Monthly Archives: September 2011

Democrats argue for scrapping Constitution

So an Obama aid, Peter Orszag, argued today that we need less democracy in The New Republic,  and the Democratic North Carolina Governor Bev Perdue argued that that we should suspend the Congressional Elections. Two Democrats, on the same day come out with statements about the evils of democracy…I sense a new talking point for the left.
So what are they arguing? Orszag seems to be saying that all of the problems and gridlock in Washington is a problem of democracy. Apparently this idiot does not understand the difference between democracy (where the power is invested in the public on a good day and the mob on most days) and a republic (where power is invested in representatives of the people). He doesn’t understand that we have a Democratic-Republic, where representatives are chosen democratically and that the rules of how those representatives act are not necessarily supposed to be democratic (the filibuster for instance). The gridlock and inability he is complaining about is the result of representatives, not of democracy. It’s also the result of what’s called a system of checks and balances which were literally designed to make sure things didn’t get done as the Founding Fathers had a major distrust of active, large, and non-representative government.  It’s supposed to have gridlock.  If anything it hasn’t had nearly enough gridlock in the last century.

Now, Orszag is correct that John Adams and many of the Founding Fathers had a fear of democracy because it often lead to a tyranny of the mob. They only had to look to the French and their failed revolution to see what happens when you put the mob in charge. And if Orszag was arguing that we needed less democracy and more republicanism, I’d be right there with him. The popular election of Senators has led to nothing but Senators who are more corruptible as the easiest way to bribe a politician is through campaign funds (which you wouldn’t have if you we overturned the foolishness of 17th Amendment); it has led to statesmen who are more extreme in the house of Congress that was supposed to be more moderate; it has made the people who pick Supreme Court Justices and ratify treaties not the most qualified but only the most popular. (I’m just saying that in a world where governors nominate candidates and state legislators ratify those choices, dimwits like McCain and Reid would only get to see the Senate on the capital tour). Also if we had a little less mob democracy and more republicanism we wouldn’t have volumes of useless ballot initiatives every year. On the other hand I think the people should keep the right to vote on overturning laws and recalling politicians (even Senators that they didn’t vote on) this power of veto would give them control over the actions of their representatives, but wouldn’t lead to the insane level of ballot initiatives and lawsuits and legislators overturning ballot initiatives and the people passing more initiatives to counter those laws (or what I call a typical day in sunny California).
But Orszag isn’t arguing for more republicanism. He’s arguing for more central power at the cost of our democratic-republic. The only way to stop the gridlock of legislative bodies is to give final authority not to a house of parliament, but to one man. Orszag’s article is little more than Anthony offering Julius the crown in front of the masses, only far more crass and stupid (Caesar, while a dictator, was never accused of being so incompetent it’s a miracle he had the IQ to perform basic motor functions). Orszag is arguing to give the President the powers that are expressly given to other branches. In other words scrap the Constitution. He may not say that in so many words, but is there any other way to interpret what he is saying? He may say he wants semi-independent commissions and boards that would propose ways out of economic troubles that would only go for up or down votes…but as we’ve seen so often in the last couple of years czars and boards and commissions are tools of an executive branch…and to relinquish power vested by the Constitution to the legislative is just about the worst idea imaginable. First off Congress doesn’t need to do anything other than re-assert its authority as the most powerful and central branch of government, cut the budget, fire the czars, strip the boards of power, and leave Obama a whining lame duck. That will immediately jumpstart the economy.
But then we also have the governor of North Carolina who actually said:

“You have to have more ability from Congress, I think, to work together and to get over the partisan bickering and focus on fixing things. I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won’t hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover. I really hope that someone can agree with me on that. The one good thing about Raleigh is that for so many years we worked across party lines. It’s a little bit more contentious now but it’s not impossible to try to do what’s right in this state. You want people who don’t worry about the next election.”

Ever notice how “get over the partisan bickering” means “shut up and do what we the Democrats say, and if you dare disagree than you’re an unpatriotic bastard who supports tax cuts for the rich by killing poor people, and if you dare question our divine leader then you’re a racist!”…but I may be reading a bit into that. Then there is that next part “focus on fixing things.” No, thank you. I’ve seen Bush and Obama try to fix things—they’ve only made it worse. Stop fixing things. It’s broken because you “fixed” it. Congress and government know nothing about the economy. LEAVE IT ALONE! But let’s ignore for the moment that Democrats understand less than nothing about economics. Because then we get to her suggesting we suspend elections. Yes, let’s just ignore the Constitution. It’s not like it’s the Supreme Law of the Land that can only be ignored under martial law and only changed by approval of three-quarters of the states.  The slippery slope here is so obvious it almost doesn’t need to be expressed…if you do that how long before Congress just declares their jobs life time appointments? How long before the president does that?  How long before this is no longer a Republic?  No, apparently according to the chief executive in North Carolina the Constitution is much like “the Code” in Pirates of the Caribbean, “They’re more of guidelines.”  Damn what the longer term consequences of such an action would be.  I don’t know if North Carolina has the right of recall for a governor, but if it doesn’t, I suggest that the people of North Carolina take a page from Perdue’s book and just imagine up such a clause, it’s only a guideline after all, and get this idiot out.

On the same day you have two different Democrats, both with access to a pulpit, publically advocating that we should just ignore the Constitution. That’s because it’s a hindrance to their progressive view of how the government should control the economy, thus it should be ignored. That’s because the people elected a much more economically conservative bunch of Congressmen who are doing exactly what they were elected to do and holding the line.  That the Constitution should be ignored because the will of the people doesn’t know best, nor do the representatives those people selected. No, it is only the select few, the ones who want to “fix” the economy with more stimulus, with a jobs bill, with control and taxes and regulation, it’s only this select few who know best and as the Constitution is in the way of that it should be ignored. No, we have a leader who will lead a defense corps of union members (Hoffa said they were an army) against all our political enemies in a lightning fast war. (Feel free to translate that last sentence into German).

If Obama has even a single synapse that fires correctly he really needs to call the troops in and scream at them to stop sounding like they’re advocating a banana republic coup, because if nothing else, if this rhetoric continues you can bet that every major political commentator will start hammering them over to the point where it will not only be a defeat of the Democrats in 2012 but instead a crushing defeat that will leave the GOP in total control of both houses and the White House with not just a win but a mandate. Then again if they want to be suicidal I have no problem with that outcome.

Leave a comment

Filed under American Exceptionalism, Budget, Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Debt, Declaration, Economics, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Fear, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Harry Reid, liberal arrogance, Long Term Thinking, Natural Rights, Obama, Obama Ceasar, People Are Stupid, politics, Taxes, Tea Party, Tyranny, Unions, Unjust legislation, Welfare

Laws for the GOP to pass: Scrap the majority of the post office

I realize that this is a dangerous blog to write, as we know that while Postal employees are utterly incompetent at delivering mail in a timely, correct, and cheap manner, they are very good at mass murder. I know that writing this blog will likely open me up to having some USPS employee going postal on me, but it needs to be said.

Have you heard the post office needs a 5 billion bailout to help pay their bills? Yes, if you see a commercial on TV from the post office saying they pay all their bills with only sales of stamps you need to do two things (1) scream “Bullshit” and (2) make sure the dog in the front yard is hungry and unchained for tomorrow’s mail delivery.

The fact of the matter is that the post office offers terrible service. Service that is overpriced. Employees that over paid and have too many benefits given that it has to be one of the most menial jobs in existence. (Average salary of 52K a year, benefits you would kill for…including 26 days off a year after 15 years of service…you get a month off from doing your job which probably actually required a modicum of education and a working frontal cortex?)
And they just run it like a bunch of idiots. Ask yourself if you sent a letter to your friend down the street and a letter to your friend at the Northern most tip of Alaska which would cost more to deliver. Obviously with transport, fuel, employees, bureaucracy, etc., the letter to Alaska is going to cost a radically larger amount than the letter going down the street. How much is the difference in stamp costs? Nothing. Gee, do you think that the fact that pricing has nothing to do with cost might be a bad business model? If you said no then may I suggest you invest in a company called Solyndra a fascinating company who makes solar cells for $6 a cell and sells them at $3 a cell (oh wait, the people backing Solyndra literally are the people backing the Post Office).

I believe a national post office is a necessity. Communication is a requirement of a healthy society. But the post office in its current form needs to be scrapped.

Here is what Congress needs to do.

1. Overturn all laws that forbid private carriers (UPS, FedEx, smaller local businesses) from carrying any kind of mail. Although if they want the right to carry all forms of mail, they will have to agree to be under the Postal Inspection Service (if you’re going to carry the mail then you’re going to have to follow all the rules surrounding it, which means that someone has to have the right to investigate and if needed prosecute for violations of those laws).
2. Overturn all laws that forbid those companies from under cutting USPS prices. That’s right UPS and FedEx don’t cost more than the Post Office because they want to, they charge more because they have to.
3. Cut back delivery of all mail to 3 days a week.
4. Quadruple the price of mass mailers and catalogues (otherwise known as 2nd and 3rd class mail) This is the bulk of what we get in the mail and we just throw it away, it’s a waste of our time, of paper, of the time of postal employees. Either we need to price it out of existence or at least make it a cash cow.
5. Cut the postal force by at least 60%. If we’re going to 3 days a week and letting competition in, then 60% cut is more than called for. Yes there will be a string of disgruntled postal employees doing what postal employees do best, but as most of their victims will statistically be other postal employees, eh, I don’t see much of a downside. Further this rash of mass killings will be great promotional material for the start up businesses that will grow in the wake of this.
6. Put 60% of the USPS infrastructure up for sale. Those private businesses are going to need somewhere to operate out of and the machinery and vehicles to do those jobs. No reason we can’t cut our losses as they grow.
7. Cut postal employee salaries and benefits. I have a low opinion of most government jobs and think they should be jobs people hold while in or right out of college, something to get started in. Most government work should never be the kind of thing you can earn a career off of and certainly carrying pieces of paper back and forth should not be something that one can make a great living off of as I’m not entirely sure we couldn’t train chimps (or at least Democratic members of Congress) to do such a simplistic job.
8. Forbid all traces of net neutrality laws. One of the biggest reactions to this will be that a lot more work will be done over the internet (especially in the field of entertainment…cutting back on delivery will without question kill Netflix or Qwickster or whatever it’s called which means that a lot of us are suddenly going to be streaming our movies). To handle this sudden growth in broadband traffic the entire infrastructure for data communication is going to need to be radically improved throughout the nation. This will cost money. Net neutrality laws will only slow down and stifle the needed growth.

There will be a lot of other changes that will come from this needed change, but even the momentarily costly and painful ones (I really hate streaming movies from Netflix, I hate quality and buffering, but 3 day a week delivery is more annoying) but the fact is that long term these are all positive economic changes. The system for the delivery of mail as it stands right now is stuck in an 18th century idea of how to communicate. And for those who say that this will have negative consequences I would remind you that Great Britain, Finland, New Zealand and Sweden have competition to their government postal services and Germany has completely privatized it…yet I don’t think I’ve ever heard complaints about their postal system (I have however heard lots of complaints of the government run health care that some of these countries have.).

 

1 Comment

Filed under Budget, Capitalism, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Debt, Economics, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Net Neutrality, politics, Taxes, Unions, Unjust legislation

Idiots, Ethics and God

So, against my better judgment I have been engaging in a comment war with a real moron on a friend’s blog. A moron and a troll. What really pisses me off about this useless f!@# is that he is the kind of prick who likes to use big words, Latin phrases where the English would actually be more appropriate, and quote obscure philosophers to make himself sound really smart when he clearly knows nothing. You know, the kind of ass who likes to ask questions of subjectivity and postmodern philosophy that makes even intellectual people in college want to just punch repeatedly because he clearly isn’t mentally qualified to engage in the actual conversation at hand but wants to sound like he knows more than you. I know I shouldn’t have argued with him, there is nothing to be gained from arguing with idiots, because you can’t even humiliate them because sarcasm and insults are beyond their feeble little minds, ( I know this because irony, wit, and blatant petty mocking actually went right over his head…it was sad actually, made me feel like I was making fun of a retarded kid) but I had a couple of glasses of wine in me and my intellect was not at its peak (still well above the moron’s, but not at its peak).

But what really pisses me off is this idiot keeps referencing ideas and philosophers of deontological and utilitarian ethics as sources and people to challenge. And this really pisses me off.

But let me go back a step because I realize most people aren’t familiar with these philosophies (although they are far too often in practice). I myself do not read much from these philosophers because the I am familiar enough with their bullshit beliefs to not only know that they don’t meet even a prima facie case, but that when you get into the depths of these philosophies there is nothing of value to them. But let me give you the short and simple summaries of why both belief systems are beyond stupid.

Utilitarian philosophy might actually be familiar to most educated people. It’s the idea that the ends justify the means. It states that so long as you usually come out with a good end (usually for the most amount of people) then whatever you have to do to get there is justified. It’s stupid for both theoretical and pragmatic reasons. It’s stupid for theoretical reasons because it views people as merely tools to an end. Need economic growth then using people as a cheaply paid slave class is justified because it leads to growth (as China will more than testify to). Need a better class of people in your country, just kill all the inferior people (yeah, we know how well that one goes). Any and every major evil of the 20th century is justified by this belief. Because anything can be justified if you say that you’re doing it for the public, for the people, for the state, for the race. Ironically since any justification based on utilitarian principles has never resulted in anything but genocide, economic disaster, tyranny and suffering, utilitarian ethics would demand that utilitarian beliefs never be used. You cannot have any ethical beliefs without believing the basic inherent value of human life and the human soul, and that immediately throws out the basic premise of utilitarian beliefs that helping the many justifies hurting the few. If classical liberalism is correct, and human beings inherently have value by virtue of being human, then nothing can be justified by the principles of utilitarianism which demands that humans have no value in and of themselves, only in the respect that more is better than few. But that hasn’t it stopped this abhorrent belief system from being used time and time and time again.

There is probably only one evil worse than utilitarianism…and that’s the philosophy of deontological ethics. If utilitarian’s believe that the ends justify the means, then the deontological school believes the equally, if not more, evil idea that the means justify the ends.

Deontological beliefs were never really championed seriously until the advent of Immanuel Kant (please read “the most obscenely immoral person in the history of human civilization–If he had been given the power to do so he would have made Hitler, Genghis, Mao, Attila, Stalin, and Pol Pot put together look like choir boys.”). I do not believe in the Devil or the existence of absolute evil…but the existence of Kant makes me constantly question that belief. If there were ever books that deserved to be burned, they would have the name Immanuel Kant on them (not that I advocate book burning, but Kant comes damn close). As you can guess, I hate Kant…and the fucking excuses for human beings who follow him. Why do I hate him so much, well first because his entire philosophy is based on the idea that the purpose of human life is not to be happy but rather to fulfill our duty. I’ll come back to this in a minute, but for now just accept the fact that it allows a justification for causing human misery. Second because his rule, while a favorite of academics and the root for all post-modernist’s bullshit, is not only immoral but blatantly illogical and preposterous…but since he put it in such impossible to understand terms idiots who like to think themselves smart glorified it because the rule of a moron is
“if I can’t understand it, it must be smart.” Here is Kant’s entire basis for ethics and the grounding for all of his philosophy that followed:

“Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction.”—Immanuel Kant, The Groundings for the Metaphysics of Morals

In human terms that means do something only if you want everyone to do that thing at every opportunity. Don’t lie unless you want every person to tell a lie at every single time they speak and/or write. The classic example for this is you’re living in 1930’s Germany, an S.S. officer comes knocking and asks if you have Jews hidden in your basement, which you do. Do you lie? According to Kant you are an evil human being if you lie. You must tell the S.S. officer that you are hiding Jews and condemn them and yourself to death. According to Kant that is the only way to be an ethical human being. (One wonders how this sick little excuse for a human ever survived to be able to write such filth…oh wait he wrote in Prussia, a country not historically known for its morals.) For me, there is only one ethical way to not lie to the S.S. officer, and that is to get him to come inside the house long enough to shove a knife into the base of his neck. Again Kant would say that killing a Nazi is morally wrong. Human beings on the other hand view the cold blooded murder of any Nazi not so much as wrong, but more under the category of “DUH.” But ignoring the obvious Evil (yes the capital E is intentional) of this so-called ethical idea, is how it’s actually quite useless. What if, when the S.S. officer is standing there, I don’t ask “Should I lie?” but instead ask “Should I support tyranny?” “Should I betray the innocent?” “Should I follow the law?” “Should I follow an unjust law?” It’s useless as a rule (and further utterly pointless as the basis of a philosophy) if it yields different answers depending on how I formulate the question. If something is a rule it should tell me what to do in a given circumstance, the categorical imperative can’t do that because most actions involve multiple levels of action (lying, helping tyranny, following the law, and protecting the innocent). Still, given the fact that those who would believe in the categorical imperative can’t even see this obvious problem I can’t expect them to formulate the right question. But the worst is, like utilitarianism, it denies the value of human life. This is only concerned with the actions, not with how those actions affect something of value. Every person can be sacrificed if the categorical imperative says that to do otherwise would be wrong. There is no question of justice, of value, or right…only of duty to a poorly formulated idea from an immoral autistic soulless Prussian.

You see the problem is that most of ethical philosophy was settled back around 400 B.C.E. in Athens. Plato and Aristotle pretty much came up with the core basis for all ethics back then and realized quite correctly that happiness was the end and goal of human existence. Christ added a little humanity to the cold rationalism, and Aquinas made sure those two branches worked together. Yes there were still a lot of political and economic philosophical questions to be answered, but for the most part ethics was a complete philosophy with only the minutia to be debated and obvious errors to be corrected–for instance if Aristotle had just applied his own logic to his culture’s racism and misogynism he would have seen them to be wrong, but it’s unfair to blame a man who was centuries ahead of everyone else in a myriad of ways for not being ahead of his time in every way. After all what beliefs do you hold now that 2,000 years from now you’ll be laughed at for believing? (Hint if you believe in Kant, you should be laughed at right now). However, rather than take this rather well versed theories you had what the Renaissance laughably referred to as philosophy (starting with Descartes) had the idea that instead of refining the existing philosophy they should completely ignore all the previous learning and start from scratch. Now this can be helpful strategy to test existing beliefs and come at something from a new angle, but only when you compare what you come up with against the old ideas and see which one is more convincing (which modern philosophy has never done, because if it had it would have abandoned so much of the tripe that has been stated in the last five hundred years). And rather than building on ideas based on reason and truth modern philosophy first centered around the false dichotomy of empiricism vs. rationalism, then went to the insanity of Kant, and to call anything after that philosophy is an insult to the word. Useless academics spent the last five hundred years more worried about saying something new than saying something true. Part of this is because nothing in modern philosophy (with the exception of Locke, but he more or less drew the idea from Aquinas) has given any credence to the value and worth of the human soul.

And this is probably why even deists and believers who doubted the divinity of Christ (i.e. Jefferson, Adam, and Franklin) who did not subscribe to any particular denomination of belief, along with the rest of the Founding Fathers, believed that America (or any nation) could not survive unless it has some kind of spiritual belief. (“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”—John Adams). Without a belief in God and the soul, there is no value to humanity and thus nothing to stop institutionalized misery and evil. Atheists will try to say that statement is wrong (but I dare you to find any kind of atheistic regime in the whole of history that has not quickly degenerated into madness and destruction. Religious civilizations are 50/50 for being evil. Atheists have a 100% evil track record. Hmm tough call.)

I bring this last point up only as a tangential explanation of both utilitarianism and deontology are grievously wrong. However because I dismiss these so-called philosophers because they’re based on such a preposterous idea, one certainly would assume I’m some kind of philistine as if I don’t understand the genius of these philosophies. I reject them because I do understand their idiocy and evil.

And why else are they completely wrong (and arguably rather interchangeable since they’re both 100% wrong) is because they only focus on half the picture. One looks at means the other ends. Both are an incomplete picture. One must look at both to act ethically and rationally. Some means are wrong, like lying. But lying to save an innocent isn’t wrong. Murder is wrong, but it’s the height of ethics to murder a tyrant—its fact, it’s actually a moral imperative if you don’t have the ability to imprison them. (As I know that I occasionally have readers in Iran get to this blog…take a hint.) On the flip side sacrificing the rights of the innocent is never justified no matter how good the end you intend. However it would be foolish to say that those rights can never be violated, as sometimes the alternative is far worse even for the innocent (which is why the necessary evil of limited government is ethical. Very limited). Now this can only be achieved in Classically Liberal Democratic Republics that rely almost exclusively on capitalism (liberals out there capitalism requires laws and government, it’s not anarchy, but it doesn’t require a lot either).
Now, as it is pointed out in my favorite book, Republicans and Reincarnation, the best you’re going to get in the highly dependent on circumstances and surrounds for a calculus of ethics is the following five questions:

1. Is the action leading to a positive, neutral, or negative end?
2. Is the action unethical or ethical?
3. Is the benefit this action provides removing a material or spiritual obstacle, or both?
4. Is this a long-term benefit or short-term benefit?
5. Is the action benefiting a large number of people or a small number?

(Notice that this is the other reason you have to believe in the soul to be ethical, because if there is a soul then there is a difference between what is good in the material sense and what is good in the spiritual sense. To not make this distinction will always lead to unethical and unproductive behavior.) And the basic way to interpret the these five questions is (again from the book, there was a 3 page justification for these conclusions, but I fear I’m boring you already as this is a blog not a book):

No negative ends, even if it means unethical means. (Such as war to end tyranny)
No negative spiritual ends, even if it means negative material ends. (Quitting your job rather than violating your principles)
Unethical means only to prevent a negative end.
Long-term goals over short term. (The needs of the minority must never be sacrificed for the wants of the majority.)
The needs of the minority must never be sacrificed for the wants of the majority.

You’ll notice how both the foolish ideals of utilitarianism and deontology violate almost every one of those points, which is why they are wrong, which is why they must be opposed, which is why I dismiss the fools who originally formulated them and why I have no respect for the idiots who continue to follow them.

There, now I have something in writing that I can send to people every time they make such ridiculous arguments. If you also run into such an idiot send them this way. They probably won’t learn, but you can now mock them for their further lack of understanding.

Leave a comment

Filed under American Exceptionalism, Aristotle, Atheism, Books, Books for Conservatives, Capitalism, China, Civil Liberties, Conservative, Constitution, Death, Economics, Equality, Evils of Liberalism, Faith, Free Will, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Happiness, Individualism, liberal arrogance, Long Term Thinking, Natural Rights, People Are Stupid, philosophy, Problems with the GOP, Tyranny

Why does Obama hate poor people?

Obama’s EPA is banning cheap asthma inhalers.  They’re banning them for relatively small of amount of those ozone hurting chemicals, literally a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the CFC’s that may have caused the hole in the ozone layer.

 

So to stop a truly negligible portion of ozone hurting chemicals the Obama administration is going to triple the cost of asthma inhalers.  Why is this a truly stupid move?  Because probably, with the exception of weight related diseases, there is no disease more related to income level.  Poor people are vastly more likely to have asthma than the middle class.  I don’t know the reason, no one else agree on them, but this is still a fact.

 

This price increase is going to hurt the poor.  A lot.  Asthma inhalers are not optional, they are as critical to quality of life as anything you can imagine.  Have you ever had pneumonia, that feeling of being unable to take a full breath?  The fear, the hurt, the panic?  Imagine your whole life like that?  Now ask yourself, if it costs three times as much.   If you’re poor that means having to make choice of ‘”do I use the inhaler now?   Or do I suffer?”  Thanks Barrack, for making poor people suffer through that.  Usually I’m not one to speak about the plight of the poor because usually I believe their plight is all too often caused by their bad choices, but this is  a disease that has nothing to do with bad choices made during life.  Nor is this the kind of disease where it’s a question of spending a huge sum of money that will extend a person’s life but not increase their quality of life.  This is as close as you get to a quality of life issue.  And Obama just make their quality of life go down.

 

Why would Obama screw poor people like this?

 

Answer: Class warfare.

 

Most people will probably not know that reason their inhaler has tripled in cost is because of an EPA and Obama call.  They’ll think it’s the drug companies are intentionally screwing them over.  (Yes I fully admit that the economies of scale will probably bring it down from triple the cost, but probably not back down to the old prices).  Which will secure the base in A. hating those evil evil drug companies and B. supporting Obama and his stand against those evil people who raised their health care prices for no reason (to hell if it’s actually Obama and his administration who is the bastard who did that).

 

A brilliant political move to secure his basse.  An evil move.

5 Comments

Filed under Economics, Environmentalism, Evils of Liberalism, Obama, Tyranny, Unjust legislation

I’ve been meaning to do a blog on each of why I don’t support a lot of GOP candidates I don’t support…but I can’t top this critique on an ass like Santorum. Yes, he gives nice answers on foreign policy and economics, but the twit thinks social policy is more important than either of those. And here is why his stupid beliefs on social issues can’t be allowed near the White House…

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

More Liberal Class Warfare from Elizabeth Warren

So there is a new video making the rounds through Facebook and emails. It is of Elizabeth Warren who will run against Scott Brown in Massachusetts for the Senate.

It’s apparently the latest denial that Obama and the Democrats are waging class warfare. Next up Democrats will deny that the earth moves around the sun.

But besides the fact that saying Obama and his lackeys engage in class warfare is about as obvious as the rules of basic arithmetic, let’s take a look at what she actually says

That boils down to 3 points.
1. The call for more taxes on the rich is not class warfare
2. No one makes money on their own, they do it only because society works well
3. The social contract requires that people pay a portion of what they make so that society can succeed.

Let’s take these out of order.

Yes it is a fact people need other people to make money. Society requires other people to function. Capitalism requires infrastructure and public education. Guess what else it requires? Freedom to create without punishment. You know the kind of punishment where you would be taxed at obscenely higher rates for being successful (the kind Obama is proposing). Capitalism also requires a fair playing field where the government does not pick winners and losers (which TARP and stimulus violated), it requires the lack of restrictive red tape and bureaucracy (everything Obama is against), it requires treating companies equally by their merits (i.e. the lack of cronyism as seen in GE and Solyndra). But let’s ignore that government is meeting all of the things that are required for the creation of wealth and prosperity.

She then claims that the social contract requires that the rich pay their fair share (a contract suggests both sides meet their responsibilities…but again let’s ignore the government completely failing to meet its end of the bargain). Yes the social contract requires people pay into the system. However Warren seems to suggest that the rich aren’t paying their fair share. Is this the case?

According to the National Taxpayers Union, the top 1% of earners pay 38% of the income tax revenue. The top 5% pays 58% of revenue, the top 10% pays 70% (you have to make $113K in this class) and the top 50% makes 97% of federal income tax. The top half pays all income tax revenue. Are the poor paying their fair share? But federal income tax is not the only source of revenue. Income tax only pays for 42% of all federal revenues. 
Another source of income is 9% is from corporate taxes…so the income that goes to the rich has already been taxed at around 15% to 35% (depending on industry and loopholes…the more corrupt a board you have that has paid money to the DNC the lower their taxes). Then about 40% of tax revenue goes to Social Security (and supposedly nothing else), and as we all know that system isn’t taking in enough. So, in reality, since you can’t consider FICA taxes since they’re not supposed to pay for anything but Social Security, then in reality Income and Corporate tax, which is paid for entirely on the backs of the top 50% is really about 85% of all federal revenue for all major expenditures. Again who isn’t paying their fair share? The rich? Or the poor? The rich and middle class pay for everything the poor for NOTHING, yet the poor get the majority of the benefits.

 

Well then let’s take a look at something else. She mentions roads, police, fire, military, and education as benefits of the social contract. First off police, fire and most of education is a state not federal issue. However let’s take a look at the federal budget.

2010 Budget
695 billion – Social Security (A ponzi scheme)
$571 billion – Unemployment/Welfare/Other mandatory spending (Subsidizing the lazy)
$453 billion – Medicare (Not admitting that death is a natural part of life)
$290 billion – Medicaid (Further denying death comes for us all)
$164 billion – Interest on National Debt (we do have to pay for this)
$663.7 billion – Department of Defense (including Overseas Contingency Operations) (we need this one)
$78.7 billion – Department of Health and Human Services (a worthless expenditure)
$72.5 billion – Department of Transportation (I think the states could handle this but Warren lists this)
$52.5 billion – Department of Veterans Affairs (I’d prefer this rolled back into the DOD, but it’s needed).
$51.7 billion – Department of State and Other International Programs (we do need this)
$47.5 billion – Department of Housing and Urban Development (waste of money)
$46.7 billion – Department of Education (waste of money but Warren listed it)
$42.7 billion – Department of Homeland Security (why isn’t this just a part of the Department of Justice).
$26.3 billion – Department of Energy (other than the nuclear security, it’s worthless)
$26.0 billion – Department of Agriculture (beyond worthless)
$23.9 billion – Department of Justice (we do need this)
$18.7 billion – National Aeronautics and Space Administration (waste of money)
$13.8 billion – Department of Commerce (unconstitutional, unethical, immoral, stupid, and waste of money).
$13.3 billion – Department of Labor (useless)
$13.3 billion – Department of the Treasury (needed)
$12.0 billion – Department of the Interior (useless)
$10.5 billion – Environmental Protection Agency (useless)
$9.7 billion – Social Security Administration (Ponzi)
$7.0 billion – National Science Foundation (useless)
$5.1 billion – Corps of Engineers (useless)
$5.0 billion – National Infrastructure Bank (this is just a bad idea)
$1.1 billion – Corporation for National and Community Service (useless)
$0.7 billion – Small Business Administration (useless)
$0.6 billion – General Services Administration (useless)
$0 billion – Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) (beyond useless)
$11 billion – Potential disaster costs (huh?)
$19.8 billion – Other Agencies
$105 billion – Other

So between what we actually do need and what Warren added we are left with Interest on National Debt, Department of Defense, Department of Transportation, Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of State. Department of Education, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Energy, Department of Justice, Department of the Treasury, Other Agencies and Other at a grand cost of $1.281 Trillion. Total revenue last year was $2.38 Trillion. So if we just did what’s on that list, we wouldn’t have to raise taxes, in fact we have 1.099 Trillion just to spend. Hell we could take half a trillion on new infrastructure, half a trillion to shore up social security while we phase it out, and put 99 billion into paying off the principle of the debt.

Now primarily what did Warren leave out. Oh those entitlement programs. You know the massive payments to the lazy, the uneducated (you know people so stupid they turned down the free education offered to them), those who failed to plan for retirement, those who failed to learn skills, those who failed to take care of their own health. Yes there are people who have legitimate problems that require help through no fault of their own—they are not the majority of the people on the dole.

Why does she leave out the biggest government expenditures (social security, Medicaid, Medicare, and welfare)? Because she knows that no one with an even halfway functioning brain looks at that level of entitlement payments (one third of the country receives entitlements in some way, shape or form) on the backs of those who actually earn a living. A third of the country who makes nothing vs. half of the country who pays for everything. Ignore the massive amounts of inefficiency (which would save even more money) this is not about revenue it’s about a massive amount of spending more than we have to support a radically socialist view of entitlement and income redistribution.

No one begrudges paying for the police or the fire department or the roads (we may however begrudge what Obama wants to spend for infrastructure improvements as, going by experience, we’ll end up with crappier roads and bridges and a huge bill for our troubles). We do begrudge pointless, meaningless, evil, entitlement spending that does nothing but waste money (and keep the poor just as poor as they were before).

Warren is either an idiot par excellence or a lying bastard for trying to ply this half truth as a fact. I’m going with the latter. And making it seem that the rich aren’t paying their fair share (as opposed to those kind hearted saintly freeloaders who feel that paying NOTHING is contributing their fair share) and being greedy for wanting to keep only HALF of their money (what bastards to want to actually keep HALF of their money, how dare they think they’re entitled to more than a dime for every dollar they earn). How on earth could you call pitting those evil greedy bastards from having more of their money ripped away against their will against the people who like vampires off of the blood of people who can actually live life (and they’re not even cool mysterious vampires, they’re wimpy sparkly vampires…forgive me I’m seeing lot of Halloween decorations already and it’s on my brain).

However my personal favorite of this entire joke is the following statement:

“you didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory and have to hire someone to protect against this.”

Why is it that when this liberal says “marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory” I can see nothing but federal regulators and union thugs in the role of marauding bands. In fact that’s exactly what they are. And didn’t she say that the government is supposed to be protecting you from…not; oh I don’t know, being the very people they’re supposed to be protecting you from. The sick irony of that is probably lost on Warren.

1 Comment

Filed under Budget, Capitalism, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Debt, Economics, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Fear, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Individualism, liberal arrogance, People Are Stupid, politics, Taxes, Tyranny, Unions

Who is to blame? Answer: Bad teachers…and everyone else.

Over the last couple of weeks I have seen several articles on the topic of teachers not being to blame for the problems with modern schools, or you should listen to teachers, or there are other excuses for the low results in student achievement. But while everyone is willing to not blame teachers, let me make one thing very clear BAD TEACHERS ARE COMPLETELY, TOTALLY, WITHOUT QUESTION TO BLAME!

However to be fair they’re not the only ones who are to blame. I could blame the Teacher’s unions (i.e. the only organizations which I would take out before Neo-Nazis if I could…yeah I think they’re that bad) for constantly defending these worthless hacks. I could blame the truly incompetent class of people known as administrators (who were terrible teachers thus they sought out another job) who first hired the hacks and then didn’t fire them. Then I would blame the school boards (to call most boards a ship of fools would be overly complimentary) who hired, and didn’t fire, said inept administrators. I could blame the voters for voting such worthless boards in…but those voters are often the same parents who didn’t stimulate their children, didn’t teach them to read, didn’t hold them to rules and didn’t model good character.

However, this last paragraph, which follows the usual progression of blame is backwards. It needs to go the other way around and start with the person who is most to blame when a student fails to learn.

The child, the student. Free will is often forgotten in this whole endeavor. Every person is given free will. Most choose not to use it and would rather run on autopilot. Of the people who choose to use free will 90% make very good choices and rise above their circumstances…and oddly occasionally fall far below the situation they are put in (but they’re still better than the people who just run on autopilot). In the end every student is ultimately responsible for choosing to learn or choosing to just go with the current. Now if they choose not to exercise their free will that then issues of nature and nurture become relevant—because people let them be, because they choose to let genetics and environment lead their life, not their reason and will.

So if they choose to just be victims of nature and nurture guess who should take most of the blame? Parents. You have your children from moment one (if you adopted you have a slight excuse but you only have that for so long) and thus you are responsible for the environment. Which is why I blame parents so much. Did you start reading to your child early on (like before they could even speak)? Did you read every day to model the behavior? Did you talk to them (as opposed to at them) to encourage them to take part in conversations and learn how to think? Did you act like a modern day Socrates and barrage them with questions forcing them to defend and think about every statement they make (yes, I do recommend this; it creates incredibly well reasoned human beings)? Did you encourage and praise academic achievement? Demand school comes before everything else? The sad fact is that in my experience most parents do not do anything near this. They think TV is a baby sitter. They think children shouldn’t be engaged in conversation. They don’t really care about school. For all those bad parents out there, shame on you. If you weren’t willing to make an 18 year commitment to educating a human being you should have kept your hormones in check.

However we have a safety valve for weak willed people who suffer bad parenting, it’s called school. But that’s not much more of a help. Public education is constantly being destroyed by regulation from the federal, state, and local level. Rules and laws, and funding, and regulation, and documentation, and special needs, and this and that program, and licensing. I’ve gone over a lot of this before, so I won’t completely bore you again, but needless to say, politicians are incredibly to blame for setting up a system that care more about paperwork and inefficiency than results and education.

Next I have to lay a special level of hatred on the Teacher’s unions for encouraging, funding, and demanding those crappy politicians exist. Every single thing the Teacher’s Unions do is in the worst interest of the child. Be it the laws they demand. The deals they cut. The politicians they fund. The terrible teacher’s they protect. The Teacher’s unions are by far the worst organization that exists in all of modern America because they do the most damage by destroying that which should make this country great. And they’re morons to boot. Why are they morons? Because if they weren’t morons they would have to see the damage they were doing, which would at best be depraved indifference to destroying education of the nation, which by extension means they are destroying the economy…and willfully destroying the economy would mean destroying the country…is it just me or if is beginning to sound more and more like treason.

Oh but the villainous bastards from Hell at the Teacher’s unions and their political lackeys aren’t the only ones to blame. We have school boards and school administrators whose job it is to oppose such nonsense, to work around such idiocy, and to still demand standards at each of their schools. Most school boards shirk their responsibilities and rubber stamp anything the administration wants (usually because they’re bought and paid for by the teacher’s union) and most administrations are made up of terrible teachers with Napoleon complexes. Ask yourself what kind of teacher becomes an administrator? Great teachers, hell even good teachers, got into teaching to teach. They love the classroom, and for them teaching ranks up there with breathing. The kind of person who goes into teaching to get an administration job is one who doesn’t know the first goddamn thing about teaching, doesn’t understand what makes a good teacher, and has no clue as to how to improve teaching. Yes it makes perfect sense to put these people in charge. So damn them for not having the smallest amount of self-reflection that would allow them to know they’re not qualified for the job. (A side note, did you know the Peter Principle was first recognized when Dr. Peter looked at school hierarchies?)

And finally we get to the teacher who after everyone else has screwed things up is now expected to teach a student when every card has been stacked against them. Is it fair to blame them when the system is already so rigged against doing the right thing? Yes. It’s not like I’m telling you anything new. We all knew how f!@#ed up the system was before we joined because we had lived through it. Teachers are the last line of defense in this whole thing (more so if you’re a high school teacher). Don’t like the responsibility that comes with being the last line of defense? Then don’t take the job. If you take the job you take the responsibility that comes with it and if you fail to do the job, it doesn’t matter that everyone before you also failed, you took the job knowing you were going into a broken system and were expected to perform miracles. It’s not for everyone. But do not shirk your responsibility to do what you were hired to do: to be the only adult in this whole situation; to be the one who gives a damn when no one else cares; to save as many children as you can (no one can possibly expect you save them all, but you need to save some!); to succeed where everyone else has abysmally failed. That is the job of a teacher. To just complain that teacher’s aren’t to blame ignores what teachers are. If everyone else had done their job we really wouldn’t be needed. If every student had exercised their free will and reason and made a choice to learn, who would need teachers, you’d just need libraries? If every parent had made a choice to be a parent, who would need teachers? If the system were not corrupt and incompetent at all levels our jobs would be a tenth of what it is now and we wouldn’t need teachers to work as hard as they do now because the system would be designed to teach and encourage achievement, not reinforce bad habits. But the system is broken and the responsibility falls to teachers. If you don’t want that responsibility, if you don’t want to be blamed when you fail, do not become a teacher. Otherwise the position comes with responsibilities you are expected to meet.

1 Comment

Filed under Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Economics, Education, Evils of Liberalism, Free Will, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Individualism, Long Term Thinking, People Are Stupid, politics, Teacher's Union, Teaching, Tyranny, Unions, Waiting For Superman

Obama, he’s just not liberal enough

Let’s see.

Just not enough of a leftist

Obama has:
Given us a socialist health care system.
Proposed massive new taxes (1.5 Trillion in fact).
Raised Spending across the board.
Took over or made the government heavily involved with many industries.
Increased regulation of almost every field.
Ended “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (I actually agree with this one, but it’s not generally considered a socially conservative position).
Has instituted massive class warfare.
Never met an environmentalist proposal he didn’t like .
Backstabbed Israel at every turn.
Appeased tyranny at every turn.
Turned a blind eye to illegal immigration.
Supported the teacher’s union.
Supported all unions and given them free license to do whatever they want.
Used executive orders to skip Congress and run the country like a petty dictator.
And appointed more Czars to run more things than I can think of.

And yet….and yet…he’s apparently not liberal enough for the liberals in this country who are planning to run a more liberal challenger against Obama in the primaries.

I have two questions for these people?

One, how exactly do you see Barrack Obama as a moderate? There is nothing this man has done which wasn’t already to the left of LBJ and FDR.

Two. Who are you going to get that’s more liberal than Obama? Mao? Che? I’m not sure if even Marx himself is left enough for these people.

2 Comments

Filed under Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Debt, Economics, Election 2012, Environmentalism, Evils of Liberalism, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Illegal Immagration, liberal arrogance, Libya, Net Neutrality, Obama, People Are Stupid, politics, Taxes, Teacher's Union, Tyranny, Unions, Unjust legislation, War on Terrorism

The Palestinians demand a state…and I want a pony.

 

The Palestinians are demanding full recognition as a state by the U.N. which is pretty much the standard by what is and isn’t a country these days. (Just so you know how f-ed up a process this is that it considers that Tibet, a country invaded by a bloody genocidal army who still use crucifixion as a punishment isn’t recognized as a country because the butchers who tore apart Tibet without any consideration for human rights have a seat on the U.N. Security Council and Human Rights Council. A democratic-republic like Taiwan isn’t recognized either for the same reason.) They will then try to use this to A.) restrict Israel’s control in these regions (read: strip Israel of all ability to defend itself) and B.) take control of their own borders (read: ship in thousands of terrorists and weapons and prepare for a full on assault of Israel).

But ignoring the obvious problems with this toward Israel let’s take a look at some of the other reasons why this is just about the dumbest idea known to mankind.

What laughably passes as a government.  If you will recall the last time the Palestinian people voted for a government they voted in Hamas. You know the same Hamas that calls for the death to all Jews in the world…yes that Hamas. They’re not thrilled with the U.S. either…(although, three guesses as to which U.S. president they really like,  … the U.S. public should probably be weary of a man whom terrorists feel comfortable with). This has to be the worst moment in the history of honest democracy since it was invented. The Germans at least have the excuse that Hitler didn’t actually come out and literally say he was going to kill the Jews (it might have been under the thinnest veneer in history, but as far as I know he never stated “We’re going to kill all the Jews,” not that the Germans couldn’t have figured that out by just listening to what he was saying, still he never stated it in precise uncertain terms), Hamas’ actual charter literally calls for killing all the Jews. And these are the people the Palestinian people elected—a political party with an actual charter that calls for mass genocide. Would you give a country to a group of people who when actually given a choice freely and willing chose evil? I know I wouldn’t.

But this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the Palestinian government. Because Hamas then just took over Gaza. Which is why Gaza is now under complete lock down and the comically named “Freedom Flotillas” full of terrorist sympathizers and weapons keep trying to get into Gaza. If the West has any real morals we would sink the next one for Israel (preferably with an explosive that leaves no survivors…it’s a pretty clear line if you support the butchers in Gaza, you’re about as Anti-Semitic a son-of-a-bitch as they get, and I live by the general rule that the only good Anti-Semites are dead ones) long before it got anywhere near Gaza. Now some may claim that these flotillas were bringing humanitarian aid. It’s interesting how weapons now qualify as humanitarian aid. But if you still believe that the Freedom Flotillas were carrying only humanitarian aid please contact me—I have some lovely bridges to sell at rock bottom rates that I’m sure you would be interested in. But back to Hamas. After staging their little coup in Gaza the Palestinian government in the West Bank threw Hamas out and put in a bunch of non-Hamas members into the role of Prime Minister, the cabinet and parliament. In real governments when something this major goes on you hold elections to replace the vacant office…but as we already proved the Palestinian people to be morally bankrupt and fairly dumb by their last democratic vote we couldn’t do that so President Abbas just appointed a bunch of people (and that doesn’t sound at all like a petty dictator, no not at all). (And dare we mention that Abbas was a lackey for mass murdering terrorist Yasser Arafat?) And no new elections have been held. Half the so called country is in the hands of insurrectionists, the other half has a government which exists on shaky legal footing. Yes, let’s grant these jokers full status as a real country.

Oh and let’s talk about the Palestinian economy. It doesn’t have one. There is no real industry to speak of. Half the population works in Israel. The entire country would be starving to death if it weren’t for U.S. aid to these terrorists (and who’s bloody brilliant idea was it in the first place to give these idiots money?) Israel has said they’re going to have no choice but close the borders completely if Palestine is granted full recognition (I say they should have done it years ago) and there is no way to ethically justify supporting a country so founded on terrorism and tyranny so the U.S. should pull out every single cent we send to them (and for good measure send them a bill for everything we have paid saying we want it all back).

Oh but the poor Palestinians, you say. These are people who dress their babies up as suicide bombers and release those pictures. These are the people who danced in the streets on 9/11. These are the people who have made suicide bombing a recreational sport. And, oh yeah, these are the people who freely elected genocidal butchers as the government they wanted. Forgive me if my heart does not bleed for those who choose evil.

And then of course there is that tiny problem of where exactly is this country. There haven’t exactly been set borders. Now some terrorists, Anti-Semites and idiots have argued that Israel should go back to the so called green line of its original borders. This is stupid for two reasons. One, because those new borders that Israel has are because they won that land in the 6 Day War. For those of you who have been raised in an academic setting all too friendly to Palestinian terrors, let me give you a refresher on what the 6 Day War was. In 1967 Jordan, Syria and Egypt (with the help of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Algeria, Libya, Kuwait, Tunisia, and the Sudan) attacked Israel with twice the number of troops that Israel had. Of course the advantage of being civilized and not barbaric terrorists is that you can defeat a force of superior numbers in only six days. And on the other side of this war where basically Israel stood against the ENTIRE Arab world by itself (because U.S. President LBJ was beyond a coward and worthless piece of crap to give any help…no he would rather destroy the U.S. economy with his War on Poverty…in case you’re wondering we’re still using his tactics and good lord are we loosing that war, might have something to do with the fact that socialism does and can never work) and they won. And they won land too. Now traditionally, to the victor go the spoils, especially when you weren’t the one to start the war. For instance if tomorrow Canada decided to invade and we beat them back but decided to keep lovely British Columbia, that would be more than ethical. (I choose the preposterous example partly because A.) it is silly and B.) because we already have invaded Mexico, we took one look around and left). To go back to the green line is to say, we’re sorry that those countries invaded you with genocidal goals, but the land you took from them in a very unfair fight against you was theirs, and they shouldn’t be punished for acting like pure evil.

The other problem with the green line it’s insane from a defensive position. I could go on for a while on why this is or I can show this video. I apologize for the over the top narration and music, it’s still completely accurate.

Oh and one more thing. Since any reasonable person knows that Palestine will just become a base to launch terrorist attacks against Israel with the intent of full on war against Israel (Egypt seems to be preparing as we speak) this is only going to lead to an all out war. You may complain, foolishly, about the destabilizing nature invading Iraq and Afghanistan (destabilizing really, yes Iran is more powerful today than before the war, it was a trend they were on for two decades before we invaded, do you think they’d be less powerful today if we hadn’t tied up all their funds in supporting terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq?) Giving the Palestinians full recognition is just asking for an all out war to break out.

I know my attitude has a distinct “kill them all, God will know his own” feel, and I know if I were in a position of power and not just venting on a blog my actions would be a bit more measured than my words, but it is getting infuriating to deal with people who at every turn support terrorists and tyranny. There are only so many chances you can rationally give someone before there is no choice but to put them in a position where they can never harm you or anyone else again. And sadly when it’s a whole country that seems to have lost its mind on repeated instances I can’t help but get overly upset.

4 Comments

Filed under Afghanistan, Anti-Semitism, Evils of Liberalism, Foreign Policy, Israel, Obama, politics, Tyranny, War on Terrorism

Laws for the GOP to pass: A cheaper, healthier alternative to food stamps

So I was in the grocery store the other day looking at whole grain/fruit bars for snacks when I realized something. Most of the bars like this are small and cheap and they seem to have a lot of calories for their size. I’ve seen them have the full amount of protein, fiber, vitamins, calories, what have you. Theoretically you should be able to easily put a whole day’s dietary needs in three or four bars (probably at an incredibly cheap cost). This was coupled with watching someone buy steak (and it looked like a very good steak—thick, nice marbling, even a good strip of fat on the side, and I didn’t see the actual sticker but I would have judged it to be a porterhouse cut) at the checkout line with food stamps…I however had cheapest hamburger and a big bag of rice. I’ve also seen lots of other things bought with food stamps: soda, candy, cigarettes, booze, chips. I have a job and have to keep on budget in my eating habits…yet some of the idiots who exist purely off of my taxes immorally taken out of my paycheck that I earned are eating better than I am, and what did they do to earn this…nothing. Oh by the way just a kicker the worthless ass buying steak was about my height but probably had a hundred pounds on me.

You know I’m right. The food stamp program is grossly abused to buy hardly anything but necessities. It keeps the welfare brats not only well fed, but over fed. (Honestly have you ever seen pictures of people at a welfare office who looked emaciated from lack of eating…no it’s usually quite the opposite). So rather than keeping these lazy excuses for human beings buying food that is A.) a waste of my money B.) unhealthy and C.) a waste of my money again when they want me to pay their medical bills for their bad choices that led to lung cancer, heart problems, and preventable diabetes, I suggest we replace the food stamp program with something more practical.

As I said there should be a way to create a health food bar that includes a quarter of everything you need (FDA recommended levels of protein, fiber, vitamins) for a 2,000 calorie diet (I could actually live if we lowered that as 2,000 is for an active life style). At the beginning of every month instead of getting food stamps each person will get 4 bars for every day in the month. Thus insuring we are not leaving those without an income to starve, but also insuring that our money is not wasted.  Given how much those stamps are clearly being wasted, even creating this a new government run business would be cheaper.

The bars should probably come in wonderful flavors like cardboard, tofu, rice cake, and seaweed (actually that last one can taste pretty good). Don’t like it? Well then I have some advice. Go to your iPod (which I may add welfare person buying steak had one, it was better than the one I own) and pull up an Offspring song called “Why Don’t You Get A Job?” No one is stopping you from improving your life…I however should not be required to work for my living and be allowed only enough that I can live a lifestyle worse than yours that you did not work for. I can see an argument that society should not let people starve (although I really think that said programs should be run by the city, at most, the county, but never at the federal level), I cannot see an argument that you have a right be to kept in comfort. It should be a safety net, preferably one that is unpleasant enough to make them find a way out as quickly as they can.

This may sound bitter. But with our constant increase in entitlement and welfare spending we have to take a hard line and turn this whole system around if we want to save this country. People need encouragement to get to work not further extension on long term benefits. People need to be kept alive, not just given the ability to buy luxuries usually out of the range of their working lower-middle class counterparts. Good food, spacious living, vacations, entertainment, leisure, health care…these are things you have to earn.

 

3 Comments

Filed under Budget, Capitalism, Charity, Civil Liberties, Conservative, Debt, Economics, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Health Care, Long Term Thinking, politics, Taxes, Welfare

Isolationists and the moral requirement to act

At a recent dinner I got into an argument with a couple of libertarians (well one was a libertarian, I’m not quite sure what the other is) (and I would like to point out that I was nicer there than I am here). It started somehow with a discussion of Ron Paul and my saying that he was an isolationist and Anti-Semite (he is). The rebuttal came that all the quotes attributed to him aren’t true. Well I’ve read his chapter on “Zionism” in his book Liberty Defined. After reading that I feel comfortable calling him an Anti-Semite, don’t believe me, go read it yourself, it should be in most Barnes and Nobles in the Current Events Section…just don’t buy it, just read it there, there is no need to encourage such degenerate filth as Anti-Semitism by giving it money. Then of course I was then told that he never said we were responsible for 9/11. Let me quote to you from the Republican debates back in 2008:

 

Ron Paul: They attack us because we’ve been over there, we’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We’ve been in the Middle East. I think Reagan was right. We don’t understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics.

Now, I’m only a simple English teacher, but that reads like a simple conditional clause. “They attack us BECAUSE we’ve been over there.” Any logical interpretation to this would suggest that he is saying that IF we weren’t over there THEN they wouldn’t attack us. But I’m just using simple things like grammar and logic to interpret Ron Paul’s words. Perhaps if I drank the Kool-Aid his followers have I might see the mystical other way to interpret those words. “We’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years” suggest if we had just left that nice Hussein alone, we wouldn’t have had any problem. If we had just let him invade Kuwait and subjugate the people there obviously the world would be a better safer place. You believe that don’t you? Now I’ll grant you oil would be cheaper, but we would have let tyranny expand further in the world (not exactly worth the cost of saving a quarter on a gallon of gas). The next two sentences are kind of non-sequitor, but I’m going forgive more of it because when speaking on the spot it takes a while to collect your thoughts (if you have any). But my favorite is the last sentence is “We don’t understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics.” Ignoring the racist overtones of the suggestions that Arabs are too stupid to be rational, it suggests that because we can’t understand Middle Eastern politics we shouldn’t get involved. Which leads to the question, because it was almost impossible to understand the insanity of communism, should we have just let the rest of the world fall to Soviet expansion? Because we couldn’t grasp the pure evil of National Socialism should have just ignored it until it came to our shores (oh, wait that’s effectively what we did!)?

But let’s ignore Ron Paul for the moment and go back to my conversation. I pointed out that yes my interlocutors had a point that we have botched and screwed up a lot in our recent endeavors overseas. The monster that was Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama seems to have no idea of how to conduct foreign affairs (although each retarded head of that beast has its own unique flaws—cowardice/indifference/idiocy/evil). But no matter how bad our screw ups, not doing anything would have been far, far worse.

My opponents tried to then point to Israel as part of the problem and our help in creating it. That if we just didn’t back it we wouldn’t have had all these problems with terrorists attacking us. Really? So to protect ourselves we should betray the only democracy in that part of the world. Our survival is more important than the lives of others. What a moral stance isolationists take. This is preposterous for two reasons. The first is sanity. While I do not believe in an inability of Arab cultures to create democratic regimes, I believe that those cultures have become infected with a perverse belief system (to call it a religion would be overly generous). And those who subscribe to this sick ideal hate us not because we support Israel, or because we have economic prosperity, or because we support the Saudi regime, or because we supported the Shah or this or that…they hate us because the kind of evil they subscribe to is based on hate. Hate of that which is different and until everyone is under the yoke of their perverse system they won’t have their blood lust satiated (even then it will just turn more on itself until nothing that resembles anything human remains). If Israel falls, they will still hate Europe. If Europe falls, they will still hate the US. If we paid exorbitant tribute to them they would still hate us. There is no dealing with this or any evil. P.J. O’Rourke offered one of the most insightful comment of the century when he noted that “Evil is an outreach program.” By its nature it can do only one of two things spread or die. The only sane option is that we choose the latter, because it can never be appeased, never satiated, never halted. Your only choice with evil is to surrender or kill it. The second reason is that it’s evil. To withdraw support for Israel would be condemning thousands if not millions to death. I think the blood of 6 million Jews is enough on the hands of our country. (And yes I will maintain we are responsible for the death of the Holocaust victims because we knew that something was going on, we knew how evil Hitler was, and we did less than nothing. I say less than nothing because we didn’t just ignore the problem, we denied Jews attempting to escape entry on numerous occasions condemning them to torture and death. That’s the legacy of the so-called greatest generation, electing leaders who turned a blind eye to genocide.)

I was then treated to a statement about how I shouldn’t support Israel because they have a very liberal/pseudo-socialist economy. Which they do. I will admit that. But I would also point out two things. One, liberal economy with democratic-republican system is still better than psycho-evil-fascist-theocracy any day. Second, I will actually say something nice about socialism so get ready because this is a once in a decade event. Socialism is an excellent economic system when at war. (And by war here I mean more the Von Clausewitz concept of total war where you are in a life or death struggle.) When you are at war you have to control industry, resources, and capital if you’re going to survive. And guess what, Israel has been in this state of total war since the first day they were created. I may not like their economic system, but I understand why it’s necessary.

So seeing they weren’t going to make headway on the Israel point, because it will be a cold day in hell before I turn my back on Israel (in case you’re wondering it will be a cold day in the Arctic before Obama or just about any non-Jewish Democrat turns their back on Israel) my dinner companions tried to go with history. They tried going to our support of the Shah as the reason that Iran hated us. No, actually it was their embracing a religious lunatic. Under the Shah, bad as he was, Iran was Westernizing, it was becoming exceedingly civilized and would likely have naturally done away with the Shah and adopted a democratic system, or at least something less corrupt if the Ayatollah hadn’t taken over. Besides as bad as the Shah was, there was a lot worse….like the Ayatollah. We backed the lesser of many evils and it took a gutless wonder like Carter to do nothing when the country fell to absolute insanity. (One wonders what would have happened if Reagan had won in 1976 the first time he ran…oh wait, I don’t have to wonder, the armed services would never have atrophied due to lack of care that Carter gave them, they would have gone in, rescued all the people in the embassy and killed everyone who was about to plunge Iran into 30 years of medieval nonsense and tyranny. Then the terrorists of the world would have had no one to turn to in order to fund their constant attacks on the U.S., Europe, and Israel. Thanks Jimmy it’s amazing you won a Peace Prize for being the person most responsible for letting tyranny and terrorism thrive. I hope the Ant-Semitic bastard that Jimmy Carter is, and yes he is a goddamn Nazi at heart and I don’t mean that in any exaggerated or hyperbolic way, rots in hell.)

Then they tried to go back further all the way to WWI. Saying that our involvement in WWI was wrong. That we should have stayed out. Yes, when the Ottoman and German empires are engaging in such horrendous behavior that words like genocide and crimes against humanity need to be invented because nothing else quite fits how sick these people are…yeah we shouldn’t have chosen sides. And dare we forget that it’s our isolationist behavior during the treaty talks and after the conclusion of the war that caused WWI…it wasn’t because we were too involved in world affairs. (I’ll also blame Wilson’s gross incompetence in his stupid 14 points plan).

The fact of the matter remains that even at our worst when we get involved in world affairs it is always better than when we don’t.

When we are involved we stop the genocide of the Ottoman Empire. When we don’t the Reich takes its place. When we are involved fascism dies. When we aren’t communism thrives. When we are involved we have Mi Lai. When we’re not we have the killing fields of Cambodia. When we’re involved we have slow progress in Iran. When we’re not we have them reverting to barbarism. When we’re involved we have Afghani’s killing Russians! When we’re not we have the Taliban take over. When we’re involved at least now that there is a way for people to get out of Afghanistan even if we’ve screwed everything else up over there. But then again all of the enemies time and money seems to be concentrated over there and not here (it’s cynical but it’s true). The world is better when America acts even on our worst day than any day we don’t act to draw a line in the sand and tell evil that it will not move one step further (even when we don’t succeed).

To deny this is to be like Ron Paul who best belongs with Neville Chamberlain and the apologists of the 1930’s who seek only Peace in our Time. When you try to deal, to reason, to appease evil you will always find that our time only lasts a few days. The only sane, rational, and morally correct way to deal with evil is to oppose it. Better to do with it with forethought, planning, and a somewhat cold calculation that innocent dead today is better than twenty at the hands of tyranny. No matter the cost the only sane reaction is to oppose evil and tyranny with everything we have. To do less is to sign our own death warrant.

7 Comments

Filed under Afghanistan, American Exceptionalism, Anti-Semitism, Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Conservative, Death, Economics, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Fear, Foreign Policy, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Happiness, Israel, liberal arrogance, Libya, Long Term Thinking, Natural Rights, Obama, Patriotism, People Are Stupid, politics, Racism, Tyranny, War on Terrorism

Theories… and one of the many reasons Rick Perry shouldn’t be elected

I hit environmentalists yesterday, it’s only fair to get a few punches into the other side today.

So the idiot known as Rick Perry (In case you’re wondering I do believe in the 11th Commandment, I just don’t think it applies to RINOS) has brought the stupid argument of “evolution is only a theory” up again (or at least I’ve heard it over and over again over the last few weeks). Thank you moron for once again showing how nobody understands science. At least Bachmann consistently says her religious beliefs are not her top priorities right now and then hammers away on the economy, foreign policy, and strict constructivist interpretation of the Constitution. But no, not Perry. Let’s talk creationism. Even, let’s say you agree with Perry, you have to admit, making such a statement clearly lacks a certain sense of common sense and priorities. It horrifies me that this man is currently in the lead. (Yes I do like that he called Social Security a Ponzi scheme, although it is unfair to Ponzi schemes as those you joined voluntarily, Social Security just steals my money).

So let’s deal with what the word theory means in science. It means we have an idea that seems to explain everything about what we’re looking at, but we can’t quite come up with an experiment to test the falsifiability of that idea. That’s it. It means we can’t engineer an experiment to prove it right or wrong. Now in a million years after we’ve written volumes of history and documented changes in almost all the species in the world we’ll be able to demonstrate that evolution does in fact exist…but until then it’s a theory. But let’s look at some other theories to show you what a theory is and why you should trust in some theories (the ones with, you know, proof) and ignore others (possibly the ones that require you to deny basic facts of existence).

Gravity. The dripping pipe
Gravity is a theory…or more accurately exactly what gravity is is a theory. Right now the theory states that mass curves space-time around it creating depressions in reality that other mass falls into. This replaced Newton’s idea that mass attracts mass. This replaced Aristotle’s idea that heavy stuff falls down and lighter stuff constantly tries to rise and only through the acts of the gods does it not just completely separate like oil and water in a glass (I love Aristotle, and will defend his philosophy any day, and while some of his science now sounds silly all I will say to that idea is that did anyone in 500 B.C. have a better idea? No. Don’t knock him when he was centuries ahead of anyone else…and it took two millennia to come up with something better). However back to what the theory is now—the curve in space-time. This seems to work for now. Although Newton seemed to work pretty well when he came up with it, and Aristotle’s was effective enough that no one needed to rewrite it for 2,000 years. But we can prove that light bends around really big objects, the curving space thing makes sense for now. For now which is why it’s only a theory. It is all kind of dependent on things actually having mass, which those bright guys at CERN seem to be having trouble proving. (Yes that’s right they can’t find the particle which is supposed to give things mass, which means either our understanding of quantum particles is bunk, or they need to do more experiments. Let’s hope they come up with something because most of my actions every day are based on the idea that things have mass…I’d hate to be proven wrong.)

I put this one in here because no denies that gravity exists. It’s a theory because we don’t understand WHY or HOW it works, even if we know it works. Thus you have to understand that lots of things in science can be called theories even if their existence is a fact. As theories go gravity is like a loose pipe (the kind that you get a drop out of every couple of days)—it’s perfectly functional, you don’t notice the problems unless you really know what to look for and you probably will never have to replace it.

Evolution however is a theory that leaks like a sieve.
And to deny this is foolish. There are a lot of holes in evolution. We all know this. There lots of gaps in the evolutionary record for just about every single species. What do you expect? We’re relying on a process of turning bone into stone for our records. It’s not an exact process with a high rate of success.

Further there are obvious problems with modern evolutionary theory. Even though I believe in it, punctuated equilibrium just has the slight taste of duct tape and bailing wire on the theory. And there are those gaping holes called how did life start? And how exactly did a highly evolved chimp suddenly become sentient?

However for all these holes that have yet to be plugged with proof, evolution is the only theory that satisfactorily describes evidence in genetics, geology, the fossil record, carbon dating, biology, and have half dozen other fields. We have gas in the fossil record, yes, but strangely we have species Y in the fossil record, and it looks like a halfway point between species X and species Z and low and behold the carbon dating says that it existed right in between the times that those other two species existed. And we have thousands of examples of this! You don’t have to be a Nobel laureate to put one and one together and get two.

Oh, and at the bacterial level where a generation lasts about 30 minutes, we actually can document and prove that species will evolve into new species. It would just be madness to think that if it works in single cell asexual reproduction to think that the more chaotic, more changeable, sexual reproduction of larger species would lead to similar changes.

Do we understand how every mechanism in evolution works? Hell no. Does it fill in all the gaps in the fossil record? Nope. Can you tell me the exact decent of chimp to man and all the sub species it was in between and at what time it existed? Nope, and I don’t have to. I’m sure the timeline will be rewritten a thousand times over the next thousand years, and species we thought evolved from one species will be found to have actually evolved from another species. But to say that evolution isn’t a fact is preposterous. The only other explanation for the evidence at present is that God is just a prick and wanted to screw with us. If that’s the case I really hate God and refuse to follow, obey, or even listen to such an asshole. But since I have a pretty reasonable justification for God not being a sociopath…well that just leaves evolution.

Now I will however say that at present the theory does have some gaping holes. As I said it doesn’t explain how random chemicals suddenly became self-replicating DNA. It doesn’t explain how sentience came about. It doesn’t explain the platypus (there is no way in hell that thing wasn’t intentionally designed as a joke).

Evolution with Intelligent Design, back to the leaky pipe.
Let me begin by saying that the term “Intelligent Design” has been applied to two different theories. One I will call Rational Intelligent Design and one I will call the Idiot’s Intelligent Design. (Can you guess which side I’m on?)

Idiot’s Intelligent Design is probably what you think of when you hear Intelligent Design. It’s preposterous pseudo-Creationist argument that God personally caused every single change in every single species over history. Not gently nudged here or there. Every change was because God said so. And it was all designed with creating a world for humans in mind. What the people who argue in favor of this don’t realize is that this makes God just a shitty planner. What was that whole side track with the dinosaurs for if God had his hand in everything? What the hell was the purpose of creating spiders! And cockroaches! No sane deity would ever create those for the fun of it.

Now rational Intelligent Design simply states that you need God at about 4 places. 1. Jump starting the big bang. 2. Turning those random amino acids into self replicating DNA. 3. Designing the platypus as the universe’s greatest joke. 4. Sentience comes to a highly evolved chimp. It boils down to the idea that God said “Let there be evolution!” and then you had the big bang…and then he added souls to the first sufficiently evolved creature. It’s basically what Deists were arguing a couple hundred years ago. There is a God, but he set up a bunch of rules for the universe to run itself. Probably because he’s more concerned with our souls than the specifics of how the classroom our souls exist in came about. This rational version of intelligent design simply plugs up some of the biggest holes in the theory of evolution…you know the few parts where science has yet to come up with a satisfactory answer. Don’t like it? Come up with a better answer. (And not Richard Dawkins’ crappy “aliens” could have created life on Earth…which begs the question, “What created the aliens?”…I get the feeling for an idiot like Dawkins it’s turtles all the way down.)

The Big Bang…a little leakier than evolution.

There is nothing that adequately explains red shift and background radiation like the Big Bang theory. However there are a lot of unanswered questions even when you use the theory. Again, until something better comes along, this is actually a good theory…but it is intellectual dishonesty to say that it’s a strong theory given on what shaky premises it’s based on. That doesn’t make it wrong; it just makes it a weak theory. It’s got a lot of problems. For instance Einstein first believed it required something called the cosmological constant (trust me you would get bored if I fully explained it), then he thought that was a stupid idea…but now it’s coming back into style. It’s actually a really big piece of explaining the mystery that is the universe and science can’t figure out if it exists or doesn’t. There are some holes in this theory. Doesn’t mean it’s wrong, just means it’s got a ways to go.

And here is the turning point…here is where theories start going from this is based in science and seems to fit 99% of the data to wer’re just making this stuff up as we go.
Then you have the myth of Global Warming.
Actually global warming is a fact as it happens every year around May here in the Northern Hemisphere. I’m talking about the theory that man’s advancement and burning of fossil fuels has caused the earth to get really warmer, I mean really colder, I mean that weather has gotten really weird…even though it actually looks like what weather has always looked like. But ignore those facts. Ignore that in the past, long before Industrialization, it got hotter and colder than our records in the last hundred years all without the help of man-made green house gases, thus scientifically we didn’t need to add anything.  Ignore the sun. Ignore that some glaciers are still getting bigger. Ignore that the current trends that do exists started long before the industrial boom of this century, ignore that the sea levels are not rising, ignore everything that contradicts blind faith in this religion—err, I mean this scientific theory. As holes in scientific theories go, Man Made Climate Change is like taking a McDonald’s coffee cup, tearing out the bottom of the cup, putting the cup on your lap and pouring a freshly brewed pot of coffee into your cup. And then demanding someone else pay for whatever medical bills your idiocy brought about.

And finally we have Rick Perry’s favorite theory….

The theory of creationism. The idea that we should treat the Bible as scientific evidence, that the Earth is only a little over 6,000 years old, that the dinosaurs were wiped out by Noah’s flood and that all species were not only created in a single day by a divine creator, but that Noah was able to get all those species on his boat. (Given the millions upon millions of species in the world, you can see why there was no room for the unicorns). As scientific theories go, and yes there are people who seem to treat this as a scientific theory, Rick Perry among them, this thing has holes in it that I could drive an aircraft carrier fleet through. You have to ignore carbon dating (in other words basic chemistry), the millions of years it took the light from certain stars to reach us (in other words basic physics), the numerous levels of fossils and soil deposits (in other words basic geology), and the numerous similarities between species and that evolution at the single cell level for bacteria and viruses isn’t a theory it’s a provable fact (in other words basic biology)…in other words I’m not quite sure that there is any hard science you don’t have to ignore to believe in creationism. Now you are more than free to believe all those sciences are wrong, and that God has a really sick sense of humor in trying to fool you with all that hard data that contradicts the Biblical interpretation (oh I should mention this is not just Judeo-Christians, I know a Hindu who devoutly believes their religion’s creation myths without questions) but don’t expect me to respect your intellect at any level. And certainly don’t expect me to vote for an idiot like you if you are actually going to brag about having this claptrap taught in the schools. I’m sorry but Johnny Cochran had a stronger case than the case against evolution. Just because the minutia of theory hasn’t been worked out, much like there is minutia in gravity that doesn’t fit our exact theory of what it is, doesn’t mean that the broad strokes aren’t correct. On the one side you have a pile of evidence from numerous branches of science and personal experience that even if there is a God (which there is) he doesn’t get involved in gigantic ways, on the other side you have a book, a contradictory, heavily rewritten over the course of time, primarily allegorical book. Hmm… tough call on which one is a stronger scientific theory.  God gave me reason, I think he expected me to use it.  I have no problem teaching the holes in the theory of evolution, but teaching fables other than just mentioning the fact, some people disregard all scientific evidence and believe whatever they believe, fine….but teaching Creationism? I don’t think Intelligent Design (which I believe in) should be taught at the high school level, because it deals with complexities that are usually beyond the scope of a high school classroom—to bring it up would waste time that should be spent studying species taxonomy and cell biology and how organ systems work.

I’m trying to think of a theory more preposterous…and the only thing I can think of is Keynesian Economics…but that’s social science not the hard sciences, so we’ll save that for another day.

Leave a comment

Filed under Conservative, Economics, Education, Election 2012, Environmentalism, Faith, God, Long Term Thinking, Michele Bachmann, People Are Stupid, Religion

Laws for Conservatives to pass: Encouraging innovation

As I have stated before I want the tax code rewritten. Ideally I would prefer going entirely to a sales tax (no corporate tax, no death tax, no income tax, no capital gains tax, no luxury tax, no tariffs, nothing but a flat sales tax). Short of that I want a flat tax rate with no loopholes (and again most of those other taxes eliminated). But if we can’t even have that, or at least a stepping stone to those other programs, we need to A.) lower the tax rates and B.) eliminate ALL loopholes. All of them, even the ones that encourage things we like, like mortgage deductions and child tax credits. ALL OF THEM.

However, I have proposed a very special kind of exemption in “Republicans and Reincarnation” that I will stand by.

That exemption was that Congress should offer a multimillion dollar prize to anyone who can create an engine that can replace the internal combustion engine that is cheaper and has fewer emissions. In addition to the prize they will be exempt from ALL taxes for the rest of their life. I do this because the kinds of people who tinker with this kind of technology in their garage don’t always think long term enough to consider the advantages of compounding royalty payments and thus they don’t see what should be the obvious incentives to spend time coming up with inventions that we need. The scatterbrained genius needs immediate incentives to work or at least to channel their energies. The only thing they would have to give up is the right to negotiate price on selling the rights for this invention. They will still be paid for every use of their invention, but I want these inventions in use yesterday and I don’t want them held up by negotiations, (and if we’re paying that kind of money for it Congress will not be able to hold it back if it knows what is good for it). (Especially since there is a mild conspiracy theorist in me that isn’t willing to fully dismiss those stories that better engines have already been invented but bought up by oil companies and kept out of the public’s view…I have no proof beyond hearsay and personal accounts. But given the short sighted nature of a lot of companies right now it wouldn’t surprise me).

Yes I fully understand the nature of capitalism, that it will always create the thing we need, when we need them. I understand that. But there are some things we could use right now even though we haven’t reached the level of absolutely need. I would prefer to get around the necessity for that kind of need and the temporary hardships it brings to an economy. For instance we all know that eventually the internal combustion engine will be replaced when the reserves of gasoline start going dry, and we know there will be a period of hardship in that change over period, so I would just like to skip the hardship if we could.

So here is a list of inventions I think congress should offer a $100 million dollar prize for, plus having to pay no taxes if you’re the first to come up with it. And I will justify why all of these would save us more money than the costs.

1. The first is obviously the replacement for the internal combustion engine that actually works. I don’t care if it’s electric, a brilliant new type of internal configuration on the internal combustion engine, hydrogen fuel cells or the static electricity engine from Atlas Shrugged—I don’t care if it’s long lived hamsters on steroids and meth with a tread wheel…all I care about is the following: It costs less than $100 to build. It can power truck or SUV with a full load for 300 miles, without being refueled, while going at 65 miles per hour or higher. It must be able to be refueled in less than 10 minutes from a completely empty and a full refill can cost no more $20. Oh and it has to have 20% less emissions than the cleanest internal combustion engine available. This is the problem with all the current alternatives electric cars have no speed or ability to pull large loads (not to mention they take too long to charge). Hydrogen fuel cells are too expensive. I want powerful, fast and cheap. If you can get those standards on a fully loaded SUV then the figures for a small sedan should be even better. The advantages to this are obvious. I don’t really care much about the emissions because I don’t believe in the BS that is global warming, but I live in Phoenix and so I do know the problem that is smog so I would like to see that lowered. Obviously if we weren’t dependent on oil (or at least as much oil) then that will hurt the bottom line of oil sales in the Middle East, which means less money going to terrorism, which means we might not have to spend so much fighting terrorism. Further with less money being spent on fuel and shipping this will of course save money in your pocket,  which will bring cost down and profits up…and you can figure out how that cycles through the economy and works better for everyone.
2. A battery that will work and survive for 7 or more years in temperatures ranging from 30 below 0 to 150 degrees Fahrenheit. It also needs to hold at least 3 times the charge of a battery of comparable size can do now. This is one of the biggest problems of electric cars. Here in the South-west you can’t have an electric car because everything is so spaced out that you risk using an entire charge before reaching your destination and it gets so hot out here that car batteries need to be replaced every two to three years (expensive enough in a regular car, outrageously expensive in an electric car). On the east electric cars won’t function when it gets too cold. If you could overcome these problems with electric cars, even at their current levels of horsepower would be far more efficient and useful and thus worth the cost. The benefits then become the same as invention 1. However improved batteries that store more would have additional uses that would save us all money even if we had improved battery technology. Just for example how much power does it take to power every street light in the world every night? Right now it’s prohibitively expensive and bulky to power most of those with solar cells and batteries…but it might not with much smaller, more efficient batteries that didn’t have to be replaced. Apply that same idea to numerous other small things that could run off better batteries. That’s a lot of saved energy, which means a lot of saved money.
3. One of Obama’s BS ideas to help get more jobs was infrastructure improvement. Wow more jobs for unionized construction workers, I’m sure that will help the economy. However, this does bring up a fact that infrastructure is a large and continual part of federal, state, and local government costs. One of the reasons why is because that crappy asphalt and concrete we put on the roads keeps wearing out, develop pot holes, become road hazards and need to be replaced. And replacing them takes time (lots of time, which hurts traffic and destroys productivity, not to mention all the wasted money just sitting there letting the engine idle in traffic) and lots of money—those workers are union and government. They are about as overpriced and overpaid as work gets in this world. So here is what I want, I want someone to come up with some kind of chemical that can be added to the concrete or asphalt, or some new substance all together, that will prevent it from wearing out or at least radically slow the decay. If you could make every road last just 10 years longer than they currently do the saving in government expenditures alone would pay for that prize for inventing the stuff.
4. We haven’t come upon it yet, but more than oil we have another natural resource that is getting very, very sparse. Water. “What?” you say, “The Earth is covered in the stuff!” Yes it is, but that’s salt water. Clean, desalinized, drinkable water is becoming more and more rare (especially with continuing growth of world population). There is not nearly enough drinkable water to support 7 billion people at first world level (and it should be our goal to get everyone up to first world level) at present. We need more drinkable water. But most processes for desalination are prohibitively expensive as it currently stands. Trust me we will need a cheap and quick way to desalinize massive amounts of water within the next 50 years. Let’s make sure we have the technology to do so without having to first have millions die from not having enough to drink. Further if you could cheaply do it, then you could easily do it to supply areas suffering from drought which always causes economic problems.
5. Cars that drive themselves. We all saw Minority Report (and a few other films) and have seen cars that just take verbal commands and take you to your destination while you can spend your time reading, working, talking, doing anything other than have to pay attention to the other insane people on the road. The average American spends about 130 hours in a car. Think of what you can do with an extra 130 hours, about 5 and half days (just for comparative purposes if you’re Jack Bauer you can save the world a half dozen times and kill 143 people in that amount of time…so there is a lot you can do in that amount of time). So an average extra 5 days worth of time for all 300 million people in the US, less stress from driving the freeway. This system would have to be based on being able to avoid accidents, so lower insurance rates and less money wasted on fixing cars. And let’s not even talk about the fact that you’d never have a drunk driving a car, so the loss of life from driving goes down drastically. Yeah I think that’s worth $100 million.
6. The fruit picker. To hell with making robots walk and talk. I want someone to develop a robot that can 90% of the time recognize if a vegetable or piece of fruit is ripe and then harvest that plant without damaging it. People complain about the plight of the migrant worker…well this would eliminate the need for that kind of work. Which would in turn eliminate this country’s terrible habit of keeping a pseudo slave class in the form of illegal immigrants. The saving for this should be more than obvious.
7. Plants with over active metabolisms. Think about it. Think of how much the lumber and paper industry could benefit from trees that took half the time to grow. Or what plants which convert carbon dioxide into oxygen twice as fast could do for any future space programs…which could in turn open up space itself for exploration, mining and colonization. I know I’m stretching with this one…but it has possibilities. I’m a little worried about this being brought to the food industry, but it has possibilities as well. In the end it would pay for itself I think.
8. The transporter. All the other things on this list I think are actually possible but just have yet to be invented (okay I’m stretching with number 7, but it’s not out of the realm of theoretically possible). This one, well, what I know of quantum mechanics tells me that this is never going to happen. Still I want one. I don’t even care if you never figure out how to get it to transport organic material. Think of what you could do just in terms of shipping with a transporter. It would of course be prohibitively expensive up front, but long term I think this could pay for itself.

Why is there nothing from the medical field here? Yes I know that most of our current government expenditures are in the medical field, but this is to encourage people to start tinkering in their garages on their off time. Do you want medical experiments going in people’s garages? Hell no.

Why are there no flying cars? Because while the flying car is cool there are two big problems. First it offers no additional economic value. Second because how do you brake something that’s flying?

And yes we would all love a light saber or a time machine or a holodeck, but again those are not exactly scientifically possible and I’m not sure they would be good for society.

I might also like to see a Roomba that can clean bathrooms and kitchens, but I’m not sure that will save $100 million in the economy.

What other inventions could redefine the world?

2 Comments

Filed under American Exceptionalism, Budget, Capitalism, Congress, Conservative, Economics, Environmentalism, Laws the GOP should pass, Long Term Thinking, Selfishness, Taxes

Books for Conservatives: Soul of the Fire by Terry Goodkind

So as I try to get through the 11 (Perhaps 12? I don’t know if the new book is as philosophical as the rest yet) book series that is Goodkind’s Sword of Truth in as short a time as possible I come to the fifth book, Soul of the Fire.

The book itself is more toned down than the previous volumes in the series. There are no major battles between armies, and few even between individuals. As a whole the thing reads more like a political thriller than epic fantasy as our heroes Richard and Kahlan try and convince the Kingdom of Anderith to join their D’haran Empire (the people dedicated to freedom, choice, capitalism, and individual rights) instead of siding with the invading Imperial Order of Emperor Jagang (the people dedicated to savagery, communism, genocide, dehumanization of the individual, and slavery…you know like socialist government in history). Strangely enough this is a difficult choice for the people of Anderith. Oh and Richard has to deal with the problem that magic is disappearing from the world. So there’s that problem too.
And while the story is exciting as is, as always, the theme, the Wizard’s Fifth Rule, that raises the Sword of Truth books above mere epic fantasy.

The Wizard’s Fifth Rule is:

“Mind what people do, not only what they say, for deeds will betray a lie.”

Further elaboration in the book states,

“People will lie to deceive you from what they truly mean to do. Watching the actions they take will prove their true intentions.”

This is a lesson that society has very sadly, and very dangerously forgotten. What people say and what they are, are often two different things. This is true of all levels of our lives. The friend who says they’re always there for you, but never is; the boss who says he has your back, when he does everything he can to undermine you; but nowhere is this more an important fact of live than in politics. Politicians are the poster children for the violation of this rule.
Politicians will say one thing and then do another.  This is not a shock.  Yet the way people the world over, it is more than apparent that people listen more to the words and the campaign slogans more than the actions of the politicians they are voting for.  This would be a good time to remember the Wizard’s First Rule: People are Stupid.  (The Second and Third Rules also seem to be in play here as well).  But while there is the obvious contradictions between words and actions suggested in on the first reading of this law that we should all pay attention to there is something more here.  There is the long term view suggested by the rule: “Watching the actions they take” actions, plural, are what need to be watched.  Why?  Because sometimes the most villainous of people will perform some actions that are in line with their words only to cover their long term goals.  It’s their true intentions that you have to look for, to look for the intent behind the actions.  That can sound a little paranoid, but it doesn’t need to be as you just have to look at the whole career of any politician to see if there is an obvious pattern of lying and corruption.

As this rule deals more with personal actions over a period of time, it requires that my examples focus more on a single individual than on a more general concept.
Case in point John McCain. A so called Maverick. He says he’s a conservative but his key piece of legislation is McCain-Feingold a piece of legislation that limits the first amendment right of the average person while only allowing for an increase in the rights of big money special interest to create and fund multiple PACs. A Maverick literally to this day owned by alcohol special interests and who was involved in the Keating Five scandal back in the 80’s (he took millions of dollars in campaign contributions to tell regulators to back off of a corrupt S&L). Mind what he does not what he says.  A man of such high character that he divorces the wife who waited for him while he was sitting in a prison for the first rich floozy who came along. Yes this is a man whom we should all support. He’s in the pocket of special interest, takes bribes from them, influences regulators and passes laws for them and cheats on his wife. Indeed this is a man who lives up to the image of character and principle that he presents in every single commercial. Such deep abiding principles that his position on how to deal with illegal immigration seems to change with the ocean tides. “Watching the actions they take will prove their true intentions.” Not to mention such acts as supporting the cowardly withdrawal from Somalia without first trying to defeat the warlords there. At the same time he argued to supply Kaddafi with weapons through the early 2000’s but then back the genocidal butchers who oppose Kaddafi, thus giving moral support to the worst president in history. “Deeds will betray a lie.”  And dare we forget that he let every single one of his campaign people go out and blame his VP choice for why he failed. As a politician there has not been a single thing this man has done that even remotely shows intelligence, character, ethics or even human decency. In his personal life leaving his first wife is bad, the idiot of a daughter he raised is even worse. There is nothing to like, admire, or even tolerate about this man.  But then again maybe they saw what this country failed to see, a bleeding heart liberal that will always support evil whenever he finds it.

But he says he’s a Maverick. He’s says he fights for the common people [while limiting their rights]. He says he stands for conservative values [while having never supported a single one]. He says he is worthy of bearing the Republican mantle, while supporting not a single one of its supposed principles (there are a lot of weak willed liberals in the Republican party, but none worse than McCain). A Maverick (who will do anything to gain the praise of the liberal press…he’d even sell his soul, if he had one).

I go off on him because he actually got the Republican nomination (and to go off on Obama’s hypocrisy would just be too easy). The same people who are “mad as hell and not going to take it anymore” in the Tea Party are the same ones who voted for this degenerate excuse for a homosapien. And they may say they didn’t vote for McCain in the primary…well fine then they voted for Romney who did nothing to portray himself as a conservative or Huckabee a liberal on economics and lunatic on religion (the worst both worlds). And people wonder why I have my doubt about the long term success of the Tea Party for bringing about conservative values (however any comments about the Tea Party being racist are beyond ridiculous.

Why? Because they believe what he said, not what he had done.

Liberals are just as bad. They heard “hope” and “change” and voted for the dimwit over a woman whom, while I don’t agree with everything she does, had a track record for results and you knew where she stood.

The moderate are the worst. The ones who say Obama ran as a moderate. Are you kidding? Just because he said he was a moderate, give me one act, just one that would suggest such a thing.

The problem is that, because of Wizard’s First Rule, people listen to what people say.

Of course the worst is when you have a mixture of results. I am going to go to the most extreme example to make a point, not because I don’t have more moderate examples.

Adolf Hitler. He gave Germany a solid economy. He gave Germany a well built infrastructure that stands to this day (even after being bombed to hell). He gave people jobs, a purpose, and a passion for life. This is the worst example of the Fifth Rule the person who provides results with his words…but at what cost? In “Soul of the Fire” it’s a control of the lives of a kingdom for a generation…with Hitler it was only at the cost of enslaving entire ethnic groups (followed by killing them) and invading and butchering every surround country. A small price to pay for economic stability….or so the German people deluded themselves into thinking. In personal charity the right hand should not know what the left hand is doing, but in politics the two cannot be separated.

Venezuela supports Hugo Chavez because he gives them cheap gas, to hell if it’s at the cost of their freedom. Bolivia supports socialist Evo Morales because he doesn’t take a large salary, to hell if he’s destroying what little economy the country had. Russia supports Putin because he reminds them of when they had a myth that they were a strong and relevant country, to hell if it’s at the cost of all the freedoms they wanted. America supported Obama because he promised them stuff, to hell if he can’t deliver.

In each of these cases they may say or do thing that say they are honorable people who are doing what is right…but to look at the consequences in each case reveals nothing but destruction and chaos.  Whether it’s intentional or just incompetent doesn’t matter, people, and especially politicians, need to back up their words with action and results, nothing else matters.

Actions and their results are the only thing that matter when judging a person, and especially a politician. Yes there are exceedingly few examples of people we can point to who always do the right thing for the right reason, it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t care about such things.

Leave a comment

Filed under Arizona, Art, Books, Books for Conservatives, Conservative, Foreign Policy, Literature, Long Term Thinking, Obama, People Are Stupid, politics, Popular Culture, Problems with the GOP, Reading Suggestions, Sword of Truth, Tyranny, War on Terrorism

10 Years Later

Anniversaries are strange things for me. As a New Ager I find the very concept of time kind of fictional and arbitrary, but usually anniversaries are happy occasions to remember that which we should be deliriously happy about and recall all we are grateful for…anniversaries of terrible events however don’t make as much sense to me. As in the case of parents who every year go to the place their child died and leave flowers (not the place they’re buried, the place they died…because theoretically we’re leaving the flowers for the dead so let’s leave it at the literal site of the most pain they ever experienced…yeah, that’s psychologically healthy). Grief is a natural process, and an important part of loss, but after grief comes acceptance, and not moving into acceptance is a serious sign of psychological unbalance and in some ways dishonoring the dead by not getting on with your life. However this is 9/11 this is more than just the death of a close loved one, this is the single largest attack on America ever, just ignoring this would be disrespectful, but if anniversaries of terrible events are for anything they are for looking at what we have learned, how we have changed (preferably for the better), and most importantly what do we still need to do to make sure this never happens again.

So what have we learned?

Well, we learned that contrary to Francis Fukuyama’s 1992 “The End of History and the Last Man” we have yet to reach the end of history. At the fall of the Soviet Union Fukuyama predicted that this was the essentially the final moment before all humanity progressed into Classically Liberal Western Democracies and that what existed remained of history would be small wars and conversion of every remaining country into a liberal democracy. 9/11 shattered that belief. However unlike most I don’t think that Fukuyama’s original thesis is wrong. I think we are on the brink of universal democratic-republics, but that we pushed tyranny into a corner and we are witnessing it’s last violent death throes in the form of Islamofascism/China/North Korea/a few Latin American dictatorships that haven’t got the message that Marxism doesn’t work/the radical left. Total political freedom is so close that those who oppose it are like cornered wounded animals, desperate, violent, irrational and at their most dangerous…and it is only if we do not have the courage to push through this last obstacle and break the neck of tyranny and tyrants once and for all that could jeopardize seeing tyranny become something that exists only in books on history and political theory. (To be honest, right now best case scenario I will never see that world, but I think my grandchildren—if I ever have any—would like live to see it, so it you want a guess on time there it is).

We have learned that there is still evil in the world. Or at least we should have. Anyone who denies that Islamofascism is a problem and does need to be wiped from this Earth is deluding themselves. A disturbing portion of the world’s Muslims are advocating pure evil (not that the Westboro Baptists and various other zealots don’t also need to go too). We may need to be at war with all of Islam, but we NEED to be at war with Islamofascism (in fact we NEED to be at war with all forms of tyranny); It is a belief system that denies reason, denies the value of human life, denies liberty, denies knowledge, truth, justice, honor, virtue, and praises only the mindless submission to ignorance and cruelty. Islamofascism may be only one of a few forms of this degenerate philosophy (Communism, Nazism, Anti-Semitism, racism, and a few others included), but if we aren’t at war with this belief system, then we stand for nothing. If you can’t declare war on unadulterated evil, what is the point of good?

We learned that government can still do nothing right.

Remember when it took 410 days to build the Empire State Building? Granted the new world trade center is a bit bigger…but have we even broken ground on this project? Shouldn’t this have been shovel ready project number 1 for the Obama administration? I mean if we’re going to spend shitloads of money on construction, even I’ll get behind putting up a giant F-U to bastards that attacked us in the New York skyline for the whole world to see is better than most of the stuff we spend money on. Yet nothing has been done.

We learned that even when doing the right thing (invading tyrannies like Iraq and Afghanistan) government can’t be trusted to come up with even the semblance of a plan that works. However, since letting that pot simmer on its own for 10 years is what gave us the mess of 9/11, not doing anything at all is still not an option. We need to do the right thing for the right reasons in the right way. Afghanistan and Iraq failed on that last point, so two out of three ain’t bad. (As opposed to helping genocidal butchers take over Libya which was the wrong thing for the wrong reasons carried out in entirely the wrong way.)

We learned we need to have plans that go beyond defeating the army of our enemy. Occupations and rebuilding a country after it has been recently attacked and under the heel of a tyrant for years, perhaps decades, is a long, expensive, and difficult process. It needs detailed plans with lots of contingencies for multiple possibilities. Bush apparently thought that we would show up and democracy would magically appear (and I’ll be honest up until about the 5th year of the occupation I thought we had a plan it just was taking time to take form…you would think with all the money we give to think tanks we would have plans in a drawer somewhere and what we need to do if we need to invaded ______ country, with options going from Abkhazia to Zimbabwe…with plans even for the tiny countries that live in their own little universe like Vatican City, Lichtenstein, and California…how wrong I was).

We learned that government doesn’t do security better. I’ve yet to have it explained to me why we didn’t just roll everything into the FBI and the Department of Justice, why did we need to create the Department of Homeland Security (Homeland, by the way, is still the single dumbest name for a federal department I have ever heard of).

We’ve learned that as much as I used to like and trust police and give them the benefit of the doubt, it seems all over the country they’re becoming little Brownshirt wannabes with whatever extra powers they’ve been given. For instance, where did cops get the idea that they can’t be videotaped?  This is just one of many problems of increased misuse of police power over the last few years…not that we didn’t have theft, drug running, murder, illegal immigration, terrorism, IRS agents and other various crimes to worry about.

We’ve learned that more security doesn’t equal better security…after all, we feel safer knowing that the bright eyed and bushy tailed high school graduates (most of them anyway) of the TSA are providing a higher level of security by taking lewd pictures of us followed by getting to third base….don’t we all feel safer? (At least we now know that perverts who can no longer get past the screening to become a teacher or priest will still have a job).

We’ve learned that some people, like Mayor Michael Blumberg, can’t seem to distinguish between insane religion and all religion.

We’ve learned that people can be just utterly classless when choosing where to build their mosque.

We’ve learned that some people will never learn….or at least not in this life time. That’s really sad, but true.

And for all of these flaws I have been pointing out we have learned that there are people of character and personal strength who should be admired and respected.  The stories in this category are too numerous to list.

So in your moments of reflection for today don’t forget that if we don’t learn, change, and make the world better that would be a far greater sacrilege to memory of those who needlessly died than not remembering this day.

1 Comment

Filed under Afghanistan, American Exceptionalism, Civil Liberties, Congress, Fear, Foreign Policy, Government is useless, Libya, Patriotism, politics, Tyranny, War on Terrorism