.e. stupid). O’Donnell lost not because her economic ideas were wrong, they weren’t, she lost because her opposition made it sound like she wanted to enforce those morals on others.

The GOP better realize damn fast that there is a major difference between having morals (which we should all have) and trying to enforce them. If they don’t, they’re going to lose in 2012.

So I ask all my friends who live in DC, if you see DeMint tell him so shut his mouth on this issue, because in this case his mouth is clearly not attached to a brain.

I have included his contact information so everyone who reads this blog can contact and hopefully stop him from single handedly destroying the GOP.
http://demint.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=CommentOnLegislationIssues

1 Comment

Filed under Problems with the GOP

Thank a Veteran

It should not be a ‘only once a year’ kind of thing, but today of all days before to remember our veterans who have fought to protect our liberties.

My deepest thanks and admiration to those who have served this country with honor.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

America is a bunch of whiners: The New Age perspective

Yesterday I complained that I am afraid that most of America just wants the government to take control of their lives, have it dictate their economic and personal lives in some kind of sick fascist-socialist dystopia. Clearly, the people who want this, either consciously or unconsciously, do not want to take responsibility for their own lives.

Yes, economic times are hard. Did you save your money? No. Well whose fault is that? Did you take a loan on a house that no sane person would? You did. Why should people who are not morons subsidize your bad decisions? Did you eat like a pig, not exercise all your life and then have to go into the hospital for a triple bypass? You did. Explain to me why your added stupidity of not getting health insurance on your own is my problem or my responsibility to pay for. Did you get fired and can’t get rehired? You did. No offense, but good employees aren’t the first ones to get fired, and they’re the first ones who get rehired. Why do I doubt your work ethic?

Same goes with the social issues. Who cares if someone is getting high in the privacy of their own home, California? Who cares if someone is getting a Happy Meal, San Francisco? (Why is California opposed to happiness in all forms?) Who cares if gay people get married or serve their country, America? Honestly, why must the government get involved with these things?

Because people want the government to be in charge. To tell them what to do. What is right and what is wrong. Even if they disagree with it, they want the rules to be there.

And while the conservative in me finds this just stupid, the New Ager in me finds it horrific. And let me tell you why…

As a New Ager I tend to view the human soul as broken up into two parts our actual soul and our insane creation the ego. The ego is that part of your psyche that at its core believes that you are not worthy of God’s love. The ego is insane, destructive and self-hating, and it would really like you to believe that you are it and it is you. And while the ego loves to use such ridiculous concepts as guilt and sin to keep you in this nightmare existence and out of Enlightenment (because as insane as the ego is it realizes that once you realize it isn’t you and go back to the Enlightenment it will cease to exist and it will do anything and everything to keep you from making that realization). And one of the lies that it loves to use to keep you from ditching it like the bad habit it is the lie that you are not responsible for your own life.
Think about it if you were responsible for all of your circumstances (which when you factor in reincarnation, karma, and the law of attraction you are responsible for EVERYTHING that happens in your life) you can’t blame anyone else for your bad situation…and once you realize you’re responsible, you realize you have the power to change your circumstances, which is one of the first and most important steps toward reaching Enlightenment. So taking responsibility, from the Ego’s perspective must be avoided at all costs, because taking responsibility will mean the ego death.

So the ego gives us someone else to be responsible for our problems and for solving our problems. Right now it’s the government. When that line gets old, the ego will shift to something else–fate, genetics, chance, society, our parents–doesn’t matter, so long as you aren’t responsible for you.

So what annoys me to no end is that this current desire for the government to fix our problem (whether it’s Republicans or Democrats) is a sign of what is probably a rather large portion of our society still playing to the darker inclinations of their soul. Now I’m shocked, this is basically the way it’s always been through human history. But I still get annoyed that no one realizes that they need to take responsibility for their own life.

Again I can only hope that this current trend for the Tea Party is a real movement toward people taking responsibility for their own destiny, not wanting other people to solve their problems (just to get out of their way) and stop all the whining about how someone else must solve their problems.

Leave a comment

Filed under Faith, Fear, New Age, Purpose of Life

America is a bunch of whiners: The Conservative Point of View

So I have read several op-eds that suggest that the reason the Republicans are going to fail is because they have nothing to offer the American public when it comes to fixing the economic crisis. This line of thought shows liberal thinking (or more accurately lack thereof, in its usual state).
First off, if the Republicans actually act like conservatives this time and not just Democrat-lite (like, say, they did during W’s time) they have a lot to offer. First off they have stop Obama. Now some may say this isn’t a policy that it doesn’t solve the problem. That’s like a doctor saying that if a patient is being poisoned that because they don’t have the antidote right there they should just let the patient continue to be poisoned. Obama’s policies are so ungodly destructive to the very fabric of this nation, that stopping them is doing something–it’s stopping the slow and deadly poisoning! Second, as I said, if they act like Conservatives they’re going to cut, cut, cut everything in sight. My personal dream would be they’ll try to eliminate at least three cabinet level departments. Now we all admit that none of this is going to come about because either it will be stopped by the Dems in the Senate (proving that they’re the real party of no) or by Obama’s veto (proving that they’re the real party of no)…of course there is the possibility that Dems in the House and Senate will be so desperate to keep their jobs they’ll side with the cuts and give us a 2/3rds override, but I’m not holding out for liberals to have that much good sense.
But there is a second and more important problem with this idea that Republicans have no ideas on how to fix the economy. It’s the assumption that it’s the government’s responsibility to fix the economy.
I’m reminded of a Despair.com poster “Government: If you think our problems are bad, wait until you see our solutions.” And generally I think educated, intelligent and rational people agree with this–asking for government to solve problems is a clear sign of having a death wish. When you ask for the most arrogant and insecure people in the country (those who felt that they needed to get elected to a public office to be validated) to direct a massive bureaucracy of people too stupid to get jobs in the private sector, how can you expect anything but disaster.
The government created several of the causes of our current economic problems. And we think that more interference will help the situation? Do you ask a person who just assaulted you to help you bandage a wound? Do ask the co-worker who just stabbed you in the back to help you with your new project? Do you ask the doctor who amputated the wrong limb if he could perform your next operation? NO! So why would anyone want the people who are partly (honestly mostly) responsible for these problems to solve them for us.
But the worst part about this is that I don’t think it’s just a liberal delusion that they think the American public want the government to solve their problems. The sad truth is that a good portion of the nation wants the government to solve their problems. Certainly this is true of just about everyone who voted for the Dems and probably most of the moderates who voted for the GOP this year were doing so not because they believed that the expansion of powers under Obama/Reid/Pelosi is a bad thing, they just were unhappy that it wasn’t working out for them and now think that maybe the GOP will help them out. If this was the motivation for people voting for the GOP, which at some level I fear it was, then I can only say that people are stupid beyond words. A massive portion of this country needs to remember that we’re Americans, we solve our own problems without the help of government because the American Dream is the idea that each of us can succeed and get what we want through hard work, determination, will, talent and skill (notice that usually no one lists a government handout in what the American Dream is). But it seems that people now want the government to take over their lives. Nowhere was this better seen than in California where the public voted down decriminalization of pot, but elected uber-liberals/socialists like Barbara Boxer and Jerry Brown (I heard Brown called a “functionally retarded chimp” on a news program, but this of course is, to anyone who has ever looked at what he did last time he was Governor of California, a hideous insult to mentally challenged primates). So they wanted the government to be liberal and control their economic liberties, but still wanted the government to tell them what they can and cannot put into their bodies in their social lives. Clearly the people of California are morons who want a parental government to just run their lives for them.
If people are really going to keep electing politicians to solve our problems then we will have problems that will never end. The answer is for the government to get out of the way. Yes, there will be moments of economic boom and economic bust when the government does next to nothing, but it’s only when the government gets involved that you have massive bubbles, long periods of unemployment, stagflation, massive debts and in general everything else that we’re headed to under the Obama machine. Government can’t fix the problem so don’t let it try.
Now there is one bright spot in the Tea Party that they seem to be arguing for people to live their own lives, take responsibility for their own actions, and for the government to just leave us alone. I just still have my doubts about whether this will be a sustained movement in the American psyche. God I hope so (and dear God I hope they drop the hypocrite Sarah Palin soon).
But Tea Party or no, the GOP needs to do everything they can to limit, hinder, and eliminate the powers of the government intrusion on the economy in the next two years and the American public needs to grow up and not look for the government to solve their problems.

Leave a comment

Filed under Conservative, Government is useless, Tea Party

Laws the GOP should pass #1

So it’s Monday—the first Monday since the GOP took back the House, and I have hope. Not hope that the Republicans will get their agenda passed, that would be somewhere between unlikely and a minor miracle given the Dem. Controlled Senate (although they will likely have a few Dems dive to the middle because they want to get reelected) and the narcissist-in-chief (who shows no signs of realizing that the nation gave his little socialist opus a big thumbs down last week). But while the hopes of getting legislation passed are zilch, I do have hopes that the Republicans will not do what they always do and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
But to do this they need to do several important things first.
1. Repeal everything Obama did every week (TARP, Stimulus, Obamacare, etc.). Make him veto it every week and thus never let this country forget what he stands for and that he will keep pushing legislation this country does not want as long as he is in office.
2. They need to come up with real legislation. Not just tax cuts. I love tax cuts. But tax cuts in amongst the mountain of legislation and bureaucracy that is impeding the capitalist spirit of this nation is needed. It all needs to go. The laws, the regulations, the useless bureaucrats, the red tape. Get rid of it all.

Now as anyone who reads this blog consistently knows, I do want to keep government regulation and oversight in a lot of the economy, but as the referee and rules-keeper of the system (not an active participant in it).
3. The GOP needs to advertise and publicize what they are trying to pass, why it will work, and that the Dems in the Senate and Obama are opposed to making this country a better place. This needs to be a full on, massive two-year campaign showing that “we’re right in more in more than just name.” TV, Radio, internet, print… it must be made clear to everyone with a rational brain why it’s actually the Dems who are the party of No.

And given all this I am going to be posting every Monday a law that the Republicans need to pass And the GOP needs to pass bills every week. Yes, I know that they don’t get sworn in until January and Congress isn’t it session every week of the year (thank the dear lord) but I still don’t think passing 52 laws that will improve capitalism and decrease the socialist nature of our government is too much to ask for in any given year. This way in 2012 we can run on 104 laws that we will pass immediately if you put conservatives back in full control.

To start this week I am going to go with the obvious issue of healthcare. Now repealing every last scrap and iota is a given about as obvious as the observation that the sun rises in the east or that men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights (Obama seems to have problems with that one too). But if we just repeal it without putting in place things that will actually make the best healthcare system in the world (the U.S. system before Obamacare) better people are going to say that we as conservatives are doing nothing.

So the first new law that conservatives need to pass is to remove the legal barriers that prevent issuance companies from crossing state lines. Right now federal law prevents insurance companies from offering insurance in more than one state. You may think you’re buying insurance from Blue Cross but really you’re buying from Blue Cross of Arizona or Blue Cross of Massachusetts or Blue Cross of California, all of which are individual private companies (with their own boards, and own sets of bureaucracy) that are subsidiaries of the larger national company. Think about that for a second. It creates a system that resembles the federal system of the government of having both state and federal powers. The federal system was set up to create inefficiency and prevent abuse of power—which is a very good thing in government, but about as stupid as you can possibly conceive when it comes to running a company. I want you to think for just a few seconds how much overlap, how much insanity, how red tape and how much inefficiency this causes for an insurance company. And who gets to pay for that inefficiency? That would be you, the consumer.
And what else does this no crossing state lines do? It hinders competition. A person who wants to set up an insurance company in Delaware is limited to a very small market unless they want to waste what is probably equivalent to most of a decade’s profit to reincorporate with both a national branch and the entire system of bureaucracy and infrastructure in every other state they want to expand to. Hmm…I wonder if the big insurance companies have anything to worry about when it comes to competition. Nope, they have a very effective little cartel going because they know that no one new is ever going to come on the scene. (Now you could argue you could start a company in a big state and expand from there, which seems to make more sense on the face of the argument, but if you know anything about state business laws, right now the big states, California especially, are very anti-business in their laws).
So if you repealed the laws on state lines you would see all of these smaller state companies suddenly competing for every possible client, not just the ones in their small range. The large companies, who have now been able to save millions (if not billions) in overhead costs because they don’t need a complete business structure for all 50 states will now be more efficient. And those billions they save won’t be going to shareholders or CEO’s they’ll be going to cutting rates and offering more services because they are now in competition with all the smaller companies that they didn’t have to worry about.

I am speculating here, but this will likely lead to further standardization of payment for all doctors for all services because the smaller companies will probably just agree that it’s easier to say we’ll pay X for Y no matter who the doctor is because a smaller company will not be able to have an “in network” list for the entire nation. This will lead to the big companies doing the same to compete and low and behold there will no longer be lists of approved doctors and unapproved doctors for your insurance costs. (They might include some criteria along the lines for the doctors known level of skill and how many malpractice lawsuits they’ve had against them for how much they’ll pay, but this would only lead to national standards for the quality of a doctor and requiring the medical profession to police its own more stringently…not exactly something I would consider a down side).

Oh and your car and home insurance is also going to drop.

More choices. More competition. Lower prices. Better services. Higher standards.

And I’ll bet you Obama will veto it putting yet another nail in his political coffin.

Leave a comment

Filed under Congress, Conservative, Free Will, Health Care, Laws the GOP should pass, Unjust legislation

10 Reasons to Not Vote Democrat.

I’m not saying you have to vote for the Republicans– 3rd, 4th, and 12th party candidates are valid choices. Writing in Mickey Mouse is a valid choice sometimes. Just a few brief reminders on why you should not vote for Democrats.

1. They are in the pocket of the teacher’s union, the single greatest enemy America has.

2. If you want to see Hillary as President, then Obama must fall and be pushed out. This loss will do that.

3. Gridlock! Government that can’t agree to do anything, is good government.

4. We cannot survive another 2 years of out of control spending.

5. Remember that our economic problems started under a Democratic Congress.

6. It will just be fun to watch a narcissist like Obama deal with the nation giving him a thumbs down.

7. Did you really want to envy British and Canadian healthcare?

8. Because the crop of Republicans this year is going to make for some very entertaining moments on the Daily Show.

9. Because nobody can do a worse job than Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, Barney Frank and the rest of the groups of clowns known as the Democrats in Congress.

10. Basic Common Sense
a

Leave a comment

Filed under Evils of Liberalism, Obama