Monthly Archives: September 2011

The Random Thoughts of September

Did you hear that a Christian nation is about to execute a man simply because he won’t renounce being a Muslim.  They are going to execute him because the Christian religion is the very definition of intolerance, close-mindedness and backwards irrational thinking.  These psychos need to be stopped… What?  I what…oh sorry.  Apparently I got my terms mixed up, it’s Muslims in Iran who are going to execute a man for being a Christian.  Remind me again which is the religion of peace?  Or more accurately which religion is going to try and legislate the murder of a Pagan like me.

Oooh…there’s a new liberal organization called “The Other 98%” its basic argument is that we the middle class (the other 98%) are in a battle against the corrupt and evil top 2%.  But remember the liberals are not engaged in class warfare.  Nor if we were to engage in class warfare it shouldn’t be the two-thirds who make up the upper class, the middle class, and the parts of the lower class that do work and are self sufficient and the third of whiny leeches who live off that other two thirds.  No it’s clearly the rich who are to blame.  And then they put out pictures like the one above and equate basic functions of state and local government as being the same as the irresponsible welfare payments of the federal government and the opposition to the federal irresponsibility as being the same as opposing all functions of the government.  It’s because liberals can’t conceive of good government and bad government, there is only good government to liberals and all that government does is good and should not be questioned but merely goose-stepped to on command.

I love Garofalo’s idea that the GOP is racist because we support Herman Cain.  It’s also interesting we seem to love Alan West, Michele Malkin, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Star Parker, J.C. Watts, Marco Rubio and a host of other known and unknown conservatives who happen to be minorities.  Because racists always put the people they hate near the head of their organizations and in their PR.  You remember all the Jews in the upper echelons of the Nazi Party, and all the blacks wearing white sheets at the Klan rallies?  Don’t you?  Racists always love being around people they hate.  At least in Janeane Garofalo’s world.

But this is part of a much larger point.  Does anyone actually have any proof that the Tea Party is racist?  Nope.  Economic conservatism and lack of listening to bleeding heart  statements, but I have yet to hear anything that can’t be brought down to the cold hard reality of economics, that we can’t sustain a long term welfare state, that isn’t cold hearted because it’s trying to avoid the destruction of the economy.

And then there is the fact that Iran is sending warships to the Gulf of Mexico.  I appreciate the Pentagon’s reaction that they don’t think the Iranians will be able to make it.  It’s probably because the ships are likely of Russian origin and the Russians, while they have their moments, are not exactly known for quality craftsmanship.  Odds are the damn things will sink.  If it makes it here it will likely be stranded, and if they get gutsy enough to fire something off I lay even odds it hits Mexico instead of us.  Oh, and even with a gutless wonder like Barrack in charge I foresee massive naval maneuvers in the gulf, at least a full carrier group daring the gutless cowards to try something…and get killed for their troubles.

Oh and that Iranian cruiser has been promised fuel by Stalin wannabe Hugo Chavez.  Ah, Hugo.  It’s a shame he’s about to die from cancer.  Did I say shame?  I meant godsend.  Usually I don’t attribute bad things that happen to bad people as karma, as karma tends to take longer than a single lifetime to manifest, but moments like this and Johnnie Cochrane dying of a bran tumor just have that wonderful trace of “Karma’s a bitch ain’t it?”  And a vicious bastard like Chavez has it coming.

Obama states Ethics “would not have made it on the list” of his favorite subjects.  This we file under the heading “no shit Sherlock.”  Given that not one of his actions has been ethical (or intelligent) this doesn’t exactly come as a shock.

Newt’s statement that he supported a health care mandate was stupid (and possibly calculated as I now think he has no intention of becoming president, he just wanted to be in the debates so he could help steer the discussion).  But that was nothing compared to Perry calling the entire Republican Party heartless because we don’t support encouraging illegal action and we don’t support economic decisions that will lead to total economic collapse.  Because you know we tend to think that wanting there to be a country here in 20 years for our children to be more compassionate than making destructive choices just so we can feel good about ourselves for a brief moment.

Michele Bachmann continues to be the only person to consistently say the right things about policy issues.  (She also has a terrible tendency of making odd flubs about tangential things).

Christy and Palin need to make Sherman statements so that the donation money can start flowing.

Rudy needs to announce that he is running.

I would love to see a Europe that resembles the U.S. with a single overarching federal government.  But the E.U. needs to go the way of the Articles of Confederation.  Scrap the system, return to the lira, franc, the mark and all the other national currencies.  Next time create a government before you create a currency.  Let the E.U. fall.

I’m sure that another billion to more solar companies (who happen to have close ties to Nancy Pelosi) has nothing to do with corruption.  No, no, nothing at all.

Let’s see government overstepping it’s power in the economic field by raiding Gibson Guitars all over what kind of wood they’re using.  Yes, that’s right ban the use of endangered plants.  You know when it’s actually making them economically valuable that makes encourages people to save them, yes let’s continue bans that don’t help endangered species. 

Ford was bullied out of using a commercial that highlighted the fact that they didn’t use bailout funds.  Go on tell me that Obama doesn’t overstep his powers in interfering with corporations.

3 Comments

Filed under Capitalism, Charity, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Debt, Declaration, Economics, Education, Election 2012, Environmentalism, Evils of Liberalism, Fear, Foreign Policy, Free Will, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Illegal Immagration, Long Term Thinking, Michele Bachmann, Obama, People Are Stupid, politics, Problems with the GOP, Taxes, Tea Party, Tyranny, Unjust legislation, War on Terrorism, Welfare

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

And keep in mind the rich, those who invest, are not paying enough taxes.

International Liberty

March 14, 2018 Addendum: Because of various changes in tax law, an updated version of the flowchart is attached at the end of this column.

Whether I’m criticizing Warren Buffett’s innumeracy or explaining how to identify illegitimate loopholes, I frequently write about the perverse impact of double taxation.

By this, I mean the tendency of politicians to impose multiple layers of taxation on income that is saved and invested. Examples of this self-destructive practice include the death tax, the capital gains tax, and the second layer of tax of dividends.

Double taxation is particularly foolish since every economic theory – including socialism and Marxism – agrees that capital formation is necessary for long-run growth and higher living standards.

Yet even though this is a critically important issue, I’ve never been satisfied with the way I explain the topic. But perhaps this flowchart makes everything easier to…

View original post 187 more words

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Reminder

I would like to remind everyone that I made a promise.  The first 3 reviews of Republicans and Reincarnation will get a check from me covering the cost of your book, plus I will sign your copy (and if you bought the e-book version I will send you a copy that is signed).

The Snark has her copy now…so there are still two left.

Leave a comment

Filed under Republicans and Reincarnation

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

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

Meditation of the Week: 4th Chakra Meditation

Simple meditation this week.  At the start and end of your day I want you to repeat the following phrase.  Repeat it at least 3 times at every meditation.

“I love. I am loved. I give love freely.  I receive love freely.  I am a being of love.  I am love.”

You should say this aloud.  You need to both hear the words and say them.  (Although if you can repeat this a few time during the day, if only in your head, it will also greatly benefit you in balancing the energy of your 4th chakra.)

Leave a comment

Filed under 4th Chakra, Chakra, Faith, God, Heart Chakra Love, Love, Meditation, New Age, Prayer, Religion

International Liberty

School choice doesn’t automatically mean every child will be an educational success, but evidence from other nations certainly suggests it means better overall performance. Sweden, Chile, and the Netherlands are just some of the countries that have seen good results after breaking up state-run education monopolies.

The same is true in the United States. When parents have some ability to select schools, this generates competitive pressure for better results. This is true even in sub-optimal instances where the choice is merely among different government-run schools. as illustrated by the abstract of a new study from the National Bureau of Economic Research.

We study the impact of a public school choice lottery in Charlotte-Mecklenburg (CMS) on postsecondary attainment. We match CMS administrative records to the National Student Clearinghouse (NSC), a nationwide database of college enrollment. Among applicants with low-quality neighborhood schools, lottery winners are more likely than…

View original post 117 more words

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

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

Here are some predictions for tonight’s debate

Is it just me or are these things getting rather repetitive…

Romney and Perry will spout a list of meaningless platitudes that sound nice the first time you hear them…but when you read them later they will show no understanding of conservative values or any depth.

Newt will make some very insightful comments, but nobody will care.

Cain will make some good comments that will utterly lack charisma and be ignored because he just doesn’t have that je nes sais qoi.

Huntsman who?

Santorum will intermix semi-intelligent statements with bizarre Christian insanity.

Ron Paul will show that he has some understanding of economics and is just a vile excuse for a human when it comes foreign policy.

And finally Bachmann will make rational, intelligent, conservative statements…and cap it off with a just idiotic gaffe.

1 Comment

Filed under Election 2012, Michele Bachmann

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

New Rankings from Economic Freedom of the World Reveal Dismal Impact of Bush-Obama Statism (via International Liberty)

There is something terribly, terribly wrong when Canada and the U.K. rank higher than the U.S. in terms of economic freedom.

New Rankings from Economic Freedom of the World Reveal Dismal Impact of Bush-Obama Statism The 2011 edition of Economic Freedom of the World, published by Canada's Fraser Institute (with help from groups like Cato), has been released. Covering data through 2009, the new report provides damning evidence of the negative impact of the Bush-Obama policies of bigger government and more intervention. Here's a relevant passage from the Executive Summary. The world’s largest economy, the United States, has suffered one of the largest declines … Read More

via International Liberty

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized